Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[dianaiad]

I guess then, according to Mormonism, anything prior to the writings of the early Church Fathers is ‘authentic’ church; anything during their time and after is apostasy.

You know, that’s REALLY pushing it.

I don’t see how.

Actually, we figure that anything that isn’t actually canonized (and yes, I am fully aware that the canonized biblical scriptures we have are because the Catholics compiled them) in the bible are possibly problematic. Certainly Peter and Paul had some difficulty keeping the church doctrinal train on the rails–hence those letters.

We figure that the apostasy was both immediate—and took longer, depending on the doctrines in question. Certainly once the priesthood authority was gone, and Catholics themselves no longer believed in direct revelation that resulted in scripture, the apostasy was well established.

On the other hand, we don’t figure that the Catholics are all wrong about everything and so it’s still not a complete apostasy. However, we believe the priesthood authority had to be restored, no matter how well doctrine may, or may not, have been preserved.

I guess you can say that we really are sola scripturians, in a way…we just figure that there is a lot more scripture out there than the protestant evangelicals claim there is.

 

[ParkerD]

Oh no, I just thought of something. Excuse me for my ignorance but do the Mormons celebrate Christmas. If not Parker I am sorry, never meant to hurt you.

Rinnie,
Yes, indeed, we do. There will be PBS broadcasts of a Christmas presentation by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir through various channels this Christmas season, in the evenings. My family goes Christmas caroling in our neighborhood each year–delightful! We have several creches which we enjoy in our home during this season of the year. We also have a daughter we named Holli Marie who was born on Christmas day.

Merry Christmas, Rinnie, to you and your family.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Stone Campbell movement…I never heard of it…is this what caused such thinking to come about around the 1830’s in America that led to these cults and sects?

I think some of the fundamentalists emotionally draw on some of the imagery…but publicly don’t use it…

All products of the Second Great Awakening.

ushistory.org/us/22c.asp

 

[dianaiad]

When I speak to the LDS I speak about the Cross, can’t argue it once you get into it. I have been teaching the Catholic faith in Utah for 11 years (Utah) I have found that speaking about the message of the Cross cuts through all the red tape so to speak. The question is why don’t they have the Cross? Why are they taught to focus on the resurection instead of Christ’s Passion. They believe the Atonement took place in the garden not on the Cross

You’ve been teaching in Utah for 11 years and you don’t even have that one right? We don’t believe that the Atonement 'took place in the garden not on the Cross." We believe that the Atonement encompassed the garden, the cross and all that came after, including the Resurrection.

They do not believe in the Christian Trinity so the Cross is a stumbling block as to who died on it

No, actually, we are quite clear about Who died on it. In fact, I think it is Trinitarians who might be confused about that one.

You talk about the Cross, they will have to re-evaluate things…its for them

We certainly would have to re-evaluate your knowledge of our beliefs.

You can speak about the restoration, the Trinity, Confession, etc…etc…etc… you will just sink in the mud.

Quite true. Before you can speak about such things, you have to know what you are talking about. I don’t get the feeling that you do. For one thing, the first time you tell a Mormon that he or she does not believe that the Atonement had anything to do with His death, you are branding yourself as someone who hasn’t done his homework.

Talk about the Cross, what took place there…Our sin etc. This will speak volumes about the so called Apsotacy & Restoration

God Bless

 

[ricko]

Jay53,
Thanks for the warm wishes! Yes, the LDS apostles are similar to Paul and Barnabas. That is correct. (I see no reason to look for miracles as a standard for identifying apostles. I do see having a fervent and sure testimony of Jesus as the living Christ as a standard, through the perfect witness of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised there would be.)
QUOTE]

He also promised that His Church would last till the end of the world but you don’t believe that promise because it applies to the Catholic Church. Any other promise He made which the LDS can use to their advantage they agree with. Oh, and it is nonsense to say that the gates of hell did not prevail as His church exists today in the LDS. Why bother with a lapse of 1800 years?

 

[ricko]

Quite true. Before you can speak about such things, you have to know what you are talking about. I don’t get the feeling that you do. For one thing, the first time you tell a Mormon that he or she does not believe that the Atonement had anything to do with His death, you are branding yourself as someone who hasn’t done his homework.

Yet that is exactly what some Mormons have told us. The one I talked to said the Atonement happened in the garden. So how did THEY get that idea?

