Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[RebeccaJ]

Polish losses in WWII

The Nazi German death machine in the Nazi-occupied half of Poland killed:

3 million of the 3.3 million Jews who lived in Poland before World War II, or 90 percent of the Jewish population (S.P. Oliner and P.M. Oliner,* The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe,* Free Press 1998, 25-29).

More than 2 million Polish Catholics, with special emphasis on eliminating the national elites (Zbigniew Brzezinski, *Out of Control, *Scribner’s 1993, 7-18).

One out of four (25 percent) of Catholic clergy (Polish Foreign Minister Wladyslaw Bartoszewski’s Speech to the Bundestag in Bonn, Germany, 28 April 1995).

One out of four (25 percent) of all Polish scientists (Bartoszewski, op. cit.).

One out of five (20 percent) of all Polish schoolteachers (Bartoszewski, op. cit.)

200,000 Polish children were deported to Germany for purposes of Germanization. 150,000, or 75 percent, never returned to their families in Poland (Bartoszewski, op. cit.).

And then there were the Soviets…

 

[soren1]

Well, it was Paul who said that Christ told him to get off his…donkey…on the road to Damascus. It was Matthew, Peter, Luke, Mark, John and other apostles who told us about Christ.

If what Joseph Smith was hearsay, then in the same manner, so is what the early apostles said.

The only difference is that you don’t happen to believe what Joseph Smith said, whereas you do believe what Matthew said, and when you quote Matthew, you expect everyone to accept that the words coming out of HIS pen actually came from Jesus’ mouth. You would be highly insulted if someone said to you…‘hearsay…’ even though it IS ‘hearsay’ in exactly the sense that you are using it with Joseph Smith.

The point is, Mr. Z, that WE do not believe it is ‘hearsay,’ just as few here believe that Matthew’s words are ‘hearsay.’ Since we are here dealing with what WE believe, then…WE believe that it was indeed GOD who said that the creeds were an abomination.

Hence the need for a restoration.

I agree that “hearsay” by itself is an empty accusation. If I could have one last present for Christmas, it would be for all people engaged in apologetics (on any side) to figure out that if someone claims to believe something on the basis of faith, then they get the benefit of the doubt, and the objector should behave as if they have the burden of proof.

Having said that, I think there is a specific difference in the doctrine of the Great Apostasy that makes hearsay not good enough. The Great Apostasy is an essentially negative thesis: God told Joseph not to go to Church. Because this command entails a claim that the creeds are an abomination, it behooves you to give us the benefit of the doubt here and prove this accusation against the creeds with evidence.

The evidence you need must consist in decisive biblical proof. Here is why: in Matt 18:15-17, Jesus says,

*Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
*
These verses were in the Bible, accessible to Christians, from the first century, and their teaching provided a guidepost for moral behavior, but also for orthodoxy, because the Church’s power to arbitrate in cases of offense includes doctrinal offenses, such as refusing fellowship to someone who maintains a heretical teaching. Thus, when a complaint arose between the Arians and the Catholics in the early fourth century, it was appropriate for Constantine to summon a Council to arbitrate the dispute and identify which party was the offender. In the same way, obedience to this verse has brought people throughout the centuries to the door of the Catholic Church, both before and after that great council.

Unless there is a biblical teaching demonstrating that the Great Apostasy happened, then none of those people can be faulted for putting faith in the Church or in its creeds. Instead, Christ himself is to be blamed, for he has mislead generations of humanity by telling them to follow the Church but providing not a clue that the Church has become false. This forces all those who wish to obey Christ’s teaching to accept an abominable error.

In order to avoid this absurdity, you must show that the Great Apostasy was (or should have been) evident to all Christians through history. To do that, you cannot rely on Joseph Smith, because he was unknown to those people. The only thing that was commonly available in every generation, which you accept as authoritative, was the Scriptures. That, therefore, is the source you must turn to. Of course, I’m sure you know some biblical arguments, and you must prove your case with those; otherwise Jesus takes the responsibility for the misplaced faith that millions have placed in the abominations. This holds true, with or without the First Vision.

 

[Jay53]

Well, it was Paul who said that Christ told him to get off his…donkey…on the road to Damascus. It was Matthew, Peter, Luke, Mark, John and other apostles who told us about Christ.

If what Joseph Smith was hearsay, then in the same manner, so is what the early apostles said.

The only difference is that you don’t happen to believe what Joseph Smith said, whereas you do believe what Matthew said, and when you quote Matthew, you expect everyone to accept that the words coming out of HIS pen actually came from Jesus’ mouth. You would be highly insulted if someone said to you…‘hearsay…’ even though it IS ‘hearsay’ in exactly the sense that you are using it with Joseph Smith.

