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

[Zundrah]

Rebecca J,
Again, I respect your beliefs and that they are different than mine.

All of the Jews didn’t follow Christ and join the church he established by being baptized into the new church. I was talking about the majority of the Jews and the Jewish leaders, not every Jew. I should have clarified my meaning, but this clarification will have to do.

What I believe is that until Joseph Smith prayed about the questions he had, even though other people had had questions they didn’t have sufficient faith and assurance in their own heart that if they asked God in prayer they would receive a sure and certain answer.

The Reformationists had sought to change the church to be more in keeping with the Bible, but the kind of faith required was not what they had. They still relied on their own wisdom–the wisdom of men, even though they sought the Holy Spirit as best they could and hoped for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the changes they made.

I think there have been many good people in the Catholic church, as I have said all along.

Baptism should be by immersion, at an age of accountable decision-making. The gift of the Holy Spirit should follow baptism for the baptism of fire as Christ taught to Nicodemus.

There should be a lay priesthood.

There should be twelve apostles to preserve the pure doctrine.

There should be no coercive teachings that bring people to belief based on fear.

The atonement should be trusted as atoning for the sins of Adam and Eve. Even though their sin introduced sin into the world, the atonement of Christ resolved their sin and made it so now we are only accountable for our own sins, not for their sin.

There should be attestations by the church leaders that they know full well that they are guided by revelation through the Holy Spirit, individually and collectively.

There should be an allowance for married priests and other priesthood holders.

The doctrine of marriages and families should be upheld as bringing people into a situation where they can progress in a fuller sense, and thus be valued as something to be sought after and celebrated by all the church.

There should be a “kingdom of priests” in the church, “a royal priesthood.”

The doctrine of being joint heirs with Christ should be as explained and declared by the apostle John in the book of Revelation.

ParkerD Finally a Mormon has jumped on my thread!!! Is it true that you guys believe that you will become a God when you die!? And that God was once a man?

 

[StevieD]

Excuse me, but I think you are working on an amazing double standard here. The Catholics count someone as Catholic who has ever been baptized as one, whether they were aware of it or not; if you were baptized as an infant, you are Catholic. If you converted to another religion, but you were baptized, then you are still a Catholic. “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic,” right?

According to this there are 68,115,001 Catholics in the USA, comprising 22% of the American population. That’s pretty good, one would think. You can certainly point to that with pardonable pride. Certainly there is nothing in this article (which, by the way, is a very pro-Catholic article on a very pro-Catholic site) that acknowledges any losses due to inactivity.

…Oh, but let’s see; according to THIS, (also a pro-Catholic site, by the way) only 28% of that 68,115,001 actually, y’know, ATTEND CHURCH. Which means that 72% of Catholics in America do not attend church. Now, if you were going to apply the same standard of counting membership for your own group as you insist upon for OURS, then there are actually only 19 million Catholics in the USA.

I don’t think you want to go there, do you? If we are going to compare activity levels, sir, then it turns out that 48% of Mormons are actually active (by your own number throwing). Catholics, in comparison, don’t show up as well.

So perhaps you shouldn’t throw those particular stones?

Catholics do not generally tout their statistics (most are unaware of them) in the way that the LDS are CONSTANTLY claiming 13 or 14 million members IT IS A MYTH - get over it.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD Finally a Mormon has jumped on my thread!!! Is it true that you guys believe that you will become a God when you die!? And that God was once a man?

Hi, Zundrah,
I hope you are having (or have had) a good day and evening. It was fun to read your posts.

What I do believe is that if we are worthy through overcoming by faith in Christ and by obedience to the laws and ordinances and covenant-making in the gospel He taught, then we are promised to be made joint heirs with Him and His Father in Heaven. That means “we will be like Him” with His divine qualities because of His grace and the power of His atonement. I want to love like He loves, and to understand people like He does, so I look forward to the hope that I can qualify through those steps I had mentioned.

I would never capitalize the word as you did, nor would I use it in the way it is used by others to describe being a joint heir. I would say “co-creator with divine qualities including omniscience.”

