LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[catholic-rcia]

Z,

The thing for each of them to do was to follow their heart’s desires, and to read the Bible along the way during their life for guidance from God through inspiration from Him as they read and sought inspiration daily. I have to assume that they did that.

No one should marry if the desire to marry is not in their heart. In other words, no one should marry just out of obligation about marrying, nor have children just out of obligation about having children.

Yes, this is important Parker. Catholic children are expected to marry as it is a Holy Sacrament within our church, but the possibility of them being called to the celibate priesthood is also another possibility. This leaves a door open for those who are called to certain vocations that include remaining un married for** the kingdom of heaven’s sake**. This openness leads some in the Catholic faith to become priests, women to take vows to certain communities and so forth. I have a great love for these. Its something beautiful, to hand over ones life to Christ in this manner.

I would like to answer flyonthewheel here if I may regarding his comment on Mary as my time is short.

Eve brought death into the world by saying no to Gods will.
Mary brought life into the world by saying yes to Gods will

Maybe an epiphany here?

Of course Mary is special as she is what Eve could have been. A perfect creature in Christ. “His”

Mary is the Mother of our Church, she is the mother of our Lord, she is with is always. Always pointing to her Son. If you can see how important her ‘yes’ was and is for each one of us this may help. How devastating this ‘yes’ is for Satan. Then you would understand Kathleen.

Rich

 

[flyonthewall]

Yes, it is my faith, but it is also fact that cannot be proven otherwise. Many have tried, including the LDS, and all have failed.

As for your listening to Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Prophets, I say this to you in all Christian Charity and without malice: you may have listened but you have not heard what has been said. If you had heard you would realize that all that we have told you is the plain unadultarated truth, no lies, myths, misinterpretations, or misunderstandings. You would have the fullness and joy of knowing the truth, as so many have, and bask in it as one would bask in the sunshine. Shalom.

PAX DIOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Thank you for your concern, but I am confident in my faith and am just as convicted in mine as you are in yours.
As far as “lies, myths, misinterpretations or misunderstandings” go, I believe I have none of these, and do have the fullness of the gospel.

 

[Timothy17]

Thank you for your concern, but I am confident in my faith and am just as convicted in mine as you are in yours.
As far as “lies, myths, misinterpretations or misunderstandings” go, I believe I have none of these, and do have the fullness of the gospel.

Yes, we know : you believe an angel of light delivered to your founder a new gospel to share with mankind, and though this was explicitly condemned by the Apostles, you disregarded the Apostle, and prefer the word of your founder, who was an adulterer, among other things, and who himself felt it necessary to join a secret society so as to further compliment his new gospel, which (he taught) was delivered from no other source than Heaven ; notwithstanding, Mr. Smth found the society of Heaven somehwat insufficient - even direct recourse to the Almighty Himself, or one of His angels - he was rather desirous of some help - not of God - but from a certain society of men, and no ordinary men, but men who delight in making bloody and violent oaths to and before one another, and who also refuse - nay, even declare it forbidden - to even mention the name of Christ at or during their clandestine proceedings, which same society it is well known he invoked for help at the very hour of his death, in order that they might rescue him from it (again, he not thinking the Almighty was better able to provide him with this service, but he (in keeping with recent habits) preferring rather instead the aid of men, who - as history tells us - also quite failed him in this rather important regard).

Yes, we know quite well what you believe.

Pax,
Tim

 

[flyonthewall]

Yes, we know : you believe an angel of light delivered to your founder a new gospel to share with mankind, and though this was explicitly condemned by the Apostles,

Not a new gospel, but the restored gospel. Not just an angel, but God the Father, and Jesus Christ Himself.

you disregarded the Apostle, and prefer the word of your founder, who was an adulterer, among other things, and who himself felt it necessary to join a secret society so as to further compliment his new gospel, which (he taught) was delivered from no other source than Heaven.

I do not disregard but follow the words of the Apostles. Joseph Smith was no more an adulterer than Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. So if that is what you are doing, labeling the very founders of the Judeo-Christian religions as adulterers, well that is your right.

But apparently, it being found insufficient by Mr. Smth to have direct recourse to the Almighty Himself, or one of His angels, he was desirous rather of some help - not of God - but from mere men, men who delight in making bloody and violent oaths to and before one another, and who also refuse, and declare it forbidden, to even mention the name of Christ at or during their clandestine proceedings

, Here you begin to make things up as I have no idea of what you speak. Oh I understand the basis on which you have distorted truths, but what you present is totally false.

which same men it is also well known he called upon for help at the very hour of his death, in order that they might rescue him from it (again, he not thinking the Almighty was better able to provide him this service, but he (in keeping with recent habits) prefered instead the aid of men, who - as history tells us - also quite failed him in this important regard).

