What Was the Apostasy?

[Stephen168]

No you are not getting it - Snow is right- the Greeks speak of ontological substance. It is the stuff that stuff is made out of-- the notion is that it is like modeling clay. Everything is made of modeling clay, but in different shapes and “appearances”. So according to this theory, The Father son and holy ghost are all made of the same “clay” or substance or being or whatever vague imaginary word you want to use. So then you can imagine that three things are really one thing because they are all made of the same stuff. Obviously this stuff does not exist.

So stone’s point is that “substance” is part of the theology of the church, but it is not a scriptural concept whatsoever. There is no theory of the trinity in the catholic church without some sort of imaginary “substance” or “being” or some other imaginary idea which underlies reality.

So snow is asking for evidence of this in the scriptures to show you that it doesnt exist in the scriptures.

So you claim the Greeks believed that God was made out of something (X).
The Father is X
The Son is X
The Holy Spirit is X.

Then you claim Snow wants us to find X in the New Testament, because she thinks we believe in X. Is that right?

 

[MelanieAnne]

What you are forgetting is that among all your “millions” are all the protestants in the world too. Mormons are not the only ones who believe in the apostasy. In fact, if we are voting, the vast majority of the world does not believe that Catholicism is true.

That doesn’t make them right – but don’t think that you are in the majority because you aren’t.

That Protestants do not agree with certain Catholic doctrines does not mean they believe Catholics are “apostate”. Not every difference in doctrine automatically ends in that result. Many Protestants would also say that Mormons are not Christian. I daresay you would not agree with them. Does their saying so make it true for you? How about of a WHOLE LOT of them think so, does that change it for you?

Your argument is a logical fallacy which has been pointed out before. In simple terms ~ just because a bunch of people say something is true doesn’t mean it is. Truth is truth, it’s not a matter of voting. It’s not a matter of how many people you have on your “side”.

The subject of this thread is the so-called Apostasy. As yet no one that believes in this event can define it, describe it, date it, or give a shred of evidence that it ever happened. And those that have made any effort towards providing even a description have given different accounts of their beliefs of what this event was. This is not the stuff of which a very solid, credible case can be made.

And as to your concern about majority opinion, it is hardly likely that a Buddhist, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or the member of any other non-Christian religion worries overmuch about apostasy in any Christian faith. But were you to ask them who, personally, represents Christianity in the world, they would most likely tell you Benedict XVI because, like it or not, outside this rather provincial country we live in, the major Christian religion of the world is the Catholic faith. So if it’s all about numbers, we win. Does that work for you? Or, if not, does it at least help shine a light on the fallacy of “majority rules” when it comes to matters of truth?

Now, there’s been lots of posts, but not one that established

1. What this so-called apostasy was
2. When it occurred
3. Evidence of this event

We’ve had plenty of people talk all around it, and bring up all sorts of extraneous information, fallacies, and “beliefs”, but no substantive answer. Is that ever going to change?

 

[Snow]

People often gravitate to Mormonism for family reasons, not theological ones.

I think you just made that up… thought up something intended to subtly marginalize The Church of Jesus Christ with absolutely no basis in fact.

You have zero evidence for your claim - is that right?

Yes - that is right.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Come to our ward sometime and ask all the catholic converts to stand and you will see almost 40% are catholic converts including moi.

Two points

1. 
   *]Shall we count the Mormon converts to Catholicism? If we have more, does that mean we win? There are posters to this board that were born Mormon and are now Catholic. There were Mormons in my RCIA class who are now Catholic. What is the point of these statistics? It doesn’t make Mormonism true.
   *]More seriously, the conversion of a poorly catechized Catholic to any other faith is not much of a feather in your cap. There are lots of people that may be nominally Catholic. Converting them is not necessarily a great achievement. While it may be true that those responsible for their religious eduction did not do their job, and for that other Catholics bear responsibility for their failure, the conversion of a poorly catechized Catholic doesn’t make the Mormon Church, or the theory of some “Apostasy” (need to stay on topic!) the slightest bit valid.

 

[ryanoneil]

There is no such thing as ontological substance. Or maybe it is actually chicken soup. Chicken soup is the great equalizer for humanity.

Then bring it up with snow. (I understood what was being said)

Has science recently discovered the same onotological substance underlying all things? Hmmmm must have missed those headlines.

We can discuss science if you insist. (Id rather not)

Why is temple ordinances disappearing an issue if you don’t believe in priests?
(you can’t have the first without the second)

 

[mfbukowski]

So you claim the Greeks believed that God was made out of something (X).
The Father is X
The Son is X
The Holy Spirit is X.

Then you claim Snow wants us to find X in the New Testament, because she thinks we believe in X. Is that right?

