What is the 'great apostasy' claimed by Mormons?

[TexanKnight]

As much as I enjoyed my time as a Mormon (especially the temple), the great apostasy was one of the things that was always in the back of my mind (along with the priesthood/temple ban of blacks until 1978). Mormons make a number of claims related to the apostasy. The main point is that the priesthood authority of the apostles was not transmitted to successors, and therefore the priesthood died out (they do not believe that the bishops were/are the successors of the apostles, instead claiming that apostles and bishops are two different offices, and apostles are necessary to lead the church).

That is not the way i believe. though, I do believe the conduct of bishops and priests and popes in the many years prior to the Reformation showed God was not leading the Church…a belief shared by all those who left and started their own churches.

Along with that, they also make claims about purported changes in doctrines (such as the Trinity), as well as changes in ordinances/sacraments (such as the mode of baptism). I found that often, these arguments become incoherent. Firstly, Mormons will often argue against modalism, and not the orthodox Trinity belief which includes the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, who are not each other. You will notice (including right in the book recommended earlier in this thread) that they will ask rhetorical questions like “why would Jesus pray to Himself?” Well, Trinitarians certainly don’t believe such a thing.

The idea of three beings one God is just as implausible and incoherent to me…it was something I defended, but always had a problem with…and it is not Biblical at all

As well, you’ll find that arguments they make often condemn themselves. Many Mormons will say that the mode of baptism was changed from immersion to sprinkling (Catholics of course know that immersion has always been a valid and practiced way to baptize, with pouring (not sprinkling) being an additional way).

Ah. Could you be so kind as to show me chapter and verse in the Bible where any Baptism was dine by sprinkling or pouring? I truly have missed it in my studies…

However, when you research temple ordinances in Mormonism, you’ll find that the mode of the initiatory washing and anointing has changed a number of times, where it used to involve an actual bath for the washing, and anointing of specific body points with water. Now, when I went through the ordinance a few years ago, it involves a “symbolic” washing and anointing, with a dab of water and oil placed on the head. When this is brought up, the argument then changes to one of authority, however that wasn’t the original argument.

We probably should not get into changes being a bad thing (can you say “Vatican II”?)

LDS often point to Biblical verses that they claim predict an apostasy. When one looks at these verses in context, we find that there’s nothing of the sort. There are no verses that point to a total loss of Jesus Christ’s Church from the earth after He established it. Instead, we find many verses supporting the continuity of the covenant that Jesus established.

You read them and get your interpretation…others get a different one. It is that way with much of the Bible.

 

[TexanKnight]

It is true. That is why you have to wait for the Moderator.

This are unique Mormon beliefs which were never Christian. They were inventions of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The Mormon Church is an invention not a restoration.

You can never prove the early Church was Mormon.

You keep making claims. I keep asking you to prove them. Instead, you make more unprovable claims.

 

[Stephen168]

You keep making claims. I keep asking you to prove them. Instead, you make more unprovable claims.

It is the Mormon Church that had to move the apostasy from 570AD to 90AD because all their claims were proven false. By moving it back to 90AD Mormon prophets are free to make up stuff. But it is a double edge sword because the Mormon Church can’t prove the early Church was Mormon.

 

[Stephen168]

… they [Mormons] can never prove the early church was Mormon:

Melchizedek Priesthood

And even if there was such a thing; no human would qualify for it.

Genesis 14:18-20 A King-Priest Melchizedek appears and gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram. A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children.

Psalm 110:4 King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. A King-Priest bringing bread and wine. A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. There is no actual Melchizedek priesthood. Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.

Hebrews 7:4-10 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was a superior priesthood than the Levitical priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-14 If the Levitical priesthood was good enough, there would be no need for another priest as prophesied by King David. A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law. They were abolished because the law did not bring man into close communication with God.

Hebrews 7:20-25 Through Christ there is a better covenant because he is the eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26-28 There is no need to offer sacrifices daily like the Levitical priesthood. Christ offered himself one time for all people sins forever.

John 6:31-69 Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many of his disciples leave him. The Jews gave Jesus three chances to tell them he was talking in a figurative manor but did not.

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinth 11:23-25 Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

John 1:26 Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice will take away the sin of the world.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant. This food we call Eucharist.

 

[TexanKnight]

It is the Mormon Church that had to move the apostasy from 570AD to 90AD because all their claims were proven false. By moving it back to 90AD Mormon prophets are free to make up stuff. But it is a double edge sword because the Mormon Church can’t prove the early Church was Mormon.

ok…I get it…you can’t prove your claims. I ask, you just make new claims.

I get it. it is noted.

