J
jbelokur
Guest
By the way Seamus is a great name!! Totally off point but valid in my own mind
- Status
C
choy
Guest
replying to post #2
its seems to me that by Mormon belief, Apostles can only appoint successors if all remaining are present? similar to what they did with Mattias in Acts 1?
in this case, all those who were called Apostles but was not part of the 12 (Luke, Mark, Paul) are not valid successors?
its seems to me that by Mormon belief, Apostles can only appoint successors if all remaining are present? similar to what they did with Mattias in Acts 1?
in this case, all those who were called Apostles but was not part of the 12 (Luke, Mark, Paul) are not valid successors?
J
jbelokur
Guest
What then do you think the purpose of appointing any successors is…for Mormons that is?
S
SecretBeliever
Guest
jbelokur - This is a very interesting topic, but it seems like it has gotten derailed rather quickly! Can anyone answer specifically the OP’s original questions? Just sayin’. Thanks–
J
jbelokur
Guest
This is true, I have been trying to pull it back several times especially those that are relevant. I will restate the question, “I would like the supposed date of the great apostasy, and the list of the groups you associate with being the remnant group and if you would give me the name of the group and the dates they existed up to today.”
Though to be honest, Seamus did answer the original question honestly from his perspective. Thanks Seamus. While it is not what I was looking for, it is a valid and in my opinion a more consistent and logical point of view the one held by the LDS and some Baptist, KJV only denominations. But I still disagree with Him!
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Didn’t say anything about KJV. Perhaps you are talking of this statement.“First of all the only authority that we need is the word of God.” I said “we” I should have said I. While I know that the CC does not use only the bible as their final authority, I’m sure they would not say that anything in the bible is not true. So for the purpose of this discussion I use only the bible which I’m sure you will agree is the truth.I wouldn’t think of saying that you are not correct in the above quotes. The Catholic Church is not apposed to what you have stated above. (Except the KJV only part
Ok, here’s Matt7: 13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
This is not only about the final judgement but rather how we as Christians need to live our lives. Let me ask you this jeb which group would you want to be a part of the many or the few?
What has been the case?
I don’t need nor do I have an inclination to “prove” anything, Except as it is revealed in scripture. My only source of truth.
There is no “magical” deduction on my part or on scriptures part. You will either accept or reject it. Your choice. The scripture I use to show a remnant is Rev.12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.This is from the New Testament. The woman of rev. 12 is symbolic of God’s church. The devil concentrates on this remnant because the others are already on the track he wants them on.
J
jbelokur
Guest
Didn’t say anything about KJV. Perhaps you are talking of this statement.“First of all the only authority that we need is the word of God.” I said “we” I should have said I. While I know that the CC does not use only the bible as their final authority, I’m sure they would not say that anything in the bible is not true. So for the purpose of this discussion I use only the bible which I’m sure you will agree is the truth.
Sorry about that, I must have also just been reading another post in another thread where the poster was emphasizing KJV only. I apologize, and your point above is noted.
Ok, here’s Matt7: 13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
This is not only about the final judgment but rather how we as Christians need to live our lives. Let me ask you this jeb which group would you want to be a part of the many or the few?
Firstly, and it’s not a problem but my name is Joshua. Secondly, of course you are right, this passage speaks of both the journey and the judgment. This is completely concurrent with Catholic teaching. It does not, however, refer to a supposed great apostasy nor does the context of Matthew 7 suggest it either.
What has been the case?
That there has been an apostasy with in the Church.
I don’t need nor do I have an inclination to “prove” anything, Except as it is revealed in scripture. My only source of truth.
But this statement makes any of your posts irrelevant to the original question. Please don’t take that as my saying that I don’t want to hear what you have to say on the subject, I greatly appreciate your time, but my question is specific to the great apostasy with in the Church and how we can or can not prove the general date of that occurrence and or the existence of a remnant in the history of the world after. So you see way I might be anticipating the sort of evidence that I am.
There is no “magical” deduction on my part or on scriptures part. You will either accept or reject it. Your choice. The scripture I use to show a remnant is Rev.12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.This is from the New Testament. The woman of rev. 12 is symbolic of God’s church. The devil concentrates on this remnant because the others are already on the track he wants them on.
