Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

[wussup]

Deep sigh. The question was, when do we think the apostacy occured. I gave an answer, based on CoM (Cult of Mary) History. The full context of the line of succession is that there was NO line of succession. The amount of the printed words supposedly written by the first 10 ‘popes’ (not including Peter, but then he wasn’t a pope) is…well contained in these parenthesis ( ). The vast amount of information contained about these first ‘popes’ did not exist until Irenaeus made them exist. To say ‘We know less about the LDS history from only 175 years ago’ is incredibly asinine. Why don’t you give me a list of all the first hand accounts of the first 15 popes. I promise I will read them all. Don’t include Irenaeus, I have read ‘Against Heresies’, and it does not count as anything more than fiction. Bottom line. I gave you an answer. Rather than addressing the issues, you insist on making ad verecundium, ad hominem, argument ad ignorantum, and straw man arguments.

 

[artist3189]

Deep sigh. The question was, when do we think the apostacy occured. I gave an answer, based on CoM (Cult of Mary) History. The full context of the line of succession is that there was NO line of succession. The amount of the printed words supposedly written by the first 10 ‘popes’ (not including Peter, but then he wasn’t a pope) is…well contained in these parenthesis ( ). The vast amount of information contained about these first ‘popes’ did not exist until Irenaeus made them exist. To say ‘We know less about the LDS history from only 175 years ago’ is incredibly asinine. Why don’t you give me a list of all the first hand accounts of the first 15 popes. I promise I will read them all. Don’t include Irenaeus, I have read ‘Against Heresies’, and it does not count as anything more than fiction. Bottom line. I gave you an answer. Rather than addressing the issues, you insist on making ad verecundium, ad hominem, argument ad ignorantum, and straw man arguments.

You claim, the Catholic Church apostatized after Peter, and that the, your words, Early Church apostatized some time later. Show me, definitively who and what, the Catholic Church was, and how is was different or separate from the, your words, Early Church. Show me. There is indisputable evidence that the Early Church had begun to ‘defer’ to the Roman Churches authority in the early part of the fist century.Read the letter of Clement, and understand *how those early writings ****where regarded with the same reverence ***as some Scripture because of the rarity, even then, of AUTHORITATIVE DISSERTATION. Read Polycarp, understand his position within the Church of Asia, and how that position, as he understood it, was to be under scrutiny of the Roman bishop. How can someone, within years of the end of the Apostolic Age, threaten to Excommunicate someone, unless that authority was already recognized, acknowledged and understood. Printed words, by the first Popes, what about Moroni’s printed words. Again, do you have any clue, any about the archaeological understanding of first century life and how SILLY you sound saying, your words “*The amount of the printed words supposedly written by *the first 10 'popes” Huh, what? Do you think they were they ONLY Christian living, that nothing else was passed down. You deny the obvious. Straw man, what about Joseph Smith and his fallacious book, undocumented, no archaeological evidence to prove his claims. Please… and cult of Mary, that’s even better. Disregard that, within years of the Apostolic age, references of Mary, markings and symbols of honor to here where all over the Christian world. You’re the cult my friend. Show me what the Catholic Church 'was 'during and after Peter, as opposed to the “Early Chuch”, I’m waiting…

 

[zerinus]

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.

Not so. It is your argument that suffers from a serious logical deficit. Your entire argument rests on the (unsubstantiated) assumption that a religion that lacks sacramental validity and ecclesiastical legitimacy, and the divine authority that necessarily goes with it, cannot survive as an earthly institution very long, or even accomplish some good in the world. Well, what is the basis of making that assumption? You have to prove that that is a valid assumption before making any logical deductions from it, and you have not done so. If, on the other hand, only one example can be found in history of a religion that has survived for a length of time as an earthly institution, and accomplished some good in the world, without possessing any sacramental validity, that destroys your assumption, and all the argument that you have logically built upon it. As it happens, here are plenty of such examples, and I had given you quite a few.

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.

That is another one of your unsubstantiated assumptions. You may think that Islam is in a mess, but Moslems would disagree with you.

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?

