For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[mfbukowski]

He did it at gunpoint? And she was kicking and screaming the whole time?

RebeccaJ
My point here was to say that whatever happened with Zina, and others, we really don’t know what these cases were about.

Polygamy/polyandry was a system that was set up in many cases to provide for widows who had no husbands. In other there were other instances of platonic marriages, since sealing was actually an ordinace necessary to achieve the highest part of the celestial kingdom

Many of you who are not familiar with church doctrine do not know that – one must be sealed to reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom, and in many cases these sealings were completely platonic to allow a woman who had not been sealed to a man to receive the ordinance or sacrament of sealing.

Of course this was not true in all cases. This is obvious.

Were there abuses? Perhaps. But there is no way of knowing. All we can conclude, after examining the evidence as far as we can, was that these relationships were between consenting adults who were convinced they were doing the right thing. Zina had visions verifying to her that these things were of God.

I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, and we were certainly not in anybody’s bedrooms watching what actually happened.

So you are free to form your own conclusions which I am sure will be different from mine.

Neither of us can possibly have proof of anything.

As I mentioned rather tersely above, there was no evidence of any force involved

By today’s standards with mixed families, multiple fathers, divorce and re-marriage, frankly no one would even question these kinds of relationships or care.

And to pretend that you know what happened is just absurd.

 

[mfbukowski]

if is seeks to unite it why are there 95 mormon denomination
while there is 1 catholic church?

Are you serious with this question? How many protestant denominations are there? One on every street corner!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No Robert, that is not what we believe. … Of course such a position would totally lack crediblity and be probably in error.

I agree. It’s a loophole you could drive a truck through.
mfb:

I personally have found not a single instance where the bible contradicts any of our doctrine…

So, it comes down to a question of authority to interpret for you?
mfb:

That is perhaps where you get the idea that we believe the bible is inerrant… .

If it is totally corrupt, then why elevate the bible to the level of Scripture? Is that not a precarious position, to declare “totally corrupt” something that is at the same time God-inspired?
mfb:

As far as the apostasy is concerned, I think we kind of don’t care how corrupt the church was.

I’m still not sure how you show the early true Church was doctrinally “corrupted.” The bottom line seems to be that your ecclesial community takes the “corruption” of doctrine by the Catholic Church as a given because Catholic doctrine does not square up with LDS doctrine. So, in the end we simply have two competing claims of authority.
mfb:

If there was ONE CORRUPT POPE, in 2000 years … In our view, priest A does not have the priesthood.

The personal corruption of an individual does not destroy the line of apostolic succession or priesthood authority. That is a misunderstanding along the lines of the what the Donatists believed.
mfb:

So it almost seems prima facie obvious to us … We don’t worry about the details.

So, you don’t really think about this issue, because the authority of the LDS faith is so obvious?
-mfb:

There was enough crazy stuff going on for 2000 years that priesthood authority could not have survived in that kind of environment.

Look at the history of your own church and ask if it is any different. The LDS Church has split many times… There’s the FLDS and the RLDS and the LDS, and all kinds of splinter groups as well living in communities throughout the West and Southwest. Do you think the LDS priesthood authority exists throughout as well, or just within the mainstream LDS Church Headquartered in SLC? And if you think the LDS Church HQ’d in SLC can maintain the priesthood despite the tearing of the LDS Church over just the past 180 years? Then what is so hard about seein that over the last two millenia the Catholic Church has weathered the storms like a rock?
mfb:

I can show you my priesthood line of authority. I know who ordained me, and we have records that record that line back to the restoration. It’s only been 180 years. And with modern record keeping, we can trace that authority person by person.

But that only begs the question… why the need for a restoration? And it assumes an ecclesial authority that was reestablished 180 years ago, without establishing any need for a reestablishment. And are you suggesting that the Restoration of a true church delayed until “modern” record-keeping was established?
mfb:

I have seen instances in our church where there have been discrepancies in records, … The record is probably in error because brother x knows that he had been properly ordained, …

I see. So if the LDS records show no authority, the record is wrong, but if the Catholic Church shows a historical record of apostolic succession, then history is wrong?
mfb:

Can you show that kind of authority for 2000 years of crazy popes etc?

