Z
Zundrah
Guest
So how exactly did the catholic church “loose” the keys to the kingdom due to a “great apostasy”?
MORMONS (LDS) what is this "great apostasy" that you claim to have happened?
- Status
1
1edyson
Guest
From the horses mouth…
The Great Apostasy
The Great Apostasy
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The Great Apostasy is when the Mormon Church was founded, described in the BofM as “great and abominable above all the churches.”
It cut out “precious promises” by excluding the Apocrypha and rejecting the Fathers of the Church and their wriings.
It cut out “precious promises” by excluding the Apocrypha and rejecting the Fathers of the Church and their wriings.
M
MatthewCrossman
Guest
Hey Zund…
As you’ll see on that link, the Mormon church believes it all went horribly wrong shortly after the apostles.
For what it’s worth I believe the Mormon church itself is a great apostasy…Joseph Smith was a bold-faced storyteller who was never able to provide real evidence for any of his claims, including this one. His Book of Mormon is a utter fabrication which, while claiming to be ‘‘another gospel of Jesus Christ’’ is incompatible with the true gospel.
Along with many other ‘Christian’ groups which formed in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (including JWs etc), the Mormon church claims to be a restoration of ‘true Christianity’. But true Christianity has never taught that there are other gods, that we can become gods, that Jesus went to the Americas before he was born in Israel etc. etc. etc. as the Mormons do.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that God allowed his church to become utterly corrupted, but then chose to wait for 1800-plus years to restore things…and using a man who was well known for his use of seer stones and other semi-occultic devices.
As you’ll see on that link, the Mormon church believes it all went horribly wrong shortly after the apostles.
For what it’s worth I believe the Mormon church itself is a great apostasy…Joseph Smith was a bold-faced storyteller who was never able to provide real evidence for any of his claims, including this one. His Book of Mormon is a utter fabrication which, while claiming to be ‘‘another gospel of Jesus Christ’’ is incompatible with the true gospel.
Along with many other ‘Christian’ groups which formed in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (including JWs etc), the Mormon church claims to be a restoration of ‘true Christianity’. But true Christianity has never taught that there are other gods, that we can become gods, that Jesus went to the Americas before he was born in Israel etc. etc. etc. as the Mormons do.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that God allowed his church to become utterly corrupted, but then chose to wait for 1800-plus years to restore things…and using a man who was well known for his use of seer stones and other semi-occultic devices.
P
ParkerD
Guest
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).
P
ParkerD
Guest
Matthew,
You have gotten some wrong information about most of what you wrote here. Apostasy means “became less than fully true.” That would not be consistent with the notion that things went “horribly wrong.”
I agree that your version of Christianity doesn’t teach this, but the Bible clearly does, in unmistakeable and plain language.
You have gotten some wrong information about most of what you wrote here. Apostasy means “became less than fully true.” That would not be consistent with the notion that things went “horribly wrong.”
Not so. It is completely consistent with the Bible and with Bible prophecy, both.
sons of god (i.e. joint heirs with Christ, rulers with Him on His throne as taught in the Book of Revelation by the apostle John).
I agree that your version of Christianity doesn’t teach this, but the Bible clearly does, in unmistakeable and plain language.
No, Jesus’ birth near Jerusalem was prophesied in the Americas before Christ’s birth, but He visited the Americas after His resurrection.
It does take faith enough to read, ponder, and ask about the message of the Book of Mormon. These acts of faith are available to everyone, but even so you are OK with the religion you have.
S
SkinnyJay
Guest
From what I understood Paul was never “ordained” an apostle. There was no formal demonstration or ceremony that explicitly brought Paul into the Twelve that I can remember but I could be wrong. Paul named himself an apostle. I believe that Paul would of been ineligible to be part of the Twelve because in Acts 1 in the story of Matthias being chosen to replace Judas there is only one criteria named in order to be considered an apostle; That the new apostle must have been there from the beginning of Jesus’ Ministry to the end.