Good for him! Proving that Christianity is apostate is not the hardest thing to do in the world.

zerinus

 

[artist3189]

Good for him! Proving that Christianity is apostate is not the hardest thing to do in the world.

zerinus

SO, MORMONISM ‘IS NOT’ CHRISTIAN THEN… IS THAT YOUR STATEMENT AND CAN WE QUOTE YOU ON THAT ONCE AND FOR ALL? HAVE THE GUTS AND JUST SAY IT.

 

[cubalibre]

There is almost no information on half of the apostles except for a list of their names. Does that suggest that they were invented or did not exist?

 

[VWcrazy]

Our LDS contributors still fail to show book, chapter, and verse where Scriptures state that the entire Church will fall into Apostacy.

 

[cubalibre]

Originally Posted by wussup
Deep sigh. The question was, when do we think the apostacy occured. I gave an answer, based on CoM (Cult of Mary) History.

Cult of Mary? Here again is another example of how disrespectful and derogatory Mormons can be? He can and mischaracterize Catholics and defame the Mother of God at the same time!

 

[Allweather]

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

I have no opinion of lurkers. Most people are shy and will not dive into an argument in progress. And not all of them are Catholics, as I’m sure you know. Lots of non-Catholics check in here and observe, but do not post. We wouldn’t want them to find only Zerinus and wussup scratching each others’ backs with the “I believe” Mormon mantras. And don’t forget who pays for this forum, and it isn’t you.

 

[Allweather]

You may think that Islam is in a mess, but Moslems would disagree with you.

Actually, no. Plenty of Moslems agree that it is a mess, especially the extremists who are trying to plunge the corrupt moslem world into a holy war against the West as a means to shock it out of its stupor.

Good for him! Proving that Christianity is apostate is not the hardest thing to do in the world.

zerinus

Not hard. Impossible. Rhetoric. That’s all you’ve got. Little word games. You can prove nothing. The fact of the Catholic Church in existence today is the best argument of all against the filthy accusations of apostasy against Christians, and you have nothing to counter it. Facts are stubborn things. Your three or four million TBMs are straining hard to believe the unbelievable, prove the unprovable, but in the end, all they can do is roll up into that glassy-eyed Mormon fetal position and recite the mantra: “I believe the apostasy is true. I believe the Book of Mormon is true. I believe that Gordon Hinckley is a prophet of God.” Ya Da, Ya Da, Ya Da.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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.

There’s circular logic for you! Wussup wants us to chew on the cud of Talmadge and Jonson. And they belong to what brainwashed conglomerate? The Mormon church, of course.

But wussup likes to pick and choose early writers (out of context or with forced upon authority with which they never had in the Church’s history) to pepper his hare-brained claims of Apostacy.

The reason is simple: when faced with problems of formation, go on the offensive to deflect any attention on those ab initio, fundamental flaws:

1. Invented, pastiched, cobbled-together ‘scripture’
2. Secret seerstone, talking salamander, ‘angel’ with no known precedent, and other magical events
3. Polygamy, child molestation, rape under the lie of divine ordinance.
4. Goofy pantheology, that is constantly being redefined.
5. Contradictory and racist ‘scripture’ and practices.
6. Lack of historical proof and archeological proof on claimed civilizations in the Mormon ‘world view.’

You will never read any thing on any website addressing these fundamental flaws, you will only see wussup and zerinus and his legion of non-Christian Laminates (or Nehites or ??) throwing one idiotic, non sequitor after another.

Their justification for living is based upon the denigration of the Church founded by Jesus and given to Peter (first among equals), organized with Paul and James and others, and handed down (‘traditio’) through Apostolic Succession through the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, headquarted in Rome with the Bishop of Rome leading all the Bishops of the Universal Church.

The Mormons got food banks, basketball courts in their ‘stakes’, and a corner on the white, short-sleeved shirt market.

Pax Christi

 

[zerinus]

I have no opinion of lurkers. Most people are shy and will not dive into an argument in progress. And not all of them are Catholics, as I’m sure you know. Lots of non-Catholics check in here and observe, but do not post. We wouldn’t want them to find only Zerinus and wussup scratching each others’ backs with the “I believe” Mormon mantras. And don’t forget who pays for this forum, and it isn’t you.

