For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[ronald_g_w]

I do not dispute the fact that individuals, perhaps many individuals, would fall prey to false prophets and apostatize. But this passage does not say that the Church would fall prey to some yet to be defined universal apostacy.
-Robert

Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. ?

If the KEYS where still with the church what did Elias come and restore ? or still needs to ?

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, ?

Why the need if the gospel was still on the earth in its everlasting state ?

And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

What are these words from the dust that hath a FAMILIAR spirit that shalt speak out of the ground, ? it sounds like the gospel we know but there are difference is it because grievous wolves entered in among you, not sparing the flock. were we decieved ?

The only words that I know from the ground with a familiar spirit to that which I knew is ?..

restitution of all things,

If nothing is lost why the restitution of all things ?

 

[PaulDupre]

1. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

I believe that Joseph Smith, Charles Raze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy and those like them fulfill this prophecy.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Is this a quote from the LDS version of the KJV? It seems somewhat inconsistent with the actual translation from the original texts. My quoatation to the passage from 1 Cor. above is from the Revised Standard Version that looks to the original greek texts. I think the translation that follows the original texts is more consistent with the traditional Christian tradition, which does not support the proxy baptism practice generated by the LDS faith.

In the future, when you quote extensively from a passage of the bible or another work you are relying on for your argument, could you please provide a citation or a link so that others reading your post can verify its accuracy. Thanks.

Also, I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and analysis on the issue, rather than simple quotes, even if its just a line or two from which I can understand how you place this passage in context. I have read the passage in the RSV and find that there is no support for the LDS doctrine concerning the LDS ordinances for deceased persons by proxy.

Peace,
-Robert

Word for word out of the KJV just creating a picture.

John 3: 1-10 — John 5: 25-29 — 1 Cor. 15: 29

Lets look at this now in my own words. Jesus is specific about baptism Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
We also know that millions have left this frail existance without baptism no fault of their own, are they excluded from entering the kingdom of God ? What more logical way for them to enter the kingdom of God than proxy baptism, or do we just forget about them and save ourselves ? We know all that are in the graves shall hear his voice so why exclude those who would have accepted baptism if the oppertunity was there for them ? I cant think of a better solution where we can be instruments in Gods hand to bless the lives of our Fathers children. What is the big deal of trying to disprove doing baptisms for the dead ? Is it because it will put the Catholic church in a flat spin ?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Word for word out of the KJV just creating a picture.

John 3: 1-10 — John 5: 25-29 — 1 Cor. 15: 29

OK. Thanks.

ronald:

Lets look at this now in my own words. Jesus is specific about baptism Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

OK. He does not say to baptize the dead. And he is not speaking about those who came before he instituted baptism as a sacrament for salvation.

ronald:

We also know that millions have left this frail existance without baptism no fault of their own, are they excluded from entering the kingdom of God ?

Of course they are not excluded. However, it does not state that they are compelled to follow a sacrament that was not instituted after their earthly lives ended. Do you believe in a God that would impose a requirement on those who - through no fault of their own - are not capable of meeting that requirement? Do you believe that until you baptize every person born before the Restoration they are bound to some less-than-heavenly eternity? I do not think God is so capricious and arbitrary.

ronald:

What more logical way for them to enter the kingdom of God than proxy baptism, or do we just forget about them and save ourselves ? We know all that are in the graves shall hear his voice so why exclude those who would have accepted baptism if the oppertunity was there for them ? I cant think of a better solution where we can be instruments in Gods hand to bless the lives of our Fathers children.

Baptism of desire is one way. Entrusting them to the hands of aloving God is another way. Proxy baptism is simply unworkable unless you have a perfect record of every person born before the institution of the sacrament of baptism - or else the concept is unfair and unjust for those who have no record?

ronald:

What is the big deal of trying to disprove doing baptisms for the dead ? Is it because it will put the Catholic church in a flat spin ?

The Catholic Church is in no such danger by the Scriptures you quote. What is in question is the evidence of proto-Mormons preaching about unique Mormon doctrines, one of which is baptism of deceased non-members by proxy. The scripture simply does not support the practice in any real measure.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Chris-WA]

Lets look at this now in my own words. Jesus is specific about baptism Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

We also know that millions have left this frail existance without baptism no fault of their own, are they excluded from entering the kingdom of God ?

No, that would be rediculous.

What more logical way for them to enter the kingdom of God than proxy baptism, or do we just forget about them and save ourselves ?

