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

[Answersplease]

---

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."

---

Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The original 12 Apostles have a special significance in Heaven.

Matthias most likely took over the stone which Judas turned aside from.

Any later apostles from any Church would not be as significant,
otherwise there would be many more foundation stones with many more names on them,
than only 12 stones for the original 12 Apostles who actually witnessed Jesus The Christ during the whole time he went in and out among them beginning with the baptism of John.

 

[Stephen168]

Why do I get the feeling that you are attempting to lead me into some rhetorical trap?

Yes, of course we believe He had an ‘earthly ministry,’…

Considering the irrational nature of Mormon beliefs, I think your feelings are justified. But most of the time a question is just a question

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

Sometimes a question is just a question

To cut to the chase, however, truth is truth.

I agree, but it doesn’t answer the question.

 

[zerinus]

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?

Thank you for clarifying. I wouldn’t describe any of that as “changing doctrine”. That is what had originally confused me. I would describe them more in terms of obtaining new doctrine or information, clarifying existing doctrine, or making important policy decisions for the church. In the first century (while the Apostles were alive and could govern the church) such decisions could be made by revelation, which means that their decisions were correct and had he approval of the Lord. After the first century and after the Apostles had did, the church or its leaders were still able to make such decisions; but their decisions were not always correct, based on revelation, or made according to the will of God.

 

[zerinus]

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord

Modern day Apostles of the Lord can be “witnesses of the Resurrection” in the same way as Paul had been.

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.

If that were the case Paul could not have been an apostle; but he was.

The Twelve was never meant to be on going.

We think they were:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Just as “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers,” were needed for the “perfecting of the saints, and the work of the ministry, etc.” so were the offices of “prophet” and “Apostle”. If you wanted to argue that the latter were no longer necessary, then by the same logic you would have to argue that the former were not necessary either. But they are all necessary.

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.

He certainly regarded himself to be an Apostle. Almost every letter he writes begins by a salutation in which he addresses himself as an Apostle of Jesus Christ; and in his epistles he often identifies himself with the other Apostles. Here is an example:

1 Corinthians 15:

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am : and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

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.

There may not have been a “formal” canon; but they knew what was inspired scripture, and knew who could make one. You mean to tell me that the epistles of Peter or the Gospel of Matthew were not inspired scripture until they were “formally canonized” as such? Of course they were; and they could have been added to by the same authority that produced them.

 

[zerinus]

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.

You can say that about any historical event, including the Apostasy.

The Great Apostasy never happened that is why there is no historical date for it.

We can give it an approximate date, in the same way that historians give an approximate date for the fall of the Roman Empire. Given that by the Apostasy we mean the loss of the priesthood authority of the church, which happened when all the Apostles had died; and the last Apostle (John) is believed to have survived until around 90 AD, I fix the date of the Apostasy at the close of the fist century.

 

[zerinus]

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

The Twelve Apostles could not continue partly because of the Apostasy (the wickedness of the people prevented that institution from being perpetuated among them); and partly because of the persecution of the Christians (Peter and Paul were put to death at Rome during Nero’s persecution; John was exiled to the isle of Patmos; and all the remaining Apostles according to tradition suffered death by martyrdom.

The Apostles did ordain other Apostles. They ordained the successor to Judas; and by the same token could have ordained others.

 

[zerinus]

---

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."

---

Already answered. See my previous posts.

 

[Zundrah]

Already answered. See my previous posts.

Go for it Zerinus! I’m rooting for you!

 

[Stephen168]

Thank you for clarifying. I wouldn’t describe any of that as “changing doctrine”. That is what had originally confused me. I would describe them more in terms of obtaining new doctrine or information, clarifying existing doctrine, or making important policy decisions for the church. In the first century (while the Apostles were alive and could govern the church) such decisions could be made by revelation, which means that their decisions were correct and had he approval of the Lord. After the first century and after the Apostles had did, the church or its leaders were still able to make such decisions; but their decisions were not always correct, based on revelation, or made according to the will of God.

So a Church with ‘Authority’ could change: Which day of the week they worship on, What the sin of Cain means, When & why we get baptized, How many wives they could have, Should the leaders get married, Whether the bread becomes Christ, Who God is, What the fall of Adam means.

 

[zerinus]

So a Church with ‘Authority’ could change: Which day of the week they worship on, What the sin of Cain means, When & why we get baptized, How many wives they could have, Should the leaders get married, Whether the bread becomes Christ, Who God is, What the fall of Adam means.

I simply do not understand what you mean by “change”. I would not describe any of those as “change”. I think I have difficulty understanding your thought process. Knowing what the Fall of Adam means, or understanding who God is, is not a “change” to my way of thinking. If enough information already exists in the scriptures to give us that knowledge unambiguously, then we do not have a problem. If enough information doesn’t exist in the scriptures, or if the information is not clear enough which results in controversy in the church, then prophets and Apostles who guide the Church can obtain additional information by revelation if need be to clarify things should it become necessary. Why do you call that a “Change”? I don’t understand. You need to clarify.