First, there have not been 2000 years of crazy popes. There have, on very few occasions throughout the history of the Church, some scoundrels that found their way to the papacy. That does not invalidate the office he received, nor does it invalidate his priesthood authority. Once ordained, for better or worse, a man is a priest forever. (Heb. 7:17) And, yes the records are kept as best as possible. But, as you indicated is the case even in the LDS Church, it is not necessarily the record that makes the ordination valid.
mfb:

Those are our standards. So we look at 2000 years of your history, throw up our hands and say “There’s no way this could be valid”

It seems to me that in order to come to that conclusion you have to already have it in mind before you look at history and how the Church has weathered over two millenia.
mfb:

It doesn’t matter if it’s just a little invalid or a lot invalid, invalid is invalid.

OK. When did the early Church first become even a little “invalid” in its doctrines?
mfb:

I don’t expect this to convince you, but I hope it will help you to understand why in our minds, there is no question of an apostasy, and why we don’t worry too much about where and when it happened.

I think its sad that you are told to just accept the concept of a total apostacy, and that you cannot even explain where it happened and what it was. It would be like me saying to you, it’s so obvious … all I have to do is look at Joseph Smith’s history and his misadventures and I can see the LDS Church is just a mockery of Christianity. Would you accept that sort of comment from me, or would you want me to prove it?
mfb:

So with a bible that we could theoretically say is totally corrupt, we look at the apostate catholic church and say “well, ok, let’s say we believe that bible is true insofar as it is translated correctly”. And we totally throw out your priesthood authority.

But you haven’t expressed to me why you come to these conclusions. Why is the Church apostate, and when/how did its apostacy occur, and why do you throw out the priesthood authority? I understand you believe this to be the case, but your sincere belief is not enough to convince me you are right. Do you see the problem here?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ
My point here was to say that whatever happened with Zina, and others, we really don’t know what these cases were about.

Which it doesn’t matter. Either marrying another when you are already married is adultery, or it isn’t.

Polygamy/polyandry was a system that was set up in many cases to provide for widows

bukowski, polyandry is a form of polygamy where a woman is married to more than one man. The woman has more than one husband. How is this providing for a widow???

In other there were other instances of platonic marriages, since sealing was actually an ordinace necessary to achieve the highest part of the celestial kingdom

These women were already sealed to a husband, there was no need to do a second sealing.

Many of you who are not familiar with church doctrine do not know that – one must be sealed to reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom, and in many cases these sealings were completely platonic to allow a woman who had not been sealed to a man to receive the ordinance or sacrament of sealing.

Yes, I understand this. But this is not what was going on. This was a case of Joseph Smith commanding women who were already married to marry him.

Were there abuses? Perhaps. But there is no way of knowing. All we can conclude, after examining the evidence as far as we can, was that these relationships were between consenting adults who were convinced they were doing the right thing. Zina had visions verifying to her that these things were of God.

Which is the point! Do you really believe that God verifies sin??

I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, and we were certainly not in anybody’s bedrooms watching what actually happened.

Serious naivete going on if you believe that a woman living in a man’s house to whom she is married is platonic.

As I mentioned rather tersely above, there was no evidence of any force involved

Which does not matter! Adultery is a sin, and since when does consent to sin make the sin not a sin??

By today’s standards with mixed families, multiple fathers, divorce and re-marriage, frankly no one would even question these kinds of relationships or care.

Which again, doesn’t matter. You are trying to make adultery relative to circumstances. Either adultery is a sin, or is not.

And to pretend that you know what happened is just absurd.

I don’t have to pretend. I just don’t have to be naive. If my husband were living in the house of another woman, and he was married to her, I would be absolutely stupid to believe they were living as brother and sister.

