LDS View of the Great Apostasy

[Stephen168]

It appears posters on this thread keep trying to define apostasy in extremely strict terms by using words such as “complete”, “total”, and the idea that in order for an apostasy to occur every single Christian had to turn and worship another god. By fencing the word “apostasy” into such a strict definition no doubt there has never been an apostasy since Adam first spoke to God. However, such is not the case.

However, I don’t believe it is constructive to banter about the meaning of a specific word. Instead it is useful to understand what LDS might mean by apostasy. Clearly, in order for there to be an apostasy not every person needs to become an unbeliever. Indeed truth has always, and will always, exist in the minds of men. When Joseph Smith asked which church to join, the Lord told him he should join none of them for they were all wrong. But the Lord further says that the churches have “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History 1:19). Thus the Lord acknowledges there is a form of godliness in the churches, but he still points out that the power of God is no longer with them. To have the form is not to have the power. The loss of God’s power could be summed up in three ways:

1. The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority
2. The corruption of ordinances
3. The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head

When God ceases to pass his authority to man how then can they enter the kingdom of heaven? For although the forms may be correct man cannot receive the power necessary to enter therein. Further, once the power is lost, revelation is the only way to obtain it again from God. Without revelation apostasy remains. This then is all that is needed for an apostasy to occur. God, not man, decides when he will withdraw his power.

That is my experience. Joseph Smith made up a religion with beliefs contrary to Christianity. Joseph Smith is right, and the historical Church started by Christ is wrong, therefore there was an Apostasy. You believe it because Joseph Smith said so with NO proof.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Fatboys,

1 and 2. Luke 14:31-33…the post refers not only to this passage, but also Matthew 16:18. If the Church truly apostasized, then the powers of hell prevailed.

1. Ephesians 5:24-25…Jesus wants his Church for a spotless bride. If he allowed her to be corrupted, she would no longer be spotless, would she?
2. Mark 10:10-12…if Jesus abandoned his Church, his Bride, to apostasy, then he forced her into adultery with another. By the same reckoning, if Jesus abandoned one covenant by allowing his Church, his Bride, to fall into apostasy, and started another church somewhere else, that means he is an adulterer.
3. Acts 9:4…Saul was a persecutor of the Church, yet Jesus did not ask why Saul was persecuting his organization, but rather, “why are you persecuting me?” The Church is the Body of Christ and members of the Church are parts of the Body of Christ(Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12). Christ’s resurrection body is imperishable and glorified, as ours will be, which means it cannot die again. If Jesus allowed his Church to die off, then he allowed his Body to die a second time, which is impossible. This also means that saying Jesus allowed his Church to die off, denies the Resurrection.
4. Matthew 7:24-29…Jesus founded his Church on the Rock, St. Peter. Not on Sand. See also Matthew 16:18, Psalm 126.

7, 8, 9. By claiming there was a total apostasy 1800 years ago, one calls Jesus a liar for promising to be with his Church always (Matthew 28:20). It also denies Jesus’ command that his Church be a beacon on a hill, whose light must shine so others might see our good deeds and God may be glorified. If the Church was defunct for 1800 years and then reformed by Smith, then how could the command to shine forth be fulfilled during the interim?

1. John 15:26, 16:13…Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth. If the Church started teaching untruth, and/or if there was a total apostasy, then that means Jesus either lied about sending the Spirit, or lied about the sure guidance of the Spirit. In order for this promise to be true, no matter how many fell away, there still had to be a remnant, which means the Church still existed and no reformation or re-formation was needed.

Furthermore, in all this the passage of John 6:39-40 is forgotten, where Jesus says that everything the Father gives him comes to him, and he will not reject any who come to him because it is the will of the Father that he should not lose what was given him, but raise it on the last day. He comes, he says, not to do his will but the Father’s will. So if Jesus allows his Church, whom he has promised to have guided to all Truth, completely fall into apostasy, then he has willingly let go of all the Father has given him, and therefore has not come to do the Father’s will.

