The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

  • Thread starter Thread starter darcee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My question for those who believe in the Restoration is this:

If Joseph Smith was called by God to restore truths lost during the apostacy, why was he killed before he had a chance to finish writing his various translations and revelations? Why is the JST and the Book of Abraham allowed to be unfinished?
 
Andrew,

Did you read what I posted?

You re-quoted much of what I had already quoted from Ireneaus.

I hope you did not type in the sections that you posted because it is online in an essay I read some time ago. In addition to being contained in the book you mentioned it is contained in the book: Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.

I have suggested that valid authority for Bishops existed for many, many years in the Catholic (and EO) church. This authority was passed down by ordination and the laying on of hands (to those who were baptized by valid authority previous to receiving ordination). The earliest Bishops (who wrote of these things and it survived that is), Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement are very clear that bishops were set up and that succession was handled.

What I say is that until Ireneaus wrote, there was no evidence that Peterine authority was contained in the person of the Bishop of Rome (or in the person of the Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius being the third, who was also ordained by Peter also). Ireneaus’ actually linked the “need to agree” with Rome to Peter and Paul.

So I postulate an immediate apostasy of the Peterine authority at the death of Peter or at the disappearance of the last apostle. I postulate a progressive apostasy of the lesser authority beginning at the acceptance of the baptism of heretics around 250AD.

If you did not actually read what I posted this is fine, but I use a statement of a contemporary of Irenaeus who says that the Bishop of Rome primacy position is a usurpation of authority. Tertullian understood ordained succession (as evidenced by you quoting him) and he understood the importance of being linked through ordination to true authority (as evidence by you quoting him), but he also saw the development of primacy as a usurpation.

Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
Finally, I ask any Mormon (again) why do you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? There is some hypocrisy in believing in an apostasy that destroys the central leadership of the Church and acknowledging an infallible decision by that same Church over 300 years after the aforementioned apostasy.
Click to expand...
I have answered this on this message board, but here is the answer. If you want more then please send me a PM.

First, no LDS or BOM believer should believe in inerrant (see Karl Keatings post about the inappropriateness of calling a book “infallible”) scripture. This is not part of our binding doctrine.

Concerning the Bible. The CoJCoLDS does not consider it either inerrant nor complete. It is just the word of God and sufficient. We have 3 other volumes of scriptures. The CoJCoLDS is not based on the Bible. We are based on the same thing the Bible is based on, Jesus Christ. The choice of the KJV of the Bible I believe was a missionary tool in many ways not a vote of total confidence in the ability of the apostate church to choose books for the Bible. You may use your inerrant Bible apologetic upon Protestants, but for me the Bible is sufficient. I would have liked to see Enoch and the Visions of Hermas included, but alas this is not the case.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
AmandaPS:
My question for those who believe in the Restoration is this:

If Joseph Smith was called by God to restore truths lost during the apostacy, why was he killed before he had a chance to finish writing his various translations and revelations? Why is the JST and the Book of Abraham allowed to be unfinished?
Click to expand...
I was unaware that teh BOA was unfinished.
It is oft repeated that Joseph Smith was unable to make a review of the Joseph Smith “Translates” JST Bible commentary/“Translation.” This may or may not have merit.

In any case, my answer to this is that the Bible is sufficient for our needs. I would love to interview Joseph Smith and understand exactly what JST was and how he would envision it being used by the church today, but he is gone. LDS have 4 volumes of scripture to digest and it is my opinion that few, myself included, have gotten but a small amount of the totality of messages available.

Charity, TOm
 
Tom you are typical mormon, lying about the official teachings of your organisation, being slippery as a snake in in your use of rhetorc in an attempt to make it more palatable to Christians. You get called on it and decide to take your ball and go home.:rolleyes:

Whether the famous couplet statement was made by Young or Snow does not matter, they were both "presidents, prophets, and seers’ in your organisation, there teaching is authoritative, along with all of the “priesthood authorities” living and departed, we both know this.

On the “authorisation” for Catholic baptism, you bring up the Donatist heretics as if thety were Catholic authorites. sorry they were not Catholics nor is their teaching authoritative to Catholic Christians.

I am involved on another website in an debate with another mormon who is lying and stating that the mormon teaching my become “gods” is the same as the Eastern Orthodox Christian teaching of Theosis. As you know they are nothing simular. She has became oddly quiet since I corrected her, funny huh?
 
Sorry it is late again, both Young and Snow were “prophets, seers, and revelators” according to mormon teaching.
 
