For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[guanophore]

Dont know what you are asking

It is possible that I wont find it as I have never felt the need to look for it as it stands to reason to myself that the Apostles are the foundation that the Lords built his church upon and as such the authority remains with them.

Having said that the succession of the keys of the kingdom are vital to the topic at hand.

You stated that the church was built on the Apostles, and “as such the authority remains with them”. I have heard this argument many times, in that the authority of the Apostles died with them. I have heard this arguement used to deny Apostolic Succession. Is it also used as the basis for the Great Apostasy?

 

[guanophore]

1. There is no “PROOF” that there was, or wasn’t an apostasy. In my view, the apostasy is really a function of having (and losing) God-given authority to act in his name. Since authority is a faith-based, not a fact-based reality, any continuity or interruption in authority is a matter of faith, not proof.

Well, now, isn’t that mighty convenient.

No, authority is not faith based, it is based on Divine appointment. All authority comes from God, and when God gave it to the Church, He gave His spirit to guarantee that the Church would not fall. While it is true that many individuals have apostasized, the Church has continued to keep the treasure entrusted to her by Christ.

However, we haven’t addressed your question very well, so later I’ll give an overview of my current thinking of what the apostasy consisted of.

Thank you for being patient.

I look forward to this.

I think, or I have heard that there is some mounting belief by historians that Peter was likely in Rome. However, to my knowledge there is no historical consensus or evidence that while in Rome, he was the Bishop of Rome.

I still do not understand why this matters. The Apostles travelled all over the known world spreading the gospel, and appointing bishops to shepherd the communities of faith they had established.

Are you saying that Peter is not chief of the apostles?

This question has been posed here dozens of times and so far no one has provided any historical evidence of Peter supposed monoepiscopal role in Rome. I say that’s because there is no such evidence.

I say that I don’t understand why it is necessary. The historical record indicates that Peter and Paul worked together to build up the Church in Rome.

This is a very simple matter. You say that history attests. Okay. Please post the historical (not Tradition) evidence that Peter appointed Linus as the monoepiscopal Bishop of Rome and that Linus appointed Cletus and Cletus Clement.

Why is it so important to you that the elders not be in communion together over the Church? How is this foundational to the Apostasy?

That would probably settle it.

I doubt that, but I am curious anyway.

 

[ronald_g_w]

You stated that the church was built on the Apostles, and “as such the authority remains with them”. I have heard this argument many times, in that the authority of the Apostles died with them. I have heard this arguement used to deny Apostolic Succession. Is it also used as the basis for the Great Apostasy?

In my opinion YES

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

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.

Thanks for the response! I appreciate it. The reason I ask is that although many people believe in an apostasy, the specifics of it are very vague. It seems that the apostasy is something that is taken for granted, something assumed, something that everybody just knows, and so specifics are not needed.

But if they are pressed for more details, you get varied answers: The apostasy began during the apostle’s time, just after, or at the council of Nicea, etc. To make it more confusing, different groups have different ideas about what the apostates were apostate from. That is, what ideas the apostates had that were false. Opinions, then, become important in this discussion.

I myself agree with the explanation, that the apostasy is a withdrawal of Christ’s authority to act in his name, because Catholics and LDS alike agree that there IS such a thing as authority that God gives to man. (Jehovah’s Witnesses would also agree, because they claim they are the ones God has chosen to be His earthly representative.) However, I presume that most Protestants would disagree with this idea of earthly authority, but would say that the apostasy is more in the line of change of beliefs, teaching incorrectly.

Now, next, the question arises as to why God would withdraw His authority, and why He would allow His church to act improperly. And, if He withdrew His authority once, maybe He will do it again, and maybe already has.

Mormolics, and Cathomons. I hadn’t heard those terms!

 

[guanophore]

Okay - but the supposition is that NT authors were also inspired - that is, the truth was revealed to them,

Do you not agree with this supposition?

thus Paul didn’t have to rely on tradition (many believe) but rather the Holy Spirit.

You are making a distinction that does not, in fact, exist. The reason that Sacred Tradition is infallible is that it comes from the same Source as the Holy Scriptures. It is not “but rather the HS” but the HS through the Sacred Tradition.