The point is, Mr. Z, that WE do not believe it is ‘hearsay,’ just as few here believe that Matthew’s words are ‘hearsay.’ Since we are here dealing with what WE believe, then…WE believe that it was indeed GOD who said that the creeds were an abomination.

Hence the need for a restoration.

This is exactly my question: WHY do you believe Joseph Smith and WHY don’t you consider his words as hearsay? What qualifications does he have that anyone should believe him when he contradicts previous scriptures and the Church’s interpretations of those scriptures?

We don’t believe Paul’s (et al) words are hearsay because they were Jesus’ Apostles and disciples. They had the gift of miracles and were able to show everyone that they were of God.

What evidence does Joseph Smith give that he and the Book of Mormon are of God?

 

[KathleenGee]

The Lord said He would never leave us, that He gave us shepherds, and that His burden would be heavy and light…

1800 years is a very long and impossible time to be without shepherds around throughout the world.

 

[soren1]

Jehovah’s Witnesses have very little in common with Mormonism either in doctrine or policies…yes, we both knock on doors, but then so do the Baptists, the Pentacostals–and I’ve even had a Catholic or two knock upon my door. As for ‘legal scrapes,’ would you care to expand on that one? True, I suppose being driven completely out of the nation because our neighbors didn’t like our voting practices and the fact that we weren’t that happy about slavery–and they weren’t happy about polygamy–and I suppose that you could call Bogg’s “Extermination Order” a ‘legal scrape,’ but I don’t think that’s quite the same thing.

On the other hand, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, as completely as I disagree with about everything they believe and practice, have my utter respect for their stance on fighting and war–any group that took the stance they did in Germany during the Holocaust is due respect and admiration. Our people (the Mormons) just hunkered down and survived the best they could. So did the Catholics. The JW’s, on the other hand, were very outspoken, and a bunch of them saw the gas ovens right along with the Jews.

You seem needlessly defensive here. I was just explaining how a person who hadn’t studied very well could confuse a Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine for a Mormon one. The “legal scrape” I was actually thinking about was the incarceration of polygamous Mormons, because it resembles the kinds of problems that JWs have sometimes faced. I wouldn’t draw a parallel between the Extermination Order and any other event in American religious history. Why do respond as if I hold such a silly position? Did my post provide you with evidence that I think that way, or did you just assume an unfavorable judgment on me and act on that judgment?

Ok…You DO realize that very few people on the west side of the Rockies participated in the Civil War, right? You DO realize that part of the reason there WAS a Civil War was because Buchanan (the president before Lincoln) was sympathetic to the South and the slave owners, and rather than deal with the tensions of the time, actively exacerbated them–and then pulled a ‘wag the dog’ ploy to distract attention away from those tensions—by sending (really, I’m not kidding here) one half of the US Army to the Utah territory to arrest Brigham Young, replace him as governor, and kick the Mormons there into line? Look up “Buchanan’s Folly” sometime.

So…the Mormons have an army coming after them… Brigham Young allowed himself to be replaced as governor, but he was NOT arrested and sent back to Washington. Utah was still under ‘occupation’ by the Union Forces during the Civil War…and in spite of that, the Mormons solidly backed the North. Some of the young men actually joined up and fought. Heaven alone only knows why, but in spite of everything the USA did to the Mormons, they have always been, and we remain, patriotic to the very core.

Again, I was trying to explain how Rinnie’s misunderstanding could have come about. I understand why the Utah War would leave Mormons cold to United States. If I had been interested in weighing the rights and wrongs of Mormon actions in the Civil War, I would have added that the U.S. Government never asked Utah to send troops; it just wasn’t my intention to even raise that topic, since it had no relevance for explaining how Rinnie could have gotten confused.

But since you raise it, I would not say the Mormons were *solidly *for the North. They were solidly anti-slavery, but that is not the same thing. They did not succeed from the Union, but not because the felt tremendously loyalty to it - at least Brigham Young did not. They expected the War to end in the destruction of America, so that the Mormons would be called upon to save the country, and they prepared for that, and prayed for strength to carry it out. In light of the conflicts between the Mormon and the Federal government, I find that understandable.

Yet I don’t think it is a good response to say that most people west of the Rockies stayed out of the war, because the Mormons had special reasons that differentiate them from other Westerners, and those reasons are what matters if you want to understand Mormons attitude towards the Civil War. Again, I think those reasons can be explained historically without terribly unfavorable implications.

The forming of militias was pretty standard practice for everybody back then; all states and most communities had them—and they all phased out during and after the Civil war, pretty much as a direct result of that war.

