Mormons: When did the Great Apostasy occur?

[KathleenGee]

Happy Easter, Everyone!

The other reason we did not have the Bible is because we did not have the Gutenberg Press yet.

Our faith is not based on a book. Jesus did not pass out books of His Word.

The focus is a restored and living relationship with God through Christ.

The passing on of faith is primarily within the Oral Tradition. We hear, and through the Holy Spirit, we respond.

There was a period before the press that Bibles were made of sheepskin, and it took over 300 sheep, I believe, to make one Bible. They were extremely costly as well.

With the Oral Tradition, you pass on the faith meant to be heard…and you save the lives of many sheep.

The Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ. We are not saints, but sinners seeking forgiveness and daily transformation in the Lord—the source of our Christ-oriented deification…oneness with Him. If the Church were an abomination, and a great obstacle to everyone to reach Jesus Christ, He would have eradicated it a long time ago.

 

[KathleenGee]

In regards to the Mormon teachers’ misrepresentation of Catholics, this is found throughout Protestantism…false teachers.

The apostasy is reflected in Revelations with the image of the locusts—teachers, men with long hair, symbolizing vanity, who spread heresy that penetrate into one’s faith and soul.

The results of Sola Scriptura have been so damaging to Christianity.

And reflects on why we were forbidden to read ‘fractured’ Scriptures. I have read recent posts regarding interfaith marriage between Catholics and Mormons, and the behavior of the Mormon kin towards the Catholic spouse. The behavior does not represent the fruits of the Holy Spirit. And it also perturbs me with such attitudes the Mormon feat of building a grandiose temple in Rome…it is better to do in Rome as the Romans do.

As far as Mormons promoting the falsehood that Catholics only focus on Christ’s crucifixion…Christmas celebration derived from Catholic/Orthodox customs. The Christmas Tree comes from German Catholic Bavaria.

People do not realize how much the Catholic faith is at the heart of Western civilization.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie or others,

Since this thread came back up to the first page and I hadn’t responded to some of the items you had so kindly given as responses, I suppose that I should respond about this particular verse in Paul’s writings.

When I see the words “living God” in that verse, followed by the words “the pillar and foundation of the truth” or “the pillar and foundation of truth”, then I think of the teachings of Christ and of Peter that Christ is the Rock just as we noted in our earlier conversation. He is the foundation of Truth, and is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I don’t see a reason to think that Paul was changing the teaching about the foundation of truth away from the teaching that Christ is that Foundation. I think he was reinforcing it, and that the very next verse, v. 16, bears this out. The words “living God” emphasize that Christ was resurrected and is God who was manifest in the flesh.

So there is quite a different way to look at v. 15 than the way which you presented, which reinforces the teachings of Jesus and of Peter. The Lord Jesus Christ should be the foundation of our lives, our hope, our reason for changing and becoming as good a person as we can become through our repentance and His help, and should be the Rock of our salvation that we may trust Him with our full trust.

A wish of peace to you, Rinnie, as you may happen to read this, and to all readers that the peace of Jesus Christ and the knowledge that He lives may abound in your life.

Lets look at this another way. What does the word Peter mean in Aramaic? So lets take it from the voice of God. Did he not say you are Peter. (Rock)? So before we even begin I say Christ said it! Does scripture back me up, or prove me to be a liar.

Now why did Christ not say you are Simon and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Why did Jesus change the name Simon into Peter first which translates into Rock. Do you not see the clear understaning in this that the Church shows us.

But lets go another way to be fair. Why would Jesus change SImons name? Do you feel it had a purpose to do this? Do you even agree that Jesus did change Simons name.

And if we are in agreement that he did indeed change his name, why would he do it, and then say unto YOU I give the keys to the kingdom?What was the purpose of all of this.Of course I know what I am taught by what the APostles taught it to mean. BUt where do you feel that what the Apostles taught to not be the true meaning?

I mean lets be honest here. CHrist did say you are Rock in Aramaic did he not? Now was he talking to SImon or all of the Apostles. Now lets give the benefit of doubt and say yes he called all of the Apostles Rock. Then why did we call Simon, Peter? Why did all of the Apostles begin to call Simon, Peter now?

Why does the Gospel say according to St Peter. Not Saint Simon? Why does scripture state Peter not SImon?

So here is something you HAVE to be able to prove to me. That Peter does not mean Rock in Aramaic and CHrist did not talk to his Apostles in that language. If you can do this you do have a pretty convincing argument. But you have to show me where I am wrong. Thats it. And if you have the truth on your side you CAN and WILL do this.

CHrist always resides in the Truth. So from this Point the Church can show its truth. Through the teaching’s of the Apostles. Now you must show me your truth to disput this and where it comes from. You must admit that is indeed fair. I did do my part.

 

[ParkerD]

Lets look at this another way. What does the word Peter mean in Aramaic? So lets take it from the voice of God. Did he not say you are Peter. (Rock)? So before we even begin I say Christ said it! Does scripture back me up, or prove me to be [incorrect].

Hi, Rinnie,

Jesus certainly tell Simon Barjona “thou art Peter”, but He still called him Simon often unlike the way in which Saul’s name was changed to Paul in a permanent name change.

But, He who knows all things knew that He was creating a situation where free will choice would be operative and where the need for personal revelation, just as Peter had received, is the imperative in order to know first-hand to be able to say, “thou art the Christ” (which means the Anointed One as prophesied in the Old Testament, and the Son of David).

Now why did Christ not say you are Simon and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Why did Jesus change the name Simon into Peter first which translates into Rock. Do you not see the clear understaning in this that the Church shows us.

Yes, I see how perfectly Christ foresaw that His use of this metaphor and His knowing all things would create a testing situation, in that He is the Rock as known through many Old Testament prophecies.

To be continued.

 

[ParkerD]

But lets go another way to be fair. Why would Jesus change Simon’s name? Do you feel it had a purpose to do this? Do you even agree that Jesus did change Simon’s name.

Rinnie,

I wouldn’t really call it a name change, since He still referred to him as Simon many times, or as Simon Peter, or as Peter. The purpose was to give both a metaphor and a faith test about the word “Rock” as the clear Old Testament prophecy about the coming of Christ, the Messiah, the Stone of Israel.

And if we are in agreement that he did indeed change his name, why would he do it, and then say unto YOU I give the keys to the kingdom?

Simon (Peter) had been called as the first apostle, and this was because the Savior knew Peter’s heart and knew of his leadership abilities–so this follow-up situation is another teaching moment wherein Peter learns more about his coming role of leadership. There is no question that Peter was to have a leadership role that included having keys, which implies priesthood leadership. But the name added can be viewed just as readily as a separate clause which could stand alone and make complete sense.

What was the purpose of all of this.Of course I know what I am taught by what the APostles taught it to mean. BUt where do you feel that what the Apostles taught to not be the true meaning?

I don’t know what you mean by this statement and question.

…

Why does the Gospel say according to St Peter. Not Saint Simon? Why does scripture state Peter not Simon?

He went by either name. One sees this readily in 2 Peter 1:1, and in John 21.

So here is something you HAVE to be able to prove to me. That Peter does not mean Rock in Aramaic and CHrist did not talk to his Apostles in that language. If you can do this you do have a pretty convincing argument. But you have to show me where I am wrong. Thats it. And if you have the truth on your side you CAN and WILL do this.

No, it’s fine for you to hold to the meaning you like. I hold to the revealed meaning which is consistent with the Old Testament, and I delight in the significance of Jehovah’s use of the word “Rock” and “Foundation” and its tremendous metaphorical strength.

CHrist always resides in the Truth. So from this Point the Church can show its truth. Through the teaching’s of the Apostles. Now you must show me your truth to dispute this and where it comes from. You must admit that is indeed fair. I did do my part.

You’re right that you can take a position that makes complete sense to you and is “true” for you. That is basically what I had commented in my earlier response about the Savior’s deliberate use of the word “Rock” and the name “Peter” since He had perfect knowledge of the future and the test that this would bring to every reader of the Bible.

 

[Stephen168]

I wouldn’t really call it a name change, …He went by either name. One sees this readily in 2 Peter 1:1,

but not 2 Simon 1:1

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Naming Simon Peter was not a test. Do you name those entrusted to you simply as a test?

Rinnie was quite clear.

Problem with Sola Scriptura is that it reverts the concrete into arbitrary symbols that only bring about continuous disputes and fragmentation.

Disputes, arguments, fragmentation, separation are not fruits of the Holy Spirit. Catholicism is concrete, it is contextual. Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism.

