What Was the Apostasy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Snow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can someone please tell me what the Mormon view of the the Apostacy is? What was the great abandonment of Christian Doctrine that occured during the Apostolic era? What doctrine was abandonned? You started a thread that Said" What was the apostacy " and 72 posts later, the question has still not been answered. The only thing that has been put forward is that there were warnings about heretics in the ancient church and then a suggestion that the church’s view of the Trinity has changed, without any discussion of how… Again, a religion (Mormonism) was started for the reason that the original Church (Catholic) apostacized, yet no Mormon can identify what is is that drove them away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. How can this be?
I don’t know how you can say that. Re-read Snow’s first posts.

We believe the church apostasized in the first century or so.

Apparantly we have a split jury on the question and cannot break the deadlock. But that is the case. I bet I know what side you are on. Now go and watch TV or something.
 
Here’s a warning that Joseph Smith and all his followers would have been wise to pay attention to:

Galatians Chapter 1 (NAB)
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
There was no “apostasy”, and no one can show that there was. We don’t NEED to prove the negative. Those that claim there was an apostasy have the burden of supplying their proof, and so far there isn’t any. They cannot, because there wasn’t an “apostasy”, so there can be no legitimate claim to having “restored” anything.

The reasons behind the claim of an “apostasy” are pretty simple ~ if you’re going to go start a new religion, under the presumption that there is something wrong with all the others out there, you’ve got to have a good reason. The story of some ancient “apostasy” works as well as anything else to meet that need. It apparently has worked well because a lot of people have fallen for it.

Muhammad followed too closely on the heels of Christianity, so he could hardly make a claim of some “apostasy”. Didn’t prevent him from coming up with the same kind of “angel” story tho’ 😉
 
40.png
Stephen168:
Originally Posted by mfbukowski
What I said was that the (apostasy) aliens in the white house cannot be DISPROVEN, which is what I have been saying for months on this forum. Big difference. If I need to explain it further I will.
Didn’t know how to do the strike through.

I win

My point precisely. Proving that there are aliens in the white house means that you can PROVE THERE ARE ALIENS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Saying that aliens in the white house CANNOT BE DISPROVEN is saying there MIGHT be aliens in the white house.

Can you see the difference between saying that something MIGHT BE TRUE is different that saying that something is PROVEN TO BE TRUE?

I guess not. I rest my case. That means I will not address the issue anymore from you. This is only the 4th time we have gone over this. I don’t know why you can’t get it.
 
MfBukowski,
It appears that Catholics and Mormons are in agreement that sin has consequences and that man needs both faith and good works to be justified with God.

However, your extension to the church in error. We agree that the Popes had personal sin, just as every man does, some more and some less than others. They are personally responsible for that sin and will be judged accordingly. However, just because the Popes were individually sinful does not mean that the Catholic Church’s doctrines were in anyway impinged. Are you suggesting that any Pope compromised the teaching of the church? If so, what is your proof?

Let’s be clear that any individual pope’s immorality is a different situation than that of Joseph Smith’s. First of all, if what you beliee is true, Joseph Smith is a game changing prophet on the order of Abraham or Moses, since he was given a new doctrine. This would require a much different level of morality than one of the 205 Popes, whose role is to safeguard a doctrine given to them by their predecessors, not to change the doctrine entirely. Secondly, Joseph Smith changed doctrine to his advantage, creating situations where his followers were encouraged to give up wives and young daughters to Joseph Smith for Sex as a matter of doctrine and salvation. I don’t think you will find any record of any Pope who did that.
 
Here’s a warning that Joseph Smith and all his followers would have been wise to pay attention to:

Galatians Chapter 1 (NAB)

There was no “apostasy”, and no one can show that there was. We don’t NEED to prove the negative. Those that claim there was an apostasy have the burden of supplying their proof, and so far there isn’t any. They cannot, because there wasn’t an “apostasy”, so there can be no legitimate claim to having “restored” anything.