RSV Acts 1:21-26:
This, I believe, is the biblical reason why in the Catholic Church there is none with the appellation Apostle, because from the very beginning apostles were those who walked with Jesus from His baptism to His crucifixion. This would exclude Paul as well as everyone alive today.
Absurd. How do you know this? That CC leaders used their own judgment instead of piously praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit?
How would direct guidance and revelation from the Holy Spirit be brought to doctrine and accepted by followers? Oh and do this using no committees, council meetings or votes to ascertain the validity or correct interpretation of said guidance or revelation. You assume everybody receives the same guidance and the same way to apply it? Ignorance.
So according to this paragraph it is not the doctrines of early Catholicism specifically that lost us the keys but “wisdom of men” i.e. not allowing the Holy Spirit to guide. Everything relies on your interpretation of events not the events themselves. Pretty clever.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Mormons believe the Catholic Church renouced the faith (apostasy = renunciation of a religious faith) by introducing private judgment, doctrine, dogma, indulgences, etc. One argument I’ve heard for such a belief is that the belief in the Immaculate Conception was invented because the words “Immaculate Conception” are not in the Bible and because the word “dogma” was not used by the Apostles. Pretty weak argument, yes, but it shows what the belief of apostasy stands upon: misinformation and unfounded claims.
There is no evidence that the early Church didn’t believe in a holy Mother of God. On the contrary, there is lots of biblical and extrabiblical evidence that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. And the fact that all dogmas are merely teachings of the Church, which have been taught since the beginning, that have been dogmatically defined for the good of the Church against rising heresy shows that belief in the Holy Mother of God is quite ancient and founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
Speaking of Tradition, the Church borrowed it from Judaism. Jews believe in the Torah and Oral Torah (Scripture and oral Tradition). Since Christianity came from Judaism, the Church believes in Scripture and oral Tradition. An incomplete list of Tradition and traditions of men can be found here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=340467
There is no evidence that the early Church didn’t believe in a holy Mother of God. On the contrary, there is lots of biblical and extrabiblical evidence that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. And the fact that all dogmas are merely teachings of the Church, which have been taught since the beginning, that have been dogmatically defined for the good of the Church against rising heresy shows that belief in the Holy Mother of God is quite ancient and founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
Speaking of Tradition, the Church borrowed it from Judaism. Jews believe in the Torah and Oral Torah (Scripture and oral Tradition). Since Christianity came from Judaism, the Church believes in Scripture and oral Tradition. An incomplete list of Tradition and traditions of men can be found here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=340467
J
JeanneH
Guest
P
ParkerD
Guest
Skinny Jay,
The doctrinal changes that occurred are various and are evident. Mode of baptism, age of baptism, celibacy, being joint heirs with Christ, understanding the process of revelation and revealed knowledge, to name a few.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Why do Mormons need to prove their denomination is correct by proving another’s to be wrong?
I don’t understand this way of thinking. If you believe you are right, why does what anyone else do or not do to your liking matter at all? Can’t you just stand on your position alone?
I like reading about the family aspects about Mormons, and they sound like really nice people. I just have a hard time with believers stating they are right because someone else is wrong. It shouldn’t be a basis for being correct IMHO.
I don’t understand this way of thinking. If you believe you are right, why does what anyone else do or not do to your liking matter at all? Can’t you just stand on your position alone?
I like reading about the family aspects about Mormons, and they sound like really nice people. I just have a hard time with believers stating they are right because someone else is wrong. It shouldn’t be a basis for being correct IMHO.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
You can’t claim to be the Church if someone else claims to be the Church. It hurts your credibility. That’s what churches and denominations, and sects and groups, within various religious and socities fight.Why do Mormons need to prove their denomination is correct by proving another’s to be wrong?
I don’t understand this way of thinking. If you believe you are right, why does what anyone else do or not do to your liking matter at all? Can’t you just stand on your position alone?
