LDS: Apostasy

[sterryfamily]

For our Mormon friends on the site:

I know you basically say that the Catholic Church was, once, the Church that Christ established but that it soon fell into apostasy, even though Christ promised that “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matt 16:18) against the Church. I understand that you say that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church, but that men chose to, in essence, abandon the Church. Therefore, God “pulled” the Church back up to heaven, later to be restored through Joseph Smith.

My questions to you are;

1. If Christ’s promise to protect the Church against the gates of hell 2,000 years ago, still allowed for men to screw it up, does the same apply today? Is it possible that men could abandon the true church as you see it, the LDS? Is it theoretically possible that this could have already happened?
2. What new promise has God made to the new iteration of His Church to protect it from error? How will this new promise be held up?

 

[courtiswa]

For our Mormon friends on the site:

I know you basically say that the Catholic Church was, once, the Church that Christ established but that it soon fell into apostasy, even though Christ promised that “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matt 16:18) against the Church. I understand that you say that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church, but that men chose to, in essence, abandon the Church. Therefore, God “pulled” the Church back up to heaven, later to be restored through Joseph Smith.

My questions to you are;

1. If Christ’s promise to protect the Church against the gates of hell 2,000 years ago, still allowed for men to screw it up, does the same apply today? Is it possible that men could abandon the true church as you see it, the LDS? Is it theoretically possible that this could have already happened?
2. What new promise has God made to the new iteration of His Church to protect it from error? How will this new promise be held up?

As one who has friends that are Mormons, a Old Testament scripture (Daniel 2:44) foretells the eventual restoration of Christ’s church, meaning in my view, despite Catholicism’s claim that the church has never left the earth, do you dispute Old Testament prophets who saw the eventual breaking up into different groups, if you will, of Christ’s Church? In my thinking, the church to be established by Christ later in time, would lost its authority and break into different groups, or referring to now, the Catholic church exists, the Protestants came to be and my friends that are Mormon are in existance.

 

[TheosisM]

As one who has friends that are Mormons, a Old Testament scripture (Daniel 2:44) foretells the eventual restoration of Christ’s church, meaning in my view, despite Catholicism’s claim that the church has never left the earth, do you dispute Old Testament prophets who saw the eventual breaking up into different groups, if you will, of Christ’s Church? In my thinking, the church to be established by Christ later in time, would lost its authority and break into different groups, or referring to now, the Catholic church exists, the Protestants came to be and my friends that are Mormon are in existance.

so daniel 2 is referencing the Great Apostasy and the restoration?

 

[courtiswa]

It refers to both, as I understand it. The church would be established by Christ and break into pieces, or different churches, if you will, showing our day now.

Obviously, there would have to be a apostasy — no need for the restoration if the church was not in apostasy.

In my view, the coming to be of the Protestants was in difference with Catholicism.

Mormons are not a breakaway of a Protestant church, which explains the First Vision and Joseph Smith.

 

[zerinus]

so daniel 2 is referencing the Great Apostasy and the restoration?

Daniel 2 refers to a kingdom that God would set up in the last days that would destroy all other kingdoms, and itself endure forever. We believe that that kingdom refers to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[ricko]

As one who has friends that are Mormons, a Old Testament scripture (Daniel 2:44) foretells the eventual restoration of Christ’s church, meaning in my view, despite Catholicism’s claim that the church has never left the earth, do you dispute Old Testament prophets who saw the eventual breaking up into different groups, if you will, of Christ’s Church? In my thinking, the church to be established by Christ later in time, would lost its authority and break into different groups, or referring to now, the Catholic church exists, the Protestants came to be and my friends that are Mormon are in existance.

Daniel 2 is referring to the Babylorian (gold), Median (silver), Persian (bronze) and the Hellionastic (iron). Another problem with your interpertation of Daniel is that it conflicts with what Jesus said and that was that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. It also conflicts with His statement that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from teaching error always and that Jesus would be with His Church always.

 

[courtiswa]

The dialogue on this issue validates, in my view, about apostasy.

The last poster has a different understanding of the scripture noted, Daniel 2:44. So who is right?

One thing I respect my Mormon friends about is that they understand the Bible to be correct so far as it was translated correctly. The different translations among whatever church obviously has different interpretation among the churches.

 

[sterryfamily]

Hey, Zerinus, I am interested in your views regarding the OP.

