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

[LongJourney]

King James (and earlier), and Douay Rheims were all there was available. Therefore the English language in all translations available then was what was translated in 1611 and before. All Bibles were in antiquated English, and my source, a Protestant-biased one greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ says all had the Deutero-canonical books.

New information for me!!

Several reports say that Spalding’s text was in KJE

 

[Nicea325]

King James (and earlier), and Douay Rheims were all there was available. Therefore the English language in all translations available then was what was translated in 1611 and before. All Bibles were in antiquated English, and my source, a Protestant-biased one greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ says all had the Deutero-canonical books.

New information for me!!

Several reports say that Spalding’s text was in KJE

Indeed because that is something I have told many opponents of the DC books. This what the link you provided stated:

The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. ]No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years.

 

[Kdesiel]

King James (and earlier), and Douay Rheims were all there was available. Therefore the English language in all translations available then was what was translated in 1611 and before. All Bibles were in antiquated English, and my source, a Protestant-biased one greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ says all had the Deutero-canonical books.

New information for me!!

Several reports say that Spalding’s text was in KJE

Thanks for the information, that is new to me as well.

 

[LongJourney]

It is also interesting to note that many chapters of the BoM that are commonly ascribed to Spalding read much like the war chronicles of Maccabees. Anyone who reads both can easily note the similarities. Evidently Maccabees was available to them, but they just didn’t read it.

 

[catholic-rcia]

quote=pinay;6708910]
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…

pinay, notice the dates on these writings below. I see the same Catholic church today. And also do you celebrate Holy Communion as Jesus commanded. I would be interested in the words your leaders use and how it is perfomed, presented. What is said. Is it the same thing that Jesus said to His Apostles? And what do you do with what is left over?

***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in ***
***165 at Rome Italy ***

“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)

He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist **(Jn 6:66) **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

 

[SirThomasMore]

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.

well said

 

[pinay]

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?

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.

Hi Nicea. Good evening, sir (or is it ma’am?),

There are tons of writings on it. But whether one accepts it as a total apostasy is something else. You will only find that in the LDS scriptures.

I have pointed out 2 writings already on this thread: Martin Luther’s grievances against the pope and Jose Rizal’s grievances against the Spanish friars. Both point to apostate practices of the papal office. We can’t really count anything written that the papacy does not involve because this could be just apostate teachings by human factors in a spiritual organization.

You can add the treatment of Galileo in the hands of the papal office, the writings against the Spanish Inquisition, even the writings of Mahatma Ghandi against British Christianity.

Of course, the only source that points to the Great Apostasy is the history of the LDS church. No other church requires that a Great Apostasy happen. All protestant churches as well as other Catholic denominations outside of the Roman Catholic Church point to certain apostate conditions of the RCC but not a single one of them calls it a total falling away. Because, for protestant churches, apostolic succession is irrelevant. And for other Catholic denominations outside of the RCC, their apostolic succession is the same as the Catholics up to a certain point. Only the LDS claim apostolic succession from Peter.

But, see, history can only get us so far in matters of spirituality. We have the pieces of the puzzle, but no way to put the picture together without the confirmation of the Holy Spirit.

 

[LongJourney]

Yes, your church is unique in that it both claims a total Catholic apostasy, and a book which it calls “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” (a bible). Are these two claims related?

 

[pinay]

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.

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?

Hello Scipio and SirThomas,

I don’t think you understood what the point of the quote was.

This quote is actually very special to me and is representative of what I’ve been trying to say - not only in this thread but on some other threads pertaining to the LDS faith. SirThomas has stated in another thread that LDS hates Catholics. I have presented why this is completely not true. This quote shows it plainly.

Let me explain what this quote implies.

The LDS Church puts their doctrine squarely on the Holy Bible with the companionship of the Book of Mormon. The LDS Church acknowledges Peter as having priesthood authority to lead the church. Therefore, it is not possible for the LDS church to maintain that the Catholic church is not Christ’s Church at the time of Peter.

Now, from the quote, any departure from the rock of Peter does not hold water if they point to the church as apostate and start their own version of the truth without the power of the priesthood and the revelation of Jesus Christ (bolded part of the quote above).

