The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Christianity is not merely another religion among world religions. Christianity makes claims about that which is really true. It is historical, there are obvious traces as to where Christianity has existed in the world.

There is nothing that would leave any sober-minded person to believe that Jewish Christians sailed into the new world(because the Jews were such great mariners???) and began some Christian civilization before man even had the ability to sail the world.

So anything that Joseph Smith put in that book has no bearing in fact. It’s all made up. Therefore this thread, IMHO, is pointless.

There was no “Great Apostasy”. Just someone for L. Ron Hubbard to look to later on for inspiration.

 

[ParkerD]

… Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed."

…

Palaiologos,

The law of Moses as to “peace-offerings” or “sin-offerings” or “trespass-offerings” had been completely fulfilled through the mortal ministry, atonement and atoning sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He said so. Paul understood this.

So what you have quoted here shows what I had mentioned that happened within the early years of the church, as shown also in Paul’s epistles and in Revelation. There were disputations about the law of Moses still “needing” to be practiced, because the Jewish converts–probably Pharisees as mentioned by Paul–wouldn’t let those practices of sacrifices/offerings go even though they had been completely fulfilled and were not taught by the apostles, and instead people acting without authority from the apostles brought them back as part of their religious ceremonies.

 

[NewSeeker]

So anything that Joseph Smith put in that book has no bearing in fact. It’s all made up. Therefore this thread, IMHO, is pointless.

Agreed. Reviewing the empirical evidence for the BoM with Mormons is a complete waste of time. Mormons love to dig in Mesoamerican ruins looking for evidence of Nephites, but when confronted with the indisputable fact that there isn’t a shred of corroborating archeological evidence to support their claims, they pull the old bait and switch, say “the Lamanites probably destroyed all the evidence anyway”, trot out Moroni’s Tiresome Promise, and say God didn’t intend for the book to be defended that way. Then they bear their testimony to you. They then say that you, too, can know the book is true, but only if you offer sincere, faithful, diligent, honest prayer to God for a witness.

The problem is, any crackpot can write a book, claim it is of ancient origin, conveniently say “all of the evidence was destroyed, but God doesn’t operate that way anyway”, and urge you to ask God in prayer if it’s true. If you don’t get the promised answer, then that confirms to the crackpot that you’re insincere and lacking in faith ('cause he knows his book is true!). The Mormon approach to verifying the historicity of the BoM is specious. It’s a nicely wrapped, self-contained package of circular reasoning that innoculates Mormons and those who are easily persuaded by such ‘logic’ from the requirement to provide empirical evidence to back up historical claims.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Therefore this thread, IMHO, is pointless.

I don’t believe in Joseph Smith or the apostasy. I do wish to learn more about Mormons and their beliefs. There is indeed a point to this thread. I do not wish to be ignorant of any faith group, no matter how credible I may or may not find their beliefs. This thread was never about debating the issue with Mormons or trying to convince them their beliefs are incorrect.

 

[mtolympus]

The meaning of the word apostle is “one who is sent out”. St. Paul was the “Apostle to the Gentiles”, but he was not one of the Twelve. The Catholic Church does not lack for apostles, as we are all “one who is sent out”.

Like the Twelve, Paul was an ordained apostle. (1 Timothy 2:7) He held a leadership position by which he appointed others to ordain elders. (Titus 1:5)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Like the Twelve, Paul was an ordained apostle. (1 Timothy 2:7) He held a leadership position by which he appointed others to ordain elders. (Titus 1:5)

You are correct. They ordained and appointed presbyters, who in turn did the same, and continue to do so today. These are the Bishops of Christ’s Church, the successors to the Apostles.

This is a video of a Bishop’s ordination.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…the Apostles were no slackers.

They had great insight and foresight…of course, it was imperative they live out the mission entrusted to them by the Son of God.

History proves the Apostles had faithful and most profound defenders of the true faith.

Do not take things of God uncommonly or casually.

Use reason. THINK.

You think the apostles, who were with Christ over 3 years, then let go of His church??? Just die and forget about the people present and those young who were baptized as infants…and let everything go with no succession???