In fact Paul did rely on this Sacred Tradition. That is what he is referring to when he says “I received”. Sacred Tradition is that Teaching of Jesus that it preserved by the HS and passed on to the faithful through the authority appointed by Christ.

If we only had the word of the Church I wouldn’t believe in the resurrection.

This is interesting, because that is what you have. I am curious, why would you make such a statement? Do you think that Jesus is a liar? A weakling?

Fortunately we have the word of NT authors as well... and if you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, modern prophets.

Well, I agree, but the whole of the NT represents the “word of the Church” which you say you reject.

I almost don’t know what to say to that. Ordinary oral history may be valid enough for you, but it doesn’t cut it for me.

Then you will have to re-evaluate your Sources. The entire NT was created from that Oral history that you seem to think is insufficient.

Papias is an excellent case in point. He wrote between 110 and 140 CE and collected, and believe apparently, oral traditions. He demonstrated the early Christian preference for oral over written history. He also shows us just how destructive oral tradition is. He recorded many outlandish claims as if they were true; for example he reported that Judas’ head became bloated to greater than the width of a wagon train and that his eyes became lost in his flesh and that the stench of the place where he died maintained a stench so bad that no one could approach it even in the days of Papias himself. (from book 4 of the Expositions, quoted by Apollinaris of Laodicea, cf. footnote 23 in M p. 53)

It seems that you are holding the literary devices of a poet on the same level as the NT.

Many poets and writers of fiction/history write “as if it were true”. This is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority to ditinquish between what was fiction/myth, an what is Sacred Tradition. You notice none of the writings of Papias made it into the NT.
Neither did theo 400+ other writings claiming to be inspired at the time the NT was canonized. I think your example is one of the best proofs of the HS guiding the Church.

Can we assume that you find the oral traditions as reported by Papias to be historically acceptable?

To the extent that the writings of Papias contain any of the Sacred Traditions (teachings of the Apostles) yes. This is the case with all the writings of the Fathers, doctors, theologians etc. of the Church. To the extent that they reflect the infallible inerrant Sacred Treaching, we find them acceptable testimonies to the faith.

However, even when they are not, they are certainly acceptable as representations of history.

 

[guanophore]

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”).

Well, not “completely” false. Ok, then suppose we concede the point? Suppose we revise the statement to say “the great apostasy is a fable embraced by the Mormons that has no basis in history or divine revelation that is used to justify disobedience to the authority provided by Christ”.

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.

Let’s see. If we concede the point that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, have been drowned in abominable idoatry, how does this in any way invalidate the teaching of the Church? It seems clear that scripture indicates it is possible for the faithful to fall into sin. How does this equate to the Holy Bride of Christ, whose teaching they have abandoned, falling into sin?

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:

Now here is a very wise man. This is a very true statement about Baptists.

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.)

Sometimes divine revelation is given to the ignorant. He must not realize that no such apostles would be sent, since none can meet the qualifications of an apostle.

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)

You have shown that the notion of apostasy existed before Mormonism. This does not seem difficult, since it was already revealed by the HS in the NT. What you have failed to show is that such apostasy has any relation to the Catholic Church.

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.)

LOL

“noted theologians and bible students”



Is this the foundation upon which the Mormon faith is built?

FWIW, I agree with the statement.

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.)

“eminent historian”



Ok. You are right that the Church did not destroy paganism. It is still alive and well today. Talk to any Wiccan. However, the Church has never adopted Paganism.

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

Note: I already know that you cannot.

No, I suspect not! Given the caliber of sources you will accept as authoritative, probably we can make a case for mice turning into horses drawing a carriage made from a gourd.

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.

I think this selection of quotes from you is quite exemplary of “things made up”.

 

[Snow]

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

I know, I apologize. I’m behind in my posts. I’ll get to it.

 

[mfbukowski]

Is it a full moon or something?

I know – and there are a bunch of them here – where is this coming from? Halloween is over!

 

[mfbukowski]

Which Mormon prophets witnessed the resurrection?

Want the real answer that you are not ready for?

