The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

  • Thread starter Thread starter darcee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rodofiron:

As others have noted, those Bible passages indicate that some will fall away from the One, True Faith as instituted by Christ. A few years after Christ’s death and resurrection, heretics of all flavors popped up, proclaiming that they taught the Truth. As the Early Church Fathers are a testament, the Catholic Church took a very hard stand against these heretics and cleary spelled out the Church’s beliefs in many writings of the early centuries after Christ. NONE of these beliefs have changed in the 2000 years since Christ in His Catholic Church. As my Newman Center priest said, there is no dilution of the Faith over the thousands of years since Christ. It is as firm and complete now as it was then. I can name MANY that have come after Christ’s Church was established and claimed to teach in His Name, thus falling from the Church and teaching heresy. This doesn’t degrade Christ’s Church, but only makes a greater need for the Truth in the world.

“Why would you quote from a book that was written in 1945, to prove what happened more than 100 years before?”

Why would you, rodofiron, believe something that was written in the mid 19th century (the Book of Mormon) to prove something that supposedly occured 1000+ (at least) years ago?

Finally, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 – “Let no man deceive you by any means . . .” Unless, of course, that man is Joeseph Smith?
 
40.png
darcee:
In his “First Vision” Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church, claims that when he inquired of God which church he should join he was told
According to Smith, God said that the Catholic Church was not the Church of Jesus Christ (since no church existing in 1820 was true). That somewhere in history the Rock of Peter had failed.
Coming from a Catholic experience we can point to documentation through history, including an unbroken succession of Popes, a consistent theology and religious practice which is in harmony if not identical to writings describing the earliest practice of Christians. And yet the claim is made that authentic worship of Christ ceased sometime early in Christian history.

-D
Click to expand...
And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!
 
E.E.N.S.:
And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!
Click to expand...
It doesn’t look like this is on this thread anywhere so here it is.
This would be of course the most critical aspect of our disagreements in your post. MOST Catholics have pointed to Matthew 16:18 to show Peter’s primacy AND the continuation of the church/Peterine authority on the earth. Catholics take all LDS apostasy predicting scriptures and state that they speak of a partial apostasy (I could quote these and argue that they do not speak of limited apostasy at least for the full organization as opposed to the “lesser organization,” but I will not). Why I mention this is that you have an interpretation of Matthew 16:18, but I do not think it is better than mine in fact, I think it is less solid than mine.

Did the “gates of Hades” “prevail” against the God-man Jesus Christ? I really think that we would without reservation say, no they did not “prevail.” But we would also say without reservation say that the God-man Jesus Christ surely died.

I say that Peter was the Rock. The “gates of Hades” did not “prevail” against the keys of the kingdom. But that the keys (for the headship of the church which you call papacy and I call head apostleship) were not passed on to Linus, Cletus, Clement. But instead the “prevailing” occurred when Peter passed Christ’s keys to Joseph Smith. This I believe is a very solid interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I will site two Catholics who say identical and very similar things.

Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18

“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

In this light I would suggest that Matthew 16:18 is a promise that the apostasy would merely be a set back, but the restoration would shine through ultimately.

Continued…
 
Cardinal Newman clearly links Matthew 16:18 as promising the continuation of the Church. But he also believes that the concept of the papacy developed. He would say from a seed or a shadow and as a result of need. Because before there was a need, “Love dispenses with laws.” Cardinal Newman likens these scriptural statements to prophesies and promises that Him who gave them would surely cause to come to pass. I can fully embrace this truth, but I say that Him who gave them caused them to come to pass at the restoration not as the development of the papacy occured.

Continued…
 
Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:

Such are the words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give unto Thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Again: “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.” And “Satan hath desired to have you; I have prayed for thee, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Such, too, are various other indications of the Divine purpose as regards St. Peter, too weak in themselves to be insisted on separately, but not without a confirmatory power; such as his new name, his walking on the sea, his miraculous draught of fishes on two occasions, our Lord’s preaching out of his boat, and His appearing first to him after His resurrection.

It should be observed, moreover, that a similar promise was made by the patriarch Jacob to Judah: “Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: the sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Shiloh come;” yet this promise was not fulfilled for perhaps eight hundred years, during which long period we hear little or nothing of the tribe descended from him. In like manner, “On this rock I will build My Church,” “I give unto thee the Keys,” “Feed My sheep,” are not precepts merely, but prophecies and promises, promises to be accomplished by Him who made them, prophecies to be fulfilled according to the need, and to be interpreted by the event,—by the history, that is, of the fourth and fifth centuries, though they had a partial fulfilment even in the preceding period, and a still more noble development in the middle ages.

TOm:

So were I Catholic I would read this as Newman does. I would see partial fulfillment beginning with the tremendous respect afforded (and surely deserved) the Church of Rome by all Christians from its inception. I would see partial fulfillment in the words of Irenaeus that a few years later were called “usurpations” by the soon to be apostate Tertullian. I would see more complete fulfillment as Newman does in the 4th-6th Centuries. I would see continual development culminating (at least to this time) in the defining of infallibility by Vatican I.

But, I am not a Catholic. I do not agree with Newman in all points. I believe as does Winter and as perhaps did Newman that “prevail” means win in the end. I believe that the CoJCoLDS is Christ Church and it is the fulfillment of the words of Jesus Christ to Peter.

Charity, TOm
 
It seems there have been a few folks that have questioned if Joseph Smith restored anything. This is #5 of course.

#5 There is evidence that a number of early church beliefs were restored by the CoJCoLDS.
  1. Code: 
     Authoritative Baptism
  2. Code: 
     Men may become gods
  3. Code: 
     Creation from eternal matter.
  4. Code: 
     Subordination within the Trinity.
  5. Code: 
     Anthropomorphic God
  6. Code: 
     And ….
5-1 Authoritative Baptism –

This is particularly interesting because Martin Luther commented on this effectively saying that no valid baptism or ordination would exist in his (Luther’s). So if this was a wrong direction as the CoJCoLDS suggests through God’s interaction and restoration this “development” would in and of itself prove that there was an Apostasy.

Continued…
 
From: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Apostasy.pt2.html

Another early question regarding baptism which clearly illustrates the lack of inspired leadership in the post apostolic church was the use of form versus authority of ministration. After the middle of the third century A.D., individuals baptized in various Christian sects began, in growing numbers, to ask for admission to the Roman church or other “unorthodox” churches. Many smaller sects held to the general practice of admitting to their number without rebaptism those baptized into some other version of the church. The Bishop of Rome (Stephen) held that the same principle should apply to the Roman church.(4) A number of other churches, both in Africa and Asia held out for rebaptism of converts to orthodoxy.(5) Those siding with Stephen believed that merely using the “right words” was enough to guarantee the validity of the ordinance, the important part being the “sincerity of the person receiving baptism.”(6) In spite of the protests of the prestigious African bishops, the Roman position became the approved practice as the fourth century opened. Augustine himself seems oddly confused on the subject.

In summary, he states the position of the church as:

“Without doubt the heretic and the sinner baptize illicitly, and they have not the right to baptize, they usurp the formulas and the rites of Christ and the church, however, the sacraments are venerable and to be recognized none the less in their unworthy hands. For the sacrament to be pure it is enough that the formula be pronounced literally, it matters not what meaning the minister gives to the terms that compose it.”(7) Hence, baptism is only a form and may be performed by anyone! This is entirely different from New Testament practice where only those with authority could perform ordinances.(8)
  1. J. Tixeront, History des Dogmas dans l’Antiquite Chretienne, 1:278.
  2. James C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church: from the Apostolic Age to the Reformation, A.D. 64-1517, 1:172-173.
  3. Cyprian, Epistle LXXIII, I.
  4. P. Batiffol, Le Catholicisme, ( 3:159.
  5. Heb. 5:1-6; Acts 19:15-17; Matt. 28:16-19; Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans, 8:2.
…
 
Next, I think it is appropriate to recognize that Pope Stephen was not able to receive supernatural revelation from God to decide this issue. In a desire to conform to tradition it would seem that he might have had access to Canon 19 of Nicea. Canon 19 required the rebaptism of Paulianists.

This is not some iron clad proof that Pope Stephen changed the witness of history. I understand this. But one would think that Pope Stephen would find a need to address such things instead of using the argument criticized by St. Cyprian, “But the heretics do not rebaptize those we have baptized.” To my knowledge Pope Stephen did not address Canon 19 of Nicea.

I will work on more sections of 5 later.
Charity, TOm
 
#5 There is evidence that a number of early church beliefs were restored by the CoJCoLDS.

5-2 Men may become gods

There are a few ECF quotes on this thread. I can add about 45 ECF quotes to these if you do not think there is evidence that “Men may become gods” was a prevalent concept in the ECF.

Now in this thread as I have suggested elsewhere, I suggest that Catholics have room to embrace this concept. For this reason, this only becomes evidence of a divine restoration if it seems unlikely that Catholics shared these ideas with Joseph Smith. Certainly this seems unlikely, but we have the million tome basement theories.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1624

Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
rodofiron:

As others have noted, those Bible passages indicate that some will fall away from the One, True Faith as instituted by Christ.
A few years after Christ’s death and resurrection, heretics of all flavors popped up, proclaiming that they taught the Truth. As the Early Church Fathers are a testament, the Catholic Church took a very hard stand against these heretics and cleary spelled out the Church’s beliefs in many writings of the early centuries after Christ.
Click to expand...
Where do you get the idea that only some will fall away?

