LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[darrelljpark]

lol…let me see if I understand…a guy who follows a god who was once a man and who follows a christ who was weak and cruel and dishonest, and who follows a prophet who used seer stones to dig for treasure and then those same seer stones to read gold plates that people could only see with spiritual eyes and who had 9 versions of a vision and who had a racist god, and who treasures a history book that has no basis in fact has the audacity to claim Soren is incomprehensible?

Too much.

I find Soren’s posts well-written, informative, VERY intelligently done, honest to a fault, irrefutable, logical, and enjoyable.

Of course, I never had to check my brain at the door to believe in God…

I find it sad that you feel it necessary to mock and put down someone’s beliefs like that. Although we may not agree on certain things, we all believe in Jesus Christ and God, and should not talk of Them that way.

 

[darrelljpark]

To compliment Soren’s excellent last post, I humbly submit this little tidbit of rational thinking: if the Alleged Apostacy did indeed, occur, it then predates the assembly of the Bible, which, in itself, proves that there was no such thing. If there was a world-wide lack of belief in God, there would have been no Bible whatsoever.

Nowhere does it say that there was a world-wide lack of belief in God. I appreciate Soren’s posts, but statements like these are not acceptable. It was a world-wide lack of authority to direct the church and necessary ordinaces. Most people were still good and believed in God and Christ.

 

[darrelljpark]

This has been a great read.
Thanks all.

 

[benidict]

Nowhere does it say that there was a world-wide lack of belief in God. I appreciate Soren’s posts, but statements like these are not acceptable. It was a world-wide lack of authority to direct the church and necessary ordinaces. Most people were still good and believed in God and Christ.

hello my friend. who that authority is, is what really seperates us. would that be fair to say? we as Catholics believe that the apostolic authority was passed down, whereas our Latter Day Saint friends contend it was lost, and restored under Joseph Smith. would this be a correct assumption? i do however admire the way the Mormon Church recognizes this need for an authoritative governing body. we do have that in common. have you ever had a chance to study the Church fathers? and if so, what is your view on where they were coming from. some of the earliest, did believe they had a line of succession. i dont have my books here. i had to leave alot behind. cant wait to get back to the states. Peace to you and yours. oh yes. could you tell me if they have finally reopened the temple in oahu hawaii? ive been there, but it was being renovated. i know i cant go inside, but they do have a wonderful visitors center, and fountain. Peace

 

[benidict]

I find it sad that you feel it necessary to mock and put down someone’s beliefs like that. Although we may not agree on certain things, we all believe in Jesus Christ and God, and should not talk of Them that way.

id have to agree with you. i cannot in all honesty measure todays Latter Day Saints, by their founder. things were very much different back then. even in mainstream christian circles. for lack of a better term, it was “religious uphevel” among the mainstream churches, that birthed three major movements in the 1800s. and all three, around the same area of the country. the Adventist, the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses, were the products of this interdenominational conflict, whos epicenter was the american north east. Peace

 

[RebeccaJ]

I find it sad that you feel it necessary to mock and put down someone’s beliefs like that. Although we may not agree on certain things, we all believe in Jesus Christ and God, and should not talk of Them that way.

Sorry, but I don’t believe you. There is a thread going at a LDS forum where many LDS say they would NOT BE CHRISTIAN if they weren’t LDS. Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ, and so easily abandons Him, doesn’t truly believe in Him. Your belief is in your church, and what SirThomasMore said reflects this understanding.

Second Jesus IS GOD…so there is no need to separate Him from God, which is separating Him from Himself. So no, these gods you believe in are not GOD, even if you do give them the same names.

And what is with the LDS popping old Mormon threads to the top, only to have pretend sorrow at the author of a post. SirThomasMore obviously can’t respond because he has been banned.

 

[BartBurk]

Sorry, but I don’t believe you. There is a thread going at a LDS forum where many LDS say they would NOT BE CHRISTIAN if they weren’t LDS. Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ, and so easily abandons Him, doesn’t truly believe in Him. Your belief is in your church, and what SirThomasMore said reflects this understanding.

Second Jesus IS GOD…so there is no need to separate Him from God, which is separating Him from Himself. So no, these gods you believe in are not GOD, even if you do give them the same names.

I continue to hope that LDS are going to wake up from their dismissal of the Trinity – perhaps in a few years they will finally catch it. The educated people in the LDS are still trying to distance themselves from some of the more difficult things in LDS history like the King Follet sermon. They know there are problems in their past. I hope they will transition from their unbelief to belief in Jesus, but it may not happen overnight.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I continue to hope that LDS are going to wake up from their dismissal of the Trinity – perhaps in a few years they will finally catch it. The educated people in the LDS are still trying to distance themselves from some of the more difficult things in LDS history like the King Follet sermon. They know there are problems in their past. I hope they will transition from their unbelief to belief in Jesus, but it may not happen overnight.