The reasons behind the claim of an “apostasy” are pretty simple ~ if you’re going to go start a new religion, under the presumption that there is something wrong with all the others out there, you’ve got to have a good reason. The story of some ancient “apostasy” works as well as anything else to meet that need. It apparently has worked well because a lot of people have fallen for it.

Muhammad followed too closely on the heels of Christianity, so he could hardly make a claim of some “apostasy”. Didn’t prevent him from coming up with the same kind of “angel” story tho’ 😉
Yawn

Oh that again.

We preach the same gospel Paul preached. It is you who have apostastized. 1 Cor 15:29

And who is the angel in the book of revelations who preaches the gospel to every kindred tongue and people? (Rev 7:1)

We could do this forever, but it will not change either of us.
What is the point?

Oh yeah, Joseph did not come up with the idea of the apostasy. The protestants did that. So we are not exactly alone. So quit implying that it is a Mormon fantasy we dreamed up.
 
I don’t know how you can say that. Re-read Snow’s first posts.

We believe the church apostasized in the first century or so.

Apparantly we have a split jury on the question and cannot break the deadlock. But that is the case. I bet I know what side you are on. Now go and watch TV or something.
I read Snow’s first reading when it originally came out and I had the same comments for him. Read the second or third post. You said there was an Apostacy, but never, ever have you said what it was… What doctrines were changed? I’ve been trying to get that for days now. Your entire arguement was that there were Apostolic warnings about heresies. Well, that really isn’t a surprise, They were experiencing that almost from day 1. And the one that your examples were describing were the heresies that Christians had to follow the Jewish dietary laws and also to be circumcised. As you clearly know, that heresy went no where.
In our view (but certainly not yours), Mormonism is just another heresy. You Mormon’s are the one’s who have an apostacy, not the Catholic Church. We can show clearly that you have doctrinal inconsistencies with the Apostolic church, which is the definition of apostacy… You know it too, you just call them new revelations…
 
MfBukowski,
It appears that Catholics and Mormons are in agreement that sin has consequences and that man needs both faith and good works to be justified with God.

However, your extension to the church in error. We agree that the Popes had personal sin, just as every man does, some more and some less than others. They are personally responsible for that sin and will be judged accordingly. However, just because the Popes were individually sinful does not mean that the Catholic Church’s doctrines were in anyway impinged. Are you suggesting that any Pope compromised the teaching of the church? If so, what is your proof?

Let’s be clear that any individual pope’s immorality is a different situation than that of Joseph Smith’s. First of all, if what you beliee is true, Joseph Smith is a game changing prophet on the order of Abraham or Moses, since he was given a new doctrine. This would require a much different level of morality than one of the 205 Popes, whose role is to safeguard a doctrine given to them by their predecessors, not to change the doctrine entirely. Secondly, Joseph Smith changed doctrine to his advantage, creating situations where his followers were encouraged to give up wives and young daughters to Joseph Smith for Sex as a matter of doctrine and salvation. I don’t think you will find any record of any Pope who did that.
Not the case. I would like to call you a …well not a nice name. Were you in those bedrooms? What’s your “proof”

Shall we get into the bishops in the priest abuse scandal which HAS been documented, as opposed to your fantasy about Joseph?

I will be more than glad to go there if you insist.

There is nothing more vile than a pedofile who uses a position of trust.

And remember Abraham was a polygamist. How come?
 
Not the case. I would like to call you a …well not a nice name. Were you in those bedrooms? What’s your “proof”

Shall we get into the bishops in the priest abuse scandal which HAS been documented, as opposed to your fantasy about Joseph?

I will be more than glad to go there if you insist.

There is nothing more vile than a pedofile who uses a position of trust.