 

[zerinus]

Hey, Zerinus, I am interested in your views regarding the OP.

My post was also a reply to your OP.

 

[romesweethome]

As one who has friends that are Mormons, a Old Testament scripture (Daniel 2:44) foretells the eventual restoration of Christ’s church, meaning in my view, despite Catholicism’s claim that the church has never left the earth, do you dispute Old Testament prophets who saw the eventual breaking up into different groups, if you will, of Christ’s Church? In my thinking, the church to be established by Christ later in time, would lost its authority and break into different groups, or referring to now, the Catholic church exists, the Protestants came to be and my friends that are Mormon are in existance.

Can you show me where in the history of the Catholic Church, that the Church “lost its authority”?

I would think that this would be very evident and visible, both from the catholic and non catholic perspectives in the writings of history.

Also, the LDS seem to be relying upon their own interpretation of the verses in daniel, and where in scripture are they given the authority to interpret scripture?

peace, rsh

 

[romesweethome]

It refers to both, as I understand it. The church would be established by Christ and break into pieces, or different churches, if you will, showing our day now.

Obviously, there would have to be a apostasy — no need for the restoration if the church was not in apostasy.

In my view, the coming to be of the Protestants was in difference with Catholicism.

Mormons are not a breakaway of a Protestant church, which explains the First Vision and Joseph Smith.

The only apostacy I see on a grand scale is the protestant attempted reformation, and the chaos and divisions that followed which still plague their numbers today.

peace, rsh

 

[romesweethome]

The dialogue on this issue validates, in my view, about apostasy.

The last poster has a different understanding of the scripture noted, Daniel 2:44. So who is right?

One thing I respect my Mormon friends about is that they understand the Bible to be correct so far as it was translated correctly. The different translations among whatever church obviously has different interpretation among the churches.

All of the mormon missionaries that I invited to my house did not know scripture at all. In fact, they admitted it. When challenged with scripture that seeminlgy contradicted their beliefs, they claimed that many things in scripture were not reliable because men had perversed the scriptures when they translated it many years ago. It seems that only those things that fit the LDS teachings are what remain true in scripture.

peace, rsh

 

[Javl]

If the Bible is not translated correctly, why then doesn’t the LDS translate it? Then instead of complaining about it it would be translated correctly and we can all profit from it.
There are many ancient manuscripts available to do this and I am sure that Mormon scholars would be up to doing the correct translating.

I always thought that St. Jerome did a good job in translating the scriptures.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[sterryfamily]

Zerinus,

Thank you for your response. I wish we could get more LDS responses. I am really interested in your answers to my questions. Which brings me to you, Zerinus. Your response essentially confirms what I presented as my understanding of the LDS positon on the apostasy and restoration, but you didn’t address my questions. For me, could you please take a stab at them? I am sincerely interested in your thoughts.

It is true I will not agree with your position, but I will respect it. I am just wondering what you guys think of these issues. I am not looking to pick your response apart, just to understand your view.

Thanks again.

 

[ParkerD]

For our Mormon friends on the site:

I know you basically say that the Catholic Church was, once, the Church that Christ established but that it soon fell into apostasy, even though Christ promised that “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matt 16:18) against the Church. I understand that you say that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church, but that men chose to, in essence, abandon the Church. Therefore, God “pulled” the Church back up to heaven, later to be restored through Joseph Smith.

My questions to you are;

1. If Christ’s promise to protect the Church against the gates of hell 2,000 years ago, still allowed for men to screw it up, does the same apply today? Is it possible that men could abandon the true church as you see it, the LDS? Is it theoretically possible that this could have already happened?
2. What new promise has God made to the new iteration of His Church to protect it from error? How will this new promise be held up?

Sterryfamily,
People abandon truth and true teachings for many reasons, just as the Jews did it anciently. They may want their own “version” of what they believe to be more compatible with what appeals to them or to others, or they may be drawn to a charismatic person who excites them with an appeal of charisma or of using some verses of scripture to justify a certain belief that drifts away from following the Holy Spirit and instead follows that charismatic person.

What are different characteristics today are that (1) God knew precisely whom to place on earth at any particular time for His specific purposes to be fulfilled. He has perfect foreknowledge of us and our strengths and weaknesses. He is able to guide the choosing of apostles such that although even a few of those have broken away within modern LDS history, the fact that there have been twelve divinely known and divinely called apostles has enabled the modern LDS church to remain doctrinally pure.(2) Daniel 2:44 says that it is not “theoretically” something to think is “possible”, since God absolutely does know what He is doing and knew what to guide His prophets to write as prophecy, knowing the prophecies would be precisely fulfilled.

