The Great Apostasy

[amgid]

ben_dy:

So my first question should be, I suppose, has amgid toned down the personal attacks, rudeness, and incivility to the point where his messages can be read without sparking a self-admittedly long fuse?

I wouldn’t dream of being rude to you Ben—especially someone who has read the Book of Mormon three times and thinks that it is interesting! I think that you are just great!

That said and first question asked, has amgid actually and literally suggested that “The Great Apostasy” began at the death of the last Apostle?

Yes, I did make such a suggestion in one or two of my posts on the subject of the Apostasy in another thread. I will briefly summarize my personal views on it once more.

It is unfortunate that we are stuck with the word Apostasy to refer to this event, because it carries with it some negative connotations. It conjures up the idea of the “church of the devil” and all that, which is not what we mean by it. That baggage is left over from history. It is Protestantism that first advanced those ideas. That is not Mormonism. By the Apostasy I meant the loss of priestly and Apostolic authority to lead, direct, and govern the church by revelation, as was the case in ancient times, when the Christian church was first established. Once that link was severed, incorrect doctrines, principles, and practices began to creep into the church which did not have divine sanction. The keys of the priesthood authority to perform valid sacraments and ordinances before God were lost. Sometimes people were called to positions of authority in the church that were unworthy of or unsuitable for it, and eventually the church ceased to be the church that was established by the Lord and His Apostles in ancient times. But this does not mean that the church became completely evil or wicked. There continued to be “wheat among the tares”. The most basic teachings of the gospel survived, and there were many good people and true believers in the Lord who continued to carry forward the work that God wanted them to do. But without the proper priesthood and Apostolic authority in the church, what they could achieve was limited. With the restoration of the gospel and the priesthood in the latter days, however, the work of God will go forward with greater power and force for good until all of the purposes of God on earth are accomplished.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

This is your biggest mistake. Neither the bible nor church history says that the keys were ever taken from the earth.

It does. The keys were held by the Twelve Apostles. When they disappeared from the earth, the keys disappeared with them.

If they were, nobody told the church, and nobody knew about it–for 1700 years!

They did. Paul told them of the “falling away” that should come. He also told them that in the latter days they shall have “a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”. That is apostasy.

So here we go for 1700 years of the church spreading the gospel throughout the earth, but all the while not knowing that God “took away the keys.”

See above.

Then Joseph Smith comes along and makes the claim that this church is an abomination. Simply rediculous.

Joseph Smith was not the first to recognize that the keys were taken form the earth. Others did besides, including the Protestant Reformers—except that they made matters a lot worse by “reforming” it. They would have been a lot better off leaving it as it is, and letting God do the reforming (or restoring) in His own way.

And by the way, even your own church cannot definitively state when the apostacy really happened, so your statement is neither authoritative nor accurate.

I have addressed that question already. The Apostasy was not a catastrophic sudden event, like the fall of a meteorite, that one could put an exact date on it. It was more of a process rather than a sudden event. But if you insist on putting an “event” date on it, I would say that the process commenced when the last apostle died.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

It is unfortunate that we are stuck with the word Apostasy to refer to this event, because it carries with it some negative connotations. It conjures up the idea of the “church of the devil” and all that, which is not what we mean by it. That baggage is left over from history. It is Protestantism that first advanced those ideas. That is not Mormonism. By the Apostasy I meant the loss of priestly and Apostolic authority to lead, direct, and govern the church by revelation, as was the case in ancient times, when the Christian church was first established. Once that link was severed, incorrect doctrines, principles, and practices began to creep into the church which did not have divine sanction. The keys of the priesthood authority to perform valid sacraments and ordinances before God were lost. Sometimes people were called to positions of authority in the church that were unworthy of or unsuitable for it, and eventually the church ceased to be the church that was established by the Lord and His Apostles in ancient times. But this does not mean that the church became completely evil or wicked. There continued to be “wheat among the tares”. The most basic teachings of the gospel survived, and there were many good people and true believers in the Lord who continued to carry forward the work that God wanted them to do. But without the proper priesthood and Apostolic authority in the church, what they could achieve was limited. With the restoration of the gospel and the priesthood in the latter days, however, the work of God will go forward with greater power and force for good until all of the purposes of God on earth are accomplished.

amgid

You still haven’t answered my question regarding the way you reason this out. Just to clarify:

There is NO evidence from the early record of what Smith said was true. The PROOF I am looking for is thing called evidence. All the evidence points to Smith being wrong.

