LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[zaffiroborant]

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 agree and I think your points make it quite clear that there is a difference between The Twelve and the others. I just have never seen an LDS respond to these points, they have been brought up many times here at CAF and are simply ignored.

 

[Stephen168]

The reason a Mormon should know there could never be an Apostasy was given to me by a Mormon which I outlined in post #706. Whether or not there should be Apostles; or whether or not the Catholic Church changed doctrine are smaller side arguments. In the case of changing doctrine; downright hypocritical.

 

[Javl]

Parker:

My dear friend. I love you as a Christian brother and from reading your post I see that you are so very, very close to the truth More so than any other LDS in this forum. All you have to do is to step forward into The REAL LIGHT and bask in the glory and joy of really and truly knowing Jesus. But you not only hesitate but seem to refuse to do so. I will continue to pray for your true edification. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[pablope]

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

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.

that several popes (after Peter) placed themselves into a more prominent role than John even though John had the higher office in the church.

It seems to me that you are stressing John’s non insistence of being pope as a reason for the lost of Apostolic authority…and you are making the Apostle John as a modern power hungry politician, which he was not. You are putting your 21st century thinking into it. Are you a student of church history to come to such an assertion that “that several popes (after Peter) placed themselves into a more prominent role than John even though John had the higher office in the church.” Just because John was an original apostle, doesn’t mean he had a higher office. John, contrary to what you want him to be, is the exact oppposite of what you are thinking. He was humble and respectful enough to accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome. And there in lies your fallacy, you are trying to make him power hungry when he was not. He was humble and in the service of the Lord in what was commanded him.

 

[pablope]

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.

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.

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.

The NT was not complete at the time of Peter, and it was not compiled yet, and Paul’s epistles were sent to various churches, not to a central location. And therein lies another of your conjectures…it seems you are making the Bible a rule book, when it is not. Peter founded the Church at Rome, together with Paul, hence he was the first Bishop of Rome. Read up on church history, if you care to know the truth.

And may I repeat, you making John a power hungy person by continuing ot assert why he should be above any apostolic successor.

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.

This is correct. But your continued assertion that John should have had more authority over any other bishop makes him a power hungry politician. You are (name removed by moderator)utting your 21st century thinking against the humility of John.

 

[KathleenGee]

St. John the Evangelist, the youngest apostle, ran ahead of Peter on the day of the Resurrection to the empty tomb.

But in acknowledgment of Peter’s appointment by Christ, John stepped back and let St. Peter enter the empty tomb first, subordination to Peter already shown on the day of the Resurrection.

Even though the various churches had their own jurisdictions, the final authority always rest on Rome…it was not about power…it was about Christ’s choice.

Every priest, deacon, bishop, cardinal…are called and chosen.

In the Catholic Church, God’s authority comes from above.

And finally, one must look at the legacy of what was left by the Last Apostle…His gospel, epistles, and the Book of Revelation…certainly none of these demonstrate apostasy following John’s death, nor does he forewarn of it. On the contrary, John is speaking for the Spirit of God to have perseverance in the face of persecution, errors, misunderstandings, martyrdoms, and those who continue to do evil with impunity. In no way is he every pointing to an event as the Great Apostasy following his death.

 

[onenow1]

"Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen."Ephesians 3:20-21

Those who say Christ’s Church apostatized, also have said that Saint Paul must have lied above, for how can there be glory in the apostatized Church of Jesus Christ, and what does “for ever and ever” mean?

Peace

 

[Javl]

"Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen."Ephesians 3:20-21

Those who say Christ’s Church apostatized, also have said that Saint Paul must have lied above, for how can there be glory in the apostatized Church of Jesus Christ, and what does “for ever and ever” mean?