This quite true. A militia is a legitimate means of upholding social order, and I mentioned that the Mormon militia was for “self-defense.”

 

[zerinus]

This is exactly my question: WHY do you believe Joseph Smith and WHY don’t you consider his words as hearsay? What qualifications does he have that anyone should believe him when he contradicts previous scriptures and the Church’s interpretations of those scriptures?

Joseph Smith doesn’t contradict the scriptures. Whether he contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches or not is not my concern.

We don’t believe Paul’s (et al) words are hearsay because they were Jesus’ Apostles and disciples.

So was Joseph Smith.

They had the gift of miracles and were able to show everyone that they were of God.

Like what? I thought Jesus said that “a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” (Matthew 16:4). You honestly think that one should look for signs and miracles for faith?

What evidence does Joseph Smith give that he and the Book of Mormon are of God?

The same that Jesus and His Apostles had: the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

 

[KathleenGee]

The construct of Mormonism is anti-Christian churches.

Within the main one and the lesser, then Mormonism has no foundation to stand on.

 

[Jay53]

Joseph Smith doesn’t contradict the scriptures. Whether he contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches or not is not my concern.

Yes he does. He contradicts the interpretations and twists the words to fit what he was teaching. I think that was why St. Paul said “even if WE or an angel of light preach to you a different gospel …” (paraphrase). I think he was warning us that people like Joseph Smith would twist his words to mean something different.

So was Joseph Smith.

How do you know that, other than Joseph Smith saying so?

Like what? I thought Jesus said that “a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” (Matthew 16:4). You honestly think that one should look for signs and miracles for faith?

No, but we should also beware of false prophets. Why were we warned about them if we don’t have any way to determine who is false or not?

Why were the Apostles given the gift of miracles in the first place?

The same that Jesus and His Apostles had: the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Please explain.

 

[zerinus]

Joseph Smith doesn’t contradict the scriptures. Whether he contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches or not is not my concern.

It is your word against mine, unless you give some examples.

So was Joseph Smith.

How do you know that, other than Joseph Smith saying so?

In the same way that I know that the New Testament is true—by the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Like what? I thought Jesus said that “a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” (Matthew 16:4). You honestly think that one should look for signs and miracles for faith?

No, but we should also beware of false prophets. Why were we warned about them if we don’t have any way to determine who is false or not?

The way we determine them is not by miracles. Jesus said we determine them by their “fruits,” not by their miracles (see Matthew 7:16–20). In fact, Jesus warned us against trying to determine true prophets by their miracles. He said, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matthew 24:24). So if you try to determine true prophets by their miracles you are more likely to be deceived!

Why were the Apostles given the gift of miracles in the first place?

For the same reason that it was given to Joseph Smith.

The same that Jesus and His Apostles had: the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Please explain.

I know that Jesus was the Son of God, the New Testament is true, and His Apostles were what they claimed to be is by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. There is no other way that one can know. That is equally true of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I know that Jesus was the Son of God, the New Testament is true, and His Apostles were what they claimed to be is by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. There is no other way that one can know. That is equally true of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

But that proves nothing to me, because I cannot validate your experience. And, to the contrary, my experience with the Holy Spirit confirms my Catholic faith in its entirety, and contradicts your experience with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I would not expect you to set aside your experience based on my experience along. All I’m saying is that my personal spiritual experiences would not be persuasive to you. In the same way, neither are yours persuasive to me. I don’t say this to ruffle feathers, or to call you a liar. All I’m saying is that this concept of “testimony of the Holy Spirit” as the fundamental basis for an argument in favor of Mormonism is not very effective.

Peace,
Robert

 

[zerinus]

But that proves nothing to me, because I cannot validate your experience. And, to the contrary, my experience with the Holy Spirit confirms my Catholic faith in its entirety, and contradicts your experience with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I would not expect you to set aside your experience based on my experience along. All I’m saying is that my personal spiritual experiences would not be persuasive to you. In the same way, neither are yours persuasive to me. I don’t say this to ruffle feathers, or to call you a liar. All I’m saying is that this concept of “testimony of the Holy Spirit” as the fundamental basis for an argument in favor of Mormonism is not very effective.

Peace,
Robert

It is not an “argument”. It is a promise that is found in the Book of Mormon. If that promise does not work for you, then you are not obliged to accept Mormonism. Mormonism is intended for those for whom the promise works, not for those for whom it doesn’t. If it doesn’t work for you, then you are not obliged to accept it—and we do not have an interest in trying to persuade you. Maybe God has some other plan for you; we wouldn’t know. Our time is best spent working with those for whom the promise works.

