What Was the Apostasy?

[Snow]

Apostasy

Questions have been asked about how Mormons (LDS or The Church of Jesus Christ) define the apostasy. I’ve offered to give an outline of how I and some others view it. Quite probably others on the forum have already covered it but I haven’t read everything so I offer this up. It is my take, not the LDS position, on the matter.

I am not attacking the RCC or any other denomination. I am simply explaining how I view what happened or didn’t happen. I am not trying to prove my faith correct and your faith in error with this post. I am filled with respect and admiration of the RCC, though I disagree with it about many things, it is a wonderful institution, doing good work and filled with wonderful people - devote Christians following Christ… so please, let’s avoid the trolling, insults and denigration on this thread.

The Church of Jesus Christ, LDS believes that there was an apostasy because of what we accept as modern revelation. That is a doctrinal belief and is part of our canon which consists of ancient and modern scripture.

The hows and whys and whens of the “Great Apostasy” come to us, for the most part, not as revelation but by way of Bible exegesis, historical analysis, scholarly inquiry, etc set against the backdrop of our doctrinal belief in the Apostasy.

The Apostasy was, we believe, predicted in the Bible. A few of the common scripture typically cited are reviewed below:

In Acts 20 Paul warns what will happen when he leaves:
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Paul believed that the saints would turn away from sound doctrine, 2 Timothy 4:

3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
He pleads with Timothy to do his duty as an evangelist knows that those Timothy exhorts will forsake the truth. in 1:15 of the same letter Paul indicates that “that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me” and that is where most of the Christians lived. [see Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, p. 86]
In 2 Peter 2:1-2 Peter warns of false teachers that would soon arrive.

The prophet Amos warns, not of a partial apostasy, put of a complete apostasy in Amos 8:11-12
“The days are coming," declares the Sovereign
LORD,"when I will send a famine through the land—
not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of
hearing the words of the LORD.
Men will stagger from sea to sea
and wander from north to east,
searching for the word of the LORD,
but they will not find it.”

In Revelation 13:7 John foresaw that the beast, an agent of Satan was “He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.”

Speaking of the 2nd coming of Christ we are told in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (KJV)
The word “apostasy” comes from the Greek word “apostasia” translated as “falling away” in the KJV. It means revolt, mutiny, or rebellion. The apostasy, therefore was to be a rebellion against the authority that God established on earth.
The NT gives an indication that the beginnings of the apostasy was already under way. Here are but a few examples:
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-8)

“… it was needful for me to… exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

James also tells us about the then-current disturbing news: “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jude 1:4)
I” wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 1So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.” (3 John 9, 10)
The apostasy thus had already started when the apostles were still writing in the middle of the first century and had become critical by the end of the first century.

 

[Snow]

At the conclusion of the 1st century, the apostolic era comes to an end. We know from the limited accounts in the NT that additional apostles were added as vacancies in their number arose; however, from what know, only John remained by 95 AD.
Paul compared the apostles to a spectacle - a parade of men “appointed to their death. (1 Cor 4:9)
Persecution from outside the Church took its toll on Church leadership.

After the Apostolic Fathers had passed and disappeared, early Christian authors such as Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp write of the dangerous administrative and doctrinal deviations that occurred in the 20 to 40 years after the Church lost Peter and Paul.

For example in his letter to the Phillippians Polycarp sets to ““warn the Philippians against certain disorders in the Church at Philippi, and especially against apostasy.” Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949), vol. 1, p 280.

Clement writes in 1 Clement that he is shocked that the Corinthians had removed their leaders - the then deposed officers that had been appointed by the apostles “with the consent of the whole church.” He says that nothing but the jealousy of “a few rash and self-willed persons” (1 Clement 1) could have brought unlawful rejection of the priesthood leaders: “Your schism has turned aside many, has cast many into discouragement, many to doubt, all of us to grief, and your sedition continues.” (1 Clement 46:9.)

In their writings Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp present us picture of 3 great bishops who are dedicated to the cause, vigorous and full of love but their writings they quote the apostles and prophets but are not prophets and apostles themselves. The seek to be true to the faith but are not receiving revelation directly from God as did the apostles.
library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20august%201976.htm/clement%20ignatius%20and%20polycarp%20three%20bishops%20between%20the%20apostles%20and%20apostasy%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

With the lack of on-going revelation church theologians turned to other methods to divine the truth. Christian doctrine became corrupted, especially with the infusion of Hellenistic and neo-pagan philosophies such as Neo-Platonism, Platonic Realism, Aristotelianism and Asceticism.