Where the New Testament ends in Revelation the Bride of Christ is now beginning.

And yes, I agree with Catholic-RCIA very much in regards to the misrepresentation of Catholicism by those who falsely teach against it. I was livid when one Mormon on here was gleaning our thought. He then referred us to his blog where he has a piece on invalidating the Eucharist…teaching people to reject the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. He also had other people come on with different wording and syntax, pretending to be the same person. Finally he was banned.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Parker, No offense buddy but nothing you said had like anything to do with answering my question.

Let me ask it again short and sweet. Why did Jesus change Simon into Peter and that name just happened to translate into Rock. That is my first question.

2nd question. Why did he not change all of the Apostles into the name Rock just Peter?

And Indeed he did change Saul into Paul. BUt not Rock why did he not call Paul Rock also? Why Only Peter?

What was the reason for this? Why Peter and Why Rock and why when he said that did he give the ROCK the keys to the kingdom, ALL at the same time.

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,

Jesus certainly tell Simon Barjona “thou art Peter”, but He still called him Simon often unlike the way in which Saul’s name was changed to Paul in a permanent name change.

But, He who knows all things knew that He was creating a situation where free will choice would be operative and where the need for personal revelation, just as Peter had received, is the imperative in order to know first-hand to be able to say, “thou art the Christ” (which means the Anointed One as prophesied in the Old Testament, and the Son of David).

Yes, I see how perfectly Christ foresaw that His use of this metaphor and His knowing all things would create a testing situation, in that He is the Rock as known through many Old Testament prophecies.

To be continued.

Parker we have another big problem. Peter knew Christ was the Son of God by personal revelation You are very misled here my friend. Jesus said it was not personal revelation. it was DIVINE REVELATION my friend.

Please go back and read that scripture and especially what Jesus said. Jesus said Flesh and Bones did not reveal that but my Father from Above. That revelation did not come from Peter my friend, that revelation came from God Almighty. Jesus said so.

ANd again Parker free will has always been choice. From the beginning of time. How do you feel he was creating a situation that situation always existed.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Parker we have another big problem. Peter knew Christ was the Son of God by personal revelation You are very misled here my friend. Jesus said it was not personal revelation. it was DIVINE REVELATION my friend.

Please go back and read that scripture and especially what Jesus said. Jesus said Flesh and Bones did not reveal that but my Father from Above. That revelation did not come from Peter my friend, that revelation came from God Almighty. Jesus said so.

ANd again Parker free will has always been choice. From the beginning of time. How do you feel he was creating a situation that situation always existed.

“Personal revelation” does not mean that the revelation came from Peter. “Personal revelation” is a phrase used by LDS to mean revelation from God to an individual. Parker was not saying that the revelation came from Peter. It came to Peter, from God.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Personal revelation” does not mean that the revelation came from Peter. “Personal revelation” is a phrase used by LDS to mean revelation from God to an individual. Parker was not saying that the revelation came from Peter. It came to Peter, from God.

Parker is saying over 1 Billion Catholics alive today including myself, and countless numbers of other Christians have this revelation wrong. Not to mention 2000 years worth of all the other souls.

I know about personal revelation.

One came to me as I learned about some Christian Saints mentioned in the numbers above. All dead to me for many, many years because no one ever mentioned their names to me or told me their stories as a child.

This is almost un believable to me now as I look back
Why would they be kept from the Mormons such as yourself and not taught to you. Stories read to millions of Christian children every night going on 2000 years.

How many Saints spanning 2000 years have you yourself gotten to know? Those taught by Jesus and the Apostles?

Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[rinnie]

“Personal revelation” does not mean that the revelation came from Peter. “Personal revelation” is a phrase used by LDS to mean revelation from God to an individual. Parker was not saying that the revelation came from Peter. It came to Peter, from God.

If that is what he meant. Sorry Park my bad. I did not know that:blush:

 

[kikkichan]

…

And Indeed he did change Saul into Paul. BUt not Rock why did he not call Paul Rock also? Why Only Peter?
…

Just an aside, I believe that *Saul to Paul *is like John to Juan, It’s not really a change in name. Saul started going by the Greek version of his name, not by a different name.

–kc

 

[KathleenGee]

Public revelation is that for the universal church, discerned to be truly revelation by God Himself. It took the Church some time to verify that St. John the Evangelist did indeed write the Gospels.