 

[mfbukowski]

Which it doesn’t matter. Either marrying another when you are already married is adultery, or it isn’t.
.

No, marrying another is bigamy or polygamy or polyandry. Having sex with someone to whom you are not married is adultery

bukowski, polyandry is a form of polygamy where a woman is married to more than one man. The woman has more than one husband. How is this providing for a widow???

It happens even today in divorce situations where one is sealed to someone and married to another. This is not polyandry, it is being sealed to someone and being married to another. There is a difference.

These women were already sealed to a husband, there was no need to do a second sealing.

No one knows the exact circumstances of whether or not there was a “need”. I will presume there was a need, or it would not have happened

This was a case of Joseph Smith commanding women who were already married to marry him.

“Commanding”? As I said a few posts ago - this was consentual and we don’t know the circumstances. “I command you to marry me”. As a woman, does that fly with you? Do you say “Oh, ok, if you put it that way!..” It is ridiculous to assert that a woman would marry anyone because she was commanded. These were adults.

Serious naivete going on if you believe that a woman living in a man’s house to whom she is married is platonic.

In the case of Zina which is the only case documented to my knowledge, she lived with her husband and did not live with Joseph. There is no evidence that anyone lived with anyone to whom they were sealed only – as opposed to married and sealed.

Which does not matter! Adultery is a sin, and since when does consent to sin make the sin not a sin?? Which again, doesn’t matter. You are trying to make adultery relative to circumstances. Either adultery is a sin, or is not.

Adultery IS relative to circumstances. Most notably it requires the circumstance of having sex with someone to whom you are not married. As I said before, neither you nor I were there.

 

[Snow]

This is a fascinating comment–do you have the references for this modern scholarship?

One modern scholar, Bart Ehrman–whatever you may think of him–indicates that perhaps there never even was such a thing as pure Christianity from which to fall. That it was a mixed bag even in the apostles’ day. (Which would fit in with ‘decades soon after the death of Christ.’)

So, given this idea, how can anybody posit an “apostasy” when there was no core Christianity to be apostate from?

Agreed. Early Christianity was not unified, starting from early on after the apostles’ death. Ehrman (one of the very best textual critics) maintains, correctly, that there were many competing beliefs and sects and eventually a “proto-orthodoxy” that after Constantine become the orthodoxy. That was the particular movement that prevailed. Had other competing movements prevailed, Christianity would look very different today.

We (I) view the apostasy as the withdrawal or loss of Christ’s authority to act in his name. We believe such authority was lost more or less within a generation of the passing of the apostles.

There is much scholarly material on the apostasy so you would have to be specific about what you want a reference for. However - that there is a God, that he gives authority to man, that he withdrew that authority, or didn’t, are all matters of faith, not fact.

By the way, Snow–that is a time-honored Mormon name. I have some friends named Snow, who are descended from Erastus Snow. But these Snow friends of mine are apostate, as they are now Catholic.

There are lots of us Mormons who love Catholicism or Catholics who love us (though that may not be the case with your friends). We call ourselves Mormolics or Cathomons.

 

[Snow]

if is seeks to unite it why are there 95 mormon denomination
while there is 1 catholic church?

Because people apostatize from The Church of Jesus Christ today, just like they did two millennia ago.

Why? What did you think?

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, marrying another is bigamy or polygamy or polyandry. Having sex with someone to whom you are not married is adultery

It happens even today in divorce situations where one is sealed to someone and married to another. This is not polyandry, it is being sealed to someone and being married to another. There is a difference.

No one knows the exact circumstances of whether or not there was a “need”. I will presume there was a need, or it would not have happened

“Commanding”? As I said a few posts ago - this was consentual and we don’t know the circumstances. “I command you to marry me”. As a woman, does that fly with you? Do you say “Oh, ok, if you put it that way!..” It is ridiculous to assert that a woman would marry anyone because she was commanded. These were adults.

In the case of Zina which is the only case documented to my knowledge, she lived with her husband and did not live with Joseph. There is no evidence that anyone lived with anyone to whom they were sealed only – as opposed to married and sealed.