Reason and knowledge of Scripture and Jesus Christ smash all claims that there was a “great apostasy.”

God Bless!

 

[SteveVH]

However, I don’t believe it is constructive to banter about the meaning of a specific word. Instead it is useful to understand what LDS might mean by apostasy. Clearly, in order for there to be an apostasy not every person needs to become an unbeliever. Indeed truth has always, and will always, exist in the minds of men. When Joseph Smith asked which church to join, the Lord told him he should join none of them for they were all wrong. But the Lord further says that the churches have “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History 1:19). Thus the Lord acknowledges there is a form of godliness in the churches, but he still points out that the power of God is no longer with them. To have the form is not to have the power. The loss of God’s power could be summed up in three ways:

1. The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority
2. The corruption of ordinances
3. The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head

When God ceases to pass his authority to man how then can they enter the kingdom of heaven? For although the forms may be correct man cannot receive the power necessary to enter therein. Further, once the power is lost, revelation is the only way to obtain it again from God. Without revelation apostasy remains. This then is all that is needed for an apostasy to occur. God, not man, decides when he will withdraw his power.

1. The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority:

Please provide evidence.

2. The corruption of ordinances:

What “ordinances”, those that came about 1800 years later?

3. The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head:

Christ is the head. It is his Church, not man’s church. Because it is his Church it can never fail. If men in the Church became apostate, it would mean that they would have to turn away from Christ. I am sick and tired of the Mormon ploy of changing definitions of words to suit their position. Apostasy is the turning away from the true God and Christ is the true God. The Church has never turned away. You accept this notion on nothing more than the claim of a man, a man who had a reputation for dishonesty and fraud.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

It appears posters on this thread keep trying to define apostasy in extremely strict terms by using words such as “complete”, “total”, and the idea that in order for an apostasy to occur every single Christian had to turn and worship another god. By fencing the word “apostasy” into such a strict definition no doubt there has never been an apostasy since Adam first spoke to God. However, such is not the case.

However, I don’t believe it is constructive to banter about the meaning of a specific word. Instead it is useful to understand what LDS might mean by apostasy. Clearly, in order for there to be an apostasy not every person needs to become an unbeliever. Indeed truth has always, and will always, exist in the minds of men. When Joseph Smith asked which church to join, the Lord told him he should join none of them for they were all wrong. But the Lord further says that the churches have “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History 1:19). Thus the Lord acknowledges there is a form of godliness in the churches, but he still points out that the power of God is no longer with them. To have the form is not to have the power. The loss of God’s power could be summed up in three ways:

1. The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority
2. The corruption of ordinances
3. The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head

When God ceases to pass his authority to man how then can they enter the kingdom of heaven? For although the forms may be correct man cannot receive the power necessary to enter therein. Further, once the power is lost, revelation is the only way to obtain it again from God. Without revelation apostasy remains. This then is all that is needed for an apostasy to occur. God, not man, decides when he will withdraw his power.

That definition of Apostasy is all well and good, but I think you miss the point. In order for there to be a need for God’s Church to be reformed, ala Joseph Smith’s claims, there must have been a total apostasy. If the Church was not completely lost, God would change things from within. When the world fell into sin, God did not abandon everything and start over, he began the work of redeeming it. When the world was overrun with sin, he did not completely destroy it, he washed away the sin and preserved his faithful. Each and every time, God causes the remnant to grow back into fullness (like an olive plant). He does not give up on it and start something new.

The priesthood is still in existence, and has never gone out of existence.

The Lord, “maketh known his word unto Jacob: his statutes and ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: neither hath he shewed them his judgments.” Psalm 147. God’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has its roots in Judaism. The roots of Mormonism do not lead there.
-God Bless

 

[SteveVH]

The priesthood is still in existence, and has never gone out of existence.

And God made a covenant insuring that the priesthood would never end:

“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)

Notice how strong the language is. God invokes his creation covenant as the basis for his promise.

 

[TexanKnight]

It appears posters on this thread keep trying to define apostasy in extremely strict terms by using words such as “complete”, “total”, and the idea that in order for an apostasy to occur every single Christian had to turn and worship another god. By fencing the word “apostasy” into such a strict definition no doubt there has never been an apostasy since Adam first spoke to God. However, such is not the case.

However, I don’t believe it is constructive to banter about the meaning of a specific word. Instead it is useful to understand what LDS might mean by apostasy. Clearly, in order for there to be an apostasy not every person needs to become an unbeliever. Indeed truth has always, and will always, exist in the minds of men. When Joseph Smith asked which church to join, the Lord told him he should join none of them for they were all wrong. But the Lord further says that the churches have “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History 1:19). Thus the Lord acknowledges there is a form of godliness in the churches, but he still points out that the power of God is no longer with them. To have the form is not to have the power. The loss of God’s power could be summed up in three ways:

1. The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority
2. The corruption of ordinances
3. The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head

When God ceases to pass his authority to man how then can they enter the kingdom of heaven? For although the forms may be correct man cannot receive the power necessary to enter therein. Further, once the power is lost, revelation is the only way to obtain it again from God. Without revelation apostasy remains. This then is all that is needed for an apostasy to occur. God, not man, decides when he will withdraw his power.

Yep…and since God said He would never do that…it was never done. Thank you for proving our point.

 

[Cat_Herder]

1. The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority
2. The corruption of ordinances
3. The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head

When God ceases to pass his authority to man how then can they enter the kingdom of heaven? For although the forms may be correct man cannot receive the power necessary to enter therein. Further, once the power is lost, revelation is the only way to obtain it again from God. Without revelation apostasy remains. This then is all that is needed for an apostasy to occur. God, not man, decides when he will withdraw his power.

Look at that last part that I bolded, then read this …

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

It is God’s Will that what you have described NEVER happen. So you have refuted yourself.

 

[Fatboys]

As catholics view protestants do you believe they are in open rebellion, or are they in apostasy? Do they have the fundametal beliefs that Jesus is the Christ, and that obedience is very important? When someone apostatizes from our church, they does not mean that they disbelieve everything it teaches, but that there were important parts that they disagreed with. So your statements that apostasy means total is wrong.

 

[Janderich]

1. The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority:

Please provide evidence.

Perhaps one of the most plain is that apostles are missing from the Catholic church. No amount of posturing or twisting of scripture can account for the clear fact that apostles were necessary in Christ’s day and immediately following but are now gone.

2. The corruption of ordinances:

What “ordinances”, those that came about 1800 years later?

Both the ordinances of baptism, the sacrament, and indeed others that were lost.

3. The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head:

Christ is the head. It is his Church, not man’s church. Because it is his Church it can never fail. If men in the Church became apostate, it would mean that they would have to turn away from Christ. I am sick and tired of the Mormon ploy of changing definitions of words to suit their position. Apostasy is the turning away from the true God and Christ is the true God. The Church has never turned away. You accept this notion on nothing more than the claim of a man, a man who had a reputation for dishonesty and fraud.

No, I accept the apostasy based on the word of the Lord as found in modern day scripture. The Bible is nothing more, it is simply the word of the Lord as given to man.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Perhaps one of the most plain is that apostles are missing from the Catholic church. No amount of posturing or twisting of scripture can account for the clear fact that apostles were necessary in Christ’s day and immediately following but are now gone…

But your apostles do not meet the criteria laid out in Acts, the only place in Scripture where we definitely the appointment of an apostle.

Both the ordinances of baptism, the sacrament, and indeed others that were lost. .

Nonsense baptism and the sacrament (among others) are performed in the Catholic church to this day.

No, I accept the apostasy based on the word of the Lord as found in modern day scripture. The Bible is nothing more, it is simply the word of the Lord as given to man.

You accept this on the the word of Joseph Smith and his “scriptures”

 

[Cat_Herder]

Perhaps one of the most plain is that apostles are missing from the Catholic church. No amount of posturing or twisting of scripture can account for the clear fact that apostles were necessary in Christ’s day and immediately following but are now gone.

Then explain how God can act against His own will and yet still be God.

 

[Fatboys]

Then explain how God can act against His own will and yet still be God.

Please explain what your point is. I am old and slow.

 

[zaffiroborant]

As catholics view protestants do you believe they are in open rebellion, or are they in apostasy? Do they have the fundametal beliefs that Jesus is the Christ, and that obedience is very important? When someone apostatizes from our church, they does not mean that they disbelieve everything it teaches, but that there were important parts that they disagreed with. So your statements that apostasy means total is wrong.

Protestants are not in open rebellion, that’s like saying Americans in 1950 were in open rebellion against the Soviet government. The idea of being in open rebellion to an authority you do not acknowledge or have any interaction with is ludicrous. Nor are they in apostasy since the definition of apostasy is:

1:renunciation of a religious faith

2: abandonment of a previous loyalty

Protestants can’t renounce a religion they never held or abandon a loyalty they never held.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

As catholics view protestants do you believe they are in open rebellion, or are they in apostasy? Do they have the fundametal beliefs that Jesus is the Christ, and that obedience is very important? When someone apostatizes from our church, they does not mean that they disbelieve everything it teaches, but that there were important parts that they disagreed with. So your statements that apostasy means total is wrong.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 2089, “apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;”

Bing.com defines repudiate:

DICTIONARY
repudiate
Definition
re·pu·di·ate ri pydee àyt ]TRANSITIVE VERB

1. disown something: to disapprove of something formally and strongly and renounce any connection with it
   “She repudiated the committee’s actions.”
2. deny something: to state that something is untrue
3. reject something: to reject something that is offered
4. disown loved one: to disown a family member or lover
5. reject something as invalid: to refuse to accept the validity of something
6. refuse to pay debt: to refuse to acknowledge or pay a debt
   Mid-16th century. < Latin repudiat-, past participle of repudiare “to divorce” < repudium “divorce” ]
   re·pu·di·a·ble ADJECTIVE
   re·pu·di·a·tion NOUN
   re·pu·di·a·tive ADJECTIVE
   re·pu·di·a·tor NOUN
   Thesaurus
   VERB
   Synonyms: reject, disclaim, renounce, deny, not accept, rebut, retract, disavow, turn your back on, wash your hands of
   VERB
   Antonyms: acknowledge

Apostasy refers to complete rejection of the Faith itself, not quibbling about details. The word “repudiate” in the definition of apostasy in the Catechism is used deliberately.

When I use the phrase “total apostasy” I do not mean the degree to which one might agree with the teachings; “total apostasy” means that every man, woman, and child living on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven abandoned the Faith, because that is the only way the entire Church could become corrupted and the only way God would start over.

God’s promise to Abraham and his seed is forever. Christianity fulfills the promise, which means that the Church God himself founded on the Rock of St. Peter is also forever. It never has and never will fail, because Jesus himself promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against her and that he would be with her until the close of the age.

-God Bless!

 

[Fatboys]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 2089, “apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;”

Bing.com defines repudiate:

Apostasy refers to complete rejection of the Faith itself, not quibbling about details. The word “repudiate” in the definition of apostasy in the Catechism is used deliberately.

When I use the phrase “total apostasy” I do not mean the degree to which one might agree with the teachings; “total apostasy” means that every man, woman, and child living on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven abandoned the Faith, because that is the only way the entire Church could become corrupted and the only way God would start over.

God’s promise to Abraham and his seed is forever. Christianity fulfills the promise, which means that the Church God himself founded on the Rock of St. Peter is also forever. It never has and never will fail, because Jesus himself promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against her and that he would be with her until the close of the age.

