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

[dianaiad]

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.

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.

Interesting statement, there, Stephen. After all, isn’t it simply a declaration of the Catholic church that you go by when you insist that this authority remained?

Either way, one must get outside confirmation of the idea. You know, prayer, answer to?

We all must make our own decisions about that, with the aid of the Holy Ghost.

 

[mark_a]

(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?

6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.

Adam and Eve had only each other.

Be careful of falling into the trap of thinking that every point of faith and morals has to be explicitly attested in Scripture. That isn’t the case. It’s an advantage if one can show Scripture clearly supporting a position, but it isn’t required.

Scripture indicates that for a time God did tolerate this practice during the Old Testament. However, it was portrayed even then as a negative thing. When Scripture describes the domestic life of polygamists, it brings out consistently the negative effects of polygamy—jealousy, taunting, conflict, favoritism—as different wives and children struggle for position within the family. (Take for example the strife between the wives of Abraham, Jacob, or Elkana; see Gen. 21, 29–30, 1 Sam. 1).

Snipped from: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110qq.asp

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.

Your talking out of both side of your mouth. Splitting hairs between Jesus’ explicit and implicit teachings about marriage.

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?

It seems to me that if even looking at another woman while you are married constitutes adultry of the heart, taking an additional wife and presumably having intercourse with her would be a big no-no too.

Joseph Smith and Morman leadership hate the Catholic Church so much that they will go through these girations even concerning marriage.

The Church wasn’t wrong about marriage until Mohammed came along; and Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity weren’t wrong about marriage until Joseph Smith came along.

 

[dianaiad]

6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.

Adam and Eve had only each other.

Snipped from: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110qq.asp

Your talking out of both side of your mouth. Splitting hairs between Jesus’ explicit and implicit teachings about marriage.

See, here’s the thing: you can’t use the Adam and Eve argument (especially with the 'Lilith" idea) when almost all (I don’t know about Jonah, Micah, et.al.) of the OT prophets were polygamous–and it was fine with God that they be so.

So, given that polygyny was acceptable in OT times, AND acceptable (and not explicitly preached AGAINST) in the time of Christ, then the only implicit teaching about this we can get from what the Savior said was that a man and his wife must be together; that marriage is very, very important. There is no explicit (and therefore no implicit) teaching that this relationship should be with only one wife.

Again, that said, I believe that the best state of marriage IS 'one man, one woman…" not because polygyny is all that immoral, but because men can’t handle it. Women can, men can’t. Polygyny, properly practiced, gives women all the power. Most men cannot handle that–and God is quite aware of this. I believe that this is why polygamy has been very rarely divinely sanctioned.

It seems to me that if even looking at another woman while you are married constitutes adultry of the heart, taking an additional wife and presumably having intercourse with her would be a big no-no too.

Then I strongly suggest that you not do that.

Joseph Smith and Morman leadership hate the Catholic Church so much that they will go through these girations even concerning marriage.

The Church wasn’t wrong about marriage until Mohammed came along; and Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity weren’t wrong about marriage until Joseph Smith came along.

I hate to break this to you, but we don’t hate the Catholics at all. We don’t hate the Catholic church. If there is any hate going on, it’s the other way around. We do not, for instance, deny you your claim to the title “Christian,’ thus putting you in the category “other” and “lesser” (and, by extension, hell-bound) even as we ask for and accept help from you in charitable works…but the Catholics have officially declared us to be 'non-Christian.”

Do you have any idea how incredibly ironic and assinine your statement looks when it is posted on a forum that advertises church sponsored anti-Mormon books every single day? Today it is Isaiah Bennet’s “Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe.”

Gee, I wonder how you would react if you saw an advertisement like that on MADB, entitled “Inside Catholicism: What Catholics Really believe” written by some LDS convert to Mormonism?

I can guess…but you won’t ever have to worry about it yourself, because it will never happen. There is no such book and there never will be.

 

[jpaul1953]

Zundrah,
This is a very good question, needing some background understanding.