Yes, we know quite well what you believe.

According to what you have presented here, you have absolutely no idea what I believe.
If this is the same methodology that was used to preserve the gospel as it was taught from the Apostles, then I am surprised you still believe in Jesus Christ at all.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t think that your words are ignored.

I think they are.

I’ve never heard a Mormon offer any historical evidence.

I’ve asked many times for a Mormon to explain how the Mormon Church could lose Priesthood Authority and still exist, but have never got a response.

I’ve also never heard any biblical proof from a Mormon that also knew the difference between the apostasy of an individual and a Church.

 

[flyonthewall]

Perhaps you can explain why it is a false parallel. Joseph is called an adulterer for plural marriage, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not.
Adultery was known in the time of those propehts, so why aren’t they labeled adulterous, while Joseph is?
To illustrate double standards is not a deflection.

 

[ParkerD]

Jharek,

A Catholic told me that Abraham had an affair that resulted in the birth of Ishmael–so it seems Catholics disagree one with another. (I thought it was a strange belief to have about Hagar.)

 

[Javl]

Thank you for your concern, but I am confident in my faith and am just as convicted in mine as you are in yours.
As far as “lies, myths, misinterpretations or misunderstandings” go, I believe I have none of these, and do have the fullness of the gospel.

My friend, if you did have the fullness of the gospel, as you claim, and understood it, you most definitely*** would not *** be a member of LDS but a true Christian. I do hope that when you finally realize this that it would be not too late for your salvation.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[flyonthewall]

Originally Posted by Stephen168
I think they are.

You words are not ignored but have been answered on more than one occasion.

I’ve never heard a Mormon offer any historical evidence.

I have given scriptural evidence, which you of course do not agree with. That does not mean you have not been answered.

I’ve asked many times for a Mormon to explain how the Mormon Church could lose Priesthood Authority and still exist, but have never got a response.

If the Mormon church were to ever lose priesthood authority, it would still exist, just not with proper authority, and the doctrines would stray. There are several splinter groups that have broken away from our church that are evidence of that.

I’ve also never heard any biblical proof from a Mormon that also knew the difference between the apostasy of an individual and a Church.

I am very much aware of the difference between individual apostasy and Church apostasy.
Churches are made up of individuals. If priesthood authority is lost and the leadership adopts doctrines that have been altered, then the church has gone into apostasy, even though people maintain their faith in those altered doctrines.

 

[onenow1]

I was wondering if any LDS member could give a reason, why Jesus did not go to New Zealand or Australia and preach the gospel ? What am I missing here ?

God Bless

 

[flyonthewall]

I was wondering if any LDS member could give a reason, why Jesus did not go to New Zealand or Australia and preach the gospel ? What am I missing here ?

God Bless

I don’t know that He didn’t. We do know that there were other sheep that He also had to visit.

 

[Stephen168]

I have given scriptural evidence, which you of course do not agree with. That does not mean you have not been answered.

Father: Where are the Children?
Mother: They will be home at 3:00.
Biblical evidence is not history evidence. Giving an answer isn’t answering* the question.* Again, you did not answer the question.

If the Mormon church were to ever lose priesthood authority, it would still exist, just not with proper authority, and the doctrines would stray. There are several splinter groups that have broken away from our church that are evidence of that.

Again, you did not answer the question: How could the Mormon Church lose Priesthood Authority and still exist? What exactly step would have to happen?

I am very much aware of the difference between individual apostasy and Church apostasy.
Churches are made up of individuals. If priesthood authority is lost and the leadership adopts doctrines that have been altered, then the church has gone into apostasy, even though people maintain their faith in those altered doctrines.

Again, you didn’t answer the question. List biblical proof of a total apostasy being aware of the difference between individual apostasy and Church apostasy.

You words are not ignored but have been answered on more than one occasion.

No they never have as you have just shown. A response is NOT an answer.

 

[ParkerD]

My friend, if you did have the fullness of the gospel, as you claim, and understood it, you most definitely*** would not *** be a member of LDS but a true Christian. I do hope that when you finally realize this that it would be not too late for your salvation.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,

Since you have broached the same kind of statement with me, I’ll remind that a person who really and truly has the sure witness of the Holy Ghost, does not take it lightly in such a way that the “fear” of “too late” or “true Christian (like whom?)” has not only no meaning, but exactly the opposite is true, in that to deny the Holy Ghost is an unpardonable sin that you are asking someone to commit by your invitation.