We believe Jesus Christ followed His Father in the sense that just as Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and was resurrected through His own power over death, His Father did that also eons of time ago before what we would call “this eternity” began. His Father is the Supreme Ruler of our universe. Jesus Christ was His Firstborn in the spirit, and was God the Son in the pre-mortal life where we were brought forth as spirits much later than He was and without the qualities of perfection that He (Christ or Jehovah) had.

Have a very good evening!

 

[ricko]

One thing I have wondering about is the two or three Apostles from the ancient America that are supposed to be alive today. Where ARE they? If you have an actual apostle from back then, why didn"t God use them to restore His church instead of our Joseph Smith?

Sure would like to talk to one of those apostles that have been alive for all the time!

 

[ParkerD]

One thing I have wondering about is the two or three Apostles from the ancient America that are supposed to be alive today. Where ARE they? If you have an actual apostle from back then, why didn"t God use them to restore His church instead of our Joseph Smith?

Sure would like to talk to one of those apostles that have been alive for all the time!

Hi, Rick O,
(I would too, but their particular function is to prepare the way in places where they are particularly needed among the lost tribes of Israel.)

They had a particular calling or commission, and they aren’t permitted to override human agency or to do something that the current living mortal generation needs to do for themselves.

I do have a “one of the three Nephite” stories in my own family heritage, though, and I believe it since my great-great-grandmother would otherwise never have joined the Mormon church in Georgia in 1877 and come to Utah with her husband and children. She would have had too much family resistance to have done that on her own without the persuasion of a kindly old gentleman visitor who disappeared as quickly from the scene (her back dooryard) as he had happened to be there when she was going outside for water.

 

[MarySon]

For a long time I entertained this question. If the Early Church apostatized how is the Mormon church sure that it did not experience its own apostasy after Joseph Smith died?

 

[ParkerD]

For a long time I entertained this question. If the Early Church apostatized how is the Mormon church sure that it did not experience its own apostasy after Joseph Smith died?

MarySon,
Perhaps you are familiar that some early Mormons (including one of Joseph Smith’s brothers) did leave the church and a few tried to start their own church. This was human nature in action.

Those who followed Brigham Young gained the understanding by the witness of the Holy Ghost, that since Brigham Young was the senior apostle after Joseph and Hyrum Smith had been killed, and the quorum of the twelve had been jointly given the keys of the leadership of the church which keys had been received from Peter, James, and John, then the senior apostle was the person on earth whom God wanted to provide the presiding leadership role, still with Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone and the head of the church. This was evident in the role Peter played in the original church after Christ’s ascension. The apostles are very essential in this whole process of leadership transition within the church Christ established.

The guidance and assuring confirming witness of the Holy Ghost is also essential, so that each member does not follow after some other person who might have great charisma or a strong personality but who might have their own ideas of how things should be done and thus lead their own followers astray from the pure and true doctrine.

Note that by the “senior apostle” is meant the one who has served the longest as an apostle based on the day they were called and the order of their ordination to the apostleship if two were called on the same day.

Thanks for the very good question.

 

[dianaiad]

If you ask the Catholic Bishops in the US how many people are Catholic, you will find that what is sited are the results from surveys, that is, what people self-identify themselves as. Many people self-identify themselves as Catholic, whether they go to Mass every day, every Sunday, once or twice a year, or not at all. WHO ARE YOU to say these people who say they are Catholic, are not CATHOLIC?!

I am not the one who is saying that they aren’t Catholic, Rebecca. I was pointing out to StevieD that using two different standards to identify the members of a specific belief system was problematic; that if he pulled it on me, then I have the right to use the same standard on him—and that means that a far higher percentage of Catholics fail to go to church than do Mormons.

In other words, HE is the one who is saying that "[they] are not Catholic. I’m not. By the way, he didn’t talk about Mormons who self identify as Mormons even if they don’t actually attend services…and by the way, neither did either of the two very Catholic sites I referred to in my response.

With Mormons, you claim that people are Mormon who self-identify as something other than Mormon. This is when the divergence in numbers surface. Your church leaders keep claiming 13.5 million world-wide, yet the religious surveys continue to show this number is inflated.

