No Apostasy

[AtticusFinch]

Ok, so give me the date of the Apostasy. There should be a date for such a great occurance, right? Give me the date so I can put it on my calendar. Back up your claim.

Diana believes that Jesus was a liar and/or very weak. For there to be an Apostasy, Jesus would have to be a liar, since Jesus said the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. Jesus would also have to be pretty weak if He could not keep His Church going after he left. Further, Jesus would have to be very, very, very cruel. IF we believe Jesus is all-knowing, then Jesus KNEW there would be this Apostasy. Further, He KNEW his best friends, the Apostles, would all suffer horrible deaths. Yet, knowing these two things, Jesus sent them out to their deaths for a Church Jesus KNEW was going to die in a few years, sending them out for nothing.

The only way for there to be an Apostasy like Diana suggests and the LDS Church preaches is for Jesus to be a liar, weak, and very cruel.

The Jesus I believe in was, and is, none of those.

 

[lax16]

Ok, so give me the date of the Apostasy. There should be a date for such a great occurance, right? Give me the date so I can put it on my calendar. Back up your claim.

Diana believes that Jesus was a liar and/or very weak. For there to be an Apostasy, Jesus would have to be a liar, since Jesus said the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. Jesus would also have to be pretty weak if He could not keep His Church going after he left. Further, Jesus would have to be very, very, very cruel. IF we believe Jesus is all-knowing, then Jesus KNEW there would be this Apostasy. Further, He KNEW his best friends, the Apostles, would all suffer horrible deaths. Yet, knowing these two things, Jesus sent them out to their deaths for a Church Jesus KNEW was going to die in a few years, sending them out for nothing.

The only way for there to be an Apostasy like Diana suggests and the LDS Church preaches is for Jesus to be a liar, weak, and very cruel.

The Jesus I believe in was, and is, none of those.

Atticus - You are right in saying that the apostasy would have been such a great event, it should be well documented, date and all. I would like more info on dates as well.

To think the apostles went far and wide spreading the good news only to have it die out really is a sad and baffling claim. All that hard work and dying for one’s beliefs for nothing.

In defense of Diana, she is defending her faith and the teachings of the LDS church. She believes her church to be true and comes on CAF to tell the LDS side of the story. I learn ALOT from non-Catholics asking questions and challenging me because it makes me think and research the topics that get brought up.

Anyway, I don’t want to chase our LDS friends off CAF. Good, hearty debate is excellent, though.

 

[Michael_Vernon]

I also like our LDS friends to challenge us. It gives us a chance to think, defend our faith, and evangelize. I was LDS. I still remember a turning point. My boss was a Southern Baptist and he read the old LDS missionary tract entitled “Josepf Smith’s First Vision” and he asked me, “Mike, do you believe that God told Joseph Smith that all Christian denominations are an abomination?” I said yes, but I was terribly embarrassed because for the first time in my life I didn’t feel convinced of it. I had been asking myself the very question which concerns us here: Why would God let His Church disappear from the Earth? Through the 1980’s LDS Full Time and Stake Missionaries were taught that it was primarily a matter of Priesthood authority being lost with the death of the 12 Apostles. I thought about Jesus saying that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. But for some reason, that Scripture was a little more obscure to me than Daniel’s Vision of the Little Stone cut out of the mountain without hands- that it would continue growing until it filled the whole world.

 

[twopekinguys]

The whole apostasy thing is vague at best.

Depending on who you talk to, it was total, and others say partial. Either way they go, it is what they “believe”, or “think”.

You can “believe” in the tooth fairy, but that doesn’t make it so.

You can “think” the sky is green, but that doesn’t make it so.

They tend to “think” it happened after the death of the last apostle. If that’s the case, they had their own apostacy, because their have been several gaps in their line of “prophets”. Some lasting several years. Not to mention after JS death, they broke into several factions.

Isn’t that exactly what they “say” happened to Christ’s Church?

Also, isn’t it funny that God can give a revelation to their leaders to practice polygamy, deny the priesthood to blacks, give the priesthood to blacks, but he can’t give anyone a date?