Well good luck to you. If you think you can fool them with your trashy arguments, go ahead. Who am I to try to stop you.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Actually, no. Plenty of Moslems agree that it is a mess, especially the extremists who are trying to plunge the corrupt moslem world into a holy war against the West as a means to shock it out of its stupor.

Not hard. Impossible. Rhetoric. That’s all you’ve got. Little word games. You can prove nothing. The fact of the Catholic Church in existence today is the best argument of all against the filthy accusations of apostasy against Christians, and you have nothing to counter it. Facts are stubborn things. Your three or four million TBMs are straining hard to believe the unbelievable, prove the unprovable, but in the end, all they can do is roll up into that glassy-eyed Mormon fetal position and recite the mantra: “I believe the apostasy is true. I believe the Book of Mormon is true. I believe that Gordon Hinckley is a prophet of God.” Ya Da, Ya Da, Ya Da.

Okay weatherman, I am not going to waste my time getting into an endless back and forth with you over your worthless arguments. Anybody who reads these posts, be they lurkers or not, can judge for themselves who has presented the most reasonable discussion, and I leave it to them to make that decision. I don’t think that they are as dumb as you seem to think they are.

zerinus

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Okay weatherman, I am not going to waste my time getting into an endless back and forth with you over your worthless arguments. Anybody who reads these posts, be they lurkers or not, can judge for themselves who has presented the most reasonable discussion, and I leave it to them to make that decision. I don’t think that they are as dumb as you seem to think they are.

zerinus

Allweather NEVER said the “lurkers” were dumb, Zerinus.

You said it.

 

[majick275]

Deep sigh. The question was, when do we think the apostacy occured. I gave an answer, based on CoM (Cult of Mary) History. The full context of the line of succession is that there was NO line of succession. The amount of the printed words supposedly written by the first 10 ‘popes’ (not including Peter, but then he wasn’t a pope) is…well contained in these parenthesis ( ). The vast amount of information contained about these first ‘popes’ did not exist until Irenaeus made them exist. To say ‘We know less about the LDS history from only 175 years ago’ is incredibly asinine. Why don’t you give me a list of all the first hand accounts of the first 15 popes. I promise I will read them all. Don’t include Irenaeus, I have read ‘Against Heresies’, and it does not count as anything more than fiction. Bottom line. I gave you an answer. Rather than addressing the issues, you insist on making ad verecundium, ad hominem, argument ad ignorantum, and straw man arguments.

well let’s see about those first ten popes. You may not include him but we certainly include Peter. He left us some excellent writings. Then of course Clement of Rome left us some good words. We also have (besides Irenaeus) the handed down from the early popes writings of julius africanus, eusebius, st hippolytus, st polycarp , if you don’t like against heresies perhaps liber pontificalis is more apropos.

I think you are still missing the point though. where is the apostasy? when did the doctrines change? We have sacred scripture (specifically the new testament) to tell us what the apostles were taught by Jesus. I have yet to see the LDS show us where the new testament is false doctrine.

Next we have sacred tradition, the didache and some of the earliest ECFs to show us what the apostles taught to others. (the new testament shows us some of this as well) keep in mind that the first ten popes only takes us to 154 AD. These show us doctrines consistent with the gospels. No apostasy here.

We have the anti-nicene fathers prolific writings to show us what was taught and practiced by the apostolic successors. That sure looks like the same gospel. still no apostasy and with well documented heresies it seems it would be hard to hide such an event.

then we have the various ecumenical councils showing development of doctrine to the present. We can see from these and the current catechism that we still teach the same gospel. NO APOSTASY.

so what is this falling away? well it started with the heretics, then the east-west schism where even the faithful parted ways. next we have henry viii, the protestant reformation and we are off to the races with apostasy. Every year more and more men (and women like ellen white) start their own churches and lure people away from the true faith. THERE is your apostasy. it is all over the world and it gets all types of folks. BUT it can NEVER prevail against the church that God built. in spite of the many apostates, false prophets and deceivers in the world the Catholic church is STILL teaching the same gospel that it always has. the one that God gave us.

Show me in the BoM or the Bible what uniquely mormon doctrines were “restored”. We can all see that the LDS church today doesn’t even teach the same doctrine as Joseph Smith taught.

