MORMONS (LDS) what is this "great apostasy" that you claim to have happened?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zundrah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously you are not convinced. If you were, you would join one of the Restorationist faiths. Since according to your profile you are investigating Catholicism, it looks as if you are leaning rather far in the direction of ‘no apostasy.’

That there is evidence and back up for the idea of an apostasy is equally obvious–to those who do belong to one of the Restorationist faiths. It’s why they belong to one.

I hope you will excuse me if I do not engage in a debate with you over this, Zundrah; your previous posts do not make me believe that discussing this issue with you would be useful.
No worries, that’s fine, if you don’t feel like preaching today then don’t worry about it. 😛 I’m not going to force you, but I will just ask the LDS missionary I know instead. There is also a very good website called allaboutmormons.com that is quite helpful too for any one who wants to know more.
 
…I have not been convinced that this “great apostasy” ever took place. 😦
Where is there any evidence or even some kind of back up for it?
I think I already answered that question in posts #68 and #69 of this thread.
 
Hey Zund…

As you’ll see on that link, the Mormon church believes it all went horribly wrong shortly after the apostles.
What I find amazing is the fact that these folks who claim a great apostacy happened to the Church are the same ones who get their feeling hurt when called quasi-Christian.
 
What I find amazing is the fact that these folks who claim a great apostacy happened to the Church are the same ones who get their feeling hurt when called quasi-Christian.
:rotfl: But seriously, they call the catholic church a fraud because they deny the pope is a genuine descended from peter. …since they claim that Christ took the covenant away from them and gave it to Joseph Smith instead. :rolleyes:
 
No worries, that’s fine, if you don’t feel like preaching today then don’t worry about it. 😛 I’m not going to force you, but I will just ask the LDS missionary I know instead. There is also a very good website called allaboutmormons.com that is quite helpful too for any one who wants to know more.
I am, actually, impressed by the site you recommended; you might well find your question about the apostasy answered in it. It does have an ‘apostasy’ page.

I notice also that this site sends people to lds.org to learn about the teachings and doctrines of Mormonism. That’s always a good idea; go to the believers to learn about the beliefs. You might get an entirely new understanding about this religion you have been so critical of, Zundrah; people who argue with beliefs actually held are far more credible than people who attack strawmen.
 
I am, actually, impressed by the site you recommended; you might well find your question about the apostasy answered in it. It does have an ‘apostasy’ page.

I notice also that this site sends people to lds.org to learn about the teachings and doctrines of Mormonism. That’s always a good idea; go to the believers to learn about the beliefs. You might get an entirely new understanding about this religion you have been so critical of, Zundrah; people who argue with beliefs actually held are far more credible than people who attack strawmen.
The Mormon religion I have to say is one of the most interesting religions that I have ever studied. I have never ever met a luke warm Mormon.
 
What I find amazing is the fact that these folks who claim a great apostacy happened to the Church are the same ones who get their feeling hurt when called quasi-Christian.
'quasi-Christian?"

That’s a new one.

However, think about this one for a minute; to you, “Christian” implies “correct,” as in “We are right and you are going straight to hell.” It is probably impossible for you to consider that a Christian could be in any way WRONG about the basic facts of Who, and What, God is.

If it did not imply that, then you would not be so adamant about excluding people–like Mormons–who also believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and put Him at the center of their faith. You claim that Mormons (and perhaps others) cannot be Christian because they do not believe what you consider to be the truth about Him.

OK, let’s go with that definition: a Christian is someone who believes the truth about Jesus Christ. If that is so, then you aren’t the Christians. We are. In fact, if that’s the definition, nobody is Christian EXCEPT us.

Now sit and think about that one for a second. In fact, take it all the way down that logical path; if the definition of “Christian” is 'he who believes the truth about Christ," then in reality nobody is a Christian; we can’t any of us know all the truth about Him, at least not right now. We all simply exercise our faith as we can.

So you wonder why people who believe that there was an apostasy are “hurt” because y’all call us 'quasi-Christian?" Actually, mostly we are told that we aren’t any sort of Christian, true or quasi. This statement almost always precedes some sort of declaration about our eternal destination (hell) or some wildly inaccurate and insulting statement about our beliefs.

It is a good thing that we do not use that definition of “Christian.” WE do not define it as 'he who believes as we do," or “he who believes the truth.” We define it pretty much the way the dictionary does; he who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and follows His commandments as he believes them to be. Oh, and he should probably claim the title.

That means that we cannot turn the argument around and say, as others might “oh yeah? Well, bud, I’m the Christian and YOU AREN"T!” because, of course, you are Christian. You keep the Savior close to your heart and your life, put your faith in Him—and that makes you a Christian no matter how weird your beliefs about Him may seem to us.
 