Another thing, what you have previously posted is the fallacy called begging the question.

Let me explain: begging the question “is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: “Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted” Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, “politicians are untrustworthy”) in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.” (for full text go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

You assume that which you cannot prove to support your claim, therefore you beg the question.

What I am hearing you say is this: I am not wrong because you can’t prove me right.

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

You still haven’t answered my question regarding the way you reason this out. Just to clarify:

There is NO evidence from the early record of what Smith said was true. The PROOF I am looking for is thing called evidence. All the evidence points to Smith being wrong.

Another thing, what you have previously posted is the fallacy called begging the question.

Let me explain: begging the question “is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: “Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted” Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, “politicians are untrustworthy”) in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.” (for full text go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

You assume that which you cannot prove to support your claim, therefore you beg the question.

What I am hearing you say is this: I am not wrong because you can’t prove me right.

Peace

I don’t know what you are talking about.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

I don’t know what you are talking about.

amgid

I am talking about the use of rational thought via logic and the avoidance of fallacies. The fallacy I have witnessed you use time and again is called begging the question.

Would you like me to show you some examples of how you have committed this fallacy?

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

I am talking about the use of rational thought via logic and the avoidance of fallacies. The fallacy I have witnessed you use time and again is called begging the question.

Would you like me to show you some examples of how you have committed this fallacy?

Peace

Please do.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

The Great Apostasy is a historical fact or it is not, correct? Either it happended or it did not, correct. If it is a historical fact there should be evidence for it, correct. Just like there is evidence for Columbus’ ocean journey and the historical figure of Jesus, correct?

Whether you like it or not, religion does contain facts.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

Please do.

amgid

Well, let’s look at one of your first posts concerning the Great Apostasy.

You said:

I agree that defining the Apostasy in precise theological terms, and exactly how and when it occurred, is a bit difficult to do.

But our observations lead us to the conclusion that it did happen. A US judge once said that although I can’t give an accurate legal definition of what constitutes pornography, I can always recognize it when I see it! The same holds true of the Apostasy**. I can’t give you an accurate theological description for it, but I can for sure recognize it when I see it. And that is what I observe in the Christian world today.**

This is almost verbatum of the example give in the “begging the question” definition I provided.

The fallacy of begging the question states, “the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.”

Peace

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Coming back to the apostasy now, I’m not sure why proof is required either way. Catholics can believe what they want and so can Mormons and so can anyone else. What I’d like to understand is simply why Catholics believe that (what their rationale is in regards to) the great apostasy didn’t happen. It is also to discuss why Mormons feel it did, aside from statements of Church leaders.

I have already mentioned this, but it’s worth saying again. There isn’t much else I can provide that hasn’t already been written all over the place for the Mormon side of things. The topic of apostasy has been explained on many LDS web sites and in many books. Some of you said you were already very aware of these things. Yet I didn’t really see any specific rebuttals. There may not be. You may just consider the evidence lacking and suppose that no response is necessary. No problem with that. If you’re really not aware of these arguments then let me know and I’ll put up a few links.

What I’d like to know is why Catholics think it didn’t. (You see, to a believing LDS there’s no way it couldn’t have happened, so strongly is the idea embedded.) I’m not asking for proof, but for apologetics on it. I’d also rather not read lots of articles, but get your own succinct opinions.

So, from what I can see, the Catholic position is primarily that the Catholic doctrine has not changed since the first century and that there has been a continual line of popes. The latter is what we were discussing here at first, mainly Linus, but have sinced moved away from that. I think he really does have a key part in this discussion, though.

As far as doctrine changing or not, I haven’t read the ECFs as of yet, so have no insights to share. If we want to get into this, though, a separate thread should probably be started.

I was thinking, and basically decided that citing scripture in’t necessary here. I know pretty much what Catholics would interpret to be a basis for a Church that was apostasy-free, and they know our scriptures, and it all comes down to interpretation.