The problem is that the “it” that I have to accept of reject form my stand point, thus far, has been your opinion or your interpretations not what scripture says or history suggests.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Interestingly enough, Scripture does not say that Scripture is the foundation of truth, rather we read in Scripture that “the pillar and foundation of truth is the church.” (1 Tim 3:15)
Aside from that, I am sure that you and I (as well as many others) will have different interpretations of certain passages in scripture. Who has the correct interpretation, and who is incorrect in their interpretation? Peter warns us not to twist Scripture to our own destruction, (2 Peter 3:16), so we need to be cautious not to be doing this ourselves. Do you make the claim that you are infallible in your interpretation of the Christian faith? No, I doubt that, however the Church DOES make that claim, and we can see multiple examples of backing for such a claim in Scripture as Christ clearly established a Church and gave His authority to that Church to bind and loose what is to be believed. (Matt 16:19)
Something to think about: You say that your only source of truth is the Scripture, but that implicitly means that you have to also accept the authority of the Church who said what is, and what is not, actually Scripture. Without the Church you would have no Bible to rest your sole source of truth on. Right?
C
choy
Guest
well, obviously the successors would continue the Church. as is the case with the Catholic Church. but for Mormons, since there were no valid successors, no valid Church after John died.
i’m just going by what was posted on #2. it says that they believe the Church was apostatized because the Apostles were scattered during their persecution so they were not able to install successors. so from that text i assumed that all surviving Apostles would need to be present in order to appoint a successor.
but here’s some questions to that logic:
a. John was the last surviving, couldn’t he have appointed successors by himself at that time since by his own presence, all surviving Apostles are present?
b. Paul, Mark and Luke were called Apostles at one time or another. Paul clearly wrote this in his epistle. but he wasn’t part of the 12. so what’s the Mormon view about Paul?
c. is there a minimum number of Apostles that need to be present to appoint a successor?
J
jbelokur
Guest
well, obviously the successors would continue the Church. as is the case with the Catholic Church. but for Mormons, since there were no valid successors, no valid Church after John died.
I know what we believe
i’m just going by what was posted on #2. it says that they believe the Church was apostatized because the Apostles were scattered during their persecution so they were not able to install successors. so from that text i assumed that all surviving Apostles would need to be present in order to appoint a successor.
But doesn’t that make the whole idea of a successor ridiculous? Successors take over where you left off, or do what you do while you continue on in this case in the ministry of apostle. But if these successors don’t actually function as apostles, are they then in fact successors?
but here’s some questions to that logic:
a. John was the last surviving, couldn’t he have appointed successors by himself at that time since by his own presence, all surviving Apostles are present?
It would seem reasonable.
b. Paul, Mark and Luke were called Apostles at one time or another. Paul clearly wrote this in his epistle. but he wasn’t part of the 12. so what’s the Mormon view about Paul?
Again, as you posted just above, the nature of their ministry would have to be understood as radically different and separate from that of the original eleven.
c. is there a minimum number of Apostles that need to be present to appoint a successor?
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Here’s 1Tim.3:15
1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
For me the pillar and ground of truth in this verse is the living God.
The CC can make the claim of infallability all it wants. That doesn’t make it so.
Matt.16: 13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Deu.32:3Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Psalm 95:1
O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
Matt.7: 24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
This is the rock upon which Christ built His church.
You guys must be reading from the same script. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen this statement on these threads. It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. You make your God and my God powerless by such statements. It is God who wrote the bible and it is through the power of His spirit that it is brought to the world.
J
jbelokur
Guest
Folks,
Lets attempt to answer the original question. Fellow Catholics you are the biggest offenders of this as of yet. Please do me a favor and only add to this thread if you have pertenet insights, ie information you have seen referenced elsewhere concerning the great apostasy and the remnant.
Thank you,
Joshua
Lets attempt to answer the original question. Fellow Catholics you are the biggest offenders of this as of yet. Please do me a favor and only add to this thread if you have pertenet insights, ie information you have seen referenced elsewhere concerning the great apostasy and the remnant.
Thank you,
Joshua
J
jbelokur
Guest
Richard,
If I may…I am currently speaking with someone who holds your very same view points and when I was reading your first post I was thinking the same thing about you…so it is not a mystery that those who hold to the same faith and who think along the same lines have the same reasons for believing as they do. Just as you and your fellow brethren do. Please be as charitable to others in this thread as I believe I have been to everyone. I am saying this to Catholics as well.
Though this may be an opportunity for us all to get off of the recording we spew out in our responses and actually think (and listen!!) about what it is we are talking about.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
How have I been uncharitable towards you?
P
pinay
Guest
Hello jbelokur. Peace be with you.