:rotfl: But seriously, they call the catholic church a fraud because they deny the pope is a genuine descended from peter. …since they claim that Christ took the covenant away from them and gave it to Joseph Smith instead. :rolleyes:
Pretty much, yeah.

Although the claim isn’t that Christ took the “covenant” away. I’m not certain what you mean by ‘covenant,’ anyway. The claim is that the priesthood authority was lost…and that was restored to Joseph Smith.

The claim is also that there was no further direct revelation from God (i.e., Paul;s experience on the way to Damascus, or prophets writing ‘thus saith the Lord’ placed in scripture for the people). THAT claim is not made just by the Mormons; that claim is one that the Catholics and Protestants agree with themselves. The proof of that?

No books entering the canon after the current accepted scriptures were compiled.
 
'quasi-Christian?"

That’s a new one.

However, think about this one for a minute; to you, “Christian” implies “correct,” as in “We are right and you are going straight to hell.” It is probably impossible for you to consider that a Christian could be in any way WRONG about the basic facts of Who, and What, God is.

If it did not imply that, then you would not be so adamant about excluding people–like Mormons–who also believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and put Him at the center of their faith. You claim that Mormons (and perhaps others) cannot be Christian because they do not believe what you consider to be the truth about Him.

OK, let’s go with that definition: a Christian is someone who believes the truth about Jesus Christ. If that is so, then you aren’t the Christians. We are. In fact, if that’s the definition, nobody is Christian EXCEPT us.

Now sit and think about that one for a second. In fact, take it all the way down that logical path; if the definition of “Christian” is 'he who believes the truth about Christ," then in reality nobody is a Christian; we can’t any of us know all the truth about Him, at least not right now. We all simply exercise our faith as we can.

So you wonder why people who believe that there was an apostasy are “hurt” because y’all call us 'quasi-Christian?" Actually, mostly we are told that we aren’t any sort of Christian, true or quasi. This statement almost always precedes some sort of declaration about our eternal destination (hell) or some wildly inaccurate and insulting statement about our beliefs.

It is a good thing that we do not use that definition of “Christian.” WE do not define it as 'he who believes as we do," or “he who believes the truth.” We define it pretty much the way the dictionary does; he who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and follows His commandments as he believes them to be. Oh, and he should probably claim the title.

That means that we cannot turn the argument around and say, as others might “oh yeah? Well, bud, I’m the Christian and YOU AREN"T!” because, of course, you are Christian. You keep the Savior close to your heart and your life, put your faith in Him—and that makes you a Christian no matter how weird your beliefs about Him may seem to us.
I was told my my Methodist minister that you guys are a non christian cult and that I should stay well away from you. :rolleyes: That’s funny since my best friend is a Mormon and I haven’t yet been brain washed into a anti christian cult. But she does get on my case about it all the time… Joseph Smith this, Joseph Smith that, Joseph Smith the prophet and all that rubbish… She drives me nuts. :whacky:
 
The Mormon religion I have to say is one of the most interesting religions that I have ever studied. I have never ever met a luke warm Mormon.
There are plenty of luke warm ones around! But even the luke warm ones can sometimes have a testimony that you can be impressed by.
 
There are plenty of luke warm ones around! But even the luke warm ones can sometimes have a testimony that you can be impressed by.
Testimonies are what remind us why we came to God in the first place, through his son. It is because of christ that we are able to give testimonies. Testimonies are our living memorials. It is testimonies that bring us back to christ even after many, many years of having fallen away.
 
'quasi-Christian?"

That’s a new one.

However, think about this one for a minute; to you, “Christian” implies “correct,” as in “We are right and you are going straight to hell.”
You are putting words in my mouth. I don’t know enough about LDS to make thatclaim. Looking back at my post, I can see that I wasn’t clear about that.
It is probably impossible for you to consider that a Christian could be in any way WRONG about the basic facts of Who, and What, God is.
It is 100% possible that I’m 100% wrong about the basic facts about God.
If it did not imply that, then you would not be so adamant about excluding people–like Mormons–who also believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and put Him at the center of their faith. You claim that Mormons (and perhaps others) cannot be Christian because they do not believe what you consider to be the truth about Him.
Even if I were 100% correct about God and you were 100% wrong about Him, I would still hope that you and others who disagree with me would make it to heaven as you are.
So you wonder why people who believe that there was an apostasy are “hurt” because y’all call us 'quasi-Christian?" Actually, mostly we are told that we aren’t any sort of Christian, true or quasi. This statement almost always precedes some sort of declaration about our eternal destination (hell) or some wildly inaccurate and insulting statement about our beliefs.
Its like the pot calling the kettle black.
he who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and follows His commandments as he believes them to be. Oh, and he should probably claim the title.
Did your “prophet” Joseph Smith believe Jesus’ teaching about marriage being indisoluble between one man and one woman?
That means that we cannot turn the argument around and say, as others might “oh yeah? Well, bud, I’m the Christian and YOU AREN"T!” because, of course, you are Christian. You keep the Savior close to your heart and your life, put your faith in Him—and that makes you a Christian no matter how weird your beliefs about Him may seem to us.
It sounds like “Christian” to you really means “Christian behavior”, which works for me.

