Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

[majick275]

Allow me to teach you the error of your argument…

RE: Succession. The Cult of Mary (CoM) bases its entire authority on SUCCESSION. If you cannot trace a succession of Popes, then you have no authority and hence, are apostate.

this simply isn’t true. apostolic succession is our doctrine. that is the bishops!!! as long as there were bishops we had valid priesthood authority. Councils of bishops have always defined the doctrine of the catholic church. they select the pope. the pope is the bishop of Rome and thus first among equals just like Peter was. We know that there was a valid succession of properly ordained bishops in the holy see. your wrangling over the correct Anglicization of their name or the exact order doesn’t negate this. you need to understand the catholic use of the term APOSTOLIC. the Catholic church defines itself as the true church because it is: ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. it has nothing to do with the straw man you posted on the papacy.

RE: The (single) letter of Clement is a beautiful work and Polycarp‘s writings are valuable historical evidences… However, it says nothing regarding either himself, Lineaus, or even Peter being the ‘Pope’. There is no line of succession here.

I guess that depends on how you interpret it but I want stop the red herring and get back to my point. Those Writings DO show us what the DOCTRINES were. THAT is how we can see there was no apostasy. They show us that the church was still teaching what they had received from the apostles.

RE: Kinsmans’ assertions…its Talmage (who was an LDS, a PhD in Geology actually) and Jonson, who was actually a Swiss Catholic. Here is an ad hominem. Even if both were LDS (Jonson died before his book was published a Catholic), does not mean their argument is false.

you are correct but it also doesn’t mean they are true. You appear to present them as “experts” and thus we have to show the truth. Talmadge is NOT an expert he is a geologist with an obvious bias in this case. that does need to be considered in weighing his arguments. quite frankly the only difference between his words and your own are that he is more widely published. Johnson isn’t necessarily as biased but he is just as unqualified to be considered an expert on this topic.

You folks talk a good talk about being such great defenders of the faith, apologists, then prove it. Majik, you are embarrassing yourself. Your argument is a classic ad ignorantum. You said, “I have yet to see the LDS show us where the new testament is false doctrine“. When an argument is used saying that because something cannot be proved (to wit, where new testament is false doctrine) that something else is true, (to wit, the CoM). If you want to see where false doctrine has been added to the Bible by the CoM, I already mentioned Revelation’s add to or take away verse.

please… you are taking me out of context. My point is an unbroken line of doctrine being faithfully taight by the catholic church. That disproves apostasy. The Mormon position does not show us that the NT is apostate therefore we have a valid start point. The ECF’s show us a continuation of those doctrines and also give us the historical context in which they were applied. What is lacking from the LDS position is the “restoration”. You can’t show us what was restored. The uniquely mormon doctrines and practices aren’t found in the Bible or the BoM. they are found in the D&C and the Temple ceremony. Those were revealed primarily by Joseph Smith NOT as restored teaching but as line upon line, higher law ADDITIONS.

 

[majick275]

(Continued)

Again, while this is a straw man argument, I will humor you. Adding this verse (ironically) says that the Canon of Scripture is closed. It is not, otherwise the Books of John would not be in the Bible, but the scribe who inserted it and the Pope who approved the heresy give evidence of the apostasy.

that contradicts the whole process that went into consolidating the various scriptures into the Bible. I think all of the “don’t add” verses i nteh bible refer specifically that particular letter or revelation NOT the whole book. I believe in the straight out of the catechism position that there is no new PUBLIC revelation because Jesus brought the FULL Gospel. He came at the right time as the FULFILLMENT of the law and the prophets. thus all we need in scripture is the law and prophets that led up to him, his own words and the words of the apostles that he personally commissioned to teach his own words.