The start of the church’s apostate state occurs in the New Testament. I can attempt to outline all scripture verses pertaining to this but I think this would be superfluous in answering your question. Several letters of Paul, for example, were sent out to the church to correct practices that have been corrupted.
The organization of the church has always been such that priesthood authority comes with specific keys. For example, in the Catholic doctrine, you have specific priesthood keys dispensed at different levels. A parish priest, for example, has the keys to administer the affairs of the parish. But he does not have the proper keys to direct the entire Catholic church. This key is solely held by the Pope. As LDS, we believe that the keys to direct the entire church was removed from the earth after the death of John. Therefore, the Bishop of Rome ran the affairs of the Catholic church without these keys.
During the events leading to the apostasy, the keys to direct the entire church were held by the apostles. Apostleship was not limited to the time before Christ’s resurrection. We know several apostles that were ordained after the resurrection. These keys were handed down by apostolic succession. It is not so much that these keys to direct the entire church was lost for lack of anybody to hand it down to (apostles getting killed, christians being persecuted). But, it is the testimony of the christians of the power of these keys that was lost.
Hence, we see the confusion on basic gospel principles not too long after John’s death, even the basic doctrine of who is God. Without these keys, it took several councils just to figure out what is scripture. Several councils to determine who is God.
If these keys remained on earth, these questions wouldn’t have been the work of councils to argue over. These answers would have come straight from the mouth of an apostle holding the keys to this authority.
A quote from Henry B. Eyring (an apostle) talking about Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:
In LDS doctrine, the great apostasy did not occur at a specific date. It was a gradual decline of the membership of the church that led to the priesthood authority being removed from the earth.
The start of the church’s apostate state occurs in the New Testament. I can attempt to outline all scripture verses pertaining to this but I think this would be superfluous in answering your question. Several letters of Paul, for example, were sent out to the church to correct practices that have been corrupted.
The organization of the church has always been such that priesthood authority comes with specific keys. For example, in the Catholic doctrine, you have specific priesthood keys dispensed at different levels. A parish priest, for example, has the keys to administer the affairs of the parish. But he does not have the proper keys to direct the entire Catholic church. This key is solely held by the Pope. As LDS, we believe that the keys to direct the entire church was removed from the earth after the death of John. Therefore, the Bishop of Rome ran the affairs of the Catholic church without these keys.
During the events leading to the apostasy, the keys to direct the entire church were held by the apostles. Apostleship was not limited to the time before Christ’s resurrection. We know several apostles that were ordained after the resurrection. These keys were handed down by apostolic succession. It is not so much that these keys to direct the entire church was lost for lack of anybody to hand it down to (apostles getting killed, christians being persecuted). But, it is the testimony of the christians of the power of these keys that was lost.
Hence, we see the confusion on basic gospel principles not too long after John’s death, even the basic doctrine of who is God. Without these keys, it took several councils just to figure out what is scripture. Several councils to determine who is God.
If these keys remained on earth, these questions wouldn’t have been the work of councils to argue over. These answers would have come straight from the mouth of an apostle holding the keys to this authority.
A quote from Henry B. Eyring (an apostle) talking about Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:
It is the LDS belief that there was no remnant of authority left after the death of John. The authority was restored in the early 1800’s.
S
simspt
Guest
I apologize if i am not understanding you but are you saying that the Mormon teaching of apostasy is based on the information contained in the NT writings?
S
simspt
Guest
If the Church Fathers were in general agreement on major teachings, if that agreement eventually resulted in the canon, and if there interpretation on the NT is contradictory to Mormon teaching then what evidence is there for a complete apostasy?
why would one trust the interpretation of the NT writings by Joseph Smith compared to the early Church Fathers?
If a complete apostasy occurred in the first century then how can a Mormon even use the NT writings to justify the concept of complete apostasy. You would have to trust these apostate Christians that formed the canon hundreds of years later.
Because the Early Church Fathers disagree with the scriptural interpretation of Mormons and Mormon Theology is not evidence of total apostasy.
The entire Catholic Church immediately after the time of Christ and His Apostles including all the bishops, Saints, Martyrs and Confessors of the Christian faith clearly denied LDS beliefs.
why would one trust the interpretation of the NT writings by Joseph Smith compared to the early Church Fathers?
If a complete apostasy occurred in the first century then how can a Mormon even use the NT writings to justify the concept of complete apostasy. You would have to trust these apostate Christians that formed the canon hundreds of years later.