Hope to see you in heaven.
 
As bad as my math is, it would be difficult to argue that persecution inhibited growth and that acceptance encouraged it.
I do not believe that persecution encouraged growth, in the sense that if persecution had been consistent throughout all three centuries we would have had the 3.5 to 6 million Christians that we did at the time of Constantine. Since persecution came in waves and pockets we could not very well state that it was due to this factor we had growth of the kind you stress. I think your emphasis on persecution as a main factor (cause that’s what it sounds like you’re saying) for growth is false I would rather think it was their Christian way of life and simple gospel message (not to mention the miracles) that got people to convert. I still think that my orginal message was correct that Christian persecution the kind that was sustained throughout the first century and the second (for if you remember we originally got to this point because you were making a comparison of growth with the early Christians and Mormons) did bring visibility but it also more than likely pushed its numbers down somewhat. I think persecution did inhibit people (for the most part) from converting. But has you said earlier once it became tolerated all bets were off.
 
OK, back to the 40% growth rate. Stark has many opinions about why this was; he mentions social networking, intense evangelism, --and the persecution/hostility that it faced; the ‘nothing cements an opinion like opposition to it’ idea.

However, as soon as Constantine got into power the church first expanded like crazy (well, forced conversions were then the norm) and then slowed way down. Why? **One reason was that the persecution level went way down; there was nothing special about being a Christian, and nobody was out missionarying. **

It was, in fact, acceptable.
I got this quote from a book on google (the same book from which I cited my statistics), here’s what it says:

"Social scientists have asked a different question what would it take to get the numbers in somewhat less than three centuries? The answer comes to an average annual growth 3-4 percent growth, or 40 percent per decade. What is significant about the finding is not that it gives us scientific certainty; nor is it meant to suggest that Christian growth occurred in such an even and regular progression.

So for you to state that growth was constantly up (you mentioned this in another post) is erroneous, and furthermore, there is no way of factually stating that persecution led to growth because it came in pockets and waves (I would think that had there been less persecution we would have had more Christians). In fact right before Constantine came into power Diocletian heavily persecuted Christians (20 000 died). So imagine how such a sustained effort at persecution would deter potential converts.

P.S. Again you presume that because persecution lessened that this was a reason people weren’t converting, you cannot state this because there is not enough evidence to suggest that persecution led to growth. Furthermore the fact that there was a great amount of conversion (which by the way were not enforced) confirms that once Christianity was fully tolerated and had no obstacles standing in its way it flourished. Also, missionary work was still in practice so I don’t know why you mention noboby was missionizing.
 
Zundrah:

I see that, on the website allaboutmormons.com, in the Recent Questions/Answers, you posed much the same question with which you started this thread and that you received a fairly detailed answer with links to additional information. Do you feel that you received a reasonable answer to your question? If so, perhaps you might want to refer others here at CAF to that answer.

In your Post #185, you say, in effect, that Latter-day Saints consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a “fraud”. Latter-day Saints uniformly know of and understand the Great Apostasy. That is a predicate to knowing and understanding the Restoration. However, Latter-day Saints understand that, during the Great Apostasy, there were worthy people striving to follow Christ. We also understand that, during the Great Apostasy, not all true knowledge of Christ was lost. It is true that some of the teachings of our church, particularly during the 19th Century, have emphasized what was lost more than what was retained during the Great Apostasy. My own supposition is that such emphasis reflects that, particularly in the 19th Century when the Restoration was first being brought to mankind, there was a need to explain the necessity of the Restoration. With the Restoration now well-established, there is more opportunity to reflect upon the constructive role and accomplishments of the Roman Catholic Church and other churches during the Great Apostasy. Consider the following by Steven Danderson in an August 9, 2008 blog posting for ww.fairlds.org, the Foundation for Apologetics Information & Research:

"In my early days as a member of the Church, I had thought, like James Talmage in his book, The Great Apostasy, that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen away from the true Christian Church, and that other non-LDS Christian Churches were corruptions of a corruption. I have found that my opinions have, …, um, …, evolved. Rather than being the Great Apostasy, I now regard the Roman Catholic and other non-LDS Christian Churches as pious humans’ valiant attempts to salvage true Christianity from the Great Apostasy; attempts that were, for the most part, successful–significantly more successful than I had previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still the only one with God’s unmitigated authority, and there is still the Great Apostasy. The hallmarks that I found still mark the Church as true, and I have found nothing that shakes my faith about God’s relationship with His Church. I have found, though, that I must assimilate new data.