 

[rovimax]

If there was a total apostacy, it would make Jesus Christ a liar and the Holy Spirit lazy. Mat 16:13-18, Mat 28:18-20, John 14:15-17, John 16:13. Other Sects rather lie and be blind rather than admit that their church have no right to exist.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Ok, so give me the date of the Apostasy. There should be a date for such a great occurance, right? Give me the date so I can put it on my calendar. Back up your claim.

Diana believes that Jesus was a liar and/or very weak. For there to be an Apostasy, Jesus would have to be a liar, since Jesus said the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. Jesus would also have to be pretty weak if He could not keep His Church going after he left. Further, Jesus would have to be very, very, very cruel. IF we believe Jesus is all-knowing, then Jesus KNEW there would be this Apostasy. Further, He KNEW his best friends, the Apostles, would all suffer horrible deaths. Yet, knowing these two things, Jesus sent them out to their deaths for a Church Jesus KNEW was going to die in a few years, sending them out for nothing.

The only way for there to be an Apostasy like Diana suggests and the LDS Church preaches is for Jesus to be a liar, weak, and very cruel.

The Jesus I believe in was, and is, none of those.

Hi Atticus Finch,

I don’t believe in an Apostasy, but I find this argument lacking. The gates of hell refer to a militant Church. It is the devil’s kingdom that is under siege, according to the metaphor that Christ uses. If the Church failed for a period of time, there is still the promise that the kingdom of God, the Church will prevail over Hell, the kingdom of the devil. The Mormons can easily accomodate this concept into their beliefs.

Others use Mt. 28:19, 20 where our Lord promises to be with the Apostles to the end of the world. But there are two problems if we would rely on this passage. First, the Mormons could say that it applies to the Apostles only, not to their converts by extension. Secondly, the word translated “world”, if I understand correctly, can be as well translated as “age”, or “eon”, which would be over when the alleged apostasy begins.

I think they would with much ease be Catholics if they spent the energy on disproving an apostasy that they spend on proving one. But they begin with a preconceived idea that Joseph Smith was correct and they discover what they want to find. So they end up believing all the exaggerated stories the Protestants told themselves about the bloody murderers in Rome. And they also take Bible passages that warn of falling away at a particular time and place, and for no good reason, apply them to the entire church for a different time.

What they will not do is look at the disfunction of the Old Testament kingdom (Church, if you will), see that it maintained authority through fallings away more serious than they can suggest regarding the Catholic Church, and then realize that if that temporary kingdom built on lesser promises could survive until the time of Christ’s first coming, so the New Testament kingdom (the Church), built on greater promises, has survived until the time of Christ’s Second Coming.

I appreciate the two or three biblical texts so frequently cited against an Apostasy, but I find them unpersuasive.

Rory

 

[AtticusFinch]

Hi Atticus Finch,

I don’t believe in an Apostasy, but I find this argument lacking. The gates of hell refer to a militant Church. It is the devil’s kingdom that is under siege, according to the metaphor that Christ uses. If the Church failed for a period of time, there is still the promise that the kingdom of God, the Church will prevail over Hell, the kingdom of the devil. The Mormons can easily accomodate this concept into their beliefs.

Others use Mt. 28:19, 20 where our Lord promises to be with the Apostles to the end of the world. But there are two problems if we would rely on this passage. First, the Mormons could say that it applies to the Apostles only, not to their converts by extension. Secondly, the word translated “world”, if I understand correctly, can be as well translated as “age”, or “eon”, which would be over when the alleged apostasy begins.

I think they would with much ease be Catholics if they spent the energy on disproving an apostasy that they spend on proving one. But they begin with a preconceived idea that Joseph Smith was correct and they discover what they want to find. So they end up believing all the exaggerated stories the Protestants told themselves about the bloody murderers in Rome. And they also take Bible passages that warn of falling away at a particular time and place, and for no good reason, apply them to the entire church for a different time.

What they will not do is look at the disfunction of the Old Testament kingdom (Church, if you will), see that it maintained authority through fallings away more serious than they can suggest regarding the Catholic Church, and then realize that if that temporary kingdom built on lesser promises could survive until the time of Christ’s first coming, so the New Testament kingdom (the Church), built on greater promises, has survived until the time of Christ’s Second Coming.