Peace

The LDS Church makes no distinction between one individual apostacizing and a whole community apostacizing. I don’t know if they can tell the difference or if they’re doing it purposely. I’m inclined to believe the former. That’s like J. Smith using “giant spectacles, the Urim and the Thumin” to translate the BoM from the “golden plates”. I always thought that, according to the Bible, the Urim and Thumin were dice like objects that were used by the Temple High Priest to determine God’s will.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

From Wikipedia…only a partial listing:

Factional breakdownThis article includes only those Latter Day Saint churches verified by reliable sources. In categorizing these churches, the following divisions and subdivisions have been employed:

Before the schism – Joseph Smith’s original church,[1] and those bodies which broke with him during his lifetime:
The Church of Christ – The original organization, founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1830, later called the Church of the Latter Day Saints and then Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.[5][6][7]
Pre-schism dissenting bodies – Other small churches formed on the basis of disagreements with Smith prior to his murder in 1844, all of which are now defunct.
Rocky Mountain Saints – Sometimes called “Brighamites” or “Mormons”, tracing their leadership or influence through Brigham Young:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – By far the largest and best known Latter Day Saint church, often called the “LDS Church” or “Mormon church”.
Mormon fundamentalist – Churches that believe they are strictly following the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young, including the practice of plural marriage, which was discontinued by the LDS Church in the early 20th century.
Liberal Mormon – The defunct Godbeites and a few other small churches that broke with the LDS Church to pursue a more liberal, inclusive, or rationalist theology.
New restoration – Several small churches rooted in Mormonism; formed under the belief that their leader was inspired to restore a new religious tradition in the mold of Joseph Smith, Jr…
Prairie Saints – Those churches rejecting Brigham Young’s leadership, in favor of some other claimant:
Followers of Joseph Smith III – The Community of Christ and related churches tracing their leadership through Joseph Smith III.
Followers of Granville Hedrick – The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and related churches tracing their leadership through Granville Hedrick.
Followers of Sidney Rigdon and/or William Bickerton – Churches tracing their leadership through Sidney Rigdon and/or William Bickerton.
Followers of Alpheus Cutler – The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) and related churches tracing their leadership through Alpheus Cutler.
Followers of James J. Strang – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) and related churches tracing their leadership through James Strang.
Followers of other leaders – Other “Prairie Saint” branches of the movement, such as the Church of Christ (Whitmerite), none of which is known to be extant today.

Now, if the LDS Church is the “restoration” Church, how come it splintered and which one is the true (?) “restoration” Church since each claims to be that?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[pablope]

From Wikipedia…only a partial listing:

Factional breakdownThis article includes only those Latter Day Saint churches verified by reliable sources. In categorizing these churches, the following divisions and subdivisions have been employed:

Before the schism – Joseph Smith’s original church,[1] and those bodies which broke with him during his lifetime:
The Church of Christ – The original organization, founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1830, later called the Church of the Latter Day Saints and then Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.[5][6][7]
Pre-schism dissenting bodies – Other small churches formed on the basis of disagreements with Smith prior to his murder in 1844, all of which are now defunct.
Rocky Mountain Saints – Sometimes called “Brighamites” or “Mormons”, tracing their leadership or influence through Brigham Young:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – By far the largest and best known Latter Day Saint church, often called the “LDS Church” or “Mormon church”.
Mormon fundamentalist – Churches that believe they are strictly following the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young, including the practice of plural marriage, which was discontinued by the LDS Church in the early 20th century.
Liberal Mormon – The defunct Godbeites and a few other small churches that broke with the LDS Church to pursue a more liberal, inclusive, or rationalist theology.
New restoration – Several small churches rooted in Mormonism; formed under the belief that their leader was inspired to restore a new religious tradition in the mold of Joseph Smith, Jr…
Prairie Saints – Those churches rejecting Brigham Young’s leadership, in favor of some other claimant:
Followers of Joseph Smith III – The Community of Christ and related churches tracing their leadership through Joseph Smith III.
Followers of Granville Hedrick – The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and related churches tracing their leadership through Granville Hedrick.
Followers of Sidney Rigdon and/or William Bickerton – Churches tracing their leadership through Sidney Rigdon and/or William Bickerton.
Followers of Alpheus Cutler – The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) and related churches tracing their leadership through Alpheus Cutler.
Followers of James J. Strang – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) and related churches tracing their leadership through James Strang.
Followers of other leaders – Other “Prairie Saint” branches of the movement, such as the Church of Christ (Whitmerite), none of which is known to be extant today.

