Mormons: When did the Great Apostasy occur?

[ParkerD]

Read my response to flyonthewall on this one. All I will add is that the secret knowledge that the Apostles refer to is nothing that changes the meaning of anything Jesus said, such as changing His affirmation that in Heaven people aren’t married to mean that it means to be married in heaven you have to be married in this life. That would take “secret knowledge” because it is not justified in context or by anything in the Bible, or by the way Jesus spoke. It would make as much sense, in that case, to believe that since He told the Samaritan woman she had five husbands that means she would have five husbands in heaven, as he did not make the statement conditional.

The other point is that the New testament had not been set when Paul and others said those things, so there were things in their scriptures that had yet to be codified into scripture.

Peter John,

Nothing I have written anywhere in this forum “changes the meaning of anything Jesus said”, and His meaning is quite easily understood about marriage in heaven. He didn’t say “in Heaven people aren’t married”. He said in words that have been translated into English, “For in the resurrection they [a pronoun referring back to the subject, which is the seven Sadducees brothers] neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

I completely agree that Jesus was teaching the truth about the resurrected state of unbelieving Sadducees in the teaching He gave to them about the resurrection [which they didn’t believe in but were being told they would indeed be resurrected and be as angels in their resurrection, but would have lost the opportunity and privilege of having marriage in heaven because of their unbelief and their failure to enter into an eternal marriage covenant]. The law of Moses was given to the Jews as a lesser law about marriage, as Jesus explained as translated in Matthew 19:3-12. The greater law about marriage was that it be “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. Period–no ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We all deepen our understanding, and deepen our relationship to Jesus Christ. This isn’t a gathering of secret knowledge that is kept hidden, but rather, coming to understand more deeply what has already been given to us. Or rather more correctly, WHO has been given to us.

Jesus is the Light of the world, which does not dim, but brightens. The Church, in her pilgrimage and emergence grows in understanding because of the light of Christ. It is in Christ that we come to know all things. There is no other Way.

Lastly, LDS have no concept or experience of mysticism, as Catholics do, if they did I think it would be easier for them to grasp what St. Paul is talking about, and see that he himself was a mystic.

Peace.

 

[Jay53]

Hi, Jay53,

'Hoping all is very well with you and your family.

We are all well, thank you.

Perhaps I didn’t explain thoroughly enough before. John 20:21-23 is very important in that it shows that the apostles were then receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which would be absolutely necessary for each of them in order to have the gift of discernment which would be necessary to know whether a person had been forgiven of their sins by their repentance and through Christ’s forgiveness, and thus for the apostles to rule on whether a person could be considered a “faithful” member of the church, or whether if they had grievously sinned they needed to have their membership removed from the records of membership.

How does one get from “whose sins you forgive” and “whose sins you retain” to a “discernment” about “whether a person had been forgiven”. I’m not following how you make that leap. Do you have any evidence from the early Church to support this?? Thanks.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Nothing I have written anywhere in this forum “changes the meaning of anything Jesus said”, and His meaning is quite easily understood about marriage in heaven. He didn’t say “in Heaven people aren’t married”. He said in words that have been translated into English, “For in the resurrection they [a pronoun referring back to the subject, which is the seven Sadducees brothers] neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

I completely agree that Jesus was teaching the truth about the resurrected state of unbelieving Sadducees in the teaching He gave to them about the resurrection [which they didn’t believe in but were being told they would indeed be resurrected and be as angels in their resurrection, but would have lost the opportunity and privilege of having marriage in heaven because of their unbelief and their failure to enter into an eternal marriage covenant]. The law of Moses was given to the Jews as a lesser law about marriage, as Jesus explained as translated in Matthew 19:3-12. The greater law about marriage was that it be “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. Period–no ifs, ands, or buts.

Nothing in his statement affirms that any of the marriages will be valid. It is not implied and it is not supported by reference to anything else in the Bible. He did not affirm that she would be married to any of them.

Actually you cannot completely understand that reference without the Book of Tobit, one of the plain and precious parts of scripture removed after the Bible passed from the Jews to the gentiles. That should also be of interest to LDS as it is to my lnowledge the only Biblical story of the archangel Raphael, to whom your Doctrine and Covenants makes reference. It will likely seem silly to you as it conflicts with your definition of the nature and role of angels and demons, but Jesus considered it scripture when he walked the Earth.

 

[Peter_John]

We all deepen our understanding, and deepen our relationship to Jesus Christ. This isn’t a gathering of secret knowledge that is kept hidden, but rather, coming to understand more deeply what has already been given to us. Or rather more correctly, WHO has been given to us.

Jesus is the Light of the world, which does not dim, but brightens. The Church, in her pilgrimage and emergence grows in understanding because of the light of Christ. It is in Christ that we come to know all things. There is no other Way.

