'The Great Apostasy'

[ParkerD]

Jay53,
Finishing my response to you:

(3) There are many dual fulfillment prophecies in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament and especially in Isaiah. As to the doctrine of eternal marriage, Christ taught it very plainly when He said “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6), and taught that those unbelievers such as the Sadducees would not have marriage in heaven but would be “as the angels” (Matthew 22:30). (Needless to say, the Sadducees were not believers in Him nor did they believe in the resurrection, so they had already disqualified themselves from having the “everlasting covenant” apply to them.)

(4) See the excellent comment of TheosisM and my last entry responding to you and building upon his entry.

(5) If you’ll think in terms of a drifting instead of a “great apostasy” since those words sound like everybody was “bad” (they weren’t), then I think at least it may not sound so “unbelievable” that such a thing could happen. We are talking about mortal people, and when the apostles who had the special witness responsibility were not replaced as time went on (because the Holy Spirit did not guide the living apostles to do that after several more were killed), then a drifting and contending as to who was right (if any) occurred as demonstrated by the fact that the council of Nicea was not called by Constantine to celebrate the unity of the early church, but to try and get everyone “on the same page” (so to speak) so that there would not be so much contention.

Again, the gospel roots are good, and Constantine perceived that. He wanted that among the people he governed. It was not a bad idea to spread that gospel message. It’s just that the doctrinal purity had been lost, though much good remained among many followers of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. A thing impure is no longer pure.

But I do hope you have opportunity to teach youth the teachings of Jesus, and to influence them to follow His teachings and follow the commandments willingly with their hearts, lovingly with their actions, and that those teachings go deep into their souls.

 

[Jay53]

So when you say it “absolutely makes no sense whatsoever” that Christ would do those things, even if He did know that most of the Jews would reject Him and He would be killed and His pure church would have difficulty both from without and from within as time went on, then I would say “it makes sense to me that He would complete His mission”. He had a far greater mission than you seem to be alluding to with that particular comment.

That was not at all what I was “alluding to” and you know it!! Please do not twist my words the same way you accept the twisting of scriptures.

His whole message was one of people choosing on their own to follow Him–not being forced or compelled to do so. What was He to do differently if He knew that more righteous people and prophets would be killed (see Matthew 23:34) just like some of the prophets of old had been killed, and knew that “the kingdom of God shall be taken from you (the Jews), and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”? The Roman Empire did not have the “fruits thereof”. Certainly, Christ was not referring to the Roman Empire as the nation “bringing forth the fruits thereof.” So, what nation fits the description? I think there was not an automatic answer to that question. The Gentiles struggled with the new gospel covenant, as shown in the epistles and in Acts. But “ye shall know them by their fruits.”

Did a nation flourish and have dramatic progress through the light of the gospel and dramatic evidence of the fruits of the gospel with the people loving one another and caring for their poor and with the doctrine of free choice with neither compulsion nor threatening in any way as the teachings were carried forward among the people of that nation? You tell me, and demonstrate it by history beginning in 100 AD and beyond, century after century, with a whole “nation” showing the fruits of the gospel among all the people.

The Catholic Church.

(2) Note that verse 41 is the reply of the “chief priests and elders of the people” to whom He had given the parable. Verses 42 and 43 convey the lessons Christ wanted to be understood from the parable, as noted above in (1).

(By the way, I have never said I think verse 43 refers to the Mormon church, but I would say it more closely refers to the early United States history as to a whole nation showing the fruits of living the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the Bible at the very center of the progress of that nation and its constitutional government, and with that nation flourishing with those fruits until such time as it has departed from its foundational principles.)

This is a nice thought, but I still don’t see how it fits. The verse says “Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.” As much as I love my country, I don’t see it as the “kingdom of God” and I honestly don’t think Jesus was referring to anything “worldly”.