 

[dianaiad]

Is this your speculation? Who says/where does it say that bishops cannot ordain other bishops?

Well, actually—you guys do. I was most intrigued when I saw, on that list of sins that cause automatic excommunication (like abortion does) is that any Bishop who ordains another Bishop without Papal permission is committing a mortal sin akin to desecrating the Host, ordaining a woman or getting an abortion.

Wow.

So YOU guys say that a Bishop cannot ordain another Bishop–not without Papal approval and permission.

Well, who gave the Pope permission to give that permission? You claim apostolic succession, but isn’t the Pope simply another Bishop?

Now WE believe that such permission must come from the Qourum of the Twelve apostles. Once that is given…then a Bishop may indeed ordain another Bishop. In fact, in many cases, one does. But he has to have permission first…from an apostle.

Your Bishops need permission from the Pope. So the question is, where does HE get the authority to allow this?

The truly interesting aspect of this is the seriousness y’all view the idea of a Bishop ordaining another one WITHOUT that permission.

Where/when can we see this “change”, and how do you know that the “Holy Spirit would not inspire them to think they could do that”? The above quoted paragraph is short, yet it contains many assumptions that I am 100% sure are based on personal speculation.

The disconnect seems to be in a different place. I suspect.

I think we should note that Catholics believe that all people should be called by God to the priesthood (deacons, priests, bishops). In the case of bishops, they are called by God through those with authority to do so. Also, a bishop does not necessarily ordain his successor, if any do at all.

I don’t suppose it matters if he does or doesn’t, as long as he has permission from the Pope to do so.

Interesting.

 

[dianaiad]

As I mentioned in another thread, there is no scriptural/Biblical basis for a Great Apostasy, a loss of the priesthood keys. The Bible talks frequently about apostasies from the Church, but never about an apostasy of the Church. Instead what we see is the reading back into history the unique Mormon doctrines, as well as many assumptions on how the Church, its members (laity and leaders) should function, to show this doctrinal corruption. Other groups that claim a restoration of “primitive Christianity” do this as well.

Well, we do not see it as an apostasy OF the church, if you mean 'the Church of Jesus Christ." We do see it as a wholesale apostasy FROM it…by a group of people who then call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ/ Christians/Catholics/whatever.

Simply because there were a great many people in that group, and they decided to take the name with them, doesn’t mean that it was an apostacy ‘of’ rather than ‘from,’ when you get right down to it.

 

[dianaiad]

So whose ordination was invalid? So Paul ordained Titus who ordained other priests who ordained more priests. Whose ordination was invalid? Honestly, I don’t get it.

Those ordinations were invalid which did not have the direct permission of the apostles, like Paul.

When that became impossible, that’s when the priesthood authority was lost from the earth.

 

[TheosisM]

Well, actually—you guys do. I was most intrigued when I saw, on that list of sins that cause automatic excommunication (like abortion does) is that any Bishop who ordains another Bishop without Papal permission is committing a mortal sin akin to desecrating the Host, ordaining a woman or getting an abortion.

Wow.

So YOU guys say that a Bishop cannot ordain another Bishop–not without Papal approval and permission.

Well, who gave the Pope permission to give that permission? You claim apostolic succession, but isn’t the Pope simply another Bishop?

Now WE believe that such permission must come from the Qourum of the Twelve apostles. Once that is given…then a Bishop may indeed ordain another Bishop. In fact, in many cases, one does. But he has to have permission first…from an apostle.

Your Bishops need permission from the Pope. So the question is, where does HE get the authority to allow this?

The truly interesting aspect of this is the seriousness y’all view the idea of a Bishop ordaining another one WITHOUT that permission.

The disconnect seems to be in a different place. I suspect.

I don’t suppose it matters if he does or doesn’t, as long as he has permission from the Pope to do so.

Interesting.

Your comments don’t actually address my question of who says that bishops cannot ordain other bishops. Needing the permission of the Pope (who holds the keys as successor of Peter, that’s where this permission aspect comes from) does not take away from the fact that Catholic bishops ordain other bishops. My question again is, who says that bishops cannot ordain other bishops? ParkerD already responded that the absence of explaining that bishops would ordain other bishops answers my question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6047947&postcount=22

 

[TheosisM]

Well, we do not see it as an apostasy OF the church, if you mean 'the Church of Jesus Christ." We do see it as a wholesale apostasy FROM it…by a group of people who then call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ/ Christians/Catholics/whatever.

