LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[ParkerD]

Parker, it is you and your church that limit authority to the Apostles and “pass over” those bishops duly ordained by the Apostles.

Hi, SteveVH,

I hope you and your family are doing well, as I would expect that you are.

I totally understand that my point probably is not going to be understood, let alone accepted here. But the apostles had authority that the bishops didn’t have, and that is evident in the New Testament–it is quite obvious. There is no point at which the New Testament says the apostolic authority was being passed on to the bishops. The bishops had a different function than the apostles. I think a major disconnect lies in the thinking that Paul and Barnabas and others were some kind of honorary apostle rather than a called apostle, yet Paul does not write that way at all. He writes as an apostle, on a similar standing as the other apostles of his time.

Christ founded his Church upon Peter, not John.

No, He founded the Church on Himself as the chief corner stone and foundation.

The same authority possessed by Peter was passed on to his successor by consensus of the bishops of the Church upon his death, but the office which was passed on was the Bishop of Rome. There was no requirement that this office be passed on to any other Apostle.

Which is all conjecture, with no basis whatsoever in the New Testament, except that of course neither the office of bishop of Rome nor of any other city would be passed on to an apostle, since the apostles called the bishops, not vice versa.

What is inconceivable is, assuming the office of “Apostle” was a requirement for authority and that such authority could not be passed on to a bishop for some reason, that the Church would not have paid very close attention to such an important matter and not immediately ordain another upon the death of any of the apostles, much less the last.

Yes, that would seem unexpected, except that John (the last living apostle during that time) saw that God was telling him through a vision that the church was being taken “into the wilderness”, which would explain why at that point no new apostles were being called. By that point in time already, it appears from what I’ve read as to the timeline of the popes, that several popes (after Peter) placed themselves into a more prominent role than John even though John had the higher office in the church.

Your contention assumes that the single most important task facing the Church in order to continue in truth and authority was somehow overlooked. The Apostles did not all die at once in a plane crash.

Good point, and they did ordain new apostles, and did it under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. So when the Holy Ghost later withheld the guidance to John, then John didn’t just ordain more on his own–get it? It wasn’t that John wasn’t worthy, it was that he was told not to ordain new apostles, by revelation. (His vision.)

The truth is that the authority of the Apostles was passed down to ordained bishops.

I certainly have understood that point many times, but it is a non-Biblical assertion, and leaves the Holy Ghost out plus leaves the keys of apostleship out.

Christ knew very well that his apostles would not live forever. Do you not find it a little strange that the Book of Revelation describes only the names of the twelve:

"The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev 21:14)

I don’t find it strange at all. The twelve original apostles had been told they would be the judges of the house of Israel, so indeed that vision shows the representation and fulfillment of that occurrence in the day of judgement. Yet more than twelve were ordained as apostles in the New Testament–they just don’t have the role of being the twelve judges.

Not dozens or hundreds of apostles, only twelve. Each of the Apostles held the office of bishop

which is a completely non-Biblical statement about the office of apostle versus the office of bishop.

Peace to you, SteveVH. I sincerely mean that, and I think that it is yours through your faith in Christ Who brings peace to the world.

 

[rovimax]

Why should someone restore something that is supposed to be without end?

 

[ParkerD]

My statement is not as well defined, but I have been saying that if the Mormons could do it, then why not the Apostolic church???

When you ask for reference to when the Apostasy began and what was said, there really is no answer given. Just a sweeping statement that all was false until Joseph Smith’s findings…

KathleenGee,

If Jesus were to appear and tell the world that there had been an apostasy, then He would be taking away the free will choice of people by placing them into a position of obligation rather than allowing them to be in a position of exercising faith, wisdom, discernment, and earnest study of the scriptures. If the apostasy were so obvious that everyone felt obligated to think that it happened, then that would also be decreasing the level of free will choice.

So it makes sense to me (probably not to you) that the things I consider obvious from both the Old and New Testaments that show the apostasy was prophesied and was starting to happen at the time of John’s vision, are not obvious to everyone. It means people are living by their best judgment of how things are, and that’s OK. Their best judgment leads in different directions, and they are going to be blessed to the extent that they live by the teachings of the Bible, regardless of their religious choice.