I appreciate the two or three biblical texts so frequently cited against an Apostasy, but I find them unpersuasive.

Rory

I suppose you could find the argument lacking if you did not look at what was said. Jesus did not say, "the gates of hell will prevail for a short time, " or something like that. The words He spoke were very clear.

I also have looked at the verses used to show there would be an apostasy, but no verse ever says there would be a total and complete one.

 

[SteveVH]

Ok, so give me the date of the Apostasy. There should be a date for such a great occurance, right? Give me the date so I can put it on my calendar. Back up your claim.

Diana believes that Jesus was a liar and/or very weak. For there to be an Apostasy, Jesus would have to be a liar, since Jesus said the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. Jesus would also have to be pretty weak if He could not keep His Church going after he left. Further, Jesus would have to be very, very, very cruel. IF we believe Jesus is all-knowing, then Jesus KNEW there would be this Apostasy. Further, He KNEW his best friends, the Apostles, would all suffer horrible deaths. Yet, knowing these two things, Jesus sent them out to their deaths for a Church Jesus KNEW was going to die in a few years, sending them out for nothing.

The only way for there to be an Apostasy like Diana suggests and the LDS Church preaches is for Jesus to be a liar, weak, and very cruel.

The Jesus I believe in was, and is, none of those.

What it boils down to is that you must believe that the Church that Jesus Himself started, failed, and fast (upon the death of the last Apostle), while the church that Joseph Smith started will succeed and has already lasted longer. Amazing!

 

[Sunstone]

The straight skinny is this:

For Mormons, the process of establishing orthodoxy is the process of apostasy. Mormons interpret Bible verses (such as Matt. 16) with this assumption in place.

Going through the posts I see that some Mormons have cited James Talmage’s book, “The Great Apostasy.” I think that’s unfortunate as that book was written 100 years ago in a time of substantial anti-Catholicism in America. That book doesn’t reflect what Mormons have said about Catholicism more recently, which has been more positive by comparison.

 

[SteveVH]

The straight skinny is this:

For Mormons, the process of establishing orthodoxy is the process of apostasy. Mormons interpret Bible verses (such as Matt. 16) with this assumption in place.

Going through the posts I see that some Mormons have cited James Talmage’s book, “The Great Apostasy.” I think that’s unfortunate as that book was written 100 years ago in a time of substantial anti-Catholicism in America. That book doesn’t reflect what Mormons have said about Catholicism more recently, which has been more positive by comparison.

I appreciate your insights. Can you explain why establishing orthodoxy is the process of apostasy (or at least why LDS believe that)? Thanks.

 

[twopekinguys]

The straight skinny is this:

For Mormons, the process of establishing orthodoxy is the process of apostasy. Mormons interpret Bible verses (such as Matt. 16) with this assumption in place.

Going through the posts I see that some Mormons have cited James Talmage’s book, “The Great Apostasy.” I think that’s unfortunate as that book was written 100 years ago in a time of substantial anti-Catholicism in America. That book doesn’t reflect what Mormons have said about Catholicism more recently, which has been more positive by comparison.

Very good point(s)

Do you think that the more positive language toward Catholics can be connected with Mormons wanting to be considered “Christian”.

Isn’t it true that at one time, mormons (or at least their leadership) didn’t want to be called Christian?

 

[Sunstone]

I appreciate your insights. Can you explain why establishing orthodoxy is the process of apostasy (or at least why LDS believe that)? Thanks.

Sure, I’m happy to do so.

Mormons hold the earliest Christian Church as an ideal that was strayed from over the centuries. They don’t have much knowledge about that earliest Church, but they hold it as an ideal nonetheless.

Mormons believe in an open canon.

Mormons do not have creeds, and many Mormon leaders have criticized the Christian creeds.

Mormons do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

Mormons consider the Fall from the Garden of Eden as a step down, but forward, so they are heretics on the original sin doctrine too.

As these steps are taken over the centuries, Mormons see a departure from the truth, and eventually, a loss of authority in the Church.