 

[Stephen168]

I simply do not understand what you mean by “change”. I would not describe any of those as “change”. I think I have difficulty understanding your thought process. Knowing what the Fall of Adam means, or understanding who God is, is not a “change” to my way of thinking. If enough information already exists in the scriptures to give us that knowledge unambiguously, then we do not have a problem. If enough information doesn’t exist in the scriptures, or if the information is not clear enough which results in controversy in the church, then prophets and Apostles who guide the Church can obtain additional information by revelation if need be to clarify things should it become necessary. Why do you call that a “Change”? I don’t understand. You need to clarify.

Ok, so you don’t know what a ‘change of doctrine’ would be. Other Mormons have used this as proof of the Apostasy, but I guess you don’t

 

[Stephen168]

We can give it an approximate date, in the same way that historians give an approximate date for the fall of the Roman Empire. Given that by the Apostasy we mean the loss of the priesthood authority of the church, which happened when all the Apostles had died; and the last Apostle (John) is believed to have survived until around 90 AD, I fix the date of the Apostasy at the close of the fist century.

Historians give exact dates in regard to the history of the Roman Empire: the Empire splitting in two (395), the western Empire falling to a Germanic King (476), the eastern Empire falling to the Ottoman Empire (1453). They do this because these events really happened. The Mormon Church does not give a date for the Great Apostasy because it is not a historical event.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

Zundrah, bless you, you have GOT to be kidding.

The closest to an ‘arranged marriage’ I have ever heard of was the blind date blind-side introduction my friends trapped my (not then) husband and I into.

These friends honestly thought we would be perfect for each other. They were right, but I have to admit that the dinner itself was…well…best not go there.

And no, we are not anti-Christian.We claim to BE Christian.

 

[jpaul1953]

The Twelve Apostles could not continue partly because of the Apostasy (the wickedness of the people prevented that institution from being perpetuated among them); and partly because of the persecution of the Christians (Peter and Paul were put to death at Rome during Nero’s persecution; John was exiled to the isle of Patmos; and all the remaining Apostles according to tradition suffered death by martyrdom.

The Apostles did ordain other Apostles. They ordained the successor to Judas; and by the same token could have ordained others.

Dear Zerinus,

You act like a magician pulling a rabbit out of your hat. Every time you are presented with an argument you go back to plan B, wing it. You have no way of proving what you said about the apostles.

Your church always stated that the Church apostacized after the Apostles died. Now you are telling me that the original Apostles broke rank with Jesus and moved on with their own obviously non-biblical agenda. Prove it.

I told you that the Apostles never appointed another Apostle after drawing sticks and picking Mathias to replace Judas, the betrayer. That’s because they figured it out. Jesus said the twelve would be with him in Heaven to help judge mankind, not two million and twelve, just the twelve. Mathias was the last appointed Apostle according to the word of God. Why because Twelve is a significant number. Remember the 144,000 (Jehovah’s witnesses believe the first 144,000 converted JW’s were the only ones to reach Heaven and you had to be married. So Jesus, Moses, Paul, and the like could not make it to heaven based on JW’s doctrine. This is so absurd, but the JW’s have many wonderful people who believe in how they are taught.) I always say that God judges us based on what we know and what we do with it, not what we know, regardless of what we do with it.

No one except Paul, a self appointed Apostle by the grace of God, became an Apostle. Everyone else became disciples, realizing that there was only supposed to be twelve. So after their frustrating vote for Mathias, they never did it again. When they all died, there were none left. That’s the way Peter decided to continue the word of Christ. James the righteous, by your thinking, should have been an Apostle, but there’s nothing in the Bible that says that…

The Church followed the same dogma/doctrines as Jesus taught all the way up to and beyond the reformation to today. One God, One Son, One Holy Spirit, and One Church. Just because the Church had hierarchy that became corrupted by the Devil doesn’t mean these corrupted trash taught lies. The Holy Spirit would not permit them to destroy the innocent followers of His teachings. You know that as well as I.

If you are going to wing it, you are doing a grave injustice to those who are trying to learn on these threads.

Be honest, you are taught to believe the Church to be totally corrupt. You believe that deep in your soul. The problem is that you have been lied to. Matt 16:15-20 explains the apparent problems the Church would run into. But, Christ clears it up and asssures everyone that His Church will prevail.

Whether you like it or not the Catholic Church can and does, through all of Her self-inflicted problems, prove that She goes right back to St Peter, a direct line. No other Church can make this claim validly. They can only try to destroy the God-given authority issued to Peter, the rock, starting the Catholic Church with made up stories of apostacies and such, changing all the necessary Bible verses to sound like they are right, regardless of the truth.

