Was there a Great Apostasy?- A discussion for Mormons and Catholics

[po18guy]

To these eyes, the “great apostasy” was put forth not as a stand-alone fact or demonstrable reality, but rather as an introduction which paved the way for the fantasy that was to follow. All story-telling needs a set-up, a premise, such as the well-known beginning of the classic fairy tale. The “great apostasy” is merely the theological version of that. “Once upon a time, there was a great apostasy, and the world was sad and broken. This made God very unhappy, so He sent an angel named Moroni…”

It does not stand up to critical thinking, but does appeal heavily to the “burning in the bosom”

 

[Quaesitor]

But that’s not how the LDS members view it. They believe it as much as they believe that Christ died on the cross. I know, my family has been telling me this since they found out I’m wanting to convert to Catholicism. Hence why they call the Catholic church the Great Abominable Church. Which I had to tell one of my sister she better not say that again to my face if she ever wanted me to respect her.

 

[po18guy]

But that’s not how the LDS members view it. They believe it as much as they believe that Christ died on the cross. I know, my family has been telling me this since they found out I’m wanting to convert to Catholicism. Hence why they call the Catholic church the Great Abominable Church. Which I had to tell one of my sister she better not say that again to my face if she ever wanted me to respect her.

I notice that many sects are very easy to join and become increasingly difficult to leave. A good test to determine the true faith: It is the Church that is hard to join and easy to leave.

 

[truthseeker32]

I am starting to see why it is impossible for Mormons and Catholics to make any progress. They frame arguments that only work in their respective framework.

One can point to the Bible to make their case, but if the interlocutor sees the bible differently than you do your argument isn’t going to make any headway.

In Matthew ch. 16 Christ states “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The term “prevail” is defined as follows:

1.Prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious: “it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion”.

1. Be widespread in a particular area at a particular time; be current: “an atmosphere of crisis prevails”.

Under both definition it does indeed seem that Mormons are going to have a hard time reconciling their belief in an apostasy with what Christ said, since according to their belief it seems that apostasy became more powerful than the church and became widespread.

For the sake of argument, why is it that Catholics place so much weight on this verse? Hypothetically, couldn’t it have been added to the chapter later in order to bolster the claims of the Roman Church? What are the best arguments we can make for the validity of the Catholic faith aside from Matthew 16:18?

 

[jediliz]

I ask Mormons WHAT was the EXACT year of this Apostasy and have never gotten a clear answer. All I ever get is “when the last Apostle died”. Well, that doesn’t tell me ANYTHING.

My question is: why would Jesus establish a church and then “Abandon” it for 1800 years until the mystery plates were “found”?

 

[Porknpie]

I ask Mormons WHAT was the EXACT year of this Apostasy and have never gotten a clear answer. All I ever get is “when the last Apostle died”. Well, that doesn’t tell me ANYTHING.

My question is: why would Jesus establish a church and then “Abandon” it for 1800 years until the mystery plates were “found”?

This is where reason comes into place.

1. no evidence of an apostasy…no evidence of a great apostasy. The foundation of Mormonism is that there was one. It never occured.
2. makes no sense that Jesus would establish his church, let it immediately fail and then
3. establish it again 1800 years later with someone who was immoral.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am starting to see why it is impossible for Mormons and Catholics to make any progress. They frame arguments that only work in their respective framework.

One can point to the Bible to make their case, but if the interlocutor sees the bible differently than you do your argument isn’t going to make any headway.

In Matthew ch. 16 Christ states “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The term “prevail” is defined as follows:

1.Prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious: “it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion”.

1. Be widespread in a particular area at a particular time; be current: “an atmosphere of crisis prevails”.

Under both definition it does indeed seem that Mormons are going to have a hard time reconciling their belief in an apostasy with what Christ said, since according to their belief it seems that apostasy became more powerful than the church and became widespread.

For the sake of argument, why is it that Catholics place so much weight on this verse? Hypothetically, couldn’t it have been added to the chapter later in order to bolster the claims of the Roman Church? What are the best arguments we can make for the validity of the Catholic faith aside from Matthew 16:18?

My thoughts are, it has become a standard scripture in Catholics apologetics, going back to the Protestant reformation. Mormonism has a lot of Protestant influences, and apologetics long used to refute Protestant claims can also be used to refute Mormon claims.

This website has a good pamphlet that explains the four pillars (or marks) of the true Church. One, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth.

From this pamphlet:

"Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).
He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church.

The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth."

There is a lot that Mormonism has to deny in order to makes the claims that it does. The two that stand out to me are, an idea that Jesus left us to wander when everything He said is contrary to this notion. And, the idea that the gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Church at Pentecost (the Church’s birthday), just kind of fizzled out.

To the Catholic mind, this makes Jesus unreliable, and the Holy Spirit ineffective. It isn’t something we can accept. We believe in a God who cares and isn’t scared off by our sin. As evidenced by the Cross.

 

[RebeccaJ]

truthseeker32, one more thought.

Mormonism struggles with the less-than stellar statements and/or beliefs of their past leaders. When these statements are brought up as signs of a false church, the standard response from the Mormon church is (paraphrasing), these aren’t ideas, teachings or beliefs that are important. What is important are matters that pertain to our salvation.

