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

[ricko]

I think that I have. I think that the arguments I have put forward are more cogent than what you are trying to portray.

What you have done is to bring it down to a personal level as above and as shown in many of your posts. You bible quotes are for the “latter days”, that does not include the first century. The little squabbles you point out in scripture are not evidence of an apostasy but evidence of a new “way” with new members that were learning to put the old way behind. Some of the new members stumbled along the way as they were learning but the Church itself was Rock steady as it showed its new members the “way”.

You have not proved an apostasy. You have proved that some will always leave the truth for a falsehood.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Now it seems to me that throwing Paul under the bus would support the Orthodox view (though most of the “by faith alone” and trinitarian information comes from Paul), but would not help the Mormons much, if any.

Why in the world would you think this?

So some Mormons are dissing Paul? (grin)

I found no humor in this. It is just sad.

Wow, I guess that means that there are Mormons out there who have different beliefs from those that are on the official website…just like there are Catholics out there who have different opinions about Catholic teachings. How about that.

In the catholic churches there is orthodoxy, which means “right belief”. Orthodoxy is very important in Catholicism. It is one of the methods that truth has been preserved for so many years.

Certainly, claiming Paul was inserting pagan beliefs and was an apostate of the Church would be named what it is, a heresy.

 

[dianaiad]

Why in the world would you think this?

I found no humor in this. It is just sad.

In the catholic churches there is orthodoxy, which means “right belief”. Orthodoxy is very important in Catholicism. It is one of the methods that truth has been preserved for so many years.

Certainly, claiming Paul was inserting pagan beliefs and was an apostate of the Church would be named what it is, a heresy.

…and the church has not had to battle any heresy over the centuries, has it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Which it does.

As far as I can tell, from the posts here and at MADB, in Mormonism, anything goes.

 

[zerinus]

What you have done is to bring it down to a personal level as above and as shown in many of your posts. You bible quotes are for the “latter days”, that does not include the first century. The little squabbles you point out in scripture are not evidence of an apostasy but evidence of a new “way” with new members that were learning to put the old way behind. Some of the new members stumbled along the way as they were learning but the Church itself was Rock steady as it showed its new members the “way”.

You have not proved an apostasy. You have proved that some will always leave the truth for a falsehood.

You are responding selectively to my posts and quotes. Your response is not applicable to all of what I have said.

 

[ricko]

You are responding selectively to my posts and quotes. Your response is not applicable to all of what I have said.

Let’s try something else then. I’ve proven by calling your attention to your bible quotes that they refer to the “latter days”. No one can call the first century the latter days.

So now I would like to ask you to provide some historical proof of the apostasy. Something that predates Joseph Smith. If there was such a great event in history, it would be documented in some way, shape or form. I myself have searched for such evidence and have found none. Surely you can produce some document that would establish such an event did actually happen since you believe so strongly that it did. I assume that you would not believe something so paramount as the great apostasy just because someone told you so would you?

 

[Stephen168]

Okay Stephen, I take the highlighted parts of your post to be addressed to me, which I will here try to reply to.

True; we believe that every (worthy) male Mormon can and should hold the priesthood. But you fail to point out what is wrong with that proposition, so I cannot reply. I cannot address your objection unless I know what it is, or what it is based on.

That is not a valid argument from an LDS point of view. We believe that with the death of the Twelve Apostles the keys of the priesthood authority of the church was lost or taken away, so that the passing of priesthood authority by ordination could no longer be effected.

We believe that the modern Apostles of Jesus Christ are also “sent by Christ”.

We don’t believe that is possible. The office of a bishop and that of an Apostle are fundamentally different. Bishops are not and cannot be successors of the Apostles.

They could not. Bishops did not have the authority to ordain bishops. Only the Apostles ordained bishops.

Does that mean you agree with what Mormonism claims the Apostasy to mean:
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.

 

[zerinus]

Does that mean you agree with what Mormonism claims the Apostasy to mean:
A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth

(Or rather, to commune directly with God, and guide the Church by revelation); Yes.

B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost

Some plain and precious truths were lost or distorted, Yes; but not all. Many valuable truths still remained.

C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.

Yes.

 

[Stephen168]

Some plain and precious truths were lost or distorted, Yes; but not all. Many valuable truths still remained.

Doesn’t the church have the authority to change 'plain and precious truths?"

 

[zerinus]

Doesn’t the church have the authority to change 'plain and precious truths?"

Not sure what you mean by that. I don’t understand your question.

 

[zerinus]

Let’s try something else then. I’ve proven by calling your attention to your bible quotes that they refer to the “latter days”. No one can call the first century the latter days.