So, honestly, is there anything else we really need to focus on? I’d like to not hear any more challenges to prove stuff true or false, as I am not asking that of anyone either. Let’s just be open-minded and examine what we know.

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

What I’d like to know is why Catholics think it didn’t. (You see, to a believing LDS there’s no way it couldn’t have happened, so strongly is the idea embedded.) I’m not asking for proof, but for apologetics on it. I’d also rather not read lots of articles, but get your own succinct opinions.

I want to try to answer this Chris and I know I haven’t done a very good job of communicating my position to you in the past so I’ll try a different approach. Just as the idea of a Great Apostasy is so ingrained into LDS thought that it usually is a firm starting point for them, So to is the idea of APostolic succession to the Catholics.
The historical record is there to show us an unbroken lineage from Apostles of Jesus to current Bishops. We know that the Apostles called the first bishops and we know who they were. We know who they ordained as bishops and so on to the present. For someone to claim that somewhere along the line the ordinations didn’t count and that the sacraments they perform are no longer valid seems ludicrous. There is no evidence and we’ve been here the whole time.

It’s kind of like if I was watching television, discovery channel if you like but it doesn’t matter and I had been watching a series on religion all day and someone claimed that my cable had been disconnected sometime that morning and I couldn’t get that series. I know I’ve been watching continuously all day. But they claim no your cable was disconnected and whatever your watching isn’t that religion series. You may even think you are still watching discovery channel but you’re not seeing the real program. I would have a very difficuly time beleiveing them when they brought over a video of a completely different series and told me this was the real one, especially if I could still look at my TV and see the same series I had been watching.

Does this help clarify?

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

Coming back to the apostasy now, I’m not sure why proof is required either way. Catholics can believe what they want and so can Mormons and so can anyone else. What I’d like to understand is simply why Catholics believe that (what their rationale is in regards to) the great apostasy didn’t happen. It is also to discuss why Mormons feel it did, aside from statements of Church leaders.

Do you believe there in only one Truth? Catholics are not relativist, so this statement is quite problematic for us. Why would proof not be require if someone is making a truth claim? If someone is saying x happened they need to prove* x* happened, correct? Especially if x effects your foundational belief system.
Chris Jodrey:

What I’d like to know is why Catholics think it didn’t. (You see, to a believing LDS there’s no way it couldn’t have happened, so strongly is the idea embedded.) I’m not asking for proof, but for apologetics on it. I’d also rather not read lots of articles, but get your own succinct opinions.

Your church had made the charge. It for them to provide the evidence. You are asking for apologetics without proof? I don’t understand. Proof is a tool of apologetics, just as logic and reason are tools.

Peace

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Chris;
Chris Jodrey:

Coming back to the apostasy now, I’m not sure why proof is required either way. Catholics can believe what they want and so can Mormons and so can anyone else. What I’d like to understand is simply why Catholics believe that (what their rationale is in regards to) the great apostasy didn’t happen. It is also to discuss why Mormons feel it did, aside from statements of Church leaders.

You are taking an objective knowable truth and and turning it into a subjective belief. The apostasy either happened, or it did not. History provides the answer. It’s not like the great apostasy is a concept - it was an event in history like the depression or nazism or the cold war. Even if the edges of the apostasy are “fuzzy” like some LDS contend, there must still be a point at which one can look back and say “the christian church has completely rejected Christ’s teachings.” But that is decidedly NOT the case. Even protestants who think the Catholic Church is pagan deny the concept of a total apostasy because fundamental christian doctrines common to all of christianity have remained intact from the time of Christ. Because the historical evidence lacks support for a great apostasy, it is not logical to support such a conclusion. One must suspend logic to have “faith” in an apostasy. That is one reason why I simply cannot accept the LDS faith - which is fundamentally premised upon the need for a “restoration” (as opposed to even a “reformation.”)
Chris Jodrey:

I have already mentioned this, but it’s worth saying again. There isn’t much else I can provide that hasn’t already been written all over the place for the Mormon side of things. The topic of apostasy has been explained on many LDS web sites and in many books. Some of you said you were already very aware of these things. Yet I didn’t really see any specific rebuttals. There may not be. You may just consider the evidence lacking and suppose that no response is necessary. No problem with that. If you’re really not aware of these arguments then let me know and I’ll put up a few links.