I can’t say, as a Christian, that I dispute that last idea. The problem I see is, the most important “thing”, the most important Truth, to our Salvation is Jesus Christ. He is God’s Final and Perfect Word. What more would any so-called Mormon prophet think to add, that Jesus Christ forgot, regarding anything, but especially our Salvation?

I’ve asked that question of several Mormons here. Have yet to see anyone answer it.

 

[po18guy]

I am starting to see why it is impossible for Mormons and Catholics to make any progress. They frame arguments that only work in their respective framework.

One can point to the Bible to make their case, but if the interlocutor sees the bible differently than you do your argument isn’t going to make any headway.

In Matthew ch. 16 Christ states “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The term “prevail” is defined as follows:

1.Prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious: “it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion”.

1. Be widespread in a particular area at a particular time; be current: “an atmosphere of crisis prevails”.

Under both definition it does indeed seem that Mormons are going to have a hard time reconciling their belief in an apostasy with what Christ said, since according to their belief it seems that apostasy became more powerful than the church and became widespread.

For the sake of argument, why is it that Catholics place so much weight on this verse? Hypothetically, couldn’t it have been added to the chapter later in order to bolster the claims of the Roman Church? What are the best arguments we can make for the validity of the Catholic faith aside from Matthew 16:18?

As Catholics, we put a lot of stress on each and every verse, and all of them together. Except for Matthew 16:18, the LDS might have a claim.

It almost seems like you are trying to act as moderator of a debate - as if you are torn between two competing factions, and seek the consensus in favor of one or the other. We are searching for the truth, right? Truth is always and everywhere subject to rational analysis and the appplication of reason.

The LDS allege something that does not stand up to reason, is against the words of our Lord, and is not even anecdotally supported - not against the Catholic Church. And does the LDS argument not completely ignore the 99% identical Orthodox Churches?

Why is it that every heretic and sect leader aims squarely at the Catholic Church, and only the Catholic Church? Conspiracy? In the supernatural realm, you bet it is!

 

[RebeccaJ]

hey po,

truthseeker32 can correct me if I’m wrong, but he/she is a catechumen. As LDS grow in Christ, there are aha moments. Times where what one once accepted as truth, are revealed for what they are. A gift, of the Holy Spirit. I see one here.

Rebecca

 

[pablope]

I am starting to see why it is impossible for Mormons and Catholics to make any progress. They frame arguments that only work in their respective framework.

Under both definition it does indeed seem that Mormons are going to have a hard time reconciling their belief in an apostasy with what Christ said, since according to their belief it seems that apostasy became more powerful than the church and became widespread.

For the sake of argument, why is it that Catholics place so much weight on this verse? Hypothetically, couldn’t it have been added to the chapter later in order to bolster the claims of the Roman Church? What are the best arguments we can make for the validity of the Catholic faith aside from Matthew 16:18?

The four marks of the Church…from the ancient creeds…lectures by Scott Hahn…star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/Mod3.html

 

[Quaesitor]

Why is it that every heretic and sect leader aims squarely at the Catholic Church, and only the Catholic Church? Conspiracy? In the supernatural realm, you bet it is!

Why you ask? Because it’s the true church!!!

 

[truthseeker32]

I suppose my primary hope is that there can be a fair dialogue between Catholics and Mormons. It seems that people often hold their opponent to a harsher standard than that to which they hold themselves. Whether one believes another faith is legitimate or not, it should still be taken seriously where it merits being taken seriously.

For example, one thing that has puzzled non-Mormon scholars is how Joseph Smith was able to compile the book in such a short time, and how it was able to incorporate elements of traditional Hebrew language and practice in the text. Richard Bushman, a Mormon, in “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” points out that the book contains the Hebrew poetic form “chiasmus,” and the coronation rituals accounted in the Book of Mormon are very similar to those of Jewish antiquity. (p. 93)

This by no means even comes close to proving the validity of Mormonism, but it does indicate something critics outside the LDS faith are quick to dismiss: there are intricacies and complexities that are hard to explain within the book. It doesn’t read like a scam work written by a farm boy with a meager education.

 

[po18guy]

hey po,

truthseeker32 can correct me if I’m wrong, but he/she is a catechumen. As LDS grow in Christ, there are aha moments. Times where what one once accepted as truth, are revealed for what they are. A gift, of the Holy Spirit. I see one here.

Rebecca

My impression, based on some perceived hesitance, is that the RCIA involvement might be as an inquirer. I became a little rankled upon seeing the request that the Catholic Church meet “requirements” in order to have a discussion. Struck me as relativism, even if it was not. Just expose both faiths to the light of day. The choice is then made simple: believe one man’s amazing story, or trust in a 2,000 year old Church that traces directly to Christ Himself. Although, after one has been in a difficut-to-leave pseudo-Christian sect, I know that much confusion remains and exposure to something that comforts and makes sense is needed.