Yep, that’s it in a nutshell. A little more complicated, but that’s about it. Of course what you left out, was that the Catholics bought the greek explanation hook line and sinker.

So because there’s no x in the new testament, belief in x shows apostasy.

I think that’s about the argument.

 

[mfbukowski]

That Protestants do not agree with certain Catholic doctrines does not mean they believe Catholics are “apostate”. Not every difference in doctrine automatically ends in that result. Many Protestants would also say that Mormons are not Christian. I daresay you would not agree with them. Does their saying so make it true for you? How about of a WHOLE LOT of them think so, does that change it for you?

Your argument is a logical fallacy which has been pointed out before. In simple terms ~ just because a bunch of people say something is true doesn’t mean it is. Truth is truth, it’s not a matter of voting. It’s not a matter of how many people you have on your “side”.

The subject of this thread is the so-called Apostasy. As yet no one that believes in this event can define it, describe it, date it, or give a shred of evidence that it ever happened. And those that have made any effort towards providing even a description have given different accounts of their beliefs of what this event was. This is not the stuff of which a very solid, credible case can be made.

And as to your concern about majority opinion, it is hardly likely that a Buddhist, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or the member of any other non-Christian religion worries overmuch about apostasy in any Christian faith. But were you to ask them who, personally, represents Christianity in the world, they would most likely tell you Benedict XVI because, like it or not, outside this rather provincial country we live in, the major Christian religion of the world is the Catholic faith. So if it’s all about numbers, we win. Does that work for you? Or, if not, does it at least help shine a light on the fallacy of “majority rules” when it comes to matters of truth?

Now, there’s been lots of posts, but not one that established

1. What this so-called apostasy was
2. When it occurred
3. Evidence of this event

We’ve had plenty of people talk all around it, and bring up all sorts of extraneous information, fallacies, and “beliefs”, but no substantive answer. Is that ever going to change?

you are really straining my ability to be charitable. I was answering your post 278 that brought up how many millions believed in the apostay. Try to follow along here. What ever happened to the… fellow who thought God needed oxygen? Are you him?

 

[mfbukowski]

Two points

1. 
   *]Shall we count the Mormon converts to Catholicism? If we have more, does that mean we win? There are posters to this board that were born Mormon and are now Catholic. There were Mormons in my RCIA class who are now Catholic. What is the point of these statistics? It doesn’t make Mormonism true.
   *]More seriously, the conversion of a poorly catechized Catholic to any other faith is not much of a feather in your cap. There are lots of people that may be nominally Catholic. Converting them is not necessarily a great achievement. While it may be true that those responsible for their religious eduction did not do their job, and for that other Catholics bear responsibility for their failure, the conversion of a poorly catechized Catholic doesn’t make the Mormon Church, or the theory of some “Apostasy” (need to stay on topic!) the slightest bit valid.

1. 
   So the fact that you don’t teach your peoploe well, makes your church true. Is that what you are saying?

 

[mfbukowski]

Then bring it up with snow. (I understood what was being said)

We can discuss science if you insist. (Id rather not)

Why is temple ordinances disappearing an issue if you don’t believe in priests?
(you can’t have the first without the second)

Who said I didn’t believe in priests? I am one. Where do you get this stuff?

 

[ryanoneil]

I dunno - it’s your claim. Please demonstrate how that verse proves singular ontological substance.

I can’t prove it. I can only demonstate it using information from the Bible.

The Father claimed that no god was formed before or after Him.

"You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. (Is. 43:10)

Said differently, there is only one God.

Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of the earth, for I am God; there is no other! (Isa 45:22)

Jesus claims he is God here:

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (John 8:58 )

Jesus is either telling the truth or He is lying. If He is telling the truth, then He was “formed” or “begotten” directly from the Father from the beginning. (not before not after)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

I can’t descibe it any better. There is one God, who generated a God from himself, from all eternity.

While you are at it, could you explain of what substance God is formed?

If I could do that I would be God.

 

[Snow]

I can’t prove it. I can only demonstate it using information from the Bible.

The Father claimed that no god was formed before or after Him.

"You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. (Is. 43:10)

Said differently, there is only one God.

Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of the earth, for I am God; there is no other! (Isa 45:22)

Jesus claims he is God here:

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (John 8:58 )

Jesus is either telling the truth or He is lying. If He is telling the truth, then He was “formed” or “begotten” directly from the Father from the beginning. (not before not after)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

I can’t descibe it any better. There is one God, who generated a God from himself, from all eternity.

If I could do that I would be God.

That’s interesting, I guess - except it says nothing about The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being of the same ontological substance.

I was formed or begotten by my parents - and God for that matter, but I am not consubstantial with them. Please remember that it is consubstantiality you are trying to demonstrate.