Now, if the LDS Church is the “restoration” Church, how come it splintered and which one is the true (?) “restoration” Church since each claims to be that?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It seems to me it splintered into different denominations based on the personality of a person. I am not an expert on cults, but are the splintered groups akin to cults since the followers are basically following a personality?

 

[onenow1]

The LDS Church makes no distinction between one individual apostacizing and a whole community apostacizing. I don’t know if they can tell the difference or if they’re doing it purposely. I’m inclined to believe the former. That’s like J. Smith using “giant spectacles, the Urim and the Thumin” to translate the BoM from the “golden plates”. I always thought that, according to the Bible, the Urim and Thumin were dice like objects that were used by the Temple High Priest to determine God’s will.

I’ve noticed that; and believe the work they do, God will use for His glory. As St. Paul has stated.

1 Corinthians 11:19, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Peace

 

[ParkerD]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 Melchizedek 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…

Stephen168,

This post didn’t ask a question, but I suppose you have made it clear that you were looking for a response.

Here is the response to the first part, and you may take it or leave it as you wish:

Reading the scriptures is a delight. As one “walks where Jesus walked” by placing themselves in a first-person experience, they can feel some of the feelings that His followers felt, even His chosen apostles. Then even more so, as one experiences in their personal life a situation where someone they know is healed and their life has been changed by having come unto the Savior and been healed by Him, then they also have the opportunity to have a first person experience of seeing the Savior’s healing power. The Holy Spirit bears witness that these experiences have been true, and have been the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ being lived and taught. They become a first person witness if they experience the testifying witness of the Holy Ghost, and when they bear witness of their own witness that He Lives! then they are bearing a first person witness.

This means they will have understood the baptism and teachings of John the Baptist, who taught about repentance and baptism by immersion, and will be able to testify of his preparatory work in preparing the way for the coming of the Lord and of His ministry. They will also naturally and conclusively bear witness of the resurrection of Jesus, because they will have had a personal, experiential knowledge that that resurrection did indeed occur and it will be just as though they were there when they testify of that reality, because the Holy Ghost gives that level of truth to the soul–a testimony that is experiential and not secondary.

Not only apostles have that kind of witness, but when called they have the opportunity to bear their special witness to all the world of the things they know experientially through the Holy Ghost, or also through dreams and visions that confirmed the truths they have read and felt with every fiber of their being.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker:

My dear friend. I love you as a Christian brother and from reading your post I see that you are so very, very close to the truth More so than any other LDS in this forum. All you have to do is to step forward into The REAL LIGHT and bask in the glory and joy of really and truly knowing Jesus. But you not only hesitate but seem to refuse to do so. I will continue to pray for your true edification. Shalom haMeshiach.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,

Thanks for thinking of me, and I appreciate the expression of love and concern. If you will read my just prior post, and then couple that with reading Matthew 12:31-32 and realize that what I have been expressing is that for me personally to do any such thing (which is the farthest thing from my mind and would always be so because of hundreds of reasons) would be to “speak against the Holy Ghost” because of many, many personal experiences and thus to suffer those consequences, which of course no one would wish on anyone else–then perhaps you can change your prayers to just praying that my family will be well and be blessed (but that would include a daughter serving in Independence, Missouri, so I should be honest about this).

In any case, thanks and may blessings of health and joyful peace follow you all your days. I also express my sincere heartfelt love for you in the way Paul and John taught.

 

[ParkerD]

It seems to me that you are stressing John’s non insistence of being pope as a reason for the lost of Apostolic authority…and you are making the Apostle John as a modern power hungry politician, which he was not. You are putting your 21st century thinking into it. Are you a student of church history to come to such an assertion that “that several popes (after Peter) placed themselves into a more prominent role than John even though John had the higher office in the church.” Just because John was an original apostle, doesn’t mean he had a higher office. John, contrary to what you want him to be, is the exact oppposite of what you are thinking. He was humble and respectful enough to accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome. And there in lies your fallacy, you are trying to make him power hungry when he was not. He was humble and in the service of the Lord in what was commanded him.