I think OP needs to go and spend time with our Lord at adoration.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I suppose my primary hope is that there can be a fair dialogue between Catholics and Mormons. It seems that people often hold their opponent to a harsher standard than that to which they hold themselves. Whether one believes another faith is legitimate or not, it should still be taken seriously where it merits being taken seriously.

For example, one thing that has puzzled non-Mormon scholars is how Joseph Smith was able to compile the book in such a short time, and how it was able to incorporate elements of traditional Hebrew language and practice in the text. Richard Bushman, a Mormon, in “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” points out that the book contains the Hebrew poetic form “chiasmus,” and the coronation rituals accounted in the Book of Mormon are very similar to those of Jewish antiquity. (p. 93)

This by no means even comes close to proving the validity of Mormonism, but it does indicate something critics outside the LDS faith are quick to dismiss: there are intricacies and complexities that are hard to explain within the book. It doesn’t read like a scam work written by a farm boy with a meager education.

Not surprising that one would find chiasmus in BoM they are in the bible JS was quite familiar with the bible. And while JS may not have had a lot of formal education his father was a teacher, somehow I doubt Joseph’s father neglected his education. As to the short time it took to write the BoM his mother told of how as a young boy Joseph would tell tales of the original inhabitants.

“During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.”

 

[po18guy]

I suppose my primary hope is that there can be a fair dialogue between Catholics and Mormons. It seems that people often hold their opponent to a harsher standard than that to which they hold themselves. Whether one believes another faith is legitimate or not, it should still be taken seriously where it merits being taken seriously.

For example, one thing that has puzzled non-Mormon scholars is how Joseph Smith was able to compile the book in such a short time, and how it was able to incorporate elements of traditional Hebrew language and practice in the text. Richard Bushman, a Mormon, in “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” points out that the book contains the Hebrew poetic form “chiasmus,” and the coronation rituals accounted in the Book of Mormon are very similar to those of Jewish antiquity. (p. 93)

This by no means even comes close to proving the validity of Mormonism, but it does indicate something critics outside the LDS faith are quick to dismiss: there are intricacies and complexities that are hard to explain within the book. It doesn’t read like a scam work written by a farm boy with a meager education.

We cannot and must not dismiss the spiritual realm here. Spirits empower us - both for good as well as evil. Spiritual empowerment can take us far beyond our human capabilities, and scripture is replete with many examples. The question is, did Joseph Smith test that spirit, as scripture admonishes him to do? There is zero evidence that he did test the spirit that gave him “revelation.” So, which spirit was it, then? The Holy Spirit always leads to humility and unity, whereas Joseph Smith taught and established division.

 

[truthseeker32]

I think OP needs to go and spend time with our Lord at adoration.

I have made a point of doing so at least two times a week. Unfortunately I have yet to have any sort of “aha” moment; in fact it seems that as time goes by I feel farther away from any sort of objective truth. I live with a skepticism so great that I no longer trust my own ability to reason.

I am also very much inclined to disagree that Catholicism is clearly true as you seem to imply. It may very well be true, but discovering this requires digging, not a simple glance.

 

[pablope]

I have made a point of doing so at least two times a week. Unfortunately I have yet to have any sort of “aha” moment; in fact it seems that as time goes by I feel farther away from any sort of objective truth. I live with a skepticism so great that I no longer trust my own ability to reason.

If you are seeking God for courage…will He just instantly zap you and aha…you suddenly have courage? Or will God give you the oppurtunity to, the moment for you to display and for you to develop your courage…will he give the chances to be courageous? Thereby…you will begin to have courage?

Likewise, you are seeking to have an "aha’ moment…will He suddenly appear and give you an “aha” moment? Or will there will instances, with you not aware, where He will give you the chances, the moments to have those “aha” moments?

I am also very much inclined to disagree that Catholicism is clearly true as you seem to imply. It may very well be true, but discovering this requires digging, not a simple glance.

 

[TexanKnight]

I suppose my primary hope is that there can be a fair dialogue between Catholics and Mormons. It seems that people often hold their opponent to a harsher standard than that to which they hold themselves. Whether one believes another faith is legitimate or not, it should still be taken seriously where it merits being taken seriously.

For example, one thing that has puzzled non-Mormon scholars is how Joseph Smith was able to compile the book in such a short time, and how it was able to incorporate elements of traditional Hebrew language and practice in the text. Richard Bushman, a Mormon, in “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” points out that the book contains the Hebrew poetic form “chiasmus,” and the coronation rituals accounted in the Book of Mormon are very similar to those of Jewish antiquity. (p. 93)

This by no means even comes close to proving the validity of Mormonism, but it does indicate something critics outside the LDS faith are quick to dismiss: there are intricacies and complexities that are hard to explain within the book. It doesn’t read like a scam work written by a farm boy with a meager education.

this is only a problem IF you take Joseph’s story as truthful. IF it is truthful as to how long it took him, when he started, etc. I do not. He lied about so many aspects of it that I can;t accept the time limits he has described

 

[truthseeker32]

If you are seeking God for courage…will He just instantly zap you and aha…you suddenly have courage? Or will God give you the oppurtunity to, the moment for you to display and for you to develop your courage…will he give the chances to be courageous? Thereby…you will begin to have courage?