Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

[jediliz]

Jesus Christ, the SON of GOD, founded the Catholic Church and left one of his most trusted apostles (PETER) in charge of it when he ascended into Heaven.

Joseph Smith, who was a normal human being, invented Mormonism.

The whole “god of your own planet” sounds like something the Prince of Lies (SATAN) would entice someone with.

 

[Cath01]

The above post brings up a good point.

Today, religeion seems to be about one opinion versus another.

It does not seem to be about finding truth.
If I can say that 3+4= 7, and 1+6 = 7 (and there are infinte possibilities that lead to 7), but I say that 25-18 DOES NOT equal 7, then the whole of my statements are not true. There contains some contradicting falsity.

Analyze Mormonism in the name of Truth. Truth is a function of Love. Meaning, the domain of truth lies within the domain of love. All Love is truth, but not all truth is love. (Yes honey you look very fat in that outfit – this is hurtful/damaging/will take the life and radiance of love from someone).

The love I speak of is unconditional love - the same love that Jesus has shown to us.

Self-centered motives and agendas contradict sharing love towards others, but rather are demonstrations of love towards yourself. Now, we need to take care of ourselves,but that does not mean self-centeredness.

Where arethe contradictions in Mormonism?
Aside from the “physical evidence” which could be argued on and on forever, we have higher issues.

• A vision or an interaction with spirit(s) proclaiming truth.
• The result of this message being promoted, perhaps becuase it is more attractive or convenient that Catholicism, is a DIVISION of the faithful. It is something that has eroded the community. People like easier or more attractive options.
• The division now places people against people. It is PEOPLE who do evil, not the church. It is fallen people. Now, instead of having unity and more clout in the fight against evil, there is arguing going between, as the devil twiddles his thumbs laughing at our stupidity. He has us occupied, thus we cannot be part of the battle when we are fighting from within.

Lies and deceit become exposed, truth lasts forever and then some. SPIRITUAL DECEPTION - better believe that is real. Considering the outcomes of Mormonism, in part briefly discussed above (yes I know there is still love there,but it is based on SOME truth, not all), I would question WHO the spirits were who did the visiting. Look at the outcomes. Slowly destroying the Church of Christ as a whole. Part by part.

Thats what the vision led to. Now how can that be justified as the truth? It has led one army brigade out to some pasture, where they cannot fight evil in unity with the rest.

 

[Allweather]

I am still waiting for Donnie & Marie to stop by.

Oh, man. That is REALLY scary.

 

[Allweather]

Thats what the vision led to. Now how can that be justified as the truth? It has led one army brigade out to some pasture, where they cannot fight evil in unity with the rest.

Exactly. Still, the gates of Hell have not, and never will, prevail against the Catholic Church. I believe that God is at work in all of these errors. All the heresies have served their purposes, in terms of forcing the Church to confront error, and the outcomes, though never without cost, have been clarifying.

I’m no thinker, and try not to pretend to be one. I’ve read about this issue of why God has allowed evil to exist. Some have said that there is a spiritual war going on between God and Satan in the heavenlies, and that men are the prize. The ultimate outcome has been prophesied in Scripture, yet the battle goes on, as if the losers are unable to read the prophesies, or believe them. They go hard-headed, and persist in their errors of disunity. When confronted with physical evidence, or the lack of it, they just close their eyes and continue waging war against the Almighty. Maybe God has hardened their hearts, the way He did Pharoah, again and again in the face of the plagues.

One problem in the case of the Mormons is that they look pretty good. As a general rule, they are very successful, good-looking, clean cut, healthy, energetic, optimistic. Salt Lake City is a model city. Even the slums there are clean. Many aspects of the Mormon story are impressive, especially in terms of the sacrifices that individual Mormons have made to the cause. Add to this the Americanism contained in the Mormon story (pay no attention to that theocracy behind the curtain), and you’ve got a very saleable product, and one that does well overseas.

I’ve also read that Satan is very beautiful, the pinnacle of God’s angelic creations, and that it is well able to use beauty to its own ends.

 

[artist3189]

.