The “keys of the kingdom” came from Christ, and according to Matthew 16:19 those keys were given to Peter. The verses there show that the keys conferred the power to “bind on earth” “whatsoever…shall be bound in heaven.”

The question is, what happened to those “keys” and could they be “lost” if they were not “used” properly?

What was Christ’s intent by giving the keys to Peter? When He commissioned the apostles to teach all nations, as related in Matthew 28, we read:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

The commission was clear: go, teach all nations, baptize in the prescribed way with the power and authority given by Christ, teach them to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”.

It is clear from Acts 1:20-26 that Peter and the apostles understood that they had the authority to ordain another apostle to replace Judas, and did so by ordaining Matthias at that time. It is clear reading the New Testament that Paul was later ordained an apostle, though it is not clear who had died such that his ordination was required.

The epistles of Paul and of Peter show that these apostles had ongoing concerns about keeping the doctrines taught among the people and the ordinances practiced among them correct. This would be in keeping with the commission they had received from Christ.

Here on this website is a set of paragraphs discussing how the early church decided to begin using the name “catholic” and how some early leaders viewed their role, as well as noting the problem with “schisms”.
catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

May I suggest that by the time all the apostles except John had been killed and as the communication methods and travel methods did not facilitate keeping all of the doctrines and ordinances purely and consistently the same as those which had been taught by Christ, and as leaders thought best to begin using their personal judgment in questions of doctrine or ordinances rather than relying on revelation by the Holy Ghost as Christ and the apostles had taught, then inconsistencies and disputes arose within the different areas where the gospel was promulgated. Thereupon, the decisions made by the leaders to settle these disputes and inconsistencies using council meetings where votes were taken to settle upon doctrine, and using “tradition” as the ensuing doctrinal foundation, and where this doctrinal foundation of “tradition” rather than relying on revelation and direct guidance from the Holy Ghost as had been taught by Paul and Peter, resulted in the church being led by the “wisdom of men” rather than by the “wisdom of God”.

The commission received by the apostles thus was no longer being carried out after their deaths because the “wisdom of men” was the basis of doctrinal and ordinance settling of questions. The authority and power conferred by the keys was thus lost gradually, over a period of years, until no one had the real keys although they still taught many of the correct doctrines (but some were not correctly taught or practiced).

Dear Child of the Mormon Faith,

Well, since we are all living and teaching the wrong doctrines of Christ by your message, then you must be able to show us way before Joseph Smith’s current teachings from some very old text that Christ taught what the Mormons teach. Please direct all of us misguided followers the old truth and nothing but the old truth. I don’t want to hear you say this and that about Joseph Smith, that just a couple of hundred years ago.

I need for you to go back as far as our Church does and show us your church’s direct path back to my Lord Jesus Christ. SHOW ALL OF US SOMETHING OLDER THAN MR SMITH’S BELIEFS. Stop with the apostacy and start with your direct path back to Jesus Christ.

Again, STOP TRYING TO DISPROVE THE CHURCH. START BY PROVING TO US THE VALIDITY OF YOUR CHURCH.

jpaul1953

 

[mark_a]

See, here’s the thing: you can’t use the Adam and Eve argument (especially with the 'Lilith" idea) when almost all (I don’t know about Jonah, Micah, et.al.) of the OT prophets were polygamous–and it was fine with God that they be so.

I don’t see that “fine with God” squares with "“Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment”.

There is no explicit (and therefore no implicit) teaching that this relationship should be with only one wife.

Explicit and implicit are not the same.

Again, that said, I believe that the best state of marriage IS 'one man, one woman…" not because polygyny is all that immoral, but because men can’t handle it. Women can, men can’t. Polygyny, properly practiced, gives women all the power. Most men cannot handle that–and God is quite aware of this. I believe that this is why polygamy has been very rarely divinely sanctioned.

Then why defend original Mormon teaching about polygamy so vigorously?