Thank you

 

[LivingWaters7]

That is not the way i believe. though, I do believe the conduct of bishops and priests and popes in the many years prior to the Reformation showed God was not leading the Church…a belief shared by all those who left and started their own churches.

You are entitled to your own personal beliefs. However many do believe that because the apostles were supposedly not able to ordain successor apostles, the Melchizedek priesthood authority died out, and the apostasy occurred.

Catholics do not believe in the sinlessness of our leaders. We are all human sinners. Although ordained leaders should know better, they are still sinners who must repent and confess their sins. God chooses to work through human sinners to bring about His great work, His Kingdom, around the world. Curiously, I see this exact argument advanced on LDS-related forums in relation to their own leaders. However, when it comes to other churches, especially in relation to the supposed apostasy, impeccability is required. Hence such an argument is incoherent and irrational.

The idea of three beings one God is just as implausible and incoherent to me…it was something I defended, but always had a problem with…and it is not Biblical at all

I agree. The idea of “three beings one God” is implausible and incoherent, and is not Biblical at all. Fortunately, Trinitarians do not believe such a thing.

Ah. Could you be so kind as to show me chapter and verse in the Bible where any Baptism was dine by sprinkling or pouring? I truly have missed it in my studies…

Where did I claim that pouring baptism is found in the Bible? Why would I need to prove such a thing? Perhaps I can show you the chapter and verse for that right after you show me the chapter and verse where it says that everything must come out of the Bible? Last I checked, the LDS faith was not sola scriptura. Catholics do not confine God to the Bible, nor do we believe that the Deposit of Faith is solely contained in the Bible. We believe that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition comprise the Deposit of Faith, and that the Holy Spirit continuously guides us in unfolding that Deposit, down to this day. When we look at history, we see the practice of pouring, in addition to immersion, very early on (the Didache often cited as an ancient Christian document).

We probably should not get into changes being a bad thing (can you say “Vatican II”?)

Please point, specifically, to where I stated that change is a bad thing. You missed my actual point. The point is that Mormons will claim on the one hand that a sign of the apostasy is the alleged change from immersion to pouring baptism (a so-called change in the mode of baptism). This claim can be found in the book referenced by gazelam, for one. However, going by this same logic, the LDS church must be in apostasy, because the mode of the temple initiatory washing and anointing has changed more than once, as described previously. I said nothing about change being a bad thing.

Please address my actual statements in the future.

You read them and get your interpretation…others get a different one. It is that way with much of the Bible.

Of course.

 

[Marie5890]

Someone just asked a similar question on another board and the reply was that during the time of Smith, there was a “restoration movement” going on with Christianity as a whole during the late 18th, early 19th century that he grew up in.

packham.n4m.org/authority.htm

Seems that it wasn’t an unusual train of thought unique to Mormons.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Some LDS beliefs not found in the Church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago:

-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

 

[Marie5890]

(LW!! HEY THERE. Long time. )

 

[Marie5890]

Gradual loss of the Gospel truth, culminating in loss of priesthood authority. The dates various Mormons provide for this event varies, from the death of John the Evangelist to the First Council of Nicaea.

They have no historical evidence for this other than, Joseph Smith said so.

I’ve often wondered why there is the assumption that the disciples of the Apostles were assumed to have been unfaithful to the Apostles and the teachings they received from them.

Take for instance, Polycarp. He was a disciple of St John

 

[TexanKnight]

You are entitled to your own personal beliefs. However many do believe that because the apostles were supposedly not able to ordain successor apostles, the Melchizedek priesthood authority died out, and the apostasy occurred.

Many? Perhaps. Do you have evidence as to “many”?

Catholics do not believe in the sinlessness of our leaders. We are all human sinners. Although ordained leaders should know better, they are still sinners who must repent and confess their sins. God chooses to work through human sinners to bring about His great work, His Kingdom, around the world. Curiously, I see this exact argument advanced on LDS-related forums in relation to their own leaders. However, when it comes to other churches, especially in relation to the supposed apostasy, impeccability is required. Hence such an argument is incoherent and irrational.

No one ever claimed they had to be perfect. Or that anyone had to be. But there does seem to be a point when the teachings are wholesale abandoned.

I agree. The idea of “three beings one God” is implausible and incoherent, and is not Biblical at all. Fortunately, Trinitarians do not believe such a thing.

Then what do Trinitarians believe? And please…show me Trinity in the Bible. I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance…

Where did I claim that pouring baptism is found in the Bible? Why would I need to prove such a thing?

Good…no pouring in the Bible. How about Sprinkling?

Perhaps I can show you the chapter and verse for that right after you show me the chapter and verse where it says that everything must come out of the Bible? Last I checked, the LDS faith was not sola scriptura.