The Book of Mormon as a second witness of the Bible and a purifier of Biblical understanding, is the greatest safeguard against another full-blown drifting away from the pure doctrine of Christ’s wonderfully simple and wonderfully profound gospel. The two sources of pure doctrinal teachings complement one another and bring a level of doctrinal clarity and understanding that is greater than having the Bible alone. A person who reads the Book of Mormon and the Bible both, can be anchored to the Holy Spirit as their guide more faithfully than with the Bible alone. The Holy Spirit is, of course, a sure and certain guide to the fullness of all truth. But amidst all the many other clamoring voices within our world today, distinguishing the voice of the Holy Spirit must be done carefully, prayerfully, and with the examples provided in many, many scriptures.

 

[TheosisM]

The interesting thing about Daniel 2:44 is the way we all interpret it. Catholics could say that it is referencing the first Church that was established, which we believe is the Catholic Church. It seems as if Mormons believe that it is referencing the restoration of the fallen away church. So, if I’m understanding this correctly, they are including the original church in these previous “kingdoms”, while Catholics of course do not.

 

[TheosisM]

It refers to both, as I understand it. The church would be established by Christ and break into pieces, or different churches, if you will, showing our day now.

Obviously, there would have to be a apostasy — no need for the restoration if the church was not in apostasy.

In my view, the coming to be of the Protestants was in difference with Catholicism.

Mormons are not a breakaway of a Protestant church, which explains the First Vision and Joseph Smith.

Well that’s all up to how you view the situation. Catholics don’t believe that the Church is broken into pieces, and still exists in its fullness as the Catholic Church. Orthodox would say the same thing about themselves.

Why do you believe that Daniel 2 is referencing a Great Apostasy of the original church?

 

[zerinus]

1. If Christ’s promise to protect the Church against the gates of hell 2,000 years ago, still allowed for men to screw it up, does the same apply today? Is it possible that men could abandon the true church as you see it, the LDS? Is it theoretically possible that this could have already happened?

I don’t think that you understand that scripture correctly. Since this is a question that is asked of LDS all the time, I have already answered it in my Blog which you can read here. Stroll down the post to my answers to Objections 6 and 7.

2) What new promise has God made to the new iteration of His Church to protect it from error? How will this new promise be held up?

The prophecy of Daniel is one.

 

[sterryfamily]

Thanks for the response, Parker. I would like to clarify a couple of your points. I know we will disagree and I am not criticizing your points, I just want to be sure I am fully understanding your position.

Sterryfamily,
People abandon truth and true teachings for many reasons, just as the Jews did it anciently. They may want their own “version” of what they believe to be more compatible with what appeals to them or to others, or they may be drawn to a charismatic person who excites them with an appeal of charisma or of using some verses of scripture to justify a certain belief that drifts away from following the Holy Spirit and instead follows that charismatic person.

What are different characteristics today are that (1) God knew precisely whom to place on earth at any particular time for His specific purposes to be fulfilled. He has perfect foreknowledge of us and our strengths and weaknesses. He is able to guide the choosing of apostles such that although even a few of those have broken away within modern LDS history, the fact that there have been twelve divinely known and divinely called apostles has enabled the modern LDS church to remain doctrinally pure.

In the Mormon mind, was God not able to (or simply decided not to) guide the choosing of the Church leaders the first time around?

(2) Daniel 2:44 says that it is not “theoretically” something to think is “possible”, since God absolutely does know what He is doing and knew what to guide His prophets to write as prophecy, knowing the prophecies would be precisely fulfilled.

The Book of Mormon as a second witness of the Bible and a purifier of Biblical understanding, is the greatest safeguard against another full-blown drifting away from the pure doctrine of Christ’s wonderfully simple and wonderfully profound gospel. The two sources of pure doctrinal teachings complement one another and bring a level of doctrinal clarity and understanding that is greater than having the Bible alone. A person who reads the Book of Mormon and the Bible both, can be anchored to the Holy Spirit as their guide more faithfully than with the Bible alone. The Holy Spirit is, of course, a sure and certain guide to the fullness of all truth. But amidst all the many other clamoring voices within our world today, distinguishing the voice of the Holy Spirit must be done carefully, prayerfully, and with the examples provided in many, many scriptures.