The 22% of people who are Catholic in the US, self-identify themselves as Catholic. 1.6% of people in the US self-identify as LDS. That is about 4.5 million people, where, your church sites membership of about 5.8 million in the US.

Actually, Rebecca, that’s not true. That ‘22%’ of people who are Catholic are NOT confined to people who self identify. They include people who self identify…and parish baptism records including those who have been baptized and never show up again. World estimates of Catholic population also include all those things; parish records, baptismal records, self identification and sheer population count and assumptions.

…or do you honestly believe that someone has called every single Catholic on the planet and asked him or her if s/he was a Catholic? Have YOU been asked in a poll of any sort?

I haven’t…and I don’t know anybody who has, either. In fact, according to the seven sites I just googled (from Catholic sources, as I always do…) the principle method of determining Catholic population size is…birth estimates. None of them allow for Catholics who leave, convert elsewhere or simply don’t know that they ARE Catholics.

But let’s look at one of the polls that used pure self identification…according to it (from a sample size of 6,000 adults) it looks like there are about 2,500,000 adult Mormons in the USA., and about 46,000,000 Catholics. However, there is a disclaimer right under the statistical box; about twice as many teenagers (who were not officially polled) self identified as LDS than adults did–and teenagers and children were not counted. That raises the LDS population to, oh…8,000,000 (not counting the children.)

In fact, that same disclaimer…oh, shoot, look at it for yourself here…comes right out and states that it’s estimate of LDS population is about 2 million people HIGHER than the population the church claimed for itself in 2001.

As to the rest of it, my response was on topic and pertinent to the attack:I didn’t start the numbers game, in other words. The claim was that if the church was ‘true,’ then there would be more members by now. I responded by comparing LDS growth with early Christian growth. The next salvo was this very nasty attack on membership claims, as if it were fair to discount everybody who didn’t hold a Temple recommend and actually USE it. It’s not, y’know, any more than it would be fair to say that one is not a Catholic if one doesn’t attend Mass every day.

Again, I’m not criticizing the way Catholics count themselves, not a whit; I’m simply saying that it is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor credible to count your numbers one way and insist upon using a different method for others.

As for me, I rather like this particular poll. Perhaps we should follow your suggestion and use it? The ‘self identification’ sort of thing? I mean, if we do, there are a LOT more Mormons in the world than I thought—or that the church itself counts. I don’t have a problem with that.

Oh, and you shouldn’t, either, since that same site says that it’s not 22% Catholic, but 26%.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi, Zaffiroborant,
Sorry that I was busy all day yesterday and didn’t have time to respond to your comment. I apologize.

As to the word “lo” in the verse you had mentioned, Matthew 28:20, I will explain further. If you read John 14:16-26 you will find that the Holy Ghost was “another Comforter” “whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, …” The promise of the Comforter or the Holy Ghost was why Jesus could promise the apostles, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

Another case where it seems you treat the godhead as one lump rather than individuals. I don’t see the Holy Spirit as a stand in for Christ and in the places He says He will be with us I believe Him.

**That word “lo” can mean “behold!” or “look!” or “see here!” **I think verse 20 and 21 read together mean that the apostles were receiving a divine commission to teach specific doctrines and the ordinance of baptism in whatsoever way (“all things” being all inclusive of both doctrines and ordinances) the Savior had commanded them, and that as they did that the Comforter would be with them always, “even unto the end of the world.” (The Savior had already told them He would be going away in terms of His personal presence, and this was right before His ascension.) I think the commission was conditional in that the apostles needed to teach correct doctrine in order to keep the Comforter with them. That is completely consistent with other scriptures about how the Comforter or the Holy Ghost teaches or confirms truth to people. It is conditional on their listening and following.

It’s not that the word “lo” can mean “look, behold, see here” it is that it does mean just that and nothing else. There is no other meaning for the word. And I don’t see anything conditional when I read the two verses together. Seems to me if it was conditional it would say will instead of am.