Wishing you great peace in your life.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry to tell you Parker, but you are very shallow and narrow minded to base your reasoning of the failure of passing on priestly authority by the bypassing of John for being pope. Why is it inconceivable? So what if he was bypassed? Does that mean there was a loss of authority? No! See, in your looking for a reason to justify your position, you resort to such, and you are failing to see one the traits of John. He was humble and would knew what Jesus meant when He said Peter would be the Rock. Besides, before he passed away, he confirmed what was written in the first three gospels and wrote his gospel to supplement them. If he wanted to be pope, he would have expressed and wrote about it, but there is none in his writings or any other writings. He served the Lord in the way it was meant for him, to care for Mary. He was not after the glory of being pope, he was after serving Jesus in all humility.

Pablope,

I haven’t been offended in this forum at all, so no worries there.

I had been talking about a later point in time, after Peter had been killed yet John was still alive.

There was no such title as “pope” in the writings of any of the apostles or of Luke, so of course John would not have used that word at all, nor would he have had any reason to write as though he were disagreeing with any bishop in the church about their authority, since he would be trying to have them follow his teachings and the teachings of the other apostles, as he did. There is not a speck of evidence in the New Testament that Peter was considered the “bishop of Rome” during his life, nor that the next bishop of Rome after Peter was considered to have more authority than John in the church.

An apostle would indeed have great love for the people, and great humility, and would not be seeking the glory of the office nor the glory of any consideration of preeminence.

I have tremendous admiration for the apostle John and his great love for the Savior, for the gospel, and for mankind, including us.

Peace to you always, Pablope.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Apostles were sent by Christ and the Twelve. Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve (Acts 1:21-22). The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the Twelve membership to the first century. That is the reason there are no more Apostles. There were never meant to be any more (Revelation 21:14).

Having man made Apostles (1835), practicing polygamy (1831) and inventing a Melchisedech Priesthood are reasons we know Mormonism is no restoration of Christ’s Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Apostles passed on the true faith of Jesus Christ by their preaching and the laying of hands.

There is ample evidence that the succession of the Apostles continued. The Mormons refuse to simply acknowledge documented history in various forms.

St. John the Evangelist did not forewarn of false successors…he warned of deceivers, the unchaste, the sorcerers, the murderers…this behavior was not evident in the successors of the Apostles!

And that St. John the Evangelist gave us the imagery of the Mass which requires the priesthood of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God…the Daily Sacrifice…the atonement for our sins…

I always look at the founder’s issues of why they broke of from the universal, apostolic church.

With one sweeping statement, Christianity is an abomination according to Smith…a blanket, sweeping statement with absolutely no proof that the successors to the apostles were corrupt. Not true.

Why in the world would Jesus allow such a thing as no succession until here in the USA???

 

[KathleenGee]

Because if Mormons believe otherwise, then you have to create a new kind of Jesus who would fail to set up his church right.

The true faith comes out of Jerusalem. And we await a New Jerusalem.

 

[Stephen168]

My statement is not as well defined, but I have been saying that if the Mormons could do it, then why not the Apostolic church???

I can see that Parker did not answer your question. Let me try to example this Mormon hypocrisy. But first let me review part of the outline.

I. Mormonism claims the Apostasy means:
A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth,
B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost
C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.

Mormons believe they have the keys and priesthood authority (C) to make changes (B). They have made changes as extreme as change ‘who God is’ and ‘what is required for salvation.’ It took Joseph Smith five years to get around inventing Mormon Apostles (A), yet he had claimed for those years he had the keys and authority. So reason would tell us that the Mormon claim that doctrine changing in the early church is an indication of apostasy is not true; Mormons have changed doctrine. Mormons claiming that only an Apostle can have authority is not true; they claimed authority without apostles. All you really need is ‘authority’ and you can do whatever you want. So out of nowhere Joseph Smith took the restorationist idea of a great apostasy and claimed he had authority.
The problem with this claim of an apostasy is Mormons don’t think about what it would really take for their own church to lose priesthood authority. Except the one Mormon I talked about.

