For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[Snow]

This is absurd. I have been a Mormon for 30 years and this is not our doctrine. Jesus Christ is God.

Is it a full moon or something?

 

[majick275]

This is absurd. I have been a Mormon for 30 years and this is not our doctrine. Jesus Christ is God.

this is a perfect example of mormon deceit. the define “god” differently. according to mormon doctrine Jesus is A God and even Elohim is only A God. He is the God of OUR world and an undetermined amount of other worlds but not all. neither is THE God.

 

[Stephen168]

In short, historical evidence would apply to first person accounts (that can be verified) by non-anonymous sources; primary sources, then-contemporary accounts, things written for historical or non-polemical purposes, physical evidence such as coinage, inscriptions etc.

Is historical evidence possible after the first person(s) dies?

Is the copy of the bible you own a ‘primary souce?’

 

[Stephen168]

Tradition is something that is believed without such evidence and passed on. Tradition may have one time been based upon actual true events but since there is no substantial evidence, there is no way to really tell. Hence tradition doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it simply means that it is lacking in evidence.

So if an illiterate person sees an event, tells a literate person who then writes it down: is the event tradition?

 

[Stephen168]

In short, historical evidence would apply to first person accounts (that can be verified) by non-anonymous sources; primary sources, then-contemporary accounts, things written for historical or non-polemical purposes, physical evidence such as coinage, inscriptions etc.

If a person writes a story about an event: Is that history or tradtion?

 

[Prince_Hal]

The easiest and most correct answer:

Define the Great Apostacy: A fabrication invented to justify the mormon religion. From the Biblical, moral and historic perspective, there is no supporting evidence. It is just incorrect.

Another definition would be: Something that mormons believe without questioning and in the end something that is not needed for them to continue to believe the mormon heresy.

I believed it for over 20 years. Now my eyes are open and so is my heart and I see it as the falsehood that it is.

God Bless,

Hal.

 

[Stephen168]

If we only had the word of the Church I wouldn’t believe in the resurrection. Fortunately we have the word of NT authors as well… and if you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, modern prophets.

Which Mormon prophets witnessed the resurrection?

 

[Stephen168]

I am glad we are in agreement on this point. So, then it is your “faith -based” reality that God took authority from Catholics. Why did that happen and when.

Let me defer this question until later. I’ll make a post that gives an overview of current LDS scholarly thinking. The reason I say “current scholarly thinking” is that we believe by way of modern revelation that there was an apostasy. Early LDS authors and scholars then tried to frame how, when and why. There understanding was derived from 19th century Protestant scholarship. New understanding is now available.

I can’t wait to hear this!!!

 

[Stephen168]

Define the Great Apostacy: A fabrication invented to justify the mormon religion. From the Biblical, moral and historic perspective, there is no supporting evidence. It is just incorrect.

Another definition would be: Something that mormons believe without questioning and in the end something that is not needed for them to continue to believe the mormon heresy.

Hal, You might have given away the ending to the story Snow is going to tell us about the ‘new understanding’ of the apostasy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I can’t wait to hear this!!!

 

[Snow]

The easiest and most correct answer:

Define the Great Apostacy: A fabrication invented to justify the mormon religion.

That’s completely false. There was a belief in the apostasy long before Mormons. For example, Johann Lorenz von Mosheim who lived a century before the Church of Jesus Christ was founded (“restored”).

In the middle of the 16th century, The Church of England said in the Book of Homilies: “Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects and degrees, have been drowned in abominable idolatry most detested by God and damnable to man for eight centuries and more.” Church of England, “Homily on Perils of Idolatry.” p 3.

Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that, “There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

Williams also said, “The apostasy… hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.” (Underhill, Edward, “Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty”, cited in William F. Anderson, “Apostasy or Succession, Which?”, pp. 238-39)

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read: “…we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments. . . .” (Dr. William Smith, Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896.)

In the words of one eminent historian, “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated [new] life in the theology and liturgy of the Church.” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, 3:595.)

From the Biblical, moral and historic perspective, there is no supporting evidence. It is just incorrect.

You’ve just made a positive assertion. I challenge you to provide evidence for your assertion.

Note: I already know that you cannot.

Another definition would be: Something that mormons believe without questioning and in the end something that is not needed for them to continue to believe the mormon heresy.

Of course you saying it doesn’t make it true and we’ve already seen how you make things up - like in your quote above.

 

[Snow]

Which Mormon prophets witnessed the resurrection?

Been drinking tonight?

The resurrection occurred about 2k years ago. The first LDS prophet was born in the 19th century.

 

[Prince_Hal]

Well I suppose I asked for such a response by being so blunt in my post. I was not meaning to be uncharitable, but the mormon belief is grossly in error. However, please do not accuse me of “making things up”. Ths would suggest that I am deliberately lying in order to deceive. No, I believe these things to be true from study and prayer an the itness of the Holy Spirit. As to your statement that I cannot back it up, well, let me offer to you the following link to an article by a Catholic apologis Patrick Madrid:

www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp

Here he goes through scripture showing there was no universal apostasy. I do not deny there was apostasy - always has been, always will be. But not a universal apostasy that requires a complete new start.

If Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride, then a universal apostasy as the mormons believe rewuires us to believe that Christ abondoned His Bride for 1500 years.

Now you can quote individual’s beliefs as much as you like. But thy have no authority, they are simply beliefs. Because Johann whoever said what he did doesn’t “make” it true.

I hope this helps explain and gives through Patrick Madrid’s article some Biblical evidence in support of my statement.

God bless,

Hal.

 

[Prince_Hal]

Been drinking tonight?

The resurrection occurred about 2k years ago. The first LDS prophet was born in the 19th century.

Mormon would saythat there has always been prophets, except during the great apostasy. So, he Prophet Nephi (book of mormon, 3rd Nephi) saw the resurrsctd Christ.

Hal

 

[Prince_Hal]

This is absurd. I have been a Mormon for 30 years and this is not our doctrine. Jesus Christ is God.

I have only been a mormon for 23 years, but this statement is misleading. To mormons Chist is “a” god. He created the earth on behalf of his father, who is another god - one higher than him as he was created by him. Christ les as prt of a committee along with another god called the holy spirit. All are infinite, eternl, omnipotent etc. (not sure how you can have more han one infinite being). Anyay, the father god has a god, who has a god, etc, etc. Who is the first of ? mormonism does not say - though some believ there was no beginning.

So, Christ o mormons is a go, on amongst many. He is the god of the OT. But he is not THE God.

Hal.

 

[Stephen168]

Been drinking tonight?

The resurrection occurred about 2k years ago. The first LDS prophet was born in the 19th century.

So when you said you believed in the resurrection on the word of ‘modern prophets’ you were not refering to mormon prophets.

Which ‘modern prophets’ were you refering to?

 

[Stephen168]

Let me defer this question until later. I’ll make a post that gives an overview of current LDS scholarly thinking. The reason I say “current scholarly thinking” is that we believe by way of modern revelation that there was an apostasy. Early LDS authors and scholars then tried to frame how, when and why. There understanding was derived from 19th century Protestant scholarship. New understanding is now available.

I can’t wait to hear this!!!

I’m beginning to think we will never get the scholarly thinking and the new understanding

 

[Stephen168]

That’s completely false. There was a belief in the apostasy long before Mormons. For example, Johann Lorenz von Mosheim who lived a century before the Church of Jesus Christ was founded (“restored”).

In the middle of the 16th century, The Church of England said in the Book of Homilies: “Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects and degrees, have been drowned in abominable idolatry most detested by God and damnable to man for eight centuries and more.” Church of England, “Homily on Perils of Idolatry.” p 3.

Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that, “There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

Williams also said, “The apostasy… hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.” (Underhill, Edward, “Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty”, cited in William F. Anderson, “Apostasy or Succession, Which?”, pp. 238-39)

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read: “…we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments. . . .” (Dr. William Smith, Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896.)

In the words of one eminent historian, “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated [new] life in the theology and liturgy of the Church.” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, 3:595.)

Yes, the Great Apostasy was an American Protestant invention. It was then used by Joseph Smith, but I want to hear about the scholarly thinking that created the new understanding

 

[ronald_g_w]

I have only been a mormon for 23 years, but this statement is misleading. To mormons Chist is “a” god. He created the earth on behalf of his father, who is another god - one higher than him as he was created by him. Christ les as prt of a committee along with another god called the holy spirit. All are infinite, eternl, omnipotent etc. (not sure how you can have more han one infinite being). Anyay, the father god has a god, who has a god, etc, etc. Who is the first of ? mormonism does not say - though some believ there was no beginning.

So, Christ o mormons is a go, on amongst many. He is the god of the OT. But he is not THE God.

Hal.

RSV CE Prov 8:22…The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,the first of his acts of old. 23 … Ages ogo I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth …

Please explain this scripture to me, My understanding from it is, that Jesus is THE Gods First creation ( Firstborn seperate from self ) If Jesus was always THE God as you put it then according to this scripture THE God mutated, which we both know is not so.

 

[guanophore]

Google it.

That won’t give my your opinion about why you seem to think they don’t exist!

I don’t understand your point and question.

You are saying that none of the first 9 or 10 were bishops?

All those who succeeded the Apostles were bishops. What I cannot understand is, are you denying that such historical figures exist, or denying that Peter passed on his authority? Or are you accepting both of those, but denying this invention of yours called the “monoepiscopasy”?

My point couldn’t be more clear. I have stated over and over and over again that there is no historical evidence (not Tradition) that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and that he appointed Linus and that Linus appointed Cletus.

I understand this, and I agree. The office of the Apostle, though encompassing bishopric, is very specific. After the first generation, there were no longer any who met the criteria to be an Apostle. That is why those who succeeded them were not called Apostles, but bishops.

Paul did not stay to take the role of “bishop” in the cities where he founded Churches. He appointed bishops who remained there to care for the flock. It does not change his positon as an Apostle, or the authority that goes with it. For some reason you seem to think that, if you can “prove” that Peter was not a 'monoepiscopal bishop" of Rome this somehow invalidates the Papacy.