The LDS prophet is the senior LDS apostle on the earth when he is called as the LDS prophet. If God did not trust him to be following the Holy Ghost in his teaching, then He would not let him live long enough to become the senior apostle. (That is not to say that every apostle who does not live long enough to be the senior apostle was not following the Holy Ghost–they do, and they also counsel together and preserve the doctrinal purity of the teachings)–but I can have and do have a personal witness from the Holy Ghost about the doctrinal purity and integrity of the teachings of the LDS living prophet, and I know by revelation from the Holy Ghost that each one in turn has been called of God. Then, you see, I don’t have to wonder whether one is a “false prophet”, because I stand on my own with a witness from the Holy Ghost–direct communication from God, not man or men or tradition, plus I also can see the blessings in my own life of living in accordance with their teachings, so this gives me a further witness, and I know with complete surety.

Well then God is interfering with his agency or free will

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

I believe that you already have mentioned the folks I speak of, and ‘great many,’ of course, would be comparative numbers in relationship to the winning group at the decision time.

Do you agree with their doctrines and theology?

Which doctrines and theology? There were a great many of them. Still are.

dianaiad:

Why? You don’t think that nearly 14 million members in not quite 200 years is sufficient growth? I mean, how many Christians were there in the world by 200 AD?

How many Mormons are/were being persecuted in like manner as the early Christians were?

You have got to be kidding. Ever hear of Haun’s Mill? The Extermination Order? Carthage Jail? Johnson’s Army? Winter Quarters? Every single Mormon who died as a result of the migration from Missouri to Utah is a martyr according to the definition of ‘martyr’ in the dictionary; they died as a direct result of following their faith at the hands of enemies. Why is that? Because Gov. Boggs wrote an official government order stating that any Mormon still in the state of Missouri after a certain date was to be killed on sight–man, woman or child. That order, by the way, was not rescinded until 1976. The only way they could stay is if they abjured their faith. They could keep their property, their lives and their wealth–if they abjured their faith. That is the absolute definition of persecution. Any deaths that resulted were 'in like manner as the early Christians were." Stoning? yep, that happened. True, the early Christians weren’t shot in the head, but that’s only because the folks back then didn’t have guns–and the culture back then liked to watch the bloodshed formally. The nineteenth century folks liked guns and ‘out of sight’ sort of murders. Different cultures.

dianaiad:

According to one source, there were about a million Christians by 200 AD, and they made up .5% of the population of Roman Empire, approximately.

I’m sure the numbers would have been much higher had it not been for the extreme persecutions (or fear of persecution).

Actually, I have found that nothing cements an idea quite so completely as opposition to it, and nothing is better for any religion than persecution. People thrive on it. It validates their purpose, their beliefs and their faith. After all, if they weren’t ‘true,’ then evil people wouldn’t be opposed to them, would they? It gets the ‘stubborn’ up.

This seems to be a universal attitude, come to think of it; people take great pride in their own persecutions, and dismiss that of others as either overstated, or somehow deserved; it is a truism, almost–the more persecution, the more ‘true’ the belief being attacked. As a result, people are attracted to belief systems that are targeted; they actually grow faster. (unless, of course, you manage to kill all the believers, and that doesn’t often happen)

No, if you really want to destroy a religion, treat it with indifference.

The point is, of course, that there were probably more Christians because of the persecution than there were had there been none. Without it, Christianity may well have faded quietly into the culture and been absorbed into nothingness.

dianaiad:

Whereas the Mormons comprise 1.5% of Americans. True, that’s not the sort of explosive growth we’d like to see, but it seems to be right on track with the early Christian church.

It’s not even comparable to the early church for the reason/s mentioned above.

Your premise is that the persecution of the Christians was a negative; that it would have grown faster without it, and that the Mormons were not persecuted. First, that’s a bad assumption; history shows us that some of the best missionaries for a belief system are those who persecute it; as you have done here, people assume that a belief system that accumulates that much hate MUST be ‘true,’ or at least worth looking at. Belief systems that are treated with indifference don’t get close to the same PR. Once someone looks, then the beliefs themselves are attractive, the ‘exclusivity’ of the club is attractive (if one can’t be special by being rich, or born well…then how about by being hated by people you dislike? Now THAT’S pretty special!) Add to that the thought that you are going to get a reward that will be denied to all those who hate you, well…pretty heady stuff.