Pablope,

I honestly don’t understand two things about your thinking:

1. How you derive the scriptural basis for saying John “accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome”?
2. Why a person is considered power hungry if either they were a “pope” or if they were an apostle? I don’t see that “power hungry” or “political” authority has anything to do with these issues, at all. It is a question of divinely appointed authority and its exercise.

 

[ParkerD]

"Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen."Ephesians 3:20-21

Those who say Christ’s Church apostatized, also have said that Saint Paul must have lied above, for how can there be glory in the apostatized Church of Jesus Christ, and what does “for ever and ever” mean?

Peace

Onenow1,

I use the KJV which is quite different in its translation, but even so those verses are an expression of prayer and praise, not a prophecy. Peace to you also.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

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

KathleenGee,

I have answered your other items a few times. Think of the meaning of the word “obligation” versus the meaning of the words “free will choice, without obligation”, then re-read my post about those issues and the apostasy, a page or so back.

As far as the above, there is no “Eucharistic Prayer” by John in the New Testament, so no need for me to explain about such a thing. In any case, wishing you blessings of joy and peace in your life and the lives of your family.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I honestly don’t understand two things about your thinking:

1. How you derive the scriptural basis for saying John “accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome”?

When John wrote his gospel between 90 to 100 AD, he affirmed the previous gospels, there were already successors to Peter is bishop of Rome, so by his act, he affirmed the successor of Peter as head of the church, and he did not rant and rave, as you want or paint him to be. And again, the Bible is not a book of rules.

Why a person is considered power hungry if either they were a “pope” or if they were an apostle? I don’t see that “power hungry” or “political” authority has anything to do with these issues, at all. It is a question of divinely appointed authority and its exercise.

I am not saying they are, you are the one making them look like power hungry politicians by your insistence of why should John have been the pope, of why he should have more authority than peter’s successor as bishop of rome, where it is one of the reasons you are claiming for the apostasy, which continues to live in your fantasy. You are ascribing your 21st century thinking, and making them look like squabbling politicians.

As I stated, John was not power hungry, for he did not rant and rave for not being pope, he accepted his role with humility, and it is something you cannot accept as a fact. You keep looking for reasons not to accept it.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,

This post didn’t ask a question, but I suppose you have made it clear that you were looking for a response.

Actually I wasn’t looking for a response; as I had said:

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 supposed 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.

And I don’t think you responded to it in the context of the conversation it came from. You also didn’t respond to post #694, but I can understand why; as I said:

The reason a Mormon should know there could never be an Apostasy was given to me by a Mormon which I outlined in post #706. Whether or not there should be Apostles; or whether or not the Catholic Church changed doctrine are smaller side arguments. In the case of changing doctrine; downright hypocritical.

 

[Javl]

It seems to me it splintered into different denominations based on the personality of a person. I am not an expert on cults, but are the splintered groups akin to cults since the followers are basically following a personality?

Yes. I would assume that they all are, including the original. Also, a cult is also known by its refusal to use or accept Christian Dogma ( eg: The Holy Trinity ) and to formulate its own skewered theology ( eg: Jehovahs Witnesses ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

JAVL,

Thanks for thinking of me, and I appreciate the expression of love and concern. If you will read my just prior post, and then couple that with reading Matthew 12:31-32 and realize that what I have been expressing is that for me personally to do any such thing (which is the farthest thing from my mind and would always be so because of hundreds of reasons) would be to “speak against the Holy Ghost” because of many, many personal experiences and thus to suffer those consequences, which of course no one would wish on anyone else–then perhaps you can change your prayers to just praying that my family will be well and be blessed (but that would include a daughter serving in Independence, Missouri, so I should be honest about this).

In any case, thanks and may blessings of health and joyful peace follow you all your days. I also express my sincere heartfelt love for you in the way Paul and John taught.

Thank you Parker. I shall never think ill of you nor forget you and I will always pray for you and your family.

What does disturb me though is our ( you and me ) dependence on the Holy Spirit for direction and guidance. From your experience and mine, it seems that He places you in one direction and me in the diametrically opposite direction. Can this be? One of is incorrect for He will NOT do that. Truthfully, I know that it’s not me. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem