LDS worship

[pmccombs]

Like other Mormons, you link the Apostasy with Greek Philosophy changing Christian belief within the first century. I asked for an example of a change: Christ and the Apostles taught _______ and because of the Greek idea of _________, Christians were teaching ________ by the year 101AD. You seem to make the same claim over and over without an example.

Unlike other Mormons, I don’t link the apostasy with Greek philosophy because I don’t think there was an apostasy. Maybe my Church is right, but I doubt it. To accept an apostasy, I must first accept that there is something called Orthodoxy and that there was an original, monolithic Church. I find the theses of Walter Bauer and Bart Ehrman more convincing to my mind (I have no doubt that there have been volumes of apologia mounted against these two gentlemen!).

Also, unlike other Mormons, I don’t accept that the Mormon church is at all distinct in its claim to receive guidance from God, partly because I’ve read these passages from Orthodox theologians who have discussed the influence of philosophy in the very context of divine guidance.

Another thing I ought to point out is that Mormons don’t have a particular doctrine of when, exactly, the apostasy took place. Was the church in apostasy by 101AD? Maybe some think so, maybe others don’t. The prevailing view among Catholics here seems to be that the Mormons teach a very early apostasy happening within the first century with the death of the last original apostle. I think the prevailing view among Mormons (those who think about it at all) is that apostasy was a process that didn’t happen at once, nor equally everywhere in the Church. Mormon apologists state that “It is unclear exactly when all priesthood authority was lost.” They offer an opinion that this happened sometime in the mid-second century AD, and point to Hermas’ writings as evidence.

Well, I’d fill in your blanks like this:

“Christ and the Apostles taught a limited an incomplete theology (regarding the nature of deity, of evil, etc.) in the New Testament and because of Neoplatonism, Christians were teaching privatio boni and apophatic theology by the middle ages. Aristotlean philosophy took the stage with Scotus’ univocity of being in the high medieval period.”

I’m sure liturgical developments had certain influences as well, but I haven’t investigated much along those lines. We don’t find the liturgy in the New Testament, and even the Catholic Encyclopedia says the early Eucharist was “fluid and variable” in many details.

 

[TheExorcist]

The prevailing view among Catholics here seems to be that the Mormons teach a very early apostasy happening within the first century with the death of the last original apostle

My experience is the Catholics on here are maddened because the Mormons on here WONT give a firm date for “the Great Apostasy”. It’s such a big event that Mormonism hinges on but has no firm details.

These are the things I used to gloss over as a missionary.

Charles

 

[Jerusha]

My experience is the Catholics on here are maddened because the Mormons on here WONT give a firm date for “the Great Apostasy”. It’s such a big event that Mormonism hinges on but has no firm details.

These are the things I used to gloss over as a missionary.

Charles

Well, BY was pretty firm on the issue, but they run from that like they had seen the :bigyikes: evil one.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, I’d fill in your blanks like this:

“Christ and the Apostles taught a limited an incomplete theology (regarding the nature of deity, of evil, etc.) in the New Testament and because of Neoplatonism, Christians were teaching privatio boni and apophatic theology by the middle ages. Aristotlean philosophy took the stage with Scotus’ univocity of being in the high medieval period.”

I’m sure liturgical developments had certain influences as well, but I haven’t investigated much along those lines. We don’t find the liturgy in the New Testament, and even the Catholic Encyclopedia says the early Eucharist was “fluid and variable” in many details.

You failed at the whole idea of fill-in-the-blank. Let me see if I can summarize for you:
Christ and the Apostles taught some stuff and because of the Greek idea of third century philosophy, Christians were teaching more stuff by the year 101 AD.
Not sure how 3rd century philosophy can cause a first century change in teaching, but OK.

 

[TheExorcist]

Well, BY was pretty firm on the issue, but they run from that like they had seen the :bigyikes: evil one.

Well he was firm on a lot of things “modern” church leaders run from, ex: Adam-God Theory. But thats a subject for another thread.

 

[Stephen168]

To accept an apostasy, I must first accept that there is something called Orthodoxy and that there was an original, monolithic Church.

You are saying:
There was no monolithic Church;
Therefore there was no Orthodoxy.

Because there was A, and C.
There could not be B?

 

[Imcatholic7]

Texan Knight alluded to the HORRIFIC BLOOD OATHS that are a complete affront to the 5TH Commandment “Thou shalt not kill (murder)” which is completely UNCHRISTLIKE is it not? God is NOT the author of such confusion.

(TK what is the Latin for the thing speaks for itself, a legal term is it not?, “Resipse Loquitor” - where is Latin spell check when you need it!)

There’s the “temple” skit that makes a MOCKERY of clergymen & one wears the “sacred” garb with the Masonic emblems, practices the Grips (handshakes also of Masonic origin), then practice discussion & handshake for when you hit the Veil after death & beckon your wife to get off her grave if you so desire to have her come & come have eternal sex with you & forever generate “spirit children”.

Funny, this clearly contradicts ST PAUL: There is NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN - Paul says point blank one lives as the Angels (do we not?) How do the LDS square these aspects of their “temple” ceremonies with the Bible?

One would think if you have a “temple”, the TABERNACLE is there also where the DIVINE PRESENCE dwells, but none to be found is there?

? to think about: How could GOD be the AUTHOR of different versions of “TRUTH” floating around? He could not be GOD in that case so evidently someone else is the author.

Actually, in Genesis it talks about a sacred garment given from God to Adam. I have asked the same question about St Paul and the answer is he was talking about earthly “til death do you part” marriage. The tabernacle for the divine presence is nowhere in the Bible, either. I don’t know where you go the nasty “beckoning his wife…etc” facts from, but they’re wrong. And, the undergarments are just like our priests wearing a collar, cassock, robe, etc. The Bible actually talks about another tribe or “stick” as it’s called (Ezekiel 37: 15-17) I am just saying, respect other’s, their beliefs.

 

[Imcatholic7]

Great videos about Mormons believe in Many Gods

catholic.com/video/do-mormons-believe-in-many-gods

Isn’t God The only God?

Are many gods worshipped in the Mormon Temples?

LDS BELIEVE in many gods (key word BELIEVE) but ONLY ONE GOD, OUR GOD, IS WORSHIPED. Its still messed up and has been perverted from the truth.

 

[TexanKnight]

Actually, in Genesis it talks about a sacred garment given from God to Adam. I have asked the same question about St Paul and the answer is he was talking about earthly “til death do you part” marriage. The tabernacle for the divine presence is nowhere in the Bible, either. I don’t know where you go the nasty “beckoning his wife…etc” facts from, but they’re wrong. And, the undergarments are just like our priests wearing a collar, cassock, robe, etc. The Bible actually talks about another tribe or “stick” as it’s called (Ezekiel 37: 15-17) I am just saying, respect other’s, their beliefs.

There is nothing in the Bible that talks about garments like the LDS use, or that everyone wore them, as the Mormons do. Nor that they had odd symbols on them, as the Mormons have. So, no, the gsrments are nothing like what our Priests wear.

And yes, in the temple ceremonies, a woman does not go the to “Celestial Kingdom” unless beckoned by her husband.

The “sticks” have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. It was a prophet explaining that the people could be reunited.

But, for a Catholic, you sure know all the LDS apologetics. Makes me wonder…

 

[pmccombs]

You failed at the whole idea of fill-in-the-blank. Let me see if I can summarize for you:
Christ and the Apostles taught some stuff and because of the Greek idea of third century philosophy, Christians were teaching more stuff by the year 101 AD.
Not sure how 3rd century philosophy can cause a first century change in teaching, but OK.

I just re-read my original comment and found where I had stated the Mormon belief of apostasy “within the first century AD.” I don’t think I could actually defend that claim if I wanted to, but I also have to retract the statement as inaccurate. I have since made myself familiar with the Mormon apologetic claims and have found that in fact, no such 1st century teaching is officially put forth. Some Mormon leaders may have offered their opinions on the matter in the past, but nothing has passed into teaching as far the timing of the apostasy. Actually, the Mormon apologia I read took a definite 2nd century stance for the apostasy.

Since we lack specificity in a teaching, we tend to invent it. I was careless when I made the 1st century claim, but was probably representing a commonly held perception among Mormons.

Anyway, the greater argument of apostasy has been, I am sure, treated in other threads. The original intent of my apostasy language was merely to give the reason behind the portrayal of the priest in the LDS temple ceremony, which had to do with the question of LDS worship.

So… I acknowledge your criticism.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

And yes, in the temple ceremonies, a woman does not go the to “Celestial Kingdom” unless beckoned by her husband.

As a recent ex mormon i think this point needs to be clarified. A women can go to the celestial kingdom but will not reach the highest level without her husband. Same with a man(meaning without his wife). There are 3 levels within the celestial kingdom and in order for any person to reach the highest level one must enter into the everlasting covenant of marriage (and of course be worthy). One cannot enter the highest celestial level without their partner. Which is why the mormons emphasize, “families CAN be together” instead of WILL because they’re to many restrictions and conditions. Just some food for thought.

 

[pmccombs]

You are saying:
There was no monolithic Church;
Therefore there was no Orthodoxy.

Because there was A, and C.
There could not be B?

Apostasy logically presumes orthodoxy. Since I personally doubt orthodoxy and original Christianity, then I also have to say that there was probably no apostasy either, at least in my opinion in which I don’t seek to sway anyone here.

Clearly the orthodox believe in orthodoxy and in One Holy and Apostolic Universal Church. The apostasy is therefore a possibility that must be denied in order to maintain the claim of orthodoxy.

But I suppose that is a topic hashed over many times in other threads. The Mormon doctrine of apostasy doesn’t really affect Mormon worship directly, other than in the instance of certain imagery in (now rare) temple ceremonies, in some Sunday school lessons, and in the idea that we need to proselyte and gain converts from among other Christians.

 

[SteveVH]

Apostasy logically presumes orthodoxy. Since I personally doubt orthodoxy and original Christianity, then I also have to say that there was probably no apostasy either, at least in my opinion in which I don’t seek to sway anyone here.

Clearly the orthodox believe in orthodoxy and in One Holy and Apostolic Universal Church. The apostasy is therefore a possibility that must be denied in order to maintain the claim of orthodoxy.

But I suppose that is a topic hashed over many times in other threads. The Mormon doctrine of apostasy doesn’t really affect Mormon worship directly, other than in the instance of certain imagery in (now rare) temple ceremonies, in some Sunday school lessons, and in the idea that we need to proselyte and gain converts from among other Christians.

Seems like you are forgetting one important thing here. The entire basis of the LDS church is that there was an Apostasy and therefore the need for a “restoration” of the origninal Church. It is the one legged stool upon which the LDS church either stands or falls, IMO. Prove there was an apostasy and you might have some credibility. If there was no apostasy then there was no need for a restoration and therefore no need for the LDS church.

Not sure how you can “doubt orthodoxy and original Christianity”. Do you not believe that Christ founded a Church?

 

[Stephen168]

Apostasy logically presumes orthodoxy. Since I personally doubt orthodoxy and original Christianity, then I also have to say that there was probably no apostasy either, at least in my opinion in which I don’t seek to sway anyone here.

I wasn’t talking about the apostasy, I was questioning your reason/logic. Your claim is changing a bit, but in your previous post you basically said you didn’t believe in ‘A’ because there was also ‘B’ and ‘C.’ That claim is irrational. The presents of ‘B’ and ‘C’ does not mean there is no ‘A.’

Hypothetically, say a guy tells a story about a handful of people arriving in North American by boat and these people were the forebears of all the people found in North America. Then we find out that thousand of people were already here at that point in time.
Based on the new information I don’t think you would say the boat people were never in North America, just that they were not the only ones in North America. I can understand that if you didn’t like the storyteller, you would try and stretch the new information to make his story a complete lie, but rationally it would not hold.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Mormons believe there was a great apostasy and that original Christianity was corrupted. Mormon doctrine doesn’t currently claim a specific time for the apostasy, but that the death of the apostles contributed to that through a removal of divine authority from the earth. I think in most Mormons’ minds, apostasy was a gradual thing.