 

[Jay53]

(3) There are many dual fulfillment prophecies in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament and especially in Isaiah. As to the doctrine of eternal marriage, Christ taught it very plainly when He said “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6), and taught that those unbelievers such as the Sadducees would not have marriage in heaven but would be “as the angels” (Matthew 22:30). (Needless to say, the Sadducees were not believers in Him nor did they believe in the resurrection, so they had already disqualified themselves from having the “everlasting covenant” apply to them.)

We’ve already discussed this whole thing. I think we’ll have to just agree to disagee, because I don’t think I will ever understand/accept your interpretation.

(4) See the excellent comment of TheosisM and my last entry responding to you and building upon his entry.

I see your point on this issue. I just don’t think that “immersion” is the important part of this sacrament. The important part is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Having the nature of God correct is, to me, more important than any outward sign such as immersion.

(5) If you’ll think in terms of a drifting instead of a “great apostasy” since those words sound like everybody was “bad” (they weren’t), then I think at least it may not sound so “unbelievable” that such a thing could happen. We are talking about mortal people, and when the apostles who had the special witness responsibility were not replaced as time went on (because the Holy Spirit did not guide the living apostles to do that after several more were killed), then a drifting and contending as to who was right (if any) occurred as demonstrated by the fact that the council of Nicea was not called by Constantine to celebrate the unity of the early church, but to try and get everyone “on the same page” (so to speak) so that there would not be so much contention.

Again, the gospel roots are good, and Constantine perceived that. He wanted that among the people he governed. It was not a bad idea to spread that gospel message. It’s just that the doctrinal purity had been lost, though much good remained among many followers of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. A thing impure is no longer pure.

But I do hope you have opportunity to teach youth the teachings of Jesus, and to influence them to follow His teachings and follow the commandments willingly with their hearts, lovingly with their actions, and that those teachings go deep into their souls.

I understand that you believe the “apostasy” was more of a “drifting” than a one time event, but I still haven’t seen any evidence of unique Mormon doctrines anywhere in the early church that they somehow ‘drifted away from’.

 

[Stephen168]

I understand that you believe the “apostasy” was more of a “drifting” than a one time event, but I still haven’t seen any evidence of unique Mormon doctrines anywhere in the early church that they somehow ‘drifted away from’.

I read The Great Apostasy by James Talmage. He discussed his disagreement with the Catholicism and Christianity because it seemed like his only real point was: we are right, they are wrong, therefore there was an apostasy. But if they believe there was a restoration: What were those unique Mormon doctrines found in the original church which they restored? I can think of three but except for twisting a bible verse or two there is no real historical evidence of anything uniquely Mormon.

 

[SteveVH]

His whole message was one of people choosing on their own to follow Him–not being forced or compelled to do so. What was He to do differently if He knew that more righteous people and prophets would be killed (see Matthew 23:34) just like some of the prophets of old had been killed, and knew that “the kingdom of God shall be taken from you (the Jews), and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”? The Roman Empire did not have the “fruits thereof”. Certainly, Christ was not referring to the Roman Empire as the nation “bringing forth the fruits thereof.” So, what nation fits the description? I think there was not an automatic answer to that question. The Gentiles struggled with the new gospel covenant, as shown in the epistles and in Acts. But “ye shall know them by their fruits.”

Did a nation flourish and have dramatic progress through the light of the gospel and dramatic evidence of the fruits of the gospel with the people loving one another and caring for their poor and with the doctrine of free choice with neither compulsion nor threatening in any way as the teachings were carried forward among the people of that nation? You tell me, and demonstrate it by history beginning in 100 AD and beyond, century after century, with a whole “nation” showing the fruits of the gospel among all the people.

Sorry for butting in here, but you have a completely wrong idea about the concept of “nation”. Jesus wasn’t speaking of a “nation” in the sense of a certain country. He was speaking of the new covenant which would encompass the entire world, the people of God, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9). You become a member of this people, this “nation”, through Baptism and faith in Jesus Christ. It is certainly not limited geographically or governmentally. That “nation” is the Catholic (universal) Church.

