LDS View of the Great Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatboys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just finished reading
fairlds.org/authors/bickmore-barry/restoring-the-ancient-church-joseph-smith-and-early-christianity

The basic methodology of the book is to take the most lasting Mormon doctrines, and prove their validity through the pseudo-Christian Gnostic writings from the time of early Christianity. Thus, what we call the apostasy of the Gnostic cults, is their religion. They call our religion an apostasy from early Christianity, and we call their religion a pseudo-Christian Gnostic cult. It is a basic agree to disagree situation. Probably the best piece of Mormon apologetics I have ever read. :coffeeread: There is even a section on Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, Heavenly Mother, who is not to be worshiped. 😃

However, Mormonism as currently lived, is a rule-bound religion of works (but minimizes corporal works of mercy) and is diametrically opposed to Gnosticism. And Gnosticism has very little practical advice for ethical living.

What I find encouraging in the section on Original Sin is that article of faith #2 is extended to mean that we are not responsible for the sins of our ancestors. Which is in contradiction to D&C 121. That section of the D&C I find to be one of the most reprehensible of LDS teachings.

Not bad, and the author put plenty of work into it. Cherry-picking among the Gnostic beliefs that are most similar to LDS beliefs, but not bad, not bad at all. Should encourage all LDS to go Gnostic, and splinter them even more. 😃
 
Janderich said:
There are two priesthoods namely the Aaronic and Melchizedek. Through the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood leaders guide and direct the church. The Melchizedek priesthood is after the Order of the Son of God and holds the keys of the knowledge of God and the right of presidency. This priesthood is without beginning of days or end of years.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as the Melchizedek priesthood. It is a fabrication of Joseph Smith.
Janderich said:
During the apostasy the Melchizedek priesthood was lost. However, in 1829 the apostles Peter, James, and John, who held this priesthood, visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and restored the Melchizedek priesthood to men on the earth. Through the ordinances of this priesthood all may be saved and enter into the rest of the Lord which is the fullness of his glory.
Click to expand...
Melchizedek priesthood never was, so it could not be lost. It was in 1829 that Joseph Smith invented it along with his fantasy of how it started.
 
kimg901 said:
Here’s what I found out about my last post;

Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of as “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4), and so Jesus plays the role of High Priest once and for all. Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a Kohen, and thus would not qualify for the Kohanic priesthood under Torah Laws[2]).

Melchizedek is referred to again in Hebrews 5:6-10; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:1-21: “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”; and Hebrews 8:1.

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises" (Hebrews 7:5-6).

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:11-12).

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament discussed this subject considerably, listing the following reasons for why the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic priesthood:
1.Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek; later, the Levites would receive tithes from their countrymen. Since Aaron was in Abraham’s loins then, it was as if the Aaronic priesthood were paying tithes to Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:4-10)
2.The one who blesses is always greater than the one being blessed. Thus, Melchizedek was greater than Abraham. As Levi was yet in the loins of Abraham, it follows that Melchizedek is greater than Levi. (Heb. 7:7-10)
3.If the priesthood of Aaron were effective, God would not have called a new priest in a different order in Psalm 110. (Heb. 7:11)
4.The basis of the Aaronic priesthood was ancestry; the basis of the priesthood of Melchizedek is everlasting life. That is, there is no interruption due to a priest’s death. (Heb. 7:8,15-16,23-25)
5.Christ, being sinless, does not need a sacrifice for his own sins. (Heb. 7:26-27)
6.The priesthood of Melchizedek is more effective because it required a single sacrifice once and for all (Jesus), while the Levitical priesthood made endless sacrifices. (Heb. 7:27)
7.The Aaronic priests serve (or, rather, served) in an earthly copy and shadow of the heavenly Temple, which Jesus serves in. (Heb. 8:5)

The epistle goes on to say that the covenant of Jesus is superior to the covenant the Levitical priesthood is under. Some Christians hold that Melchizedek was a type of Christ, and some other Christians hold that Melchizedek indeed was Christ. Reasons provided include that Melchizedek’s name means “king of righteousness” according to the author of Hebrews, and that being king of Salem makes Melchizedek the “king of peace.” Heb. 7:3 states, “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he (Melchizedek) remains a priest forever.” Melchizedek gave Abraham bread and wine, which Christians consider symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the sacrifice to confirm a covenant.
Click to expand...
👍 I noticed your post was never responded to.
A clear reading of Hebrews proves that Joseph Smith’s invention of a Melchizedek priesthood is contrary to the Bible and history. I believe Joseph Smith would read a small phrase from the Bible and then invent something new out of it.
 