The truth is obvious you cannot ignore 2 Peter 2. STOP!!! Repent and be baptized. God loves you.

 

[Allweather]

Well good luck to you. If you think you can fool them with your trashy arguments, go ahead. Who am I to try to stop you.

zerinus

The answer is, you are nobody to try to stop me. And thanks for the compliment. That is great praise, coming from a TBM.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

.
Show me in the BoM or the Bible what uniquely mormon doctrines were “restored”. We can all see that the LDS church today doesn’t even teach the same doctrine as Joseph Smith taught.

quote]

 

[Allweather]

Okay weatherman, I am not going to waste my time getting into an endless back and forth with you over your worthless arguments. Anybody who reads these posts, be they lurkers or not, can judge for themselves who has presented the most reasonable discussion, and I leave it to them to make that decision. I don’t think that they are as dumb as you seem to think they are.

zerinus

It is very big of Zerinus to allow people to make up their own minds. The problem, of course, is that the Zerinus company is making no headway here at Catholic Answers. They are here to convert people, not, as they sometimes claim with fingers crossed, to have fun discussions about comparitive religion. If Zerinus were anything more than a little missionary, he’d spend a lot less time here. The fact that he is here all day, every day, even Sunday, when he should be in church, is testimony to his mission here, which is to convert, not merely to discuss. So, we follow Zerinus around, making sure that he doesn’t steal the silverware, or pee in the bathwater. He doesn’t like that. Too bad.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I don’t know how to do this, Allweather, but one of us should start a thread:

Why Mormonism is a Lie

We would get every exMormon on the Forum to join in with real-life experiences with the ‘saints,’ and more questions about that goofy pantheology that Zerinus and his White Shirted Cyclists (sounds like a neo-punk band!) would have to ignore.

A call to arms (and hands) A call to prayer!!

Pax Christi

 

[Allweather]

Not so. It is your argument that suffers from a serious logical deficit. Your entire argument rests on the (unsubstantiated) assumption that a religion that lacks sacramental validity and ecclesiastical legitimacy, and the divine authority that necessarily goes with it, cannot survive as an earthly institution very long, or even accomplish some good in the world. Well, what is the basis of making that assumption? You have to prove that that is a valid assumption before making any logical deductions from it, and you have not done so. If, on the other hand, only one example can be found in history of a religion that has survived for a length of time as an earthly institution, and accomplished some good in the world, without possessing any sacramental validity, that destroys your assumption, and all the argument that you have logically built upon it. As it happens, here are plenty of such examples, and I had given you quite a few.

I don’t remember “quite a few” I remember Islam and Budhism, and maybe one other. None of them germane. The reason they don’t fit is because of the institutional authority that makes Catholicism unique among world religions. None of the examples you posited has this central authority that claims (and can prove from the historical record) to be established by the Savior himself. All of them are cultural phenomena at best. Only Islam has any claim, and we all know what shape Islam is in today, or at least, some of us who actually read the papers do.

It is the Papacy that makes Catholicism unique. Because God is so smart, he instituted his Church upon what came later to be known as the Papacy, and that has insured its amazing survivability. The Mormon cult tries hard to imitate Catholicism, but of course it can only look plastic by comparison. The Mormon cult claims a restored priesthood and sacraments, but they are just cheap imitations of the real thing. That’s why so many people end up dissatisfied as Mormons. They aren’t being fed with the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord in the Eucharist, but rather with little pieces of crumbly bread and tap water.

 

[kellie]

Proving that Christianity is apostate is not the hardest thing to do in the world.

zerinus

Then why hasn’t it been done yet?

Every thread I have ever read at CAF asking about the LDS has always deteriorated to posts arguing about how to argue.
The entire point of the thread seems to get lost as both parties, especially the members of the LDS get hung up on how to argue, rather than providing answers.

Maybe we should all ask a question to the members on these forums who are Mormons that can be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘one word’ answers.

Such as…
Do Mormons believe John is still alive?
Answer from Mormons - “Yes”

So my question is this, and I don’t care if it has been asked a million times before, I wish it to be answered now as simply as possible, with facts.

Why did God take the ministry away from John, after He gave the ministry to him at Pentecost?

Thanks