I hate to break this to you, but we don’t hate the Catholics at all. We don’t hate the Catholic church. If there is any hate going on, it’s the other way around. We do not, for instance, deny you your claim to the title “Christian,’ thus putting you in the category “other” and “lesser” (and, by extension, hell-bound) even as we ask for and accept help from you in charitable works…but the Catholics have officially declared us to be 'non-Christian.”

Again, its the pot calling the kettle black. Catholics don’t like the “a” word any more than you like the “q” word.

Do you have any idea how incredibly ironic and assinine your statement looks when it is posted on a forum that advertises church sponsored anti-Mormon books every single day? Today it is Isaiah Bennet’s “Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe.”

I can see your point. But I can tell you I would never buy a book like that. As I said before, I know little of LDS, mainly this: Just as with Muhammed, polygamy was original doctrine and practice, and just like Muhammed, corruption and apostacy are claimed by the founder. These are Mormonism’s Gallileo. Except these problems DO involve faith and morals.

Gee, I wonder how you would react if you saw an advertisement like that on MADB, entitled “Inside Catholicism: What Catholics Really believe” written by some LDS convert to Mormonism?
I can guess…but you won’t ever have to worry about it yourself, because it will never happen. There is no such book and there never will be.

What is an MADB?

I still hope to see you even as you now are in heaven.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Again, that said, I believe that the best state of marriage IS 'one man, one woman…" not because polygyny is all that immoral, but because men can’t handle it. Women can, men can’t. Polygyny, properly practiced, gives women all the power. Most men cannot handle that–and God is quite aware of this. I believe that this is why polygamy has been very rarely divinely sanctioned.

I just don’t see your “power” theory anywhere.

 

[Zundrah]

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

Well,I don’t know what to say! Thank you for taking me so seriously and I can’t believe that you looked up my qestions on that site!
Is is okay Murdock if when I’m reading the book of mormon, that I PM scripturs to you that I can’t make sense of? I will visit that new site you gave me too, thanks! :heaven:

On this site I tend to harrass mormons (as you have probably noticed) because I want to know more but I’m too shy to ask them. So thanks again for noticind me and hepling out and explaining things in more detail.

 

[dianaiad]

I just don’t see your “power” theory anywhere.

What, that polygyny, properly practiced, gives WOMEN the power?

the simplest explanation is that since men and women should have equal votes in what goes on in the household, the poor man gets outvoted.

Then there is this; the man can’t just up and decide to fall in love with the nearest Lolita and bring her home and install her in the family; the decision to marry again has to be that of the man–and of his present wife or wives; They get absolute veto rights. Again, we are looking at the poor schlub getting out voted.

In a properly run polygamous household, the women can have it all, really: a wife can have a full time career, be as creative as her talents allow AND be certain that her children have full time and loving care at home by a mother that loves them. The poor husband? His role is pretty much the same as it is now: he has to work, be the husband and father–and keep the entire household happy.

Finally, there’s the entire family structure; there isn’t a whole lot of room there for 'limerence…" that 'happily ever after" all obsessive love between one man and one woman that is so treasured in song and story; family is a very different sort of thing; more people to depend on, more delegation, more support—and at the same time, more responsibility to all the rest of the household.

How many men can do that without trying to get control of the situation and of the women? How many men could accept their position as one of several equals–and be willing to lose control like that?

I submit…not many. So…polygamy becomes the seraglio/master-chattel situation that our critics insist that it MUST be.

Nah, this idea that polygamy is wrong and awful isn’t about how horrific it is for the women. It’s an admission that the men can’t do it. :-J

 

[Mannyfit75]

What historical proof text and historical evidence do you have that the Great Apostasy happen?

 

[dianaiad]

Well,I don’t know what to say! Thank you for taking me so seriously and I can’t believe that you looked up my qestions on that site!
Is is okay Murdock if when I’m reading the book of mormon, that I PM scripturs to you that I can’t make sense of? I will visit that new site you gave me too, thanks! :heaven:

On this site I tend to harrass mormons (as you have probably noticed) because I want to know more but I’m too shy to ask them. So thanks again for noticind me and hepling out and explaining things in more detail.

Hmmn…

Is that like the little boy who shows a girl that he likes her by pushing her in the mud puddle?

