Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[SteveVH]

After reading an article by an Elder Dallin H. Oaks entitled “Apostasy and Restoration” sent to me by one of my former teens who has just converted to the LDS Church, the word “Restoration” caught my attention. Seems to me that to “restore” something means to bring it back to its original condition, at least as closely as possible. I can find nothing in scripture or in the writings of the early Church Fathers that contains any uniquely Mormon doctrines. In fact, the beliefs found in reading Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Polycarp are distinctly Catholic. It seems that the process of “restoring” something would have to include finding out what it looked like in the beginning by conducting careful research of early Church documents. When you bring in “modern revelation and doctrine” which differ greatly from early Church doctrine prior to and immediately after the time that the LDS Church claims the apostasy took place in order to substantiate your beliefs, how do you claim that it is a “restoration” of the original. If you want to create something new, its a free country, but why do you claim the original has been restored? Is there a Mormon out there who can help explain this to me?

SteveVH

 

[dianaiad]

After reading an article by an Elder Dallin H. Oaks entitled “Apostasy and Restoration” sent to me by one of my former teens who has just converted to the LDS Church, the word “Restoration” caught my attention. Seems to me that to “restore” something means to bring it back to its original condition, at least as closely as possible. I can find nothing in scripture or in the writings of the early Church Fathers that contains any uniquely Mormon doctrines. In fact, the beliefs found in reading Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Polycarp are distinctly Catholic. It seems that the process of “restoring” something would have to include finding out what it looked like in the beginning by conducting careful research of early Church documents. When you bring in “modern revelation and doctrine” which differ greatly from early Church doctrine prior to and immediately after the time that the LDS Church claims the apostasy took place in order to substantiate your beliefs, how do you claim that it is a “restoration” of the original. If you want to create something new, its a free country, but why do you claim the original has been restored? Is there a Mormon out there who can help explain this to me?

SteveVH

The claim of restoration is that the church (and the priesthood authority) was restored to the organization and beliefs of the very early times…somewhat before Ignatius, Iranaeus and Polycarp. Go further back to Mark. Luke, Peter and Paul. Those early church leaders.

 

[peeteyg]

I think the apostasy in the church can be one of two things or both. I think that at the time of paul there were Heretics defiling the gospel . I also think that Luther and Calvin who were Catholic started an apostasy themselves to new beliefs. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. If the church was the true church it remains the true church or jesus lied and then we’re all in trouble.

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry, I’m very new to this and am still learing my way around these posts. As for your comments, Dianaiad, I think I mentioned that I find nothing in “scripture or in the writing of the early Church Fathers” that contains any distinctly Mormon doctrines. Both Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were contemporaries of the Apostle John and Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. The claim of the “Great Apostasy” as I understand was that it occurred upon the death of the last Apostle so their statements of belief should be valid and speak loudly as to the interpretation of the scriptures by the early Church during the time of the Apostles. As for “priesthood authority”, if the Apostles ordained bishops (Timothy, Clement, etc.), would they not be valid ordinations? And if those who were validly ordained by the Apostles further ordained bishops, then when exactly did this succession of bishops become invalid? By the way, it is my understanding that the primary function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. Does anyone in the LDS Church still perform that function in order to still be considered a priest? It’s a valid question I think; I’ve never heard of a Mormon priest yet you claim “priesthood authority”.

Also, what “very early times” are you referencing that contain Mormon doctrines of celestial marriage and polytheism. If you only want to reference scripture, I believe Jesus Himself contradicts celestial marriage very clearly: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angles of God in heaven.” (Mt:22:33) (KJV) I think that is the only time the subject of marriage in heaven is addressed, but I could be wrong. As for many gods, I think it is evident from the scriptures that the belief in one God was what separated both the Jews and the Christians from the pagan religions. I don’t think I need to go into specifics there.

I would appreciate it if you could leave out the patronizing tone next time. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. Anyway, thanks for your response and God bless.

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry, I’m very new to this and am still learing my way around these posts. As for your comments, Dianaiad, I think I mentioned that I find nothing in “scripture or in the writing of the early Church Fathers” that contains any distinctly Mormon doctrines. Both Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were contemporaries of the Apostle John and Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. The claim of the “Great Apostasy” as I understand was that it occurred upon the death of the last Apostle so their statements of belief should be valid and speak loudly as to the interpretation of the scriptures by the early Church during the time of the Apostles. As for “priesthood authority”, if the Apostles ordained bishops (Timothy, Clement, etc.), would they not be valid ordinations? And if those who were validly ordained by the Apostles further ordained bishops, then when exactly did this succession of bishops become invalid? By the way, it is my understanding that the primary function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. Does anyone in the LDS Church still perform that function in order to still be considered a priest? It’s a valid question I think; I’ve never heard of a Mormon priest yet you claim “priesthood authority”.