Wait, wait!!! I get it now! This question had a point! There was no interest in understanding the LDS point, and I could give evidence until I am blue in the fingers, and know one will respond intelligently.

that’s not fair and you know it. You have been quite contemptuous with your whole “no writings from the first ten popes” (which was proven wrong), the whole “cult of mary” (technically we are the cult of Christ) and you don’t give evidence. you make unfounded assertions and quote LDS writings that are all based on the assumption that Joseph Smith was right. Thus the “evidence” of the apostasy is that Joseph Smith said there was one. You don’t show us where the original doctrines were strayed from nor do you show us where they were restored. The whole LDS missionary process is a straw man. Once you are LDS you don’t practice any “restored” doctrines. You practice a combination of existing doctrines with a slight variation no different than any other protestant and new doctrines that simply never existed before Joseph Smith. Worse you keep changing the doctrines and practices with only some mans word that God said he changed his mind on what we are supposed to do. where is your proof that the true doctrine of the early Christians is missing? where is the proof that the early Christina church strayed from those doctrines? where is your proof that current catholic doctrine is not in accord with the original? I think we showed you intelligent arguments that the it isn’t so and that we do have a continuity of doctrine from Jesus to the present. You don’t seem interested in anything other than standard LDS missionary canned argument trolling for weak minded, uncatechized potential converts. YOu really need to read 2 Peter in it’s entirety and see how that applies to Joseph Smith with just what you know from LDS history.
The truth will set you free.

 

[wussup]

My position on the apostacy has been clearly stated. The full details can be read in the The Great Apostacy by Talmage. He highlights the very changes you ask for in great detail. On the other hand, if you wish to consider him biased, an ad hominem attack, please do so. On the other hand, if you can show me errors in his logic, I would be most interested.

 

[Allweather]

I only stay to bug you!

zerinus

Heck, I know you mean that in a friendly way, Zerinus.

I hope you won’t be too upset to know that you don’t bug me in the least. I’ve told you many times that, personally, I’m glad you’re here and I hope you stay for years. Christians couldn’t have dreamed up a better example of Mormonism gone wild than You, Z. All the Mormons I know personally are gentle, well-spoken, polite, and choose their words carefully. It is much harder to argue against a religion that produces this type of personality than it is to argue against one that produces the sort of smash-mouth style you present here. I probably shouldn’t be giving you any advice, but, rather, let you just go on the way you do, because you make it so easy to see the real fruit of Mormonism in a person’s life. So I will shut up now, and make way for the next bull-in-a-china-closet deposit from you.

 

[MrS]

LOL! If I “bore my testimony,” then I would be accused of “testimony bearing” and “proselytizing” instead of engaging in meaningful debate. My testimony, however, comes through in the conviction of my beliefs, which is manifest in my posts. I don’t need to “bear my testimony”. The real reason why you are asking that, though, is because you want to figure out who I am! LOL! Well, I ani’t gona tell you!

zerinus

not hardly… we are not interested in who you are… that is insignificant… rather, it might be interesting to some as to WHAT you are… not just what you believe, but why.

Although, you might have some difficulty explaining WHAT you are, and at the same time reconciling it with reason.

,

 

[JonathanKinsman]

My position on the apostacy has been clearly stated. The full details can be read in the The Great Apostacy by Talmage. He highlights the very changes you ask for in great detail. On the other hand, if you wish to consider him biased, an ad hominem attack, please do so. On the other hand, if you can show me errors in his logic, I would be most interested.

Hey wassup! Do us all a favor and list those “full details” from Talmage’s tome.

Of course, only if you’ve read his book or have a copy of it or being a good Mormon know what the “details” are.

Referring others to a book outside of a thread ASKING for those details is pretty much, well, intellectually feeble.

Come on, you like to throw quotations around! How about a little Talmadge on “The Great Apostacy”?