Lastly, LDS have no concept or experience of mysticism, as Catholics do, if they did I think it would be easier for them to grasp what St. Paul is talking about, and see that he himself was a mystic.

Peace.

LDS Mysticism is heirarchical. If god is going to have a message for the whole Earth it will come through the Leaders of the Church, not to the rich son of an Asisi merchant, a few little kids in Portugal, an obscure Polish nun, or a poor Capuchin priest, even if that priest bleeds the love of Christ through five wounds. God certainly will not ssend His earthly Mother, our Mother in Heaven, to carry the message, because in LDS Doctrine our Mother in Heaven means something completely different, and God wants us to know as little as possible about her.

 

[rinnie]

Parker, Peter John
and Rinnie Ifeel like it should be Peter Paul and Mary

But with that put aside you gotta cut me some slack here Park, I will be the first to admit I am quite ignorant to your faith. I am just saying its hard to believe what I am hearing.

I am not saying I agree or disagree I don’t know. How could I agree or disagree I am only listening. You are saying I believe everything I am hearing. I will be the first to tell you Park I don’t know. But if any of it is true, you must admit it is a little hard to believe thats all I am saying. (We still Friends:hug1::flowers:

 

[SteveVH]

Peter John used the term gnostic as though to describe anyone who believes there is more knowledge to be had than what “everyone knows.”

The apostle Paul taught that there is knowledge to be had that everyone doesn’t know, and taught that in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3. I agree that this is not Gnosticism, but if someone wants to place a broad label of “Gnosticism” on knowing revealed knowledge that everyone doesn’t know, then although they have used the term incorrectly, I fit the category of having revealed knowledge that everyone doesn’t know. (See 1 Corinthians 2 and 3 for more details.)

(By the way, if you think John described every detail of everything he saw in his visions, then I guess we disagree markedly about that.)

That’s not what I picked up from his comments. It is no secret (no pun intended) that there is information that is held secret in the LDS faith until one has proven himself worthy to receive it. This is what at least borders on gnosticism.

There may be knowledge that is inexpressible, as in the case of the Catholic mystics, but this is something entirely different. When one claims to have knowledge that others do not have, giving them “special” insights into the meaning of scripture, meaning that can only be kept to themselves or given to those found worthy, then we are talking about gnosticism. What God revealed to us through the Apostles is to be preached to the whole world, not held back.

 

[KathleenGee]

The action of grace and the Holy Spirit, proceeded from Christ at Pentecost, has fulfilled bringing many, many people of various race and tone to Christ.

The Letters of St. Paul and the Apostles attest to the fact that living communities celebrated the Breaking of Bread. The Apostles themselves left both the seed and the foundation of passing on the faith to others, all because of the action of the Holy Spirit.

The first millenium saw many people become Christian, but because of lack of faith formation, they did not understand sacred mysteries, and the first recorded apostasy was that of Arianism, that denied Christ the Son was of the same substance as the Father. If Christ had a beginning, He would have an end.

Christ’s directive to “Go forth and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19) was the most primary movement of the early church, and it lost no slack with the death of St. John. In spite of persecutions and martyrdom, the countless people joined the Church.

To say there was a great falling away after the death of the Last Apostle was to deny the fidelity to Christ’s directive to make disciples of the nations, and deny the ongoing action of the Holy Spirit that touched many a life, not divisive groups.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am going to quote here Pope John Paul II in regards to our own modern times, ‘the return to ancient gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age.’

‘We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing gnosticism – that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words. Gnosticism never completely abandoned the realm of Christianity. Instead, it has always existed side by side with Christianity, sometimes taking the shape of a philosophical movement, but more often assuming the characteristics of a religion or para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian.’

That ‘declared conflict with Christianity’, more so, Mormonism’s labelling Christianity as apostate not only is blind but presumes condemnation of those who willingly laid down their life for Christ, martyred, persecuted marginalized…Christ is most present when people are humble and suffering…but under Mormon’s claim, 1800 years later, these holy souls are no longer properly remembered but declared apostate.

Declaring early Christians as, even those who were martyred, this label apostate reflects really more on Mormonism itself, as well as reflecting Arianism of Christ separate from God, the first major apostasy.

 

[Peter_John]

Parker, Peter John
and Rinnie Ifeel like it should be Peter Paul and Mary

But with that put aside you gotta cut me some slack here Park, I will be the first to admit I am quite ignorant to your faith. I am just saying its hard to believe what I am hearing.

I am not saying I agree or disagree I don’t know. How could I agree or disagree I am only listening. You are saying I believe everything I am hearing. I will be the first to tell you Park I don’t know. But if any of it is true, you must admit it is a little hard to believe thats all I am saying. (We still Friends:hug1::flowers:

Just clicked this 'cuz there’s no “Like” button.

