T
TexanKnight
Guest
If you do not know the list I am hopeful to share, then you do not know Catholic History.
- Status
M
Marie5890
Guest
I know Catholic history so no need to delineate.
But I am asking you for a general statement, definition as to what constitutes apostasy.
What constitutes a general and institutional apostasy over individual and personal apostasy?
Are there differences in you POV between the two ( general vs personal)
Are you saying that the institutional changes that have happened in Mormonism over the past 2 centuries do not constitute an institutional apostasy?
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I am saying Apostasy occurs when God pulls His authority due to the widespread destruction of His plan…including just a plethora of stuff I would love to list.
It is much like when, if you sin, the Spirit may withdraw from you. It is that kind of thing.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The burden of proof is on LDS.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
If the reformation is evidence of apostasy then the various splinters from Mormonism is evidence of a LDS apostasy.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
not true. The burden is on whoever makes the claim or accusation. Making an accusation does not place the burden on the accused.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Nice try. But I did not say the reformation was evidence.
I said the incredible plethora of mind-blowing conduct that led to the reformation is the apostasy.
But thank you for your argument…you have chastised me when I have taken that tact.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Did God redo with the flood? He selected Noah and continued his plan through Noah and his offspring. Here’s why I think in the mormon view Hell did prevail over the church, it prevailed because truth was completely obliterated from the earth. The Idea of the Mormon God as a limited physical corporeal entity was utterly abolished within the Christian tradition and instead an all powerful God beyond physical nature was embraced. The priesthood which Christ established was abolished. The Apostles even when they had the chance did not appoint successors and thus the world lost true apostolicity. The Trinity prevailed. Celibacy became the highest sexual ethic to which the Christian could live up to. People worshipped Christ as if he were equal to his Father in substance.
I think it would be right to say these are abominations in Mormonism and they are the views which prevailed. Hell prevailed over the church Christ established. Perhaps it was a temporary victory for the forces of Satan but a powerful victory nonetheless, a victory which has taken over the entire world with it’s influence and causes many problems for the Mormon religion today. 1900 years or 1800 years of total apostasy is a pretty good victory for Satan i would think.
The main problem for Mormons was not addressed. Do you have any guarantee your church won’t at some point fall into apostasy? Nope. It’s the same problems the bahai have or other restoration movements have.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Perhaps LDS.org, your church’s website, for a start?
lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-0/lesson-3?lang=eng
lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/the-true-and-living-church?lang=eng
lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-3-succession-in-the-presidency?lang=eng
lds.org/liahona/2005/02/what-happened-to-christs-church?lang=eng
lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy?lang=eng
It is quite a common LDS belief that a major reason for the apostasy was the belief that the apostles were unable to ordain successors, and the Melchizedek priesthood died out on earth. I see this type of argument all the time, I’m not sure why it is in dispute.
Please cite evidence for the point where the teachings were wholesale abandoned. I will wait for the mods to give you permission.
Catholics, as I thought you knew, believe that the Trinity is three distinct Persons (not Beings), who are united in nature (also translated as “essence” or “substance” or “being”). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other, meaning, they are not each other (as we read in the Catechism and the Athanasian Creed). however, they are all of the same Divine nature.
The Trinity can be found in the Bible where we see a number of truths:
- There is only one God
- There are three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), who are each God, yet they are not each other, and, as we see in 1), there is only one God, as the Bible teaches.
catholicbible101.com/theholytrinity.htm
catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/explaining-the-trinity
catholic-resources.org/Bible/Trinity.htm
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22.htm
Catholics baptize by pouring and immersion. Sprinkling is a blessing rite.
And again, why sola scriptura, when such a stance is unscriptural itself? Where in the Bible does it say that everything the early Church did is contained in the Bible? This is an irrational stance not supported by the Bible, nor by history. Further, the LDS church itself does not hold such a stance. As well, it seems as if you want the church to on the one hand be stagnant and unchanging (hence the repeated “where is that in the Bible” questioning), yet at the same time claim continuing revelation to make changes. Again, irrational.
It is always amusing when someone turns to sola scriptura out of convenience, when proving everything from the Bible certainly isn’t an idea found in the Bible itself.
No it doesn’t, and further, the LDS church itself is condemned by such a claim (Biblical practices being changed). Again, irrational.
Well of course, that is indeed convenient for you. The nebulous “apostasy” must be moved back and back and back whenever authentic Catholic practices and beliefs are found in the ancient Church established by Jesus Christ, because the LDS must read into history their own idea that there must have been an apostasy if non-LDS beliefs are found so anciently. Again, irrational.