People join groups like this in droves.

dianaiad:

So…you were saying?

I have nothing more to say.

Well, I do have something more to say, and it’s this:

I do not ‘harp’ on early Mormon persecution in order to somehow prove that Mormonism is ‘true.’ it doesn’t. Other religions have been persecuted as much or more. I do it because you, and folks like you, seem to think that persecution somehow validates the group being persecuted. In other words, I don’t think that the persecution of Mormons proves Mormonism is true, but y’all seem to.

If you did not, then you would be upset and angry at the persecution that Mormons experienced, rather than trying to downplay it, or compare it to others in a negative way, or claim that it was somehow deserved.

Persecution is evil, period. It doesn’t matter whether it is aimed at Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnessess, Scientologists, Early Christians, Hindus, the followers of Diana of Ephesus, Muslims, Sikhs, Budhists, Wiccans, followers of Sun Myung Moon, polygamists in a Texas commune or people who dance with snakes. It’s WRONG.

And whenever members of any belief system are attacked because of their beliefs, it’s not only wrong, it’s STUPID–and whenever anybody attempts to belittle the suffering of others because they don’t happen to like the belief system they belong to, they are continuing that persecution.

 

[dianaiad]

For a long time I entertained this question. If the Early Church apostatized how is the Mormon church sure that it did not experience its own apostasy after Joseph Smith died?

It did.

Quite a few Mormons do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, y’know. Most do, of course, but nearly a million Mormons do not. Now as to which group apostatized? That depends upon who you ask.

Asking God is the best option there.

 

[Chris-WA]

Jeanne H,
There are oral traditions that corroborate Jesus’ visit to the Americas.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Chris-WA]

Well, this is true. If there was no apostasy, then there is no reason at all for any church other than…

wait.

Would that be the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox–or one of the other schismatics that got clobbered early on?

You seem to be blurting out these sweeping statements without any supporting facts. And going into the Great Schism should seem rather pointless to you, since LDS teach that the Great Apostacy happened long before that. If you’re going to argue that the main church apostatized while clobbering others who held the real truths, then you need to start citing some specific examples. Otherwise your statements are just hyperbole.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, Rebecca, that’s not true. That ‘22%’ of people who are Catholic are NOT confined to people who self identify. They include people who self identify…and parish baptism records including those who have been baptized and never show up again. World estimates of Catholic population also include all those things; parish records, baptismal records, self identification and sheer population count and assumptions.

The Catholic Church does not track people as the Mormon church does. I was baptized in the US. If I were to move outside of the US, there is no Catholic Bishop or Priest in the US who takes me off the parish baptismal record where I was baptized. Or, who moves my record to another parish. Such a thing does not exist in the Catholic Church. My baptismal records stays in the parish where I was baptized.

Counting the number of baptisms, or confirmations, would do no one any good for determining the number of people in a religious affiliation for a particular country.

For example, if you counted UT parish baptismal records in Utah, you would come up short by the tens of thousands. As most of the Catholics in UT were baptized outside the state. Our diocese claims 250,000 Catholics. That number comes straight out of Pew Research. 10% of the UT population self-identified as Catholic in 2007. In 2007 the population of UT was about 2.5 million (based on figures from census.gov)

…or do you honestly believe that someone has called every single Catholic on the planet and asked him or her if s/he was a Catholic? Have YOU been asked in a poll of any sort?

I haven’t…and I don’t know anybody who has, either. In fact, according to the seven sites I just googled (from Catholic sources, as I always do…) the principle method of determining Catholic population size is…birth estimates. None of them allow for Catholics who leave, convert elsewhere or simply don’t know that they ARE Catholics.

Perhaps you have not heard of the science called Statistics. The PEW Research center conducted a very large religious survey in 2007, where they determined via STATISTICS, that 23.9% of the US population is Catholic. And yes, this was based on them interviewing 35,000 US adults.

