What Was the Apostasy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Snow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just as a note to bukowski ~ We believe that the sacramental elements are the body and blood of Jesus because He said so. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus was dishonest, which we know is not true.

Maybe it’s just me, but given the choice between Jesus and a fallible human, I’m going to go with what Jesus said every time! 🙂
 
Just as a note to bukowski ~ We believe that the sacramental elements are the body and blood of Jesus because He said so. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus was dishonest, which we know is not true.

Maybe it’s just me, but given the choice between Jesus and a fallible human, I’m going to go with what Jesus said every time! 🙂
He also said “I am the Way”, and I am the Gate etc. Does that mean we should walk on him?

You need to understand somethings are figurative.
 
Even if I agree you are right, which I don’t, that’s two down out of how many examples?
Sorry. I don’t have the time to address every citation. But all were similarly lacking in support.
40.png
mfbukowski:
There is no such thing as objectivity in religion. It’s not science. I think Catholics just don’t get that, and that is your weakness. We accept the truth of our religion on faith and experience.
It is not a weakness to make the assumption that faith and reason are never incompatible. That is your weakness. You seem to accept any teaching of the LDS Church on faith, regardless of what reason shows you.
40.png
mfbukowski:
You really think this stuff can be proven by evidence, which it can’t. To me, the least persuasive argument there is is that the true church was preserved through all those schisms, heresies battles, conflicts and corruption. It’s not very persuasive at all, unless it’s what a person wants to believe in the first instance.
I disagree. History shows that the Catholic Church survived to the present day. It is still alive and vibrant despite 2,000 years of controversy. What you presume - i.e. the Great Apostacy - is contrary to what reason and history can show. You seem to be proving my point from above… that LDS “faith” contradicts reason and is based solely on individual subjective experience.

Perhaps that is why every explanation I seem to get from a mormon for the LDS teaching on the Great Apostacy begins with… “It seems to me…” or “Well, I personally think…” etc. There’s no authoritative explanation for the GA because that would require the doctrinal authority of the LDS Church to make a public doctrinal statement that is contrary to reason and history. Better to make the general statement, and leave it up to the LDS in the pews to rationalize the basis for it. This is a problem for you because the issue is so foundational to the necessity and authority of the allegedly “restored” nature of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Peace,
-Robert
 
Sorry. I don’t have the time to address every citation. But all were similarly lacking in support.

It is not a weakness to make the assumption that faith and reason are never incompatible. That is your weakness. You seem to accept any teaching of the LDS Church on faith, regardless of what reason shows you.

I disagree. History shows that the Catholic Church survived to the present day. It is still alive and vibrant despite 2,000 years of controversy. What you presume - i.e. the Great Apostacy - is contrary to what reason and history can show. You seem to be proving my point from above… that LDS “faith” contradicts reason and is based solely on individual subjective experience.

Perhaps that is why every explanation I seem to get from a mormon for the LDS teaching on the Great Apostacy begins with… “It seems to me…” or “Well, I personally think…” etc. There’s no authoritative explanation for the GA because that would require the doctrinal authority of the LDS Church to make a public doctrinal statement that is contrary to reason and history. Better to make the general statement, and leave it up to the LDS in the pews to rationalize the basis for it. This is a problem for you because the issue is so foundational to the necessity and authority of the allegedly “restored” nature of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Peace,
-Robert
There are vast numbers of christians in this world who believe in the apostasy. In fact every christian in the world who is not roman catholic believes in some form of the apostasy, or they all would be roman catholic. Mormons are not alone is seeing that the fact of the apostasy is so self-evident that it takes a LOT of faith on the part of catholics to stick to their belief in apostolic succession.

Joseph Smith was coming from a typical protestant position which presumed the apostasy from the beginning.

We are not alone in this position. Ask any protestant when the apostasy ocurred. What is inconsistent in their position, in my opinion, is that they accept the Nicene Creed position on the trinity. So they believe that the Catholic church was true at least that far, but by the time of the reformation it had gone apostate.

I will repeat that to me, it is far harder to imagine that apostolic succession is true than false. With all the vast changes in doctrine, it could just not have happened that way.

I think we have beat this dead horse long enough.
 
There are vast numbers of christians in this world who believe in the apostasy. In fact every christian in the world who is not roman catholic believes in some form of the apostasy, or they all would be roman catholic. Mormons are not alone is seeing that the fact of the apostasy is so self-evident that it takes a LOT of faith on the part of catholics to stick to their belief in apostolic succession.

Joseph Smith was coming from a typical protestant position which presumed the apostasy from the beginning.

We are not alone in this position. Ask any protestant when the apostasy ocurred. What is inconsistent in their position, in my opinion, is that they accept the Nicene Creed position on the trinity. So they believe that the Catholic church was true at least that far, but by the time of the reformation it had gone apostate.

I will repeat that to me, it is far harder to imagine that apostolic succession is true than false. With all the vast changes in doctrine, it could just not have happened that way.