My post was very clear. In fact, I didn’t introduce any further thoughts into what I said in the original post. Please read for comprehension in the future.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
To use the logic I see in this thread: where in the Bible do we find the following:
-the belief that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother
-the belief that we are spirit offspring of the Father and Mother
-the belief that Jesus is the literal firstborn spirit offspring of the Father and Mother
-the belief that eternal marriage is required for eternal life
-the belief that an initiatory washing and anointing, and an endowment, are required for eternal life
-the belief that priesthood ordination for men is required for eternal life
-the belief that we will be having eternal increase (spirit children) in the afterlife
-the belief that the Father was once a man that progressed to/achieved Godhood
-the belief that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother
-the belief that we are spirit offspring of the Father and Mother
-the belief that Jesus is the literal firstborn spirit offspring of the Father and Mother
-the belief that eternal marriage is required for eternal life
-the belief that an initiatory washing and anointing, and an endowment, are required for eternal life
-the belief that priesthood ordination for men is required for eternal life
-the belief that we will be having eternal increase (spirit children) in the afterlife
-the belief that the Father was once a man that progressed to/achieved Godhood
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Where was the Mormon truth? I listed a variety of things the most prominent of which is the very person of God, a truth which was lost entirely by the Church if Mormonism is true. People were praying to the God of trinity, a being who is three, all powerful (as opposed to the limited Mormon God), who is incomprehensible (as opposed to the comprehensible Mormon God) and they also totally forgot their Mother Goddess (you may oppose calling Heavenly mother a Goddess yet she is part of the cause of our creation in your view. God the Father did not create alone but needed her, she is therefore the reason for our existence into our corporeal forms). We also lost the idea that we are eternal consciences whom were not ultimately created by God but are just as Old and infinite as God himself. All aspects of theological truth were lost if Mormonism is correct and from that loss of theological truth came a deviation in Christian practice.
If Mormon Truth was lost, as I maintain it was (rather it never existed), then how did anyone receive blessings? We lacked apostolic authority, we lacked marriage sealing, we lacked true sacraments done in accordance with the true teachings of Christ, we lacked valid leaders and everything important. A general morality and a belief in God generally would make us no more blessed than the ancient Greeks or Pagans who lived alongside of Christians.
I do not know how you can argue hell did not prevail. You point to Noah as an example of a Redo, yet if there is but one person on earth professing the true doctrine of God as revealed to them at the time that’s not a redo. That’s a condemnation of the rest of Humanity. There were always those who believed in God, even when most of Israel had fallen into sin. Did God redo when only Joshua and Caleb were the only ones found righteous amongst the Israelites? No, the truth continued through them.
We are talking about a situation in Mormonism where theological truth, moral truth and practical truth was lost. There’s a reason why Christians laugh at Mormon theology, its because your theology is so different than ours, so utterly disconnected from the Christian tradition it is almost comical. I do not say that to mock but only to make the point of how much disconnected Christianity is from Mormonism, that if the church still existed and hell hadn’t prevailed against it, why did God need to re establish it if it were still there? It wasn’t there in Mormon theology, hence the need to re-establish the church.
You said in response to my question concerning whether or not the Mormon church will persevere that you do not decide for God. I;ll let that response stand for itself as a testimony of the confidence Mormons have in their own Church. Christians, regardless where they fall, will rely on the promise of Jesus that his Church will not fall. I have heard fundamentalist baptists argue there were secret believers throughout all of history with Baptist beliefs and that is at least a stronger position than the Mormon Church (though it is equally as mistaken as the Mormon view of the Church).
T
TexanKnight
Guest
T
TexanKnight
Guest
You believe in nebulous tradition from man. We believe in continuing Revelation
I thought you knew that. Again, I apologize
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
As I stated, perhaps LDS.org for a start. This demonstrates that what I stated is right on the official LDS website (which was done on purpose as I know how many LDS are with what is “official” and what isn’t). That of course doesn’t even cover what I’ve read on various LDS forums. Your dismissal is baseless.
As I stated, you are entitled to your personal beliefs. I cited the LDS church’s official website. Forgive me if I go with them over you.
I’ll wait.
To you it is semantics, to a Trinitarian, these words have specific definitions and are used in specific ways. I had assumed you knew that.
Right, and LDS also claim that there are three Gods. Trinitarians say, there is only one God, full stop.
A number of articles were provided to you with the Biblical and historical bases for the doctrine of the Trinity. If you skip over them you will still be waiting.
Right, and Mormonism teaches that they are three Gods.
No more a change than the change in the mode of the Mormon washing and anointing. Again, irrational argumentation.
No, it is not convenient. Sacred Tradition is a foundational belief in the Catholic Church. We don’t believe that God’s Word is confined to the Bible. Indeed, we accept guidance from Heaven down to this day. We believe that the Spirit guides the Church into deeper understandings of the Deposit of Faith.
Again, I had assumed that you knew these basic Catholic beliefs, because this line of logic is inconsistent with standard Catholic teaching.
Also, what specifically have I claimed Biblical support for? The Trinity? That was provided, if you would actually read what is given to you. I have not claimed anything else.
Cite where I try to force a specific date. A link to my post will suffice.