His thinking was:
In order for Christ’s Church to require restoration there had to be a total and complete apostasy of the one he started 2000 years ago. The apostasy means a total loss of priesthood authority. The other reasons Mormons give for proof of an apostasy are really the result of the loss of priesthood authority, so authority is the key. Now what would it take, step by step, in detail, for my church (Mormon Church) to lose priesthood authority? The answer: Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority and at almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church. In other words it could not happen. So if it could not happen in the Mormon Church now, it could not happen 2000 years ago. No Apostasy, no need for the Mormon Church.

As an aside: that was the third time I have posted that outline and no Mormon has directly responded to it. I think because it goes to the heart of the matter and there is no answer.

 

[KathleenGee]

I realize that because there is no solid evidence of any of Mormonism’s claim of apostasy to justify all its myths and allegations.

For lurkers here, there was no apostasy of the Church after the death of the Last Apostle.

The Last Apostle did not warn us of an apostasy…his last words point to the New Jerusalem, the Lamb of God, the altar surrounded by many peoples praising God, and the pool of fire and sulpher…where deceivers, the unchaste, the fornicators, the sorcerers and murderers go…behaviors not found in the successors to the Apostles. If anything, St. John’s Book of Revelations is essentially about the perseverance of the good and the final defeat of evil.

For every freshman starting college, that is the time when they learn not to making sweeping, unsubstantiated biased statements against another class of people, because such statements are not valid.

 

[KathleenGee]

And yes, a Mormon sympathizer here said I seemed to be fixated on the priesthood as the primary issue of contention.

There is no supportive evidence either that the successors to the apostles were teaching corrupt doctrine or willfully opposing them. To think that the Apostles did not discern and develop their successors in the context of knowing Jesus, St. John the Evangelist himself a witness to the crucifixion, who ran with Peter to the empty tomb, who called himself the apostle whom Jesus loved…would say anything else except not to change any word of Scripture and to their testimonies.

The apostles had their followers, appointed bishops, pupils.

Why the Apostles could not have successors and the Mormons could is concern.

The evidence of Mormonism’s own faulty construct is hidden in the original books they claimed were inspired. I found one. It was removed. CEM5 has one and is bringing forth original teachings, it once owned by a Mormon’s grandmother.

I inadvertently found a book with original beliefs going back to the 1840’s, was pretty shocked, called the LDS in SLC. I came back to find the specific title and information about the book two weeks later but it was pulled…

So because I will not any more name the book, as i am not recalling properly, my experience is being invalidated by Mormons. I see that as devious. And it is also my issue that there are people within Mormonism who have their own agenda…and want the original Mormonism, allegedly inspired, not made known. Because it would show what Mormonism truly is. I see their cover up as being shady and deceiving. Just like they will baptize people and then teach them new and contrary ideas.

Mormonism is essentially anti-Catholic priesthood. And they are rejoicing with big plans for their temple they are building in the Roman countryside…the Italians will have to dig pretty deep to come across the materials a number of us have read.

The ancient Catholic catechism and that we have today have not changed in teachings. There has been additions and more expounding, but the tenants of our faith is the same as it was 2000 years ago. This is a sign of God’s fidelity and constancy present among us.

 

[ParkerD]

KathleenGee,

Yes, indeed Christ called us to be one in Him, and to be one with Him. That was also the desire of the apostles as they carried on after having been given the commission to spread the gospel and to guide the members of the church as they were asked to “come to the unity of the faith”. But all along the way, the Holy Spirit was to also be guiding each member individually, so that they would have a direct link with God that was personal to them, and could guide them in their daily “conversation” in life.

Unity within the framework of the gospel, with Jesus Christ as the chief corner Stone and the living Shepherd, makes complete sense–but unity without the Holy Spirit guiding the individuals making up the membership of the church, would mean the potential loss of both of those essential components–(1) the Holy Spirit guiding individually, and (2) the chief corner Stone being able to truly Shepherd His people as He desires (without compulsion, but only with their individual willingness to be shepherded) so that He can be our Advocate with the Father because He will have prepared us to be like Him and to be one with Him.

Unity where leaders are saying “follow me and let’s be united” can be good, but surely one looking at the New Testament and considering what was happening with the Sanhedrin and the rabbis and the Pharisees at the time of Christ, would be able to see that just having unity for the sake of unity in following leaders is not what the fullness of the gospel calls for. Over and over in the Old Testament, the warnings to the Jewish (house of Israel) leaders were that they were not leading their people toward living the gospel (the law of Moses and caring for the poor) and instead were leading them away from that and toward following the traditions of their past.