And wouldn’t this profound and most imperative directive to pass on the true faith in Jesus Chrsit and all that He did for us, would likewise be picked up and carried on in the next generation…considering the darkness of the world Christ had entered, overcame, …

And Christ then becoming the Light of the World…and then because of His apostles – He had chosen – turned off the switch??? And the Holy Spirit decide to give up and leave???

Like Christ through the Holy Spirit abandoning us with death of last apostle??..If you do, then your concept of God is not same as ours.

And because this new and living faith in Chrsit is so real…of course, great and precise documentation…the work of the entire church and those commissioned to do so, made every effort to record…even without enough materials to use and in face of persecution and martyrdom.

 

[pablope]

Like the Twelve, Paul was an ordained apostle. (1 Timothy 2:7) He held a leadership position by which he appointed others to ordain elders. (Titus 1:5)

Correct…but none of the Apostles ordained him…as per Acts 13:

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

But none of apostles ordained him…but elders of the Church at Antioch.

Peter founded the Church at Antioch…and appointed/ordained the elders there…who in turn ordained Paul…and paul appointing others to ordain elders.

There is your apostolic succession…practiced by the CC to this day.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Correct…but none of the Apostles ordained him…as per Acts 13:

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

But none of apostles ordained him…but elders of the Church at Antioch.

Peter founded the Church at Antioch…and appointed/ordained the elders there…who in turn ordained Paul…and paul appointing others to ordain elders.

There is your apostolic succession…practiced by the CC to this day.

Yes, Paul defends himself more than once, based on the assertion of his vision of Jesus Christ, and his calling by God to be an apostle to the gentiles, that he has the same calling and authority to teach the Gospel, as the Twelve. There is no reason to defend this other than people were questioning both his calling as an apostle (one who is sent by Jesus Christ) and his authority to teach.

There is also a contrast in his relationship to the Twelve, while they counseled together and chose Matthias to replace Judas, and accepted him as one of the Twelve. Paul was teaching the gentiles for three years before he went to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter and briefly met James. It was 14 years before he he sought out James, Peter and John because they were “reputed to be pillars”! These are not the words of someone in a familiar relationship. It was at this point that the 3 of the 12 extended a hand of fellowship, recognizing Paul and Barnabas as having the same calling of the Holy Spirit as themselves. However, Paul and Barnabas were never one of the Twelve.

See Galatians chapters 1 and 2.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ll also add, that a few years ago I came across a Mormon man who viewed these facts regarding Paul as a sign that anything Paul taught should be viewed with suspicion, and verified against the teachings of Mormon leaders.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ll also add, that a few years ago I came across a Mormon man who viewed these facts regarding Paul as a sign that anything Paul taught should be viewed with suspicion, and verified against the teachings of Mormon leaders.

It is my understanding that Mormonism does not teach Biblical infallibility and that the statements of Scripture and prophets are subject to revision based on the current revelations of an LDS prophet. Mormonism, at least the kind I’ve encountered, is probably the most doctrinally flexible and non-dogmatic group of otherwise conservative religionists that I’ve met.

 

[ParkerD]

It is my understanding that Mormonism does not teach Biblical infallibility and that the statements of Scripture and prophets are subject to revision based on the current revelations of an LDS prophet. Mormonism, at least the kind I’ve encountered, is probably the most doctrinally flexible and non-dogmatic group of otherwise conservative religionists that I’ve met.

Christ Is the Way,

What I’ve encountered while participating in this forum is that Latter-day Saints adhere more closely to the Bible itself in doctrine and in being able to show doctrinal support for their beliefs from the original church established by Jesus Christ as well as the teachings that He drew upon from the writings of the prophets we now have as the Old Testament, than any other religion that claims to believe in the Bible. So although the term “Biblical infallibility” is not a term Latter-day Saints use since we do indeed believe in a living prophet and a living prophet addresses modern-day problems and issues for families here and now, the truths found in the Bible are very comfortably taught and believed by Latter-day Saints.