The answer is “probably all of them”.

 

[guanophore]

Early Christianity was not unified, starting from early on after the apostles’ death.

This is a false statement, but I am curious about what you use as a basis to make it. I am also curious about how you think the Church got from unity evident in the NT to the lack of unity by the next generation.

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.

I would like to know what the credentials are for a person who is asserted to be “one fo the very best textual critics”.

What were some of these "competing beliefs and sects?

What does Constantine have to do with “orthodoxy”?
v

That was the particular movement that prevailed. Had other competing movements prevailed, Christianity would look very different today.

It sounds like you believe that Jesus went back on His promises, and allowed a “particular movement to prevail” that was not His will.

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.

This is helpful in understanding what you mean when you use the term “apostasy”, so it is a good starting point. However, you have not defined what you mean by the term. Can we leave the notion that “apostasy results in the loss of authority” and go back to what the word “apostasy” means?

I am also curious how, if all authority was lost, how can the NT have any authority whatsoever?

There is much scholarly material on the apostasy so you would have to be specific about what you want a reference for.

Your definition of the term, without using the term itself.

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.

Well, we see it differently.

But this is one good way to set the stage, if you really don’t have any facts to back yourself up on your flimsy assertion.

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.

Yes, I know there are people who seem to think they can be both.

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

I do believe this, but I am not sure what you mean by it. How did people “apostasize”? What do you mean by that term?

 

[cthulhubryan]

I would like to know what the credentials are for a person who is asserted to be “one of the very best textual critics”.

Bart Erhman has his Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary (A Presbyterian seminary) It should be noted that it PC-USA and no longer follows the old calvin creed about destroying the Catholic church.

His primary line is that as the bible was translated and retranslated that errors were introduced and became part of the work. He also seems to like to undercut much of what is seen as “Catholic” views from the bible.
His curriculum vitae may be found at bartdehrman.com/curriculum.htm

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I can trace the Priesthood Authority bestowed on me by those having the authority to do so back to Peter James and John who were ordained Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ.

With a big gap in time between Joseph Smith and his immediate predecessor, whom you cannot point to. Was it Peter? John? Paul? Some other bishopr or apostle? I’d like a straight answer and not more games, please.
ronand g w:

Therefore the LDS church has absolutly no problem with succession.

ONLY if you assume the necessity of a restoration, which seems to be where LDS theology begins… with the ASSUMPTION that all christian churches including the Catholic Church are entirely corrupted and unworthy.
ronand g w:

As far as a need for a restoration there is more than enough evidence and scriptures quoted / posted on this thread alone to make one sit up and take note but it is obvious to me that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

And yet, there’s been no attempt to explain it for me from an LDS perspective. There is only inuendo and speculation, and assumption.
ronald g w:

I tell you what Robert -IF- you sincerely want to know if there was a falling away from the ture doctrines taught by Jesus and his Apostles and if it was necessary for them to be restored why dont you make it a personal thing between you and your Heavenly Father.

Don’t make this about me. I started this thread to ask LDS members to define their understanding of the Great Apostacy, and here we are 290-something posts later without an answer. WHY, if the Great Apostacy is necessary to justify the Restoration that is the foundation of your church, is this such a hard thing for you to do?
ronald g w:

Read the scriptures related to the subject, then study it out in your mind, then with sincerity ask God. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

What makes you think I haven’t already done this? You sound so condescending here. I want to know what your explanation is because if you cannot establish the Great Apostacy then there is no basis for your claim to be the restored church. There is no need for a restoration without first establishing the complete apostacy of Christianity.

That is the issue, and I have yet to see you or any of your LDS brethren describe for me a workable definition of what you believe to be the Great Apostacy. It seems to be the same elusive ghost that the scriptural support for sola fide is to the protestants. So, really, if you can’t get off the ground on such a fundamental issue as this, I find your remaining claims to authority - which each hinge on the need for a restoration - to be completely without merit. If you disagree, then stop attacking me, stop deflecting the issue, and simply provide for me the LDS definition for the Great Apostacy.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. I have read scripture. I have asked God to enlighten me on this issue, and I asked in faith. He showed me the truths of the Catholic faith. Is God a liar? Is he telling me one thing is true while telling you another is true? Or can it be that one of us is actually wrong?