Before I heard of Joseph Smith, I have always told everybody who has tried to sway me to their protestant version of the church - I cannot join you. Even armed with the history of the Philippines under the Spanish friars, I cannot leave the Catholic Church. Because, I cannot join a church that does not hold apostolic succession. I have a complete testimony of the doctrine of priesthood authority.

This is exactly what Joseph Smith said in that quote. It resonated with me.

The LDS church is not a protestant church. It is founded on Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church held by Peter and continued with the restoration through Peter, James, and John ordaining Joseph Smith with the priesthood keys necessary to lead the church. To betray the Catholic church is to throw away the rock of Peter and the Holy Bible. This cannot be.

 

[pinay]

Yes, your church is unique in that it both claims a total Catholic apostasy, and a book which it calls “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” (a bible). Are these two claims related?

Hi LongJourney,

Very much so. The Book of Mormon was the tool used by God to restore the truth of the gospels. The Holy Bible, in itself, is not apostate. The interpretation/application thereof is what gave it apostate elements. To determine what interpretation is true and what is false, the Book of Mormon was given as a companion to the Holy Bible.

 

[pinay]

pinay;6708910:
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…

pinay, notice the dates on these writings below. I see the same Catholic church today. And also do you celebrate Holy Communion as Jesus commanded. I would be interested in the words your leaders use and how it is perfomed, presented. What is said. Is it the same thing that Jesus said to His Apostles? And what do you do with what is left over?

***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in ***
***165 at Rome Italy ***

“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)

He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist **(Jn 6:66) **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

Hello catholic-rcia,

These are good questions you brought to the table.

The LDS Church do not believe in transubstantiation. This is a doctrine brought forth as a fruit of the apostasy. Note that the LDS church believes that the pope after Peter does not hold the keys to lead the entire church anymore.

Therefore, when we have “left-overs” from the Sacrament service, it is plainly bread (although consecrated for sacrament) and not the literal body of Christ. At the same time, the LDS church is highly disapproving of waste. Usually, the left-over bread is shared by the Aaronic priests in-charge of administering the sacrament.

We do administer the sacrament during Sunday service in remembrance of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and a reminder of our baptismal covenants in communion with all the other members of the church.

The sacrament prayer in the administration of bread is as follows:
“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

The sacrament prayer in the administration of wine/water is as follows:
" O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

Both these prayers are from the Book of Mormon.

 

[soren1]

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.

Your description of the transmission and second-hand nature of the King Follett Discourse does not correspond to historical fact. It is true that the discourse is “second-hand” in the sense that the most commonly published version was put together a decade after the sermon was given. Yet the text was not communicated to the publisher in the manner you describe. Rather, it was determined by a comparison of four first-hand accounts written in shorthand by four witnesses, including Wilford Woodruff. Because the text is based on a comparison of four versions made immediately while Smith was speaking, it is actually more reliable than any one of the first-hand accounts would have been. The reason is that when you have four versions, errors in one are corrected by the others. For instance, if you have three texts that say “Kate kissed Jim” and a fourth that reads “Kate dissed Jim,” you know that “kissed” will be correct, because three separate scribes will not make identical mistakes.

There is actually a revised amalgamation by modern Mormon scholars available online from BYU studies. You can read it here. IT is a very good piece of work, which makes the differences in the versions available to readers to judge for themselves. If you look at the texts they provide and the variations among the different witnesses, you will not find the kinds of disagreement that call the authenticity of the sermon as we have it fundamentally into question. Only a radical skeptic would be able to deny that Smith claimed that God was once a man, or that he translated Gen 1:1 as it has been reported.

 

[DominicSavio23]

Hello catholic-rcia,

These are good questions you brought to the table.

The LDS Church do not believe in transubstantiation. This is a doctrine brought forth as a fruit of the apostasy. Note that the LDS church believes that the pope after Peter does not hold the keys to lead the entire church anymore.

Therefore, when we have “left-overs” from the Sacrament service, it is plainly bread (although consecrated for sacrament) and not the literal body of Christ. At the same time, the LDS church is highly disapproving of waste. Usually, the left-over bread is shared by the Aaronic priests in-charge of administering the sacrament.