-God Bless!

Let me give you an example. When John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Lord, the taught repentance and baptism by immersion. When Christ came to John to be baptized, John said he needed it from him. Christ said that he was to fulfill a righteousness. Baptism means to be buried under the water or immersed.

There are denominations that believe that it is sufficant enough to sprinkle someone over their head. No where in the bible does it teach sprinkling. In this one aspect of the gospel they are in apostacy. They still believe in Christ, and his teachings, but interpret one aspect of it wrong.

 

[tobbias88]

If one really wants to know the origin of the greatest apostasy in modern times

check out Solomom Spalding. Someone no one wants to talk about.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let me give you an example. When John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Lord, the taught repentance and baptism by immersion. When Christ came to John to be baptized, John said he needed it from him. Christ said that he was to fulfill a righteousness. Baptism means to be buried under the water or immersed.

There are denominations that believe that it is sufficant enough to sprinkle someone over their head. No where in the bible does it teach sprinkling.

You are mistaken.

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 36:25[/BIBLEDRB]

In this one aspect of the gospel they are in apostacy. They still believe in Christ, and his teachings, but interpret one aspect of it wrong.

Janderich said “Without revelation apostasy remains. This then is all that is needed for an apostasy to occur. God, not man, decides when he will withdraw his power.” But God said it was His Will that this never would happen.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[twopekinguys]

If one really wants to know the origin of the greatest apostasy in modern times

check out Solomom Spalding. Someone no one wants to talk about.

 

[TexanKnight]

Let me give you an example. When John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Lord, the taught repentance and baptism by immersion. When Christ came to John to be baptized, John said he needed it from him. Christ said that he was to fulfill a righteousness. Baptism means to be buried under the water or immersed.

Actually, that is not true. That is an LDS teaching to try to justify immersion. What is means is “washing”. The English word “baptism” is derived indirectly through Latin from the neuter Greek concept noun baptisma (Greek βάπτισμα, “washing-ism”), which is a neologism in the New Testament derived from the masculine Greek noun baptismos (βαπτισμός) which is a term for ritual washing in Greek language texts of Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period, such as the Septuagint. Both of these nouns are nouns derived from baptizein (βαπτίζω, “I wash” transitive verb) which is used in Jewish texts for ritual washing, and in the New Testament both for ritual washing and also for the apparently new rite of baptisma. The Greek verb root bpt in turn is hypothetically traced to a reconstructed Indo-European root *gwabh-[29] or *gwebh-[30][31] in the suffixed zero-grade form *gwəbh-yo-[30] The Greek words are used in a great variety of meanings.

So, once again, you have been proven wrong. I exhort you to do some actual study.

There are denominations that believe that it is sufficant enough to sprinkle someone over their head. No where in the bible does it teach sprinkling. In this one aspect of the gospel they are in apostacy. They still believe in Christ, and his teachings, but interpret one aspect of it wrong.

And nowhere does it say one must be dunked complete under the water. And if any clothing rises above the water, it must be redone. The Bible NOWHERE says baptism must be done by immersion. Again, I suggest you do some actual study and not just spout what the LDS leaders tell you to spout.

 

[Porknpie]

Let me give you an example. When John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Lord, the taught repentance and baptism by immersion. When Christ came to John to be baptized, John said he needed it from him. Christ said that he was to fulfill a righteousness. Baptism means to be buried under the water or immersed.

There are denominations that believe that it is sufficant enough to sprinkle someone over their head. No where in the bible does it teach sprinkling. In this one aspect of the gospel they are in apostacy. They still believe in Christ, and his teachings, but interpret one aspect of it wrong.

The Catholic Church holds to sprinkling or immersiom for baptism but clearly sprinkling was used in the early church. There is nothing said about immersion as being necessary. A selected number of verses from scripturecatholic.com…there are more on this including the ECFs

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 - at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.