Mormons: When did the Great Apostasy occur?

[Z_Ninja]

I was told once that it happened during the Dark Ages, which would put it somewhere during the major part of the Middle Ages. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. That could be anywhere from 5th to 15th century.

 

[po18guy]

Then I’m guessing that getting the New Testament when authority was gone was pure coincidence. The chance of people guessing which book was true and which book was false and getting it correct is very slim.

This points up the continuing failure of the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, which means that individuals interpret the bible according to their own desires. Then, combine that with what I believe is either a delusion or the leading of a passing spirit, and you get a mislead movement of believers.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It all depends on who you ask. The standard answer is that it occurred upon the death of the last Apostle. Of course, they do not believe that the Apostle John ever died but is still walking around somewhere, so I’m not sure where that leaves them.

Is this so? I haven’t heard. But if so, wouldn’t this contradict their assumption that the apostacy occurred upon the death of the “last apostle.” Unless, by “last Apostle” the LDS mean the “last Apostle to die.” But then the language gets somewhat cluttered.

Peace,
Robert

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was told once that it happened during the Dark Ages, which would put it somewhere during the major part of the Middle Ages. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. That could be anywhere from 5th to 15th century.

This sounds more like combination of Mormon and Protestant theory. Which I believe the Mormons also believe the reformation started out great then turned sour quickly.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Nicea325]

Inquiring person,

A loss of authority (God’s authority to use the priesthood keys including the authority of the apostles since they were no longer around when this happened) and a loss of the purity of some of the doctrines of the everlasting gospel taught by Christ and the apostles, occurred as a gradual thing during the AD 80’s, 90’s, and so on when John became the last living apostle and then was taken into the wilderness. It was gradual, not a single event.

There was a fairly recent thread about this subject.

Wishing you peace and good will, for you and your friend and any other readers here.

Pure conjecture and speculation. There is not a single shred of historical evidence supporting a ‘gradual’ apostasy. Even if it were gradual as many LDS folks claim, how ironic not ONE person (Christian or pagan) in the past 2,000 years ever discusses it in great detail or let alone briefly?

 

[SteveVH]

Is this so? I haven’t heard. But if so, wouldn’t this contradict their assumption that the apostacy occurred upon the death of the “last apostle.” Unless, by “last Apostle” the LDS mean the “last Apostle to die.” But then the language gets somewhat cluttered.

Peace,
Robert

Yes, I am quite certain (at least according to the Mormon posters on this forum) that they believe the Apostle John (John the Revelator, as they call him) is still living. As always, I’m sure there is an explanation as to why he doesn’t count.

The verse they use to justify this:

John 21: 23-24
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

 

[po18guy]

Simply put, scripture speaks of false doctrines, false christs, false teachers and antichrists. It is noteworthy that, centuries later, both Islam and “Mormon” beliefs were allegedly “revealed” by angels to a single man, and both introduced a radical change in what had theretofore been revealed and believed about the very substance of God. Both were introduced in regions where Christianity was rapidly growing. Combined with their other similarities, this ‘reveals’ to me that both newer religions came from a single source.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Simply put, scripture speaks of false doctrines, false christs, false teachers and antichrists. It is noteworthy that, centuries later, both Islam and “Mormon” beliefs were allegedly “revealed” by angels to a single man, and both introduced a radical change in what had theretofore been revealed and believed about the very substance of God. Both were introduced in regions where Christianity was rapidly growing. Combined with their other similarities, this ‘reveals’ to me that both newer religions came from a single source.

Interestingly, the only difference between the beginnings of the false religions were that Mohammed was visited by Gabriel, which we accept as an archangel, while Joseph Smith was visited by some angel that was never confirmed to be as a true angel. If both can’t be true, then they were started by the same person, namely, Satan.

 

[po18guy]

Interestingly, the only difference between the beginnings of the false religions were that Mohammed was visited by Gabriel, which we accept as an archangel, while Joseph Smith was visited by some angel that was never confirmed to be as a true angel. If both can’t be true, then they were started by the same person, namely, Satan.

As to sources of things, there is only God or the devil; Good or evil; Many prophets or just one; Truth or the lie.

 

[SteveVH]

Interestingly, the only difference between the beginnings of the false religions were that Mohammed was visited by Gabriel, which we accept as an archangel, while Joseph Smith was visited by some angel that was never confirmed to be as a true angel. If both can’t be true, then they were started by the same person, namely, Satan.