Jesus Christ is of the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ is the One High Priest Who provides us the perpetual sacrifice that Melchizedek foresaw.

Melchizedek is precursor to Jesus Christ. Melchizedek did not use bloody sacrifice but offered ordinary gifts of bread and wine in through which Jesus became Eternal Fruit, the Eucharist for us present at the Daily Sacrifice of the Mass.

The priest acts in person of Jesus Christ.

But it is Jesus Christ Himself as High Priest Who ministers through all the 7 sacraments, 7 also representing the symbol of life in Scriptures.
 
In early times of the Jewish people, all Hebrew men were priests, representing all the 12 tribes of Israel.

But when Moses was coming down from Mt Sinai with the 10 commandments on the tablet, almost all were reveling in worship of the Golden Calf. Moses through down the tablets as the Law was already broken. The only tribe that did not worship the Golden Calf were the Levites.

To be a Levite priest, you had to prove your lineage of your tribe. You only serve at a certain beginning age in your 30’s, and end at a point in your 50’s. So these Levites, in Scriptural language, had a beginning, were of a particular tribe, and did priestly actions of using the blood of sacrificial animals, not considered perpetual sacrifices.

Jesus Christ has no beginning or end, represents all peoples, and offers Himself as the one Bloody Sacrifice as atonement for our sins.

The so called priests of Aaron ended in their worshipping the Golden Calf. From then on, only the Levites were worthy to serve at the altar.
 
Janderich said:
You of course are free to say there was no apostasy, but it is quite a stretch to say there is no evidence for such. At best you must reject the evidence. I invite you to read through my previous posts on this very thread to see just a few examples of this evidence. Also, I have not placed reason on the shelf at all. Instead I have investigated, read a 500+ page book of scripture - validated by more than 11 witnesses - and tested my belief as directed by James in the Bible.
Click to expand...
And there we have it folks!!

When no rational or reasonable explanation can be given, bare your testimony.
 
We just have a very distinct case of mormons shooting themselves in the foot with their own “theology”.

The mormons have stated (now) that there was not a total apostacy.

If there was not a total apostacy, then God did not leave his church, therefore a restoration is not, was not, and will not be necessary.

The mormon view has changed on the apostacy over the years. First it was total, now it was just enough to lose the “authority”. It is simply another case of ever changing doctrine on their part.

Also, let’s not forget that no mormon ever has been able to nail down when the apostacy occurred.

Some say death of the last apostle. Why did God wait 1800+/- yrs to restore it?

Some have said 3rd century. Why did God wait 1500+/- yrs to restore it?

If you want to talk about a made up doctrine not in the Bible, here it is. Simple as that.

God does not lie. God did not leave his Church. There is/was/won’t be a restoration, because he didn’t leave.

Problem solved.
 
KathleenGee said:
To clarify on gnostic writings, I am having the impression that Joseph Smith and Crowley, et al, were aware of ancient Egyptian gnosticism around 400 AD, that created heresies among the teeming Christian population in Egypt. Joseph Smith talks about the Golden Plates, the secret papyrus roll that was later interpreted by scholars that was simply instructions in how to bury the dead…ironic, as well as Jesus being married, and gnosticism’s take on the nature of God and Christ’s parallel life to what we have understood Christ to be through the Apostles.

I can see why Christ chose 12 apostles and not one.

When Islam conquered the Christians, it was due to the weakening of Christian faith, due to losses by the bubonic plague as well as heresies infecting the Christian beliefs. So many gave up in face of the sword to become Muslim.
Click to expand...
There were three witnesses to the Gold plates. Everyone of them left the church. None denied that they had seen the plates or that the Book of Mormon was anything but authentic as they testified to. They left for different reasons but two of them came back in full fellowship of the church. The one that did not, left on record his testimony to what he was a part of was true. Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery did not have any access to gnostics. This has never been a bone of contention from any anti mormons. Joseph Smith only had three years of formal education. So you are wrong.
 
