LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[ParkerD]

Joseph Smith said it was book about the ‘source’ of the aboriginal people of the Americas. Source as in the origin; where it all started.

Stephen,

Here is the narrative about the words of the angel Moroni in his appearance to Joseph Smith:

“He said there was a book deposited,… giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang…”

This is not an all-inclusive nor an exclusive statement. The former inhabitants with whom Moroni was familiar were the ones he was talking about, and the source from whence they sprang would be talking about those particular people. Just because people take that statement and make it into an all-inclusive statement about “the source of the aboriginal people of the Americas” does not make that the meaning of the statement, particularly in the context of the book itself.

Further, it is not about the Jews, at all, by the definition the Jews have for themselves (tribe of Judah). It is about a family from the tribe of Manasseh, and about descendants of Zoram who was a servant of Laban and would not be Semitic at all. The maternal line of the tribe of Manasseh was not Semitic, either. So DNA is of no consequence about these people or their origins in terms of Jewish ancestry or not.

 

[Stephen168]

Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven for Sadducees, but I’m not a Sadducee so I am not within the scope of that statement.

Therefore; because Christ never talked to Mormons, they are free to do whatever they want; practice polygamy, invent their own priesthood, baptize on behalf of the dead, and invent a history for the aboriginal people of America. You really believe when Christ spoke he wasn’t teaching the world, he was just teaching the few people standing there at the time. I see why Mormons don’t put much stock in the bible because it wasn’t addressing you, it was addressing other people and it interferes with doctrines invented by Mormon profits.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,

Here is the narrative about the words of the angel Moroni in his appearance to Joseph Smith:

“He said there was a book deposited,… giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang…”

This is not an all-inclusive nor an exclusive statement.

Yes it is.

Source as in the origin; where it all started. And where the Book of Mormon said it all started was with Semitic people (Jews) in the Middle East. This is what my Mormon friends believed 40 years ago.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons believe they have the keys and priesthood authority to make changes. 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, 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.

 

[ParkerD]

… he was just teaching the few people standing there at the time. …

Stephen,

This will be my last post to you, which will be great for both of us.

Christ did indeed single out particular people to whom He gave particular messages. This is very evident in the New Testament, and there are many examples which anyone can find.

I have no doubt you can do that also.

Bye.

 

[pablope]

Stephen,

This will be my last post to you, which will be great for both of us.

Christ did indeed single out particular people to whom He gave particular messages. This is very evident in the New Testament, and there are many examples which anyone can find.

I have no doubt you can do that also.

Bye.

And I can state with absolute certainty that Joseph Smith was not one of them. All you have to do, Parker, is to examine the lives of those whom Christ singled out and compare them objectively and without mormon bias to JS. Or compare those to whom Christ or the Virgin Mary appeared after Pentecost, examine their lives, what kind of life these people led after the apparitions and again compare them objectively and without bias to JS, and you will come full circle to the truth.

I will just cite St Paul. i think we all know that Christ appeared to him directly, yet Paul remained humble and in Christ. He did not go out and start his own religion, and before he went to his missionary journeys, he submitted himself and what he was going to proclaim to Peter in Jerusalem, so make sure they are not in conflict and to confirm what he has been revealed.

 

[pablope]

Kathleen,
I certainly agree that each person will be judged “on their own two feet before the Lord, by our own personal choices”.

Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven for Sadducees, but I’m not a Sadducee so I am not within the scope of that statement. On the contrary, I am in the scope of the statement He also made that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” but I realize that statement carries no weight for many, many people. Marriage in heaven is not for the general population, and would have to be earnestly desired and earnestly prepared for, as a companionship living in love and harmony and with much individual repentance and forgiveness going on in that relationship.

Sorry that some didn’t understand the commandment, so simple and straightforward, given to Adam and Eve and reiterated by Christ.

If I understand your statement correctly in the second paragraph, you are stating that you are part of the elite, part of a select few who will go to heaven and, have your selection of wives?

Isn’t this being presumptous? being self-righteous?

 

[Javl]

JAVL,

That would be, in the first place, because you have never read the Book of Mormon, and in the second place, because the “indisputable proof” is changing by the year and becomes less “indisputable”, as for example the recent National Geographic article about more mounds and a whole pre-Columbus culture in the East St. Louis area that has been “forgotten” by history, deliberately. (Intelligent people read such articles with an open mind, realizing that not all is said and done in the way of gathering the archeological record from times gone by.)

