For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[RebeccaJ]

:bigyikes:
Would the average LDS member agree with this statement?

Peace,
-Robert

Three examples from lds.org

One: “When a person violates any of God’s commandments, if there is no repentance the Lord withdraws His protective and sustaining influence. When we lose power with God, we know of a certainty that the problem lies within us and not within God. “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise” (D&C 82:10). Our misdeeds bring despair. They sadden and extinguish the “perfect brightness of hope” offered by Christ (2 Ne. 31:20). Without God’s help, we are left to ourselves.”

Two: Full enjoyment of the gift of the Holy Ghost includes receiving revelation and comfort, serving and blessing others through spiritual gifts, and being sanctified from sin and made fit for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. These blessings depend on your worthiness; they come a little at a time as you are ready for them. As you bring your life in harmony with God’s will, you gradually receive the Holy Ghost in great measure. The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the mysteries of God’s kingdom “are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him” (see D&C 76:114–116).

Remember that “the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples” (Helaman 4:24). Even though you have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit will dwell with you only when you keep the commandments. He will withdraw if you offend Him by profanity, uncleanliness, disobedience, rebellion, or other sins. Keep yourself clean. Fill your life with goodness so you can be worthy of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Three:“A second requirement for frequent companionship and direction from the Holy Ghost is to be clean. The Spirit must withdraw from those who are not clean. You remember the sad illustration of that in the Book of Mormon:
“And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face.
“And they saw that they had become weak, like unto their brethren, the Lamanites, and that the Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had withdrawn from them because the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples” (Helaman 4:23–24).
The path to receiving the Holy Ghost is to exercise faith in Christ unto repentance. We can become clean through qualifying for the effects of the Savior’s Atonement.”

edit to add: LDS are also in agreement with the Donatist heresy, ex opere operantis — from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting it.

Catholic position is ex opere operato — from the work having been worked, in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God’s work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Three examples from lds.org

One: “When a person violates any of God’s commandments, if there is no repentance the Lord withdraws His protective and sustaining influence. When we lose power with God, we know of a certainty that the problem lies within us and not within God. “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise” (D&C 82:10). Our misdeeds bring despair. They sadden and extinguish the “perfect brightness of hope” offered by Christ (2 Ne. 31:20). Without God’s help, we are left to ourselves.”

Two: Full enjoyment of the gift of the Holy Ghost includes receiving revelation and comfort, serving and blessing others through spiritual gifts, and being sanctified from sin and made fit for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. These blessings depend on your worthiness; they come a little at a time as you are ready for them. As you bring your life in harmony with God’s will, you gradually receive the Holy Ghost in great measure. The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the mysteries of God’s kingdom “are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him” (see D&C 76:114–116).

Remember that “the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples” (Helaman 4:24). Even though you have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit will dwell with you only when you keep the commandments. He will withdraw if you offend Him by profanity, uncleanliness, disobedience, rebellion, or other sins. Keep yourself clean. Fill your life with goodness so you can be worthy of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Three:“A second requirement for frequent companionship and direction from the Holy Ghost is to be clean. The Spirit must withdraw from those who are not clean. You remember the sad illustration of that in the Book of Mormon:
“And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face.
“And they saw that they had become weak, like unto their brethren, the Lamanites, and that the Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had withdrawn from them because the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples” (Helaman 4:23–24).
The path to receiving the Holy Ghost is to exercise faith in Christ unto repentance. We can become clean through qualifying for the effects of the Savior’s Atonement.”

edit to add: LDS are also in agreement with the Donatist heresy, ex opere operantis — from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting it.

Catholic position is ex opere operato — from the work having been worked, in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God’s work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly.

Thanks for the information. I’m learning a lot here. The implications of this are profound. It seems that the LDS believe they can bind God to a “contract” if they remain “good mormons” and that God, holding to his contract with them, would cease making payment on account of a breach by sinfull conduct. This rationale for salvation seems - to me - to make God small. But to be fair, I’d like to hear some LDS members respond.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for the information. I’m learning a lot here. The implications of this are profound. It seems that the LDS believe they can bind God to a “contract” if they remain “good mormons” and that God, holding to his contract with them, would cease making payment on account of a breach by sinfull conduct. This rationale for salvation seems - to me - to make God small. But to be fair, I’d like to hear some LDS members respond.

Peace,
-Robert

The “payment on account” only ceases when the person has repented. However, if the person commits the same sin again, the previous sin is still in the “account” and remembered by God. Thus, the unworthiness is greater by the repeated sin than it was before.