Also, what “very early times” are you referencing that contain Mormon doctrines of celestial marriage and polytheism. If you only want to reference scripture, I believe Jesus Himself contradicts celestial marriage very clearly: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angles of God in heaven.” (Mt:22:33) (KJV) I think that is the only time the subject of marriage in heaven is addressed, but I could be wrong. As for many gods, I think it is evident from the scriptures that the belief in one God was what separated both the Jews and the Christians from the pagan religions. I don’t think I need to go into specifics there.

I would appreciate it if you could leave out the patronizing tone next time. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. Anyway, thanks for your response and God bless.

 

[dianaiad]

I think the apostasy in the church can be one of two things or both. I think that at the time of paul there were Heretics defiling the gospel . I also think that Luther and Calvin who were Catholic started an apostasy themselves to new beliefs. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. If the church was the true church it remains the true church or jesus lied and then we’re all in trouble.

All this over a mistranslation of the word ‘prevail.’

You see, “prevail” doesn’t mean that there aren’t lost battles. It means that ultimately the war is not lost. In this case, the ‘gates of hell’ will ‘not prevail’ against the church—means that ultimately those gates will fail, not that they were never closed.

Mormons can say, with perfect logic, that of course the gates of hell did not prevail against His church, did they? We are, after all, here.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, I’m very new to this and am still learing my way around these posts. As for your comments, Dianaiad, I think I mentioned that I find nothing in “scripture or in the writing of the early Church Fathers” that contains any distinctly Mormon doctrines.

…and what ‘distinctly Mormon doctrine’ do you have in mind?

Both Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were contemporaries of the Apostle John and Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. The claim of the “Great Apostasy” as I understand was that it occurred upon the death of the last Apostle so their statements of belief should be valid and speak loudly as to the interpretation of the scriptures by the early Church during the time of the Apostles. As for “priesthood authority”, if the Apostles ordained bishops (Timothy, Clement, etc.), would they not be valid ordinations?

Yes they would. However, that doesn’t mean that the ordinations those Bishops performed were themselves valid in turn.

And if those who were validly ordained by the Apostles further ordained bishops, then when exactly did this succession of bishops become invalid? By the way, it is my understanding that the primary function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. Does anyone in the LDS Church still perform that function in order to still be considered a priest? It’s a valid question I think; I’ve never heard of a Mormon priest yet you claim “priesthood authority”.

The office of ‘priest’ is held mostly by young Mormon males between the ages of 16 and 19, and by new converts as they progress through the priesthood offices themselves.

Also, what “very early times” are you referencing that contain Mormon doctrines of celestial marriage and polytheism. If you only want to reference scripture, I believe Jesus Himself contradicts celestial marriage very clearly: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angles of God in heaven.” (Mt:22:33) (KJV)

Well, I don’t think that Jesus was refering to geometry.

But that one has been addressed many times; we do not believe that people ‘marry or are given in marriage’ in heaven either. That has to be done here—but we believe that this does not automatically mean that death is divorce. There’s nothing in that verse that says we can’t REMAIN in a marriage that was made here.

I think that is the only time the subject of marriage in heaven is addressed, but I could be wrong. As for many gods, I think it is evident from the scriptures that the belief in one God was what separated both the Jews and the Christians from the pagan religions. I don’t think I need to go into specifics there.

Good idea. Your assumptions about LDS doctrine in this begs so many questions–and has sparked many thousands of posts. Suffice it to say that we probably don’t quite believe what you think we do, and leave it at that.

I would appreciate it if you could leave out the patronizing tone next time. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. Anyway, thanks for your response and God bless.

Actually, I wasn’t attempting to be patronizing. I was simply stating a simple position.

 

[peary1]

The claim of restoration is that the church (and the priesthood authority) was restored to the organization and beliefs of the very early times…somewhat before Ignatius, Iranaeus and Polycarp. Go further back to Mark. Luke, Peter and Paul. Those early church leaders.

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.

