The Great Apostasy

[pinay]

Greetings Arandur! Peace be unto you.

I believe the Protestant idea of apostasy has a different definition than the Mormon one. Many Protestants don’t believe in a priesthood authority, so their idea of apostasy is just departure from whatever they hold to be true doctrine. How you arrive at unity and truth without authority, relying on personal interpretations, is a problem they’ve never been able to figure out, thus resulting in endless fragmentation into sects that hold variant beliefs.

The LDS faith believe the thought above is true. It is in the foundation of the teachings of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith, at age 14, wanted to know which church he should go to as there were several churches competing for membership at that time. He prayed about it and got the answer to not join any one of them as they don’t have the complete gospel.

From what I recall, in his JST version, J Smith forgot to “correct” the Scriptures to make it clear there was a total apostasy. I guess even he didn’t claim the words were there in Scripture. Even if he did, the question would be whether I should place my faith in Joseph Smith or in the Apostles and the Holy Spirit, and all of Jesus’ promises about his Church, the Truth, the Word, etc.

This is not accurate. The only way Joseph Smith could have established a restored priesthood authority is to have believed in a total apostasy. Both has to be present. And no, the words were not there in the Bible that the total apostasy already occurred like I explained in my previous post. Not then, not now. But, it is clear in the Bible that an apostasy has to happen before the 2nd Coming.

God revealed to Joseph that the great apostasy has already occurred and he was given instructions to restore the complete gospel.

Putting faith in Joseph Smith means you must also have faith in the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, and all of Jesus’ promises. They can’t be separated from LDS. So, the only differences between you and I is the Joseph Smith part.

As far as belief in other writings as scripture being a matter of faith, I hope you know that Scripture warns us against fuzzy feelings, “burning in the breast” type things. God gave us the gift of reason to unite with our faith, and He also gave us revelation through natural law, divinely inspired authors, and Tradition guided by the Spirit. In the latter days (the age initiated by Christ through his Incarnation and death and Resurrection, making all things new), we also have the Spirit granted to the Church to preserve it and guide it into all truth. So there are many measures and benchmarks we must use to verify something as truth–and it’s a good thing, because this method of just looking at one or two of these measures has resulted in devolution into disunity and various competing ideas of truth. Essentially, relativism.

When all these things correspond, we can have a surety of truth. When we ignore many indicators of truth in favor of a feeling, we open ourselves to grave error by our own pride, foolishness (our lack of wisdom/inability to understand and judge properly as mortals who are so far beneath God), or manipulation by others (whether man or devil masquerading as angels of light). (Edited)

I completely agree with you here except for the last sentence. I wrote this on another thread, “Trust in You with all of our hearts, lean not on our own understanding.”

If being LDS was just a feeling, one would leave in under a month’s time, if not under a week. Being LDS is hard work and the challenges to one’s faith are monumental.

The only way to be LDS is to appeal to the Lord that we may see truth in all things. It is at the very core of the faith. So much so that it is written in the Articles of our Faith:

---

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”***

This tells us that everybody are at a different journey in their lives in the search for truth to get back to His Kingdom. So that, if one is sincere in his quest for truth and after appealing to God and subjecting oneself to His will, it leads him to the Roman Catholic Church, then that is where he needs to be. It is when we stop searching, thinking that we already have all knowledge, that we cease to grow.

 

[Arandur]

The LDS faith believe the thought above is true. It is in the foundation of the teachings of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith, at age 14, wanted to know which church he should go to as there were several churches competing for membership at that time. He prayed about it and got the answer to not join any one of them as they don’t have the complete gospel.

Do you think Smith was the only person who prayed sincerely to know what Christ’s true church was?

This is not accurate. The only way Joseph Smith could have established a restored priesthood authority is to have believed in a total apostasy. Both has to be present. And no, the words were not there in the Bible that the total apostasy already occurred like I explained in my previous post. Not then, not now. But, it is clear in the Bible that an apostasy has to happen before the 2nd Coming.

What’s not accurate? He didn’t put something in the JST version that I’m aware of that claims total apostasy, so even Smith’s “corrected” version of the Bible does not claim a total apostasy.

By the way, you’re talking about circular reasoning here–one of the fundamental problems with Smith’s concept of a total apostasy. It goes like this, summarized nicely in your words above: “There had to be a restoration of priesthood authority and the ‘fulness of the Gospel’ because there was a total apostasy; there was a total apostasy and therefore there had to be a restoration.” Or “Joseph Smith could only have established a restored priesthood authority if he believed there was a total apostasy. He established a restored priesthood authority. Therefore there was a total apostasy. Or, there was a total apostasy, therefore he established a restored priesthood.” You assume your conclusion. Or, in other words, you take your premises to be true with no evidence except by appealing to your conclusion. It’s a circle with no argument or fact given to support it.