I think I’ve noted in prior responses that the “evidence” proferred by LDS starts from the premise that a total falling away occurred, then cites scripture to support such a concept. It is result-oriented interpretation. But more to the point - the interpretation requires LDS to ignore history and suspend logic.
Chris Jodrey:

What I’d like to know is why Catholics think it didn’t. (You see, to a believing LDS there’s no way it couldn’t have happened, so strongly is the idea embedded.) I’m not asking for proof, but for apologetics on it. I’d also rather not read lots of articles, but get your own succinct opinions.

I think I’ve provided that already. You really should dig into the early writers of the Church. I think I mentioned Whitehead’s book “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” The argument boils down to this - the Catholic Church, of all the churches on earth today, most closely resembles the early church of the Apostles. This is a historical conclusion based upon a side-by-side comparison of very early writings and traditions to the present day teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s worth your time to consider the argument, even if your strongly embedded faith ultimately causes you to reject the study.
Chris Jodrey:

So, from what I can see, the Catholic position is primarily that the Catholic doctrine has not changed since the first century and that there has been a continual line of popes. The latter is what we were discussing here at first, mainly Linus, but have sinced moved away from that. I think he really does have a key part in this discussion, though.

Apostolic succession is only part of it. From my perspective, the more important issue for the LDS to address is where in history prior to the great apostasy was the early church mormon in appearance. The alleged lack of apostolic succession alone is not sufficient to support a total apostasy - because christianity can survive with all of its other doctrines intact even without a central authority. The Schism and the Reformation show how heretical forms of christianity can survive the lack of a central authority without resulting in complete apostasy.
Chris Jodrey:

As far as doctrine changing or not, I haven’t read the ECFs as of yet, so have no insights to share. If we want to get into this, though, a separate thread should probably be started.

OK I’ll start one.
Chris Jodrey:

So, honestly, is there anything else we really need to focus on?

The thought occurs that maybe we have not properly defined the term “great apostasy.” Perhaps we’ve just been talking past each other because we’re using the same term, but meaning different things?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

New thread on the Early Church Fathers and the Great Apostasy is here…

Do the Early Church Fathers Support the Theory of a “Great Apostasy”

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Does this help clarify?

Not really. I already knew that much. No-apostasy is a given for Catholics and apostasy is a given for Mormons. Both groups are sincere in their beliefs, but the rationale is different. So I’m wondering exactly what that rationale is.

dennisknapp, you’ve missed a lot of important things. I would recommend going to the topic “Faith” and giving it a read-through.

I know what you’re trying to say, Robert, but so far I disagree. You’re trying to present the lack of apostasy as a historical fact, no questions asked, and I just don’t see it that way. I’m sure that the pro-RCC arguments convince you, and that’s great, but I am not convinced. Yes, there is one eternal truth; but if we can’t convince everyone of it by logical and eloquent speech, oh well. Each person believes what he or she wants, period. I’ve felt that way too, that I’ve explained things to be so easy to understand and so logical that no one could deny it, yet people deny it. It happens on all sides. So rather than get all huffy it may be worth it to just take a deep breath and find out why we believ what we do. Put yourself in my shoes. If we start with the belief that most people are sincere in their beliefs then there should be some reason that Mormons believe in the apostasy. I challenge you to find out what that reason is.

I think I’ve noted in prior responses that the “evidence” proferred by LDS starts from the premise that a total falling away occurred, then cites scripture to support such a concept. It is result-oriented interpretation.

The same is often said about any and every Christian denomination. Which one gets categorized that way depends on which one you’re talking to. See above.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

So rather than get all huffy it may be worth it to just take a deep breath and find out why we believ what we do.

Huffy? Huffy! HUFFY!!!

Seriously though, I didn’t know I was coming across that way. Believe me I’m not huffy about it. I just don’t see the historical support for the LDS position on the Great Apostasy. Indeed, the historical evidence contradicts the LDS position.
Chris Jodrey:

Put yourself in my shoes. If we start with the belief that most people are sincere in their beliefs then there should be some reason that Mormons believe in the apostasy. I challenge you to find out what that reason is.