An example, I think, of how revelation of the apostolic era had been lost is revealed in the Nicea in 325 AD where an non-baptized Emperor calls, convenes, pays for, presides and and participates in a council that seeks to determine the nature of God through debate, argumentation and voting, and then threatening in order to secure the votes.

A few misconceptions about the apostasy:

Misconception 1. The apostasy happened because of outside persecution - The apostasy should be better understood as a function of internal strife and dysfunction. See 1 Cor 1:11-13, Gal 1:6-8, 2 Cor 11:13-15, 2 Tim 1:15, 3 John 1:9-10.
The original priesthood structure of prophets and apostles disappeared and what’s left are city leaders - bishops, not supported by the central leadership of apostles and prophets.

Misconception 2. The apostasy occurred because of the Hellenization of doctrine from Greek philosophy - that should not be thought of as a principle cause. It was a function of, not the the cause. Tertullian challenged the new trend to incorporating in Christian doctrine: “ What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians…? Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!”

In the absence of revelation, Christianity, threatened with utter demise, turned to the well established and admired principles of Greek philosophy. As a prime example see what the Cappadocian Fathers did to refine the Nicene Creed with their philosophical training.

In the first century declarations of John and Peter: “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us and truly trust our relationship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” and “We are witnesses of all things he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree…” They are declarations of fact and first hand knowledge. Compare that to the philosophical declarations produced in the Church in the 5th century, for example the Athanasian creed reflecting Augustinian philosophical theology: “the son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; the man of the substance of his mother; born in the world’ perfect God; and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting.” (In Schaff’s The Creeds of the Greek and Latin Churches)

Misconception 3: The RCC is the “great and abominable church” - it is not. That refers to the “church” of the devil that arose centuries before the RCC and existed simultaneously with it. It refers to those that fight against the church of God. The idea in 19th century writings that the RCC was some horrible beast originated with Protestant historians and was picked up by early Mormons

Another misconception is about the “dark ages.” In keeping with the then perception of the times, early Mormons focused somewhat on the “darkness” Middle Ages as a function of the apostasy with attendant lack of light and learning and progress. These days there is a much greater appreciation for the progress and richness of the Middle Ages and the role the RCC played in European intellectual tradition. During the long period between, say, 100/200 and modern day, the world has likely been filled with many devote followers of Christ who were blessed with the Light of Christ and sought after truth.

I believe that the apostasy had started during the NT times and was, for the most part, a done deal by the middle of the following century.

 

[Snow]

Note: I borrowed some information, and cut and pastes from a few places, for example the book Early Christians in Disarray.

 

[paul_c]

Snow,
this is a very thorough rendering of your belief in the Apostacy. Thank you for that because it gives us a basis for discussion.
I particularly appreciate the 3 misconceptions that you published.

Now , I agree with you that during the entire history of the Church that there were heresies springing up. This is made abundently clear in all those scriptural versus you identified. The question at hand is whether the Catholic Church actually embraced any of those heresies. Fortunately, the Church holds councils to address these heresies and there are records of all those councils. The first of these was the Council in Jerusalem in 49AD. The issue at hand was whether or not Christians were subject to the jewish dietary and circumcission laws. It was decided that Christians were following the new covenant and did not need to be Jewish to do so… This was the heresy discussed in Galatians. After that decision, there were still some Jewish law advocates that were trying to convince the Galations that the council of Jerusalem was not valid. Paul is very, very clear that this is the issue he is discussing. As is very clear, the church never reverted back to the jewish law requirement so this could not have been the Apostacy described. Neither could those other heresies (Arianism, Gnosticism, Montanism, etc) have been the Apostacy because they were all repudiated in the Councils of the chruch and while they are sometimes discussed now, it is clear that they have few if any followers. I believe that the Church still follows the Apostolic Doctrines, so therefore no Apostacy occurred.