Dont’ get too caught up in the details. What Joseph Smith said is true because he was a prophet and that is all you really need to know.

Mormonism is just another form of gnosticism which has been fought by the Church since its beginning. It is based upon “secret knowledge” which one can neither prove nor disprove on its face. If I tell you that I was visited by Jesus last night and that you are now suppose to follow me, prove that what I say is not true. This “secret knowledge” is carried out even further in the temple ceremonies. A new convert is not told everything. There is “knowledge” which is withheld until they prove themselves worthy of receiving it. The purported reason for this is that if everything was revealed to a new convert and then this new convert decided to leave the LDS church he would be placed in great spiritual danger for rejecting this “knowledge”. So withholding this “knowledge” is presumably done for the spiritual protection of the person not yet found worthy. See how that works?

Certainly, God is not a God of division and I would agree that Satan is behind all division from the one, true Church. I think we have to be very careful in our words here, though. If my statement is true then it would apply equally to all Christian denominations (the Catholic Church is not a denomination). The followers of Joseph Smith, I believe, are sincere in their belief that the LDS church is the one, true Church. They, however, have been led so far astray that, since 2001, the Catholic Church does not even consider Mormonism to be a heretical Christian sect, but rather another religion entirely.

ParkerD pointed out that the subject of this thread has already been discussed in great detail which is probably why he is not participating here. We need to be real careful in not just turning this into a Mormon bashing thread as there will most likely be few if any Mormons who will respond here for the reason I just gave.

 

[rinnie]

When did the Great Apostasy occur? I asked my friend, but he didn’t know (didn’t expect him to. We’re both teens).

Well lets put it this way. If it did happen then there would no longer be a Catholic Church. But beings that there is a Catholic Church you have proof that it never happened.

When you no longer see a Catholic Church then you will see that Hades took over and the devil took over the Church of Christ.

Now if you believe the promise that God made us then you will see that this not only has not happened it will never happen.

Because Jesus said I am with your always until the end of age. The Church and I are one just as a bride and and bridegroom are one. Christ is united to his Church the same as we are united to one another in the Sacrament of Marriage.

Jesus said that hades would never prevail.

Now if you also believe the words of Jesus, he said he would be leaving so that he could send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. That was done as scripture proves on the Day of Pentecost. We still call that to this day Pentecost Sunday.

On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came to lead the CC into all truth. If the CC failed then the Holy Spirit failed. That is impossible. God cannot fail. He is our Father and our Father keeps his promises.

But if you need living proof to see with your eyes look to the Catholic Church! Is it still here? Did it go away and does it cease to exist? No! It is still here and Visible for all to see. There is your proof. It still is led by the power of the Holy Spirit just like Jesus promised.

Jesus said when the Leaders of the CC speak it will be with his voice that they speak. Can a Priest or Pope or Bishop over power the Holy SPirit. Of course not. There is your proof. THe Holy Spirit cannot be overpowered by anyone or anything.

God is the Almighty!! IF you believe him and you trust him You know he will keep his word.

 

[rinnie]

It all depends on who you ask. The standard answer is that it occurred upon the death of the last Apostle. Of course, they do not believe that the Apostle John ever died but is still walking around somewhere, so I’m not sure where that leaves them.

But we have to remember what Jesus said. Jesus said HADES will not prevail. What is hades? Hades is death! So that shows us the death of an Apostle will never overpower the Holy Spirit.

The power of the Holy Spirit lives until the end of age. Jesus never ever said in gospel that any Apostle would never have a physical death. Actually he said they would die, and many would suffer in his name. ANd die for him.

BUt if you look back to scripture Jesus says he is sending the HOLY SPRIT to guide the Apostles into all truth. Now did he say only the original 12 or did he say his Apostles.

That is what they have to prove to us and they cannot. Jesus never promised his Apostles that they would live forever. Jesus promised us the Church would live forever by the Power of the Holy SPirit. He only promised us Teachers to speak in his name until the end of age.

Now the end of age is not here. So the teachers would have to continue on in his name. Which as history proves this has been accomplished.

Jesus promised us the ADVOCATE. The Advocate would be with his Church and speak in his name until the end of age. Its still happ e n i n g…

 

[rinnie]

It all depends on who you ask. The standard answer is that it occurred upon the death of the last Apostle. Of course, they do not believe that the Apostle John ever died but is still walking around somewhere, so I’m not sure where that leaves them.

Also just wondering would that not have to make John equal to Christ?