You’re assuming that when Jesus said baptism was necessary for salvation, that he also meant so for all the people who had died in the thousands of years prior to that point. You’re talking about an awful lot of people here, the vast majority of which have no records of their existance. So which is more logical, that God will somehow supply a list of all those unknown names to LDS priests, or that God, in His infinite mercy, has made other provisions to enable the salvation of those who died before baptism ever existed? I don’t think it’s reasonable that LDS force something, through their own logic, into the biblical text that isn’t there. Baptism for the dead as an instituted practice of the early church has no biblical or historical basis. It is not right for LDS to make such a claim. Better that they would simply claim proxy baptism as a newly revealed practice and not try to force it on antiquity.

We know all that are in the graves shall hear his voice so why exclude those who would have accepted baptism if the oppertunity was there for them ? I cant think of a better solution where we can be instruments in Gods hand to bless the lives of our Fathers children.

How about this possibility–that in the end times all the dead will be bodily resurrected and those who were unbaptized get the opportunity then? This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, but I present it as another possibility that is as every bit as “logical” as your idea of proxy baptism. It actually makes more sense because the actual person would be baptized, and a miracle list of names wouldn’t have to appear.

What is the big deal of trying to disprove doing baptisms for the dead ?

Because truth is more important than anything else.

 

[Chris-WA]

Mormons say that evidence for the Great Apostacy is overwhelming. It is not. What is overwhelming is evidence for apostacy of individuals and groups from the Church, which has occurred from the very beginning and will continue until the end of time (the wheat and the chaff coexisting). If LDS would look at their own history with through the same spectacles as they look at Catholicism, they would see apostacy occurring within their own church from the very beginning as well. But they certainly wouldn’t say that their church lost its authority because individuals or groups apostatized along the way. One could even argue that Fundamentalist Mormons have kept more to the early doctrines of Mormonism than the LDS church has.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Word for word out of the KJV just creating a picture…

Just for the edification of me and other readers, is this the LDS’s Authorized Version of the KJV or some other version of the KJV that you are citing to?

Thanks again, :tiphat:
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

Just for the edification of me and other readers, is this the LDS’s Authorized Version of the KJV or some other version of the KJV that you are citing to?

Thanks again, :tiphat:
-Robert

The KJV is the KJV. The LDS edition just has notes to the Book of Mormon DC etc. The text is the same - just the notes are different.

There is also the Joseph Smith translation of the bible which we do not accept as canonized scripture because he never finished it. Nevertheless, we regard what WAS finished as a good indicator of what the KJV was supposed to say. The authorized LDS KJV also has as footnotes, many passages from the Joseph Smith translation.

 

[mfbukowski]

The KJV is the KJV. The LDS edition just has notes to the Book of Mormon DC etc. The text is the same - just the notes are different.

There is also the Joseph Smith translation of the bible which we do not accept as canonized scripture because he never finished it. Nevertheless, we regard what WAS finished as a good indicator of what the KJV was supposed to say. The authorized LDS KJV also has as footnotes, many passages from the Joseph Smith translation.

oops this probably was already answered, I thought I was on the last page

Trying to catch up

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The KJV is the KJV. The LDS edition just has notes to the Book of Mormon DC etc. The text is the same - just the notes are different.

There is also the Joseph Smith translation of the bible which we do not accept as canonized scripture because he never finished it. Nevertheless, we regard what WAS finished as a good indicator of what the KJV was supposed to say. The authorized LDS KJV also has as footnotes, many passages from the Joseph Smith translation.

So the Authorized Version (1611) is the translation contained in the LDS Authorized Version, but the LDS edition also includes footnotes and commentaries that pertain to Joseph Smith’s works/translation. Got it. Thanks again!

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

So the Authorized Version (1611) is the translation contained in the LDS Authorized Version, but the LDS edition also includes footnotes and commentaries that pertain to Joseph Smith’s works/translation. Got it. Thanks again!

Peace,
-Robert

Correctomundo senor!
Will have a little more time next week to get back into this a bit if you like (apostasy) Last time it was quite a zoo. It would be nice if we could keep it civil

Let me just throw this out there – the position is not well thought through I will admit.

How does your reluctance to admit that doctrine is received by revelation square with the idea that somehow for 2000 years the doctrines of the early church were kept pristine and perfect through heresies, wars schizms weird popes, crusades inquistions, reformations and even Vatican II?