There’s is a deception, that’s all there is to it. The deceived may not know they are deceived, and may be perfectly content to try and pretend if they have noticed “difficulties” that need to be explained away. Somehow. Please someone help explain these things away. Unfortunately, as is seen often here, the explaining away requires explaining away God, whole passages of scriptures and Truth.

Pretending along with them is going along with the deception.

These are not the devices of Truth.

 

[mtolympus]

oh yes. could you tell me if they have finally reopened the temple in oahu hawaii? ive been there, but it was being renovated. i know i cant go inside, but they do have a wonderful visitors center, and fountain. Peace

Yes, the temple in Laie Hawaii has reopened. I checked to see when the open house was scheduled. The temple was open to the public from Oct 22 through November 13 before it was rededicated. I always enjoy reading your kind remarks.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Sorry, but I don’t believe you. There is a thread going at a LDS forum where many LDS say they would NOT BE CHRISTIAN if they weren’t LDS. Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ, and so easily abandons Him, doesn’t truly believe in Him. Your belief is in your church, and what SirThomasMore said reflects this understanding.

Second Jesus IS GOD…so there is no need to separate Him from God, which is separating Him from Himself. So no, these gods you believe in are not GOD, even if you do give them the same names.

And what is with the LDS popping old Mormon threads to the top, only to have pretend sorrow at the author of a post. SirThomasMore obviously can’t respond because he has been banned.

What if he confesses to those things we might consider short comings, then have the ban lifted where he can try again? I remember when I was first Baptised here in Logan Utah. It took me about 5 years to get over myself as to speaking to the LDS. I was a lot like Thomas. I think as a forgiving people the Moterators should re consider the ban. Maybe his time should be up. If he is still around. Or is it once banned always banned, I don;t know.

 

[dcana]

I am curious. Since Mormons believe that the “Great Apostasy” as predicted by Paul in 2 Thess happened in, or around, the year 70 AD, do they not believe there will be a Great Apostasy at the end of time, shortly before Christ returns in glory to give salvation to his people, as Christians believe?

Also, Paul says that “for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (KJV)

So, Paul links the “falling away” with the “man of sin [being] revealved, the son of perdition…” When did this happen? When was the “man of sin” revealed? Did the Antichrist come in (or around) 70AD and I missed it? If yes, then why didn’t Christ return soon after? This is, after all, what Paul is talking about here.

Didn’t the Antichrist have to have come by 70 AD and “[sit] in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God,” since the temple was destroyed in 70AD?

Sorry for my ignorance.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I am curious. Since Mormons believe that the “Great Apostasy” as predicted by Paul in 2 Thess happened in, or around, the year 70 AD, do they not believe there will be a Great Apostasy at the end of time, shortly before Christ returns in glory to give salvation to his people, as Christians believe?

Also, Paul says that “for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (KJV)

So, Paul links the “falling away” with the “man of sin [being] revealved, the son of perdition…” When did this happen? When was the “man of sin” revealed? Did the Antichrist come in (or around) 70AD and I missed it? If yes, then why didn’t Christ return soon after? This is, after all, what Paul is talking about here.

Didn’t the Antichrist have to have come by 70 AD and “[sit] in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God,” since the temple was destroyed in 70AD?

Sorry for my ignorance.

These questions along with who was the “man of sin” have been asked before, and they were utterly ignored, maybe you’ll have better luck:dts:

 

[flyonthewall]

These questions along with who was the “man of sin” have been asked before, and they were utterly ignored, maybe you’ll have better luck:dts:

I hope this will answer your question so you do not think it is ignored any longer.

lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy?lang=eng
The “man of sin,” generally equated with Satan, would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God.
To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic. Indeed, Latter-day Saints should rejoice—as the heavens undoubtedly do—at the great works of righteousness and faith, and the leavening influence on the world, of those whose lives are touched in any degree by Him whose gospel the Saints enjoy in its fulness. Still, “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized. How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía.

 

[dcana]

I hope this will answer your question so you do not think it is ignored any longer.

lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy?lang=eng
The “man of sin,” generally equated with Satan, would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God.
To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic. Indeed, Latter-day Saints should rejoice—as the heavens undoubtedly do—at the great works of righteousness and faith, and the leavening influence on the world, of those whose lives are touched in any degree by Him whose gospel the Saints enjoy in its fulness. Still, “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized. How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía.

1. The “Man of Sin” is usually equated with the Antichrist, not Satan.
2. Could you please answer my other questions?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I hope this will answer your question so you do not think it is ignored any longer.

lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy?lang=eng
The “man of sin,” generally equated with Satan, would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God.
To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic. Indeed, Latter-day Saints should rejoice—as the heavens undoubtedly do—at the great works of righteousness and faith, and the leavening influence on the world, of those whose lives are touched in any degree by Him whose gospel the Saints enjoy in its fulness. Still, “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized. How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía.

And I’m sure you find this all to be totally inoffensive.

But it certainly puts to rest the old canard that the LDS church doesn’t tear down other peoples religion, while it may mention none by name it does effectively condemn them all. Interesting that the Ensign article was published before they changed the temple ceremony, deleting the part where a “minister” is portrayed as an employee/agent of Satan.

