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.
ricko said:
I was already fully intent on writing you, beloved, about the salvation we share. But now I feel obliged to write and encourage you to fight hard for the faith delivered once for all to the saints. Jude 3

This passage indicates the faith being delivered ONCE for all. No new public revelations or changes will be forthcoming as Christ, being God in the flesh, has taught all that is needed. His teachings are fully truth and not lacking in sufficiency. Knowing this, we can now understand why the bible warns us against an angel teaching a different (new) gospel.

Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, not the death of Jesus.

Praise you Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this Ricko. I knew there was passage to this effect but couldn’t remember the exact wording to find where it at in Bible.
 
ricko said:
I was already fully intent on writing you, beloved, about the salvation we share. But now I feel obliged to write and encourage you to fight hard for the faith delivered once for all to the saints. Jude 3

This passage indicates the faith being delivered ONCE for all. No new public revelations or changes will be forthcoming as Christ, being God in the flesh, has taught all that is needed. His teachings are fully truth and not lacking in sufficiency. Knowing this, we can now understand why the bible warns us against an angel teaching a different (new) gospel.

Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, not the death of Jesus.

Praise you Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes. It did. That happens to be our claim as well, y’know. However, to us that’s a problem.

You see, there is nothing in the scriptures anywhere that says such revelation WOULD cease, or SHOULD cease. It did not cease with the death of the last apostle to know Him in real life, y’know…here we have Paul.

Seems to me that if revelation were to have ceased after the deaths of those who knew Christ, then Paul had no business having revelation, being an apostle or writing scripture. Indeed, the presence of Paul is one of the most telling bits of evidence for the apostasy there is; he is proof that revelation did indeed continue.

So…if Paul is an apostle who had revelations and whose writings are accepted as scripture, then revelation obviously was meant to continue. If it was meant to continue—then the apostasy lies in the fact that men no longer listened to it, and claimed that there was none.

Or, if revelation was to have stopped with the death of the last apostle to know Christ personally (and where,* ANYWHERE*, does it say that?) then the apostasy lies in accepting anything Paul wrote. Either way, there is a problem.
 
dianaiad said:
Yes. It did. That happens to be our claim as well, y’know. However, to us that’s a problem.

You see, there is nothing in the scriptures anywhere that says such revelation WOULD cease, or SHOULD cease. It did not cease with the death of the last apostle to know Him in real life, y’know…here we have Paul.

Seems to me that if revelation were to have ceased after the deaths of those who knew Christ, then Paul had no business having revelation, being an apostle or writing scripture. Indeed, the presence of Paul is one of the most telling bits of evidence for the apostasy there is; he is proof that revelation did indeed continue.

So…if Paul is an apostle who had revelations and whose writings are accepted as scripture, then revelation obviously was meant to continue. If it was meant to continue—then the apostasy lies in the fact that men no longer listened to it, and claimed that there was none.

Or, if revelation was to have stopped with the death of the last apostle to know Christ personally (and where,* ANYWHERE*, does it say that?) then the apostasy lies in accepting anything Paul wrote. Either way, there is a problem.
Click to expand...
Acts 1 shows what it takes to be an Apostle by the Apostles themselves. That an Apostle is one who was with Jesus throughout His ministry from baptism to the cross. Paul was told by the risen Christ to be His spokesman to gentiles. Paul had a specific divine purpose but he the the exception, not the rule.
 
SkinnyJay said:
Paul was told by the risen Christ to be His spokesman to gentiles. Paul had a specific divine purpose but he the the exception, not the rule.
Click to expand...
I would not even say Paul was much of an exception. He knew Christ during his earthly ministry and heard the good news. He just wasn’t buying it until he met the risen Lord. Paul was still a witness to the living and risen Christ. He was never one of The Twelve but he was a witness sent by Jesus.
 
Stephen168 said:
I would not even say Paul was much of an exception. He knew Christ during his earthly ministry and heard the good news. He just wasn’t buying it until he met the risen Lord. Paul was still a witness to the living and risen Christ. He was never one of The Twelve but he was a witness sent by Jesus.
Click to expand...
Thanks Stephen 👍
 
dianaiad said:
I believe that ‘gets to’ is indeed the proper term. How many wives and mothers nowadays would far rather be home than working in an office and letting someone else raise the kids? Feminism is all about choice–a woman being able to do what she WANTS to do; including stay home if she wishes.
Click to expand...
Women who know make donuts, from scratch.
 
Paul refers to himself as an apostle many times in the New Testament, and he even defends his apostleship in his first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:1–2).

Paul was an apostle and as I stated, with the death of the last apostle all public (not private) revelation ended. The bible verse has been quoted to prove it. Also, non-Mormons, can understand the danger if people would pop up all over the place (as they do) proclaiming that THEY have received a revelation (public) from God. Now we got false prophets teaching things different from the bible and Tradition. Proclaiming yourself a prophet does not make it so. The bible warns us of angels preaching a different gospel and that is just what the LDS church is doing.
 