So now I would like to ask you to provide some historical proof of the apostasy. Something that predates Joseph Smith. If there was such a great event in history, it would be documented in some way, shape or form. I myself have searched for such evidence and have found none. Surely you can produce some document that would establish such an event did actually happen since you believe so strongly that it did. I assume that you would not believe something so paramount as the great apostasy just because someone told you so would you?

The most obvious historical evidence of the Apostasy is the clear absence of the institution of the Twelve Apostles; and the (admitted) lack of ability by the church(es) to receive revelation leading to an open canon of scripture. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never intended to be done away with. That is evidenced by the fact that in ancient times the council of the Twelve was preserved intact, so that if one of the Apostles died, another was chosen to succeed him. They formed the governing council of the Church, so that when a serious doctrinal or other issue arose in the church, it was brought before that council to be resolved, such as the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles for example. The absence of that council is one indication of the Apostasy. Another indicator is the inability of the church to add to the canon of scripture. While the Apostles were alive, they had the ability to receive revelation to guide the church, and to add to the scriptural canon. Doesn’t the Catholic Church claim that the canon is closed? That is another unmistakable indication of the Apostasy. None of this means that the Catholic Church became evil, or lost its legitimacy completely. It simply means that the authority was lost, which at some point needed to be restored. Here is a relevant quote from my previous post that I had referred you to:

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.

That is a prophecy the fulfillment of which is indicated by what I have said above. “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:” means that they have the appearance of religiosity, but last the power of it, which is the ability to commune directly with God, and lead the church by revelation from God, as it was in the days of the Apostles, rather than by the wisdom of men. That is the condition of the Christian world (of all churches except LDS) today. That is the unmistakable evidence of the Apostasy.

 

[Stephen168]

Some plain and precious truths were lost or distorted, Yes; but not all. Many valuable truths still remained.

During the first century, did the church have the authority to change doctrine ('plain and precious truths")?
For example: Which day of the week they worship on? Does the sin of Cain mean anything to following generations? When & why we get baptized? How many wifes they could have? Should the leaders get married at all? Whether the bread became Christ? Who God was? Does the fall of Adam mean anything to following generations?

 

[Stephen168]

The most obvious historical evidence of the Apostasy is the clear absence of the institution of the Twelve Apostles; and the (admitted) lack of ability by the church(es) to receive revelation leading to an open canon of scripture. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never intended to be done away with. That is evidenced by the fact that in ancient times the council of the Twelve was preserved intact, so that if one of the Apostles died, another was chosen to succeed him.

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. Paul does not qualify to be one of the Twelve. And there is no narrative in the New Testament telling of Paul’s selection to the Twelve.

Another indicator is the inability of the church to add to the canon of scripture. While the Apostles were alive, they had the ability to receive revelation to guide the church, and to add to the scriptural canon.

There was no canon until the 4th century; well after the age of the Apostles. The writing included in the canon were written when at least one of The Twelve was living.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

That is because there are many definitions of “Rome Falling.” Is your definition: the Empire splitting in two (395), the western Empire falling to a Germanic King (476), the eastern Empire falling to the Ottoman Empire (1453), or the complete and total destruction of the city of Rome (never)? We do know history; it just depends on your definition. The Great Apostasy never happened that is why there is no historical date for it.

 

[ricko]

You have been misled. You still have presented no evidence to the fact, only your opinion that there was an apostasy.

The institution of the Apostles remains and has never been lost. What is gone is the ORIGINAL Apostles but not their successors. Those that were appointed by Jesus Himself are gone but their office remains as Jesus promised.

God is not fallible like men. He taught for three years and then went to the Father but before going he commissioned the Apostles to teach what they have learned to all nations. He didn’t say I have given you only the first volume of three and the remaining teachings will continue again in 1800 years by someone other than myself. No, that’s not what happened. He came in physical form, He taught all that was needed and then He told the Apostles to teach the world what they have learned.

You keep quoting scripture about the apostasy but the scriptures speak of an apostasy TO COME.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, KJV)

This know also, that in the **last days **perilous times shall come.

The “last days” was not 2,000 years ago. The Jewish Temple has not been rebuilt which is a sign of the “last days”. You are trying to use scripture that refers to an event that HAS YET TO OCCUR to say it already has happened. Clearly, the first century, 2,000 years ago is NOT the “latter days” nor the “end of days”.

Continuing with 2 Tim 8,
“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men (false teachers) also oppose the truth; with perverted minds they falsify the faith. But they will not get very far; as with those two men, the stupidity of these (false teachers) will be plain for all to see.”

Remember that in 2 Tim he is referring to the “last days” not the first century. If anything the above quote fits the LDS church to a T.

 

[dianaiad]

Doesn’t the church have the authority to change 'plain and precious truths?"

Oh, now that question is so loaded that I’m surprised the keyboard isn’t crashing through the desk.

To cut to the chase, however, truth is truth. How can you change that?