How is that approach working out for you?

(grin)

 

[Zundrah]

Hmmn…

Is that like the little boy who shows a girl that he likes her by pushing her in the mud puddle?

How is that approach working out for you?

(grin)

Very well! Hence you are talking to me.:harp::bible1:

 

[SkinnyJay]

What historical proof text and historical evidence do [LDS] have that the Great Apostasy happened?

Why do people keep asking this question throughout threads like this? That in a 200+ post thread this question has not been answered.

One can read about many well written tangents in this thread; Persecution impact on early Church growth and Mormon polygamy being the most recent - but the question at hand of is there any historical evidence of an apostasy taking place, is shown to have very meager details.

I have had extensive talks with Mormon missionaries, adults, some who converted some cradle, some who went of missions some who didn’t, as well as young adults from college to middle school age. I have sampled a fair share of the diverse Mormon demographic. They would say their believe and the reasons why they believe them and I would say what I believe and the reasons why. Most of the time this was done in honest, open dialogue. I had questions they had their answers, they had questions I had my answers.

I have recognized different tactics used to better enable Mormons to show their side. Some I agree with, some I do not and would question anyone using such methods whatever religion they belong to. I know Catholics use such methods as well so such method use by itself, at least seen from my perspective, does not invalidate a religion.

I have seen careful reasoning to scripture interpretation to out-right lies used to explain the Great Apostasy to me. Each I was able to get rid of as nonsense or chop down from divine to human size. All methods used, were used in sometimes startlingly contrasting ways to, in some cases, contradict each other. Great for the moment but in question with what was said yesterday.

If the dialogue got far enough the subject would taper off or move somewhere else and would be difficult to keep the conversation inside the subject. I am sure this happens in plenty of mixed-faith dialogue but the point I would like to make is that at this time in almost all the different classes, especially the classes of missionaries and adults, they would say something to this effect:

“No one can prove it to you. Only you can do that for yourself.”

Which almost seems a non sequitur in what were we doing for the past two hours?! To me this is a cop-out. It is a “sorry we’ve used all our good material” and don’t have anything left, take it or leave it.

Mormons can be very knowledgeable about what happened in the NT and what happened with JS and his posse, but seem to have very little to no relevant information about the years between beyond “Good people, no keys”.

 

[dianaiad]

Why do people keep asking this question throughout threads like this? That in a 200+ post thread this question has not been answered.

Actually, it has been answered. What it has not been, is answered to the point that you are willing to leave Catholicism and join the Mormons.

We aren’t expecting that, y’know. The thing is, several of us have written rather extensive answers to that, why WE believe that there was an apostasy; why the priesthood authority was lost.

Of course, there are two aspects to this; first, WAS it lost, and second, WHY was it lost, if it was?

OUR evidence that it was lost is pretty simple: a closed canon and a changed method of running the church. The canon is closed because the leaders of the church didn’t receive any more revelation; indeed, they downright declared that there wasn’t going to be any more. The method of running the church was changed (in our view) from the way it was run in the first few decades; the organization was different, the method of appointing leaders was different, the rules for those leaders were different (again, in our view.) While the most precious part of the Atonement stayed, that is the Atonement, life, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ was continually taught, some of the things surrounding this central idea changed, we believe.

It is those changes that caused the problems, we believe.

We look at the modern Orthodoxy, and we do NOT see prophets, or apostles…we do not see men who actually receive revelation for the guidance of the church that is accepted as scripture; canonized.

We do not see that priesthood authority; we don’t see the continuation of the apostolic line of succession that you see. We just don’t…and if that authority is lost, then the only option is that it has to be restored—and if restored, then it has to be done by God Himself.

We believe that this is what happened with Joseph Smith.

Now there are other Restorationist beliefs that claim the same sort of thing for their own leaders.

Catholics claim that this authority was not lost…but there is no more proof of that than there is that it was; both things are a matter of faith.

We have told you why we believe it was lost. Can you tell me why you believe it was not?