 

[SteveVH]

As for “distinctly Mormon doctrines” I think I mentioned two; Celestial marriage and polytheism. If you will read the quote of Jesus that I gave concerning marriage you will see that it was in the context of anwering those who were trying to trick Him concerning marriage on earth - between a woman and the seven brothers who married her in succession. He was specifically referring to marriages “that were made here” and not speaking of “new” marriages in heaven.

As for valid ordinations, why would you think that one Bishop who had been validly ordained would not be able to validly ordain another? You make the statement: “that doesn’t mean that the ordinations those Bishops performed were themselves valid in turn” without anything to substantiate it. Let me ask it another way. What would “invalidate” the ordination of a new Bishop by one who himself had been validly ordained?

Concerning the primary function of a priest as one who offers sacrifice, you just completely ignore the subject. If you want scriptural references as to how the office of priesthood is defined I’ll be happy to provide them, but with all due respect, it appears that your church has just defined it as anyone who joins; sort of a junior position. Where do you find that in either the Jewish faith (see Holy of Holies) or the original Church?

I won’t pretend to know all about your beliefs, which may be why there seem to be so many inconsistencies in my mind. My only real point of reference is the article I was given to read which was the subject of this post, but it seemed to be written by someone who speaks fairly authoritatively for your Church. It would take a book for me to ask all the questions I have after reading it; God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, and so on. I’m trying to find out what attracted a young girl that I care deeply about to your Church and am quite amazed at what I have found and baffled at where these beliefs originated, especially in the context of the original faith being “restored” rather than a new faith being created by Joseph Smith. Thus the reason for this post.

I still haven’t discovered how to place your comments in the nifty little quotation boxes but I’ll work on it.

Thanks again for responding to me.

 

[catholic-rcia]

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

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

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

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

Talk about the Cross, what took place there…Our sin etc….

This will speak volumes about the so called Apsotacy & Restoration

God Bless
www.utahmission.com

 

[romesweethome]

Mormons do not have any evidence of an apostacy. The only “evidence” they claim, is their interpretation of the Bible and the book of mormon. Historically, the mormons claimed that this ec=vent occurred later than the death of the last apostle, and then as they studied the early fathers writings and could not find an apostacy or their own teachings, they kept placing the approximate time of the apostacy closer to the death of the last apostle. this ideology is necessary for the mormon because there is no evidence whatsoever to their claims in this period of time, and therefore they are able to claim that period because of the mysterious blank in history as it refers to their beliefs and claims of said apostacy. None of this would have occurred or would have had any following if it were not for the doctrine of sola scriptura, since one can believe whatever they want when placed in the context of this man made doctrine. Sola scriptura gives non Catholics the ability to claim any interpretation because there is no church authority present from the apostles forward to counter the claim and pronounce it as true or not true.

This has been the issue from the advent of sola scriptura in the 16th century and will live on to cause massive schism, chaos and confusion til the end of time.

I have escaped this spiritual trapping and now have the Church spoken of in Matthew 18:16-20 as my guide for things orthodox.

peace, romesweethome

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Catholic rica…

I have met Mormons here…I found common ground when we began to speak of Rev 12…and shared how we think alike…I worked to find common ground with them… in my region of the country, I found the Mormons to be very lovely people…and read that in 120 years or so…they will become fully standardized with the rest of Christians…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=SteveVH;6045331] The claim of the “Great Apostasy” as I understand was that it occurred upon the death of the last Apostle so their statements of belief should be valid and speak loudly as to the interpretation of the scriptures by the early Church during the time of the Apostles.

For the LDS church to make a claim over 1800 years later after Christianity survived great trials and tribulations by her members to a total apostasy? leaves the LDS church to prove a date, place, names or an event from history when this total apostasy occurred? Which the LDS has never been able to give an exact date, or place, names when this occurred.

In fact no secular history, nor religious history ever record a total apostasy of the Catholic Church from history, not even from those anti-Catholic secular governments and powers ever record a total apostasy, how could something so “Great” go unnoticed by enemies of the Catholic church from history?

LDS may give you a book to read to try and convince you other wise; But it shouldn’t have to take a Lawyer tactic argument to prove a total apostasy when history never records any such event. Their proof is never black and white of a total apostasy, they argue in the grey areas, convincing the unlearned astray from a misinterpretation of recorded history.

Revelation ended with the last apostle John. Yet LDS claim to a new gospel revelation from their founder over 1800 years later? After the Last apostle, what got handed down to us remains in the Catholic Church from Jesus and the apostles.