 

[Marie5890]

Mormonism is intended for those for whom the promise works, not for those for whom it doesn’t. If it doesn’t work for you, then you are not obliged to accept it—and we do not have an interest in trying to persuade you. Maybe God has some other plan for you; we wouldn’t know. Our time is best spent working with those for whom the promise works.

Boy, have things changed!!

 

[dianaiad]

This is why reason and faith should not be at odds.

They never are, Rebecca. The problem is that ‘faith’ is what you deal with in terms of the original concept; "reason’ works after that.

For instance, there is NO way, using reason alone–and the evidence of our five senses–that any of us can accept the existance of God, of His Son, of the birth and ultimate Atonment of Jesus. The whole idea of the miracles He performed is ludicrous.

Using reason alone.

But once we have that confirmed for us through the gift of the Holy Ghost, THEN reason plays its part; first we accept the premise, and then we use logic to deal with the results.

We agree on a few premises, most of us: God is. Jesus is the Christ. He was born, taught for three years, peformed miracles while here, was crucified and was resurrected. Once that is accepted as a premise, one can use reason on the results.

We also agree on another premise; that the early apostles were telling the truth when they wrote the gospels and letters. We accept that they were prophets, who wrote scripture.

We Mormon type Christians accept that another prophet was called in the early nineteenth century. Just as pure reason cannot prove or disprove that Jesus is the Christ or that His apostles spoke truth, so pure reason cannot prove or disprove that Joseph Smith was a prophet, either. Remember…as far as we know, all of the early apostles died as a direct result of the people around them thinking that they were wrong, idiotic, evil…even atheist…certainly worthy of the death penalties imposed upon them. Reason didn’t prove their accuracy to the folks that killed them, did it?

No great man or woman gets through life without criticism…not Jesus, not Peter, not Paul…and not Joseph Smith.

But we believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Not God. Not the Messiah that his character would be perfect or beyond human…but a prophet. A man.

You cannot use reason to prove or disprove that…but once that is accepted, then reason works very well with it as a premise. I believe that Mormonism makes great internal sense. (shrug)

 

[Jay53]

It is not an “argument”. It is a promise that is found in the Book of Mormon. If that promise does not work for you, then you are not obliged to accept Mormonism. Mormonism is intended for those for whom the promise works, not for those for whom it doesn’t. If it doesn’t work for you, then you are not obliged to accept it—and we do not have an interest in trying to persuade you. Maybe God has some other plan for you; we wouldn’t know. Our time is best spent working with those for whom the promise works.

So the Book of Mormon is not for all people?

Let me guess - it is only for those who have faith enough to believe in it. The rest of us don’t have enough faith or have not received the “correct” testimony of the Holy Spirit.

 

[dianaiad]

This is exactly my question: WHY do you believe Joseph Smith and WHY don’t you consider his words as hearsay? What qualifications does he have that anyone should believe him when he contradicts previous scriptures and the Church’s interpretations of those scriptures?

We don’t believe Paul’s (et al) words are hearsay because they were Jesus’ Apostles and disciples. They had the gift of miracles and were able to show everyone that they were of God.

What evidence does Joseph Smith give that he and the Book of Mormon are of God?

Do you realize that you are giving me a very circular argument here? You believe Paul because he said something? You believe that the bible is true because the bible said so?

I do appreciate the way you put this, though, very much: about contradicting “previous scriptures and the Church’s interpretations of those scriptures,” because that is precisely what Joseph WAS doing–at least, he was contradicting the “church’s interpretation of those scriptures.” How could he NOT contradict that interpretation, if God told him that interpretation was incorrect? That’s the whole point of the idea of a general apostasy; if y’all were RIGHT in your interpretations of scripture, you wouldn’t BE apostate.

 

[KathleenGee]

What is missing here is the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit transmitted grace to the apostles and successors to ensure the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ, and that also pertains to eschatology, where we came from and who we are and where we are going in God’s plan, and that this perspective is alot older, with countless historical roots and documents throughout the MIddle East, Asia Minor and Europe…long before America came into being as a country.

Mormonism denies the institution of Christ’s church…the Apostles passing through and establishing nothing…so then all the roots and growth of these regions, in context of a bigger world approximating the Holy Land and the origins of Judeo Christianity…is eradicated as well.

 

[RebeccaJ]

They never are, Rebecca. The problem is that ‘faith’ is what you deal with in terms of the original concept; "reason’ works after that.

For instance, there is NO way, using reason alone–and the evidence of our five senses–that any of us can accept the existance of God, of His Son, of the birth and ultimate Atonment of Jesus. The whole idea of the miracles He performed is ludicrous.

Using reason alone.