One problem in the case of the Mormons is that they look pretty good. As a general rule, they are very successful, good-looking, clean cut, healthy, energetic, optimistic.

…and white, don’t forget white.

 

[artist3189]

One problem in the case of the Mormons is that they look pretty good. As a general rule, they are very successful, good-looking, clean cut, healthy, energetic, optimistic.
QUOTE]

…and White, don’t forget White

 

[Jerusha]

I saw a moderately dark Mishie the other day. :yup:

 

[artist3189]

Exactly.
One problem in the case of the Mormons is that they look pretty good. As a general rule, they are very successful, good-looking, clean cut, healthy, energetic, optimistic.

…and White, don’t forget White.

 

[Jerusha]

I saw a moderately dark mishie the other day …:yup:

 

[wussup]

According to the Paul, the coming of Christ would be after a “falling away first”, in fulfillment of the prophecies of Amos and Isaiah. In fact, ALL of the Church in Asia had fallen away before Paul and Timothy had died. In view of the history of the Catholic Church, While it appears the Apostacy of the Catholic Church occurred very shortly after Peter died, the Apostacy of the Early Church is not a dated event. One can see evidence of the Apostacy of the Early Christian Church by reading the List of Popes per the Catholic Encyclopedia, and its vain attempts to rationalize a successive order:

1. St. Peter died aound ad 67, however, the text of the article illustrates just how tenous is our knowledge of Peter’s last days. “The task of determining the year of St. Peter’s death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the “Chronicle” of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition of the twenty-five years’ episcopate of Peter (cf. Bartolini, “Sopra l’anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei gloriosi Apostoli”, Rome, 1868) . A different statement is furnished by the “Chronograph of 354” (ed. Duchesne, “Liber Pontificalis”, I, 1 sqq.). This refers St. Peter’s arrival in Rome to the year 30, and his death and that of St. Paul to 55.
   Duchesne has shown that the dates in the “Chronograph” were inserted in a list of the popes which contains only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of Christ’s death was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter’s pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five years’ pontificate (op. cit., introd., vi sqq.). This date has however been recently defended by Kellner (“Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte”, Ratisbon, 1908; “Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u. Legende in der Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters”, Bonn, 1909). Other historians have accepted the year 65 (e. g., Bianchini, in his edition of the “Liber Pontilicalis” in P. L… CXXVII. 435 sqq.) or 66 (e. g. Foggini, “De romani b. Petri itinere et episcopatu”, Florence, 1741; also Tillemont). Harnack endeavoured to establish the year 64 (i . e . the beginning of the Neronian persecution) as that of Peter’s death (“Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius”, pt. II, “Die Chronologie”, I, 240 sqq.). This date, which had been already supported by Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler, has been accepted by Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’eglise, I, 64). Erbes refers St. Peter’s death to 22 Feb., 63, St. Paul’s to 64 (“Texte u. Untersuchungen”, new series, IV, i, Leipzig, 1900, “Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom. Denkmaeler”). The date of Peter’s death is thus not yet decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on 9 July Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his death (see below).
   So we have a variance of 4 years.

 

[wussup]

1. St. Linus, was Pope to AD 76-79. However, Tertullian (AD 160) adamantly says Clement was next. The Roman Church however chooses to place more historicity in the words of Irenaeus (AD 165-170), Julius Africanus (AD 200), St. Hippolytus (AD 260) though why they would place any weight on his opinion is a mystery for so little is known of him, and Eusebius (AD 300). As can be seen, there is very weak historical evidence that Linus succeeded Peter as Pope, let alone as Bishop of Rome.
2. St. Anacletus, I will let the Catholic Dictionary say it all, “The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenroether (Hist. de l’église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Dëllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that "they are, without doubt, the same person"and that “the ‘Catalogue of Liberius’ merits little confidence before 230.” Duchesne, " Origines chretiennes ", ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his “Origines”, says "we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness“, and then he says, “But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little?” YES YES YES it is! The only claim the Cult of Mary has for validity is the succession argument! If the Cult of Mary (CoM) has no succession, it has no validity! And CoM was not even into its third ‘succession’ and they still haven’t cannot decide the name of the Pope!