Peace to all.

My dear friend Parker;

I have five different versions of the Book of Mormon each of which I have read. Each has a subtle change in “theology” from the previous version ( aside from typos and semantics ). Therefore how can the book be “the word of God”?

As for the pre-Columbian culture, that is fairly common knowledge and has absolutely nothing to do with the claims of the LDS. The existence of this culture has been known for quite a while and many articles and books have been written and published concerning it, most are available in local libraries. Also, fairly recently another Indian culture has been discovered to have existed in the jungles of South America. This also cannot be tied to the LDS. Sorry to burst your bubble. Shalom.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

If I understand your statement correctly in the second paragraph, you are stating that you are part of the elite, part of a select few who will go to heaven and, have your selection of wives?

Isn’t this being presumptous? being self-righteous?

Pablope,

My statement had to do with faith and its exercise, with the proper authority to bind on earth that which will be bound in heaven and its exercise, with free will choice and its impact on the next life, and with the statement I noted that Christ spoke in saying that marriage is both heaven-sent and heavenly but He also acknowledged to the apostles that it was “difficult to live by the law of eternal marriage” when they asked Him about it. It’s not being presumptuous–it is looking at the doctrine for what it is, and saying that Christ taught that doctrine to the apostles.

Also, just because the “general population” reject eternal marriage does not mean that there won’t be millions of people who do desire that for the marriage they had on earth, and who make the covenants necessary to receive that blessing–nor will they have their “selection of wives” since what the doctrine means is that marriage on this earth is bound in heaven for those married with the proper authority necessary for the marriage to be bound in heaven.

Got it?–the marriage on earth took place during their mortal life (unless for women, they didn’t have an opportunity for an eternal marriage but had the desire and lived righteously in their life on earth. Since infants and young children who die also go to the “married part” of the celestial kingdom, then they also will have the opportunity to choose to marry in the spirit world or in the beginning of the resurrection).

So, to explain further:

1. Faith and its exercise–faith depends on inward desire, so an inward desire would of course need to be in place in order for eternal marriage to be valid, even for two people married with the proper authority (the keys to bind in heaven). That inward desire leads to repentance, forgiveness, greater love and compassion learned by the experiences of life, and learning how to be “help meets” for each other.
2. The keys to bind on earth that which will be bound in heaven were given to Peter and all the apostles, with Peter having been given the keys to be the leading apostle in their exercise. Those keys have been restored to the earth, and are used by delegation of that authority (by those so authorized) in LDS temples today.
3. Free will choice leads to such things as reading the Bible with comprehension of what the words mean, such as comprehending and desiring to live by the commandments given to Adam and Eve and the teachings of Jesus about marriage, plus His teaching: “Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”.
4. One familiar with the New Testament already knows about the verses about marriage, about keys, and about seeking I have been referring to. They are found in Matthew 19:5-8, Matthew 22:23-30, Matthew 18:18, and Matthew 7:7-8.

I hope that now you can understand my comment a little better. Have a good day.

 

[ParkerD]

My dear friend Parker;

I have five different versions of the Book of Mormon each of which I have read. Each has a subtle change in “theology” from the previous version ( aside from typos and semantics ). Therefore how can the book be “the word of God”?

As for the pre-Columbian culture, that is fairly common knowledge and has absolutely nothing to do with the claims of the LDS. The existence of this culture has been known for quite a while and many articles and books have been written and published concerning it, most are available in local libraries. Also, fairly recently another Indian culture has been discovered to have existed in the jungles of South America. This also cannot be tied to the LDS. Sorry to burst your bubble. Shalom.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,

Hello kind friend. So if you have really indeed read the Book of Mormon from the beginning to the end, then since you have taken issue with its teachings one can assume there are specific doctrinal verses (historical account and setting aside) that you disagree with.

I like going to the heart of the matter. Would you care to give a couple or a few examples of the doctrinal verses that lead you to make the general statement you made, so I can compare those doctrinal verses with Biblical verses about the same doctrines?