 

[Snow]

Golly, in this case I guess we never know for sure when there is an authority.

Man leaves God, not vice versa. But withdrawing authority is God leaving man.

Not necessarily.

We believe that one characteristic of God’s relationship with his people is that of covenants. “A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions. When we choose not to keep covenants, we cannot receive the blessings, and in some instances we suffer a penalty as a consequence of our disobedience.”

It’s not a simple matter of God withdrawing authority but rather a more complex situation of covenant and mutual fulfillment of a contractual relationship.

 

[Snow]

Thanks for the information. I’m learning a lot here. The implications of this are profound. It seems that the LDS believe they can bind God to a “contract” if they remain “good mormons” and that God, holding to his contract with them, would cease making payment on account of a breach by sinfull conduct. This rationale for salvation seems - to me - to make God small. But to be fair, I’d like to hear some LDS members respond.

Peace,
-Robert

First, I’d not accept at face value anything that an angry anti-Mormon tells you about The Church of Jesus Christ. Even with quotes you may not get the full context or complete picture.

Second, It is not an issue of binding God. It is a matter of God covenanting with his people. We accept and believe promises found in the Bible:

"9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth bcovenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.
12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: (Deut 7)

and

17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children;
18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them. (Psalm 103)

The same pattern can be found in the NT:

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matt 19)

God is not made small, as you said it seems, when he promises something and then follows through on his promises.

“Many commentaries stress the one-sidedness of scriptural covenants. Since the Lord’s promises greatly exceed human obligations, the blessings of deity significantly overshadow the efforts demanded (see Mosiah 2:21), even though a notion of reciprocity is always present. Something is demanded in return, as a covenant is essentially two-sided; before anything else, it is a relation, the means by which God and man become reconciled in the Atonement afforded to all by Jesus Christ.” (From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

Though the concept of covenants waned after the early days of the ancient church the simplest example of a covenant is that of salvation. Though they may not use biblical language to describe it, most all people believe that God covenants that if we do such and such, he will grant us salvation.

Some believe that our part of the bargain is having faith, some believe it is having faith and repenting, some believe that one must exercise faith, repent and obey God.

I guess Calvinists might technically disagree in that, for them, one cannot exercise faith of his/her own accord.

 

[Snow]

Forgive me I was merely stating facts, did not mean for you to take it as an insult. My question was not to proselytize in any way. Do you or Mormons desire to know Jesus? as do all Christians. Peter denied my founder Jesus 3x’s, Yet he walked on water with Jesus, you see taking the bad with good is called “Truth”.

Honesty is a good thing Gabriel. Try it.

You certainly did mean it as an insult and we both know it. It is pejorative to characterize jumping out of window to evade armed murderers as breaking out of jail.

 

[zaffiroborant]

First, I’d not accept at face value anything that an angry anti-Mormon tells you about The Church of Jesus Christ. Even with quotes you may not get the full context or complete picture.

Well she did give links to the full document and links to your scriptures.

 

[Snow]

Well she did give links to the full document and links to your scriptures.

… and she is a hateful and angry anti-Mormon. The last person an honest inquirer would go to for proper information about The Church of Jesus Christ. I didn’t say she got anything wrong - in this case - I didn’t read her post… but I’ve seen her twistings and false assertions repeatedly. It a bad source

 

[Stephen168]

… and she is a hateful and angry anti-Mormon. The last person an honest inquirer would go to for proper information about The Church of Jesus Christ. I didn’t say she got anything wrong - in this case - I didn’t read her post… but I’ve seen her twistings and false assertions repeatedly. It a bad source

It has been my experience that ex-mormons are the quickest place to get answers. See post 316 and 278.

 

[Snow]

It has been my experience that ex-mormons are the quickest place to get answers.

Depends on the agenda. Some Catholics leave the faith hating it. I wouldn’t consider that a good source of Catholic information. They may be smart (or not) and may be knowledgable (or not) but if they have an agenda, to deceive or denigrate or marginalize… it’s a bad source.

On the other hand I know some Mormons that were Catholics and at least one Catholic whose family was Mormon - apparently she left the faith when she was young… and they don’t harbor any ill will or agenda.

See post 316 and 278.

Yeah - saw em. I haven’t had the time to spend 45 minutes in one setting writing. What’s the rush - you don’t/won’t buy it anyway.

 

[Stephen168]

Yeah - saw em. I haven’t had the time to spend 45 minutes in one setting writing. What’s the rush - you don’t/won’t buy it anyway.

No rush. But I do think you are stalling.

 

[RebeccaJ]

… and she is a hateful and angry anti-Mormon. The last person an honest inquirer would go to for proper information about The Church of Jesus Christ. I didn’t say she got anything wrong - in this case - I didn’t read her post… but I’ve seen her twistings and false assertions repeatedly. It a bad source

You can’t dispute what I wrote, so you go for attacking me personally.

Wuss.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

First, I’d not accept at face value anything that an angry anti-Mormon tells you about The Church of Jesus Christ. Even with quotes you may not get the full context or complete picture.

I understand your concern here, having dealt with “angry” ex-Catholics as well. But I think it is fair to say that one must also consider why one is an angry ex-anything when also considering what they say about their former relationship.

Snow:

Second, It is not an issue of binding God. It is a matter of God covenanting with his people. We accept and believe promises found in the Bible:

There is a distinction between “covenant” and “contract” that is as profound as the difference between marriage and prostitution. The articulation above seems to describe mormons as claiming their “right” to divinity as if they are claiming a “bargain” offered by God. A covenantal relationship is an acknowledgement - foremost - that you are no longer your own person, but that you have committed yourself to the other person in the covenantal bond. Yes, God grants salvation to those with whom He covenants. But it is only because we who have entered into that covenantal relationship have surrendered ourselves to His will by dying with Christ on the cross and being raised with Him to new life.

snow:

God is not made small, as you said it seems, when he promises something and then follows through on his promises.

I agree that it is not God who is “made small” by way of reducing a covenantal relationship to a contractual right. Rather, the failing is on the part of the person who sees salvation as a bargained for exchange… one in which God is apparently “looking for an out” by which He can withdraw His grace and end the relationship. Is it not the person with free will who turns His back on a loving God, rather than God ever turning His back on us.

“Many commentaries stress the one-sidedness of scriptural covenants. Since the Lord’s promises greatly exceed human obligations, the blessings of deity significantly overshadow the efforts demanded (see Mosiah 2:21), even though a notion of reciprocity is always present. Something is demanded in return, as a covenant is essentially two-sided; before anything else, it is a relation, the means by which God and man become reconciled in the Atonement afforded to all by Jesus Christ.” (From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

Wow! What a bargain! The writer here ultimately uses the word “relation” in connection with the New Covenant. But it seems to me that what he is describing is a contract by which we “buy” salvation at such a small price. That way of looking at covenant is essentially synonymous with contract principles. A true covenant requires not merely an exchange of promises, but an exchange of persons… i.e. “I will be your God, and you will be my people” versus “This is yours - that is mine.”

snow:

Though the concept of covenants waned after the early days of the ancient church the simplest example of a covenant is that of salvation. Though they may not use biblical language to describe it, most all people believe that God covenants that if we do such and such, he will grant us salvation.

The Catholic Church has not forgotten the New Covenant. And it still uses the term. It is the covenant that is made between God and His people with the blood of His Son. It is remembered and affirmed at every mass, every eucharistic celebration. Indeed, the entire mass is a renewal of that covenant. But what you describe is not a covenant. Your writers seem to use the term. But what they are describing is a bargained-for contract with God.

snow:

Some believe that our part of the **bargain **is having faith, some believe it is having faith and repenting, some believe that one must exercise faith, repent and obey God.

It’s not a “bargain” it is a gift by which a relationship is restored. If you think salvation is a “bargain” then you’re not looking at it from a covenantal perspective. The “price” of your salvation was the death of Jesus Christ. The Second Person of the Trinity suffered a humiliating death on the cross so you could have a restored covenantal relationship with the Triune God. By the new covenant YOU are placed in relationship with God through Jesus Christ. If you still think your salvation is a bargain, you are just not seeing the fullness of the covenant that Jesus establishes with his sacrifice.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. - Let’s talk about your understanding of (definition of) the Great Apostacy.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

… and she is a hateful and angry anti-Mormon. The last person an honest inquirer would go to for proper information about The Church of Jesus Christ. I didn’t say she got anything wrong - in this case - I didn’t read her post… but I’ve seen her twistings and false assertions repeatedly. It a bad source

I have foudn that the best thing to do in this sort of circumstance is to address the issue, and not attack the person. Eventually, if you consistently and charitably address the issue charitably, without attacking the person, you will find that others will give this individual’s posting less weight on their own, without your urging.

However, if you spend all of your time attacking the person as a hate filled ex/anti-Mormon, while spending no time dealing with the issues, your position loses credibility because you have not supported your belief. In other words, please explain how this person has “twisted” truths and/or Mormon teachings as you stated above? Please explain it to the rest of us instead of implicitly accusing the person of being a “liar.”