Many Catholic Fathers, Popes and Bishops were martyred for this Apostolic Catholic Faith since the last apostle. These names, events, places are recorded from antiquity, that this Apostolic Catholic Faith never went into a total apostasy. Another fact, the first 30 Popes were martyred since St. Peter, yet they overlook these recorded facts who new the apostles themselves.

I can’t accept an 1800 year old gap of Christianity from the apostles and neglect all those Saints, Martyrs who died for the Apostolic Catholic faith since the first century, and then a Johny come lately; the founder of the LDS church Joseph Smith who died in a gun fight breaking out of jail defending his life. Who made a claim that the early Church went into a total apostasy, and that his new revelation has it right, and the last 1800 years of Christianity got it wrong?

Just 2cents

 

[ParkerD]

As for “distinctly Mormon doctrines” I think I mentioned two; Celestial marriage and polytheism. If you will read the quote of Jesus that I gave concerning marriage you will see that it was in the context of anwering those who were trying to trick Him concerning marriage on earth - between a woman and the seven brothers who married her in succession. He was specifically referring to marriages “that were made here” and not speaking of “new” marriages in heaven.

As for valid ordinations, why would you think that one Bishop who had been validly ordained would not be able to validly ordain another? You make the statement: “that doesn’t mean that the ordinations those Bishops performed were themselves valid in turn” without anything to substantiate it. Let me ask it another way. What would “invalidate” the ordination of a new Bishop by one who himself had been validly ordained?

Concerning the primary function of a priest as one who offers sacrifice, you just completely ignore the subject. If you want scriptural references as to how the office of priesthood is defined I’ll be happy to provide them, but with all due respect, it appears that your church has just defined it as anyone who joins; sort of a junior position. Where do you find that in either the Jewish faith (see Holy of Holies) or the original Church?

I won’t pretend to know all about your beliefs, which may be why there seem to be so many inconsistencies in my mind. My only real point of reference is the article I was given to read which was the subject of this post, but it seemed to be written by someone who speaks fairly authoritatively for your Church. It would take a book for me to ask all the questions I have after reading it; God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, and so on. I’m trying to find out what attracted a young girl that I care deeply about to your Church and am quite amazed at what I have found and baffled at where these beliefs originated, especially in the context of the original faith being “restored” rather than a new faith being created by Joseph Smith. Thus the reason for this post.

I still haven’t discovered how to place your comments in the nifty little quotation boxes but I’ll work on it.

Thanks again for responding to me.

SteveVH,
The kinds of questions you raised have been discussed on several threads in the past year or so, including a recent one on the topic of LDS celestial marriage and explaining the very specific verses in Matthew that you cited briefly.

I will just add a couple of items if you happen to check back on this thread. I have pretty much felt like my time spent here has “expired”, but you may as well become aware that LDS beliefs include that a bishop cannot ordain another bishop–he doesn’t have the authority to do that. For example, I served in that calling years ago but only for 3 and a half years, and since then have served in many other positions of responsibility, but none like that in that an LDS bishop does carry a pretty major load even though it is apart from their daily job. But I didn’t, for example, ordain my successor, nor has any LDS bishop ordained their successor. All LDS bishops are ordained through the authority delegated by LDS apostles to a position in a given locale described as a “stake president” who presides over five to ten bishops. Even a stake president gets approval from the apostles before any new replacement bishop is ordained. Then that bishop is later “released” from being bishop although still holding priesthood authority, just not that office.

I realize that your natural reaction to the young woman who sent you the article is amazement, but please be aware that there are deep levels of understanding that a person can receive as they experience the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, which she will have felt as she studied and read and prayed about the gospel of Jesus Christ and what He desired for her in her life.

The loss of authority happened when any bishop thought to themselves, “I can ordain other bishops”. That would demonstrate that they had lost divine sanction, because the Holy Spirit would not inspire them to think they could do that. That began a process of drifting away doctrinally as well as the loss of authority, since God really, truly, is the One with the authority to either give or withhold. It is not man’s to take upon themselves.

Peace to you.

 

[KathleenGee]

I worked with a Mormon dentist and we became friends. I had the impression he was anti-Catholic at first…but it changed…more or less.

I finally went down to a Mormon book store because I was curious about his reaction when I mentioned the ‘Pearl of Great Price’…and I found a Mormon book with that title.