Simply because there were a great many people in that group, and they decided to take the name with them, doesn’t mean that it was an apostacy ‘of’ rather than ‘from,’ when you get right down to it.

Yes, there was a “wholesale apostasy from it”, which then resulted in an Apostasy “of it”, culminating in the loss of priesthood authority. Apostasies “from” the Church imply that the Church with its authority still exists, and this sort of apostasy is something that Catholics and Mormons both believe in. When we read the scriptural verses given in support of a Great Apostasy, they never refer to a loss of priesthood authority, or that the Church would no longer be on the earth.

 

[dianaiad]

Originally Posted by ParkerD
Kathleen Gee,
You might as well become aware that the “Pearl of Great Price” contains a brief few chapters of the writings of Moses and Enoch, Abraham, and a small history from events in the life of Joseph Smith.

Neither Moses nor Enoch nor Abraham left any writings for us. One could say that Moses wrote down the Ten Commandments somewhere but we do not have any historical writings to back that up.

The Book of Mormon has some verses and a vision that talks about the “whore of Babylon” and the “great and abominable church”, but I am supposing that you realize that the Book of Revelation does also.

Nowhere in the Book of Revelation is Christ’s Church referred to as the “whore of Babylon.” The whore of Babylon is Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, not the Catholic Church.

Nowhere in the Pearl of Great Price nor the Book of Mormon is Christ’s church referred to as the ‘whore of Babylon,’ either. Neither is Catholicism called that. In fact, Catholicism isn’t referenced at all, in ANY scripture.

We believe that the "whore of Babylon’ and ‘the church of the devil’ is the same church…and that consists of everybody who chooses evil and materialism over Christ. We believe that there are some Catholics in that church, yes–but there are some Mormons in it too, and that there are Catholics in the Church of Christ, as well; it’s a matter of where your faith is.

I’ve read these scriptures over and over, and I honestly don’t see where anybody gets a reference to Catholicism specifically in them.

By the way, the Pearl of Great Price doesn’t have the word ‘whore’ or ‘babylon’ or Catholic in it anywhere at all.

Period.

 

[dianaiad]

Did it prevail from 400 to 1830?

Obviously not. We are, after all, here.

“Prevail” is the bottom line, not the process. Consider: you may get the flu, and be very ill; even hospitalized and on all sorts of machines. However, no matter how sick you get, the flu hasn’t ***prevailed ***until you are dead.

So the gates of hell have not prevailed, because…here we are. As a matter of fact, even if we were NOT here, the gates of hell still would not have prevailed, because the end of things hasn’t shown up yet. Everything is still a process. I"m quite certain that Satan still has hopes that, even with a set back such as God gave him by calling a modern day prophet, he can still pull victory out of it, and, eventually, prevail.

He’s wrong, but hey…I doubt that he will stop trying.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not sure where the Mormons get the idea there is a difference between an apostle and a bishop.

Obviously there is one, by your own rules. If a modern Catholic Bishop is the equal of an ancient apostle, then none would need Papal permission to ordain another Bishop. Since he does…Hmnn…

In KJV Acts 1:20 at the time of the replacement of Judas as an apostle we read:

In other translations the term office, leadership or overseership is used instead of bishoprick.

It is pretty difficult to maintain there is a difference in the terms Bishop and Apostle in the New Testament. They don’t ever seem to be used in the same sentence in the KJV Bible:

I don’t think it makes sense in the last passage to say that pastors=bishops without stretching quite a bit.

The Mormons seem to have invented their Melchizedek Priesthood out of whole cloth based on some rather flimsy Biblical evidence in Genesis, Psalms and Hebrews. Most people would limit this Melchizedek priesthood to Christ alone, but the Mormons have received “latter-day revelation” to invent their high priesthood while relegating the office of Bishop to their lower priesthood.

History indicates to me at least that when the apostles were ordaining bishops they were ordaining their replacements to carry on the work of the church. I don’t see the justification to claim the apostolic office was different than the office of bishop. I can’t see where Mormon claims are in line with the teaching of the New Testament.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks C-R. I hope I do not de-rail the thread if so please PM me. But what do they say when you ask them about the Cross. And why do they ignore it?

I don’t think asking him will give you accurate data, but I’m interested in his answer, as well.

