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

[zaffiroborant]

When Christ commissioned the apostles to go forth into all the world, He said clearly that they were to teach specific doctrine, namely “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The words “and lo” can be understood to mean “and therefore if you do this”, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

Well I looked up lo in Websters and in The Oxford Compact Dictionary (both online and print editions) and nowhere do either of them say lo has a meaning of "therefore if. Text can mean anything you want if you make up meanings for words.

Short definition of lo:

“exclamation archaic used to draw attention to an interesting event” from Oxford online

 

[dianaiad]

My question to Mormons: if it was so “great” how did everyone else miss it?

1. A great many people did. They were generally dismissed as heretics.
2. The nature of apostasy is that the apostates don’t think of themselves as such. If they DID, they wouldn’t be apostatizing now, would they?

 

[Chris-WA]

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”.

You can suggest it, but you would be wrong. Don’t you think that Jesus knew that the Apostles would be killed? Do you really think that he would hand over the keys of the kingdom to the Church knowing full well that within one generation they would be lost? That just doesn’t make any sense.

You’re forgetting one very important thing–the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church at Pentecost to guide it into all truth, and commissioned the Apostles to teach and baptize all the nations of earth. We can reasonably assume that the original twelve would not be able to do this within their lifetimes even if they lived into ripe old age, so obviously it is implied that the Church would somehow have to continue on after their deaths in order to complete this mission. Jesus also promissed the Church that He would not leave us orphans, and that He would be with us to the end of the age. So the only way all of these things can can be true is if the Church had a way to continue on despite all the persecutions, controversies, schisms, and whatever else Satan would throw in the Church’s way.

It basically comes down to this–either you believe that Christ set up His Church to last or He did not. I have total confidence and faith in Christ that He did what He needed to do to make sure the Church would go on, with full foreknowledge that there would be problems and shortcomings and failings even among leaders in the Church. The Church is bigger than any one person’s personal failings, even bigger than the personal failings of many persons within the Church. The Holy Spirit is the permanent guardian of the Church and its mission throughout the ages. This idea that the Church lost it’s authority so soon after its commissioning is so rediculous and shows such a lack of faith in Christ that it’s laughable.

But this idea is a necessary foundation for the very existence of the LDS Church, the Jehovas Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, not to mention the multitude of Protestant sects. That is why they all cling to the Great Apostacy theory so strongly–because without it their churches have no basis for existing in the first place.

 

[Chris-WA]

Why do Mormons need to prove their denomination is correct by proving another’s to be wrong?

Because without the Great Apostacy their is no reason at all for the Mormon Church to exist. That is the crux of the issue.

 

[dianaiad]

Because without the Great Apostacy their is no reason at all for the Mormon Church to exist. That is the crux of the issue.

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?

 

[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?

Well I think even the LDS Church has said that it’s either them or the Roman Catholic Church, so you’re question has already been answered by your own church.

 

[josie_L]

1. A great many people did. They were generally dismissed as heretics.
2. The nature of apostasy is that the apostates don’t think of themselves as such. If they DID, they wouldn’t be apostatizing now, would they?

1. Can you be a bit more specific as to who these people are (if by great you mean in numbers, correct?)? And do you agree with the doctrines/theology of past heretics (arians, nestorians, gnostics . . .)?
2. Not so, if the nature of the apostasy were obvious (and there was clear indication of corruption in theology), I think we would have a lot more Mormons than we presently have.

 

[zerinus]

When did this “great” apostasy occur?

There are many historical events that we know have occurred, and which we can put an approximate date to, but we can’t put an exact date on (or at least, one that all historians can agree with). For example, we know that there was such a thing as the First World War, but historians disagree as to the precise date (and occasion) when it started. Similarly, we know that the Roman Empire fell, but historians disagree as to the precise date when it fell. The Apostasy is a similar type of event. We know that it occurred, because we can see that some of the vital characteristics of the original church (such as prophets and Apostles, and the ability to lead the church by revelation leading to an open canon of scripture) no longer exists in it; but it is not something that for obvious reasons one can put an exact date on. It is, however, possible to put an approximate date on. Since by the Apostasy we mean primarily the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the church, and all the Apostles are believed to have died (without replacement) before the end of the first century, I would put the approximate date of the Apostasy somewhere at the close of the first century AD.