 

[rinnie]

Inquiring person,

A loss of authority (God’s authority to use the priesthood keys including the authority of the apostles since they were no longer around when this happened) and a loss of the purity of some of the doctrines of the everlasting gospel taught by Christ and the apostles, occurred as a gradual thing during the AD 80’s, 90’s, and so on when John became the last living apostle and then was taken into the wilderness. It was gradual, not a single event.

There was a fairly recent thread about this subject.

Wishing you peace and good will, for you and your friend and any other readers here.

Hi Parker Miss Me Got a question for you. Okay if God’s authority he gave to any of the Apostles lets say ended with their death, what was the reason for the Holy Spirit then?

Because if God gave the Apostles the authority w/o the Holy Spirit why were they not able to teach in his name until Pentecost. Why were they all confused, afraid and not knowing what to do?

See you seem to believe that the Apostles had some kind of power on their own. Because you would not believe it died WITH them if you did not see it that way. Jesus never said that the Apostles would be here forever he said the CHURCH would.

Think about it on the day of Pentecost Christ said Receive the Power of the Holy Spirit to speak in my name. Now the 100,000 question of the day. Is the Power of the Holy Spirit capable of leading the Church today with the Bishops and Pope the same as it was capable of doing it over 2000 years ago. Because see Jesus promised us that. He said the Advocate the Holy Spirit would lead the Church which is the pilar of all truth until the end of time.

If the answer is Yes , then you are correct and the Holy Spirit has left us orphans and we can forget about scripture, and why go to Church really. The end of age has happened. It happend with the death of the Apostles and the Holy Spirit cannot live without them.

Or is the Church the Pilar of all truth, and is the Power of the Holy Spirit just as capable of leading the Pope and Bishops just like the original 12.

Do you see what I am saying. Let me ask this another way. What could St Peter do over 2000 years ago that the Pope could not do today? Was Peter leading the Holy Spirit and the Church or was the Church and the Holy Spirit leading St Peter.

Now why would God again send the Holy SPirit if Peter and the rest of the Apostles were capable of doing what was needed on their own?

Now Jesus said the Advocate would lead the Church into all truth. Jesus said the Church would stand until the end of age and Jesus said he would never leave his Church. He promised us that when the Pope today would speak just as yesterday it would be with his voice. Or do you think that the Holy Spirit only gave this power to the Original Apostles?

Now if you are right then we are all in trouble are we not? Because why would Jesus leave us the Sacraments if we had no where to receive them?

He said in the scripture if you are in trouble go to the CHURCH? If you are right there is no Church. The devil beat the Holy Spirit and the Apostles because of original sin correct? Because was not death of the physical body for everyone? Isn’t it Christ who came back and took away death, but death of the soul?

Because Baptism wipes out original sin but the stain is still death of the body not of the soul. Now you have to admit Jesus knew the minute and the day the Apostles would die. So are you saying he left us with no Sacraments he promised?

You have to really let go of pretty much most of the N.T to accept that the Holy Spirit left the Church with the death of the last Apostle. Because Jesus told them they would all die and suffer and be killed because of him. Now how can this be?

According to the Catholic Church it was the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT that would never die. Where is the scripture that promised the original Apostles would never die. And also why go out and spread the word and make more teachers? For what. These people are human. We do not go by the Human mind of the Pope or Bishops its when they speak in the voice of Christ as he promised.

Like Peter how could he tell Jesus he was the son of Man? Didn’t the Holy Spirit tell him this? Or are you saying Peter knew it on his own?? And if GOd did not speak to Peter in the Voice of the Holy Spirit why did Jesus say he did?

 

[SteveVH]

But we have to remember what Jesus said. Jesus said HADES will not prevail. What is hades? Hades is death! So that shows us the death of an Apostle will never overpower the Holy Spirit.

The power of the Holy Spirit lives until the end of age. Jesus never ever said in gospel that any Apostle would never have a physical death. Actually he said they would die, and many would suffer in his name. ANd die for him.

BUt if you look back to scripture Jesus says he is sending the HOLY SPRIT to guide the Apostles into all truth. Now did he say only the original 12 or did he say his Apostles.

That is what they have to prove to us and they cannot. Jesus never promised his Apostles that they would live forever. Jesus promised us the Church would live forever by the Power of the Holy SPirit. He only promised us Teachers to speak in his name until the end of age.

Now the end of age is not here. So the teachers would have to continue on in his name. Which as history proves this has been accomplished.