My point is that you begin with the [alleged] end. You claim there was an apostasy, therefore no matter how ancient we can demonstrate the Catholic Church to be, it must have been the apostasy. We can show document after document demonstrating the continuity of the Catholic Church, however, none of that matters if you already think the apostasy begin immediately after Jesus Christ started His Church. Irrational.
The fact that you responded to my subsequent post, which did not change a thing I said originally, demonstrates that I was indeed clear. Thank you.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
And you just proved my point. Thank you.
Sola scriptura when convenient, continuing revelation when convenient. This was the response I expected to draw out to demonstrate all my previous posts.
Have a good night.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I did not come back to argue. I wish folks would not require me to defend the LDS Church. I was hoping we could join in the things that bind us…I cannot imagine Christ approving of bashing…As I stated, perhaps LDS.org for a start. This demonstrates that what I stated is right on the official LDS website (which was done on purpose as I know how many LDS are with what is “official” and what isn’t). That of course doesn’t even cover what I’ve read on various LDS forums. Your dismissal is baseless.
ok…I understand…you can’t support “many”
As I stated, you are entitled to your personal beliefs. I cited the LDS church’s official website. Forgive me if I go with them over you.
I did not say I disregarded…I said it is only part of it…
I’ll wait.
me too…lol
To you it is semantics, to a Trinitarian, these words have specific definitions and are used in specific ways. I had assumed you knew that.
My definition was the standard definition. I will run the dictionary by you in the future.
Right, and LDS also claim that there are three Gods. Trinitarians say, there is only one God, full stop.
Again…Trinity is not anywhere in the Bible…apparently, there was not a full God available when Jesus was man. Regardless…Trinity is not Biblical…nor tradition…it was a later doctrine from men. In fact…the year 325.
A number of articles were provided to you with the Biblical and historical bases for the doctrine of the Trinity. If you skip over them you will still be waiting.
I did not enter into a discussion for you to get lazy with links. The bottom line, it is not Biblical…hence your inability. It was designed in 325. heck earlier councils of the Catholic Church could not even agree on the deity of Jesus…or the Holy Spirit.
Right, and Mormonism teaches that they are three Gods.
Yep. Stephen looked up and saw both God and Jesus. Jesus prayed to God…seems odd if they were one God together…hence the need to wait 325 years to have the doctrine.
No, it is not convenient. Sacred Tradition is a foundational belief in the Catholic Church. We don’t believe that God’s Word is confined to the Bible. Indeed, we accept guidance from Heaven down to this day. We believe that the Spirit guides the Church into deeper understandings of the Deposit of Faith.
I see. How traditional is 325? That is my point…you need that convenience…
Again, I had assumed that you knew these basic Catholic beliefs, because this line of logic is inconsistent with standard Catholic teaching.
Smiling…I know Catholic Teaching…I know exactly what I am saying.
My point is that you begin with the [alleged] end. You claim there was an apostasy, therefore no matter how ancient we can demonstrate the Catholic Church to be, it must have been the apostasy. We can show document after document demonstrating the continuity of the Catholic Church, however, none of that matters if you already think the apostasy begin immediately after Jesus Christ started His Church. Irrational.
I do not doubt the Continuity of the Catholic Church. I dispute the continuity of the authority. The horrible conduct of the Church leaders for hundreds of years…how could anyone logically believe God would not pull his authority?
The fact that you responded to my subsequent post, which did not change a thing I said originally, demonstrates that I was indeed clear. Thank you.
Odd circular logic…but then I remembered to whom I was discussing.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Christ seemed pretty open to criticising whom he thought wrong. He called the Pharisees white washed tombs and lambasted them for their hypocrisy again and again. We probably shouldn’t do that since none of us has that sort of authority or insight to a person’s soul, but that doesn’t mean we cannot be critical of the other’s points.
Christians and Mormons are not united and there isn’t really much we can agree upon except maybe some moral issues. These issues are fair for talking and debating seriously. If Christ were a Mormon, would he disapprove of you criticising Roman Catholics for their errors? No. Likewise if Christ is our true God would he criticise Christians for refuting Mormon errors? No. One of us is right and the other wrong or we are all wrong.
I think a powerful case has been made against Mormon claims about the lack of a great apostasy and Hell overcoming the Church.
Stephen168
New member
On the subject of the apostasy, the Catholic Church is the accused.
The Mormon Church claims there was once a Christian Church which went into apostasy and Joseph Smith restored it. A restoration requires there to have been something to restore; a church of former-day-saints if you will. A Church that taught:
Or taught
While the Mormon Church claims there was a church, and accuses the Catholic Church of losing these teachings, they can not prove they ever existed in the Church established by Jesus Christ.
Clearly the Mormon Church is an invention, not a restoration. You wish we would not require you to defend it because you can’t.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The Mormon great apostasy is a, well, Mormon claim.
- Status