In the quote above, you mention that the Bible and the BOM together bring a higher level of doctrinal clarity. In your first paragraph you mention reasons why people may drft to their own “version” of what they believe. To answer my question in the OP are you saying that the combination of 1) the Bible and the BOM, along with 2) God’s divine guidance on the choosing of apostles, provides us an implicit guarantee that the church never has nor never will fall into apostasy?

 

[KathleenGee]

I just read the piece on why we are not the true Christian church and the loss of the priesthood and subsequently the loss of the sacraments.

Thank you for the reference because it is the first one that makes sense… in making the allegation.

However, the Catholic/Orthodox priest is of quite a different genre isn’t it from the Mormon model?

The bishops are the successor of the Apostles and ordain by the laying of hands…this succession never broken.

The priest is under the bishop, the second highest rank in the local church. His charism is to be a presbyter, an intercessor between God and man. There has never been a break in the grace of the sacraments.

The sacraments are visible signs and God dwells, nurtures and restores us to grace…Never in our history have the sacraments had their ‘light’ turned off…Show me the date and time the Catholic priesthood was lost.

I have to read your reference again…a great concern is that priests were later not to marry and that we have had a small t tradition of not eating meat on Friday…? We can eat meat on Friday now after Vatican II…so now we are restored?

It was scandals…and hard times and then the burden of lay people supporting priests with their family, that there was sufficient grace in the church to preserve celibacy for the Latin rite; the Orthodox rites allow marriage.

The work of the priest today is totally consuming. I have a friend I have known for 35 years as a priest and if he had a family with Catholic discipline he would not have had the outreach and service to so many people’s lives. Most priests are happy and fulfilled in their lives without being married.

These are ecclesial disciplines…having a celibate priesthood and past practices of abstaining from meat one day a week in union with the day Christ died on the cross certainly doesn’t take away the validity of our priesthood or deny the power of the sacraments!!!

I think the downfall of Mormonism is not knowing ancient, documented Church history…and just the history of liturgy itself. The apostles in turned entrusted the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ to their followers, Church Fathers, and bishops…those who would accurately carry on the Apostolic tradition.

And our faith is completed and defined at the Council of Nicea, the Nicene Creed. Here is defined the true nature of Jesus Christ, His life and mission, and our place in it.

There are terms and words that developed such as Pope, an English term, the various liturgical rites reflecting different regions…dealing with the multitude of races and cultures. Nothing more than that, and always bearing witness to the True Gospel.

You have to separate the Traditions that do not change from the small, cultural ecclesial traditions.

I will share with you as I have done so with others regarding the Catholic Church’s understanding in how to read Scripture.

You must always consider the intent of the author, the message, and recognize the same Holy Spirit then as today. You must recognize the different senses of Scripture. There is the literal, the spiritual, the 3 sub senses—allegorical, moral and angogical or eternal signficance. You have to take into account the 3 languages and their imagery and the problem of language itself and its time of use of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. These conditions are the work of countless Scriptural theologians working throughout the world and throughout time.

From these different levels of interpretation and understanding, we as Catholics must be especially attentive to the Whole of Scripture, reading the Bible in content and unity in light of the Sacred Tradition of the whole Church…and that is 2,000 years…from Jesus and His Oral Tradition to His apostles, note not just one – but 12, to the Church Fathers and bishops.

We do not draw one phrase out of Scripture and then take another piece out of another part of Scripture and create a new take on it…we have councils, debates, studies…by many people. It was the work of many years and many people for the Catholic Church to assemble and put together the Bible, and this work personified in that of St. Jerome.

You should get hold of some Catholic books on ancient liturgy. Check out the liturgy of St. James the Lesser, the head of the Church of Jerusalem and then attend a Catholic Mass and you will experience the same intent, spirit, sense, parts of liturgy and prayers the same then as today. I attended a Mass at a Maronite church. We attended the Eucharistic Liturgy of St. John the Evangelist.

Ancient Rome…new converts went to the tombs of the dead because ancient Romans were afraid to enter there…and they broke bread in primitive Masses…bringing the light of Christ into the world from the tombs of the dead…Remarkable…

There has been a complete blackout on the life of the early church, our liturgies, our saints and the witness they lived in the Gospel that Mormons know nothing of, and their lives are reflected in every generation.