Jesus promised us the ADVOCATE. The Advocate would be with his Church and speak in his name until the end of age. Its still happ e n i n g…

Yes, the question is do you choose to believe the Word of God, or do you choose to believe the words of a man who contradicts the Word of God? It is simply amazing to me that anyone could believe that Christ was such a failure that His Church could not survive half a century. The entire purpose of His Church was to spread the kingdom of God to the corners of the earth. The Mormons will say that it was men who were the failures, not Christ. But, as you have pointed out, it was Christ who made the promises, not Peter and the Apostles. How could God Himself be so wrong?

 

[rinnie]

Yes, the question is do you choose to believe the Word of God, or do you choose to believe the words of a man who contradicts the Word of God? It is simply amazing to me that anyone could believe that Christ was such a failure that His Church could not survive half a century. The entire purpose of His Church was to spread the kingdom of God to the corners of the earth. The Mormons will say that it was men who were the failures, not Christ. But, as you have pointed out, it was Christ who made the promises, not Peter and the Apostles. How could God Himself be so wrong?

 

[marr31791]

Let’s try to be respectful as we disagree with the beliefs of others. There is no need for sarcasm or distortion of Mormon beliefs.

In answer to the question that was asked, Mormons believe that the Apostasy occurred over a period of time. Some Mormons feel it occurred with the death of the last Apostle called by Jesus. Others believe that it happened later, but all agree it was certainly complete by 300.

This is only their belief. We believe that Jesus chose to build his Church upon Peter and that Pope Benedict XVI is his successor. A single line of Apostolic succession.

I thank you for your comment I’m LDS and in all actuality, I love reading and understanding how other religions perceive our own. It saddens me when I come onto forums like this and see how a church, that claims to follow Christ can so easily bash on another. In the end, aren’t we all just trying to be good people? So, I thank you for this comment

 

[Nicea325]

Pure conjecture and speculation. There is not a single shred of historical evidence supporting a ‘gradual’ apostasy. Even if it were gradual as many LDS folks claim, how ironic not ONE person (Christian or pagan) in the past 2,000 years ever discusses it in great detail or let alone briefly? If so, I want to know his or her name or names?

 

[SteveVH]

Pure conjecture and speculation. There is not a single shred of historical evidence supporting a ‘gradual’ apostasy. Even if it were gradual as many LDS folks claim, how ironic not ONE person (Christian or pagan) in the past 2,000 years ever discusses it in great detail or let alone briefly? If so, I want to know his or her name or names?

There is not a shred of evidence to support a “sudden” apostasy either, such as upon the death of the last Apostle (or at lease who ever died right before John). The Church has been dealing with apostates and heretics since its inception, so there were definitely “apostasies” occurring, but it was not the Catholic Church that was in apostasy, it was the Catholic Church that defended against apostasy. There are apostasies taking place as we speak, and if the Catholic Church is the one, true Church then Mormonism is in apostasy along with a number of others.

As far as documenting the so-called “Great Apostasy”, you are correct. The Early Church Fathers speak volumes about the various heretics and heresies plaguing the Church during their time. No mention of what would have been an incredible event within the Church, much more so than anything found in their writings. Maybe the belief is that the Church did not know it was in apostasy, therefore no reporting on it. The consistency of Church doctrine, from the beginning, is enough evidence that the Church has not lost any truth, but rather that it possesses the fullness of truth.

I have heard the argument that it was not that all truth was lost, but that “priesthood authority” is what was lost because only the Apostles could confer priesthood authority. Forget the fact that if true, this would make Jesus more than a little short sighted. He would have to have known that His Church was only going to be around for 50-60 years after He was gone. I’m not sure what the Apostles thought they were passing on when they annointed bishops if it was not the office of priest, first and foremost. But they will argue that the bishops had no authority to ordain priests. They believe that the office of Apostle should have been passed and that bishops were not their successors. If true, if they had to name successor “Apostles” in order for the Church to continue then why didn’t they? Did they forget? Just didn’t get around to it? They ordained all of these bishops but not any “Apostles”, the most important thing of all if the Church was going to survive. One has to really do some mental gymnastics to rationalize this one.

 

[po18guy]

I thank you for your comment I’m LDS and in all actuality, I love reading and understanding how other religions perceive our own. It saddens me when I come onto forums like this and see how a church, that claims to follow Christ can so easily bash on another. In the end, aren’t we all just trying to be good people? So, I thank you for this comment

Defense of God’s truth, as revealed through the many prophets He has sent, is not “bashing”.