There are lot’s more issues one can bring up, but simply highlighting the confusion, the lack of even the names of Popes, and debate within the Roman Church highlight the FACT that there is NO succession that can be traced with any degree of certainty. Paul’s marveling that the Galatian’s were ‘so soon turned away’ shows even he was amazed at how far the Apostacy of the Early Christian Church went so fast.

There is a lot of spin that is made to try and make the Apostacy of the Christian Church more palatable, But the bottom line is the myth of a Pope succession is a mythological as the title ‘Pope’.

 

[wussup]

Does that answer your question? There are two great references I would recommend, First, “The Apostacy of the Catholic Church” by Jonson, I believe it was published around 1980s. And Talmadges “The Great Apostacy”. You can get this online at cumorah.com/etexts/greatapostasy.txt.

 

[Allweather]

There are lot’s more issues one can bring up, but simply highlighting the confusion, the lack of even the names of Popes, and debate within the Roman Church highlight the FACT that there is NO succession that can be traced with any degree of certainty. Paul’s marveling that the Galatian’s were ‘so soon turned away’ shows even he was amazed at how far the Apostacy of the Early Christian Church went so fast.

There is a lot of spin that is made to try and make the Apostacy of the Christian Church more palatable, But the bottom line is the myth of a Pope succession is a mythological as the title ‘Pope’.

How does one who believes in the totality and universality of the Great Apostasy, explain the survival of the Church for 2000 years and going? Doesn’t it fly in the face of common sense to suppose that a church with no divine authority could survive the persecutions that came upon it until Constantine, not to mention the various serious heresies from within, the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the corruption of the Renaissance period, the Communist era, the Nazi era, and on and on?

While the papacy has pretty much always been the subject and object of infighting, as well as attacks from without, hasn’t the Church survived rather nicely and been a very holy institution? Able to reform itself over and over again? How would this be possible without God’s divine protection? Are there other, secular or religious, institutions on Earth that have survived as long? With any continuity of authority whatever?

 

[zerinus]

No, you never adequately addressed the issue of how there could be “good Christians” (your term) in the world without the divine authority being present in the successors of the Apostles, the bishops and the priests. But, I’m not arguing with you. Rather I am providing a running commentary on your statements, which I feel is important so that the lurkers, some of whom may be thinking about Mormonism, will be more informed.

Too bad you have nothing to new to say that is worth discussing. Everything you are saying here you have said before, and have been adequately answered. You are not saying anything new that hasn’t been already addressed. If you are talking to the “lurkers,” as you vainly suppose, then this should burst your bubble. They can see for themselves that all have been adequately addressed, but you make yourself deaf dumb and blind, and pretend that it hasn’t been. Here is a list of my previous discussions with you on this subject:

This list is from the thread called any former Mormons our there?:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1812022&postcount=473
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1812104&postcount=474
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1812699&postcount=478
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1812885&postcount=483
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1816624&postcount=499
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1816646&postcount=500

This list is from the thread called Mormon Patriarchal Blessings?:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1872792&postcount=71
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1872920&postcount=75
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1873041&postcount=79
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1873126&postcount=80
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1873212&postcount=82
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1873360&postcount=84

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Too bad you have nothing to new to say that is worth discussing. Everything you are saying here you have said before, and have been adequately answered. You are not saying anything new that hasn’t been already addressed. If you are talking to the “lurkers,” as you vainly suppose, then this should burst your bubble. They can see for themselves that all have been adequately addressed, but you make yourself deaf dumb and blind, and pretend that it hasn’t been.

My guess is that lurkers are mostly just drop-in folks who don’t back track into the history of these discussions. I’d hate to think that one of them dropped in and all he or she saw was Zerinus doing his robot imitation of “I believe there was an apostasy. I believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. I believe the Book of Mormon is true.” So we have to cover these things over and over again. I know it galls you that Catholics on a Catholic forum oppose all your hard work, but that’s how it is. If you want to have it all your own way, why don’t you start your own forum and pay your own bills?