*t is remarkable how much of the true Church was salvaged. For one thing, they salvaged the Books of the Holy Bible–with only about 10% corruption [Don Stewart and Josh McDowell, in their book, Answers, give a 10% difference in the earliest texts (p. 45).]. God says in D&C 91:1 that even the Apocrypha is most correct. And, of course, God refers to non-LDS Christians as being in a “saved condition” [D&C 132:17]. It is only the creeds that God found abominable–insofar as they spread incorrect doctrines [JS-H 1:19]. No wonder that Joseph Smith said that non-LDS Christians had much truth [HC 5:517]–and Brigham Young confirms it [JD 7:283]!"

I hope that, in light of the foregoing, it is apparent that Latter-day Saints do not regard the Roman Catholic Church, or other churches, as a “fraud”. Rather, what we have to say to Catholics, and other Christians, is “bring all of the good that you have and see for your self if we can add to it.”

Have you visited www.lds.org? If you are interested in learning more about our faith, you might want to go to that website, an official website of the Church, and look in Gospel Library-Support Materials-Family Support Materials at the online versions of the short reference book “True to the Faith” and the introductory Sunday School course book “Gospel Principles” or other materials.

–Murdock*
 
You are putting words in my mouth. I don’t know enough about LDS to make thatclaim. Looking back at my post, I can see that I wasn’t clear about that.

It is 100% possible that I’m 100% wrong about the basic facts about God.

Even if I were 100% correct about God and you were 100% wrong about Him, I would still hope that you and others who disagree with me would make it to heaven as you are.

Its like the pot calling the kettle black.
Did your “prophet” Joseph Smith believe Jesus’ teaching about marriage being indisoluble between one man and one woman?

It sounds like “Christian” to you really means “Christian behavior”, which works for me.

Hope to see you in heaven.
Where did JESUS say that marriage was between one man and one woman,and that more than one wife was against the rules?
 
Where did JESUS say that marriage was between one man and one woman,and that more than one wife was against the rules?
  • Mark chapter 10
  • Through the Church he started
I have noticed that whenever a new “prophet” comes on the scene (Muhammed, Joseph Smith) they claim “apostacy” or “corruption” of the existing authority AND allow for themselves plenty of extra wives.

Luckily for the LDS, the US government stepped in and convinced them polygamy is wrong.
 
The Great Apostasy is the central belief of the Restoration Movement which happened in the early 1800’s in the eastern United States. The groups of the restoration movement believed they were restoring Christianity to its original first century form. Other beliefs of the restoration movement are weekly Lord’s Supper, believer’s baptism (reject infant baptism), Christ intended one church, resistance to being identified as Protestant, and they reject original sin. The main restoration movements were the Stone-Campbell movement, Latter Day Saint movement, and Adventist movement. All these movements believe they have restored the Church started by Jesus Christ and of course a Church does not have to be restored that hasn’t fallen into apostasy. None of these movements have an exact date of the apostasy or the name of the person that lead the church into apostasy.
So how exactly did the catholic church “loose” the keys to the kingdom due to a “great apostasy”?🤷
The Mormon definition of apostasy is centered on the divine authority of Christ’s Church. This is very handy because you can not see divine authority. This makes it very easy for a Mormon to prove the Apostasy. They just declare it so; easy as that.
 
  • Mark chapter 10
  • Through the Church he started
I have noticed that whenever a new “prophet” comes on the scene (Muhammed, Joseph Smith) they claim “apostacy” or “corruption” of the existing authority AND allow for themselves plenty of extra wives.

Luckily for the LDS, the US government stepped in and convinced them polygamy is wrong.
(skipping the gratuitous insults and going to the question)

That’s a fairly big chapter, and deals with divorce and adultery. I do not see where there is a prohibition against more than one wife. Would you care to show me precisely where that is?

Now please remember, the CoJCoLDS does not practice, nor approve of, polgyny. Try it and you get excommunicated very, very fast. We have been taught that the practice was for specific times and reasons, and now isn’t the time. So I am not defending the practice of polygyny. I am simply pointing out that you are reading more INTO that scripture than is actually there.

Those verses in Mark work equally well with more than one wife–and in fact, polygamy WAS practiced in the early church and in the larger Jewish culture. It wasn’t all that common, but it WAS allowable. Shoot, the OT even talks about it–how you aren’t supposed to “put away the wife of your youth…” which marches very well with Jesus’ proscription against adultery, doesn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top