The Great Apostasy Debate

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

As the LDS Church moves further and further from what Joseph Smith taught and practiced it wouldn’t surprise me if, at some point in the future, the common LDS consensus is that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel only in spite of his own misguided thoughts and actions. He would not be considered a great man, just a vessel that God used to do his bidding. This is just my hypothesis based on what has happened and what I see continuing to happen in the LDS Church.

It’s ironic to me that the “Restored Church” has had to evolve so much. Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon and then slowly moved away from it’s doctrines. Now, it appears, the present LDS Church is moving away from Joseph Smith and back toward the Book of Mormon doctrines.

I would say that’s just proof that it’s NOT “the true church”, that it was in fact, a man-made religion. Others would obviously disagree with me, but that’s my take on it.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

Unlike the Catholic Church we are not constrained by the uncanonized traditional views of the past. We accept things by common consent, canonize them, and they become binding LDS doctrine.

We accept things by common consent? What does that mean?

TOmNossor:
We follow the modern prophet and find place for his authoritative interpretation. I am not scandalized by the prevalence of thinking that does not match mine in the earlier years of the CoJCoLDS.

We’re not talking about what the average LDS thought or believed in the past–we’re talking about your “divinely chosen leaders,” whose responsibility was to teach the masses. Now they did teach the masses that God the Father was once a man. Joseph Smith taught this. You believe he was a prophet of God. I disagree that as a Mormon you only have to believe what is in your scriptures, Tom. Mormons are expected to believe whatever the prophets teach, whether it ends up in your scriptures or not. I find it troubling that you have made this separation. I believe it is a convenient way for you to dismiss some of the more controversial teachings of the prophets, ones that you are clearly uncomfortable with. Most Mormons do not separate the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets this way. They regard them with equal authority, which is why they’re constantly quoting the prophets in their talks at church or during their home teacher visits. If you choose to downgrade the teachings of the prophets that didn’t necessarily make the scriptures, then you are outside the maintstream of Mormonism.

 

[ex-mormon]

What a long thread on debate that got off the subject. How is this for a brief answer, LDS people believe that from revelation from Joseph Smith if they follow all the tenants of mormonism, ie; Temple endowments, full tithe, etc. They will become gods in the afterlife. This belief is contrary to everything in the Bible and is most importantly what original sin is all about, something they convienently dont believe we are born with. If there is any question of apostasy than this would be the perfect example.

 

[losav]

To Serious Catholics please have a good say about CAtholicism. It is being portrayed as the future Anti-Christ

pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7636712#post7636712

Thanks if you give light.

 

[frank_martin]

TOmNossor:

I am not arguing that I can show that the fathers are proto-Mormons. I am suggesting that orthodoxy developed. (in truth I was just responding to what I consider to be a flawed apologetic from tmaque). If the authority that developed orthodoxy was not valid the conclusions of that authority are not necessarily correct. From the earliest of the orthodox ECF, we see little or nothing that conflicts with LDS theology. As we walk forward in time we begin to see more and more things that are solidly non-LDS. Many of these things become orthodox and are then accented.

Also, is the surviving records of the Early Church evidence that Early Christians are proto-Catholics. Not only do I say no, I also say that this “no” is even more powerful because orthodoxy preserved the records we have in most instances. Oat Soda proposed a Clement test (post #178). This test invalidates Catholicism too.

I am also putting forth that for Joseph Smith to randomly guess and arrive at so many ideas that have solid Early Church support is unlikely. The presence of these ideas in the Early Church is something Joseph Smith could not have known about.

To my knowledge there is no official stance on the timing or cause of the apostasy. There are certainly some very prevalent positions on some of the symptoms of the apostasy, but I am not sure I would call these official.

What I think is generally accepted is that the Apostasy is an apostasy of the fullness of the authority. Catholics typically speak of the apostasy as a complete departure from belief in Christ, but LDS do not mean this. We mean an absence of authority.

Some would point to heresy as a cause of the absence of authority, but I think this is becoming less prevalent. I point to heresy as a symptom of the absence of authority.