 

[zerinus]

How does one who believes in the totality and universality of the Great Apostasy, explain the survival of the Church for 2000 years and going? Doesn’t it fly in the face of common sense to suppose that a church with no divine authority could survive the persecutions that came upon it until Constantine, not to mention the various serious heresies from within, the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the corruption of the Renaissance period, the Communist era, the Nazi era, and on and on?

See reply above (post #111).

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

See reply above (post #111).

zerinus

I’m not seeing your addressment of that question in #111, Zerinus. Is it imbedded in one of the links you provided?

FWIW the only thing I remember you saying in the past is that there is precedent for long term survival of a religion without divine authority, and you offered up the examples of Islam and, I think, Buddhism, Shinto, stuff like that. Pretty weak, if you ask me. Islam might make the best argument, but it has been in decline for 500+ years, and is a mess today, so I don’t see how any claims for it can be made. Certainly, none in comparison with Christianity, even with the Protestants cut out of it, which they aren’t.

Besides, I’m hoping to get wussup’s (name removed by moderator)ut on this, as he has offered the most elaborate defense of the Great Apostasy false charge, far more than yours. Why don’t you just relax and let him answer from his own point of view?

 

[artist3189]

1. St. Linus, was Pope to AD 76-79. However, Tertullian (AD 160) adamantly says Clement was next. The Roman Church however chooses to place more historicity in the words of Irenaeus (AD 165-170), Julius Africanus (AD 200), St. Hippolytus (AD 260) though why they would place any weight on his opinion is a mystery for so little is known of him, and Eusebius (AD 300). As can be seen, there is very weak historical evidence that Linus succeeded Peter as Pope, let alone as Bishop of Rome.

There are lot’s more issues one can bring up, but simply highlighting the confusion, the lack of even the names of Popes, and debate within the Roman Church highlight the FACT that there is NO succession that can be traced with any degree of certainty. Paul’s marveling that the Galatian’s were ‘so soon turned away’ shows even he was amazed at how far the Apostacy of the Early Christian Church went so fast.

There is a lot of spin that is made to try and make the Apostacy of the Christian Church more palatable, But the bottom line is the myth of a Pope succession is a mythological as the title ‘Pope’.

The really amazing thing about all the stuff you posted, is that this is a more tangible, *hands on history *than most of the LDS Church, and all that stuff you posted goes back to the first century, when writing and recording of such events was rare, when the transfer and exchange of information was arduous, when the Church was in it’s earliest stage, and somehow, you show this to be a weakness. Because of the confusion of translation between the use of Latin or Greek names, because proper surnames where not in use. This is the great proof for the Apostasy? We know less about the LDS history from only 175 years ago. It’s amazing the lengths you people will go through to wiggle around the truth. You say the Apostasy of the CATHOLIC CHURCH occurred shortly after Peter, but the Apostasy of the Early Church wasn’t a dated event. So now to understand your claim, **the *conclusion would be 'the Catholic Church DID existPRIOR *to the death of Peter, from day one, then Apostatized after Peters death…and that the Catholic Church, however you, wssup, would define the CC in the early first century, is a different church than the rest of the Early Church. Show me how. Succession of Popes does nothing but highlight the same archaeological problems associated with all first century material. Confused, lacking in some areas, unrecorded data. How much was written, how much was passed down. The ***fact ***that this lineage was *recognized from the very earlest **dates *PROVES much more than you think. You need to read more than what your LDS handlers have you cut and paste. Where is the all the material Joseph Smith supposedly received? Lost so soon???. You cut and paste information from ‘Catholic sources’ as if you found a way to take our own material and use it against us. Boy oh boy, that’s never been tried before, right. Don’t you think the Catholic Church is aware of what this material reads like and how the early chronology looks. Beep Beep…Now here this!!!. If this information you’ve recited doesn’t FIT what the Catholic Church wants everyone to believe, why is it *‘AS IT *IS’? Why haven’t they, re-created documents to fill in the blanks, changed wording to be more convincing for their ‘claims’, why haven’t they created a better time-line so people like you would have one less source to pervert? The LDS has feverishly worked to do just that, they change theology like I change socks. This LDS Apostasy argument is nothing more than the old, 'I’ll give you the ‘conclusion first’ that we want to have, you go back and try to put together bits of information that sounds and looks believable and that will come to conclusion we need" Old school **** with no teeth. Nothing changes the fact that you guys are crazy little god wannabes. News flash, the reason the Church history reads as it does is because that’s how it reads, incomplete, and the Catholic Church doesn’t REALLY GIVE A RIP ABOUT THE LDS CHURCH, WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT OR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT. That history of succession has existed as tradition within the Church for 2 millennium. This wasn’t cooked up last year to prove a point. You show me that the Catholic Church, and I mean, the ‘Catholic Church’, whoever and whatever you say that was… names, places, was a DIFFERENT church than the rest of the Early Church. That should be good. All those white shirted idiots will be racking their brains on this one.