Last year, the Latter-day Saint gospel course of study for their “Sunday School” used the Old Testament, and this year the course of study is the New Testament, each week for each adult who attends and participates as a part of the normal Sunday services they attend with their families (unless it is a week when there is a larger “conference” gathering, four times per year).

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

So although the term “Biblical infallibility” is not a term Latter-day Saints use since we do indeed believe in a living prophet and a living prophet addresses modern-day problems and issues for families here and now, the truths found in the Bible are very comfortably taught and believed by Latter-day Saints.

I understand. I did not intend to imply that Mormons reject the Bible as a whole or do not believe in using the Bible in an authoritative sense. It seems to me, though, that the fact remains that in any potential conflict between the Bible and a modern LDS prophet, a faithful Mormon believer can always resolve the issue by rejecting the authority of the Bible in favor of the LDS prophet’s authority. At the very least, I and others here have seen this very thing occur. Perhaps this is not problematic for Mormons but it makes me very uneasy.

 

[ParkerD]

I understand. I did not intend to imply that Mormons reject the Bible as a whole or do not believe in using the Bible in an authoritative sense. It seems to me, though, that the fact remains that in any potential conflict between the Bible and a modern LDS prophet, a faithful Mormon believer can always resolve the issue by rejecting the authority of the Bible in favor of the LDS prophet’s authority. At the very least, I and others here have seen this very thing occur. Perhaps this is not problematic for Mormons but it makes me very uneasy.

Christ Is the Way,

I’ve not known of a case where a Latter-day Saint teaching is “rejecting the authority of the Bible.” If you care to deal in specifics rather than generalizing and drawing vague obscurity that sows doubt and fear (i.e. “very uneasy”) from that generalization, then whatever issue you had in mind can be looked at in its specific application and situation.

The Bible shows that God intended humankind to have an ongoing relationship with Him, and that history moves toward a Millenium of peace, including that getting to that Millenium will not be a static “nothing ever changes” situation.

 

[mtolympus]

Correct…but none of the Apostles ordained him…as per Acts 13:

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

But none of apostles ordained him…but elders of the Church at Antioch.

Peter founded the Church at Antioch…and appointed/ordained the elders there…who in turn ordained Paul…and paul appointing others to ordain elders.

There is your apostolic succession…practiced by the CC to this day.

I really appreciate and enjoy your comments based on scripture. However, I think it is quite a leap to conclude that from these verses in Acts 13 that Paul was not ordained an apostle by the other apostles. First of all Paul was very new in the church at this time and I doubt this was referring to his ordination an an apostle. This apparently was referring to the call of Saul and Barnabus as missionaries. In the KJV verse 2 says: “Separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work” but I like the Catholic Bible translation much better: “Set apart for me Barnabus and Saul.” To “set apart” is the exact term the LDS church uses today when they are given a specific calling such as a missionary assignment. When receiving a new “calling” we are always “set apart” by the laying on of hands.

 

[rinnie]

I really appreciate and enjoy your comments based on scripture. However, I think it is quite a leap to conclude that from these verses in Acts 13 that Paul was not ordained an apostle by the other apostles. First of all Paul was very new in the church at this time and I doubt this was referring to his ordination an an apostle. This apparently was referring to the call of Saul and Barnabus as missionaries. In the KJV verse 2 says: “Separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work” but I like the Catholic Bible translation much better: “Set apart for me Barnabus and Saul.” To “set apart” is the exact term the LDS church uses today when they are given a specific calling such as a missionary assignment. When receiving a new “calling” we are always “set apart” by the laying on of hands.

I agree we are given authority by the laying of hands. But the bible also says to be carefull on who you lay your hands on.

In the time of Christ to the present the laying of the hands means Apostolic Authority given to our Bishops. Priests. etc.

We are all called to do certain things. Like a priest may alway be called by Christ to be a Priest, one will become a Bishop out of many etc.

But the laying of hands in the RCC are quite differemt from your faith, I believe we can both agree.

In the RCC it proves Apostolic Succession.

 

[pablope]

I really appreciate and enjoy your comments based on scripture.

You are very welcome.