D&C 10:67 (the D&C is a book of Mormon scripture) says that “whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church” and in this sense Mormons consider Catholics (and Protestants and so on) to be Christians in a larger sense, and so the gates of hell have not triumphed as per Matt. 16. They do though, think that authority in the Church (with a capital “C” was lost, and that Catholics and Protestants etc., need the authoritative ordinances available through the LDS Church.

I realize that this runs counter to Catholicism, which holds that those without the Church’s baptism are not Christians. Mormons and Catholics look at these things differently.

 

[Sunstone]

Very good point(s)

Do you think that the more positive language toward Catholics can be connected with Mormons wanting to be considered “Christian”.

Isn’t it true that at one time, mormons (or at least their leadership) didn’t want to be called Christian?

I do think that Mormons’ more positive language toward Catholics has something to do with Mormons wanting to be considered Christian. As a practical matter, it has to do with Mormonism maturing a bit and wanting to work with other groups on charitable projects. Mormon relief efforts, for example, often work hand in hand with various Catholic charities and it becomes absurd at some point for Mormons to keep thinking of Catholics as the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil. The “Abominable Church” teaching is still around in some old books (such as Talmage’s) but I haven’t ever heard it taught by a Church leader. It’s a teaching that is withering on the vine.

As to your second question, the exclusive claims of Mormonism have contributed to what I’d call a “rhetoric of isolation.” In that sense, Mormons don’t want to be considered just another Christian denomination.They want Christians to feel a need to come to Mormonism while at the same time Mormons want the cultural cachet of being just another Christian denomination.

Mormons want to have their cake and to eat it too, a desire that has everything to do with their troubled history, persecution complex, hyper-sensitivity to public perceptions, and the big move to Utah where they wanted to be left in peace (but also to spread out and conquer!).

 

[Michael_Vernon]

The Epistles of the Apostles show that there were dissensions, schisms, and apostacy in the Church even while they were alive, but there is nothing in the New Testament that indicates the Apostles were afraid that the true Church of Jesus Christ would be completely lost. Nor is there anything that indicates that they believed a loss of Apostolic Succession would cause the Church to disappear in the first few centuries. The founders of the Mormon Church, caught up in the Millenialism of their time, propogated the idea that the “falling away” (Greek “apostasia”) predicted by Sain Paul in 2Thessalonians 2:3 would cause the true Church to be lost before the Second Advent of Jesus Christ. The talk of Jesus and the Apostles about the “restoration of all things” before the Second Coming of Christ fueled Joseph Smith’s visions of angels coming to restore priesthood authority and the true “gospel”. When I was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, I was given a “line of succession” card that supposedly showed how the priesthood I held could be traced to the Apostles.

 

[Sunstone]

The Epistles of the Apostles show that there were dissensions, schisms, and apostacy in the Church even while they were alive, but there is nothing in the New Testament that indicates the Apostles were afraid that the true Church of Jesus Christ would be completely lost. Nor is there anything that indicates that they believed a loss of Apostolic Succession would cause the Church to disappear in the first few centuries. The founders of the Mormon Church, caught up in the Millenialism of their time, propogated the idea that the “falling away” (Greek “apostasia”) predicted by Sain Paul in 2Thessalonians 2:3 would cause the true Church to be lost before the Second Advent of Jesus Christ. The talk of Jesus and the Apostles about the “restoration of all things” before the Second Coming of Christ fueled Joseph Smith’s visions of angels coming to restore priesthood authority and the true “gospel”. When I was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, I was given a “line of succession” card that supposedly showed how the priesthood I held could be traced to the Apostles.

Yes, exactly. And I am now coming to see that “fallings away” and “restorations” occur within the Church (as opposed to invalidating it).

 

[sablouwho]

Yes, exactly. And I am now coming to see that “fallings away” and “restorations” occur within the Church (as opposed to invalidating it).

Hi Sunstone,

I am curious about your interest in the Catholic church and why you are considering a conversion. Would you be willing to share with us why you are considering leaving the LDS? OR, if you have already talked about this issue here on CAF, perhaps you could tell me on what threads you have discussed this?