Why hasn’t anyone realized this (even after a century has passed since this revelation)?

It was realized. Mormons were not the first to recognize the Apostasy; the Protestants recognized it first. Have a look at this article in the Wikipedia for more information.

Where in the Bible does it state a great apostasy of the kind that you refer to?

There are many passages in the Old as well as the New Testament that both prophecy of the Apostasy as well as show its progress. In the Old Testament, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of a day when “darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people” (Isaiah 60:2). He also spoke of a time when “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). The prophet Amos wrote of a time when God will “send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11). Again he writes: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

In the New Testament there are numerous predictions of the Apostasy. Paul wrote of the Second Coming of the Lord that “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed” (2 Thes. 2:3). To Timothy he wrote: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” (1 Timothy 4:1–3). And again: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4–3). In the book of Acts he states: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). Peter wrote of the “false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways . . .” (2 Peter 2:1–2).

There are many passages which suggest that the Apostasy had already begun in the days of the Apostles. For example, to Timothy Paul again writes: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Tim 1:15). To the Galatians he writes: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel . . . O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth . . . ?” (Galatians 1:6; 3:1). Jud writes of “certain men crept in unawares . . . ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4). Paul writes to Titus of those who “profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable . . .” (Titus 1:16). To the Corinthians he writes: “I hear that there be divisions among you . . .” (1 Cor. 11:18). To Timothy again Paul writes of those who “concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:18). John the Beloved writes of those who “went out from us, but they were not of us . . .” (1 John 2:19); and in the Revelation he writes of those who “say they are Apostles, and are not . . .” (Revelation 2:2).

My favorite scriptural reference to the Apostasy is in Paul’s second epistle to Timothy. He gave a prophecy about the condition of religion in the last days, and to me provides the clearest evidence of the Apostasy:

2 Timothy 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,

---

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

This describes most perfectly the apostate condition of the whole of the Christian world today.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

And why do you refer to Smith as a “prophet” when the Bible expresses there would be no other prophets to come?

I am not aware of such a statement in the Bible. On the contrary, there were prophets in the Christian church in the days of the Apostles (after the death of Jesus); and there is nothing to suggest that there shouldn’t be any more afterwards. The Revelation of John teaches of two prophets that God will raise up in the latter days.

Furthermore, it makes no sense that Jesus would come at the time that he did knowing that another prophet would come to reveal further revelations.

I don’t see the logic of that. Jesus did not necessarily reveal everything. He revealed at that time all that was necessary to be revealed at that time. It did not mean that He should not reveal anything more in the future. And in any case, what He did reveal was lost or distorted through the Apostasy; hence the need for a Restoration to put right what had gone wrong

Why didn’t Jesus reveal what he had to then instead of through Joseph Smith?

See above.

Are you stating Jesus got things wrong (knowing full well he would have omniscient power to see into the future)?

God is omniscient; but He does not exercise His omniscience and omnipotence to prevent us from messing things up if that is what we want to do. Just as God did not exercise His omniscience to prevent Adam from falling; He would not exercise his omniscience to prevent the church from falling away, or Apostatizing.

P.S. Where is the evidence that the Church apostasized?

See above.