Pax Christi

 

[JonathanKinsman]

**That’s it in a nutshell: wassup using this ‘circular’ logic of QUOTING MORMON WRITINGS to prove the validity of MORMON DOCTRINE.:banghead: **

 

[majick275]

My position on the apostacy has been clearly stated. The full details can be read in the The Great Apostacy by Talmage. He highlights the very changes you ask for in great detail. On the other hand, if you wish to consider him biased, an ad hominem attack, please do so. On the other hand, if you can show me errors in his logic, I would be most interested.

nice dodge but no dice. I have no ad hominem attack against Talmadge, I merely point out facts that he was a geologost and a mormon, both which should be considered when analyzing his position. before we go into a full book report though perhaps you would be willing to point out one or two significant doctrinal changes that “prove” the apostasy from his book and then I wouls be happy to show the other side of the coin. Otherwise you know quite well that we won’t be going chapter by chapter through his book. I have read it multiple times and don’t see the specifics that you claim. care to start with one?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Attention Mormons,

Your religion is founded on the assertion that their was a Great Apostacy early in Christian history and that until Joseph Smith was revealed to, the “true” Christian church was non-existent.

My specific questions. When did the Great Apostacy occur? quote]

 

[BumpSetSpike]

But that is pre-supposeing that The One True Church fell from the truth.
BIG supposition there! No proof.

I know that there is some verses in the BoM and the most definately in the D&C… I’ve been shown them when I’ve asked this also. That, however, is exactly the problem. I don’t want to see it from these books as I very much doubt them. I don’t think my seminary teacher understands that when I ask him questions and he continues to give my verses from these books. But I’m not going to keep fighting him on it.

I do, however, know that there are some verses in the Bible that could be interpreted to mean that if handled by the wrong people, though I don’t exactly know which they are.

That is some completely illogical reasoning.
This suggests that an all loving Creator left ***millions ***(!) of his created humans out in the cold of spiritual darkness for 1800 years!!
What a small god that must be. Certainly not The God I worship.

I COMPLETELY agree with you on this. This is an example on one question that I continually have had to ask and explain to my teacher. His response is always the same… baptisms for the dead and learning the gospel while they’re in “paradise/spirit prison” (or, purgatory, in more familiar terms).

I still have a problem believing that. Like you, I don’t think that God would allow billions of people to be mislead for almost 2000 years and then leave it up to some LDS guy in the future to think about them and baptize them by proxy, if that’s how I understand my church teaches.
Or, suppose it is the other way, where they are taught in the next life. What would be the point in sending them here if life is a small test in time, as the LDS church teaches? What could you spiritually gain from that?

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond!

cassie

 

[rmcmullan]

Apostolic succession is our doctrine. that is the bishops!!! as long as there were bishops we had valid priesthood authority. Councils of bishops have always defined the doctrine of the catholic church. they select the pope. the pope is the bishop of Rome and thus first among equals just like Peter was.

Now I haven’t heard that before. Can you tell me more about the bishops? Are they like stake presidents? Is a priest elected to become a bishop? What are their duties?

 

[jediliz]

The Bishop is in charge of the local diocese. He says Mass, he writes letters to his faithful. He is not “elected” he is appointed, usually by the Pope. The Bishop also is usually present at Confirmation. He also can say special feast day Masses throughout the year.

My diocese is just a regular diocese, so he’s just Bishop. In Omaha, their Bishop is an ArchBishop. That’s a little different, but mostly the same duties, just a bigger area that he’s in charge of.

Our Bishop in Lincoln is going be the speaker giving Lenten Series talk. I think I’ll try to go the night he is speaking.

I think it goes like this: Priest / Monsignor —> Bishop —> ? Not sure (maybe Cardinal?)

 

[Allweather]

Now I haven’t heard that before. Can you tell me more about the bishops? Are they like stake presidents? Is a priest elected to become a bishop? What are their duties?

Bishops have authority over a geographical area that includes many parishes. The priests of that diocese report to him. He ordains priests and deacons within his diocese. He insures that priests are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, and assigns duties to priests within his diocese. He manages the diocesan budget. He is ordained for life, but must submit a letter of resignation to the Pope at age 75, which the Pope can accept or not, at his discretion.