Let the truth shine through. The hierarchy of this Catholic Church who have sinned grieviously against children, non-Catholics, witches, Moslems, etc…, will pay a very heavy price for their evilness. Let God be their judge, not us. But, this is Christ’s Church legitimately with the Authority to say what goes on inside and outside His Church. Because you choose not to believe it does not reduce the credibility given to Her by Christ Jesus. You’re just trying to lay claim to something that does not belong to you, as all the other churches with less than the total truth claim to own.

These churches try anything and everything to uproot Christ True Church and claim the Throne for themselves. The real problem is that there is no Throne, only the Truth as Christ preached it.

May God guide all of us daily.

jpaul1953

 

[dianaiad]

Considering the irrational nature of Mormon beliefs, I think your feelings are justified

If they are justified, it is not because MY beliefs are irrational, but because your attempt to ‘expose’ them as such tend to be…scripted?

But most of the time a question is just a question

I will allow that once in awhile this is true, yes.

Sometimes a question is just a question

I agree, but it doesn’t answer the question.

Well, I answered the question. You, however, have not answered mine. How do we know about Jesus’ earthly ministry?

 

[dianaiad]

I simply do not understand what you mean by “change”. I would not describe any of those as “change”. I think I have difficulty understanding your thought process. Knowing what the Fall of Adam means, or understanding who God is, is not a “change” to my way of thinking. If enough information already exists in the scriptures to give us that knowledge unambiguously, then we do not have a problem. If enough information doesn’t exist in the scriptures, or if the information is not clear enough which results in controversy in the church, then prophets and Apostles who guide the Church can obtain additional information by revelation if need be to clarify things should it become necessary. Why do you call that a “Change”? I don’t understand. You need to clarify.

Careful, Z, you may be arguing Stephen’s point.

The point is, those who were in earthly authority did indeed change many of the above ideas. The question is whether they had the heavenly authority to do so.

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon dianaiad! I hope you are doing well today.

Careful, Z, you may be arguing Stephen’s point.

The point is, those who were in earthly authority did indeed change many of the above ideas. The question is whether they had the heavenly authority to do so.

I think zerinus is making the point that how people understand a particular point of doctrine can change, but that doesn’t mean that an eternal principle has changed. An eternal principle, is just that, eternal. The nature of God, for instance, will not change, nor can it. If God has an immortal, glorified body, and that is His nature, then this cannot change. People can, and have, lost that knowledge. So, when a truth is revealed, it is bringing to our knowledge truth that was hithertofore unknown. It is not changing the truth in and of itself.

It would be inconsistent with eternal truth if it could change. In fact, it would be pointless to even call eternal truth, “eternal truth”, if it was subject to change. No, I think what changes is our perception, our understanding, or our knowledge of truth and also how a principle or truth is implemented and/or practiced.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Answersplease]

Modern day Apostles of the Lord can be “witnesses of the Resurrection” in the same way as Paul had been.

Saint Paul does NOT meet all the requirements from Scripture.

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."

---

Already answered. See my previous posts.

Did you ignore part of Scripture?

---

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."

---

---

Did you ignore this part of Scripture also?

Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The original 12 Apostles have a special significance in Heaven.

Matthias most likely took over the stone which Judas turned aside from.

Any later apostles from any Church would not be as significant,
otherwise there would be many more foundation stones with many more names on them,
than only 12 stones for the original 12 Apostles who actually witnessed Jesus The Christ during the whole time he went in and out among them beginning with the baptism of John.

 

[zerinus]

Ok, so you don’t know what a ‘change of doctrine’ would be. Other Mormons have used this as proof of the Apostasy, but I guess you don’t

Okay, I think I know what the cause of the problem is now! I haven’t been following the discussions you have been having with other LDS on this subject. I don’t have the time to read though every post. In fact I don’t get to read most of them. My attention span and concentration are also limited. I don’t cope very well with long posts. If a post is lengthy, I quickly read the highlights, and if it doesn’t grab my attention straight away I lose interest and move on to the next. Some LDS posters here make long posts, and for this reason I don’t get to read many of them. The arguments that they bring in defense or in explanation of Mormonism are not necessarily my arguments. My style of debate is different from theirs, and I might defend or explain the same principles differently from the way they might. So when you are discussing Mormonism with me, you shouldn’t make any assumptions on the basis of the discussions you might have had with other LDS. You should think of it as a fresh discussion, unrelated to what you have had with others. If you have had a discussion with other LDS, and you would like to have a second opinion from me, then you should explain to me exactly what discussions you have had with them, and who has said what, and on what basis, so that I can formulate an opinion.

 

[zerinus]

Historians give exact dates in regard to the history of the Roman Empire: the Empire splitting in two (395), the western Empire falling to a Germanic King (476), the eastern Empire falling to the Ottoman Empire (1453). They do this because these events really happened. The Mormon Church does not give a date for the Great Apostasy because it is not a historical event.

I can give you an exact date if you can tell me whan the last Apostle died, or his duties terminated as an officer of the church.