 

[josie_L]

There are many historical events that we know have occurred, and which we can put an approximate date to, but we can’t put an exact date on (or at least, one that all historians can agree with). For example, we know that there was such a thing as the First World War, but historians disagree as to the precise date (and occasion) when it started. Similarly, we know that the Roman Empire fell, but historians disagree as to the precise date when it fell. The Apostasy is a similar type of event. We know that it occurred, because we can see that some of the vital characteristics of the original church (such as prophets and Apostles, and the ability to lead the church by revelation leading to an open canon of scripture) no longer exists in it; but it is not something that for obvious reasons one can put an exact date on. It is, however, possible to put an approximate date on. Since by the Apostasy we mean primarily the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the church, and all the Apostles are believed to have died (without replacement) before the end of the first century, I would put the approximate date of the Apostasy somewhere at the close of the first century AD.

Are you kidding me we know exactly when the First World War began (the reasons as to why is another matter altogether)? And the falling of the Roman Empire is an event for which we can safely say happened even though you state “historians” cannot put a “precise” year (I will verify this). And so, no, the apostasy is not similar to other historical events as it was never recorded by history like WW1 or the falling of the Roman Empirewas . And furthermore, how many historians do you know of who’ve written about the Great apostasy (that are not Mormon)? We sure know about the Reformation though (but you’re off by a good 14 centuries ).

It was realized. Mormons were not the first to recognize the Apostasy; the Protestants recognized it first. Have a look at this article in the Wikipedia for more information.

And yet you believe that the Protestants are apostates too? The plot thickens to the point of absurdity. When did the Protestants apostasize? And how come Jesus/God did not see fit to intervene at this point in time (instead of 3 centuries later) to reveal to the Protestants (who realized that the CC had “apostasized”) the true message of God? We now have established that Jesus/God failed twice in delivering his revelation.

There are many passages in the Old as well as the New Testament that both prophecy of the Apostasy as well as show its progress. In the Old Testament, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of a day when “darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people” (Isaiah 60:2). He also spoke of a time when “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). The prophet Amos wrote of a time when God will “send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11). Again he writes: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

The covenant he is refering to here is the old covenant.

P.S. I will have to stop here but will continue this later.

 

[dianaiad]

Well I think even the LDS Church has said that it’s either them or the Roman Catholic Church, so you’re question has already been answered by your own church.

Yes, several people have made that point–and it’s one I actually agree with. At least I did until I ran into the Great Schism…and now I don’t know which one is the alternative.

 

[zerinus]

Are you kidding me we know exactly when the First World War began (the reasons as to why is another matter altogether)?

I assure you that the precise date of the WWI is not such a cut and dried case, and is open to disagreement. Here is a quote:

Although the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 is cited as the first event leading directly to World War 1, the true build up was much longer. As well as growing public support for a confrontation - which varied but ultimately grew in the period before - the treaties and diplomatic relations so important in 1914 were all established years, often decades, before. Source.

The tone of your conversation suggests, however, that you are not interested in serious debate. You just want to score points—by hook or crook. In those situations I am not really interested in carrying on with the discussion; therefore I will not waste more time with replying to the remainder of your post—at least until it becomes clear that you are interested in serious discussion, rather than just scoring points by any means possible.

 

[dianaiad]

1. Can you be a bit more specific as to who these people are (if by great you mean in numbers, correct?)? And do you agree with the doctrines/theology of past heretics (arians, nestorians, gnostics . . .)?

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.

1. Not so, if the nature of the apostasy were obvious (and there was clear indication of corruption in theology), I think we would have a lot more Mormons than we presently have.

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?

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.

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.

So…you were saying?

 

[StevieD]

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.

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?

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.

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.

So…you were saying?

The LDS does NOT have “nearly 14 million members”, it has an active membership estimated by faithful LDS statisticians as “about 5 million”. The numbers claimed per country by your HQ can be compared to the religious affiliations registered at national censuses and you will find that there are overclaims of up to 400%! Many such comparisons have been published in the SL City Tribune. The LDS has a vested interest in maximising its published membership to make itself seem more of a force than it is. It includes all non-actives and furthermore includes them until the 110th anniversary of their births! Missionaries have admitted that, because of the total emphasis on baptism figures, people are baptised who are never seen, nor expected to be seen, again at the chapel. Yours is a very minor religion everywhere outside Utah. The membership claimed in the UK could only be true if the adult members were only earning about 30% of the average income or ‘tithing’ only 3% of income. These inflated claims can be easily unmasked but (for some strange reason) only a very few faithful mormons seek to establish the true situation. See mormonproblems.blogspot.com for other interesting facts about the LDS.