I opened it up and it was the most bigoted anti-Catholic book…calling us whores, and the Protestants the daughters of whores or something to that…

And then when I contacted the Mormon Church in Utah, all of a sudden nobody heard about it…yet when I read about Mormonism, there were a number of references to this book.

 

[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.

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. The word “whoring” is also used in the Old Testament, and refers to when the people have become so influenced by the nations around them that their worship and their worship practices have changed from the pure worship of the God of Israel.

The word “Babylon” is an ancient city, of course, but it also represents the false values of worldliness. The “great and abominable church” would mean those two combined ideas–false values of worldliness and the world’s philosophies and selfishness, and loss of the pure worship of the God of Israel. The Book of Mormon shows that Isaiah and most if not all of the prophets understood that the God of Israel is Jehovah, who is the Savior, Jesus Christ. “Beside me there is no Savior” is an absolutely true statement by Isaiah.

The Savior is the loving, saving, redeeming God of Israel, and the God of all the earth who suffered on the cross of Calvary and in the garden of Gethsemane and during the hours of agony leading up to the cross, for the benefit and blessing of all people, everywhere, through all time on this earth.

 

[TheosisM]

SteveVH,

The loss of authority happened when any bishop thought to themselves, “I can ordain other bishops”. That would demonstrate that they had lost divine sanction, because the Holy Spirit would not inspire them to think they could do that. That began a process of drifting away doctrinally as well as the loss of authority, since God really, truly, is the One with the authority to either give or withhold. It is not man’s to take upon themselves.

Peace to you.

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

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.

 

[TheosisM]

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.

 

[romesweethome]

I worked with a Mormon dentist and we became friends. I had the impression he was anti-Catholic at first…but it changed…more or less.

I finally went down to a Mormon book store because I was curious about his reaction when I mentioned the ‘Pearl of Great Price’…and I found a Mormon book with that title.

I opened it up and it was the most bigoted anti-Catholic book…calling us whores, and the Protestants the daughters of whores or something to that…

And then when I contacted the Mormon Church in Utah, all of a sudden nobody heard about it…yet when I read about Mormonism, there were a number of references to this book.

the missionaries in my area carry this book.
They are not allowed to come to my home any longer.

peace, rsh

 

[catholic-rcia]

SteveVH,
The kinds of questions you raised have been discussed on several threads in the past year or so, including a recent one on the topic of LDS celestial marriage and explaining the very specific verses in Matthew that you cited briefly.

I will just add a couple of items if you happen to check back on this thread. I have pretty much felt like my time spent here has “expired”, but you may as well become aware that LDS beliefs include that a bishop cannot ordain another bishop–he doesn’t have the authority to do that. For example, I served in that calling years ago but only for 3 and a half years, and since then have served in many other positions of responsibility, but none like that in that an LDS bishop does carry a pretty major load even though it is apart from their daily job. But I didn’t, for example, ordain my successor, nor has any LDS bishop ordained their successor. All LDS bishops are ordained through the authority delegated by LDS apostles to a position in a given locale described as a “stake president” who presides over five to ten bishops. Even a stake president gets approval from the apostles before any new replacement bishop is ordained. Then that bishop is later “released” from being bishop although still holding priesthood authority, just not that office.

I realize that your natural reaction to the young woman who sent you the article is amazement, but please be aware that there are deep levels of understanding that a person can receive as they experience the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, which she will have felt as she studied and read and prayed about the gospel of Jesus Christ and what He desired for her in her life.

The loss of authority happened when any bishop thought to themselves, “I can ordain other bishops”. That would demonstrate that they had lost divine sanction, because the Holy Spirit would not inspire them to think they could do that. That began a process of drifting away doctrinally as well as the loss of authority, since God really, truly, is the One with the authority to either give or withhold. It is not man’s to take upon themselves.

Peace to you.

Parker, you really need to ask yourself why you defend what you defend, go deep into that. I became Catholic 11 years ago and have been witness to in. The Doctrines are firm and you have to know this. It’s obvious when you do a good study of the Early Church. For one just take the account of the Last Supper, what Jesus did and how he presented it.
Today this one act, one of the most important acts in the history of the world is found in the Catholic Church, within the Mass. I really have a hard time understanding what you are doing here other than soul searching. You need an authentic relationship with God, with Jesus who is God, not at all in a Mormon sense, rather is the sense of Christianity. When he becomes more important than your family and friends you will understand these things.
Not to sound to simplistic, but it is.
Its all found at the foot of the Cross
God Bless
www.utahmission.com