40.png
boppysbud:
Tom you are typical mormon, lying about the official teachings of your organisation, being slippery as a snake in in your use of rhetorc in an attempt to make it more palatable to Christians. You get called on it and decide to take your ball and go home.
Click to expand...
Whether the famous couplet statement was made by Young or Snow does not matter, they were both "presidents, prophets, and seers’ in your organisation, there teaching is authoritative, along with all of the “priesthood authorities” living and departed, we both know this.
On the “authorisation” for Catholic baptism, you bring up the Donatist heretics as if thety were Catholic authorites. sorry they were not Catholics nor is their teaching authoritative to Catholic Christians.
I am involved on another website in an debate with another mormon who is lying and stating that the mormon teaching my become “gods” is the same as the Eastern Orthodox Christian teaching of Theosis. As you know they are nothing simular. She has became oddly quiet since I corrected her, funny huh?
  • Accusing one who disagrees with you of lying and your off topic posts are “typical” of those who have little of value to add to the discussion.
  • I thought I made it clear that the issue concerning the couplet was that LDS have a method to define what is LDS binding doctrine just as do Catholics. The couplet is not binding LDS doctrine. See positions of Pope Honorius or St. Cyprian and determine if they are binding Catholic doctrine.
  • It seems you are moving closer and closer to understanding your churches own position of authoritative baptism. The council of Arles did indeed condemn the Donatist’s practice of re-baptism. However, if you would but look into St. Cyprian you would find that he was pre-Donatist. You are getting closer.
  • I would be thrilled if you would link me to the other website. I would be glad to engage you on a thread not dedicated to the Apostasy. I can send you a link to a discussion of what Catholics say about deification if you wish. I am well aware for similarities and differences between the EO/Catholic Theosis/Deification and LDS Exaltation/Deification.
  • Please send me a PM, link me to your other discussion, but address evidence of Catholic apostasy here. You may even continue to be heavy on the insults, light on the content if you wish, and totally dismissive of what I say that defines what I believe if you wish. But please let us do so elsewhere.
Charity, TOm
 
Tom, I am new to this website and do not know how to send private messages here, besides it won’t hurt for others who might be interested in knowing what the other site is, it is:
Code: 
 [www.beliefnet.com](http://www.beliefnet.com)
Specifically the Mormon debate page there.

I do not think it is your job to make rules here, you are just another user here with no more authority than any other user.

Mr. Keating makes the rules here … not you.

Hoping you may abandon mormonism and become a Christian,

Gary
 
BTW, there is no Catholic Apostacy to discuss, and no “restoration” by Joseph Smith et all.

Brand new teachings of the 19th century are still not “restoring” anything.:confused: How can they be, that is a fallacy of logic.
 
Andrew Larkoski:
For more, check out the book “Faith of the Early Fathers” by William Jurgens. As you can see, many of these quotes are taken after a supposed apostasy.

Finally, I ask any Mormon (again) why do you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? There is some hypocrisy in believing in an apostasy that destroys the central leadership of the Church and acknowledging an infallible decision by that same Church over 300 years after the aforementioned apostasy.
Click to expand...
Andrew,

I am not a member of the LDS church, but I believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture. I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, since it was translated by an apostate church, nor do I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The title, “Word of God”, refers to Jesus, the word made flesh.
 
I don’t take LDS seriously. They provide only one thing… more souls to save…
 
Andrew Larkoski:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.
Click to expand...
Andrew, what is this office of episcopate your quote refers to? That is not a term found in the Bible; the Bible speaks of no such office. Where is the office of Apostle found in the Catholic church? If the Catholic church is the continuation of Christ’s church, why did the office of Apostle, which Christ established, fall along the wayside? Christ also established the office of Seventy when He called seventy elders to be missionary ministers for His church to help the Apostles. Yet, I cannot find that office in the Catholic church either. Bishops existed in Christ’s church, according to the Bible, but bishops were not the same thing as apostles. When did the office of bishop usurp the office of apostle as leader of Christ’s church? Where did the offices of pope, cardinal, or archbishop come from? None of these three offices were established by Christ. One only has to look at the priesthood in the Catholic church to see evidence of an apostasy.
 
40.png
boppysbud:
Hoping you may abandon mormonism and become a Christian,
Click to expand...
Gary, likewise, I am hoping you will abandon Catholicism and become Christian.
 
40.png
JesusIsTheWay:
I don’t take LDS seriously. They provide only one thing… more souls to save…
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about the Catholic church.
 
Another thing that shows there was an apostasy in the church is the institution of “infant baptism”. Nowhere in the Bible was infant baptism performed, either by Jesus or His apostles. There is no specific place where an infant was declared baptized in the Bible. Yet, the Catholic church baptizes babies regularly. This practice is a mockery to God, for it suggests that God cannot create anything pure or without blemish. A baby cannot reason, so only a tyrranical and spiteful God would require such a commitment from a being that has no idea what is right and what is wrong. A church that practices infant baptisms is an apostate church.
 
You are quite wrong about infant baptism. God did create pure humans- Adam and Eve (and Mary)-however, when they ate of the Tree of Knowledge they were punished and the woman bore the pains of pregnancy, hinting that what she bore was no longer pure. Matt. 19:14: “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,” which suggests that Jesus came to save all people, no matter what age (which means that children and infants had some sin). Acts 2:38-9: Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” Again, the Cross saves children, also.

Whole houses were often baptized, as in Acts 16:15: “After she and her household had been baptized . . .” meaning too the children. Again, in Acts 16:33: [H]e and all his family were baptized at once," and in 1 Cor. 1:16: “I baptized the household of Stephanas also . . .” Clearly, Scripture does not forbid infant baptism (the necessity of infant salvation), but instead offers us many examples of entire households receiving God’s forgiveness.