We do administer the sacrament during Sunday service in remembrance of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and a reminder of our baptismal covenants in communion with all the other members of the church.

The sacrament prayer in the administration of bread is as follows:
“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

The sacrament prayer in the administration of wine/water is as follows:
" O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

Just a curious question-- feel free not to answer if you wish-- but, as a former Catholic, what do you think of the plethora of Scripture and very early Church Father’s (in fact nobody contested the teaching of the True Presence until much, much later) writings that talk explicitly of Jesus’ Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Hello Scipio and SirThomas,

I don’t think you understood what the point of the quote was.

This quote is actually very special to me and is representative of what I’ve been trying to say - not only in this thread but on some other threads pertaining to the LDS faith. SirThomas has stated in another thread that LDS hates Catholics. I have presented why this is completely not true. This quote shows it plainly.

Let me explain what this quote implies.

The LDS Church puts their doctrine squarely on the Holy Bible with the companionship of the Book of Mormon. The LDS Church acknowledges Peter as having priesthood authority to lead the church. Therefore, it is not possible for the LDS church to maintain that the Catholic church is not Christ’s Church at the time of Peter.

Now, from the quote, any departure from the rock of Peter does not hold water if they point to the church as apostate and start their own version of the truth without the power of the priesthood and the revelation of Jesus Christ (bolded part of the quote above).

Before I heard of Joseph Smith, I have always told everybody who has tried to sway me to their protestant version of the church - I cannot join you. Even armed with the history of the Philippines under the Spanish friars, I cannot leave the Catholic Church. Because, I cannot join a church that does not hold apostolic succession. I have a complete testimony of the doctrine of priesthood authority.

This is exactly what Joseph Smith said in that quote. It resonated with me.

The LDS church is not a protestant church. It is founded on Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church held by Peter and continued with the restoration through Peter, James, and John ordaining Joseph Smith with the priesthood keys necessary to lead the church. To betray the Catholic church is to throw away the rock of Peter and the Holy Bible. This cannot be.

Pinay, I am glad you found some place you like. I was :LDS. I served a mission. I was very active…but the more I studied the LDS History and researched the Book of Mormon, the more I realized it was a false Church and Joe was a false prophet. Now, I can understand the pull of the LDS Church. I truly can. And I DO understand that, over the years, the LDS Church has backed off certain doctrines and tried to distance itself from earlier teachings. It DOES appear more Christian…but just because a Rilex looks a lot like a Rolex, it does not mean it can keep good time.

I wish you luck. But, someday, you will be back.

 

[pinay]

Just a curious question-- feel free not to answer if you wish-- but, as a former Catholic, what do you think of the plethora of Scripture and very early Church Father’s (in fact nobody contested the teaching of the True Presence until much, much later) writings that talk explicitly of Jesus’ Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist?

Hi Dominic, a fair question. I have complete faith in the sacrament of bread and wine. As scripture supports, this is an integral part of Jesus’ example for us to follow. But, even as a Catholic, I have always been uncomfortable with the doctrine of the Eucharist - not as a sacrament of communion but as a literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. And I have badgered the nuns and chaplains to the last of their gray hairs in the Catholic Schools I have gone to about it, read books about it, etc. Because, when Jesus said, this is my body, I don’t see it as his literal body, I see it as the church (which the Catholic supports as well) which he gives to us. But, as a Catholic, I don’t shy away from doctrine just because it is uncomfortable. Therefore, I accepted it. One cannot practice a’la carte. It’s either you sustain the Catholic Church or you don’t.

Therefore, when I encountered teachings of the LDS where transubstantiation is not a part of, it was easy for me to understand it. It is one of the restored truths. So, when I read the scriptures on the Eucharist, I see clearly how transubstantiation is not the proper interpretation.

Like I said, 2 people can read the same exact scripture from the same exact Bible and come away with 2 completely different interpretation. What is correct is all a matter of faith.

 

[pinay]

Unfortunately, this is going to be my last post for a while. I have to go back to work/school/family!