Although I am a Mormon, I think it unlikely that there was ever an apostasy. I have reason to believe that it is quite improbable that Jesus founded any Church at all. I personally don’t think that “orthodoxy” is a very good idea. But that’s just my personal view in which I don’t encourage anybody, Mormon or Catholic, to believe.

When orthodox theologians discuss the influence of Greek thought and the developing understanding of God, they are making a claim similar to Mormons that God is guiding their Church, not that apostasy happened because ideas have changed. Don’t mistake me on this matter! Do you think your arguing with a Mormon apologist? I’m not trying to establish some apostasy doctrine to bolster a Mormonism in which I am myself skeptical; I’m pointing out that orthodoxy has developed over the years and that orthodox theologians are clearly aware of this and see the hand of God in it. In other words, God is still actively involved in the progression of the Church, which is a claim that Mormons think is unique only to them. Apparently you think so too.

Re: “…it is quite improbable that Jesus founded any Church at all.” - is breathtaking. Clearly, He said: The gates of hell shall not prevail against MY CHURCH." That leaves NO room for “apostasy”. Jesus had/has complete ownership of HIS Church. What part of that is so difficult to comprehend? The CHURCH that he clearly FOUNDED is the BRIDE & Jesus is the BRIDEGROOM = WE are the Bride of Christ.

 

[pmccombs]

Seems like you are forgetting one important thing here. The entire basis of the LDS church is that there was an Apostasy and therefore the need for a “restoration” of the origninal Church. It is the one legged stool upon which the LDS church either stands or falls, IMO. Prove there was an apostasy and you might have some credibility. If there was no apostasy then there was no need for a restoration and therefore no need for the LDS church.

Well, I’m not a normal sort of Mormon. I’m an agnostic one.

Not sure how you can “doubt orthodoxy and original Christianity”. Do you not believe that Christ founded a Church?

I think it unlikely.

 

[Lochias]

I think it unlikely.

… Despite all the evidence to the contrary? 2000+ years of history and writings? Such doubt in the face of evidence makes me wonder if you really are any kind of agnostic at all. If you can’t believe what’s right in front of your own two eyes, forming any kind of a deeper faith is going to be something of a…challenge, for you.

 

[pmccombs]

I wasn’t talking about the apostasy, I was questioning your reason/logic. Your claim is changing a bit, but in your previous post you basically said you didn’t believe in ‘A’ because there was also ‘B’ and ‘C.’ That claim is irrational. The presents of ‘B’ and ‘C’ does not mean there is no ‘A.’

Well, I don’t think my claim is changing at all. You summarized me like this:

You are saying:
There was no monolithic Church;
Therefore there was no Orthodoxy.

But that’s wasn’t my claim. I said this:

*To accept an apostasy, I must first accept that there is something called Orthodoxy and that there was an original, monolithic Church.
*

I was stating that apostasy presumes there is something to fall away from. If I don’t think that there was an orthodoxy represented in a concrete organization, then how could I think there was an apostasy from that? I was talking about apostasy. I don’t see any logical gaps there.

 

[pmccombs]

Re: “…it is quite improbable that Jesus founded any Church at all.” - is breathtaking.

I know… shocking, isn’t it?

Clearly, He said: The gates of hell shall not prevail against MY CHURCH." That leaves NO room for “apostasy”. Jesus had/has complete ownership of HIS Church. What part of that is so difficult to comprehend? The CHURCH that he clearly FOUNDED is the BRIDE & Jesus is the BRIDEGROOM = WE are the Bride of Christ.

Oh, that language seems quite clear, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that I have my own reasons for thinking that what is written in the New Testament is most likely representative of the agendas of a particular faction of early Christianity rather than anything authoritative or divine.

This isn’t a particularly suitable thread for that discussion, though, since it has nothing to do with LDS worship, and in fact has nothing to do with LDS belief either.

 

[Stephen168]

I was stating that apostasy presumes there is something to fall away from. If I don’t think that there was an orthodoxy represented in a concrete organization, then how could I think there was an apostasy from that? I was talking about apostasy. I don’t see any logical gaps there.

You mentioned Bauer, so I assumed you shared his views, my mistake.