And if you do, can you tell me why we, who see the evidence and conclude that it was lost, should take your word for it?

Yeah, yeah…I know; the reverse is also true. I understand that very well. The thing is, there is only One Who can settle the matter. I believe He settled it for me on one side of the issue, you believe the other side. That’s fine…

But do NOT claim that simply because we didn’t drag you kicking and screaming into the waters of LDS baptism against your will and in spite of your own strong faith, that we did not present the reasons we believe that the priesthood authority was lost, because, m’friend, we did.

We didn’t prove it to your satisfaction, but then you haven’t proven to ours that it was not, either.

 

[DLClark]

So how exactly did the catholic church “loose” the keys to the kingdom due to a “great apostasy”?

There was no apstasy and the Mormon church is incorrect in thinking there was. There have always been true believer who were saved by faith alone in Christ and the Bible has never been destroyed.
1 Peter 1:24-25
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25 BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER."
NASU

 

[dianaiad]

There was no apstasy and the Mormon church is incorrect in thinking there was.

Well, that is the general opinion of Catholics, certainly. I would hate to think that a Catholic who believed that there was an apostasy would remain so.

There have always been true believer who were saved by faith alone in Christ and the Bible has never been destroyed.

I don’t know any Mormon who would disagree with that, actually. Of course, the ‘faith alone’ thing might be problematic. . .

James 2: 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18. Yeah, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me they faith without they works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

So I suppose that you will have to actually define ‘faith.’ If it is simply ‘belief in Christ,’ well…the next verse (19) says “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” Yet their belief isn’t saving them, is it?

Verse twenty nails it: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James goes on to use the example of Abraham, how ((v.22) Seest though how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Here’s the thing: faith is the willingness to behave as if the thing one believes to be true is true. If you think that the car will start, you will turn the key. If you believe that your daughter will behave herself, you allow her to go to the dance. If you believe that God is, you obey His commandments.

Christ Himself said “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

I love James: He gives the most wonderful example of how this works. Belief is like telling a starving and naked brother or sister to go, be warmed and filled. Nice words, but they don’t mean anything. Giving clothing and food; that’s what counts, and that proves your true intentions toward the sufferer. Belief??? Nice words that don’t mean anything. Faith? Now you are talking.

Oh, you may have noticed that my little preaching session here was done using the bible, which we do not believe was in any way ‘destroyed.’

We are not sola scripturians, sola fideans, or biblical inerrantists, but then neither are Catholics as far as I’m aware. Or rather, they do believe that the bible is inerrant in the original–but then so do we.

I’m open, of course, to correction on the above.

 

[dianaiad]

There was no apstasy and the Mormon church is incorrect in thinking there was. There have always been true believer who were saved by faith alone in Christ and the Bible has never been destroyed.
1 Peter 1:24-25
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25 BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER."
NASU

One quick question, that I left out of my first reply to this. Your religious affiliation states that you are Protestant.

If there was no apostasy, why are you a Protestant?

 

[ricko]

The apostasy could not have happen because Jesus established a Church. He taught that Church everything they needed to know. He went to the right hand of the Father and PROMISED that the Church would endure till the end of the world and would be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles were men, they died, as was expected but the Church continued on to this day.

No new revelations were necessary as the deposit of faith was sufficient for salvation. In fact any church that proclaimed it was receiving new revelations is a danger to the souls believing in it. This is because any human could simply proclaim himself a prophet and introduce new teachings into a religion that are not from God. That is why there cannot be any new revelations from God as His teachings DO NOT change.

The Catholic Church, admittedly the original Church by the LDS, has been teaching what Christ taught 2,000 years ago, unchanged.

Jesus did not fail the Church. The men he appointed as Apostles and their successors did not fail the Church. There has always been individuals and groups that have left the Church even in the early days. The Church did not apostasy because of this as it still exists today unchanged in its teaching. Even the Reformation could not destroy the Church and today it is the largest Christian Church in the world.

An examination of historical records does not indicated an apostasy. History reveals that the Church was faithfully teaching the truth, unchanged since the time of Christ.