I think we have beat this dead horse long enough.
What vast changes in doctrine? You have never identified them.
 
There are vast numbers of christians in this world who believe in the apostasy. In fact every christian in the world who is not roman catholic believes in some form of the apostasy, or they all would be roman catholic. Mormons are not alone is seeing that the fact of the apostasy is so self-evident that it takes a LOT of faith on the part of catholics to stick to their belief in apostolic succession.

Joseph Smith was coming from a typical protestant position which presumed the apostasy from the beginning.

We are not alone in this position. Ask any protestant when the apostasy ocurred. What is inconsistent in their position, in my opinion, is that they accept the Nicene Creed position on the trinity. So they believe that the Catholic church was true at least that far, but by the time of the reformation it had gone apostate.

I will repeat that to me, it is far harder to imagine that apostolic succession is true than false. With all the vast changes in doctrine, it could just not have happened that way.

I think we have beat this dead horse long enough.
That is simply not true. You may no longer wish to discuss this subject but that does not convert the facts into what you want them to be. The protestants are not protestants because of some belief on their part that Catholic Church was apostate.

I will grant that Joseph Smith’s church is an offshoot of Protestantism as those that he mentions in his story are all Protestant sect,s but that is a far cry from the assertion that by the founding of the LDS church, Joseph Smith “restored” a church, and a religious practice, that once was, and that was wiped out within the 1st century by “apostates” (by whom the LDS can only be referring to either Catholics and/or Eastern Orthodox because at that point the schism had not occurred.) That’s the part that has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence because there was no apostasy and both the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are still here.

And if, bukowski, what you say is true, then I challenge you to bring forth the legions of Protestants and any other Christians (with the exception of Mormons of course) who will agree not only with your belief in “the apostasy” but that also Joseph Smith re-established the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth, that was once practiced by Christians in the earliest times but was lost to Apostasy within the time or shortly after the death of the first Apostle. I submit there would be absolutely no agreement with that.

Protestants may have doctrinal disagreements with Roman Catholics, but not to the extent that you envision and certainly not to the extent that would validate some hypothetical “apostasy” that in turns validates the LDS church. That’s simply a fantasy and no matter how much any Mormon wants it to be true, it simply is not.
 
Protestants may have doctrinal disagreements with Roman Catholics, but not to the extent that you envision and certainly not to the extent that would validate some hypothetical “apostasy” that in turns validates the LDS church. That’s simply a fantasy and no matter how much any Mormon wants it to be true, it simply is not.
Especially if you define “apostasy” as loss of “priesthood authority” as the LDS do.
 
There are protestants that believe in a Great Apostasy as well as other non-christian groups.
Restorationism
That may be, but not in the sense that Mormons do. And that’s my point. Bukowski is equating the two, using one to support the validity of the other. That is fallacious reasoning.
 
Warnings from Scripture about new false teachings, this apostacy was never heard of until the LDS church invented it.

No matter how suttle one puts the Lie of an Apostacy it is still a man made Lie to attack the body of Jesus Christ. Word playing and distortions of Scripture does not justify an Apostacy. Either there was one or not.

2 John 7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist. 5
9 Anyone who is so “progressive” 7 as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him;
11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.

1 Tim.1: 3 I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines
4 or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith.
6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,
7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.

1 Timothy 6; 3 Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching
4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions,
5 and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain.
6 Indeed, religion with contentment is a great gain.
11 But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.
12 Compete well for the faith. Lay hold of eternal life, to which you were called when you made the noble confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Colosians 2; 16 Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. 8
17 These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.
18 Let no one disqualify you, delighting in self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, 9 inflated without reason by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding closely to the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and bonds, achieves the growth that comes from God.
20 If you died with Christ to the elemental powers of the world, why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world?

2 Peter 2: 1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
3 In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.

1John 2: 18 Children, it is the last hour; 9 and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.
20 But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, 11 and you all have knowledge.
22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.

1 John 4: 1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.
4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

Galatians 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
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!
11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

These scriptures refute any New Mormon, 7th day adventist, JW, Sola man made inventions.
 
What vast changes in doctrine? You have never identified them.
Man, you really are in denial. Post 95. Remember the list you personally were going to respond to?

Face the facts. You don’t know the answers, and that is why you are avoiding this.
 
That is simply not true. You may no longer wish to discuss this subject but that does not convert the facts into what you want them to be. The protestants are not protestants because of some belief on their part that Catholic Church was apostate.
This is absurd.

So why did they leave the church if it was not apostate?

Can you see what you are saying? They left the church because they agreed with it?

It is me who has the problem. I can’t believe I am actually responding to this kind of stuff.
 
Especially if you define “apostasy” as loss of “priesthood authority” as the LDS do.
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.

How about Mr. Chick? Is that his name?
 
This is absurd.

So why did they leave the church if it was not apostate?