And remember Abraham was a polygamist. How come?
Lets stay focused for just a minute on the real question at hand. What was the Apostacy…
 
I read Snow’s first reading when it originally came out and I had the same comments for him. Read the second or third post. You said there was an Apostacy, but never, ever have you said what it was… What doctrines were changed? I’ve been trying to get that for days now. Your entire arguement was that there were Apostolic warnings about heresies. Well, that really isn’t a surprise, They were experiencing that almost from day 1. And the one that your examples were describing were the heresies that Christians had to follow the Jewish dietary laws and also to be circumcised. As you clearly know, that heresy went no where.
In our view (but certainly not yours), Mormonism is just another heresy. You Mormon’s are the one’s who have an apostacy, not the Catholic Church. We can show clearly that you have doctrinal inconsistencies with the Apostolic church, which is the definition of apostacy… You know it too, you just call them new revelations…
Eucharist as real presence/ transubstantiation
loss of baptism for the dead
loss of temple ordinances
The assumption of Mary
Immaculate conception
Limbo /invincible ignorance
purgatory
infant baptism
sprinkling baptism
the mass
confession
veneration of saints
need for interecession
indulgences

Other than those, I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Where are these in the scriptures, that “most catholic” of books?
 
Lets stay focused for just a minute on the real question at hand. What was the Apostacy…
Paul, I admire your efforts to stay on the subject here, but you’re never going to get an answer because there was no “great apostasy”. There wasn’t even a little one. 😉
 
Eucharist as real presence/ transubstantiation
loss of baptism for the dead
loss of temple ordinances
The assumption of Mary
Immaculate conception
Limbo /invincible ignorance
purgatory
infant baptism
sprinkling baptism
the mass
confession
veneration of saints
need for interecession
indulgences

Other than those, I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Where are these in the scriptures?
That’s not a list of evidence of any apostasy, that’s a list of things you don’t agree with. Doesn’t make them proof of anything.
 
That’s not a list of evidence of any apostasy, that’s a list of things you don’t agree with. Doesn’t make them proof of anything.
Oh ok. That’s a good one. Cuts to the quick. You’ve convinced me now.
 
Not the case. I would like to call you a …well not a nice name. Were you in those bedrooms? What’s your “proof”

Shall we get into the bishops in the priest abuse scandal which HAS been documented, as opposed to your fantasy about Joseph?

I will be more than glad to go there if you insist.

There is nothing more vile than a pedofile who uses a position of trust.

And remember Abraham was a polygamist. How come?
By the way, I am not in any way defending any pediophiles, within or external to the Catholic church… As for documentation of Joseph Smith’s sexual exploitation, this is from Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
Of all Joseph’s innovations during the years immediately preceding his death, Richard Bushman has called his practice of plural marriage “the most disturbing.”[103] In April 1841, Smith secretly wed Louisa Beaman as a plural wife, and during the next two and a half years, he may have married about thirty additional women, ten of them already married to other men.[104] About a third of Smith’s plural wives were teenagers, including two fourteen-year-old girls.[105] Joseph was “a charismatic, handsome man,” and in Remini’s words, he “seemed cheerful and gracious” to all.[106] Because many husbands and fathers knew about these plural marriages, Smith must have convinced them that “they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie to the Prophet.”[107] Smith told one prospective wife that her submission would insure the eternal salvation of her father’s household. Furthermore, once sealed for eternity by priesthood authority, Joseph revealed that such couples would continue to procreate in the next life, becoming “enlarged” and, in effect, gods.[108]

As Bushman has written, Joseph surely “must have realized that plural marriage would inflict terrible damage, that he ran the risk of wrecking his marriage and alienating his followers.” And for those in the larger world, plural marriage “would confirm all their worst fears” about Mormonism. “Sexual excess was considered that all too common fruit of pretended revelation.”