 

[StevieD]

I assure you that the precise date of the WWI is not such a cut and dried case, and is open to disagreement. Here is a quote:

Although the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 is cited as the first event leading directly to World War 1, the true build up was much longer. As well as growing public support for a confrontation - which varied but ultimately grew in the period before - the treaties and diplomatic relations so important in 1914 were all established years, often decades, before. Source.

The tone of your conversation suggests, however, that you are not interested in serious debate. You just want to score points—by hook or crook. In those situations I am not really interested in carrying on with the discussion; therefore I will not waste more time with replying to the remainder of your post—at least until it becomes clear that you are interested in serious discussion, rather than just scoring points by any means possible.

Zerinus - point scoring is very much your speciality as I know of old. You really are missing the ‘beam in your own eye’. The CAUSES of an event and the date the event actually occurred are naturally different, the former usually being a matter of opinion and the latter a matter of record. We all know that! Just what is your point here?

 

[dianaiad]

The LDS does NOT have “nearly 14 million members”, it has an active membership estimated by faithful LDS statisticians as “about 5 million”. The numbers claimed per country by your HQ can be compared to the religious affiliations registered at national censuses and you will find that there are overclaims of up to 400%! Many such comparisons have been published in the SL City Tribune. The LDS has a vested interest in maximising its published membership to make itself seem more of a force than it is. It includes all non-actives and furthermore includes them until the 110th anniversary of their births! Missionaries have admitted that, because of the total emphasis on baptism figures, people are baptised who are never seen, nor expected to be seen, again at the chapel. Yours is a very minor religion everywhere outside Utah. The membership claimed in the UK could only be true if the adult members were only earning about 30% of the average income or ‘tithing’ only 3% of income. These inflated claims can be easily unmasked but (for some strange reason) only a very few faithful mormons seek to establish the true situation. See mormonproblems.blogspot.com for other interesting facts about the LDS.

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?

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus - point scoring is very much your speciality as I know of old. You really are missing the ‘beam in your own eye’. The CAUSES of an event and the date the event actually occurred are naturally different, the former usually being a matter of opinion and the latter a matter of record. We all know that! Just what is your point here?

The “cause” and the “date” get blurred in this instance. Did you actually check the most commonly given “date” of WWI? It coinsides with what you call the “cause”.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi, Chris of WA,
I have been busy all day, but wanted to take a moment now and respond briefly. I want you to know that I respect your opinion and appreciate your comments and questions.

You can suggest it, but you would be wrong. Don’t you think that Jesus knew that the Apostles would be killed? Do you really think that he would hand over the keys of the kingdom to the Church knowing full well that within one or two generations they would be lost? That just doesn’t make any sense.

I agree that it may not make sense by the world’s terms. I agree that Jesus knew that the apostles would be killed, and that He knew there would be a struggle in the church to keep the doctrines pure. He also knew that the message of the gospel was so profound and impactful that even if the doctrines became impurely taught, many many wonderful people would live by the main messages and seek to love their neighbor, seek to not judge others, seek to help the poor, and seek to have the cleansing power of the Savior in their personal life knowing that He had suffered for their sins.

The Savior was clearly aware that the Jews had taken the teachings of the prophets of the Old Testament, and made those teachings into something different than the original teachings. He spoke about this often. The Savior is perfect, and being perfect He allows agency completely, with no force or coercion involved in how He operates with humankind or with the church He established. He allows people to do whatever they want to do and choose to do. He would even allow them to change key doctrinal points or key ordinances. It would be against how He taught and what He taught if He were to not allow humankind to do whatever they want. They choose. We choose.