So , while you’ve published all kinds of warnings against heretics and even examples of heretical behavior, you have not shown that their views supplanted those of Christ in the Church. And that’s the rub. The Church, through the saving power of the Holy Spirit in its councils, has been able to fend off the continual threats to its orthodoxy, staying true to the Apostolic doctrines. If you disagree, the next step would be to show which doctrines have changed (which is the definition of apostacy).

 

[inJESUS]

I agree with Paul. The warnings were fulfilled and refuted, they are being revived and refuted again.

To say that the Church Jesus established went apostate is to deny that He said " i will not leave you orphans" or that “i am with you till the end of days”.

 

[ryanoneil]

In Revelation 13:7 John foresaw that the beast, an agent of Satan was “He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.”

I believe the historical identification of the beast is Emperor Nero Ceasar.

Is this your understanding?

 

[paul_c]

I believe the historical identification of the beast is Emperor Nero Ceasar.

Is this your understanding?

It is.

 

[ryanoneil]

In Acts 20 Paul warns what will happen when he leaves:
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Do you think Paul is speaking to valid successors at this point in time?

Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. (Acts 2:28)

Paul believed that the saints would turn away from sound doctrine, 2 Timothy 4:
3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
He pleads with Timothy to do his duty as an evangelist knows that those Timothy exhorts will forsake the truth. in 1:15 of the same letter Paul indicates that “that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me” and that is where most of the Christians lived. [see Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, p. 86]
In 2 Peter 2:1-2 Peter warns of false teachers that would soon arrive.

At most, these verses point to an apostasy FROM the Church, but not OF the Church.

The prophet Amos warns, not of a partial apostasy, put of a complete apostasy in Amos 8:11-12
“The days are coming," declares the Sovereign
LORD,"when I will send a famine through the land—
not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of
hearing the words of the LORD.
Men will stagger from sea to sea
and wander from north to east,
searching for the word of the LORD,
but they will not find it.”

How does this warn of complete apostacy?

How does the next chapter fit in with complete apostacy?

The eyes of the Lord GOD are on this sinful kingdom; I will destroy it from off the face of the earth. But I will not destroy the house of Jacob completely, says the LORD. For see, I have given the command to sift the house of Israel among all the nations, As one sifts with a sieve, letting no pebble fall to the ground. (Amos 9:8-9)

Speaking of the 2nd coming of Christ we are told in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (KJV)
The word “apostasy” comes from the Greek word “apostasia” translated as “falling away” in the KJV. It means revolt, mutiny, or rebellion. The apostasy, therefore was to be a rebellion against the authority that God established on earth.

Can you provide historical evidence identifying “the son of perdition” and how he “set himself up in God’s Temple”?

Thanks!

 

[mfbukowski]

Apostasy

Questions have been asked about how Mormons (LDS or The Church of Jesus Christ) define the apostasy. I’ve offered to give an outline of how I and some others view it.

Good job! If I wasn’t already convinced, this would be enough for me! It’s hard to imagine how to defend against all this. The sheer volume is one thing, but it’s volume combined with quality references which are difficult to see any way other than as presented. Good job!

 

[Stephen168]

A few misconceptions about the apostasy:
Misconception 1. The apostasy happened because of outside persecution

Persecution from outside the Church took its toll on Church leadership.

Misconception 2. The apostasy occurred because of the Hellenization of doctrine from Greek philosophy - that should not be thought of as a principle cause.

In the absence of revelation, Christianity, threatened with utter demise, turned to the well established and admired principles of Greek philosophy. As a prime example see what the Cappadocian Fathers did to refine the Nicene Creed with their philosophical training.

So they are misconceptions Mormons believe. Maybe I need a Mormon definition of misconception.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In Acts 20 Paul warns what will happen when he leaves:
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Context, context, context.

Paul is warning the Bishops to be vigilant after his death. He isn’t telling them they will fail. Besides his warning he tells them that God can build them up. You left that part out. Why? Do you believe that God did not?

Acts 20:32

32 And now I commend you to God and to that gracious word of his that can build you up and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated.

Paul believed that the saints would turn away from sound doctrine, 2 Timothy 4:

3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Again, you are failing to see, this time, what you copied.

But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

These are instructions, and warnings, to Timothy. Ironically, you are ignoring the very proof that LDS deny…the Apostles turned their ministries, and their authority, over to the Bishops.