 

[Stephen168]

That is the issue, and I have yet to see you or any of your LDS brethren describe for me a workable definition of what you believe to be the Great Apostacy. It seems to be the same elusive ghost that the scriptural support for sola fide is to the protestants. So, really, if you can’t get off the ground on such a fundamental issue as this, I find your remaining claims to authority - which each hinge on the need for a restoration - to be completely without merit. If you disagree, then stop attacking me, stop deflecting the issue, and simply provide for me the LDS definition for the Great Apostacy.

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.

Snow is going to lay it all out for us. After waiting for 4 days now, I’m sure it will be very clear when s/he finally does.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

The passage is not speaking about Jesus Christ. The passage is speaking about the virtue of wisdom, which has been personified for literary effect.

Jesus Christ was God in the beginning. He was the Word and he was with God and He was God. Jn. 1:1. And the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. Jn. 1: 14. How do you reconcile these texts with your understanding that Jesus is not both with God and God? (And also note the lack of the “a” indefinite article in John, Chapter 1.)

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. Before you get to this, you could also define the Great Apostacy.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Snow is going to lay it all out for us. After waiting for 4 days now, I’m sure it will be very clear when s/he finally does.

Great news. I’m waiting with coffee in hand. See → :compcoff:

 

[Snow]

Early Christianity was not unified, starting from early on after the apostles’ death.

This is a false statement, but I am curious about what you use as a basis to make it. I am also curious about how you think the Church got from unity evident in the NT to the lack of unity by the next generation.

I welcome your attempts to prove that I am wrong. Have at it.

I would like to know what the credentials are for a person who is asserted to be “one fo the very best textual critics”.

Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985
M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

religion.unc.edu/faculty/BartDEhrman/BartCV.htm

What were some of these "competing beliefs and sects?

amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830

What does Constantine have to do with “orthodoxy”?

Council of Nicea

It sounds like you believe that Jesus went back on His promises, and allowed a “particular movement to prevail” that was not His will.

I hardly know what to say when folks try about pull that kind of stunt - that unless I agree with your opinion, I think God lies or reneges. It’s not really worthy of a response.

This is helpful in understanding what you mean when you use the term “apostasy”, so it is a good starting point. However, you have not defined what you mean by the term. Can we leave the notion that “apostasy results in the loss of authority” and go back to what the word “apostasy” means?

The words used in the bible - especially the Septuigint used by early Christians are:

Apostasia: a falling away, defection, apostasy

Planao: to lead away from the truth, to lead into error, to deceive

Aphistemi: rebellion or departing

I am also curious how, if all authority was lost, how can the NT have any authority whatsoever?

The Bible was written before the apostasy.

But this is one good way to set the stage, if you really don’t have any facts to back yourself up on your flimsy assertion.

I’ve got plenty of debates going on with lightweights, If your simply going to label (flimsy) instead of dialogue, I’ll take a pass.

Yes, I know there are people who seem to think they can be both.

I do believe this, but I am not sure what you mean by it. How did people “apostasize”? What do you mean by that term?

That’s a good question and I don’t think it has been answered well yet - though I haven’t read all the posts from those contributing to the topic. I intend to spend some time this week crafting a considered response.

 

[Snow]

Now, next, the question arises as to why God would withdraw His authority, and why He would allow His church to act improperly. And, if He withdrew His authority once, maybe He will do it again, and maybe already has.

I think the Bible is a history of apostasy and restoration. It sets the pattern.

As to why? Free Agency. Man leaves God, not vice versa.

 

[Snow]

Well, not “completely” false. Ok, then suppose we concede the point? Suppose we revise the statement to say “the great apostasy is a fable embraced by the Mormons that has no basis in history or divine revelation that is used to justify disobedience to the authority provided by Christ”.

Yeah - how bout not. As I said in post above,I am involved in enough lightweight discussions at present to not be motivated to get into it again with someone who would rather label and dismiss (“fable”) than have a meaningful dialogue… hence I won’t bother to read the rest of this post of yours for now.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Originally Posted by ronald g w
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.