 

[ryanoneil]

Who said I didn’t believe in priests? I am one. Where do you get this stuff?

Considering you are mormon, I assumed you included yourself in this post. I’m apologize.

What is this supposed to mean? Most protestants don’t even believe in priesthood – I think the only ones who do are the Anglicans and related groups.

Discuss this with an evangelical and see what they think.

What temple ordinance were supposed to be carried on by first century christian priests?

The daily temple ordinances of 2 Chron 8:12-15 perscribed by Moses’ law Numbers 28 perhaps?

 

[ryanoneil]

That’s interesting, I guess - except it says nothing about The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being of the same ontological substance.

I was formed or begotten by my parents - and God for that matter, but I am not consubstantial with them. Please remember that it is consubstantiality you are trying to demonstrate.

But you were begotten after your parents were formed, who are only mortal creatures. Correct?

Jesus wasn’t. If the bible is telling the truth, He was begotten from all eternity and has always been God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John :1-2)

 

[Stephen168]

Yep, that’s it in a nutshell. A little more complicated, but that’s about it.
So because there’s no x in the new testament, belief in x shows apostasy.
I think that’s about the argument.

I’m not sure Snow agrees with you because now I have the same question she does.

could you explain of what substance God is formed?

I mean if you claim Catholics believe in this substance (X), what is it called?

 

[MelanieAnne]

So the fact that you don’t teach your peoploe well, makes your church true. Is that what you are saying?

No. The fact that some Catholics are not properly catechized is unfortunate. But you miss the point, twice in a row as it happens. The numbers you point to do not validate your position. You are continually citing (unsupported) statistics to validate your position. That argument is fallacious.

Take your own advice and “try to follow”.

 

[Stephen168]

Now, there’s been lots of posts, but not one that established

1. What this so-called apostasy was
2. When it occurred
3. Evidence of this event

Empirically they can’t because it never happened. Theologically I think they have answered 1 and 3.
1.Loss of priesthood authority
3.We don’t believe what you believe
But never a date. James Talmage rambled on through 1600 years of history without a date of the Great Apostasy

 

[MelanieAnne]

Empirically they can’t because it never happened. Theologically I think they have answered 1 and 3.
1.Loss of priesthood authority
3.We don’t believe what you believe
But never a date. James Talmage rambled on through 1600 years of history without a date of the Great Apostasy

Some may have cited “loss of priesthood authority”, but they have never established how that happened, when that happened, or that fact that their version of priesthood ever existed prior to the “restoration”. Furthermore, there have been others items cited as “apostasy” so there is no consistent answer. There have been a lot of threads on this subject and that is a fairly consistent result ~ that there is no consistent Mormon answer as to what the apostasy even was. That is what I mean when I say that this sort of nebulousness is not the stuff of which a credible case can be made.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No - as I explained from the get go, the issue is,** in my opinion**, one of authority. Doctrine is important but is not the crux of the matter. I believe that the RCC has some correct doctrine but more to the point, I do not believe it is authorized to act in God’s name.

Great. I’ll pay money for this one.

Go ahead and prove that God rejects -]Hinduism/-] Catholicism.

You claimed you can do. Now let’s see you deliver.

Note to self: expect another non-delivery.

Note to -]Rebecca/-] Snow: saying a bunch of words that reflect your opinion is proof of nothing other than your public opinion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Great. I’ll pay money for this one.

Go ahead and prove that God rejects Hinduism.

You claimed you can do. Now let’s see you deliver.

Note to self: expect another non-delivery.

Note to Rebecca: saying a bunch of words that reflect your opinion is proof of nothing other than your public opinion.

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”

Popular gods worshiped by Hindus (there are many more):

Durga
Krishna
Vishnu
Brahma
Shiva
Ganesha
Hanuman
Murugan
Rama
Lakshmi

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hmmm,

Distasteful perhaps but I’d stack up LDS morality to Catholic morality any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

snow, you just don’t get it. Individual Catholics and individual Mormons sin. I don’t believe anyone is disputing this.

The founding person of your church taught his sin (adultery) as doctrine. He convinced women who were already married to marry him. He convinced their husbands that it was God’s will.

So compare away to Catholicism. No one in the Catholic Church, in 2000 years, has ever taught as doctrine:

To engage in pre-marital sex.

To have has many children has possible out of wedlock.

To obtain an abortion.

To abuse children.

To work at getting incarcerated.

Burning witches???..take that up with the Protestants

How about lifestyles of the rich and… er well you get the idea.

Yes, I get the idea. You have nothing to defend Smith’s actions other than pointing to sins that are common to all humans. You fail to address the fact that he had put himself in a position of authority and used this authority to teach his personal sins as God commanded, angel given, doctrine.

Face it snow, you have nothing to defend this because it is indefensible.