LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[zaffiroborant]

Pablope,

I suppose you understand that “James the Lord’s brother”, who was an apostle at the time described in Galatians 1:19, is a different James than the James (the brother of John) who was killed as recorded in Acts 12:2.

The apostles certainly did ordain presbyters and bishops, but those were different positions than the position of an apostle. Paul was not automatically an apostle after he had had his vision on the way to Damascus. He was only described as an apostle after a period of time, but yet had begun to preach, so the sequence was his conversion, his call to preach, then later his call to be an apostle.

Apostleship authority is different than the authority of presbyters or of the seventy or of bishops. The apostles clearly had a presiding authority, and used their presiding authority when they visited different “churches” or gatherings of the members.

And just as clearly, to be a member of The Twelve one had to meet 2 criteria:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.

 

[KathleenGee]

So we are not to be offended that our faith is apostate?

As I read about Mormonism…it is like Western Muslims…it is not the real belief…but an attempt to cover over its past to present itself as something we all have misunderstood or as some belief system as benevolent while it works to deflect and maim the true church of Christ, our faith.

I have learned alot these past few days…

Parker, Flyonthewall and others…I prayed your names today at Mass, I prayed for all Mormons to come to the truth of Christ…

Today is the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe…and I prayed to her to crush the head of the serpent that goes about destroying the unity of faith i n this country or makes people comprising to the truth of the Catholic faith.

 

[flyonthewall]

May I respectfully request for you to quote directly what the Mormon church says about the Trinity, the official statement, so to speak, for all to see.

There is no “official” statement by the church on the Trinity.
We simply don’t believe it to be accurate, and let others have it any way they want.

There is a talk that was given by Elder Holland that mentions the concept of the Trinity:
lds.org/liahona/2007/11/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&format=conference

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”2 We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”3

So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful.

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible

 

[RebeccaJ]

That talk is known here. It is one of the worse twisting of Trinitarian doctrine ever created. Holland should quit pretending like he knows what he is talking about.

 

[Stephen168]

May I add some more…

St Paul, before going an building churches, went to Jerusalem confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18)…and “to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2).” While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James. Thus, before we went on his mission, he obtained approval and was ordained and laid hands on by Church leaders (Acts 11 to 15). So here, Paul is ordained as a successor apostle or bishop. In the churches Paul and Barnabas founded, they established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters and bishops (Titus and Timothy are the well known) in each town (Acts 14:23).
So there is the succession passed on down by the apostles.

From scripture we know:

1. There are many with the title Apostle (one who is sent). The Twelve, the seventy, Barnabas, and Paul……
2. The Twelve by name were the foundation of the Church
3. The Twelve were limited to the first century
4. Only Christ and the Twelve could give the title Apostle to someone.
5. The Apostles passed on their authority to the Bishops.

So yes, the Twelve made Paul and Barnabas Apostles but they (Barnabas and Paul) only had the authority to make Bishops; which is how it has been done ever since.

 

[KathleenGee]

There was St. James the Greater who went out and St. James the Lesser who was the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem which is alleged to have the presence of the Virgin Mary.

I cannot trust Mormon disputes on church history because they cannot even approach it.

There was no Great Apostasy at the beginning of Christianity, nothing to prove it was even happening…there was and always be those present who reject the full gospel of Christ.

To deny the laying on of hands to their successors, to say the early Church was apostate…how in the world do Mormons even think how this makes Christians feel???

The Mormons can have successors, they can invalidate our faith,…but if we point out their errancies, then we are uncharitable…

The Mormon Church is constantly changing its decrees…

May I suggest it just simply drop the false charge of the initial apostasy, the claim of Jews in America long ago…and all the strange writings of Smith…it will do alot of good and create more acceptance by Christians.

 

[pablope]

There is no “official” statement by the church on the Trinity.
We simply don’t believe it to be accurate, and let others have it any way they want.

There is a talk that was given by Elder Holland that mentions the concept of the Trinity:
lds.org/liahona/2007/11/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&format=conference

If the RCC was in apostasy, how can then the Mormons accept this doctrine of the Trinity promulgated by Church Councils after Constantine? Would you not be accepting heresy if the RCC was in apostasy?

 

[KathleenGee]

The continual changes, inspite of the litany of Mormon beliefs which are not really promoted here…really make Mormonism appear very fluid and changing…

 

[Stephen168]

RJ,
As I assume you have been aware, I don’t read your posts by the choice offered in the system design for this website. Stephen said “exactly” in quoting what you had said, which means for Stephen to say that he knew the source just as well as you.

So, you have people on ignore; how sad. But it does seem to be selective.

Starting with Joseph Smith’s claim in the Pearl of Great Price through Mormon leadership to the 1970’s, quotes are all over the internet which show how the Mormon Church taught all American aboriginal peoples are for from Jewish descent. I went to Boy Scouts at a Mormon Church for over four years (1968-1973), I heard it myself.