And this is from the lds website: lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml

There is evidence that Joseph started to think about making plural marriage a moral practice within his church as early as 1831, one year after the church was founded. He knew, however, how shocking such a practice would be not only to many Mormons, but to the gentiles also. He intended to postpone the announcement of the new practice until people were more ready to accept it. Meanwhile, he let a few trusted colleagues know that plural marriage had been sanctioned by God in a special revelation to Joseph. God, said Joseph, was no more opposed to polygamy in 1831 than He had been in the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who all had large harems.

Meanwhile, although Joseph had not announced God’s sanction of plural marriage to the entire church, Joseph himself was practising it. He proposed what he called “celestial” marriage to a number of women, some of whom were already legally married to other men. Joseph considered celestial marriages to be on a higher plane than earthly marriages, lasting forever, and taking precedence over mundane marriages.

Only polygamy - the custom of one man taking multiple wives was sanctioned. Women were not allowed to have more than one husband. Joseph taught that a woman’s possibility of entering heaven depended largely on the worthiness of her husband, rather than on her own worthiness.

How much more documentation would you like?

And by the way, I’m just trying to get to the truth. You are on a Catholic website for a reason. Its either to learn about our religion or to teach us about yours. Well, I’m trying to learn why you think there was an Apostacy and what exactly it was. I’m not gettting anywhere, which makes me question your motives.
 
Eucharist as real presence/ transubstantiation
loss of baptism for the dead
loss of temple ordinances
The assumption of Mary
Immaculate conception
Limbo /invincible ignorance
purgatory
infant baptism
sprinkling baptism
the mass
confession
veneration of saints
need for interecession
indulgences

Other than those, I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Where are these in the scriptures, that “most catholic” of books?
Actually, this is helpful so at least we know what you are talking about (finally). We can go through the list of these and show you the apostolic basis of each one of them. But before we go through that kind of effort, lets be clear. If we can show you apostolic basis for this entire list, will you agree that no Apostacy ever existed…
 
Actually, this is helpful so at least we know what you are talking about (finally). We can go through the list of these and show you the apostolic basis of each one of them. But before we go through that kind of effort, lets be clear. If we can show you apostolic basis for this entire list, will you agree that no Apostacy ever existed…
He might have to go back to being a Catholic! 😉

However, this is not generally what Mormons are talking about when they discuss “the great apostasy”. At least in the past in this forum they have tended to describe it as a gradual event (as opposed to some sudden event) that occurred over time and by the death of the last Apostle named in the New Testament it was complete. Much of that “list” may not fall within the purview of that sort of definition.

In addition, remember that the “great apostasy” goes hand in hand with the “restoration of the gospel”. The Mormons contend that their theology was RESTORED by Joseph Smith, that it was practiced by the original Christians, then lost to the so-called “great apostasy” over time. The fact that there is not a SHRED of evidence that this ever occurred is often explained that all references to the original church, all evidence of it has been destroyed by the apostate usurpers.

Convenient? Absolutely. When there’s no evidence to support a view simply claim it was all destroyed by unknown unnamed people. Sort of like the more recent reaction to the utter lack of DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon story ~ the claim that all the descendants of the middle eastern migrants mentioned in the Book of Mormon were wiped out. Not credible, but convenient if you desperately want something to be true in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
 
By the way, I am not in any way defending any pediophiles, within or external to the Catholic church… As for documentation of Joseph Smith’s sexual exploitation, this is from Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
Of all Joseph’s innovations during the years immediately preceding his death, Richard Bushman has called his practice of plural marriage “the most disturbing.”[103] In April 1841, Smith secretly wed Louisa Beaman as a plural wife, and during the next two and a half years, he may have married about thirty additional women, ten of them already married to other men.[104] About a third of Smith’s plural wives were teenagers, including two fourteen-year-old girls.[105] Joseph was “a charismatic, handsome man,” and in Remini’s words, he “seemed cheerful and gracious” to all.[106] Because many husbands and fathers knew about these plural marriages, Smith must have convinced them that “they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie to the Prophet.”[107] Smith told one prospective wife that her submission would insure the eternal salvation of her father’s household. Furthermore, once sealed for eternity by priesthood authority, Joseph revealed that such couples would continue to procreate in the next life, becoming “enlarged” and, in effect, gods.[108]

As Bushman has written, Joseph surely “must have realized that plural marriage would inflict terrible damage, that he ran the risk of wrecking his marriage and alienating his followers.” And for those in the larger world, plural marriage “would confirm all their worst fears” about Mormonism. “Sexual excess was considered that all too common fruit of pretended revelation.”