The two key components that are absolutely essential that I noted above, must be in place within the leadership, within their teachings, within how they approach leading the people, and within how they encourage them to have the Holy Spirit and Christ as the individual cornerstone for their personal faith and their personal sanctification. This means those leaders would be teaching that personal revelation through the Spirit, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ are vital to each member of the church.

They would be completely comfortable with the idea of personal revelation and with revelation within the church, because they would be experiencing it themselves also. Then they would not say “there can be no new scriptures” because they would personally know that the Holy Ghost is a Revelator and can reveal knowledge for our times, just as He revealed knowledge for times of old. Certainly, our times are complex, challenging, and have the same needs for these essentials that the people had of olden times.

KathleenGee and Stephen,

This post had already dealt with the question Kathleen asked for a second time, but I didn’t respond again because it appeared she had read this post. That would mean we were “talking past each other”. But here it is again.

Have a good day, all.

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, Parker, my response is that you can not make sweeping statements through inference invalidating the Catholic apostolic priesthood with no supporting facts.

We have to separate rejection of the Catholic priesthood and the ministerial sacraments, which are concrete and objective, and non-arbitrary from an era of time in this country that witnessed the emergence of the Restorationists…people who knew very little of the universal, apostolic faith.

Mormonism is essentially making sweeping, unsubstantiated and inimical statements against not only the Roman Catholic Church but Christianity in general. And with a new story…a very, very long time after the event.

 

[Stephen168]

Apostles were sent by Christ and the Twelve. Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve (Acts 1:21-22). The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the Twelve membership to the first century. That is the reason there are no more Apostles. There were never meant to be any more (Revelation 21:14).

Having man made Apostles (1835), practicing polygamy (1831) and inventing a Melchisedech Priesthood are reasons we know Mormonism is no restoration of Christ’s Church.

I didn’t get any Mormon response the first time I posted; I’ll expect the same…

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

If there was supportive evidence, it is found in the apostolic and universal Church, the Bride of Christ…our faithful Groom…Who is always with us and calling us to enter into His sacraments to partake in the Divine Life, and grow in transformation to become Christlike.

There were heretics and apostates, errors…and St. Ireneaus clearly outlines the errors of his time. He is pointing to errors of faith and those who stubbornly hold on to them…and these same errors reflect the human condition, errors repeated today.

Parker, when I read your responses, they appear as interpretations rather than actual events. So when Mormons speak of the Great Apostasy without any evidence with a concrete and non-arbitrary and sacramental church in formation, with a general form of liturgical worship throughout the known Christian world at that time within 60 years of the death of the Last Apostle.

Several years ago, I attended a Maronite Mass that used the Eucharistic Prayers of St. John the Evangelist for its liturgy.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, SteveVH,

I hope you and your family are doing well, as I would expect that you are.

Thanks Parker and I wish the same for you.

I totally understand that my point probably is not going to be understood, let alone accepted here. But the apostles had authority that the bishops didn’t have, and that is evident in the New Testament–it is quite obvious. There is no point at which the New Testament says the apostolic authority was being passed on to the bishops. The bishops had a different function than the apostles. I think a major disconnect lies in the thinking that Paul and Barnabas and others were some kind of honorary apostle rather than a called apostle, yet Paul does not write that way at all. He writes as an apostle, on a similar standing as the other apostles of his time.

It isn’t that we don’t understand, it is that we don’t agree. The Apostles held the unique position of being the first that Christ sent out into the world to preach the Gospel and to baptize. The fact that they held this unique position has nothing to do with their ability to pass on that same authority to others who did not hold, and could not hold, the unique position of Apostle. Our bishops are those successors to the Apostles and we might very well and properly call them apostles. Their authority is no different. As I said before, the Apostles were bishops, the first bishops, and it was the office of bishop that was passed on. Your bishops do not possess this authority and so I think you are making the assumption that ours don’t either. But our bishops are as far from yours as our priests are from yours. It is not an across the board comparison. We believe our bishops have the authority of the apostles.