An Apostasy exists only in the minds of those who would try to destroy the Church, or promote their own personal idea of a religion. There will always be some who will refuse to accept the authority of the Church that Jesus established as has been happening for centuries and the Church still endures.

 

[Stephen168]

The apostasy could not have happen because Jesus established a Church. He taught that Church everything they needed to know. He went to the right hand of the Father and PROMISED that the Church would endure till the end of the world and would be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles were men, they died, as was expected but the Church continued on to this day.

I agree. The New Testament is very clear about that

No new revelations were necessary as the deposit of faith was sufficient for salvation.

When Mormons talk of continuing revelation, I have to wonder what they believe Christ’s mission was on earth. He preached for three years and they believe he was unable to teach what was necessary for salvation.

In fact any church that proclaimed it was receiving new revelations is a danger to the souls believing in it. This is because any human could simply proclaim himself a prophet and introduce new teachings into a religion that are not from God. That is why there cannot be any new revelations from God as His teachings DO NOT change.

Like polygamy, no black priesthood, no abortions, and blood atonement.

 

[dianaiad]

The apostasy could not have happen because Jesus established a Church. He taught that Church everything they needed to know. He went to the right hand of the Father and PROMISED that the Church would endure till the end of the world and would be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles were men, they died, as was expected but the Church continued on to this day.

Actually, He did not. He DID, however, talk about a ‘falling away first.’

No new revelations were necessary as the deposit of faith was sufficient for salvation.

Ok, when did revelation stop, and who said it could? Who made that decision?

In fact any church that proclaimed it was receiving new revelations is a danger to the souls believing in it. This is because any human could simply proclaim himself a prophet and introduce new teachings into a religion that are not from God. That is why there cannot be any new revelations from God as His teachings DO NOT change.

The Catholic Church, admittedly the original Church by the LDS, has been teaching what Christ taught 2,000 years ago, unchanged.

Jesus did not fail the Church.

We do not believe that He did that, either. We do believe, however, that men failed HIM.

The men he appointed as Apostles and their successors did not fail the Church. There has always been individuals and groups that have left the Church even in the early days. The Church did not apostasy because of this as it still exists today unchanged in its teaching.

Now that’s a circular argument, Ricko. It’s precisely like claiming that the bible is true because it says it is.

Even the Reformation could not destroy the Church and today it is the largest Christian Church in the world.

It’s pretty much always been the largest Christian church in the world, Ricko. But argumentum ad numerum is a logical fallacy.

An examination of historical records does not indicated an apostasy. History reveals that the Church was faithfully teaching the truth, unchanged since the time of Christ.

How?

An Apostasy exists only in the minds of those who would try to destroy the Church, or promote their own personal idea of a religion. There will always be some who will refuse to accept the authority of the Church that Jesus established as has been happening for centuries and the Church still endures.

So…there was no apostasy because the church survived apostasy? On the other hand, you claim that there was no revelation after Christ–so how do you know which group was right? I know that you believe yours is. It would be incredibly hypocritical of you to belong to a religion you did NOT think was true.

However, you haven’t given me anything to answer our points except 'there was no apostasy because we say so." Which, of course, isn’t really going to work, is it?

 

[dianaiad]

I agree. The New Testament is very clear about that

When Mormons talk of continuing revelation, I have to wonder what they believe Christ’s mission was on earth. He preached for three years and they believe he was unable to teach what was necessary for salvation.
Like polygamy, no black priesthood, no abortions, and blood atonement.

Stephen, Jesus Christ taught many things, but we don’t have a single thing FROM Him. Everything we have of Him was written by other people; apostles. Everything we have in the NT was written by those apostles and prophets who received revelation after His death and resurrection. Paul is a classic example of what a prophet does and is; direct revelation from God, told what to say, to whom and for what purpose, and his writings became scripture. If it were not for those prophets and apostles who received and recorded revelation, we would not know anything at all about Christ.

So.

When did revelation stop and when did God stop doing that? Where in any scripture anywhere does it say that this was going to stop?