I like reading about the family aspects about Mormons, and they sound like really nice people. I just have a hard time with believers stating they are right because someone else is wrong. It shouldn’t be a basis for being correct IMHO.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I suppose so.
It just rubs me the wrong way when I see mud being slung at others in order to make a case.
Maybe that’s why I am investigating christian claims through the catholic viewpoint.
S
SkinnyJay
Guest
We are not arguing doctrinal changes. You posited that the Apostasy began from leaders using “wisdom of men” over guidance from the Holy Spirit. I am proposing that your “wisdom of men” is in fact guidance from the Holy Spirit.
M
mark_a
Guest
Why do Mormons need to prove their denomination is correct by proving another’s to be wrong?
I don’t understand this way of thinking. If you believe you are right, why does what anyone else do or not do to your liking matter at all? Can’t you just stand on your position alone?
I like reading about the family aspects about Mormons, and they sound like really nice people. I just have a hard time with believers stating they are right because someone else is wrong. It shouldn’t be a basis for being correct IMHO.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Everyone is just a pig in a big mud puddleI suppose so.
Maybe that’s why I am investigating christian claims through the catholic viewpoint.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Oink!Everyone is just a pig in a big mud puddle
P
ParkerD
Guest
Strawberry Jam,
I can certainly see your point here. My purpose here has been to try and correct misperceptions about Mormons and their beliefs, and at the same time answer questions that come up. Once someone has experienced the comforting, guiding presence of the Holy Spirit in their life, and that person senses that this influence in other people’s lives could help them in a way that brings greater peace to those people, then I suppose there comes a desire to share that blessing, but it is hard to do that without at the same time ending up seeming to do what you described. The gospel of Jesus Christ really does bring inner peace, and the LDS are not unique in that but some people may be still seeking that even within their own religion or as an agnostic. It is there for the having. Some find it within several different denominations that are founded in the Bible and Biblical teachings.
Since the question asked here dealt specifically with loss of authority (keys) since the time of Christ, it was a case of needing to be clear about what that means.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Skinny Jay,
I think I understand your position, and I guess if you believe that and also have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in your own life to the extent that you want, then the Catholic church has made exactly the doctrinal changes that you would have made if you had been on those councils, and it therefore satisfies your criteria for the truths you want to live by. For you and others, that means there was no apostasy, no falling away from the pure doctrine Christ taught, and I would say you’re well enough off with that. Catholicism is satisfactory for many, many wonderful people who have exactly what they want within those beliefs.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I’m sorry if I sounded critical of Mormons, I assure you I am not trying to disparage your faith or beliefs and respect yours and the good things people of belief do and I stand with on many issues.
Thanks for replying, and perhaps I don’t fully understand this claim about the keys and the authority with them the way you do or for that matter the way catholics do.
But, I will share this with you from a skeptic’s view as I guess I did already:blush:
I’d be much more interested in reasons you believe what you do and why you do without having to do it by saying that basically the entire Jesus project if you forgive me for calling it that, failed utterly for any period of time. Because if for any period of time at all there was an utter and complete gap of believers then I can tell you right now, I would say that reflects on Jesus in a big big way. Especially that soon in the ball game.
I hope that is not blaspheme to say that, and I ask all believers to please know I am not of the mind that an utter and complete void of believers ever occured in the timeline. If I could find that out, I would not even waste my time being here at all. One reason chrisitan claims have strength is in its unbroken nature of belief in Jesus. Differing ideas are not the same thing as an utter denial for any time period in the person Jesus, if that makes sense?
I don’t see a lot of great claims about christian beliefs so far, but I am opening myself up to them.
One of the 4 things I see as excellent evidence on behalf of christians is belief in constancy from the time of christ to now.
I hope I was not offensive in expressing that, or disparaged either Mormons or Catholics or any other believer in God.
Please let me know if I was out of line, I wish not to be that way.
- Status