Posted by Robert in SD: The passage is not speaking about Jesus Christ. The passage is speaking about the virtue of wisdom, which has been personified for literary effect.

I agree with you that the chapter as a whole is speaking about wisdom but within that frame work it is refering to an individual. Who is that individual, “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work” this still puts the Word there at the begining of Gods work as we know it. In the KJV we read the Lord and the sons of men possessed wisdom in the pre-existence, this is putting us there.
I still read from these verses that Jesus is God the Fathers Son seperate in person / being and is an individual God. Why is He a Son if he is God the Father this does not add up. V30 KJV " … as one brought up with him,…"

Posted by Robert: Jesus Christ was God in the beginning. He was the Word and he was with God and He was God. Jn. 1:1. And the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. Jn. 1: 14. How do you reconcile these texts with your understanding that Jesus is not both with God and God? (And also note the lack of the “a” indefinite article in John, Chapter 1.)

Peace,
-Robert

the lack of the “a” noted ( who says someone did not leave it out?) for there are other scriptures that clearly show them as father and son “seperate”

John 20: 17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Why would he go to himself ???

Heb 1:2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

How can he be an heir of that which is his in the first place ???
Or does the Son of man actually recieve an inheritance from His Father

Dan 7 KJV
9 ¶ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

P.S. Before you get to this, you could also define the Great Apostacy.

Will get to this, and the other post, need to do something and also think about it

 

[ronald_g_w]

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.

QUOTE]

Robert in SD; With a big gap in time between Joseph Smith and his immediate predecessor, whom you cannot point to. Was it Peter? John? Paul? Some other bishopr or apostle? I’d like a straight answer and not more games, please./

QUOTE]

JS recieved the Priesthood from the resurrected imortal Peter James & John the Apostles of old who were set apart by Jesus Christ himself. Yes heavenly beings can visit the earth.

ONLY if you assume the necessity of a restoration, which seems to be where LDS theology begins… with the ASSUMPTION that all christian churches including the Catholic Church are entirely corrupted and unworthy.

I do not know where you all get this thing that the GA revolves around the Catholic church being entirely corrupted and unworthy. As I have said before that all it takes is a few degrees and we are off course. Now I have my thoughts and I think most would agree that it all comes down to authority.

Don’t make this about me. I started this thread to ask LDS members to define their understanding of the Great Apostacy, and here we are 290-something posts later without an answer. WHY, if the Great Apostacy is necessary to justify the Restoration that is the foundation of your church, is this such a hard thing for you to do?

What makes you think I haven’t already done this? You sound so condescending here. (NOT INTENTIONAL) I want to know what your explanation is because if you cannot establish the Great Apostacy then there is no basis for your claim to be the restored church. There is no need for a restoration without first establishing the complete apostacy of Christianity.

That is the issue, and I have yet to see you or any of your LDS brethren describe for me a workable definition of what you believe to be the Great Apostacy. It seems to be the same elusive ghost that the scriptural support for sola fide is to the protestants. So, really, if you can’t get off the ground on such a fundamental issue as this, I find your remaining claims to authority - which each hinge on the need for a restoration - to be completely without merit. If you disagree, then stop attacking me, stop deflecting the issue, and simply provide for me the LDS definition for the Great Apostacy.

Peace,
-Robert

I think we need to find some common ground where we can start and then see where this leads us.

Do we agree that there is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” ?

Do we agree that the apostacy does not necessarily have to be the total or even partial disregard for doctrine ?

Do we agree that the priesthood authority to act in the name of God is critical to the building of the Lords Kingdom here on earth ?

May I sujest we keep our answers to the point and only that info we feel is necessary to put our point across for my sake thanx

P.S. I have read scripture. I have asked God to enlighten me on this issue, and I asked in faith. He showed me the truths of the Catholic faith. Is God a liar? Is he telling me one thing is true while telling you another is true? Or can it be that one of us is actually wrong?

From every thing I’ve read and know it does point to the fact that one of us is actually wrong, and we are being mislead.