Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

[TOmNossor]

That would be an odd position to take soince the Apostle John and the Three Nephites walked the earth.

And that is if you are LDS.

If not, there are a plethora of examples of God-Sanctioned people walking the earth from the days of the Apostles thru 1830 and beyond
I agree that I should qualify that.
The public ministry of the Apostle John and the Three Nephites ended. I might say it was a total apostasy of valid public authority.

And “God-Sanction” authority (well public authority) is what I would say was absent. I believe that the authority to perform covenantal transactions like the Eucharist was lost and had to be restored in 1830.
Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

My thought is that total apostasy means that there is no God sanctioned authority on earth.
The Catholic thinks they have ordained authority passed from Apostles to Bishop to Bishops today (and to Priests). They are wrong it is totally gone.
The Protestant thinks they have priesthood of all believers (and they do), but that there is no such thing as authority passed from Apostles to Bishop to Bishops today. The Protestant is wrong in the belief that Bishops were given authority in the early church to serve along side Apostles. And again this authority is totally gone.

I hope that clarifies.
It is not a partial apostasy. It is a total apostasy. But this must be understood as a total absence of God’s authority to officiated in official covenantal transactions.

Partial losses abound too, but they do not change the fact that there is a total loss of authority. Catholics continued to have folks who officiate in semi-covenantal transactions (that lack the power God imbued in them). Catholics have largely but not totally forgotten that these transactions are covenantal in nature and not merely a window for God grace to poor out upon the human (like the baby who is baptized – and LDS must remember that the parents and godparents stand in and make covenants so like I said this is only a partial loss).

So, I hope that clarifies. If there is a total apostasy of authority, this is a total apostasy and it requires a restoration of authority.

If there is also great heresy in the Catholic Church and a loss of much but not all of the covenantal nature of what Catholics call “sacraments,” that partial state does not make the total apostasy any less total when it comes to authority and the need for restoration.
Charity, TOm

So, it is your “thought”.

You don’t have any official reference for this. Good to know.

Again, you are using “your” opinions and thoughts as opposed to what is fact.

You are using your own definition of the word "total’ to justify your views and opinions as opposed to what the word “total” actually means.

Your entire argument, and the mormon church’s existance relies on that definition.

Again, just because you use your own personal definition of the word “total” doesn’t make it right.

Also, please answer the questions I posed to you earlier about smith praying about a supreme being, and his joining the Methodist church after he was supposedly told not to.

 

[TOmNossor]

So, it is your “thought”.

You don’t have any official reference for this. Good to know.

Again, you are using “your” opinions and thoughts as opposed to what is fact.

You are using your own definition of the word "total’ to justify your views and opinions as opposed to what the word “total” actually means.

Your entire argument, and the mormon church’s existance relies on that definition.

Again, just because you use your own personal definition of the word “total” doesn’t make it right.

Also, please answer the questions I posed to you earlier about smith praying about a supreme being, and his joining the Methodist church after he was supposedly told not to.

This does not rely on my definition of total.
The day before Joseph Smith received authority to organize a church there was totally no God-sanctioned authority to organize a church and no church utilizing God-sanctioned authrity. The three nephites and John were in possession of authority, but they were not to minister publically. Catholics thought they had authority, but God did not.
It is true to my knowledge however that there is no official position on precisely what “total apostasy” entails in the CoJCoLDS. As I said before, it cannot mean no truth, no Bible, no witness, no action of God in the lives of believers.

Here is a link about the Methodist question. I have researched it, but it has never troubled me. I am sorry if it troubles you, but I do not think anything I could say would help.
en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches

Concerning unanswered questions:
If anybody can find a place where and ECF before Athanasius limits the final state of deified man, I will be surprised and I will read. NOBODY EVER DOES!