Stephen168 said:
I would not even say Paul was much of an exception. He knew Christ during his earthly ministry and heard the good news. He just wasn’t buying it until he met the risen Lord. Paul was still a witness to the living and risen Christ. He was never one of The Twelve but he was a witness sent by Jesus.
Click to expand...
Stephen, you are the first person I have EVER heard that claims this. There is NO evidence that Paul ever knew Him. None. Paul didn’t claim this for himself…and given is very direct honesty about his former persecution of those who believe in Christ, it would seem very natural that he would have mentioned this. So in the absence of any evidence that he did meet Christ, it is a little silly to assume, or even speculate, that he did so.

His first encounter with Christ was on the road to Damascus.

Here’s the thing: in order for it to have been impossible for him NOT to have met the mortal Christ, he would have had to be a member of the Sanhedrin, or at least an Elder—but Catholicism has him as a single man. Members of the Sanhedrin had to be married and have a son. Oops.

By the way, Paul doesn’t claim that level of leadership for himself, either.
 
SkinnyJay said:
Acts 1 shows what it takes to be an Apostle by the Apostles themselves. That an Apostle is one who was with Jesus throughout His ministry from baptism to the cross. Paul was told by the risen Christ to be His spokesman to gentiles. Paul had a specific divine purpose but he the the exception, not the rule.
Click to expand...
Who said that there would be exceptions? Who said that there was a rule for which exceptions must be made?
 
dianaiad said:
Yes. It did. That happens to be our claim as well, y’know. However, to us that’s a problem.

You see, there is nothing in the scriptures anywhere that says such revelation WOULD cease, or SHOULD cease. It did not cease with the death of the last apostle to know Him in real life, y’know…here we have Paul.

Seems to me that if revelation were to have ceased after the deaths of those who knew Christ, then Paul had no business having revelation, being an apostle or writing scripture. Indeed, the presence of Paul is one of the most telling bits of evidence for the apostasy there is; he is proof that revelation did indeed continue.

So…if Paul is an apostle who had revelations and whose writings are accepted as scripture, then revelation obviously was meant to continue. If it was meant to continue—then the apostasy lies in the fact that men no longer listened to it, and claimed that there was none.

Or, if revelation was to have stopped with the death of the last apostle to know Christ personally (and where,* ANYWHERE*, does it say that?) then the apostasy lies in accepting anything Paul wrote. Either way, there is a problem.
Click to expand...
Or, the Holy Spirit guides Christ Church. What is the Holy Spirit but God, revealing Himself to us?

It has already been shown in scripture where Jesus, GOD, has spoken to us, Revealed Himself. It has already been shown that what He taught the Apostles, and what they taught to the world, was delivered once. It has already been shown that Jesus did not leave us orphans, blind and without God’s revealing hand. You are stuck on thinking something is missing, when it is not.

I think you describe well the problems you have in mormonism, and how what you believe colors your understanding. These are not problems of Catholicism.

Example, that last “or” of yours, is exactly what a few LDS people over at MADB are claiming. And of all things, in a thread about the bones of St. Paul, the results of the study on them, and the release of these results on one of the most important holy days: The Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul.
 
To create a need for a Restoration, there has to have been a Great Apostasy.

I. Mormonism claims the Apostasy means:
  • A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth
  • B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost
  • C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.
II. The Problems with the Mormon claim:
  • A. No living Prophet
    1. Christianity never claimed to have a prophet (single person receiving revelation for all Christendom)
    1. Mormon Prophets don’t prophesizes.
  • B. Doctrine must not change
    1. Define Doctrine – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
    1. Mormon Doctrine has changes
  • a) Blood Atonement
  • b) Adam-God theory
  • c) Mark of Cain
  • C. Loss of Priesthood Authority
    1. Every Mormon male has Priesthood authority
    1. Priesthood authority and leadership are not the same thing
  • a) A sinful person does not lose his authority
  • (1) King Noah had priesthood authority to give to Alma to baptize at the Waters of Mormon
    1. To lose Priesthood authority:
  • a) Every Priesthood holders would have not pass on their authority
  • b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church.
III. The Catholic/Orthodox Claim:
  • Code: 
      A.    No living Prophet
  • Code: 
             1.    Christianity never had a prophet
  • Code: 
             2.    Christ reveled all we need for salvation during his earthly ministry, so no need for continuing public revelation.
  • Code: 
      B.    Doctrine must not change
  • Code: 
             1.   Define Doctrine (Dogma) – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
  • Code: 
             2.   Catholic/Orthodox Doctrines do not change
  • Code: 
                  a)   Trinity
  • Code: 
                  b)   Eucharist
  • Code: 
                  c)   Baptism
  • Code: 
       C.   No loss of Priesthood Authority
  • Code: 
            1.   The Bishops have the full priesthood authority.
  • Code: 
            2.    Apostolic Succession
  • Code: 
                  a)   The title Apostle was limited to those sent by Christ
  • Code: 
                  b)   The Apostles passed their authority to the Bishops
  • Code: 
                  c)   The Bishops have passed their authority down to this day
 
Stephen168 said:
To create a need for a Restoration, there has to have been a Great Apostasy.