True…we are not But since we claim Biblical practices were changed…the fact you cannot show me Biblical pouring seems to support that

and that the Holy Spirit continuously guides us in unfolding that Deposit, down to this day.

Maybe in PMs you can show me where the Spirit guided all the things that happened prior to the reformation. I can;t show a list yet as I have not heard from the Mod.

When we look at history, we see the practice of pouring, in addition to immersion, very early on (the Didache often cited as an ancient Christian document).

I have the Didache…it is starting to show how Biblical things were changed…perhaps for convenience. And the fact you see the practice early on supports the theory of the beginnings of the Apostasy.

Please point, specifically, to where I stated that change is a bad thing. You missed my actual point. The point is that Mormons will claim on the one hand that a sign of the apostasy is the alleged change from immersion to pouring baptism (a so-called change in the mode of baptism). This claim can be found in the book referenced by gazelam, for one. However, going by this same logic, the LDS church must be in apostasy, because the mode of the temple initiatory washing and anointing has changed more than once, as described previously. I said nothing about change being a bad thing.

Please address my actual statements in the future.

Please be more clear in the future. Or…if you find discussions with me distasteful enough to make a statement like that, you are not obligated to discuss with me

 

[Stephen168]

ok…I get it…you can’t prove your claims. I ask, you just make new claims.

I get it. it is noted.

Thank you

All you have to do to prove me wrong is…prove me wrong.
I already proved the first Mormons believed the apostasy was in 570AD.
And I proved that Apostles being required to have authority was an invention of Brigham Young.

You just have to prove the other unique inventions of Mormonism were taught before the apostasy. No Mormon has even been able to do that, so don’t feel bad.

Then only thing a Mormon can do is compare the Catholic Church with the Mormon Church and say they are right. But they can never prove it. The Early Church Fathers were Catholic, they were not Mormon.

 

[TexanKnight]

I’ve often wondered why there is the assumption that the disciples of the Apostles were assumed to have been unfaithful to the Apostles and the teachings they received from them.

Take for instance, Polycarp. He was a disciple of St John

Never said the disciples of the disciples. but…the trends started…the long list of stuff…

 

[TexanKnight]

All you have to do to prove me wrong is…prove me wrong.
I already proved the first Mormons believed the apostasy was in 570AD.
And I proved that Apostles being required to have authority was an invention of Brigham Young.

You just have to prove the other unique inventions of Mormonism were taught before the apostasy. No Mormon has even been able to do that, so don’t feel bad.

Then only thing a Mormon can do is compare the Catholic Church with the Mormon Church and say they are right. But they can never prove it. The Early Church Fathers were Catholic, they were not Mormon.

Just so you know, as you have made claims you cannot support and continue to do so, I will no longer respond to you. Should you start to support your very specific accusations, I will relook my position.

Be well

 

[Marie5890]

Never said the disciples of the disciples. but…the trends started…the long list of stuff…

That can be said, and rightly so, the same thing has happened to Mormonism.

Mormonism under Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in the 19th century looks very very different from 21 century Mormonism. Doctrines, ordinance, polygamy, blacks etc etc.

So by that standard, i.e. trends, Mormonism have fallen into apostasy from it’s original founding.

 

[TexanKnight]

That can be said, and rightly so, the same thing has happened to Mormonism.

lol…when I use that argument, I am blasted. I love it.

Actually…it can’t. Not to the levels and extremes of the Catholic Church…omnce I am given the ok…I will make the list.

So by that standard, i.e. trends, Mormonism have fallen into apostasy from it’s original founding.

Very nice try…but nowhere near close.

 

[Marie5890]

TK,

Are you of the belief that 21st century Mormonism looks like 19 century Mormonism?

Have things changed in the past almost 2 centuries?

 

[Stephen168]

Just so you know, as you have made claims you cannot support and continue to do so, I will no longer respond to you. Should you start to support your very specific accusations, I will relook my position.

Be well

Actually, you have arrived at a point you must now dodge posts because they are true and you can’t prove otherwise.

Mormonism is a 19th-century invention, and its unique beliefs and practises having never been Christian.
For example: they never practised polygamy or believed God was a man.

 

[TexanKnight]

TK,

Are you of the belief that 21st century Mormonism looks like 19 century Mormonism?

Have things changed in the past almost 2 centuries?

I hope there have been some changes…times change.

But my goodness…the stuff from the hundreds of years prior to the reformation…

just wow

 

[Marie5890]

I hope there have been some changes…times change.

But my goodness…the stuff from the hundreds of years prior to the reformation…

just wow

So change is not evidence of apostasy? What is evidence of apostasy?