In my quote from Matthew 24:9-12, it reads that many would be offended, and that many false prophets would arise, and that these false prophets would deceive many people. Because iniquity would abound, the love of many would become cold.

Many is not the same as some. Some refers to a few, or less than half. Many, on the other hand, refers to more than half. It refers to a large majority. So, what you have said about only some would fall away is not supported by the above scripture. All it takes is a majority to overturn something. In fact, all it really takes is for a ruler to make a decree and force everyone to follow it. When Constantine ruled in favor of Christianity, he was still a pagan and did not covert to Christianity until just before his death. Constantine was the major player in deciding the direction that Christianity would continue thereafter. Constantine’s Christianity patterned itself after the hierarchy of the Roman Empire and forced people to either believe a certain way or to be tortured or killed. This led right into the Inquisition.

Further, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7, it reads that Christ will not come again until there be a falling away first. Verse 3 does not say that there would only be a partial falling away. There are no modifiers around “falling away”… A falling away implies a complete falling away, not just a partial one. Otherwise, the verse would have told us that only some would fall away.

If there was no danger of a complete apostasy to occur, why would Paul have said in Acts 20:29-31, to watch over the flock and be careful because grievous wolves would rise up to destroy the flock. He also said that among those he was addressing that they would depart from the faith and lead away the flock. But yet you claim that the Catholic church represents the people who did not depart from the faith or fall away from the truth. But how can you be so sure that the Catholic church was not the one who actually did get deceived and who led people away from the truth? What evidence do you have that the Catholic church was not the deceiver?
 
Unfortunately TOm grabbing a few disparate quotes from here and there won’t contradict over 1500 years of consistent tradition.

You have yet to convincingly show that there was a time when the early Christian Church resembled the modern day Mormon church more closely then the Catholic Church. Papal authority exists with our earliest records your conjecture and reliance on one or two ECF and your unique interpretation of their writings underscore that you do not have a firm footing to stand on.

While you logic quite soundly from a certain point the assumptions you seem to make to get to that point are typical of Mormon “scholarship” ignore anything that disagrees with your point, you hold on to a feather’s worth of opinion that agrees with your thesis in the face of an avalanche of material which says you are wrong.

-D
 
rod of iron:

Yes, you’re right. Many have fallen away, exemplified most notably by the reformation fathers and all those who followed them up to the present. I am sure these have been many. And, this falling away did not come from God. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that God doesn’t cause division. Disobedience is the main cause of division as exemplified by Adam and Eve in Genesis. 👍

Jorge.
 
rod of iron:

You cannot use relative words such as “some” or “many” to prove such absolute concepts as “zero”, and “all”. This is really making HUGE and DISPROPORTIONATE assumptions, which are impossible to support, and even lend less creedence to your argument. 👋

Jorge.
 
Actually many does not refer to “more than half” that would be “a majority” Many is simply more then some, but not necessarily half or more than half. For example: “many people die of cancer each year” this in no way indicates that more then half of all people die each year of cancer.

-D
 
rodofiron:

Would ECF know anything about an apostasy? I mean, they were temporaly much closer to the actual event than we are. So if a loss of authority occurred, I think some would say something.

I’ll answer this one for you. In a word, no.
 
40.png
darcee:
Unfortunately TOm grabbing a few disparate quotes from here and there won’t contradict over 1500 years of consistent tradition.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you have not shown that I have “grabbed a few disparate quotes.” It is I who have grabbed quotes to show there are problems with “consistent tradition” theory.

Have you read Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine? I do not demand that abandon your “consistent tradition” theory, but since I have good reason to know that it is flawed I do request that you prove it if you wish to question my ideas with it.

continued…
 
40.png
darcee:
You have yet to convincingly show that there was a time when the early Christian Church resembled the modern day Mormon church more closely then the Catholic Church. Papal authority exists with our earliest records your conjecture and reliance on one or two ECF and your unique interpretation of their writings underscore that you do not have a firm footing to stand on.
Click to expand...
Well, I have not even tried to do this. I am at least somewhat versed in early church history, and I would not be so silly as to have suggested I could show this. The question is are you trying to say that St. Clement of Rome would be comfortable in the modern Roman Catholic Church. The fact is that he would be quite lost. Would St. Peter be more comfortable in the CoJCoLDS or in the RCC? I do not think we have enough information to say.

What I did say is that I can show that there is evidence that Joseph Smith did restore doctrines that existed in the early church. This is what I have begun to do. And I am unconvinced that broad sweeping statements about “consistent tradition” should be viewed as interacting with my responses to your initial query.
40.png
darcee:
While you logic quite soundly from a certain point the assumptions you seem to make to get to that point are typical of Mormon “scholarship” ignore anything that disagrees with your point, you hold on to a feather’s worth of opinion that agrees with your thesis in the face of an avalanche of material which says you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you should look at what I do with respect to “ignoring anything that disagrees with my point.” As I see this, I have addressed many things that disagree with my point. You have made respectful comments about what I have said, but most recently they have not been substantial. Every substantial comment associated with the apostasy, I think I have addressed. I think it is you who have ignored what I have said.