Also, I was not kidding in the other thread when I said that I am not satisfied with the idea of God’s impassible love. The only responses I saw were that I should be satisfied or I didn’t understand what Catholics believe. I am not sure if you know about the link I offered, but when searching for Catholic Answers (pun intended!!!) I do not just post **** and see what is said. I go and look for myself. That is why I have read Gavrilyuk and Weinandy.
And assuming KathleenGee is reading:
I called and went by the Aquinas center, but not at good times so I just ordered **Faith and Certitude. **Hope it is here today because I am going out of town.
Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

My thought is that total apostasy means that there is no God sanctioned authority on earth.

So, you didn’t say this? (bolding mine)

Good dodge on my other questions though. I have time, I will wait.

As I said, mormonism hinges on the definition of the word “total”. Which obviously it fails. (I provided you with the definition)

However, mormonism and you have your own definition, which obviously fails.

So, unfortunately, anything further regarding mormonism is a failure and just blah, blah, blah.

Since there was no TOTAL apostasy, mormonism cannot be true, and therefore fails.

 

[Z_Ninja]

I agree that I should qualify that.
The public ministry of the Apostle John and the Three Nephites ended. I might say it was a total apostasy of valid public authority.

And “God-Sanction” authority (well public authority) is what I would say was absent. I believe that the authority to perform covenantal transactions like the Eucharist was lost and had to be restored in 1830.
Charity, TOm

ok… forgive me but my mind is having trouble following… so the Total Apostasy was only regarding Authority, but I thought God removed his Authority (I’m guessing intentionally with the Holy Spirit). but then, I thought Apostasy is the turning away from God’s will. So, if apostasy is God removing his Authority, is it God who is apostatizing?

Also, so you are saying no one followed Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of me.” And all the apostles and followers eventually just gave up? or was it just all of a sudden not sanctioned by God?

 

[TexanKnight]

I agree that I should qualify that.
The public ministry of the Apostle John and the Three Nephites ended. I might say it was a total apostasy of valid public authority.

And “God-Sanction” authority (well public authority) is what I would say was absent. I believe that the authority to perform covenantal transactions like the Eucharist was lost and had to be restored in 1830.
Charity, TOm

Ah…so to fit the square peg of apostasy in the circular hole of Truth, you NOW have make it private that John walked the earth. No public teaching, just wandering privately.

Every time you question a Mormon and show the error of their teaching, they change the facts a little more to make it work again.

And this is how a guy can have 9 versions of a vision

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP and stay there.
Thank you.

 

[Stephen168]

Concerning what I believe about deification:
I believe that whatever Christ is, we are to become. He became what we are so that we could become what He is. Past necessity will not be changed however. Christ was divine before incarnation (indeed I believe Christ has eternally been divine through His union with the Father who has also eternally been divine), and I was not and am not currently divine.

What I believe the ECF before Athanasius believed concerning the final state of deified man:
The ECF taught that whatever Christ is, we are to become. He became what we are so that we could become what He is. They regularly said that we are to become gods. It was so accepted that our destiny was divinity that Athanasius argued that Christ must be God else He could not make us gods. I think the ECF generally believed that past necessity will not be changed however (Irenaeus may be an exception). The Fathers who wrote after Basilides (a 2nd century gnostic who was the first to espouse Creation ex Nihilo), believed or likely believed in some form of Creation ex Nihilo (Fathers before this who explicitly wrote passages that deny creation ex nihilo are Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Clement of Rome). So for many ECF, Christ was included in that which was not created ex nihilo (though not all ECF even taught this by my recollection). So whatever Christ is (in many instances what He is/was eternally), we were to become, but Christ will have been this eternally and we will become this.
Cont…

Yet you still can’t answer post 98.

 

[Stephen168]

Anyone is welcome to do whatever research they want on Newman’s words. My recollection of my research is that some of the above 5 are good examples of not accepting the real presence and some are not real good examples. I have no desire to repeat of find this research (I did look briefly), but anyone who wishes can do so!

So you got nothing

No, it has nothing to do with that! Even the quote out of context was obviously totally unrelated.
Does your comment mean that you have no interest in my looking up the proper way Barker expressed the conditions at Nicea? I hope so, because I doubt I will have time for quite a while to do that.

Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was taught by Christ, the Apostles and the Catholic Church for 2000 years. It is the the consistent sign of the Christ’s Church. By this fact we know that Mormonism is not a restored Church of Christ but a 19th century America invention of Joseph Smith. Who then led his followers into apostasy in 1844 by rejecting the triune God.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not know what point .
Do you know at what point a Catholic would say person xyz became a god?

Charity, TOm

So post #98

 

[Stephen168]

In my research I have NEVER found an ECF before Athanasius who denied that we were to become what Christ is/was.

Arguments from ignorance are very common in Mormon thinking.

My thought is that total apostasy means that there is no God sanctioned authority on earth

Yes, I think that is the Mormon belief. This allows the President to make up stuff which disagrees with the ancient Church and declare an apostasy. Of course most of the things Joseph Smith made up have shown to be false, so with no proof of this loss of authority, I would conclude it is just another story by Joseph Smith.

 

[twopekinguys]

So post #98

My screen goes from #97 to #99. Doesn’t yours?

 

[Stephen168]

Steven168,

No, it has nothing to do with that! Even the quote out of context was obviously totally unrelated.

Does your comment mean that you have no interest in my looking up the proper way Barker expressed the conditions at Nicea? I hope so, because I doubt I will have time for quite a while to do that.

Charity, TOm

Barker is wrong, see post #95.

There seems to be a pattern of you not having the time to support your claims.

Are you here to proselytize?

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, we partake in divine grace but we do not become gods.
The focus is to be a humble servant of the Lord, to be delivered from sin and corruption, and the divine life that He shares with us. Likewise early Church fathers always refer to the One True God and Creator. So there is no other God but Him.

The Old Testament speaks very clearly all throughout that there is the One True God of Israel. The ancient Greeks believed in some sort of form of pre mortal existence, but Pope Benedict spoke of how the Church heavily criticized such thinking, not to necessarily to condemn such beliefs but to transform such beliefs into that which reflects the truth of God and us.

 

[TOmNossor]

I think the topic of the thread is Mormonism as a Restoration.
I think a total apostasy is part of this, so here goes.
Twopekinguys and TexanKnight;
I am struggling to read a genuine misunderstanding of my point or a substantive critique of my logic in your responses. The best I come to is you are worried about semantics in ways which I am unconcerned.

I assert that it is appropriate to call what I claim existed in 1820 a “total apostasy.” Catholics and LDS agree that God leads His earthly church with ordained authority. If this is necessary and there were absolutely no people with the authority to lead God’s one true church on the earth then a restoration of this authority was necessary. This is total apostasy.

I also assert that other than Joseph Smith, LDS begin with the idea that God restored something through Joseph Smith because something was lacking in all the churches of Joseph’s day. Joseph Smith has a unique perspective and truly “no man knows his history.”

But believing that God restored something because there was some Great Apostasy, LDS have used reason to try to find what this Great Apostasy was. I have honestly stated on this board that I would not be a “Restorationist in waiting.” It is not the apostasy I see in the Catholic Church that leads me to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. It is the evidence behind the restoration that leads me to look for an apostasy. I find this apostasy in the absence of authority. If 3rd Clement were discovered tomorrow and it (Like 2nd Clement) spoke of Peter selecting Clement to lead the church (better yet it should be 1st Linus that we discover as even the narrative of the later document 2nd Clement doesn’t match what Catholics believe happened) I would still need to deal with why reason directs me to be a LDS. But at least the documents 1st and 2nd Clement would be muted in their positive evidence for my position by the document 1st Linus. We could have evidence the Linus was a valid successor to Peter and it would not mean that Pius VII was a valid successor.

In summary today I see evidence to believe Joseph Smith followed directions from God when he started a church instead of becoming Catholic or Protestant (meaning there was something missing in 1820) AND I believe that there is evidence that the authority to lead God’s church was absent very early in church history (meaning there is evidence authority being the something missing). That being said, the only thing necessary is to believe the evidence of the Restoration DEMANDS an apostasy. If what happened from 1820-1843 cannot be explained within framework that includes God as the head of the Catholic Church, then the debate is over. This thread is about the Restoration and thus I believe it is about the apostasy too, I think reason points to both.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

ok… forgive me but my mind is having trouble following… so the Total Apostasy was only regarding Authority, but I thought God removed his Authority (I’m guessing intentionally with the Holy Spirit). but then, I thought Apostasy is the turning away from God’s will. So, if apostasy is God removing his Authority, is it God who is apostatizing?