Early Church Fathers have a piece to say about infant baptism. St. Hippolytus of Rome said in “The Apostalic Tradition” to “Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” Origen said in "Homilies on Leviticus that “Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants.” I could continue with Early Church Fathers opinions of Baptism, but I think you get the point. It has been performed since the time of Christ by His Church.

I like the way you tied your statement up: “A church that practices infant baptisms is an apostate church.” Well, I would have to say that a church that denies infant salvation would be in no way founded on Jesus Christ.
 
RodofIron: I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but you are very ignorant of the Church. If you just want me to answer your questions, it would probably be easier for you to just go to Catholic.com and click on any links on the left side. However, I will answer this question.

The episcopate is the office of bishop; the same office of bishop mentioned in the Bible. The original bishops were the Apostles called by Jesus Christ to lead His flock and teach His Word while He is not on Earth. You can deny this ad nauseum, but the Catholic Church’s bishops come from a long UNBROKEN line from the Apostles, hence is why the Catholic Church is an Apostalic Church. Modern day Apostles are bishops.

The office of apostle NEVER fell along the wayside. I am not sure what you mean, but I think you mean that because we don’t have an official title called specifically “Apostle”, the office fell into apostasy. Ask any bishop and they will tell you they are modern-day apostles.

Again, your ignorance rears its head. Popes, cardinals, and archbishops are ALL bishops, and hence apostles (an archbishop is no different than a bishop except that his see is larger). St. Peter, the first pope, was a bishop. (See another post of mine in this thread discussing the papacy) A pope is simply the leader of the Church of Christ on Earth in His absence. By the way, did Christ ever initiate the office of presidency to lead the church that was supposedly necessary because Christ’s original Church fell into apostasy even though He said He would be with it forever? Absolutely not. There is nothing even resembling this in Scripture, however, papacy (while not in the exact word, pope) is. (Cf. Matt. 16:18-19). A cardinal is a bishop, too. They are just in place as necessary to guide and lead the Church.

Christ said to Peter: “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven,” which gave Peter (and subsequent Peter’s, the popes) the necessary leeway to form and highly organized, highly structured Church.

About the priesthood in the Catholic Church: does this refer to the pedophile scandal? If it does, this is a very derogatory remark and I forgive you for your lack of care.

About the priesthood: at Mass, Catholics partake in Jesus’ Body and Blood as instructed at the Last Supper under the species of bread and wine. Why do Mormons use bread and water? Christ specifically said wine, not water. This would be grounds for an apostasy, no? Denying the specific Word’s of Christ?
 
"Andrew,

I am not a member of the LDS church, but I believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture. I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, since it was translated by an apostate church, nor do I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The title, “Word of God”, refers to Jesus, the word made flesh."

As you say, Jesus is the Word made Flesh. When God spoke to Abraham, wouldn’t anything He said be “the Word of God”? This wasn’t necessarily Jesus; however, while on Earth, Jesus (who is God) taught the Gospel (the Word of God).

You do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, yet (I am assuming) you fully believe that Christ is God and died for our sins so that we may join Him in Paradise. Which is exactly what the Gospels teach. As you are not a LDS, do you pick and choose which Scripture (in the Bible) to believe?

What do you mean by translate? Yes, the Catholic Church translated the Bible from its original language of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to other languages. The Catholic Church has IN NO WAY changed anything that is in the Bible when it was compiled during the Council of Hippo in the fifth century.

You can deny the Truth; however, that doesn’t make it any less the Truth.
 
Andrew Larkoski:
You are quite wrong about infant baptism.
Click to expand...
This is your opinion based on what you have been taught. But this is not Biblically sound, which I will show.
Andrew Larkoski:
God did create pure humans- Adam and Eve (and Mary)-however, when they ate of the Tree of Knowledge they were punished and the woman bore the pains of pregnancy, hinting that what she bore was no longer pure.
Click to expand...
No longer pure? What type of vindictive God do you believe in? A God that would start creating junk because Adam and Eve disobeyed Him? This idea suggests the type of God you believe in. Yet the Bible always speaks of God creating things that are good.
Andrew Larkoski:
Matt. 19:14: “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,” which suggests that Jesus came to save all people, no matter what age (which means that children and infants had some sin).
Click to expand...
Yet, no mention of baptism, either by Jesus or His apostles. If you would have continued reading to verse 15, you would have read that Jesus laid His hands upon them. The Laying on of Hand, a sign of Blessing the Children. We can see that Jesus blessed them by what He said. In verse 14, Jesus was not saying that the little children that came to Him were in need of salvation. Not at all. Instead, He was telling the people that they would have to become as pure as the little children to be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. I like the way verse 14 reads in the KJV bible: “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” This means that the kingdom of God is made up of the same purity as those little children. But I wonder, when you look at a little child, do you automatically think, “Sinner!”, rather than seeing the purity and innocent of that child?

(continued …)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top