In addition to this, my understanding of the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS incorporates a plethora of information. I can explain why ALL (that is every single one I have ever seen in my life) the problems with the CoJCoLDS do not demand that it is not God’s church. I have yet to see anyone effectively explain to me how all the evidences are congruent with the fraud theory. I do not think you have even tried to do this.

Charity, TOm
 
You sound quite vain in your assumptions of your learning and ability. Are we to actually believe that you have a better understanding of what these ECF’s envisioned then anyone else alive or dead? When you own arguments aren’t consistent from thread to thread?

You are arguing a strawman of your own creation. You set up a series of points in, I believe, you first post in this thread. Then you attempt to show that your points are valid – which in theory would prove you case.

In your first point you claim that Clement “had no concept of the primacy of Rome”. This claim has been refuted. It seems obvious to any fair minded person that when Clement speaks in his "Letter to the Corinthians" that he does so believing himself to be both the arbitrator of a dispute and the final word of that dispute and he is so bold as to say “they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger” if they ignore him. Yet somehow you can not see that he is aware that he has a concept of his own authority… this can only be a indication of your willful and insurmountable basis. You read his polite and conciliatory tone as being unaware of his position, yet ignore that his words carry the power without needing to resort to heavy handedness… his lightest touch commands, which is more a proof of power then any screaming diatribe. Read what Andrew has posted again for more on this topic.
 
Your appeal to Tertulian is interesting. His Montanistic views on revelation do conflict quiet soundly with the primacy of Rome, but when seen in that light do not touch the issue in a substantive way. His belief in “New Revelation” from those chosen by Montanus and perhaps others “touched” by the Holy Spirit would necessitate a view that ANY claim of spiritual primacy would be a usurpation. (It is easy to suppose that his arguments would have been identical against the Mormon First Presidency with regaurds claims to authority in his words “…sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum..”) You would do better to quote someone else who didn’t feel that “New Revelation” was being received in some proto-Pentecostal-like movement that found certain sins unpardonable.

Your third point “Peter unequal to Pope” in addition to being somewhat irrelevant, as it does not show apostasy, you have failed to prove it and you display a Janis view as to wither the LDS first presidency functions as apostles (bringing forth new doctrine that is equal weight to scripture) or do they function as Popes (if they “advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” )

Your forth point was almost addressed by ROI, but has soundly been shown that the quotes he pulled out of the scriptures do not say what he (or by extension you claim) that “The early Christians who where truly close to the Apostles knew the church was to become less than what the Apostles established.” If you have some sound proof of this please show it.
 
You keep claiming that you have proofs of LDS practices being performed by early Christians, but you have not shown it. You keep saying that ALL the arguments against the BoM have been shown to be erroneous, but other then very very weak archeology consisting solely of conjecture based on coincidence and the provability of extremely vague descriptions of the Old World geography you have shown nothing. No logical answers for the mention of things in the BoM that have never been found in the New World (we could go back and address the idea that bees are really wasps and horses are really lamas and steel was really stone implements… but I doubt you are motivated to do so.). You provide no reasonable explanation for the changes of wording in the BoM (a most perfect of books) No explanations for all the prophecies of Joseph Smith that didn’t come to pass, the incorporation of Masonic rites in the Temple ceremonies… no of it. Only three Hebrew letters on a rock … that is the basis for you feeling such a strong proof for the BoM?

you say "In addition to this, my understanding of the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS incorporates a plethora of information. I can explain why ALL (that is every single one I have ever seen in my life) the problems with the CoJCoLDS do not demand that it is not God?s church. I have yet to see anyone effectively explain to me how all the evidences are congruent with the fraud theory. I do not think you have even tried to do this. "

I for one am not impressed with your vanity, I have not seen you compellingly explain ANY of the objections to the Mormon faith much less ALL of them and the only reason you don’t see the evidences as being congruent with the fraud theory is that you are sunk within your own bias and I suspect very much sold on the idea that God wants you to be a God like him … even though this is no where even implied in the Bible.

The question was not to prove your theory of apostasy… but Joseph Smith’s which you yourself decimated earlier. Joseph Smith declares that he was told `
“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’”

Yet you yourself acknowledge that many of the LDS teachings are exactly the same as those found in other faith who creeds are an abomination, all wrong and corrupt. Joseph Smith claims a total apostasy and attributes this claim to God. You on the other hand claim heresies and authoritive apostasy. A very different thing.

-D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top