Yes, there were heresies/apostasies. They were never total, nor do any Scriptures or prophecies claim they had to be total–none claim that Christ’s Church had to be defeated, his Body killed, in the world.

Remember too that Smith’s followers also fragmented; there are many sects that believe variants of his teachings. The LDS are not the only ones.

Which brings me to another question. With P-C warnings restricting precise language, I am left in a quandary when trying to refer to those various sects. I have been informed I can’t use the term I used earlier. So when I refer to the whole group and not LDS-particular beliefs, how should I do it? Would you prefer that I every time resort to the listing?:

LDS, RLDS/CoC, Restoration Branch, Remnant, Strangite, etc.

Or is there a shorthand I can use? Like:
BoM-believing sects
Smith-originated, Smith-descended,or Smith-founded sects
Restorationist sects
Mormonites or Mormonite sects

Preference? I’d rather not have to copy/paste the whole list, and the beliefs on particular points of doctrine are significant enough to not join them together, while the commonalities on many issues (such as the BoM and beliefs about authority and apostasy) are similar enough that it is good to be able to join them together.

God revealed to Joseph that the great apostasy has already occurred and he was given instructions to restore the complete gospel.

We have no evidence but the word of one man for this. Interestingly, Muhammed claimed the same thing. He made his own book, too, claiming direct revelation from God, because he said the Scriptures had been corrupted, and that Christ’s revelation was also not sufficient–there had to be more, namely, him. Someone’s up to the same tricks, just 1000 years later…

Instead, we have the evidence and testimony of many men, many writings, and the promises of Christ himself, to attest to a vision contrary to the impotent, oathbreaking god implied by these later “prophets.”

Also, God apparently never told Smith (as mentioned above) to enter into the “correct” version of the Bible that there was a total apostasy.

Putting faith in Joseph Smith means you must also have faith in the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, and all of Jesus’ promises. They can’t be separated from LDS. So, the only differences between you and I is the Joseph Smith part.

Actually, the differences are many. And Christ’s promises are a part of them. Because Smith makes Christ out to be an oathbreaker (not remaining with the Church, not building his Church so that it would never die, not being its head, etc), an adulterer (abandoning his Bride), conquered by death (his Body on earth dying), a fool (the foolish man who did not count the cost when building his tower or building on shifting sand that could not withstand the storms), insufficient (not revealing enough by his very Incarnation and last word), and impotent (letting his Church die out quicker and more completely than ever before AFTER he came and died for us and gave us the HS, since it died twice–once in Israel, once in the Americas).

 

[Arandur]

I completely agree with you here except for the last sentence. I wrote this on another thread, “Trust in You with all of our hearts, lean not on our own understanding.”

If being LDS was just a feeling, one would leave in under a month’s time, if not under a week. Being LDS is hard work and the challenges to one’s faith are monumental.

And it’s not for others?

The problem here is that whenever we on this board speak with the LDS folks here, they end up appealing, in the end, solely to personal testimony, to the “burning in the bosom” that is encouraged by Smith and the BoM as the central thing in believing those things. You don’t have a centralized authority guided by God to appeal to (we can never peg one down when speaking with you); you do not appeal to God’s voice in natural law; you do not appeal to the Tradition guided by the Spirit; and you make the Scriptures of the Divinely Inspired out to be unreliable, the Word they attest to as being completely corruptible so that God’s Word returns to Him fruitless.

The only way to be LDS is to appeal to the Lord that we may see truth in all things. It is at the very core of the faith. So much so that it is written in the Articles of our Faith:

---

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”***

This tells us that everybody are at a different journey in their lives in the search for truth to get back to His Kingdom. So that, if one is sincere in his quest for truth and after appealing to God and subjecting oneself to His will, it leads him to the Roman Catholic Church, then that is where he needs to be. It is when we stop searching, thinking that we already have all knowledge, that we cease to grow.

Do you not believe that Christ wanted us all to be united in faith? That he WAS Truth Incarnate?

How, then, would God not want all united in one Church, attesting to one Truth, rather than divided and believing contrary doctrines?

 

[Caprica]

Do you think Smith was the only person who prayed sincerely to know what Christ’s true church was?