It seems clear to me that to maintain your position you would have to admit multiple instances of divine intervention in keeping it all together-- each instance involving “discernment” or “revelation” or whatever you want to call it-- bottom line – intervention by the Holy Spirit to correct the turns and twists of doctrine which could have happened but, to your way of thinking, did not.

It seems clear to me that ongoing revelation would have been necessary, yet you are reluctant to admit that.

Dunno

 

[mfbukowski]

Or he would have done so outside the scope of the schisms of the day as a special dispensation from God.

Edit: And early Mormons were known to bring their existing religious traditions with them.

Well as you know dispensationalism is the key here. There are certain things we (you and I) actually agree about – I think. You should check out Zoroastrianism as another dispensation in case you haven’t,

But definitely I would recommend losing the references to satan and John 1:5

See you put the satan stuff in there and then join both churches, and it looks like you are definitely on the dark side dude.

Maybe you think there is no dark side, but there is

 

[PaulDupre]

How does your reluctance to admit that doctrine is received by revelation square with the idea that somehow for 2000 years the doctrines of the early church were kept pristine and perfect through heresies, wars schizms weird popes, crusades inquistions, reformations and even Vatican II?

It seems clear to me that to maintain your position you would have to admit multiple instances of divine intervention in keeping it all together-- each instance involving “discernment” or “revelation” or whatever you want to call it-- bottom line – intervention by the Holy Spirit to correct the turns and twists of doctrine which could have happened but, to your way of thinking, did not.

It seems clear to me that ongoing revelation would have been necessary, yet you are reluctant to admit that.

Dunno

Let me jump in here…

Doctrine was received by revelation - the final revelation - Jesus Christ. That doctrine is protected, further understood and applied to our current lives through the Holy Spirit operating in the Church as Jesus promised it would:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. - John 14:26

If you want to call that revelation, go ahead. We Catholics use words very carefully, and are loathe to call anything after Jesus and the apostolic age “revelation”. See what the easy acceptance of new revelation led to with the restoration movement. Jesus is just an angel, or God is just some guy like us, or there is no hell or… you get the idea.

 

[mfbukowski]

Let me jump in here…

Doctrine was received by revelation - the final revelation - Jesus Christ. That doctrine is protected, further understood and applied to our current lives through the Holy Spirit operating in the Church as Jesus promised it would:

If you want to call that revelation, go ahead. We Catholics use words very carefully, and are loathe to call anything after Jesus and the apostolic age “revelation”. See what the easy acceptance of new revelation led to with the restoration movement. Jesus is just an angel, or God is just some guy like us, or there is no hell or… you get the idea.

Let me say first of no one says that Jesus is just an angel or God is some guy like us, but I’ll let that slide because I know you know Mormon doctrine, and you are just being difficult.

And pardon the crude analogies, but how do successive popes drive the bus through the landmines of history without direction from above?

To mix metaphors, are you telling me that the whole thing was more like a train on rails? With the schisms being like predicted sidetracks forking off, but never diverting the train from its appointed course?

If those are the choices – and I know the analogies are crude-- it seems that we are caught between predestination on one side and revelation on the other.

So at the council of Nicea, (and all the other possible turns and twists- Hippo, Arianism etc etc etc) the church could have taken no other course than to pick the popes it picked and condemn the heretics it condemned etc.?

So even the “mistakes” of history, maybe the crusades, maybe the inquisition, maybe the priest abuse scandal, maybe Vatican II was all part of the great plan from the beginning?

So which is it – revelation or predestination? The bus or the train?

 

[mfbukowski]

Let me jump in here…

Doctrine was received by revelation - the final revelation - Jesus Christ. That doctrine is protected, further understood and applied to our current lives through the Holy Spirit operating in the Church as Jesus promised it would:

If you want to call that revelation, go ahead. We Catholics use words very carefully, and are loathe to call anything after Jesus and the apostolic age “revelation”. See what the easy acceptance of new revelation led to with the restoration movement. Jesus is just an angel, or God is just some guy like us, or there is no hell or… you get the idea.

And this is the problem. If you accept ANY “direction” through the holy spirit’s “operation”, how do you know that it was the correct path?

You may answer that you believe that “because it was promised”.
(Gates of hell scripture)

So your entire belief that your church is correct is ultimately based on that ONE scripture, which I have already shown is open to other interpretations? And how do you know that some second century monk didn’t just stick that in there?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Correctomundo senor!
Will have a little more time next week to get back into this a bit if you like (apostasy) Last time it was quite a zoo. It would be nice if we could keep it civil

It is my goal always to remain civil, even when I’m not in agreement. But I am human and do tend to get “exercised” on occasion. I do the best that I can.

mfbukowski:

Let me just throw this out there – the position is not well thought through I will admit.