I’m trying to put myself in your shoes. They just don’t seem to fit. And when I ask an LDS member for historical proof of the apostasy I am politely but firmly led down another path. It’s hard to put myself in your shoes when I keep getting that type of response.

And let me again clarify that I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of an LDS person’s belief, including yours, Chris. But people can be sincere and still be wrong. (You might suggest the same thing to me. ) Sincerity is not proof of truth. If so, then every faith would be true, and every faith would be false.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I just don’t see the historical support for the LDS position on the Great Apostasy.

And I don’t see the Catholics’. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? Of course not. It just means we’ve got to be more patient and thoughtful.

I’m trying to put myself in your shoes. They just don’t seem to fit. And when I ask an LDS member for historical proof of the apostasy I am politely but firmly led down another path. It’s hard to put myself in your shoes when I keep getting that type of response.

Sometimes simple communication is the trickiest part of all of this. If you feel that way then explain in what way it’s happening. As we know, in these kinds of things sometimes other topics need to be addressed in order to properly address the topic at hand. For example, when we discuss the great apostasy the doctrine of priesthood needs to be firmly established. So, sometimes it’s hard to see what something else has to do with what you want to know until you go down that path. I don’t know specifically, but be aware that that is not my intention, and it’s probably not the intention of most LDS.

Sincerity is not proof of truth. If so, then every faith would be true, and every faith would be false.

No, but if we dismiss everyone else’s sincerity out of hand just because it disagreed with our own then many people would not be able to find that truth you speak of.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Luke**
**Chapter 14

“Jesus finishes what He starts, along with the importance of the Cross”

27

Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

28

Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?

29

Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him

30

and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’

31

Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?

32

But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.

33

In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.

 

[catholic-rcia]

As the young novice knelt in his cell he prayed for detachment. After years of having many possessions and living a worldly life, he asked for the grace to be able to detach himself from the desire to have or keep worldly things.

He was off to a good start. His cell was located in a courtyard near the old stables behind the monastery. The room was basic. A small cell with a door and in the door a window the size of a man’s face allowed him to look out over the snow-covered courtyard. There were simple, modest furnishings in the room. Along one wall stood an old rickety desk and chair with a few sheets of paper and a dull pencil sitting on top. Beside the paper was a dog-eared Bible that had been left by the ancient priest who had previously lived in the cell for forty years before his glorious departure to be with the Lord. Across the cell from the desk on the floor was a thin straw-filled mattress and above the mattress hung a simple wood crucifix.

As the young man was praying there was a knock upon his cell door. A priest from the monastery informed the young novice that a visitor had arrived in the night and was in need of a bed. The priest asked the young man if he would consider giving up his bed for the night for this visitor who may be Christ in disguise. The novice thought of the cold uncomfortable floor that was hidden beneath his straw mattress and then he remembered his recent request of the Lord. He offered his bed and cover as well.

The following morning the same priest returned with some terrible news. As it turned out, the visitor was actually a thief who ransacked the chapel and started a fire with the straw mattress that destroyed the interior of the chapel.

Since the chapel had been gutted the priest asked the novice if he could part with his desk for they needed an altar for mass. He also asked for his Bible and crucifix so that mass could be offered with some dignity. The young man thought long and hard. He knew he would miss sitting down with Sacred Scripture but he willingly gave the priest the desk and the Bible. The crucifix was harder to part with for many reasons. It was a gift from his mother when he entered the religious life and she had passed away shortly after. To look at the crucifix was comforting because he remembered his mother and at the same time entrusted her to the Crucified One. As he looked at the crucifix he again remembered his prayer for detachment and with a smile removed it from the wall and handed it to the priest.

That night he lay on the cold stone floor in his habit looking at the rickety chair in the middle of the cell by the light of the moon. The room was quiet and cold and he could hear whispering outside his door. In an instant the door was kicked in and two men entered his cell. He jumped to his feet without saying a word. The thief and an accomplice had returned to the monastery to find more items of value but all they could see in the cell was the rickety old chair. As one thief turned to leave the light of the moon shone through the doorway and onto the trembling young novice. Without a word one thief grabbed the young man and threw him to the ground ripping his habit from his body and began kicking him. The other picked up the chair and began striking the novice until the chair fell to pieces. The thieves beat him until he was nearly dead and then ran off.