 

[majick275]

so despite the references to Talmedge (A mormon apostle NOT a historian or theologian and certainly not objective in this) what we have from the LDS in this thread is that basically the “proof” of the apostasy is that the Catholics can’t show the accurate succession of popes. Yet when we read those ECF documents that were referenced we see it’s not quite that simple. They all agree on who was pope. The sometimes have different spellings of some of the names, they do disagree over the order of a few of the early popes. What is neglected here is the doctrines being taught and the practices directed. If those contradicted what the apostles taught or if current catholic doctrine contradicted it then we would have a real apostasy. we do not. No LDS can show these things. we can see in the new testament what was taught to the apostles, we have the didache and sacred tradition showing us how those teachings were passed on and we can see that they don’t contradict sacred scripture. we can see the development of doctrine in the writings of the ECFs and still see no contradiction and finally we can look at the current catechism and still see the same doctrines being taught. NO APOSTASY in it’s true semantic sense.

Let’s look at the other position being put forth here by the LDS. That being that okay the Christians were faithful and true so they preserved/taught correct doctrine but the priesthood leaders died off and either had no successors or the successors strayed and thus the collective priesthood authority of the church was “removed”. (think the magisterium invalidated) This is problematic from a catholic point of view in that it appears to contradict the Bible teaching that Christ would not fail and that God would be with us always. (apostasy in this sense is seen as the church failing and the Holy Spirit departing) This is also problematic form an LDS point of view because we see their teaching that the head of every faithful household would have held the melchisadec priesthood, We know that from Joseph Smith’s own writings (like the D&C) that only one holder of the higher priesthood is needed to carry out all of the necessary ordinances and the running of the church. we also know that LDS teaching is that a faithful elder receives revelation and thus could in fact be directed by God in carrying on the church. (JS and OC did this for some time as first and second elder) thus it would have been incredibly easy to call and ordain new apostles, first presidency, etc. especially if you believe that 3 nephites and John are all available to help. so that brings us to the early LDS position that those 4 were “withdrawn” and ALL faithful either died off or apostatized. (all their creeds an abomination, all their professors corrupt) which takes us to the first indefensible position. NO APOSTASY!

The LDS like to believe that GOD works in consistent patterns and nowhere in the previous “dispensations” do you see any apostasy being allowed to grow to universal status nor do you see an 1800 year “break” in God having a church on earth. It can’t be. God never abandons us. The great apostasy is a myth that all restorationists require to justify their own apostasy.

 

[zerinus]

My guess is that lurkers are mostly just drop-in folks who don’t back track into the history of these discussions. I’d hate to think that one of them dropped in and all he or she saw was Zerinus doing his robot imitation of “I believe there was an apostasy. I believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. I believe the Book of Mormon is true.” So we have to cover these things over and over again. I know it galls you that Catholics on a Catholic forum oppose all your hard work, but that’s how it is. If you want to have it all your own way, why don’t you start your own forum and pay your own bills?

Then you must have a very low opinion of the “lurkers”. If they are really as dumb as you think they are, then you can keep them! They are better off remaining Catholics as far as I am concerned. The Catholic Church can have all the dumb ones, and we will have all the smart ones!

zerinus