However, I think it is quite a leap to conclude that from these verses in Acts 13 that Paul was not ordained an apostle by the other apostles.

 

[Stephen168]

This apparently was referring to the call of Saul and Barnabus as missionaries. In the KJV verse 2 says: “Separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work” but I like the Catholic Bible translation much better: “Set apart for me Barnabus and Saul.” To “set apart” is the exact term the LDS church uses today when they are given a specific calling such as a missionary assignment. When receiving a new “calling” we are always “set apart” by the laying on of hands.

During Jesus’ ministry, he taught his disciple all they needed to know for salvation. Many of his disciples were called Apostles. The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5). Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1). Mark and Luke the Evangelists are referred to as Apostles. By tradition, James, Luke, and Mark were members of the seventy. Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14, Gal 2:9, Acts 13:1-3). Barnabas was taught by the Twelve and was with Paul on his first journey. These Apostles are the witnesses and recorders of Christ’s earthly ministry. Most were witnesses to his resurrection.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve were not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

“For by her activity the machinations of her foes were promptly shown up and extinguished, though one after another heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength,”

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve not known of a case where a Latter-day Saint teaching is “rejecting the authority of the Bible.” If you care to deal in specifics rather than generalizing and drawing vague obscurity that sows doubt and fear (i.e. “very uneasy”) from that generalization, then whatever issue you had in mind can be looked at in its specific application and situation.

I did not say there is a case of LDS teaching rejecting Biblical authority. I referred to individual Mormons having the potential to do so. I suppose you could deny that is the case, accuse me of sowing doubt and fear, etc. Rejecting Biblical infallibility and accepting the authority of a living “prophet” who has done nothing to confirm his prophethood makes me uneasy. This is just my honest feeling about it and is not meant to sow doubt and fear.

If you want an example of why that kind of thing concerns me, the former LDS teaching that excluded black men from the priesthood is deeply concerning. As far as I can tell this practice was clearly an official teaching. Another teaching, the past official status of which I am uncertain, is the now repudiated Adam-God theory of, I believe, Brigham Young. Whether it was official or not, my understanding is that it was once a very popular belief among LDS.

Whether any of these things can be blamed on the LDS belief in Biblical fallibility or not is open to discussion. The practices, however, appear to be very unBiblical to me and they originated from your prophets.

The Bible shows that God intended humankind to have an ongoing relationship with Him, and that history moves toward a Millenium of peace, including that getting to that Millenium will not be a static “nothing ever changes” situation.

Yes, the Bible shows us that God wants an ongoing relationship. That says nothing about any of the distinctive Mormon teachings and their validity.

 

[ParkerD]

…
If you want an example of why that kind of thing concerns me, the former LDS teaching that excluded black men from the priesthood is deeply concerning. As far as I can tell this practice was clearly an official teaching.

Christ Is the Way,

Yes, that would concern many people, no doubt.

I look at that situation, was very glad the change came about (many of us were not surprised by the change), and have an understanding about it that would be different than yours since one who has studied Latter-day Saints history in Missouri would be familiar that the member families would have been killed en masse if their church was ordaining blacks to the priesthood at that time and saying it was the true church of Jesus Christ. Why, you likely will ask? Because of the existing culture of the non-LDS people who lived in Missouri, and the already existing animosities toward the Latter-day Saints, including economic factors and secret plots to acquire the Latter-day Saints’ improved lands and farms cheaply.

Another teaching, the past official status of which I am uncertain, is the now repudiated Adam-God theory of, I believe, Brigham Young. Whether it was official or not, my understanding is that it was once a very popular belief among LDS.

It was not official, and it was not “very popular” at all–it was marginally believed by a few people, and never really understood.

Whether any of these things can be blamed on the LDS belief in Biblical fallibility or not is open to discussion. The practices, however, appear to be very unBiblical to me and they originated from your prophets.

Actually, as an interesting aside, since Catholics believe the “Ancient of Days” is Heavenly Father, whereas the Latter-day Saints believe the “Ancient of Days” is Adam, one could say that if both concepts were true (which I don’t think both are) then the speculation of Brigham Young would bridge the two beliefs.