 

[rdscheirer]

Let’s look at history- Smith finds a “Golden Book” which reveals everything to him, but unfortunately it is lost- Mohammed recieves instruction from the Angel Gabriel- but it is perverted- looks like they are of the same ilk- wanting to be prophets of God but not realizing that after Jesus the Messiah there can be no prophets.

 

[Peter_John]

Let’s look at history- Smith finds a “Golden Book” which reveals everything to him, but unfortunately it is lost- Mohammed recieves instruction from the Angel Gabriel- but it is perverted- looks like they are of the same ilk- wanting to be prophets of God but not realizing that after Jesus the Messiah there can be no prophets.

While your succinct summary of LDS origins lacks much in specific accuracy, your observation of the general comparison with Islam is quite astute. Both Mormonism and Islam emerged from periods of regional religious controversy. Both emrged from an environment heavy with Christianity. Both involved a founder prophet, who claimed special revealed knowledge, and both involved establishment of new scripture, as well as modification of existing scripture.

The proclamation of Faith in Islam is “There is no God but God, and Mohammed is His Messenger,” (substitute Allah for God if you wish).

According to the late Bruce R McConkie of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve, a faithful Christian in our time must proclaim, " ‘I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.’ And in the next breath we say, ‘I know that Joseph Smith, Junior, was chosen, appointed, anointed, and called as God’s prophet for this age in order to reveal Christ and to reveal salvation.’ We bear witness of Christ, and we bear witness of Joseph Smith."

He compares rejecting Joseph Smith in our time to rejecting Peter, James and John in the First Century, and goes on to quote Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses: Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit is of God; and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, no matter whether it is found in a pulpit or on a throne. JD 8:176–77]

speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6198

That does sound remarkably like the Islamic references to Mohammed.
**

 

[jediliz]

i’ve asked this of Mormons on a discussion thread in a christianity topic section on amazon’s discussion boards and NO one can give me a clear precise answer.

Jesus said he would always be with us, until the end of time.

All I’ve ever heard is “After the last apostle died” but that’s not precise.

 

[ParkerD]

How does one get from “whose sins you forgive” and “whose sins you retain” to a “discernment” about “whether a person had been forgiven”. I’m not following how you make that leap. Do you have any evidence from the early Church to support this?? Thanks.

Jay53,

The words “forgive” and “forgiven” in your translation are rendered “remit” and “remitted” in the King James translation. I don’t have time to look it up, but I would expect that there was a different original word than the word that is rendered “forgive” in many other places in the New Testament. The words “remit” and “remitted” convey a distinctly different meaning, in that there is a sense of “considered judgment concerning a consequence or penalty.” The apostles were to “remit sins” through the discerning gift of the Holy Ghost, which meant they were to make a considered judgment about worthiness of someone who had sinned and “brought fruits meat for repentance”. We find not one scriptural reference that says either they or any bishop were “forgiving” sins. Only Christ “forgave” sins. The apostles preached “remission of sins” through Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin.

 

[ParkerD]

i’ve asked this of Mormons on a discussion thread in a christianity topic section on amazon’s discussion boards and NO one can give me a clear precise answer.

Jesus said he would always be with us, until the end of time.

All I’ve ever heard is “After the last apostle died” but that’s not precise.

Jesus said the words (translated into English) “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20), speaking to the “eleven disciples” or eleven apostles. His promise was that He would be with them always, although He would soon be ascending into heaven. He was always with them through His guiding influence and gentle love being with them and through the Holy Ghost being with them. No doubt they felt His love with them.

John gave the added promise from Christ that “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20) Christ’s offer to be the Good Shepherd for everyone who sincerely seeks Him, is as valid today as it was when He first spoke of being the Good Shepherd, and any time anyone does not seek Him or turns away from Him it is they who have moved and not Him.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Only Christ “forgave” sins.

Jesus tells us, in
[BIBLEDRB]Matt. 9:6[/BIBLEDRB]

(Cf. Mk 2:10, Lk. 5:24)

He then goes on to tell the collected Apostles in the upper room, at which time there were 10 present, Judas having died of course and we know Thomas wasn’t there, that he sends them as the Father sent him.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:21-23[/BIBLEDRB]

The Father sent the Son to forgive sins. He is sending his first priests/bishops out with the same mission.

St. Paul, commissioned by Peter himself by the laying on of hands, tells his charges in Corinth that if he has forgiven them their sins he has done so in the presence of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor. 2:10[/BIBLEDRB]

In Persona Christi, a mighty big phrase concerning priestly authority as handed down by Christ’s one church.