Hopefully, some other LDS member will come by and take up where I left off.

 

[Third_Day]

=pinay;6707577] 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.

According to Doctrines and Covenants 7 the apostle John is still alive and still on the earth. Do you disagree with this “dogma?”

 

[RPV2017]

In the last days before the second coming, is when The Great Apostasy takes place.

The Church remains filled with the Word of God and the Spirit of Truth. God lives in the hearts of men and women who keep the commandments. Church is where the faithful gather.

Sadly, mankind is moving away from Christianity, (The Great Apostasy).

It will be like in the days of Noah…It will be like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah…Will I not even find one man of faith when I return…

Church attendance continues to decrease…There are fewer people entering into the religious life…on Sunday search the pews and see the empty rows…

Surf the world wide web (if you dare) and you’ll witness what God also sees.

We’re living in the midst of The Great Apostasy.

 

[LongJourney]

Because the text is based on a comparison of four versions made immediately while Smith was speaking, it is actually more reliable than any one of the first-hand accounts would have been. The reason is that when you have four versions, errors in one are corrected by the others. For instance, if you have three texts that say “Kate kissed Jim” and a fourth that reads “Kate dissed Jim,” you know that “kissed” will be correct, because three separate scribes will not make identical mistakes.

This is one of the techniques that Jewish scholars use. They cross compare sacred writings, and through that cross-comparison, they can gain greater understanding of the whole. The same thing occurs when comparing various books of the NT (and the OT). Study of the various books of the bible turns up consistent results. They are not studied in isolation. Each adds depth to the other. When comparing them, one can see the parallels and similarities, and come to a greater depth of understanding when there are differences. So, if the BoM is sacred scripture, one can do a cross-comparison, and come to a greater understanding of both texts. It doesn’t work. One cannot get a greater understanding of the Bible through comparing it with the BoM, or at least, the Bom as Mormons understand it. The only thing I got out of my study of the book is satire against religious fundamentalism, AND THAT was Spalding’s intent.

Mormons claim that the Catholic Church is in apostasy. They claim that because that is what they must do in order to justify the BoM. They believe that because the “apostate” Catholic Church was guardian of the Bible for 1500 years, then the Bible is flawed, and needs something added to it. Sorry. It does not fly. Other than getting a better understanding of the religious hypocrisy of 1816, the BoM added nothing to my understanding of God.

As for the Eucharist, to know that every time I partake, I become more firmly a part of the Body of Christ, here on earth, with my Catholic Brothers and Sisters. That is my usual meditation, and what it means to me.

Anyone who condemns oneself for not seeing it as an act of cannibalism has a few screws loose.

 

[pinay]

Wait, before I go…

I forgot to address the question about John holding the priesthood keys.

Okay, so from what we know, Peter, James, and John held the priesthood keys to lead the church with Peter at the head. Paul was the apostle given specific keys to lead the gentiles.

James died first, then Peter, then John is the last. The Catholic Church do not recognize John as being Peter’s successor. But, whether he exercised his priesthood authority before his death does not matter. He still held the keys to the church. Therefore, at the time that he was alive on earth, the priesthood keys to lead the church was present on earth as well.

And I’m very glad Third Day segued the role of John for the church.

In the restored gospel, we find that John held a big role in the church. The Book of Mormon hold information that confirm John’s writings (as found in the Bible) as scripture among other things.

In Doctrine and Covenants Chapter 7 that Third Word referred to, it is revealed that God gave John power over death - that is, he was translated, that is, God changed him from mortal to immortal without having to pass through physical death. So no, he doesn’t walk the earth like you and I do - as we are still mortal beings.

To understand this better, LDS doctrine also holds that Moses and Elijah are translated beings. They appeared to James, Peter, and John with their translated bodies in the biblical account of Jesus’ transfiguration. Without this translation, it wouldn’t have made sense for Moses and Elijah to appear in seemingly resurrected bodies.

Okay, I really need to go. I am so sorry if I cannot follow up on these discussions until much later.

I loved posting on this thread. Dominico, congratulations, you have kept this thread an example of Christian charity! Thank you very much for letting me participate in these discussions.