Can you see what you are saying? They left the church because they agreed with it?

It is me who has the problem. I can’t believe I am actually responding to this kind of stuff.
I can see what I am saying. I don’t know that you are understanding it though. One can have differences in opinion about doctrine without a church becoming “apostate”. A church, populated by fallible humans, can go through periods of time where those humans make mistakes, even some grave ones, but that doesn’t make the church “apostate”.

But that truly isn’t the point, although few Mormons seem to want to do anything more than dance around the subject. The claim of the Great Apostasy goes hand in hand with the claim to the so-called Mormon “Restoration”. But since the Mormon religion was actually invented for the first time in the 19th Century, and had never actually been practiced before, the claim of “Restoration” is false. There was no “apostasy”, so there was no “restoration”. And no matter how much some people crave for the facts to be otherwise, they’re not.
 
That may be, but not in the sense that Mormons do. And that’s my point. Bukowski is equating the two, using one to support the validity of the other. That is fallacious reasoning.
I’m equating what with what?

Baloney! You are imagining again! All I said was that there are many who think that the catholic church is apostate, who are not Mormon. And that is absolutely true.
 
These scriptures refute any New Mormon, 7th day adventist, JW, Sola man made inventions.
Yes of course. I surrender. No one could possibly have a different interpretation of these than you.

They must have holes cut in their bibles leaving those verses out.

Only the Holy Magesterium can teach us how to think.
 
I’m equating what with what?

Baloney! You are imagining again! All I said was that there are many who think that the catholic church is apostate, who are not Mormon. And that is absolutely true.
It may be true that there are other sects that believe that Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, are “apostate”. That doesn’t mean any of them are right. But you miss my point. The point is that even if both Evangelicals and Mormons think the Catholics are wrong about something, or anything, doesn’t mean that either belief validates the other. That’s the fallacy at work here.
 
Man, you really are in denial. Post 95. Remember the list you personally were going to respond to?

Face the facts. You don’t know the answers, and that is why you are avoiding this.
You are right. You did provide a list and I offered to show you the apostolic nature of each of those points if you would agree that if I did it, you would admit there was no apostasy. but then you sent this response which made me think it would have been a waste of time… in post 98…
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. .
 
I can see what I am saying. I don’t know that you are understanding it though. One can have differences in opinion about doctrine without a church becoming “apostate”. A church, populated by fallible humans, can go through periods of time where those humans make mistakes, even some grave ones, but that doesn’t make the church “apostate”.
And what WOULD make it apostate then? What mistakes are you talking about? How far over the line is “apostate”? And who decides that? Where is that in church doctrine? “You can make this degree of mistake, but if you go one degree farther, it’s apostasy”-- Canon xyz". As you can see, this line of reasoning is not a good one for your side, so I think you should abandon it.

You are calling the Protestant Reformation a “difference of opinion” in which the protestants thought the catholics were right, but they left anyway? And why did they leave?

Think it through this time.
 
And what WOULD make it apostate then? What mistakes are you talking about? How far over the line is “apostate”? And who decides that? Where is that in church doctrine? “You can make this degree of mistake, but if you go one degree farther, it’s apostasy”-- Canon xyz". As you can see, this line of reasoning is not a good one for your side, so I think you should abandon it.

You are calling the Protestant Reformation a “difference of opinion” in which the protestants thought the catholics were right, but they left anyway? And why did they leave?

Think it through this time.
Apostasy is technically when someone permanently strays from the truth, the accepted practice (I’m using my own words here, not a dictionary or any kind of church definition). In the case of the Catholic Church, that would mean that the church, as a whole, strayed from the teachings of Jesus Christ, who founded the Church. The Catholic Church has not done that.

Making a mistake does not render someone, or some institution “apostate” because mistakes can be corrected, atoned for, etc. Individuals can stray from the truth but that does not render the organizations to which they belong “apostate”. The Protestant Reformation was, at least in part, the reaction to abuses within the Catholic Church, abuses that were subsequently eliminated. Anyone may claim “apostasy” occurred but that doesn’t make it so.

The Catholic church, like many other religious sects, has had its share of members, even clergy, who have made their share of errors. That does not make the Church “apostate”. I’ve even had Mormons tell me that their church is perfect but the people are not. People make mistakes, but then they pick themselves up, make corrections, make amends if necessary, and move on.

But again, that is really not the important point. As I previously pointed out ~ the claim of the Great Apostasy goes hand in hand with the claim to the so-called Mormon “Restoration”. In order for there to be a credible “Restoration” some previous “Apostasy” is required. But since the Mormon religion was actually invented for the first time in the 19th Century, and had never actually been practiced before, the claim of “Restoration” is false. There was no “apostasy”, so there was no “restoration”. And no matter how much some people crave for the facts to be otherwise, they’re not. No Mormon who posts to this forum has ever been able to identify even a scintilla of evidence to establish the fact of this so-called “apostasy”. That’s because there wasn’t one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top