People’s perception of what it actually is might change,
Or understanding might grow,
Or policies might change…but truth?

You are going to have to define that one.

 

[jpaul1953]

The most obvious historical evidence of the Apostasy is the clear absence of the institution of the Twelve Apostles; and the (admitted) lack of ability by the church(es) to receive revelation leading to an open canon of scripture. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never intended to be done away with. That is evidenced by the fact that in ancient times the council of the Twelve was preserved intact, so that if one of the Apostles died, another was chosen to succeed him. They formed the governing council of the Church, so that when a serious doctrinal or other issue arose in the church, it was brought before that council to be resolved, such as the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles for example. The absence of that council is one indication of the Apostasy. Another indicator is the inability of the church to add to the canon of scripture. While the Apostles were alive, they had the ability to receive revelation to guide the church, and to add to the scriptural canon. Doesn’t the Catholic Church claim that the canon is closed? That is another unmistakable indication of the Apostasy. None of this means that the Catholic Church became evil, or lost its legitimacy completely. It simply means that the authority was lost, which at some point needed to be restored. Here is a relevant quote from my previous post that I had referred you to:

That is a prophecy the fulfillment of which is indicated by what I have said above. “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:” means that they have the appearance of religiosity, but last the power of it, which is the ability to commune directly with God, and lead the church by revelation from God, as it was in the days of the Apostles, rather than by the wisdom of men. That is the condition of the Christian world (of all churches except LDS) today. That is the unmistakable evidence of the Apostasy.

Zerinus,

Since you say that the apostleship should have continued and that the apostacy is proven by Paul the 13th apostle, then obviously who dropped the ball to maintain the apostle line is the apostles. Why didn’t they continually replace Apostles. Why? I would think that is the case because Jesus picked the Apostles, not Apostles picked Apostles. The Apostles only picked one because they felt they needed to be twelve. I believe they later realized that Jesus only picked the twelve and that they could not pick themselves because they weren’t Jesus. The reason the Church chose not to continue was because the 12 apostles could only be picked by Jesus. That the 12 are 12 for a reason.

Your apostacy is really a joke. You just don’t want to accept it because then you invalidate your own church.

God Bless

jpaul1953

 

[Answersplease]

The most obvious historical evidence of the Apostasy is the clear absence of the institution of the Twelve Apostles; and the (admitted) lack of ability by the church(es) to receive revelation leading to an open canon of scripture. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never intended to be done away with. That is evidenced by the fact that in ancient times the council of the Twelve was preserved intact, so that if one of the Apostles died, another was chosen to succeed him. They formed the governing council of the Church, so that when a serious doctrinal or other issue arose in the church, it was brought before that council to be resolved, such as the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles for example. The absence of that council is one indication of the Apostasy. Another indicator is the inability of the church to add to the canon of scripture. While the Apostles were alive, they had the ability to receive revelation to guide the church, and to add to the scriptural canon. Doesn’t the Catholic Church claim that the canon is closed? That is another unmistakable indication of the Apostasy. None of this means that the Catholic Church became evil, or lost its legitimacy completely. It simply means that the authority was lost, which at some point needed to be restored. Here is a relevant quote from my previous post that I had referred you to:

That is a prophecy the fulfillment of which is indicated by what I have said above. “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:” means that they have the appearance of religiosity, but last the power of it, which is the ability to commune directly with God, and lead the church by revelation from God, as it was in the days of the Apostles, rather than by the wisdom of men. That is the condition of the Christian world (of all churches except LDS) today. That is the unmistakable evidence of the Apostasy.

---

I did’nt know that the members your Quorum of the Twelve, accompanied the original Apostles all the time Jesus The Christ was among the original Apostles.

Acts 1:21
"Therefore it is necessary that OF THE MEN WHO HAVE ACCOMPANIED US ALL THE TIME THAT THE LORD JESUS WENT IN AND OUT AMONG US–

Acts 1:22
beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–ONE OF THESE MUST BECOME A WITNESS with us of His resurrection."

Acts 1:25
to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."

---

 

[Zundrah]

If the “great apostasy” happened, then… where was the Holy Spirit.

I think that this is a great and valuable point, Monica! Ho could this apostasy have happened if Christ said that the holy spirit would keep Peters covenant alive. It could never have broken so surly the apostasy has more to answer to now?

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah, Stephen’s presentation about what our beliefs actually are tends to be inaccurate. Therefore his arguments against them aren’t all that helpful.

Erecting a strawman to tear down isn’t really addressing the topic, y’know?

Most stories we hear about the LDS church and the Mormons are always inaccurate, even fiction!
I’ve heard all kinds of crazy things about Mormons, one of those stories being about you guys being anti - christian too. I’ve also heard about forced marriage too. Is there any truth in the arranged marriages?