Adultery IS relative to circumstances. Most notably it requires the circumstance of having sex with someone to whom you are not married. As I said before, neither you nor I were there.

so you’ve decided to ignore facts? fingers in your ears lalalalalalalalalalalalalala?

How’s that working for you?

 

[Snow]

so you’ve decided to ignore facts? fingers in your ears lalalalalalalalalalalalalala?

How’s that working for you?

Could you state the “facts” please.

Just for the record… not supposition, not innuendo, not opinion… just the facts please. Primary sources will be appreciated.

… and just curious here… this is a thread about The Great Apostasy. Since you apparently feel that historical LDS leader and their practices are relevant, may we safely assume that Stephen VI, Urban VI, Clement VII, John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, Leo X, Boniface VII, et all are appropriate for discussion?

… or would that be off topic?

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, marrying another is bigamy or polygamy or polyandry. Having sex with someone to whom you are not married is adultery

Adultery:

Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

 

[mfbukowski]

Could you state the “facts” please.

Just for the record… not supposition, not innuendo, not opinion… just the facts please. Primary sources will be appreciated.

… and just curious here… this is a thread about The Great Apostasy. Since you apparently feel that historical LDS leader and their practices are relevant, may we safely assume that Stephen VI, Urban VI, Clement VII, John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, Leo X, Boniface VII, et all are appropriate for discussion?

… or would that be off topic?

 

[Snow]

I have to say that I am surprised by the behavior I find here from some of the discussants.

My home message board is and LDS site and we have some Protestants and Catholics that post with us there. There are treated as warm friend or honored guests,

Here, some also treat us warmly but others are outright unChristian and nasty, On another thread one said, out of the blue, that Mormons are the best liars in the world, Others will insult or demean in most every post, Here, from what I can tell, on a thread about the apostasy, accusations of made about LDS leader’s character.

It is very bizarre. I don’t agree with many RCC beliefs and enjoy debating the merits but I would stand with the Catholics against anyone who would denigrate and marginalize them or be dishonest about them, or claim that they were liars or not Christian or any such malarky.

We disagree with them but they are our fellow brothers and sisters. When they are lessened, we are lessened. Same for all people of faith and honesty. I don’t mind getting into the fray when attacked and maligned or lied about, but what’s the point of attacking just to attack? There’s no point at all.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I’ve heard LDS members say they believed in the Great Apostacy, and that “protestant” church communities must also have believed in such an event. This statement seems contradictory to me. Let me explain:

When Joseph Smith asked what faith community he should join, he was told none of them, for they had completely apostatized. My understanding was that the Great Apostacy (that necessitated the restoration) was complete and total. (Am I correct in this or am I mistaken)

If the Great Apostacy was a complete rejection of the Gospel, then why would the reformers not be considered just another form of apostacy? If they are not, then did God attempt (but fail to attain) a restoration in 1500s Europe? Was it a partial restoration? Was it just further descent into error?

And if the reformation was not at least an attempt at a restoration, then why does the LDS Church trace its scriptural roots to the King James Version of the bible?

These are my thoughts, but can we start the discussion with an LDS definition of what is meant by the term “Great Apostacy?” Is it a total rejection of all truth? Is it something less than total rejection?

Peace,
-Robert

This is the OP. How did we move from a discussion of the alleged Great Apostacy to a discussion of polygamy. I’d like to get back on target and see if I can get a response from an LDS member with some doctrinal authority, that defines the Great Apostacy. So far, I’ve heard a lot of personal testimony, but not a lot of church teaching, other than the mere conclusion that the GA occurred.

Please, if you want to discuss the alleged personal peccadillos of Joseph Smith, or the issue of polygamy as LDS doctrine, then please do so ON A DIFFERENT THREAD.