Cardinals are bishops who’ve been selected by the Pope to serve as electors in event of the death of the Pope. Otherwise, they are no different from bishops.

I hope I got that right, someone correct me if I didn’t.

 

[Allweather]

I still have a problem believing that. Like you, I don’t think that God would allow billions of people to be mislead for almost 2000 years and then leave it up to some LDS guy in the future to think about them and baptize them by proxy, if that’s how I understand my church teaches.
Or, suppose it is the other way, where they are taught in the next life. What would be the point in sending them here if life is a small test in time, as the LDS church teaches? What could you spiritually gain from that cassie

Cassie, I agree with you, that from the point of view of plain common sense, the 1800 year universal apostasy is ridiculous. However, God often does things which seem illogical to us human observers, as we know from reading the OT, and even the NT. So we can’t rely on what seems right or wrong, as our perceptions may be blinded by our human weaknesses and concupiscience. This is why it is very helpful to read the lives of the saints, and the early church fathers, to get a feel for how the Catholic Church was functioning during those 1800 years. If the Catholic Church had had its divine authority removed from it (as the Mormons claim) then I’m certain we’d see a very different type of Church throughout those centuries. The fact of its survival alone speaks strongly against the Mormon charge of Apostasy.

Some say that the “state of the world” today speaks of a Christian Church that is bereft of authority. I think that that is an arugument that deserves some thought, though obviously, I disagree. The world today is certainly in terrible shape, owing largely to the secularization of most cultures. To some extent the Church MUST be to blame for this, but that doesn’t mean it is apostate. It simply means that it hasn’t been doing its job the way it should. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is the segmentation that has taken place in the form of the many sects and cults that resist the action of the Church in the world. If we could all get together under the proper authority that Jesus established in the Apostles (the Pope) then our resources could more effectively be brought to bear in the world. Not that the secularization could be reversed quickly, but it could certainly be slowed or stopped as the world sees that all Christians are united and of one accord.

 

[zerinus]

Now I haven’t heard that before. Can you tell me more about the bishops? Are they like stake presidents? Is a priest elected to become a bishop? What are their duties?

The bishops had only local jurisdiction over their own local area. They did not have jurisdiction over the whole church, or over a larger area than the one they were assigned to. The bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over Rome, the bishop of Antioch over Antioch, and the Bishop of Jerusalem over Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome could not go to Antioch and tell the bishop of Antioch what to do, and the bishop of Antioch couldn’t go to Jerusalem and tell the Bishop of Jerusalem what to do. Each had authority over his own assigned area. Only the Apostles had jurisdiction over the entire church, and could go to anywhere they liked, and ordain and depose bishops as they chose to. It was never part of the program that a bishop should preside over or govern other bishops, and call or ordain other bishops. This is another sign of the Apostasy that the bishops later on assumed a role that had never been assigned to them by the Apostles.

zerinus

 

[cubalibre]

The bishops had only local jurisdiction over their own local area. They did not have jurisdiction over the whole church, or over a larger area than the one they were assigned to. The bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over Rome, the bishop of Antioch over Antioch, and the Bishop of Jerusalem over Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome could not go to Antioch and tell the bishop of Antioch what to do, and the bishop of Antioch couldn’t go to Jerusalem and tell the Bishop of Jerusalem what to do. Each had authority over his own assigned area. Only the Apostles had jurisdiction over the entire church, and could go to anywhere they liked, and ordain and depose bishops as they chose to. It was never part of the program that a bishop should preside over or govern other bishops, and call or ordain other bishops. This is another sign of the Apostasy that the bishops later on assumed a role that had never been assigned to them by the Apostles.