 

[flyonthewall]

1. The “Man of Sin” is usually equated with the Antichrist, not Satan.
2. Could you please answer my other questions?

1. Well that may be a difference in our beliefs. “Son of perdition”, as described in that scripture fits Satan to a tee…and is not Satan an antichrist?

2.So, Paul links the “falling away” with the “man of sin [being] revealved, the son of perdition…” When did this happen? When was the “man of sin” revealed? Did the Antichrist come in (or around) 70AD and I missed it? If yes, then why didn’t Christ return soon after? This is, after all, what Paul is talking about here.

Didn’t the Antichrist have to have come by 70 AD and “[sit] in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God,” since the temple was destroyed in 70AD?

I believe the answers to your questions are contained in the link I provided.
The man of sin was Satan, or at least his influence over the people that led the church into apostacy.
Paul has this to say to the church at Ephesus:

29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

This sounds like a description of 2 Thess.

 

[flyonthewall]

And I’m sure you find this all to be totally inoffensive.

But it certainly puts to rest the old canard that the LDS church doesn’t tear down other peoples religion, while it may mention none by name it does effectively condemn them all. Interesting that the Ensign article was published before they changed the temple ceremony, deleting the part where a “minister” is portrayed as an employee/agent of Satan.

Oh I am sure there will be many that will find it offensive…heck, just the fact that we believe there was an apostacy is offensive to many.

Hmm. Any time one faith states they are right and another is wrong, or even incomplete, someone will take offense.
Are you one that will state that the Catholic church is the only true church and all others are at best incomplete, and think it is not tearing down another’s church?

You want to say we tear down other people’s religion, I suppose that is mainly because you disagree with our religion. We recognize the apostacy happened, but we also realize that there is much good found in all religions.
We extend a hand of fellowship to all religions, and can honestly consider all Christians as brothers in Christ, while the same is not recipricated by all.

 

[benidict]

Yes, the temple in Laie Hawaii has reopened. I checked to see when the open house was scheduled. The temple was open to the public from Oct 22 through November 13 before it was rededicated. I always enjoy reading your kind remarks.

i knew that was going to happen. i got deployed to iraq in july, so i missed it. my one chance to actually see the inside of one of these magnificent structures and the army had to ruin it! :banghead: lol! maybe ill have the chance to see another one, but knowing my luck korea might pop off or something… always happy to converse with my LDS friends. i went to basic with mitt romneys cousin, and one of my team members come from a LDS back ground. i also have a good friend on my team who is agnostic but has nothing but good to say about the LDS, they helped him get through some really tough times. if he was going to join a congregation, i think he would probably join you guys, in all honesty. it would be nice to see him choose one of ours. peace and prayers for you and yours.

 

[benidict]

Oh I am sure there will be many that will find it offensive…heck, just the fact that we believe there was an apostacy is offensive to many.

Hmm. Any time one faith states they are right and another is wrong, or even incomplete, someone will take offense.
Are you one that will state that the Catholic church is the only true church and all others are at best incomplete, and think it is not tearing down another’s church?

You want to say we tear down other people’s religion, I suppose that is mainly because you disagree with our religion. We recognize the apostacy happened, but we also realize that there is much good found in all religions.
We extend a hand of fellowship to all religions, and can honestly consider all Christians as brothers in Christ, while the same is not recipricated by all.

if im not mistaken, the LDS takes a stand similar to us of the Catholic faith. that it is up to God to judge, and that there will be people, who are not united into our respective communions who will in fact be in heaven. i personally, after reading the Church fathers and early Church writings, cannot believe such an apostacy took place. if anything, it was martin luther, and john calvin who apostasized. they were the ones who left and got the whole ball rolling that has led to the state protestantism is in today. the Catholic Church on the other hand, has held firm in the face of opposition for centuries, and i believe if Christ tarries, it will hold firm no matter what amount of times it takes. He is able, and He is faithful to hi Bride. peace to you and yours.

 

[flyonthewall]

if im not mistaken, the LDS takes a stand similar to us of the Catholic faith. that it is up to God to judge, and that there will be people, who are not united into our respective communions who will in fact be in heaven. i personally, after reading the Church fathers and early Church writings, cannot believe such an apostacy took place. if anything, it was martin luther, and john calvin who apostasized. they were the ones who left and got the whole ball rolling that has led to the state protestantism is in today. the Catholic Church on the other hand, has held firm in the face of opposition for centuries, and i believe if Christ tarries, it will hold firm no matter what amount of times it takes. He is able, and He is faithful to hi Bride. peace to you and yours.

Yes, indeed, we believe there will be many who were not “Mormon” in this life that will receive the highests rewards possible. It is all about what we do with what we know and understand.
Seek truth where ever it may be, and follow truth as it is revealed by the Holy Spirit.

As Brigham Young said(paraphrasing): if you are Baptist, then be the best Baptist you can be. If you are Catholic, then be the best Catholic you can be.