DNA evidence has been found and it proves the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, Joseph Smith lied and the Book of Mormon is a 19th century American work of fiction. It seems the Mormon Church is trying to change what the Book of Mormon is about but that still means Joseph Smith lied.

 

[KathleenGee]

Problem with Mormonism is that it is grossly uneven handed.

Even the Apostles, first and chosen witnesses to Jesus Christ,were not allowed to have successors…

And there are plenty of resources out there showing what Mormons have traditionally believed, which are now being whitewashed, apparently to their own young people being brought up in it.

So you are dealing with an ongoing denial of reason and common sense, denial of early Christian church history, denial of some teachings of Joseph Smith, the old texts of the 1800’s which were very bigoted and strange, denial of authentic early civilization of North America…and recent ideas…in context to the whole of salvation history that simply do not fit God’s constancy and revelation.

Either you believe in the fullness of Christ in salvation history of Christ of another form and foundation. Either you are scholarly or you want to believe in novelty and strange doctrines and reject lawful ordained and sacramental ministry that Christ instituted before His ascension into heaven.

For me to try to say anything more about this is just rambling and beating at closed doors…

 

[Javl]

What I have never had an answer to and cannot comprehend or understand is that the Catholic Church went into apostacy in the early ages, as per LSD, and yet just about everything the LSD uses ( theologicaly ), claims to believe, and accepts as theirs, originated in the Catholic Church down through the ages. How can this be if they are supposedly the "true Church?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Javl]

Again putting in my :twocents: about the Holy and Blessed Trinity:

The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three distinct persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). This comes from what Catholics agree is God’s greatest command for us, the Sh’ma (Deut 6:4-5). Jesus Himself told us that in Matt 23:37-40.

Examining the Hebrew prayer, the Sh’ma, carefully, we read “Sh’ma O Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echod (ekhad)”: “Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord”.

Adonai when translated “Lord” is plural and reads “my Lords”. Eloheinu, translated “God” is also plural, “our Gods”. A literal translation of the Sh’ma would the be " Hear O Israel, my Lords our Gods my Lords one." Three mentions of God followed by one, a perfect representation of the Blessed Trinity. The second mention of God, moreover, is Eloheinu, our Gods, not Elohei, “my Gods” suggesting the Second Person.

The singular forms could have been used “Adoni Elenu, Adoni Eli” but according to the rabbis every word has a meaning and that the use of the word echod tells us that God speaks of a compound unity such as in Num 13:23 “a branch with a single (echod) cluster of grapes.”

Classic rabbinic exegesis includes finding similar patterns elswhere in the Torah as in Ex 34:6, and Is 6:3 " Kadosh,kadosh,kadosh, YHWH tzvaot";"holy,holy,holy is the Lord of hosts. All point to a compound unity and NOT an absolute unity.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[zaffiroborant]

That talk is known here. It is one of the worse twisting of Trinitarian doctrine ever created. Holland should quit pretending like he knows what he is talking about.

Isn’t this the one where the crowd was laughing over his description of the Trinity?

 

[Javl]

Isn’t this the one where the crowd was laughing over his description of the Trinity?

RebeccaJ and Zaffiroborant:

Please, use Christian Charity in your communications with the LDS. Use some politeness too. Isn’t it better to capture flies with honey rather than vinegar? We should understand that their belief is almost diametrically opposite ours and we should all strive to prove this to them with Christian Charity. God Bless. Shalom.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach.

 

[ParkerD]

So, you have people on ignore; how sad. But it does seem to be selective.

Starting with Joseph Smith’s claim in the Pearl of Great Price through Mormon leadership to the 1970’s, quotes are all over the internet which show how the Mormon Church taught all American aboriginal peoples are for from Jewish descent. I went to Boy Scouts at a Mormon Church for over four years (1968-1973), I heard it myself.

Stephen,
Perhaps you heard misunderstandings, or misunderstood yourself. Even the introduction, before the recent change, said “principal ancestors”–which does not in any way mean “only ancestors.”

Of course quotes are all over the internet about this subject. Those discrediting the LDS church and the Book of Mormon use the internet as a forum and as a place to self-justify their choices against those. That is completely to be expected. It is a natural thing to do.

Again, anyone who talks about “Jewish descent” simply does not have a background in the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon. There were more tribes than Judah. Jews were from the tribe of Judah. The Nephites and Lamanites weren’t “Jews” but were from the tribe of Manasseh, who married outside of the covenant people and so the mother ancestor was a non-Israelite. When the Book of Mormon says on the title page, “Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile”–then that covers everyone on earth, but note that the Lamanites and the Jews are not included together in that reference as interchangeable. There were more remnants of the house of Israel than just the Jews.