It took 200 years for the Church to discern to include the Letter of Hebrews for the New Testament.

Private revelation means that some one has a revelation inspired by God, but it is for private use, not public because it does not fully uphold the universality of faith. The message of Our Lady of Fatima is considered private revelation.

Just as English today is universally used throughout the world, in ancient times, the Greek language was the one used internationally, and from which the universal word Catholic derived.

The universal Church acknowledged the conversion of St. Paul by the sheer witness of the depth of his conversion, who previously attended the martyrdom of St. Stephen, as well as the authority of his witness recognized by the Apostles. Paul never witnessed the life of Christ on earth as the apostles did, but through Christ’s resurrection and ascension into heaven, and St. Paul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, good fruit bore witness to the truth.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker, No offense buddy but nothing you said had like anything to do with answering my question.

Let me ask it again short and sweet. Why did Jesus change Simon into Peter and that name just happened to translate into Rock. That is my first question.

Hi, Rinnie,

I don’t have a lot of time to answer, but briefly:

Answer, short and sweet: He didn’t change the name Simon to Peter. Both names are used by the Savior many times when referring to the very same person. There was not a name change–it was more like a term of endearment and clarification as to which Simon He was referring to at any point in time when both were there with Him.

Rock is a very apt description of a stalwart person with integrity and firmness and trustworthiness. It is very easily grasped as a metaphor, of which the Jews were very familiar with their use.

2nd question. Why did he not change all of the Apostles into the name Rock just Peter?

See my first answer. That would certainly have been a confusing thing to do. He was interested in being endearing and in helping Peter be seen as an example by the other apostles, just as Peter had shown a stalwart example by answering the Savior’s question about “Whom say ye that I am?”

And Indeed he did change Saul into Paul. BUt not Rock why did he not call Paul Rock also? Why Only Peter?

I think Kikkichan made a good point about Saul/Paul. One could ask why He didn’t call some of the other apostles “sons of thunder” instead of just James and John, also, if one is asking such a question about “rock”.

But I am also perfectly sure that the Savior, knowing all things into the future, knew that by using the endearing and exemplary term “rock” He would be creating a test for future followers, since He had consistently taught and would continue to consistently teach that He is the Rock, and Peter did and would also.

What was the reason for this? Why Peter and Why Rock and why when he said that did he give the ROCK the keys to the kingdom, ALL at the same time.

Because He wanted to tie the teachings together about personal revelation that Jesus is the living Christ, the promised Messiah, and the Good Shepherd who personally guides mankind in their growth toward becoming like Him as they become His disciples and as they join in a “yoke” with Him at their side, and that this personal revelation is the Rock foundation whereupon if men build, they will not fall because He will be at their side and will be their living Light; and also tie in the promise that there would be keys to the kingdom of heaven on the earth among men through living apostles, which keys were to be authorized by Christ and were always going to be under His directing influence as long as those keys were used in righteousness by the spirit of revelation through the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker …(Thanks BYUChemAlum for clarifying)
ANd again Parker free will has always been choice. From the beginning of time. How do you feel he was creating a situation that situation always existed.

Yes, good point. Free will choice is something highly esteemed by God for humankind from the very beginning. There are also “rocks of offense” and “stones of stumbling” and situations where “seeing, they see not” and “hearing, they hear not” and all this is done so that free will choice is enhanced for those who choose to “see with their eyes and hear with their ears”. Others will not make such a choice, so it truly is a free will choice opportunity and there is a sense of something being “hidden” from some people (actually, many people…millions of people).

A continuing wish for joyful peace for you and among all readers.

 

[pablope]

Hi Parker, No offense buddy but nothing you said had like anything to do with answering my question.

Let me ask it again short and sweet. Why did Jesus change Simon into Peter and that name just happened to translate into Rock. That is my first question.

2nd question. Why did he not change all of the Apostles into the name Rock just Peter?

And Indeed he did change Saul into Paul. BUt not Rock why did he not call Paul Rock also? Why Only Peter?

What was the reason for this? Why Peter and Why Rock and why when he said that did he give the ROCK the keys to the kingdom, ALL at the same time.

Hi, Rinnie…just some clarification…

Jesus did not change Saul to Paul. Paul was Saul’s Roman name, being a Roman citizen. Saul was his Hebrew name. After Saul’s calling, i do not know exactly when, Saul chose to be called Paul, to contrast from the old saul who persecuted christians to the new Paul, a follower of Christ.