How does your reluctance to admit that doctrine is received by revelation square with the idea that somehow for 2000 years the doctrines of the early church were kept pristine and perfect through heresies, wars schizms weird popes, crusades inquistions, reformations and even Vatican II?

First, I think there needs to be a distinction between public and private revelation. Public revelation is certainly a valid channel for receiving doctrines and dogmas that are to be adhered to by the faithful as such. But this sort of revelation ended after the death of the last Apostle. (Note you and I have different definitions of the term “Apostles.” I am referring to the original 12 (sans Judas Iscariot) and Paul.) Private revelation does not bind anyone to new doctrines, although it certainly can uplift and reconfirm for many (who are willing to accept the truth of the revelation) what has already been revealed publicly. For example, St. Faustina Kowalska is said to have been visited by Jesus Christ, who gave to her a devotion to His Divine Mercy. No new dogma was created, but acceptance of this private revelation to St. Faustina upholds many in their Catholic faith.

mfbukowski:

It seems clear to me that to maintain your position you would have to admit multiple instances of divine intervention in keeping it all together-- each instance involving “discernment” or “revelation” or whatever you want to call it-- bottom line – intervention by the Holy Spirit to correct the turns and twists of doctrine which could have happened but, to your way of thinking, did not.

Certainly, I attribute the continuation of the Church and the consistency of doctrine as the work of the Holy Spirit. But that in no way would compel me to conclude that private revelations are a valid method for proving the truth of doctrines. That is the premise we discussed earlier, on another thread. I’d like to focus on the Great Apostacy now, if we could.

mfbukowski:

It seems clear to me that ongoing revelation would have been necessary, yet you are reluctant to admit that.

Once, again, I’m not reluctant to admit that there have been ongoing episodes of private revelation. But there have been no new public revelations of new or novel doctrines. Ongoing revelation is not required for the Church to develop doctrines that have been with the Church since they were taught by Christ to the Apostles.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Stephen168]

Where in the historical record is there evidence of these “plain and precious” truths being attacked by an apostate Christianity? Where is there a record of plural marriage being defended by Peter and Paul? Where is there a record of “eternal progression” being defended by the dying proto-LDS Church? Where is there evidence of the proto-LDS bishops imploring the faithful to put on the temple garb and baptize their ancestors at a proto-LDS temple? I’m sorry, but unless I see real evidence of distinct LDS doctrine being attacked by a rising “apostate” Church, I’m not going to be eager to accept your belief on the matter.

Excellent questions for which you will most probably never receive an answer. Not a straight answer anyway.
As you can see, 20 posts later and they have been ignored.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Let me say first of no one says that Jesus is just an angel or God is some guy like us, but I’ll let that slide because I know you know Mormon doctrine, and you are just being difficult.

I think Paul was speaking generally of the entire restorationist movement of the 1800s, which included the JWs and SDAs - some of whom denied the divinity of Jesus, and/or proclaimed Jesus to be Michael the Archangel.

mfbukowski:

And pardon the crude analogies, but how do successive popes drive the bus through the landmines of history without direction from above?

All analogies are crude to a certain degree, but your point is made. I think the Catholic response is that we would not call the guidance of the Holy Spirit a “revelation.” Guidance does not need to come in the form of a bolt of lightning from the sky, or a vision, or strong spiritual and emotional response to a situation, as you seem to suggest here. Rather, we have faith that when Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles into all truth, he meant it; not just for the 12 Apostles, but for their successors as well. Those successors are the bishops of the Church, under Peter the Chief Apostle. So, in a sense, the Church is on “rails” because it cannot teach error as truth- the Holy Spirit prevents such a thing. However, the Church is also like a “bus” in the sense that it certainly can blunder into non-doctrinal landmines. Nobody would claim the Church to be impeccable, and it certainly is not infallible in areas other than teaching doctrine and morals.

mfbukowski:

So at the council of Nicea, (and all the other possible turns and twists- Hippo, Arianism etc etc etc) the church could have taken no other course than to pick the popes it picked and condemn the heretics it condemned etc.?

Not necessarily. All that was “guaranteed” (so to speak) was that the Church would not teach error as truth. How this integrity is maintained is not set in stone.

mfbukowski:

So even the “mistakes” of history, maybe the crusades, maybe the inquisition, maybe the priest abuse scandal, maybe Vatican II was all part of the great plan from the beginning?