 

[zaffiroborant]

JAVL,

That would be, in the first place, because you have never read the Book of Mormon, and in the second place, because the “indisputable proof” is changing by the year and becomes less “indisputable”, as for example the recent National Geographic article about more mounds and a whole pre-Columbus culture in the East St. Louis area that has been “forgotten” by history, deliberately. (Intelligent people read such articles with an open mind, realizing that not all is said and done in the way of gathering the archeological record from times gone by.)

Peace to all.

Well I don’t see what Cahokia has to do with the BOM but it is an interesting subject on it’s own. Here is a link to the National Geographic article about it, I’m not sure if it is the entire published article, does NG shorten articles on-line like other magazines? I don’t know what Parker is implying with “that has been “forgotten” by history, deliberately” but I suppose it easy to look back from our current position and see that more should have been done to excavate and protect the site. Yes we would have a lot more information if only those people back then had risen above their political agenda’s and concerns over building homes, businesses and so forth. But maybe we could look at them a bit more kindly though, since humanity has a long history of rebuilding in places once occupied by others.

 

[Jerusha]

Well I don’t see what Cahokia has to do with the BOM but it is an interesting subject on it’s own… Yes we would have a lot more information if only those people back then had risen above their political agenda’s and concerns over building homes, businesses and so forth. But maybe we could look at them a bit more kindly though, since humanity has a long history of rebuilding in places once occupied by others.

Zaffo:
Cahokia has a LOT to do with the BoM. The BoM is an attempt to explain Cahokia, and other features on the North American continent. The Europeans could not believe that the Natives had built such wonders. They thought that they were incapable of doing such things, and had taken them over after defeating white, intelligent people. The first Spanish explorers, going up the Mississippi, saw nearly continuous inhabitations and people. Only a few years later, the population was decimated by epidemics, and the civilizations destroyed. In fact, the diseases that the invaders brought were responsible. Europeans could not conceive that they had brought such devastation. They could not accept such guilt, so they thought up other explanations which spurred further destruction of the Native cultures.

Humanity has a long history of making up history. I was just looking at this guy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_of_Monmouth
See any parallels to the BoM?

a whole pre-Columbus culture in the East St. Louis area that has been “forgotten” by history, deliberately.

No, Parker. Mormons conveniently forget history that does not line up with their preconceived notions. You are thinking from the exclusive context of your cultural heritage.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

In regards to invalidating the common faith and practice only 60 years after the death of the last apostle, you mention another date in 160. I don’t know what it is.

But nothing man made can destroy such a universality of faith.

You admit that Catholicism and Mormonism are so radically different from each other. What I see in Mormon responses is taking every single teaching of mainline Christianity, and deflecting it into something else.

This is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit Who called us to be one.

I believe that there are Mormons within Mormonism who in essence have the same belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as we do. But I agree with your former president that the Christ in Mormonism is not the same as that in Christianity.

And so again, there was no apostasy. It is just that we of the apostolic faith believe in the same Christ Who was and is and will be always God. And that the truths of salvation history originated and came from Israel.

If there were lost tribes else where, the Jews would be the ones to validate their own people.

You made reference to the year 160 AD. No one year, like some moment in that year, can invalidate the Holy Spirit’s work in calling us to uniformity of faith. The Holy Spirit is always at work, our deposit of faith always protected and maintained by God. Again, just the practice of the faith and the Mass in earliest times inspite of great persecution, with no Bible and no catechism books, and all the different languages and customs …is the sign of the Holy Spirit at work.

The other tragedy is the implication that the Catholic priesthood is corrupt. That belief is not from the Lord but from the evil one.

The very core of our being, our essential DNA, has this component of the divine. But it is only ‘turned on’ at baptism. It is only through grace that we are restored and become alive again in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was fully revealed by the end of the life of the last apostle St. John, but for mankind our restoration was now only beginning. The next step in Salvation History was now to see the witness of Jesus Christ among His believers in His Church, His bride.

 

[Jerusha]

If there were lost tribes else where, the Jews would be the ones to validate their own people.

No DNA evidence links Natives of the Americas with the Jews, except in cases of recent documented intermarriage.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffo:
Cahokia has a LOT to do with the BoM. The BoM is an attempt to explain Cahokia, and other features on the North American continent. The Europeans could not believe that the Natives had built such wonders. They thought that they were incapable of doing such things, and had taken them over after defeating white, intelligent people. The first Spanish explorers, going up the Mississippi, saw nearly continuous inhabitations and people. Only a few years later, the population was decimated by epidemics, and the civilizations destroyed. In fact, the diseases that the invaders brought were responsible. Europeans could not conceive that they had brought such devastation. They could not accept such guilt, so they thought up other explanations which spurred further destruction of the Native cultures.