 

[ParkerD]

We’ve already discussed this whole thing. I think we’ll have to just agree to disagee, because I don’t think I will ever understand/accept your interpretation.

I see your point on this issue. I just don’t think that “immersion” is the important part of this sacrament. The important part is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Having the nature of God correct is, to me, more important than any outward sign such as immersion.

I understand that you believe the “apostasy” was more of a “drifting” than a one time event, but I still haven’t seen any evidence of unique Mormon doctrines anywhere in the early church that they somehow ‘drifted away from’.

Jay53,
I just wanted to apologize if I had offended you, was glad you clarified the other point, and agree that there are disagreements that of course relate to our understanding of the Bible. I have not the slightest question about the insights I glean from the Bible, nor I assume do you, so best for each of us to keep studying and praying and learning and growing. All the best in doing that.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry for butting in here, but you have a completely wrong idea about the concept of “nation”. Jesus wasn’t speaking of a “nation” in the sense of a certain country. He was speaking of the new covenant which would encompass the entire world, the people of God, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9). You become a member of this people, this “nation”, through Baptism and faith in Jesus Christ. It is certainly not limited geographically or governmentally. That “nation” is the Catholic (universal) Church.

SteveVH,
I certainly agree that God intends for there to be “an holy nation” that crosses national boundaries and unites people everywhere on the earth. I hope that happens in our lifetime. I assure you that it will not be under the banner you suggested, or the earth would already be in the Millenium having had 2,000 years to get there under the leadership of Christ and the Holy Spirit as you suggested, with the fruits of the gospel fully present in every Catholic’s life on earth, and poverty completely done away with among the people of that “nation” you perceive to exist. It will be a wider coverage than that, when He comes and reigns.

Jesus was speaking to the Jews, and knew of course exactly what they were expecting regarding a “nation”, and it had to do with them–a political body as well as a religious body of supposedly “covenant people.” I agree, however, that they were to have been a “kingdom of priests” if they had lived by the covenant God intended them to have made through Moses.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First: Catholics understand Christ established His Kingdom. Why are mormons still waiting for this to happen?

Second: From the Liturgy: “Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles: I leave you peace, my peace I give you. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.”

Mormons seem to have this need to focus on sin, and have this erroneous understanding that God does not forgive them. Ever. Otherwise, I don’t know why they would keep bringing up the sins of other people, over and over and over. Even the ones where forgiveness has been sought. Perhaps the “Great Apostasy” is an inability, on their part, to forgive.

 

[zaffiroborant]

First: Catholics understand Christ established His Kingdom. Why are mormons still waiting for this to happen?

Second: From the Liturgy: “Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles: I leave you peace, my peace I give you. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.”

Mormons seem to have this need to focus on sin, and have this erroneous understanding that God does not forgive them. Ever. Otherwise, I don’t know why they would keep bringing up the sins of other people, over and over and over. Even the ones where forgiveness has been sought. Perhaps the “Great Apostasy” is an inability, on their part, to forgive.

They also seem to believe that universal prosperity will be achieved by mankind, in spite of what Christ said. I see alot of your vending machine analogy in ParkerDs responses, I see alot of it over on MADB. I also see alot of jingoism expressed. I find this a very ugly distortion of the Gospel it’s a subversion of “but to serve” .

 

[peary1]

I am fairly new to these forums and so this is my first thread, so please bear with me.
I am a Christian, but I have been reading the Book of Mormon, (very slowly I might add too ), however it really saddened me to read 1 Nephi 13, where it speaks about an abominable church run by the devil, and the simple truths of the writings of the apostles have been lost.
I know that at times some churches are somewhat corrupt and appear hypocritical and whatnot, but I didn’t think that the truth of the Bible had been lost. If such a thing did happen, why would God allow his word to be deformed?
As I mentioned i am quite new to all of this and want people’s opinions.

The Church keeps it from being deformed. And even if there were no bible, there would still be the Church to pass on the Good News to the rest of us in each era.