 

[pablope]

Hi, Rinnie,

I don’t have a lot of time to answer, but briefly:

Answer, short and sweet: He didn’t change the name Simon to Peter. Both names are used by the Savior many times when referring to the very same person. There was not a name change–it was more like a term of endearment and clarification as to which Simon He was referring to at any point in time when both were there with Him.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, Jesus did, Parker.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

Then look at Matthew 16, when Jesus says you are Rock/Cephas/Peter.

Yes, but Pablope it is a good idea to also look at John 21:15-17 which verses are very familiar to most New Testament readers, and there find that Jesus still readily referred to Simon Peter as “Simon, son of Jonas”–so if He had changed his name, then He wasn’t following His own pattern and of course the Savior is perfect and does all things perfectly including using the right name.

In the OT, God was referred to as Rock by the Jews. Now, why did Jesus say Simon shall be called Rock?

I already answered with two very good reasons.

No, Jesus was setting Peter for a leadership role.

Yes, I had noted that He was.

More…

Those are all Biblical references about the Savior and His leadership, and the use of the priesthood. If you need all of the references, then let me know and I’ll look them up and provide each source scripture.

All the best to you.

 

[catholic-rcia]

.

Parker, you pointed out that Catholics focus more on tradition than on Christ. This would be part of our fall as to the restoration I suppose. I am pretty sure this is where you were coming from.

I know about this because I was once told this as well by those I love, by those that loved me. It is another recurring theme that started with the protestant movement, also accepted by the Mormons. I know several who have made this claim to me here in Utah, yet never set foot in a Catholic Church. Again it is bearing a false witness to truth and to justice. A false witness against Jesus Himself as He is our Church. I hope innocently but really not sure.

Yes it is true that you could say this about many Catholics. In the end we are not a perfect people. I myself may focus on other things that may seem to be important at the time and lose sight of Jesus if only for a portion of a day. I may be engulfed by a certain tradition without understanding its fullest meaning. Like making the sign of the cross for instance. Could I possibly understand its full meaning for me? Or is it merely a habit? There seems to be a mixture of this in all …Good and bad…yes? Yet the depths of making the sign of the cross may not be fully known I do know how it has evolved in me. ( Faith / love / Remembrance / Trials / Suffering / Endurance / Joy / Charity )

This is why we as Catholics hold the Crucifixion up while holding the resurrection up as well. We know what our failures are or at least we should as Catholics with the Confessionals / Jesus front and center, always ready to forgive in order to receive Him more fully.

Parker, on Friday night I watched our Priest and Deacon fall to the ground on their faces in humility before our Lord and God. I watched our Priest leave the Sanctuary to retrieve a very large Cross to bring it back to the Sanctuary. Then I watched the body of Christ / lovers of Him venerate the cross. I myself giving not the cross a kiss, rather a kiss for Jesus.

I would like to claim it was not the type of kiss Judas gave to him before he handed Him over but this also is a part of the kiss I gave. Remember we Catholics hold the Crucifixion and the resurrection together. We should all know who it was that Crucified Him, who crucifies Him even today along with whom He rose for.

Parker Good Friday is a Tradition of our Church. What I love about this certain tradition is Jesus Himself given to me in a very profound and personal way…deep in ways that go down rather than up, so far down to the point where you know that only love will lift you back up.

You know who was forgiven and why. No excuses needed. You are loved beyond imagination. You are loved in spite of being His enemy. This is where His love is found, true love that the world has a hard time understanding. Not a place that many would want to venture, to face. Yet it is the place where true joy is discovered. I give thanks and praise to the Traditions of our faith. Another reason why the great apostasy theory makes no sense. I stand in front of the most beautiful and majestic valleys (Jesus) that many will never see, yet they try to tell me, us here that it really does not exist.

Parker, there is no special breed of people. Only sinners like you and I and this is what makes Jesus’ death so special for each one of us. He died for you Parker a sinner like me and all those here at this forum. No one better than the next, all loved equally.

No Great Apostasy ever occurred Parker. I know this because I know Jesus. I give thanks to His Church for allowing me to discover Him. Its changed me from the inside out and I am still a work in progress, yet saved in spite of myself.