Of course he wasn’t, nor was he the last. What we do believe is that he was called of God to be a prophet, as others have in the past.

What’s not accurate? He didn’t put something in the JST version that I’m aware of that claims total apostasy, so even Smith’s “corrected” version of the Bible does not claim a total apostasy.

Why must Joseph Smith have put something in the JST that claims a total apostasy? I am not sure of the issue here. Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible points to a “total” apostasy. Obviously we disagree with the interpretation of various passages in the Bible with other Christians (as other Christians also disagree amongst themselves about other passages as well), however in our view, the Bible clearly foretells an apostasy and restoration of the Church.

Yes, there were heresies/apostasies. They were never total, nor do any Scriptures or prophecies claim they had to be total–none claim that Christ’s Church had to be defeated, his Body killed, in the world.

Again, this is an interpretation. Latter-day Saints see an apostasy and restoration foretold in the Bible.

Remember too that Smith’s followers also fragmented; there are many sects that believe variants of his teachings. The LDS are not the only ones.

Which brings me to another question. With P-C warnings restricting precise language, I am left in a quandary when trying to refer to those various sects. I have been informed I can’t use the term I used earlier. So when I refer to the whole group and not LDS-particular beliefs, how should I do it? Would you prefer that I every time resort to the listing?:

LDS, RLDS/CoC, Restoration Branch, Remnant, Strangite, etc.

Or is there a shorthand I can use? Like:
BoM-believing sects
Smith-originated, Smith-descended,or Smith-founded sects
Restorationist sects
Mormonites or Mormonite sects

Preference? I’d rather not have to copy/paste the whole list, and the beliefs on particular points of doctrine are significant enough to not join them together, while the commonalities on many issues (such as the BoM and beliefs about authority and apostasy) are similar enough that it is good to be able to join them together.

“Restorationist sects” is not descriptive enough, since that can refer to other groups, especially the Churches/Disciples of Christ movement. Perhaps you can say “LDS and other JS-descended groups”.

We have no evidence but the word of one man for this. Interestingly, Muhammed claimed the same thing. He made his own book, too, claiming direct revelation from God, because he said the Scriptures had been corrupted, and that Christ’s revelation was also not sufficient–there had to be more, namely, him. Someone’s up to the same tricks, just 1000 years later…

And who is that “someone”?

Interestingly, we can ask some of the same questions of many of the Biblical prophets, Paul, etc.

Latter-day Saints do not claim that Jesus Christ’s revelations were insufficient. Catholicism and some other Christian churches do not claim that public revelation ended with Jesus Christ, but with the death of the last apostle. So if the revelations given to latter-day prophets make it that we are denying the sufficiency of Christ’s revelation, then saying that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (instead of with Jesus) does the same thing.

Instead, we have the evidence and testimony of many men, many writings, and the promises of Christ himself, to attest to a vision contrary to the impotent, oathbreaking god implied by these later “prophets.”

Actually, it is contrary to the interpretation of your church and that of others. We believe that the Bible states that there will be an apostasy and a restoration.

Also, God apparently never told Smith (as mentioned above) to enter into the “correct” version of the Bible that there was a total apostasy.

See above. Why would God have to tell Joseph Smith to “enter into the ‘correct’ version of the Bible that there was a total apostasy” when we believe that the Bible already says that?

Actually, the differences are many. And Christ’s promises are a part of them. Because Smith makes Christ out to be an oathbreaker (not remaining with the Church, not building his Church so that it would never die, not being its head, etc), an adulterer (abandoning his Bride), conquered by death (his Body on earth dying), a fool (the foolish man who did not count the cost when building his tower or building on shifting sand that could not withstand the storms), insufficient (not revealing enough by his very Incarnation and last word), and impotent (letting his Church die out quicker and more completely than ever before AFTER he came and died for us and gave us the HS, since it died twice–once in Israel, once in the Americas).

Again, all of this is an interpretation issue. The Church of Jesus Christ was not conquered by death anymore than Jesus was when He died. In fact, His death and resurrection provide a perfect analogy to what we believe happened to His Church (the Body of Christ, appropriately enough). Since His Church is here today, the gates of Hell/Hades/Death did not prevail against it, anymore than they prevailed against Jesus Christ.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Greetings Arandur! Peace be unto you.

The LDS faith believe the thought above is true. It is in the foundation of the teachings of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith, at age 14, wanted to know which church he should go to as there were several churches competing for membership at that time. He prayed about it and got the answer to not join any one of them as they don’t have the complete gospel.

That is not the answer he got.