 

[ParkerD]

What I have never had an answer to and cannot comprehend or understand is that the Catholic Church went into apostacy in the early ages, as per LDS, and yet just about everything the LDS uses ( theologicaly ), claims to believe, and accepts as theirs, originated in the Catholic Church down through the ages. How can this be if they are supposedly the "true Church?

Shalom haMeshiach

JAVL,

It wasn’t “down through the ages”. It was all in the Bible itself. Everything that changed in the Catholic church “down through the ages” is what shows how the departure from the pure teachings of the prophets, the apostles, and the Savior happened. Those changes occurred dramatically at first (such as declaring that John was not the leader of the church, but instead someone else was, when he was living as the last living apostle), then all the other changes that came and can be clearly compared–including the mistaken idea that there could be no new apostles other than the twelve original apostles less Judas Iscariot and replaced by Matthias, and the mistaken notion that the church began to be on the day of Pentecost (which I hadn’t heard was a Catholic belief until just very recently on this forum–new one to me).

As far as your post about the Jewish name of God, a person noted that Elohim is plural. There are sources that show that some Hebrew translations for Genesis show that there were cases where the words should have been rightly translated as “Elohim and Jehovah” (using the modern word for Jehovah, with the vowel sounds added). Jehovah was and is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the One Savior as prophetically declared by Isaiah. When He came to earth, He declared He had a Father in Heaven, separate from Him, to Whom He prayed. But the Jews generally absolutely could not accept that there could be such a concept as “God with us”–God come to earth, as the Savior and Redeemer, and certainly not as their I AM and the I AM who appeared to Moses.

 

[flyonthewall]

If the RCC was in apostasy, how can then the Mormons accept this doctrine of the Trinity promulgated by Church Councils after Constantine? Would you not be accepting heresy if the RCC was in apostasy?

In case you missed it, we don’t accept the concept of the Trinity as being accurate as described.

 

[flyonthewall]

Again putting in my :twocents: about the Holy and Blessed Trinity:

The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three distinct persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). This comes from what Catholics agree is God’s greatest command for us, the Sh’ma (Deut 6:4-5). Jesus Himself told us that in Matt 23:37-40.

Examining the Hebrew prayer, the Sh’ma, carefully, we read “Sh’ma O Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echod (ekhad)”: “Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord”.

Adonai when translated “Lord” is plural and reads “my Lords”. Eloheinu, translated “God” is also plural, “our Gods”. A literal translation of the Sh’ma would the be " Hear O Israel, my Lords our Gods my Lords one." Three mentions of God followed by one, a perfect representation of the Blessed Trinity. The second mention of God, moreover, is Eloheinu, our Gods, not Elohei, “my Gods” suggesting the Second Person.

The singular forms could have been used “Adoni Elenu, Adoni Eli” but according to the rabbis every word has a meaning and that the use of the word echod tells us that God speaks of a compound unity such as in Num 13:23 “a branch with a single (echod) cluster of grapes.”

Classic rabbinic exegesis includes finding similar patterns elswhere in the Torah as in Ex 34:6, and Is 6:3 " Kadosh,kadosh,kadosh, YHWH tzvaot";"holy,holy,holy is the Lord of hosts. All point to a compound unity and NOT an absolute unity.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

This is very interesting. I know that you put this forth as pertaining to the Trinity, but there is nothing there that would exclude it from pertaining to the Godhead as we describe it.

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[flyonthewall]

Isn’t this the one where the crowd was laughing over his description of the Trinity?

Actually the crowd was not laughing over his description of the Trinity, but a chuckle was had when he stated that we agree with our critics that such a formulation of divinity is truly incomprehensible.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
Perhaps you heard misunderstandings, or misunderstood yourself. Even the introduction, before the recent change, said “principal ancestors”–which does not in any way mean “only ancestors.”

Oh, I misunderstood. At the time scientists knew the American aboriginal people were from Asia, so I knew then that the Book of Mormon was a work of fiction. I think that is why the Mormon Church started backing away from the teaching that all American aboriginal people were Jewish. The rest of your post shows how that is being done.

Of course quotes are all over the internet about this subject. Those discrediting the LDS church and the Book of Mormon use the internet as a forum and as a place to self-justify their choices against those. That is completely to be expected. It is a natural thing to do.

Again, anyone who talks about “Jewish descent” simply does not have a background in the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon. There were more tribes than Judah. Jews were from the tribe of Judah. The Nephites and Lamanites weren’t “Jews” but were from the tribe of Manasseh, who married outside of the covenant people and so the mother ancestor was a non-Israelite. When the Book of Mormon says on the title page, “Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile”–then that covers everyone on earth, but note that the Lamanites and the Jews are not included together in that reference as interchangeable. There were more remnants of the house of Israel than just the Jews.

Mormonism collapses under the weight of science and history. Any Mormon who teaches the truth will soon be an ex-Mormon. The Book of Mormon like the Great Apostasy is a fiction.