My personal opinion is that the authority possessed by Peter was not passed to the Bishop of Rome. The local authority of the Bishops was a valid authority, but it was not such that universal theological questions could be answered. The Bishop was sufficient for addressing the needs of his local flock, but he could not (nor could he gather in a council to do so) define the Trinity and other things for the entire church.

After Pope St. Stephen prevailed over St. Cyprian and two African councils, the acceptance of heretical (and non-authoritative) baptism resulted in a slow erosion of the local authority that was valid. A some future time, everyone was either baptized by someone without valid authority or ordained by someone without valid authority. Martin Luther observed that if a valid authority was required for baptism then this practice would have resulted in an absence of authority. He concluded that the authority was not necessary. I think he was wrong.

I can provide a number of reasons for putting forth the above.

In addition to the above “evidence,” we can track a number of developments within the Early Church that move us from more LDS positions to less LDS positons. Creation ex Nihilo in my opinion is a keystone in much of the restoration evidences to which LDS can point.

Of course the Cardinal Newman Catholic option is not untenable. I just do not believe it is as strong as the restoration position.

Charity, TOm

 

[Ignatius]

tkdnick:

I will be having a discussion with some LDS friends of mine regarding the Great Apostasy and wanted get the evidences and proofs for and against this apostasy. Contributions are much appreciated.

“The Great Apostasy” is a complete fabrication, anyone who has read the Church writings going back through the millennia can see the same teaching running directly back to the 2nd and 1st centuries and to the Apostles. The very basis of what is taught is what has always been taught.

 

[tkdnick]

“The Great Apostasy” is a complete fabrication, anyone who has read the Church writings going back through the millennia can see the same teaching running directly back to the 2nd and 1st centuries and to the Apostles. The very basis of what is taught is what has always been taught.

I totally agree! But I don’t think that’s gonna cut it for LDS members here.

 

[crazyage3]

TOmNossor:

Ok, here goes.

It is fairly silly to suggest that anti-contraception views have early witness. That would be impossible. In PRACTICE it seems LDS are as anti-contraception as are Catholic if not more so. In doctrine, we have little to say but that the command to multiply and replenish the earth is in full effect. In recent years we have very much softened our speak on contraception, but I believe the best read of our scriptures and the statements of our leaders is that LDS may only practice contraception during the circumstances which Catholics can practice contraception. The chief difference being that LDS can practice “non-natural” contraception in the circumstances whereas Catholic may only use LAM or rhythm or other natural methods. Catholics have developed an unusual IMO position on the prevention of fertilized eggs and how this relates to murder. LDS have not done this.

The fact that LDS typically do not view contraception as wrong (when it is done at times that LDS leaders seem to have suggested is not appropriate) is unfortunate, but it can be placed next to the plethora of Catholics who practice contraception and even do other more evil birth prevention things.

Would it surprise you to find out that in today’s Catholic Church it is acceptable to terminate some pregnancies to save the mother’s life? Would you find it as peculiar as I do when this pregnancy termination is only theologically acceptable when done in a very dangerous manner rather than done in a very safe and simple manner (when the results are the same)? Absolutes are not quite as absolute as most Catholics think.

Excuse me but abortion is never okay in the CHURCH! Even if the mother may die! Also, a lot of contraception is abortion. Church doesnt approve of that at all. You as Mormons, are giving a choice to use a contraceptive method or not. This is what I’ve gathered from the missionaries and books. We as Catholics DONT have a choice. Contraception is wrong. It hurts the marriage and soul. We can, however, abstain during fertile times. There is nothing wrong with abstaining. That is the only thing we are allowed to do. This way it allows us to be open to life at all times.

 

[Auntie_M]

As to contraception…

I, as a former Protestant, NEVER heard a debate about the wrongs of contraception until I became Catholic. The churches I attended NEVER even approached the subject. Most never talked of sex or marriage, the right or wrong of either. The only thing I ever remember hearing and this was way back in the years…
NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE…cause it would result in a baby and that baby needed a father and mother. (That was the ONLY reason for no sex before marriage…not that is was improper but that you “might get pregnant” and that’s a social no-no)

“Social NO NO???”