And this is from the lds website: lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml

There is evidence that Joseph started to think about making plural marriage a moral practice within his church as early as 1831, one year after the church was founded. He knew, however, how shocking such a practice would be not only to many Mormons, but to the gentiles also. He intended to postpone the announcement of the new practice until people were more ready to accept it. Meanwhile, he let a few trusted colleagues know that plural marriage had been sanctioned by God in a special revelation to Joseph. God, said Joseph, was no more opposed to polygamy in 1831 than He had been in the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who all had large harems.

Meanwhile, although Joseph had not announced God’s sanction of plural marriage to the entire church, Joseph himself was practising it. He proposed what he called “celestial” marriage to a number of women, some of whom were already legally married to other men. Joseph considered celestial marriages to be on a higher plane than earthly marriages, lasting forever, and taking precedence over mundane marriages.

Only polygamy - the custom of one man taking multiple wives was sanctioned. Women were not allowed to have more than one husband. Joseph taught that a woman’s possibility of entering heaven depended largely on the worthiness of her husband, rather than on her own worthiness.

How much more documentation would you like?

And by the way, I’m just trying to get to the truth. You are on a Catholic website for a reason. Its either to learn about our religion or to teach us about yours. Well, I’m trying to learn why you think there was an Apostacy and what exactly it was. I’m not gettting anywhere, which makes me question your motives.
Lies. This is not an LDS website-- why would you lie about that?

Click on this on the front page of the site
“This Site is not Affiliated with the LDS Church”

Joseph was sealed to those women with their husband’s permission. Why do you think they did that?
 
Actually, this is helpful so at least we know what you are talking about (finally). We can go through the list of these and show you the apostolic basis of each one of them. But before we go through that kind of effort, lets be clear. If we can show you apostolic basis for this entire list, will you agree that no Apostacy ever existed…
It depends on what you mean by “apostolic basis”. The only thing we know about the apostles is in the New Testament. The ECF’s were already apostate. Good luck. But the ECF’s were closer to the truth than the later fathers.
 
Ah so you are admitting that catholicism is not perfect? Then you should be looking for the church that is. You may not think that Mormonism is, but how about being a Baptist or a Buddhist then?

I never said that Mormonism had perfect leaders.
I never said that Catholics are perfect. Including the Pope. I believe we have covered this before.

If we’re explaining beliefs here. Catholics believe that Christ IS The Church. We are the Church.

Perhaps if you understood that Jesus is fully and human divine you would understand The Church. I believe it was Nebula who pointed out that the understanding of God is the foundation to everything.

GOD is perfect. Humans are not.

Do you understand at least that much? Or have you gone off to obstinate land where you only pick and choose what to reply to in order to continue your intellectually dishonest posts.

Showing off for other Mormons, or what?
 
Lies. This is not an LDS website-- why would you lie about that?

Click on this on the front page of the site
“This Site is not Affiliated with the LDS Church”

Joseph was sealed to those women with their husband’s permission. Why do you think they did that?
Not all of them were. You need to read the book I already recommended…“In Sacred Lonliness”

And while you are at it, explain how it is that this is NOT adultery. Seriously bukowski, this is the fruit of Mormonism. It has people so upside down in their thinking that YOU ARE DEFENDING ADULTERY.

“The husband gave permission.” So the hell what! This is what we call today, swinging. Why don’t you write a letter to your favorite apostle in SLC and ask if swinging is adultery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top