A church that has never provably fallen into total apostasy despite LDS claims. Which seem to merely be, it did because a murderer told us it did.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Last sentence in previous reply should say “alleged” murderer…

 

[Peter_John]

Jay53,

The words “forgive” and “forgiven” in your translation are rendered “remit” and “remitted” in the King James translation. I don’t have time to look it up, but I would expect that there was a different original word than the word that is rendered “forgive” in many other places in the New Testament. The words “remit” and “remitted” convey a distinctly different meaning, in that there is a sense of “considered judgment concerning a consequence or penalty.” The apostles were to “remit sins” through the discerning gift of the Holy Ghost, which meant they were to make a considered judgment about worthiness of someone who had sinned and “brought fruits meat for repentance”. We find not one scriptural reference that says either they or any bishop were “forgiving” sins. Only Christ “forgave” sins. The apostles preached “remission of sins” through Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin.

Remit is actually a more ambiguous term than forgive. It can appropriately be used as a verb to mean defer, forgive, or even llimit. Its use suggests broader authority than to merely forgive or not forgive with the keys. It suggests the authority to postpone judgement, to completely forgive, to forgive some things but not all, or even to refer it to another venue.

In either way, the reference gives that authority with the keys. I do not understand why you try to make it seem that Mormonism interprets it any other way, Since you interpret it that way for your current leaders, and you believe they validly continue the authority originally endowed upon the Apostles, you have to interpret it that way regarding Christ’s orginal Apostles as well. Your Book of Mormon emphasizes this with (as I recall) Third Nephi who God promised to recognize whatever he declared.

 

[ParkerD]

Remit is actually a more ambiguous term than forgive. It can appropriately be used as a verb to mean defer, forgive, or even llimit. Its use suggests broader authority than to merely forgive or not forgive with the keys. It suggests the authority to postpone judgement, to completely forgive, to forgive some things but not all, or even to refer it to another venue.

In either way, the reference gives that authority with the keys. I do not understand why you try to make it seem that Mormonism interprets it any other way, Since you interpret it that way for your current leaders, and you believe they validly continue the authority originally endowed upon the Apostles, you have to interpret it that way regarding Christ’s orginal Apostles as well. Your Book of Mormon emphasizes this with (as I recall) Third Nephi who God promised to recognize whatever he declared.

Peter John,

I agree that the word “remit” has more ambiguity and thus different potential connotations than the word “forgive”, but the words “merely forgive” when one is talking about the eternal consequences of sin which places one in a state of eternal bondage and being eternally shut out from the presence of God are not two words I would think go together. It is completely different than an earthly tribunal or jury or an earthly judge or court of law.

Christ knew that He had the authority and the divinely given responsibility to forgive sins because He knew that He had come to earth to suffer the pains and afflictions of the atonement. He did not and would not defer that authority to someone else, nor can anyone give one example from fifty-five years of the records we have been given of the actual doings of the apostles or the bishops serving under their leadership from AD 34 to AD 90, of one case where they told someone that they personally or that the church as an institution were forgiving someone’s sins, nor that they were acting in the place of Christ to forgive someone’s sins…

As apostles with authority they could, however, rule on matters of church membership just as Christ taught in Matthew 18:17. They could make records on earth that would be recorded in heaven, could seal on earth and it be sealed in heaven, could bind or loose on earth and it would be bound or loosed in heaven–but all this was because they were able to be trusted that they would use the gift of the Holy Ghost in an inspired way and knew that they were acting under that inspiration and under the direction of the living Christ, the head of the Church and the Holy One with the key of David, which was not to be delegated, on His shoulder always.

As far as the prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon who had the sealing power and was trusted by God to be able to only ask what was God’s will and thus could be trusted with the power to say that there would be a famine so that the people would be humbled to become repentant, his teachings were not that he was going to forgive anyone’s sins–he was teaching that the people should come unto Christ and pray sincerely and seek forgiveness from God and seek the Spirit in their lives.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

The words “forgive” and “forgiven” in your translation are rendered “remit” and “remitted” in the King James translation. I don’t have time to look it up, but I would expect that there was a different original word than the word that is rendered “forgive” in many other places in the New Testament. The words “remit” and “remitted” convey a distinctly different meaning, in that there is a sense of “considered judgment concerning a consequence or penalty.” The apostles were to “remit sins” through the discerning gift of the Holy Ghost, which meant they were to make a considered judgment about worthiness of someone who had sinned and “brought fruits meat for repentance”. We find not one scriptural reference that says either they or any bishop were “forgiving” sins. Only Christ “forgave” sins. The apostles preached “remission of sins” through Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin.

“Remit” and “remitted” do NOT convey a “distinctly different meaning”.

re·mit (r-mt)
v. re·mit·ted, re·mit·ting, re·mits
v.tr.

1. To transmit (money) in payment.

a. To refrain from exacting (a tax or penalty, for example); cancel.
**b. To pardon; forgive: remitted their sins.**3. To restore to a former condition or position.
thefreedictionary.com/remit

I think you would also have to extend a different meaning to “retain” because the passage goes on to say “whose sins you retain, they are retained”. And, I think that is the same translation used in the KJV, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.