Also, so you are saying no one followed Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of me.” And all the apostles and followers eventually just gave up? or was it just all of a sudden not sanctioned by God?
I did not include your name at the head of my last post, so I will try to answer briefly, but I think my thoughts are well explained in the last post.
The authority is apostate would be a good statement. I do believe that God in response to human choices did not have His authority promulgated.
Neither of us believe that Ciaphus had the authority he thought he had (or at the very least the Jewish High Priest after Ciaphus lacked God’s authority. I believe Peter had the authority. I do not know what happened after Peter, but I do not believe Clement of Rome had Peterine authority. We have no writings from Linus or Cletus. They may think they had Peterine authority, but from Clement’s writings, I do not think he believe he does (there are Catholic scholars who agree with this generally).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom never answer these questions either

I do not know how to answer your question.
I am quite sure that my view is within the spectrum of the views allowed for LDS to embrace and be in full communion with God’s church on earth.
Ostler does go through many of the different ideas in the early CoJCoLDS and of course I am familiar with them from him and my own research, but since there has never been a singular view I doubt one could be defined you couldn’t fault for some reason.

Please explain how my view is faulty / illogical. That is really the view I think matters the most. If you think the Catholic Church stands above the CoJCoLDS in a reasoned consideration of history and theology, then you really should deal with a theology I embrace not some construction you wish I embraced. Unfortunately for you or maybe not, the Catholic Church has defined her theology 1000 times more specifically than has the CoJCoLDS, but if you have some Catholic thoughts that should be considered in this REASONED comparison of Catholic and LDS theology I will read them. I will however not choose between a poor LDS theology and a Catholic theology when I believe I embrace a reasoned LDS theology.

If I relied upon your thinking to define what I as a LDS must believe, I would have left the church a long time ago.

I do not think this is part of the topic of this thread we were encouraged to stay on. Perhaps you can reproduce my views as I have outlined them on your own thread and tell me why they are illogical. You seem to believe that LDS thought must conform to Catholic rules. We have very little history of excommunicating folks who didn’t think like other folks did.

This means that I do not care to define for you what the CoJCoLDS once believed about deification and what it believes now about deification because I do not believe such would produce any single answer nor do I believe LDS thought indicates it must or should. I merely produce for you what I think and I assure you I am a faithful LDS in good standing. If you embraced non-reasonable theology as a LDS and decided you should cease to be a LDS because you could not figure it out, then I see no reason to follow you in such unreasonableness.

Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

I think the topic of the thread is Mormonism as a Restoration.
I think a total apostasy is part of this, so here goes.
Twopekinguys and TexanKnight;
I am struggling to read a genuine misunderstanding of my point or a substantive critique of my logic in your responses. The best I come to is you are worried about semantics in ways which I am unconcerned.

I assert that it is appropriate to call what I claim existed in 1820 a “total apostasy.” Catholics and LDS agree that God leads His earthly church with ordained authority. If this is necessary and there were absolutely no people with the authority to lead God’s one true church on the earth then a restoration of this authority was necessary. This is total apostasy.

So Jesus had no authority huh?

I also assert that other than Joseph Smith, LDS begin with the idea that God restored something through Joseph Smith because something was lacking in all the churches of Joseph’s day. Joseph Smith has a unique perspective and truly “no man knows his history.”

So God/Jesus were lacking “something” to begin with?