Humanity has a long history of making up history. I was just looking at this guy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_of_Monmouth
See any parallels to the BoM?

No, Parker. Mormons conveniently forget history that does not line up with their preconceived notions. You are thinking from the exclusive context of your cultural heritage.

Yes the from the NG article:

The idea that American Indians could have built something resembling a city was so foreign to European settlers, that when they encountered the mounds of Cahokia—the largest of which is a ten-story earthen colossus composed of more than 22 million cubic feet of soil—they commonly thought they must have been the work of a foreign civilization: Phoenicians or Vikings or perhaps a lost tribe of Israel.

They seem to have abandoned the mound builders in favor of Mesoamerican cultures these days. It seems only Rod Meldrum, founder of the FAIR Foundation, is in favor of the mound sites as being the location of the BOM. Cahokia is even included in a tour that, from what I understand, Mr. Meldrum guides. June 21st might me an interesting day to visit Cahokia

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, Parker has long ago admitted to being a traditionalist, like Meldrum.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, Parker has long ago admitted to being a traditionalist, like Meldrum.

Jerusha,

I don’t follow Meldrum at all, and don’t think that Cahokia represents the “lost Nephite civilization”, at all. It does show that there was a group of people who had a more advanced civilization and commerce than was generally presented as the prevailing opinion during the late 1700’s and the 1800’s in North America, and that article explains that there was a deliberate ignoring of the evidence about such civilizations in North America.

 

[Jerusha]

that article explains that there was a deliberate ignoring of the evidence about such civilizations in North America.

I just picked this up:

2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker, take a listen to these on the very bottom of this page. I don’t know how many of these you have encountered. God Bless
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/about-our-tv-commercials.php

Parker, as to the great Apostasy, how can you account for the Catholic Church being the largest charitable organization on the face of the earth? I want you to know that this question makes me feel uncomfortable in a Catholic sense because it really should not be about numbers, should not be a thought. But in the context of this post I feel it is appropriate. Even the USA can not make this claim yet it also helps the world in so many ways untold. It is no wonder you find that America is very much a Christian Nation. But it is the Catholic Church that leads the charge when it comes to spreading Christ’s healing power.

Isn’t this what you would expect to find two thousand years after Christ walked, healed and taught on the face of the earth?

This is not a proud charitable organization; rather it is an organization willing to go down rather than to go up. It’s all about stepping aside and allowing God to work through His servants, willing to give up their lives in many instances in the most remote parts of the earth. Giving up their lives to God even before they are taken. And many of these servants that go will never receive earthy credit or praise and in most instances do not want it at all; they would see this as sin itself. And those that do receive it and are tempted by it also see it as sin and can only ask for forgiveness in order to continue the work in this type of humility and grace that Christ gave to His Church. .

“There by the Grace of God we go”

 

[ParkerD]

To the general reader who happens not to follow the link provided by Zaffiroborant that provides the online National Geographic article, here are a few notable sentences:

"Even now, the idea of an Indian city runs so contrary to American notions of Indian life that we can’t seem to absorb it, and perhaps it’s this cognitive dissonance that has led us to collectively ignore Cahokia’s very existence. Have you ever heard of Cahokia? In casual conversation, I’ve found almost no one outside the St. Louis area who has.

Our ignorance has deep roots. The first person to write a detailed account of Cahokia’s mounds was Henry Brackenridge, a lawyer and amateur historian who came upon the site and its massive central mound while exploring the surrounding prairie in 1811. “I was struck with a degree of astonishment, not unlike that which is experienced in contemplating the Egyptian pyramids,” he wrote. “What a stupendous pile of earth! To heap up such a mass must have required years, and the labors of thousands.” But newspaper accounts of his discovery were widely ignored. He complained of this in a letter to his friend former President Thomas Jefferson, and with friends in such high places, word of Cahokia did eventually get around. Unfortunately it was not word most Americans, including subsequent Presidents, were very interested in hearing. The United States was trying to get Indians out of the way, not appreciate their history.