No, He founded the Church on Himself as the chief corner stone and foundation.

You are correct in that Christ Himself is the Rock and corner stone. It is His Church. This is what makes the entire “Great Apostasy” an utter impossibility. Christ is the head, we are the body. You already know the promises He made concerning His Church. This is a divine institution, not man made. That is why it can never fail. It has been and will continue to be in a state of warfare both from without and from within, but it will never fail because CHRIST IS THE HEAD, not man.

Which is all conjecture, with no basis whatsoever in the New Testament, except that of course neither the office of bishop of Rome nor of any other city would be passed on to an apostle, since the apostles called the bishops, not vice versa.

Sorry, I’m not catching your drift. Please explain.

Yes, that would seem unexpected, except that John (the last living apostle during that time) saw that God was telling him through a vision that the church was being taken “into the wilderness”, which would explain why at that point no new apostles were being called. By that point in time already, it appears from what I’ve read as to the timeline of the popes, that several popes (after Peter) placed themselves into a more prominent role than John even though John had the higher office in the church.

Good point, and they did ordain new apostles, and did it under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. So when the Holy Ghost later withheld the guidance to John, then John didn’t just ordain more on his own–get it? It wasn’t that John wasn’t worthy, it was that he was told not to ordain new apostles, by revelation. (His vision.)

So Christ, just a very, very short time after He founded His Church, tells John not to ordain any new Apostles, knowing full well that this would, in fact, destroy the very Church He just built. And then He would allow the world to wander in darkness for 1850 years until Joseph Smith came along. Sorry, I just find that position completely unlikely based upon Christ’s own promises to His Church. It makes Christ an utter failure since it was His Church and His promise that He would remain with it until the end of time.

By the way, all bishops in the Catholic Church are chosen through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace to you, SteveVH. I sincerely mean that, and I think that it is yours through your faith in Christ Who brings peace to the world.

Amen my brother. Peace to you also.

 

[KathleenGee]

Finally, as was done in the Old Testament of Exodus…it is God Who decides how He wants to be worshipped, not man made worship. He gave Moses most detailed instructions in how to build the Temple, the rite and behavior and dress of the priesthood. This is God made worship.

Jesus came and at the Last Supper, He told His apostles…“Do this…”

The Lord Jesus instituted the priesthood and the way He wanted worship…the Last Supper as it was first called to eventually the Mass. Jesus is the Manna from Heaven realized…The wandering Jews ate real food from heaven.

We partake in real food of Jesus Christ Himself…as he revealed after many followers deserted him shortly before the Last Supper.

Our worship is our participation in the Banquet Table of the Lord, the Tree of Life, Jesus Christ.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I didn’t get any Mormon response the first time I posted; I’ll expect the same…

I’ve posted these points twice before in other threads, I bumped your thread (twice) and another poster made the same points just a week or two before your post. Not in any of these cases has it ever been addressed.

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve posted these points twice before in other threads, I bumped your thread (twice) and another poster made the same points just a week or two before your post. Not in any of these cases has it ever been addressed.

I’ve seen their answer to this on other threads. They will bring up Paul and Barnabas who are also referred to as Apostles. Now, Paul did witness the resurrected Lord, although I don’t know about Barnabas and I can only find one reference to him being called an apostle. This could have been due to his close association with Paul.

 

[Stephen168]

I’ve posted these points twice before in other threads, I bumped your thread (twice) and another poster made the same points just a week or two before your post. Not in any of these cases has it ever been addressed.

That post was a small post of the bigger post I have used in the past with no response. That post was an answer to a Mormon who didn’t know why there were no more Apostles. As the post explains there were not suppose to be anymore.
My larger post talks about the New Testament being clear to me that were is a difference between the TWELVE Apostles and the other seventy some Apostles. I think the Eastern Church has a better understand about this than we do.

 

[SteveVH]

That post was a small post of the bigger post I have used in the past with no response. That post was an answer to a Mormon who didn’t know why there were no more Apostles. As the post explains there were not suppose to be anymore.
My larger post talks about the New Testament being clear to me that were is a difference between the TWELVE Apostles and the other seventy some Apostles. I think the Eastern Church has a better understand about this than we do.

I think you’re right.