I. Mormonism claims the Apostasy means:
  • A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth
  • B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost
  • C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.
II. The Problems with the Mormon claim:
  • A. No living Prophet
    1. Christianity never claimed to have a prophet (single person receiving revelation for all Christendom)
    1. Mormon Prophets don’t prophesizes.
  • B. Doctrine must not change
    1. Define Doctrine – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
    1. Mormon Doctrine has changes
  • a) Blood Atonement
  • b) Adam-God theory
  • c) Mark of Cain
  • C. Loss of Priesthood Authority
    1. Every Mormon male has Priesthood authority
    1. Priesthood authority and leadership are not the same thing
  • a) A sinful person does not lose his authority
  • (1) King Noah had priesthood authority to give to Alma to baptize at the Waters of Mormon
    1. To lose Priesthood authority:
  • a) Every Priesthood holders would have not pass on their authority
  • b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church.
III. The Catholic/Orthodox Claim:
  • Code: 
      A.    No living Prophet
  • Code: 
             1.    Christianity never had a prophet
  • Code: 
             2.    Christ reveled all we need for salvation during his earthly ministry, so no need for continuing public revelation.
  • Code: 
      B.    Doctrine must not change
  • Code: 
             1.   Define Doctrine (Dogma) – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
  • Code: 
             2.   Catholic/Orthodox Doctrines do not change
  • Code: 
                  a)   Trinity
  • Code: 
                  b)   Eucharist
  • Code: 
                  c)   Baptism
  • Code: 
       C.   No loss of Priesthood Authority
  • Code: 
            1.   The Bishops have the full priesthood authority.
  • Code: 
            2.    Apostolic Succession
  • Code: 
                  a)   The title Apostle was limited to those sent by Christ
  • Code: 
                  b)   The Apostles passed their authority to the Bishops
  • Code: 
                  c)   The Bishops have passed their authority down to this day
Click to expand...
At last, praise the lord that I can finally think straight! Thank you for clearing this up Stephen168. 👍
 
Stephen168 said:
To create a need for a Restoration, there has to have been a Great Apostasy.

I. Mormonism claims the Apostasy means:
  • A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth
  • B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost
  • C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.
II. The Problems with the Mormon claim:
  • A. No living Prophet
    1. Christianity never claimed to have a prophet (single person receiving revelation for all Christendom)
    1. Mormon Prophets don’t prophesizes.
  • B. Doctrine must not change
    1. Define Doctrine – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
    1. Mormon Doctrine has changes
  • a) Blood Atonement
  • b) Adam-God theory
  • c) Mark of Cain
  • C. Loss of Priesthood Authority
    1. Every Mormon male has Priesthood authority
    1. Priesthood authority and leadership are not the same thing
  • a) A sinful person does not lose his authority
  • (1) King Noah had priesthood authority to give to Alma to baptize at the Waters of Mormon
    1. To lose Priesthood authority:
  • a) Every Priesthood holders would have not pass on their authority
  • b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church.
III. The Catholic/Orthodox Claim:
  • Code: 
      A.    No living Prophet
  • Code: 
             1.    Christianity never had a prophet
  • Code: 
             2.    Christ reveled all we need for salvation during his earthly ministry, so no need for continuing public revelation.
  • Code: 
      B.    Doctrine must not change
  • Code: 
             1.   Define Doctrine (Dogma) – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
  • Code: 
             2.   Catholic/Orthodox Doctrines do not change
  • Code: 
                  a)   Trinity
  • Code: 
                  b)   Eucharist
  • Code: 
                  c)   Baptism
  • Code: 
       C.   No loss of Priesthood Authority
  • Code: 
            1.   The Bishops have the full priesthood authority.
  • Code: 
            2.    Apostolic Succession
  • Code: 
                  a)   The title Apostle was limited to those sent by Christ
  • Code: 
                  b)   The Apostles passed their authority to the Bishops
  • Code: 
                  c)   The Bishops have passed their authority down to this day
Click to expand...
This is a monologue, not a dialogue. You are talking to yourself, not to Mormons. You build your own “Mormon arguments,” and then knock them down! That is easy. Not much brains is required for that. The arguments for the Apostasy are not that complecated; and a lot more forceful.
 
zerinus said:
This is a monologue, not a dialogue. You are talking to yourself, not to Mormons. You** build your own “Mormon arguments**,” and then knock them down! That is easy. Not much brains is required for that. The arguments for the Apostasy are not that complecated; and a lot more forceful.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
Nothing confusing about that post and it is very true though, we all love a good argument with the Mormons!😉
What do you find wrong with it? It is quite direct…
Not much brains is required for that.
Click to expand...
Don’t you agree when I say that you defeated your self by saying that Zerinus?
 
Zundrah said:
What do you find wrong with it? It is quite direct…
Click to expand...
Everything is wrong with it. I have already given my arguments in support of the Apostasy in posts #68 and #69, which nobody has seriously challenged. Instead, he just builds his own arguments and knocks them down. They are not my arguments. They are his own supposedly Mormon arguments, which I would not bring. If he is serious, he can start by addressing my points in those posts, instead of building his own straw men and knocking them down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top