Since I do not know any of you personally, I tend to make my decisions based on the arguments presented rather than the personal. For all I know the other person could have a halo or horns and a tail. But all I see are the words on the thread. Given this reality of anonymous posting, I’d say your attentions are best addressed to the issues and clearing up any confusion or “twisting” that you claim resulted from the earlier post. Don’t “spin your wheels” trying to convince me (and others) that I should simply dismiss whatever “so-and-so” says just because they are an “ex.” IMHO you get nowhere fast with such tactics, and you tend to lessen your own credibility along the way.

I mean this all in a constructive way and not to offend.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[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.

Let me help you get started:

The ‘Great Apostasy’ was invented by 19th century Protestant ‘scholarship‘ as part of the Restoration Movement. Joseph Smith accepted it, as the rest of the Restoration Churches did, as a fact of history. This event was to have happened around the time of Constantine. As we became more aware of early Christian writing and history it became clear there was no ‘Great Apostasy’ around the time of Constantine, so the date was pushed back closer to the beginning. Even this finally gave way to the realization that the ‘Great Apostasy’ was not an historical event. But this created a problem: no apostasy; no need for a restored church. So the Mormons did some ‘scholarly thinking.’

“Given the Mormon religion is only based on faith, let’s just add this to the mix.” “We will just believe it happened.” “We will believe that God withdrew his authority.” “Now we can just declare it so and no one can prove otherwise.” “Let it be so.”

 

[mfbukowski]

Robert firstly I am not here to play games, secondly I am not a collage graduate as most of you seem to be, and thirdly I am also not well read as most of you give me the impression you are. Therefore I will not be able to give you the debate that you might be looking for. But if it is truth that we are all seeking I am more than happy to share the thoughts that I have and hope to learn from the truth that you might share.

In my experience many “educated” people have their common sense “educated” right out of them. I always enjoy your posts, and think they are right on the money. The key to what you say is that “impressions” are easy to fake especially on the internet. Don’t believe all you think you see!

 

[mfbukowski]

Golly, in this case I guess we never know for sure when there is an authority.

Man leaves God, not vice versa. But withdrawing authority is God leaving man.

No, you got it right the first time. God didn’t withdraw anything. You are the ones that insist that no unclean thing can enter God’s presence. When the church became unclean, it withdrew itself from God.

 

[mfbukowski]

Mormons believe you have to be worthy of God’s authority and blessings. If you are in apostasy you are not worthy of either, and so God does withdraw.

Mormons: Man leaves God, therefore, God leaves man.

vs

Catholics: Man can leave God, however, God does not leave man.

Catholics: God honors the priesthood of evil men.

Mormons: No Way!

Simple enough for you?

 

[mfbukowski]

:bigyikes:
Would the average LDS member agree with this statement?

Peace,
-Robert

Partially. Apostasy terminates authority. If you are evil also, your priesthood goes away.

So now you will bring up all the perceived transgressions of Mormon leaders. Fergetaboutit. Those are your perceptions, not ours.

Then you will debate “what?!!! polygammy/polyandry is only a perceived transgression?”

And the wheel will go round and round. This thread is a waste of time. You are only to about a third of the length we had it going a few months ago before we got closed down for lack of charity.

You guys have a long way to go! See if you can get closed down in only 700 posts! Go for it!

Or better yet, let’s pretend we are Irish and start shooting eachother! That will be fun!

And those fascist protesters out there who are after all of us can have a field day.

We need unity, not this silliness. Crucifixes trampled, temples defaced and here we argue about silliness.

This is real, people. The forces of evil are marshalled against us both. Let’s get it together and quit wasting time.

 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the information. I’m learning a lot here. The implications of this are profound. It seems that the LDS believe they can bind God to a “contract” if they remain “good mormons” and that God, holding to his contract with them, would cease making payment on account of a breach by sinfull conduct. This rationale for salvation seems - to me - to make God small. But to be fair, I’d like to hear some LDS members respond.

Peace,
-Robert

No, by sin we withdraw from God’s promise. It doesn’t affect Him in the least.

He loves us, but if we go out and get drunk, daddy doesn’t give us the car until we repent.

Doesn’t that just make sense? Daddy is still daddy. We are the ones who have broken the contract.

So you believe that if you are in mortal sin, God continues to shower grace on you ??

No you don’t believe that at all. Why then be good, and accumulate grace? Same thing.