 

[Stephen168]

When I started this thread is was with the intention of addressing the claim that the LDS church had “restored” the original Christian faith. This purportedly is the reason for the existence of the Mormons, the one legged stool upon which the entire organization is precariously balanced.

If one decided to “restore” an antique car he would research everything he could get his hands on in order to determine how it looked, what were its orignal parts and what were they made of. Knowing that adding new or “modern parts” would invalidate it as a restored original he would search the country for original parts in order to maintain its authenticity. If he had to add “modern parts” it would loose its value as a true restoration. While it might be beautiful in appearance to some, and while someone may even desire to buy it, an honest man would not try to pass it off as a “restored” original. If he did, he would be considered a fraud.

From what I can determine, the LDS church has rejected the most basic of Christian dogma, from the virgin birth, to the nature of the one true God as Trinity, to denial of the Holy Eucharist, to polytheism. In other words, they did not even try to come close to the original. While being free to create whatever religion they choose, they have chosen instead to paint their own picture over the masterpiece and call it a restoration. That very action makes it a fraud.

With all due respect to those Mormons who have posted here, I have seen nothing of substance, nothing in history, in the witness of the early Church, that even comes close to the doctrines espoused by by the LDS.

My intention in starting this thread was to make sure that my suspicions were correct as to this claim of “restoration”, not to begin a Mormon bashing session. I’m not interested in debating newly invented doctrines which are based upon nothing more than an active imagination by Joseph Smith and his successors. It seems that you begin with the very false assumption that activities and beliefs in the early Church happened so long ago that no one really knows, therefore it is open to specualtion as to what the original Church believed. Sorry, the evidence is not in your favor. I think I have the answer for which I was looking.

I would invite you to explore the claims of the Catholic Church, the unbroken line of apostolic succession, the 2000 years of documented history, not supposition. Tear it apart, look at everything, both its beauty and its flaws. That is when you will find the original that you say you are looking for.

God bless all of you.

Excellent post. I tried this myself a few years ago with the same results.

 

[dianaiad]

I’ll save Parker the time. He is going to say the priesthood of the LDS is on a gradual, graded scale. They, like the Catholic Church, start young and work their way up through the ranks. You would never find a 16 year old Prophet just as you would never see a 16 year old Pope.

well…we did have ONE of those. Sorta. Joseph Smith was a whoppin’ 14 when he saw his first vision.

On the other hand, he didn’t get the Book of Mormon to translate, nor was he told to begin a church, for quite awhile after that.

 

[Jay53]

Those ordinations were invalid which did not have the direct permission of the apostles, like Paul.

When that became impossible, that’s when the priesthood authority was lost from the earth.

So Titus’ ordination was valid because he was ordained by Paul, but he (Titus) then had no authority to ordain anyone after him?

This scenario would also make St. Peter, St. John, St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles culpable for not ordaining more apostles such as is done in the LDS Church. Why didn’t they ordain more apostles if they had any belief that the priesthood authority would end with their deaths? This makes no sense!!!

Does this also mean that if there was some sort of natural disaster or calamity where the Quorum of Twelve all died (at once), that the LDS Church would lose all of its priesthood authority?

 

[dianaiad]

Oh no, I just thought of something. Excuse me for my ignorance but do the Mormons celebrate Christmas. If not Parker I am sorry, never meant to hurt you.

Yes.

We celebrate Christmas. We dance and sing and have parties, too. We don’t believe that Christ was actually born on December 25th, but that’s OK…it only means we get to celebrate His birth twice. We also celebrate Easter, and birthdays, and national holidays, and have celebrities that win “Dancing with the Stars”–we drive cars, fly planes and all sorts of things, even if we don’t drink booze, smoke, or drink coffee or tea. Weird bunch, but if you don’t know what to look for, we blend into society fairly smoothly,

 

[KathleenGee]

Whoooaaaa!

I opened ‘Pearl of Great Price’ and it did not say Catholic, it said the great Roman church and its whoredaughters, the Protestants!!!

We are Roman Catholics.

The Mormons as well as the fundamentalists need to study the first 300 years of Christianity, the liturgy and the development of the Bible as well as defining our Creed. Otherwise, we are flip flopping…

I know about the concept of the Atonement at the Garden of Gethsemane…there were a number of events after Gethsemane that fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah…each event a significance in itself. Jesus’ ministry was not completed until He ascended into heaven.