But once we have that confirmed for us through the gift of the Holy Ghost, THEN reason plays its part; first we accept the premise, and then we use logic to deal with the results.

As a person coming from atheism, I don’t agree. I started with reason and moved towards faith.

You have a view that is very typical for LDS though, one that leads to atheism when the Joseph Smith house of cards falls.

We agree on a few premises, most of us: God is. Jesus is the Christ. He was born, taught for three years, peformed miracles while here, was crucified and was resurrected. Once that is accepted as a premise, one can use reason on the results.

We also agree on another premise; that the early apostles were telling the truth when they wrote the gospels and letters. We accept that they were prophets, who wrote scripture.

Why do you accept this?

We Mormon type Christians accept that another prophet was called in the early nineteenth century. Just as pure reason cannot prove or disprove that Jesus is the Christ or that His apostles spoke truth, so pure reason cannot prove or disprove that Joseph Smith was a prophet, either. Remember…as far as we know, all of the early apostles died as a direct result of the people around them thinking that they were wrong, idiotic, evil…even atheist…certainly worthy of the death penalties imposed upon them. Reason didn’t prove their accuracy to the folks that killed them, did it?

Oh sure reason proves Smith was not a prophet. I think we’ve covered this several times over. There is quite the list that screams fraud.

No great man or woman gets through life without criticism…not Jesus, not Peter, not Paul…and not Joseph Smith.

and?

But we believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Not God. Not the Messiah that his character would be perfect or beyond human…but a prophet. A man.

You cannot use reason to prove or disprove that…but once that is accepted, then reason works very well with it as a premise. I believe that Mormonism makes great internal sense. (shrug)

Reason says to me, and many others, that Smith was a fraud. A con man. A person not worthy of my faith.

 

[Jay53]

It is your word against mine, unless you give some examples.

Two examples:
God has a body of flesh and bones.
God the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother.

In the same way that I know that the New Testament is true—by the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Is this the “burning in the bosom” or do you have some other witness?

The way we determine them is not by miracles. Jesus said we determine them by their “fruits,” not by their miracles (see Matthew 7:16–20). In fact, Jesus warned us against trying to determine true prophets by their miracles. He said, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matthew 24:24). So if you try to determine true prophets by their miracles you are more likely to be deceived!

Very true if that is the only criteria you use to determine them. Again, I think true prophets cannot contradict previous scriptures which are already known to be from God.

For the same reason that it was given to Joseph Smith.

Which is?
And in what way did Joseph Smith have the “gift of miracles”?

I know that Jesus was the Son of God, the New Testament is true, and His Apostles were what they claimed to be is by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. There is no other way that one can know. That is equally true of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

I have to agree with Robert that your internal feeling cannot be the only barometer of Truth. The example I have given before is the Muslims. I know of at least one who is absolutely certain that God has led her to Islam. Her “witness” then (to me at least) has been misinterpreted because I know that Islam is false. I have also had the Holy Spirit confirm the Truth of Catholicism to me.

 

[Jay53]

Do you realize that you are giving me a very circular argument here? You believe Paul because he said something? You believe that the bible is true because the bible said so?

I do appreciate the way you put this, though, very much: about contradicting “previous scriptures and the Church’s interpretations of those scriptures,” because that is precisely what Joseph WAS doing–at least, he was contradicting the “church’s interpretation of those scriptures.” How could he NOT contradict that interpretation, if God told him that interpretation was incorrect? That’s the whole point of the idea of a general apostasy; if y’all were RIGHT in your interpretations of scripture, you wouldn’t BE apostate.

I included the words “the Church’s interpretation” because Joseph Smith has twisted the words of scripture to fit what he wanted to teach. Remember that even the devil can *quote *scripture. And the “Church’s interpretation” of those scriptures begins with the Apostles and their disciples and successors. Who better to interpret the words of the Apostles than the Apostles themselves and the people who were their contemporaries and successors. I have yet to see any evidence of any of the early Christians believing in such things as God having flesh and bones etc. If there was a widespread belief of this there would be writings about it, just as there are writings about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ. Unless we’re back to the great conspiracy where all dissenting beliefs (at least those that were similar to Mormon beliefs) were destroyed and covered up.

 

[KathleenGee]

The other point missing is objective truth and instead it looks like the reasoning is actually subjective relativism…

What mankind did see was Christ…and before that God working in the great events of Exodus, in the covenant of the Land, and the prophets.

Christ’s words, healings and miracles were witnessed by countless people. He did not pick one but 12 apostles…so the church does not rely on just one apostle…

Christ is the objective truth and truth for us must always convey morality…we as humans cannot because we are sinners.

The Holy Spirit and the Truth, Jesus Christ.