Oh, and you shouldn’t, either, since that same site says that it’s not 22% Catholic, but 26%.

I am not choosing the statistics Diana. The Catholic Church uses the statistics to determine the needs of the Catholic Church. Last I looked at USCCB, they were using the statistics from the 2007 Pew Religious Landscape Survey, along with other survey information that is relevant to the Catholic Church in the USA . Why do you think they would be using numbers from 2001?

All in all, the point is, it doesn’t matter how many people your church claims as members. Truth is not determined by population counts. The LDS practice of counting people who are not LDS is only a minor annoyance coming from LDS, in discussions like this, where you use numbers that are not accurate.

 

[ParkerD]

What on earth are you talking about?

Hi again, Chris,
Thanks for the question to clarify. Here is a brief quote from a Wikipedia article about a legendary “Quetzalcoatl” of origin around Mexico, noting two different legends:

“Some scholars have noted a resemblance of the Quetzalcoatl legend with that of the myth of the Pahana held by the Hopis of northern Arizona. Scholars have described many similarities between the myths of the Aztecs and those of the American Southwest, and posit a common root. The Hopi describe the Pahana as the “Lost White Brother,” and they expected his eventual return from the east during which he would destroy the wicked and begin a new era of peace and prosperity. Hopi tradition maintains that they at first mistook the Spanish conquistadors as the Pahana when they arrived on the Hopi mesas in the 16th century.( Source: Locke 2001:139–140, Waters 2004)”

 

[dianaiad]

All in all, the point is, it doesn’t matter how many people your church claims as members. Truth is not determined by population counts. The LDS practice of counting people who are not LDS is only a minor annoyance coming from LDS, in discussions like this, where you use numbers that are not accurate.

You are quite correct. Truth is NOT determined by population counts…but then I never claimed that it was.

Why aren’t you annoyed at the poster who began this line of posting by saying that if Mormonism were true, that there would be more of us by now?

Or is it just Mormons who are not allowed to ‘use numbers that are not accurate?’

 

[dianaiad]

You seem to be blurting out these sweeping statements without any supporting facts. And going into the Great Schism should seem rather pointless to you, since LDS teach that the Great Apostacy happened long before that. If you’re going to argue that the main church apostatized while clobbering others who held the real truths, then you need to start citing some specific examples. Otherwise your statements are just hyperbole.

What hyperbole? Either there was an apostasy or there wasn’t.If there was not, then the Catholics (or the Eastern Orthodox…) have it all. If there was, then the authority/priesthood/whatever was lost would need to be restored. That’s not hyperbole. It really is that binary.

As to the Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism being the same—nope. I don’t see the Cardinals of Rome electing an Eastern Orthodox priest to be Pope, do you? There are some very big differences between your two belief systems, even if you want to wave those differences away. Those differences are big enough, important enough, to keep you separate for a number of centuries now. So…which one of you has the authority? Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? After all, the Eastern Orthodox church does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, nor do they believe that he has any authority over them. Eastern Orthodoxy does NOT believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. Orthodox priests may marry. Catholic priests may not. Bartholomew, the current patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox church, does not hold any where near the authority over Orthodoxy that the Pope holds over Catholicism. Orthodoxy claims to be the one and only original version of the Christian church, and that Catholicism split away from them. Catholicism reverses this idea.

Now, from where I sit, which one should I figure is which? You can’t possibly both be right, y’know. ONE of you goofed.

If we, as LDS, believe that you both did, well—that’s only one more organization than you believe did, right?

 

[Stephen168]

Orthodox priests may marry.

No they can not.

 

[dianaiad]

No they can not.

Yes.

they can.

Before ordination, if not after. Ordained Orthodox priests stay married.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are quite correct. Truth is NOT determined by population counts…but then I never claimed that it was.

Why aren’t you annoyed at the poster who began this line of posting by saying that if Mormonism were true, that there would be more of us by now?

Or is it just Mormons who are not allowed to ‘use numbers that are not accurate?’

I think you missed the point that was being conveyed in that post.