But believing that God restored something because there was some Great Apostasy, LDS have used reason to try to find what this Great Apostasy was. I have honestly stated on this board that I would not be a “Restorationist in waiting.” It is not the apostasy I see in the Catholic Church that leads me to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. It is the evidence behind the restoration that leads me to look for an apostasy. I find this apostasy in the absence of authority. If 3rd Clement were discovered tomorrow and it (Like 2nd Clement) spoke of Peter selecting Clement to lead the church (better yet it should be 1st Linus that we discover as even the narrative of the later document 2nd Clement doesn’t match what Catholics believe happened) I would still need to deal with why reason directs me to be a LDS. But at least the documents 1st and 2nd Clement would be muted in their positive evidence for my position by the document 1st Linus. We could have evidence the Linus was a valid successor to Peter and it would not mean that Pius VII was a valid successor.

In summary today I see evidence to believe Joseph Smith followed directions from God when he started a church instead of becoming Catholic or Protestant (meaning there was something missing in 1820) AND I believe that there is evidence that the authority to lead God’s church was absent very early in church history (meaning there is evidence authority being the something missing). That being said, the only thing necessary is to believe the evidence of the Restoration DEMANDS an apostasy. If what happened from 1820-1843 cannot be explained within framework that includes God as the head of the Catholic Church, then the debate is over. This thread is about the Restoration and thus I believe it is about the apostasy too, I think reason points to both.

The only thing missing was one mans greed. And can you show us any evidence to support your belief? So how do you explain Christ Church multipling if there was a “Great/Total Apostacy”? Look, its your soul and if you continue to follow a man-made religion then, well, use your imagination.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

I think the topic of the thread is Mormonism as a Restoration

I think a total apostasy is part of this, so here goes I am struggling to read a genuine misunderstanding of my point or a substantive critique of my logic in your responses.

Go figure. I had no problem at all

The best I come to is you are worried about semantics in ways which I am unconcerned

Nice dodge. There were no issues of semantics at all. But I DO understand your need to dismiss points you can’t explain by saying that. Perhaps you should show us what words were beyond your understanding and we will explain them to you

I assert that it is appropriate to call what I claim existed in 1820 a “total apostasy.”

And I assert you are wrong. Further, I assert you have no proof. Further, I assert you cannot point to a date when it occurred or explain how one could exist when on of the top three Apostles walked the earth AND there were plenty of evidences that God was working strongly in the world

Catholics and LDS agree that God leads His earthly church with ordained authority. If this is necessary and there were absolutely no people with the authority to lead God’s one true church on the earth then a restoration of this authority was necessary. This is total apostasy

Sadly, it is in this very thing that your argument fails. We can show a direct line from Peter to the current Pope. You can show a line from 1800s till now. This is NO apostasy

I also assert that other than Joseph Smith, LDS begin with the idea that God restored something through Joseph Smith because something was lacking in all the churches of Joseph’s day. Joseph Smith has a unique perspective and truly “no man knows his history

I assert that your comment can only work IF you choose the correct of the 9 versions of the vision. So, you fail again

But believing that God restored something because there was some Great Apostasy, LDS have used reason to try to find what this Great Apostasy was. I have honestly stated on this board that I would not be a “Restorationist in waiting.” It is not the apostasy I see in the Catholic Church that leads me to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. It is the evidence behind the restoration that leads me to look for an apostasy.

and what evidence is that? The 9 versions? The changes in his various testimonies? The plagiarized book of Mormon? The lack of any scientific evidence to the book?

I find this apostasy in the absence of authority. If 3rd Clement were discovered tomorrow and it (Like 2nd Clement) spoke of Peter selecting Clement to lead the church (better yet it should be 1st Linus that we discover as even the narrative of the later document 2nd Clement doesn’t match what Catholics believe happened) I would still need to deal with why reason directs me to be a LDS. But at least the documents 1st and 2nd Clement would be muted in their positive evidence for my position by the document 1st Linus. We could have evidence the Linus was a valid successor to Peter and it would not mean that Pius VII was a valid successor.

Ah…the abuse and changing of history to help you assert a point. Nice. Well, maybe we can talk about the failure of your change of authority after Joe died. The splits of your church because of even his own followers calling him a false prophet. Does that work?