He pleads with Timothy to do his duty as an evangelist knows that those Timothy exhorts will forsake the truth. in 1:15 of the same letter Paul indicates that “that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me” and that is where most of the Christians lived. [see Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, p. 86]

He is speaking of his trial, and that no one he knew came to his defense. (They feared for their lives.) He is not speaking of every Christian in Asia. To claim this is beyond a stretch. It is a deception. As the evidence of the Church surviving in Asia is obvious.

In 2 Peter 2:1-2 Peter warns of false teachers that would soon arrive.

I see the theme you are going on. You have decided that warning are indications of complete failure. Do you really believe this? Do you view every warning given by any person, including your own so-called prophets, as an indication that you are going to fail miserably? Or, do you dig in and work harder? Why do you believe the Christians of the early centuries chose to fail? What does it mean, all those martyrs who gave their lives? What does it mean, all these witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that has never ended, never failed, never waivered, to this day? ARE YOU BLIND?

The prophet Amos warns, not of a partial apostasy, put of a complete apostasy in Amos 8:11-12
“The days are coming," declares the Sovereign
LORD,"when I will send a famine through the land—
not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of
hearing the words of the LORD.
Men will stagger from sea to sea
and wander from north to east,
searching for the word of the LORD,
but they will not find it.”

Seriously. This is a warning to ISRAEL, who had once again fallen in the errors of idolatry. Clearly Jesus Christ is the answer to all hunger and thirst for truth. Do you not believe this? Do you believe He failed?

In Revelation 13:7 John foresaw that the beast, an agent of Satan was “He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.”

This is talking about the Saints in the first two centuries, and the persecution they faced by the Romans. The Romans, who had authority over ever tribe, people, language and nation.

Speaking of the 2nd coming of Christ we are told in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (KJV)

Again, context. The Thessalonians clearly believe that Christ is returning soon. Why? Because Paul had written to them and told them that the Kingdom of God was at hand. The Thessalonians were shaken by this. And so, Paul tells them
15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Why the negative belief that they did not?

Also, the verses are in reference to Daniel 11:36-37, and put into the context of what is being taught there, Paul is speaking of testing, refining, and purifying.

34 When they fall, few people shall help them, but many shall join them out of treachery. 35 Of the wise men, some shall fall, so that the rest may be tested, refined, and purified, until the end time which is still appointed to come. 36 "The king shall do as he pleases, exalting himself and making himself greater than any god; he shall utter dreadful blasphemies against the God of gods. He shall prosper only till divine wrath is ready, for what is determined must take place. 37 He shall have no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one in whom women delight; for no god shall he have regard, because he shall make himself greater than all.

Clearly Paul is teaching them that some will fall, and others tested. While the King will do as he pleases. This is clearly the view Paul is giving Roman authority.

continued…

 

[RebeccaJ]

The word “apostasy” comes from the Greek word “apostasia” translated as “falling away” in the KJV. It means revolt, mutiny, or rebellion.

Yes, it does. The Christians of the time were persecuted, thus, those persecuting them were seen as rebellious against God.

The apostasy, therefore was to be a rebellion against the authority that God established on earth.

It says NOTHING about authority! You totally made that up. All rebellion that is a sin is a rebellion AGAINST GOD. And, it says nothing about the Christians to whom Paul was speaking to as a part of this rebellion, or ANY Christian as part of this rebellion. He in fact tells them to stand fast and be strong. This is the sort of thing you tell people who are defending, not participating.

The NT gives an indication that the beginnings of the apostasy was already under way. Here are but a few examples:
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-8)

Yes, we should not listen to another Gospel, ones such as the LDS preach. Like the Gospel of Apostasy. The Gospel of Christ Failed. The Gospel of Polytheism. You are part of the great lie. Congratulations.

“… it was needful for me to… exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Again, a warning. NO indication that the people who were being addressed did not listen to this warning and fail. Quite the contrary, you have a vibrant, living, Church that is evidence that the words of warning are successful.

James also tells us about the then-current disturbing news: “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jude 1:4)

Perhaps you have not noticed 2000 years of enldess proclamation of the Sovereignty of our Lord. Again, ARE YOU BLIND?

I” wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 1So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.” (3 John 9, 10)

This is talking about one person. One person does not a universal apostasy make. Hell, I can go back to Mormon history, and throw you out one person who is gossiping maliciously about Mormons. I guess that is proof of a Mormon apostasy.

The apostasy thus had already started when the apostles were still writing in the middle of the first century and had become critical by the end of the first century.

Something you have not proven. You only provided examples of warnings. Taken out of context. Single individuals described.

What you have CHOSEN to believe is that the warnings were not listened to. What you refuse to see is that the evidence for a living, vibrant, Gospel is alive and well in the Church that Christ founded during His ministry on earth. And it is right in front of your eyes.

You have not proven, at all, that a “restoration” was necessary. Only that you search for failure wherever you can. Ignoring the words of Jesus, that His Church will never fail. That He will ALWAYS be with us. And that He will never leave us as orphans.

Why do you deny the words of Jesus Christ?

 

[ROBAUTEN]

Dear Snow,
Reading your well thought out presentation should be a lesson to all, that, depending on one’s own experience, presuppositions and theological background, a cogent argument can be made for very different interpretations of the same set of verses and historical facts. As an ex Protestant I know that I used to have what I thought were good arguments for my positions…but now I see that I was wrong. That is why it is so important to make your interpretation of the New Testament & Church history informed by and in continuity with the historical community of believers (the historical Catholic Church) who originally wrote it and lived it. In that way you will come away with a more accurate understanding than by interpreting from the point of view of a faith group that only came into existance 1800 years later.

  You assume that the lack of ongoing revelation left the 2nd century church without a solid foundation and so they turned to Greek philosophy and entered into apostasy.  The Church on the other hand believes public revelation was complete and sufficient and finished at the end of the apostolic age...and only the charism of authoritatively preserving, teaching and interpreting that finished revelation (given with the keys of the kingdom and the gift of unfailing faith) that has continuously resided in the successors of St. Peter was necessary to keep the church safe from the gates of hell.  Yes there have been warnings, yes there have always been wolves and heretics, yes there will be a great apostasy someday, but early church history never records anybody saying that the great apostasy had already occured. 
 
 Only after the reformation did this theory come to the front... but you should realize that it was proposed by reformers and denominational leaders who had a vested interest in proposing it: only if the Catholic Church was apostate or the whore of Babylon would there be justification in starting a new or reformed church.  The Catholic Church on the other hand does not simply rest its existance upon its interpretation of the Bible...but on a continuous and verifiable historical record that spans 20 centuries all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles.  

  Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp may have noticed and warned of heresies but they did not write that the apostasy had come and that people should flee the church.  On the contrary they admonished people to abide in the church with a valid ongoing apostolic succession of bishops.  That is incompatible with your theory.   I respectfully think you should reconsider.

 

[Joe_Keenan]

Mormons misread history and reason speciously. For example, one, two, three, or even a thousanf falling away does not equal a general falling away. In Mormon history Joe Smiths son formed his own church after the death of his father, using Mormon rationale this means Mormonism fell into apostasy at the death of Joseph Smith

 

[FCEGM]

Good job! If I wasn’t already convinced, this would be enough for me! It’s hard to imagine how to defend against all this. The sheer volume is one thing, but it’s volume combined with quality references which are difficult to see any way other than as presented… . .

See posts 11, 12 and 13 - and also:

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.6/nutsandbolts.html

 

[mfbukowski]

Context, context, context.

Paul is warning the Bishops to be vigilant after his death. He isn’t telling them they will fail. Besides his warning he tells them that God can build them up. You left that part out. Why? Do you believe that God did not?

Acts 20:32

32 And now I commend you to God and to that gracious word of his that can build you up and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated.
Again, you are failing to see, this time, what you copied.

But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

These are instructions, and warnings, to Timothy. Ironically, you are ignoring the very proof that LDS deny…the Apostles turned their ministries, and their authority, over to the Bishops.

He is speaking of his trial, and that no one he knew came to his defense. (They feared for their lives.) He is not speaking of every Christian in Asia. To claim this is beyond a stretch. It is a deception. As the evidence of the Church surviving in Asia is obvious.