zerinus

If this is so why does Paul have to come down to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and Peter. He has just been appointing presbyters on his authority in Asia Minor when he returns to Antioch where he is confronted with the Judaiizers insisting on new converts being circumcised. Paul does not take care of this problem himself but feels he needs the counsel of the Apostles and Peter and travels all the way back to Jerusalem for the first council. It is Peter who officially rejects the obligation of gentile converts to observe the Mosaic law completely. Paul does not feel he has the independent authority to do this himself. Remember when he was in Lystra appointing presbyters he actually healed a man lame from birth and the crowds tried to offer sacrifices to them believing that Paul and Barnabas were Hermes and Zeus. Despite having the authority to set up churches and to appoint presbyters and having the power to perform great miracles to an adoring crowd Paul cannot resolve the problem. Paul knows he has the authority of a Bishop but knows that he must seek higher authority of these doctrinal issues. Later as the authority of Peter moves to Rome there are multiple historical evidences of Rome"s (Peter’s) authority correcting or guiding other Bishoprics. However I mention the Council of Jersusalem because it occurs prior to the supposed Apostasy you cite.
Saludos, cubalibre

 

[valient_Lucy]

So what does my answer not count? Zerinus isn’t the only mormon on here.

No, but he’s the most famous mormon here.

 

[wussup]

Ok…Let us see how long this intellectual endeavor goes. Before we can discuss “When did the Apostasy occur?”, we must first determine what an apostacy is. First, note the correct spelling. I submt the definition of an Apostasy is “a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc”. This definition is from dictionary.com, and they say it is based on the “Random House Unabridged Dictionary”, 2006. This definition implies a willfulness on the behalf of an individual. Strictly speaking, if you are a faithful Roman Catholic (RC) following the Catechism, you cannot be apostate, because those members are not departing from “one’s religion, principles, party, et al”.
The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (LDS) position is a process occurred whereas faithful members of the Christian Church as led by the Apostles taught and organized the Church to follow after the leanings of their own maginations, and not upon the dictates of the Spirit. We further suggest that this process did not occur at one specific moment, but leader by leader. We believe the consequences of this is the authority to perform sacrad ordinances as a ecclesiasty was removed, but NOT the workings of the Holy Spirit upon the individual or group of individuals.
It would be my understanding the RC does not hold to this position, but rather hold that while their were RC leaders who misled, and were even evil, buy that the authority to perform ordinances, and pass down the authority to others to perform these ordinances is still extant.
Any comments on the above?

Painful as this may be for me, Allweather has valid points regarding Cassie’s statement. Suggesting that God would not leave ‘millions’ (per Catsrus) or ‘billions’ (per Cassius) out in the spiritual cold is to ignorantly ignore the obious facts. First, in India, Africa, Asia, and more frequently, in Europe, there are billions and billions of people who understand the word ‘Christ’ as you would understand the word ‘cala’. One cannot get be more ignorant of Christ as Lord and Savior than these Billions and Billions of people. Yet God has done exactly that. Yet even the Catechism teaches that God has plans for these folks, and their ignorance of the Gospel does not ipso facto deny them entry into his Kingdom. Also regarding Allweather’s statements regarding the Catholic failure as an entity being partially responsible for the sad state of affairs in the world, poppycock. Humans have freewill. I firmly believe their is not one Moslim Jihadist who doesn’t deep in his soul believe that setting a bomb off in a crowded market place to kill dozens of woman and children is an evil act. Terrorist acts such as these are political, not religious in base. Evil people such as this will not be swayed from their activities even if God Himself were to tell them to stop. They are choosing evil over good. Second, I believe the world would be a much better place if all people were Catholic (just not as good as if all were LDS ).

 

[Allweather]

I submt the definition of an Apostasy is “a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc”. This definition is from dictionary.com, and they say it is based on the “Random House Unabridged Dictionary”, 2006. This definition implies a willfulness on the behalf of an individual.

My dictionary uses the term “renounce” and if that is what you mean by “willfulness” then we agree. When one renounces his faith and religion, then one is apostate. It isn’t really a matter of someone becoming lax in the practice of the faith, as I think most workaday Mormons believe. Mormons I’ve talked with don’t think of the apostasy as a renunciation, but rather as a growing cold, a laxity in practice and application of the norms of the faith. But, this is not apostasy. Apostasy is renunciation, which is very different than simply allowing the practice to go cold.