Because the Early Church Fathers disagree with the scriptural interpretation of Mormons and Mormon Theology is not evidence of total apostasy.
The entire Catholic Church immediately after the time of Christ and His Apostles including all the bishops, Saints, Martyrs and Confessors of the Christian faith clearly denied LDS beliefs.
P
pinay
Guest
This is correct. Although, LDS believes in continuing revelation after the restoration, therefore, the LDS teaching of apostasy doesn’t end in the NT.
P
pinay
Guest
Good evening simspt. These are all great questions. If I may, I’d like to address the questions separately in numbered format just so I can try to get it a bit organized.
Please understand that the intent of my post is not to contradict any other church’s teachings, especially not the Catholic church that is dear to my heart. My sole purpose is just to clarify what the LDS believes. I don’t expect you to agree that it is true or correct principle. But I hope that my answers will make you understand what the LDS is “trying to say” so you can disagree with full knowledge of what exactly it is you are disagreeing with. Do you know what I’m trying to say?
This is the question that plagued Joseph Smith at age 14 - which church got the Bible right - because he was looking for a church to join in. This was when he claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ manifested themselves to him and guided him to the correct interpretation.
Yeah, when I first heard it, I thought somebody must have had too many poppy seeds or something. But then, I got to thinking, Joseph Smith’s claim is just as valid as any other church out there. If the children of Lourdes claim to have Mother Mary appear to them in the grotto, there’s no reason for Joseph Smith’s claim to have seen God to be dismissed arbitrarily as loco.
The Bible IS the word of God - no question about it. It is a written testimony of the ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles - they all got written with priesthood authority. The only question is what it actually means.
Thank you for reading my long posts! I’m trying to make it as brief as I can, but I can’t seem to get all my thoughts contained in under 2 sentences.
Please understand that the intent of my post is not to contradict any other church’s teachings, especially not the Catholic church that is dear to my heart. My sole purpose is just to clarify what the LDS believes. I don’t expect you to agree that it is true or correct principle. But I hope that my answers will make you understand what the LDS is “trying to say” so you can disagree with full knowledge of what exactly it is you are disagreeing with. Do you know what I’m trying to say?
1.) The LDS do not claim that there is no truth in non-LDS churches. The LDS believe that each and every church on the earth (as far as it is a church based on spiritual and natural principles and not man’s self-aggrandizement) has truth to it. What the LDS claim is that the LDS church has the priesthood keys and the complete gospel.
2.) One shouldn’t. Not without a personal testimony/revelation/prompting from the Spirit.
3.) The LDS believes the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. There are several versions of the Bible. All of them with slightly different interpretation. The Catholics, for example, do not believe the KJV is translated correctly. Similarly, the Born Again Christians do not believe the Catholic Bible to be the correct interpretation of the word of God. Several protestant churches use the KJV. But, even then, one church can read the same exact scripture of the same exact Bible and have a completely different interpretation of it than another church.
This is the question that plagued Joseph Smith at age 14 - which church got the Bible right - because he was looking for a church to join in. This was when he claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ manifested themselves to him and guided him to the correct interpretation.
Yeah, when I first heard it, I thought somebody must have had too many poppy seeds or something. But then, I got to thinking, Joseph Smith’s claim is just as valid as any other church out there. If the children of Lourdes claim to have Mother Mary appear to them in the grotto, there’s no reason for Joseph Smith’s claim to have seen God to be dismissed arbitrarily as loco.
The Bible IS the word of God - no question about it. It is a written testimony of the ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles - they all got written with priesthood authority. The only question is what it actually means.
I’m not sure I understand this statement. The LDS church did not get organized until the early 1800’s, so I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say.
Thank you for reading my long posts! I’m trying to make it as brief as I can, but I can’t seem to get all my thoughts contained in under 2 sentences.
L
lax16
Guest
From the Teachings of Joseph Smith:
I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind—the contentions and divisions, the wickedness and abominations, and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind. My mind became exceedingly distressed, for I became convicted of my sins, and by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord, but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was ****no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament, and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world.”3
“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
“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.’
“He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, ‘Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.’ I then said to my mother, ‘I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.’ It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?”6
Hello pinay and welcome to CAF!
It is very clear by the teachings of Joseph Smith that in his vision he was told by the Personages that all religions were wrong, their creeds were an abomination, they were corrupt…
How can it be that you say “LDS do not claim that there is no truth in non-LDS churches”?
If the Personages said it they meant it right?
- Status