I see the theme you are going on. You have decided that warning are indications of complete failure. Do you really believe this? Do you view every warning given by any person, including your own so-called prophets, as an indication that you are going to fail miserably? Or, do you dig in and work harder? Why do you believe the Christians of the early centuries chose to fail? What does it mean, all those martyrs who gave their lives? What does it mean, all these witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that has never ended, never failed, never waivered, to this day? ARE YOU BLIND?

Seriously. This is a warning to ISRAEL, who had once again fallen in the errors of idolatry. Clearly Jesus Christ is the answer to all hunger and thirst for truth. Do you not believe this? Do you believe He failed?

This is talking about the Saints in the first two centuries, and the persecution they faced by the Romans. The Romans, who had authority over ever tribe, people, language and nation.

Again, context. The Thessalonians clearly believe that Christ is returning soon. Why? Because Paul had written to them and told them that the Kingdom of God was at hand. The Thessalonians were shaken by this. And so, Paul tells them
15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Why the negative belief that they did not?

Also, the verses are in reference to Daniel 11:36-37, and put into the context of what is being taught there, Paul is speaking of testing, refining, and purifying.

34 When they fall, few people shall help them, but many shall join them out of treachery. 35 Of the wise men, some shall fall, so that the rest may be tested, refined, and purified, until the end time which is still appointed to come. 36 "The king shall do as he pleases, exalting himself and making himself greater than any god; he shall utter dreadful blasphemies against the God of gods. He shall prosper only till divine wrath is ready, for what is determined must take place. 37 He shall have no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one in whom women delight; for no god shall he have regard, because he shall make himself greater than all.

Clearly Paul is teaching them that some will fall, and others tested. While the King will do as he pleases. This is clearly the view Paul is giving Roman authority.

continued…

You have to look at this all through rose colored glasses to rationalize it away as you do.

 

[mfbukowski]

Why do you deny the words of Jesus Christ?

I presume you are talking about the “gates of hell” prophecy which discussion is still on this forum, and which does NOT even say what you believe it says.

 

[mfbukowski]

 .... early church history never records anybody saying that the great apostasy had already occured. 
       
  ....Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp may have noticed and warned of heresies but they did not write that the apostasy had come and that people should flee the church.  On the contrary they admonished people to abide in the church with a valid ongoing apostolic succession of bishops.  That is incompatible with your theory.   I respectfully think you should reconsider.

I have often seen this argument, and it is spurious. Do you really think (1) that an apologist for the church would have written a commentary on the apostasy of his own church and that (2) such a document would have survived, being copied over and over by later scribes and monks?

Even if it had been written, who would copy it? And of course it would be surpressed! Imagine a world in which every anti-catholic argument on the internet today would have to be copied over by hand by faithful catholics to survive. In a world dominated by catholic scholarship, that is exactly what it would have taken to have such documents survive. How long would they last? Would you sit down and faithfully copy such a website to make sure it survived? Such manuscripts were quickly destroyed by “natural selection”. They were extraordinarily incompatible with the dominant ideology.

And of course Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp would urge others to repent. Do you seriously think they would tell people NOT to repent, and continue “to flee” the church?

 

[zaffiroborant]

You have to look at this all through rose colored glasses to rationalize it away as you do.

No more so than you have to look at all this with an eye to apostasy in order to rationalize it as Snow has.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You have to look at this all through rose colored glasses to rationalize it away as you do.

Dear mfb. With all due respect to you and snow, I think it is your church that requires the wearing of pink lenses.

It seems clear to me that neither Amos nor Thess. supports the notion that there would be a complete and total apostacy of the NT Church. Amos was speaking of the apostacy of OT Israel and not the NT Church. And even then, it is clear from the next chapter that the apostacy was not total. Similarly, Thess. does not speak of total apostacy, but of a turning away from sound doctrine. The presumption underlying the statement is that there will remain some Church that preaches sound doctrine, from which sinners will turn away. Again, the conclusion of total apostacy is being read into the text by snow, who approaches the matter as an already established doctrine.

I think that snow’s rationale shows, as much as I surmised in the earlier thread, that the LDS position is to first assume (as a matter of dogma) that an apostacy occurred, then move from that assumption into a “rose-colored-for-LDS” view of Scripture and Church history. It’s not very persuasive at all, unless it’s what a person already wants to believe in the first instance.

Peace,
-Robert