In summary today I see evidence to believe Joseph Smith followed directions from God

be more specific. Which of the 9 versions are you using here?

when he started a church instead of becoming Catholic or Protestant (meaning there was something missing in 1820)

In something missing, do you mean the fact her could never find the treasure he vowed to find while illegally seeking buried treasure?

AND I believe that there is evidence that the authority to lead God’s church was absent very early in church history (meaning there is evidence authority being the something missing).

Really? What evidence?

That being said, the only thing necessary is to believe the evidence of the Restoration DEMANDS an apostasy. If what happened from 1820-1843 cannot be explained within framework that includes God as the head of the Catholic Church, then the debate is over. This thread is about the Restoration and thus I believe it is about the apostasy too, I think reason points to both

Since you base your assertions on faulty reasoning and on a man who was a fraud, then yes, the debate is over.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think the topic of the thread is Mormonism as a Restoration.
I think a total apostasy is part of this, so here goes.
Twopekinguys and TexanKnight;
I am struggling to read a genuine misunderstanding of my point or a substantive critique of my logic in your responses. The best I come to is you are worried about semantics in ways which I am unconcerned.

I assert that it is appropriate to call what I claim existed in 1820 a “total apostasy.” Catholics and LDS agree that God leads His earthly church with ordained authority. If this is necessary and there were absolutely no people with the authority to lead God’s one true church on the earth then a restoration of this authority was necessary. This is total apostasy.

I also assert that other than Joseph Smith, LDS begin with the idea that God restored something through Joseph Smith because something was lacking in all the churches of Joseph’s day. Joseph Smith has a unique perspective and truly “no man knows his history.”

But believing that God restored something because there was some Great Apostasy, LDS have used reason to try to find what this Great Apostasy was. I have honestly stated on this board that I would not be a “Restorationist in waiting.” It is not the apostasy I see in the Catholic Church that leads me to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. It is the evidence behind the restoration that leads me to look for an apostasy. I find this apostasy in the absence of authority. If 3rd Clement were discovered tomorrow and it (Like 2nd Clement) spoke of Peter selecting Clement to lead the church (better yet it should be 1st Linus that we discover as even the narrative of the later document 2nd Clement doesn’t match what Catholics believe happened) I would still need to deal with why reason directs me to be a LDS. But at least the documents 1st and 2nd Clement would be muted in their positive evidence for my position by the document 1st Linus. We could have evidence the Linus was a valid successor to Peter and it would not mean that Pius VII was a valid successor.

In summary today I see evidence to believe Joseph Smith followed directions from God when he started a church instead of becoming Catholic or Protestant (meaning there was something missing in 1820) AND I believe that there is evidence that the authority to lead God’s church was absent very early in church history (meaning there is evidence authority being the something missing). That being said, the only thing necessary is to believe the evidence of the Restoration DEMANDS an apostasy. If what happened from 1820-1843 cannot be explained within framework that includes God as the head of the Catholic Church, then the debate is over. This thread is about the Restoration and thus I believe it is about the apostasy too, I think reason points to both.
Charity, TOm

I don’t know why you’re having trouble understanding. It really isn’t as difficult as you are making it.

The mormon church claimed a “total” apostasy. You came up with your own definition of “total” which is not in keeping with the accepted definition.

Since a “total” apostasy, as in “complete” never occurred, a restoration is not, has not, and will not be needed.

In order for mormonism to be true and exist, it relies on the apostasy to be “total”, as in complete. Since that has not occurred, mormonism, cannot be true.

What we have heard alot of is your opinions or thoughts, and nothing of substance.

As I said in an earlier post, since mormonism fails on the “total” apostasy, anything past that is irrelevant, and just noise.

If you want to assert things about JS, then I will assert that he was a false prophet and an egomaniac (nicer than I wanted to say. ) It only takes one failed prophesy to make someone a false prophet. JS had numerous failed prophesies.

He also bragged about doing more to keep a church together than even Jesus. That didn’t work out for him too well either.

Couple all of this with his criminal activities, and trials, etc. I wouldn’t be bragging on him too much.

Just sayin…