Fatboys said:
How do you know that what you believe is more correct than what I believe?
Click to expand...
We have the Bible.

We have a continuous, unbroken line of succession all the way back to Peter.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, not by a conman in a grove.

We have consistent, unchanging doctrine.

We have never not answered a question, and just bore our testimony.

We have provided consistent references for everything stated. Unfortunately, you can’t say the same thing.

ETA: We weren’t founded by a “prophet” that made several failed prophecies. Remember, it only takes one to make them a false prophet. Joseph had several.
Want me to go on?
 
Janderich said:
You of course are free to say there was no apostasy, but it is quite a stretch to say there is no evidence for such. At best you must reject the evidence. I invite you to read through my previous posts on this very thread to see just a few examples of this evidence. Also, I have not placed reason on the shelf at all. Instead I have investigated, read a 500+ page book of scripture - validated by more than 11 witnesses - and tested my belief as directed by James in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Then please comment on the quote I gave from Jeremiah.
Originally Posted by SteveVH
God himself promised that the priesthood would never be lossed:
Click to expand...
“For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.” (Jer 33:17-22)
Click to expand...
 
Fatboys said:
There were three witnesses to the Gold plates. Everyone of them left the church. None denied that they had seen the plates or that the Book of Mormon was anything but authentic as they testified to. They left for different reasons but two of them came back in full fellowship of the church. The one that did not, left on record his testimony to what he was a part of was true. Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery did not have any access to gnostics. This has never been a bone of contention from any anti mormons. Joseph Smith only had three years of formal education. So you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Not all of the “witnesses” actually saw the plates. Several of the witnesses reported seeing them in a vision, or with their spiritual eyes.

Also, the key witnesses had tight ties and bonds with Joseph, that affects their credibility.

Sorry, not working I’m afraid.
 
twopekinguys said:
Not all of the “witnesses” actually saw the plates. Several of the witnesses reported seeing them in a vision, or with their spiritual eyes.

Also, the key witnesses had tight ties and bonds with Joseph, that affects their credibility.

Sorry, not working I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Even Emma heard the plates “tinkle” when they brought them out, though she never saw them. Problem is, gold doesn’t “tinkle”.
 
SteveVH said:
Even Emma heard the plates “tinkle” when they brought them out, though she never saw them. Problem is, gold doesn’t “tinkle”.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget that Joseph ran through the woods, carrying them, jumping logs, and fighting off 3 different assailants. All of this with a bum leg that he had since childhood. 🤷

I would just like to add that as Christians (all of us including Catholics) don’t have to leave our ability to reason at the door the way mormons do.
 
Fats…what makes references documentary is the witness of atleast 10 witnesses, not 3, like the former Mormons — who left – no less!!!

Such observation they had was obviously not binding because the true grace given us by Christ to Peter at the Last Supper…‘what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven’…is lacking obviously in Mormonism. Your so-called witnesses could not stand by the claim that the golden plates were of supernatural origin.

The first apostasy was gnosticism…refusing to accept the truth of Who Jesus Christ is and His message by none other than the Apostles who stood by Him for 3 plus years. Why do you reject them?

The first great apostasy was indeed gnosticism. Catholics here give you very objective criteria in judging what is true and what is false. Our present age is in the bondage of relativism…whatever I think is real…Descartes…the beginning of man without God.

Mormonism is not about God. It is about man and himself. The Golden Calf was really not so much about idolatry…but faithless man creating a symbol to manipulate that would satisfy their carnate demands.
 
Fatboys said:
How do you know that what you believe is more correct than what I believe?
Click to expand...
I will cite the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Here you have an example of a revelation…and it is not to go out on your own and establish your own religion…but to submit yourself, your teaching to the Apostles.

And so, following Paul’s example above…what can you say about the claims of Joseph Smith?..does it follow St. Paul’s? It does not…it is contrary to the biblical model of Paul’s revelation.

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Again, following Paul’s example…who laid hands on Joseph Smith? No one? Can it be physically be traced to an apostolic lineage? No! Paul, before going out on his first misson…is laid hands on.

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Who approved Joseph Smith’s gospel? A physical approval from an apostle…not a claimed approval? Can you prove it? See how Paul fulfills this passage in Gal 18.

So how can you prove to us here…that Joseph Smith’s claims, revelation, gospel…follows the example of Paul and the passages above?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top