The light of the moon shone brightly on the young man’s face as he lay there naked and dying. He remembered his prayer for detachment and a smile came to his face. He had been stripped of all his worldly possessions and he was quickly fading but he was happier now than at any other time in his life. He was happy because he still had one possession that no one could take. He came into this world with nothing but he would leave this world with one single possession. He was happy because he was possessed by this greatest possession, this great treasure, the pearl of great price, Jesus.

 

[Tmaque]

Chris Jodrey:

For example, when we discuss the great apostasy the doctrine of priesthood needs to be firmly established. So, sometimes it’s hard to see what something else has to do with what you want to know until you go down that path.

The doctrine of priesthood does not help the LDS position in regards to the great apostasy. LDS still need to reasonably show how priesthood authority was lost. Or, that it is relevant to the argument at all.

Can an evil Pope destroy the priesthood held by hundreds of faithful bishops? Of course not. If GBH was found to be an adulterer would you consider the LDS Church in a sudden state of apostasy? No, of course not.

Does the fact that a person is in state of sin, mean that they’ve lost their authority, and no longer have power from God to perform sacraments? If you believe this then you must believe that there are many LDS walking around unbaptized and unsealed.

Did the apostasy occur because evil men changed doctrine? LDS cannot show any real doctrinal changes during the time they claim the Church was led by evil men. All of the claimed doctrinal changes supposedly came when the Church was led by faithful men. Men, you might say were misguided, but certainly full of good intentions and willing to go to their deaths for their faith. No reasonable person could claim that these early martyrs were evil men.

There is no point in discussing the loss of priesthood if doctrinal changes are the issue. And, there is no point in discussing doctrinal changes if the loss of priesthood is the issue. If both are equally important and intertwined(which, I believe they are), if one cannot exist without the other, then please explain how the Church remained faithful in doctrine during times of evil Popes, yet lost her doctrine during times of faithful Popes.

You may say then, that doctrine was lost(and consequently authority) in spite of the efforts and sacrifices of the martyrs. If that is the case, if it matters not that evil Popes reigned because doctrine was lost, then priesthood authority has no bearing on the argument at all.

You may then say that evil Popes reigned BECAUSE the doctrine was lost. They are evidence of the lost true doctrines. You may believe that God would not allow such sinners to lead his Church. The question hidden in that belief is “lead it where?”. I agree that God would not allow great sinners to lead his Church down the wrong path, down the path to false doctrine. And God did NOT allow it.

Again, there were no doctrinal changes during the times of these Popes…they changed nothing. Indeed, the fact that they did not lead the Church astray bears testimony that the Church was under God’s influence, and was held up by Christ’s promise that the “gates of hell shall not prevail” against his Church.

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

And I don’t see the Catholics’. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? Of course not. It just means we’ve got to be more patient and thoughtful…

You do not see it because you choose to not look into the evidence. If you did you would see that it did not happen. Hey, if you have some evidence that it did happen, I would be more than glad to look at it.

I am begging you, please show me some evidence!
Chris Jodrey:

Sometimes simple communication is the trickiest part of all of this. If you feel that way then explain in what way it’s happening. As we know, in these kinds of things sometimes other topics need to be addressed in order to properly address the topic at hand. For example, when we discuss the great apostasy the doctrine of priesthood needs to be firmly established. So, sometimes it’s hard to see what something else has to do with what you want to know until you go down that path. I don’t know specifically, but be aware that that is not my intention, and it’s probably not the intention of most LDS…

I find that we are communicating just fine. It would be better if you would finally bring forth some evidence.
Chris Jodrey:

No, but if we dismiss everyone else’s sincerity out of hand just because it disagreed with our own then many people would not be able to find that truth you speak of.

Many people are sincere. This is fine, but sincerity does not equal correct. What we need is your side to produce something we can all evaluate.

Peace