 

[RebeccaJ]

They also seem to believe that universal prosperity will be achieved by mankind, in spite of what Christ said. I see alot of your vending machine analogy in ParkerDs responses, I see alot of it over on MADB. I also see alot of jingoism expressed. I find this a very ugly distortion of the Gospel it’s a subversion of “but to serve” .

Mormonism is based on a multi-level marketing mentality, vis-a-vis, regression of gods back and back and back…it is an American religion, based on capitalism and materialism. Everything has a reward, suffering is a consequence of unworthiness. It is no wonder they can’t abide a cross in front of them, which reminds them suffering is how they are Saved.

 

[aspirant]

They also seem to believe that universal prosperity will be achieved by mankind

If true, that wouldn’t be entirely surprising. Mormonism is a product of the 19th century, after all, when such thinking was popular among many Protestants.

 

[KathleenGee]

Rebecca,

What state has the highest number of ponzi schemes?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,

What state has the highest number of ponzi schemes?

I dunno, but criminals (mormon and non-mormon) counting on the trust that mormons have for each other is a reoccurring thing in Utah. I don’t think it is very funny.

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t think it is funny either. But I did experience someone, a Mormon, into that thinking.
And he was preying on other Mormons as well as others. He was the first person I ever met into that sort of thing, and he was ‘very devout’, and invited us to go to his ward for Easter…

 

[Catholic20064]

Is Revelation 13:7 evidence of a complete apostasy?

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.

It looks to me as if that verse says the beast was completely able to overcome the saints and that he was given power over everyone on earth. Is there another way to look at this verse in context that would change what it is predicting?

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I certainly agree that God intends for there to be “an holy nation” that crosses national boundaries and unites people everywhere on the earth. I hope that happens in our lifetime. I assure you that it will not be under the banner you suggested, or the earth would already be in the Millenium having had 2,000 years to get there under the leadership of Christ and the Holy Spirit as you suggested, with the fruits of the gospel fully present in every Catholic’s life on earth, and poverty completely done away with among the people of that “nation” you perceive to exist. It will be a wider coverage than that, when He comes and reigns.

Jesus was speaking to the Jews, and knew of course exactly what they were expecting regarding a “nation”, and it had to do with them–a political body as well as a religious body of supposedly “covenant people.” I agree, however, that they were to have been a “kingdom of priests” if they had lived by the covenant God intended them to have made through Moses.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t think it is funny either. But I did experience someone, a Mormon, into that thinking.
And he was preying on other Mormons as well as others. He was the first person I ever met into that sort of thing, and he was ‘very devout’, and invited us to go to his ward for Easter…

In my experience in the mormons business world in SLC, this is not all that unusual. However, most are careful to stay within civil laws. The mindset is that it is perfectly ok to screw people over as long as you don’t break any laws. Or, in the case of working with other LDS, don’t break any church rules.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Is Revelation 13:7 evidence of a complete apostasy?

It looks to me as if that verse says the beast was completely able to overcome the saints and that he was given power over everyone on earth. Is there another way to look at this verse in context that would change what it is predicting?

It is not talking about apostasy at all. It is talking about persecution of the saints under the Roman emperors.

The beast is the Roman Empire. Satan commissioned the beast to persecute the church.

If you continue reading, hope for the living and justice for those slain under this persecution is placed in Jesus Christ.

 

[Catholic20064]

It is not talking about apostasy at all. It is talking about persecution of the saints under the Roman emperors.

The beast is the Roman Empire. Satan commissioned the beast to persecute the church.

If you continue reading, hope for the living and justice for those slain under this persecution is placed in Jesus Christ.

I’m not so sure. Read it again:

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.

The Beast was able to overcome the saints and he had power over every tribe, people, tongue, and nation. That could easily be interpreted as a complete apostasy if the Beast was able to overcome everyone. I’m not sure that would be a correct interpretation, but it certainly seems plausible.