Thanks,

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. - I have to say, as a Catholic, that there are indeed more than a few Catholics here that seem to have lost their charity somewhere in cyberspace. In my experience, the unanimity of the medium tends to have that effect. Bt it is certainly not a phenomenon that is limited to one group. I’ve met more than my share of pugnacious Mormons on this site and others. So IMHO no faith gets to play the high card on that issue. Claiming that the “xyz” Mormon site is filled with “better” people really tells me that you just haven’t spent enough time there to see that sin and lack of charity abounds everywhere. So, despite my observations, I think we all should stick to policing our own personal conduct. That is certainly challenge enough for me.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a beam to remove from my eye.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Could you state the “facts” please.

Just for the record… not supposition, not innuendo, not opinion… just the facts please. Primary sources will be appreciated.

… and just curious here… this is a thread about The Great Apostasy. Since you apparently feel that historical LDS leader and their practices are relevant, may we safely assume that Stephen VI, Urban VI, Clement VII, John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, Leo X, Boniface VII, et all are appropriate for discussion?

… or would that be off topic?

Unless you believe they relate somehow to the Great Apostacy, these men would be off topic. Please, give me your (name removed by moderator)ut on the topic at hand.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ronald_g_w]

I have to say that I am surprised by the behavior I find here from some of the discussants.

My home message board is and LDS site and we have some Protestants and Catholics that post with us there. There are treated as warm friend or honored guests,

Here, some also treat us warmly but others are outright unChristian and nasty, On another thread one said, out of the blue, that Mormons are the best liars in the world, Others will insult or demean in most every post, Here, from what I can tell, on a thread about the apostasy, accusations of made about LDS leader’s character.

It is very bizarre. I don’t agree with many RCC beliefs and enjoy debating the merits but I would stand with the Catholics against anyone who would denigrate and marginalize them or be dishonest about them, or claim that they were liars or not Christian or any such malarky.

We disagree with them but they are our fellow brothers and sisters. When they are lessened, we are lessened. Same for all people of faith and honesty. I don’t mind getting into the fray when attacked and maligned or lied about, but what’s the point of attacking just to attack? There’s no point at all.

you will probably find those who fit your concerns are ex LDS

 

[ronald_g_w]

I have not read everything that has been said

Catholic claim their line of authority can be traced directly to St Peter who suffered martyrdom in 67 A.D.St Linusis said to have succeeded him the same year, Cletus succeeded him in 78 A.D. and St Clement became bishop of Rome in 90 A.D.

would this be correct ?

 

[Snow]

I have not read everything that has been said

Catholic claim their line of authority can be traced directly to St Peter who suffered martyrdom in 67 A.D.St Linusis said to have succeeded him the same year, Cletus succeeded him in 78 A.D. and St Clement became bishop of Rome in 90 A.D.

would this be correct ?

Here’s what one (among many who agree) says:

"Vatican propaganda notwithstanding, Peter was never the “bishop of Rome… The first man who can be designated “bishop of Rome” with historical certainty is Anicetus, who stands eleventh in the Vatican’s somewhat fanciful list of early “popes…” Thomas Cahill, Pope John XXIII, Penguin Books 2002, pp1-2

I have addressed it more fully here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4411372&postcount=61

and here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4411375&postcount=62

On the Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession thread

 

[kevangreen]

Here’s what one (among many who agree) says:

"Vatican propaganda notwithstanding, Peter was never the “bishop of Rome… The first man who can be designated “bishop of Rome” with historical certainty is Anicetus, who stands eleventh in the Vatican’s somewhat fanciful list of early “popes…” Thomas Cahill, Pope John XXIII, Penguin Books 2002, pp1-2

you can compare mormons to the little red riding hood,
they come to your door as sheep, but once they get in they wolves.

 

[Snow]

you can compare mormons to the little red riding hood,
they come to your door as sheep, but once they get in they wolves.

Grow up.

 

[kevangreen]

Grow up.

calling like it is a common catholic trait,
the bible even warns about it
2Cor. 11:3-6
**3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ., or a different gospel from the on 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received e you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to least inferior to those super-apostles. 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? **