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (LDS) position is a process occurred whereas faithful members of the Christian Church as led by the Apostles taught and organized the Church to follow after the leanings of their own maginations, and not upon the dictates of the Spirit. We further suggest that this process did not occur at one specific moment, but leader by leader. We believe the consequences of this is the authority to perform sacrad ordinances as a ecclesiasty was removed, but NOT the workings of the Holy Spirit upon the individual or group of individuals.
It would be my understanding the RC does not hold to this position, but rather hold that while their were RC leaders who misled, and were even evil, buy that the authority to perform ordinances, and pass down the authority to others to perform these ordinances is still extant.
Any comments on the above?

That is correct with regard to Catholic teaching. The validity of the sacraments is not affected by the state of holiness of the administrator of the sacraments. As long as the bishop or priest or deacon validly holds his office, ie it has not been removed from him by proper authority (which as I understand has happened only very rarely in history) then whatever sacrament he administers is perfectly valid.

Painful as this may be for me, Allweather has valid points regarding Cassie’s statement. Suggesting that God would not leave ‘millions’ (per Catsrus) or ‘billions’ (per Cassius) out in the spiritual cold is to ignorantly ignore the obious facts. First, in India, Africa, Asia, and more frequently, in Europe, there are billions and billions of people who understand the word ‘Christ’ as you would understand the word ‘cala’. One cannot get be more ignorant of Christ as Lord and Savior than these Billions and Billions of people. Yet God has done exactly that. Yet even the Catechism teaches that God has plans for these folks, and their ignorance of the Gospel does not ipso facto deny them entry into his Kingdom.

I’ve known quite a few people who were amazed to read of God ordering the annihilation of entire populations, men, women, children, even animals. We have to be careful not to assess God’s puposes and devices according to our fallen nature. God’s ways are not man’s ways. What seems cruel to us may not be, while it is God’s definition of cruelty that is important, and with which we would be wise to get acquainted. It is a weak argument to suggest that God couldn’t possibly have allowed 1800 years to go by without his saving grace in the world. He very possibly could have, even though it flies in the face of the revealed truth of God through Jesus, that he will be with us always, even until the end of time. On Pentecost, he sent the Comforter to indwell the Church, to protect it from error, to insure that the gates of Hell could never prevail against it. The best evidence we have, IMHO, that there was/is no universal and thorough apostasy is that the Church never died. It never passed from the scene. In spite of often grotesque corruption within it, it never lost the kernal of the Gospel it was charged with propagating among men. No attack from without (and there have been many, very severe attacks on the Church) has destroyed it. It lives today as it always has… alive, vibrant, growing, teaching, leading men to Christ.

Also regarding Allweather’s statements regarding the Catholic failure as an entity being partially responsible for the sad state of affairs in the world, poppycock. Humans have freewill.

The Church has often failed as an institution to live up to its charge. That isn’t a secret, and we’d be liars to claim that the Church has always been what it COULD be. The Church is composed of sinners. The Pope is a sinner, as are all the bishops and priests, and the lay people. We fail. The Church could have done much better in many times and places throughout history. But to say that the Church has failed in some ways is far different than claiming that it went into a universal apostasy, that its leaders and most of its laymen RENOUNCED the faith.

 

[MrS]

Okey dokey, I’ll bite. Zerinus and his companions are avoiding this question from Pjs2ejs, so with the recently acquired expansive knowledge of Mormon pantheology, courtesy of wassup, alma and Zerinus, I humbly offer another “Mormon Official Answer”

The Great Apostacy occurred on February 30th, at 13 o’clock in the afternoon of the morning of the second sun of Kolob. Local time, of course. The Earth’s god and all his brother gods witnessed it. Those spirit children not yet old enough to know what momentous occasion happened, got the news on the QT from the “Testimony of the Holy Spirit,” a Deseret News weekly.