You should know by your study of the New Testament that this would be a greater thing a true follower of Christ would be sensitive about than whether people who haven’t experienced that witness try and persuade those who have by all sorts of reasoning methods. They are tiny means by comparison.

That is what having a foundation of faith founded on the Rock of Jesus Christ is all about, and why your method does not work. The Rock He spoke about involves the Holy Ghost’s sure witness, and when a person has that, then all these words without knowledge just fall by the wayside.

Peace, and good health to you, JAVL.

 

[flyonthewall]

Father: Where are the Children?
Mother: They will be home at 3:00.
Biblical evidence is not history evidence. Giving an answer isn’t answering* the question.* Again, you did not answer the question.

Historians do not prove matters of faith. At most, they can only say who took over the reigns, they cannot verify if it was done properly.
It is on record that there were disagreements over doctrine, of course the group that wins the argument has control over what is and is not true doctrine, whether or not they were right is a different matter.

Again, you did not answer the question: How could the Mormon Church lose Priesthood Authority and still exist? What exactly step would have to happen?

The question was most definately answered, and even an example given on top. If you cannot understand the answer, it does not mean the question hasn’t been answered.

Again, you didn’t answer the question. List biblical proof of a total apostasy being aware of the difference between individual apostasy and Church apostasy.
No they never have as you have just shown. A response is NOT an answer.

Here is a biblical scripture about the total apostasy:

Amos 8
11¶Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

12And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

or will you state that this is also talking about individual apostasy?

 

[Old_Ephriam]

I don’t know about Australia or New Zealand but Christ did visit other people. The records of those visits should be available shortly.

 

[Stephen168]

I actually got this idea from a doubting Mormon. I just put it into an outline form because I think outlines make for clear thinking. 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.

I’ve asked many times for a Mormon to explain how the Mormon Church could lose Priesthood Authority and still exist, but have never got a response. I’ve also never heard any biblical proof from a Mormon that also knew the difference between the apostasy of an individual and a Church.

If the Mormon church were to ever lose priesthood authority, it would still exist, just not with proper authority, and the doctrines would stray.

You did not answer the question.

The question was most definately answered, and even an example given on top. If you cannot understand the answer, it does not mean the question hasn’t been answered.

No, you did not answer the question. You told me what the Mormon Church would act like after the fact, but not HOW it could happen.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t know about Australia or New Zealand but Christ did visit other people. The records of those visits should be available shortly.

 

[Stephen168]

Historians do not prove matters of faith. At most, they can only say who took over the reigns, they cannot verify if it was done properly.

Yes, the Great Apostasy was not a historical event, which is why people who believe it happened cannot prove it with historical evidence. So he was wrong when he said:

LDS also believe that there is … historical evidence for a Great Apostasy.

or will you state that this is also talking about individual apostasy?

No, it does not sound like apostasy of any kind; individual or church. It would also be odd to look to the Old Testament for a Christian Apostasy.

 

[pablope]

Historians do not prove matters of faith. At most, they can only say who took over the reigns, they cannot verify if it was done properly.

Here is a biblical scripture about the total apostasy:

or will you state that this is also talking about individual apostasy?

It is on record that there were disagreements over doctrine, of course the group that wins the argument has control over what is and is not true doctrine, whether or not they were right is a different matter.

It looks like this describes what happened to the original LDS when JS died, where different leaders took congregations with them and established their own branch of LDS.

And it looks like this is what is happening today to the LDS, as they are trying to make their theology more, for lack of a better term, Christian friendly. What with different members seem not to be in the same page, a mormon missionary mentions something not agreeable, and is said to be and individual opinion eek…and so forth that have come to light with the several threads about mormonism…

 

[Timothy17]

Perhaps you can explain why it is a false parallel. Joseph is called an adulterer for plural marriage, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not.
Adultery was known in the time of those propehts, so why aren’t they labeled adulterous, while Joseph is?
To illustrate double standards is not a deflection.

Flyonthewall,

When Joseph Smith wed the first time, I am curious, what manner of vows did he take ? And I am curious also, did the vows he make to his wife before God permit him or even give him the pretext for taking more wives ?

So he marries a woman who, in keeping with the common tradition of Christians for thousands of years, lawfully and rightfully expected him to love her and no other “till death” did them part, but later he unilaterally determines to alter the conditions of the vows so as to permit him to take to himself more wives, and if this insult were not enough, he begins to preach a theology wherein she shall be bonded to her adulterous and vow-breaking husband for all eternity.

No, flyonthewall, Joseph Smith was most certainly an adulterer, and his poor first (and original) wife was the primary victim of his promiscuity and defilement of marriage.