“Mistakes” of history - and there have been many by all faiths (e.g. Mountain Meadow Massacre, polygamy, FLDS child sexual abuse, etc.) - are not part of God’s “great plan.” They are the result of our fallen nature and God-given free will. But certainly God can bring good from even the worst of these evils.

None of these things have anything to do with the doctrine of infallibility and certainly they do not require acceptance of the notion of continuing public revelation.

Now, can we get back to the original topic… the LDS explanation of the Great Apostacy. Was it universal or was it less than universal, and where is the support for the doctrine.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

Private revelation does not bind anyone to new doctrines, although it certainly can uplift and reconfirm for many (who are willing to accept the truth of the revelation) what has already been revealed publicly. For example, St. Faustina Kowalska is said to have been visited by Jesus Christ, who gave to her a devotion to His Divine Mercy. No new dogma was created, but acceptance of this private revelation to St. Faustina upholds many in their Catholic faith.

Certainly, I attribute the continuation of the Church and the consistency of doctrine as the work of the Holy Spirit. But that in no way would compel me to conclude that private revelations are a valid method for proving the truth of doctrines. That is the premise we discussed earlier, on another thread. I’d like to focus on the Great Apostacy now, if we could.

Once, again, I’m not reluctant to admit that there have been ongoing episodes of private revelation. But there have been no new public revelations of new or novel doctrines. Ongoing revelation is not required for the Church to develop doctrines that have been with the Church since they were taught by Christ to the Apostles.

Peace,
-Robert

As I see it, this discussion is on point because it goes to how the church avoided the apostasy in your point of view. As a Mormon, it is very relevant to my understanding of your position on the apostasy.

"For example, St. Faustina Kowalska is said to have been visited by Jesus Christ, who gave to her a devotion to His Divine Mercy. No new dogma was created, but acceptance of this private revelation to St. Faustina upholds many in their Catholic faith."

I see this as an example of “natural selection” in doctrine. It is considered “private revelation” yet “upholds many in their Catholic faith” because fortunately it does not conflict with other catholic doctrine.

One could be a skeptic and say that it was very fortunate for Faustina that her revelation was so carefully crafted, otherwise she would have been ignored as a psychotic heretic.

If she said that Jesus came to her and told her catholicism was wrong, there would have been … some problems.

And yet, it is ok and is accepted and “upholds many in their catholic faith”.

Can you see that perhaps you are permitting only one type of revelation because it is controlled by the Magesterium?

It is not surprising that there have been no new doctrinal revelations given these circumstances.

Same thing for St. Francis, Theresa of Avila and scores of others.

But what of those who DID have new doctrinal revelations who are lost to the heretical heap?

How can you maintain there was no apostasy when you pick and choose which doctrines are correct?

Or on the other hand, when a council accpets one doctrine over another, how do they know which doctrine is true if not by revelation?

At Nicea they picked what they defined as “orthodoxy” somehow and condemn Arius. How did they know whichdoctrine was right? If it was just tradition, why did they have to have a council?
And this same question applies to every council and every papal decision. You may not call it "new doctrine " because you don’t want to. But picking from a choice of doctrines and making the right choice “by direction” is new doctrine by revelation to me.

It is exactly what we have done with polygammy etc

 

[mfbukowski]

Excellent questions for which you will most probably never receive an answer. Not a straight answer anyway.
As you can see, 20 posts later and they have been ignored.

You will not accept the examples. Even many of the examples have been lost themselves to apostasy. How can I give examples of what has not survived? What DID survive is shards and fragments which are usually explained away. Why is an arson investigation often so hard? Because the evidence went up in flames. We only hear of those cases in which hard evidence is somehow put together in these investigations. How many arson fires have there been which were not proven? No one can prove a negative. No one can prove “the Catholic church is not true”. Of course you cannot prove mine untrue either.

I can show historic shards, but you will disagree and that will leave us no where.

So if you are looking for me to try to prove the apostasy with historical evidence, you can go away now.

I have acknowledged many times that I cannot “prove” by historical evidence that there was an apostasy. Of course you cannot prove there wasn’t one either.

To me, it is impossible to conceive that there was NOT an apostasy. With no communication over vast areas of the world, with local customs and false gods being absorbed into orthodoxy, how could there NOT be?

So don’t worry Catholics you are safe. No bad Mormons here will prove you wrong. Move along. Nothing here to see.