Thanks for any info you are willing to share!

 

[lax16]

Sure, I’m happy to do so.

Mormons hold the earliest Christian Church as an ideal that was strayed from over the centuries. They don’t have much knowledge about that earliest Church, but they hold it as an ideal nonetheless.

Mormons believe in an open canon.

Mormons do not have creeds, and many Mormon leaders have criticized the Christian creeds.

Mormons do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

Mormons consider the Fall from the Garden of Eden as a step down, but forward, so they are heretics on the original sin doctrine too.

As these steps are taken over the centuries, Mormons see a departure from the truth, and eventually, a loss of authority in the Church.

D&C 10:67 (the D&C is a book of Mormon scripture) says that “whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church” and in this sense Mormons consider Catholics (and Protestants and so on) to be Christians in a larger sense, and so the gates of hell have not triumphed as per Matt. 16. They do though, think that authority in the Church (with a capital “C” was lost, and that Catholics and Protestants etc., need the authoritative ordinances available through the LDS Church.

I realize that this runs counter to Catholicism, which holds that those without the Church’s baptism are not Christians. Mormons and Catholics look at these things differently.

Do Mormons believe that because there was dissension and debate (some may argue straying) during the time of the early Church that this adds to the proof of an apostasy?

I know there is not much room for debate in Mormonism, but certainly a great deal of change has occurred over their short history (relatively) which makes me think there is/has been some dissension within their church as well? Certainly, they have “strayed” from many of their original teachings, but would not say they have had an apostasy.

 

[Answersplease]

Hi Atticus Finch,

I don’t believe in an Apostasy, but I find this argument lacking. The gates of hell refer to a militant Church. It is the devil’s kingdom that is under siege, according to the metaphor that Christ uses. If the Church failed for a period of time, there is still the promise that the kingdom of God, the Church will prevail over Hell, the kingdom of the devil. The Mormons can easily accomodate this concept into their beliefs.

Others use Mt. 28:19, 20 where our Lord promises to be with the Apostles to the end of the world. But there are two problems if we would rely on this passage. First, the Mormons could say that it applies to the Apostles only, not to their converts by extension. Secondly, the word translated “world”, if I understand correctly, can be as well translated as “age”, or “eon”, which would be over when the alleged apostasy begins.

I think they would with much ease be Catholics if they spent the energy on disproving an apostasy that they spend on proving one. But they begin with a preconceived idea that Joseph Smith was correct and they discover what they want to find. So they end up believing all the exaggerated stories the Protestants told themselves about the bloody murderers in Rome. And they also take Bible passages that warn of falling away at a particular time and place, and for no good reason, apply them to the entire church for a different time.

What they will not do is look at the disfunction of the Old Testament kingdom (Church, if you will), see that it maintained authority through fallings away more serious than they can suggest regarding the Catholic Church, and then realize that if that temporary kingdom built on lesser promises could survive until the time of Christ’s first coming, so the New Testament kingdom (the Church), built on greater promises, has survived until the time of Christ’s Second Coming.

I appreciate the two or three biblical texts so frequently cited against an Apostasy, but I find them unpersuasive.

Rory

"Answersplease:

…New Testament kingdom (the Church), built on greater promises, has survived until the time of Christ’s Second Coming.

And what would these “greater promises” be?

The promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church?
The promise that He would be with them to the end of the world?

Oh, but wait, did’nt you find those promises “unpersuasive”.

---

On a different topic, your reasoning that the survival of an older kingdom built on “lesser promises” PROVES or GUARANTEES or MAKES LIKELY, the survival of a new kingdom built on “greater promises” is NOT logical.

Depending on the circumstances, an ant may survive where an elephant will not.

And even in the same circumstances a “lesser” creature or organization can survive where a “greater” creature or organization cannot, due to “luck” or “fate” or “DIVINE PROVIDENCE”.

The Catholic Magisterium is considered to have infallibility on faith and morals, to my knowledge you have not been declared as having infallibility, why should I be impressed that YOU find the verses in question “unpersuasive”?