Christ called strong apostles, but if the church grew too fast or if the apostles were killed so quickly that they couldn’t preserve the true doctrine in every city where the gospel was being taught because they couldn’t be in all places at once, then the natural sequence of events would be that as someone liked their own idea better than how things were being done, then they would insert their own idea (perhaps based on tradition they brought with them into the church) and argue that it be done their way. This led eventually to the councils where agreements were made as to what was the doctrine they were all going to agree to, to try and avoid the disunity that was becoming prevalent.

You’re forgetting one very important thing–the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church at Pentecost to guide it into all truth, and commissioned the Apostles to teach and baptize all the nations of earth. We can reasonably assume that the original twelve would not be able to do this within their lifetimes even if they lived into ripe old age, so obviously it is implied that the Church would somehow have to continue on after their deaths in order to complete this mission. Jesus also promised the Church that He would not leave us orphans, and that He would be with us to the end of the age. So the only way all of these things can can be true is if the Church had a way to continue on despite all the persecutions, controversies, schisms, and whatever else Satan would throw in the Church’s way.

I don’t agree with the assumptions you have made, though I understand why you would make them.

It basically comes down to this–either you believe that Christ set up His Church to last or He did not. I have total confidence and faith in Christ that He did what He needed to do to make sure the Church would go on, with full foreknowledge that there would be problems and shortcomings and failings even among leaders in the Church. The Church is bigger than any one person’s personal failings, even bigger than the personal failings of many persons within the Church. The Holy Spirit is the permanent guardian of the Church and its mission throughout the ages. This idea that the Church lost it’s authority so soon after its commissioning is so rediculous and shows such a lack of faith in Christ that it’s laughable.

Again, Chris, I hope you understand the distinction I am making which is that Christ and the Holy Spirit do not force behavior or force choices that people make. People are free to make their own choices. I think it is clear that enough changes were made in key doctrines and ordinances that one can detect those changes. Obviously, you will disagree with that. But the Reformation was clearly an attempt to “go back to what the Bible taught.” How could the Holy Spirit be the “permanent guardian of the Church and its mission” if the Holy Spirit allows total and uncompelled agency of everyone in the church?

That is why they all cling to the Great Apostacy theory so strongly–because without it their churches have no basis for existing in the first place.

I don’t cling to the apostacy theory. I cling to the doctrinal purity of Biblical teachings. I love those teachings, and know that they are true. I also love Christ, and know that His mission and the plan of Salvation He carried out because of His love for us, will not fail and will accomplish exactly the mission He had in mind when He offered His life as a willing sacrifice for all of His Father’s children.

 

[ricko]

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables”

My goodness, the above scripture fits the LDS church to a T!!!

The first quote states “in the latter times”. Well the 1st century is not the latter times but the name of the Mormon church says it all “Latter Day” Saints!

Everyone will certainly agree the second quote also is about the LDS. They have turned away from the truth in the bible and have accepted the stories of Joseph Smith that has been called “Fables” many times.

Scripture has spoken! The LDS is in the Great Apostasy!

 

[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).

Parker D,

Your claim has been made nicely but with one exception.

You state that the sons (not natural off course) of the Apostles lost their way and used their personal opinions to keep the church afloat, therefore the APOSTACY.

To understand the word of Jesus is pretty simple and well stated by Christ to obey His two commandments. Now, since your **OPINION **has been made with no historical claims written down from books held in high esteem you have passed down a lie with the use of past down story lines. I know you are wanting to speak the truth.

What is the point of Jesus saying: " the gates of hell will never prevail against my Church".

If His Church fails then Jesus has made a blunder. You know in your heart that this cannot be the case. SO PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE WAY YOU SEE THINGS.

Thank you. You wrote it well.

jpaul1953