And now you are succumbing to logical fallacy! (See: False Dichotomy)
So let’s all stop calling each other illogical, shall we?Just to be clear… you do not believe that the RCC is God’s Church?And now you are succumbing to logical fallacy! (See: False Dichotomy)
I believe the counter claim would be “There was no apostasy” not “The Catholic Church is God’s authorized church”. These are two separate claims whose validity are independent of one another.
In this case, those making the existential claim, namely that there was indeed an apostasy of the early church shoulder the burden of proof.
Ah! I never said that I didn’t espouse both propositions! I merely pointed out that your definition of what constituted the negative argument is wrong.
Yes apostasy advocates are under no more burden of proof than Papal advocates however that is not the nature of this thread. As I have demonstrated these are two different claims. I guess it is possible (though difficult) to discuss both at the same time, yet this does not diminish the standard of proof by which the affirmative argument for the apostasy must meet.
Yes, it makes sense but it is not really relevant for these discussions. Let me phrase it this way:
Ditto;
Well that’s not exactly true, now is it. You put me on ignore - supposedly put me on ignore, because you made some false accusations and I challenged you to provide support for or prove of your claims. Rather than back up your (false) claims, you promptly insulted me and The Church of Jesus Christ and put me on ignore.
Honesty is an wonderful thing. You should try it. That is not what I said and you know it. Pretending that is what I said is simply dishonest. I said here and elsewhere that those that make claims bear burdens of proof. If you are going to claim that the RCC is God’s Church, you bear the same burden as one who claims that, for example, there was an apostasy.
Still not being exactly honest - are you. Mormons didn’t “come out with this assertion” re the apostasy. It was a long standing and widespread belief in Protestant circles long before 1820.
More dishonesty. I for one answer this questions. I follow the posts of 2 other members of The Church of Jesus Christ and they do as well.
I guess that’s a reflection of the kind of people you hang out with.
Here’s the part where you simply resort to insults and name-calling instead of engaging in productive debate.
Drop the dishonesty and respond to my post that address all three issues.
Really. I would love to hear your theory about how providing a province makes a “total Apostacy” credible.
Snow, This is the third view of the Apostasy from as many Mormons, but lets address this one as well.
I bet that is untrue.
No, that’s incorrect. I didn’t say that. The poster asked for geography, dates and names. I provided such as taken from Paul in 2 Timothy where he claims that all there had turned from him. I hardly claim that was the apostasy. It was merely a piece of it.
That is incorrect. I didn’t say that. Loss of revelation is merely evidence, not proof of the apostasy. I believe that it is better understood as a result of the apostasy.
Okay - but I am not talking about personal revelation.
I didn’t read those posts but I bet that if I did what I would find is that that you demonstrated that said Catholic teachings were in accordance with your interpretation of scripture, which is not necessarily the same things are being in alignment with scriptures themselves.
Perhaps you can condense it for me. Where does the bible cover homoousious?
That is incorrect. I never said that it was an invention of Constantine. In fact the general opinion is that Constantine barely even understood the Trinity. He, however, paid for Council, called it, convoked it, presided at it, participated in it, recommended at minimum one key part of it even though up to that time that particular belief had a sullied history, and then threatened (and followed through on the threats) anyone who disagreed.
You may not agree with JS’s beliefs but you are applying the word apostasy incorrectly. He hardly “fell away” from anything since he wasn’t a part of it to begin with. Moreover, you are equating apostasy with implementation of non-apostolic doctrines. That is also a misuse of the word. In a Church where revelation from God continues, of course you have teachings that were not originally taught by the apostles… unless you believe that God said all that he has to say and has no more truth to reveal. Besides that, the Catholic Church is full of non-apostolic teachings so that is hardly a fair tact.
I have searched the thread to see what has been said about this definition. In my opinion, you have presented the etymology of the word and not the definition.
Catholic dictionary has several definitions but I believe the one that is appropriate is
Catholic Encyclopedia
According to the above you have not provided evidence of an apostasy.
And?
The title of the thread is what was the apostasy. You have made a definition which goes against the standard definition. I am challenging your definition and you come back with “And?” and so what. So what you are saying is that in order for you as an LDS to accept the doctrine of the church you have to change the definition so that it makes your doctrine right. By using the standard definition it makes your explanation untenable.
You mean goes against the definition you posted from the Catholic Church.
Are you for real? Read the OP. I clearly said that posters were asking for the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy and then went on to explain my understanding of the LDS view. Now you complain that my understanding of the Great or general apostasy doesn’t match up with the Catholic opinion of personal apostasy.
This is dishonest. I posted from Catholic and non Catholic sources. So What? Don’t you think it is a little childish to post that last sentence? It sounds a little desperate.
This is also dishonest. You gave a good understanding from the LDS view. I didn’t complain that it doesn’t match up with Catholic opinion. I pointed out that it doesn’t match up with the Webster Dictionary definition of Apostasy. Poster are asking when it happened. The it is apostasy. What you are saying is the LDS had a different meaning of the word than is commonly accepted. So the apostasy definition is basically defined to fit a preconceived Idea or as you wrote doctrine. Perhaps this is why you can’t definitively state when it happened because then it would become obvious that your definition is off kilter.
Your argument is very weak here. You argue that the Church apostasized. But to do that, it would have to replace correct doctrine with incorrect doctrine. Can you show even one case of doctrinal change within the church. I asked Bukowski the same question, he gave me a list and I showed him where everyone of the doctrines he identified were consistent with scripture. The fact is, you have no list, other than the one you gave and I answered, but you were too lazy to read the evidence. (unlike Bukowski, who is actually taking the time to work through it). Furthermore, you claim that lack of new revelation points to the apostasy. Well, apostasy is changing from one doctrine to another. In the Catholic church, we believe that all doctrines were revealed to the apostles and that they have passed them down faithfully. There are still revelations, but they must be consistent with existing revelations to be believed because God doesn’t change, and therefore, neither should the doctrines.
Its too bad that you couldn’t back up a few post to see what I was referring to. But of course the Catholic teachings are consistent with scripture. In the Catholic Church, we interpret scripture throught the prism of the apostolic tradition. We have the advantage of having had the people who wrote the scriptures describe how to interpret what they wrote and furthermore, to fill in the gaps between their writings. This was taught through word of mouth and passed on from generation to generation. By what authority to you interpret scriptures differently?
Its really disappointing that you can spend the time to write but not the time to read the answers. But for starters, ready John 1: 1-4:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race.
And where do you get this information? Yes he called the council but he didn’t have a vote and the final doctrine of the trinity was consistent with scriptures (and different from Arius). Try reading what I attached in my previous post.
Tell me what Church doctrinal teachings are non-apostolic. That’s exactly where this discussion started. I asked MF Bukowski to give me his list, which he did, and I showed him where everyone of them was either apostolic or not really a Catholic doctrine at all. You claimed the doctrine of the trinity was non-apostolic. I gave you the proof that it was, but you were too lazy (or maybe to be fair, busy) to read it. And yes, we believe that all doctrine was revealed to the Apostles. God doesn’t change so neither should doctrine. What you have in the Mormon church is doctrine that changes when you realize that your previous doctrine was wrong. That doesn’t happen to us, since God gave us the doctrine and he is never wrong.
What you are not understanding is that my own beliefs ARE the LDS position. I am not going anywhere as far as changing. And I am not any more interested in converting than you are. I could never believe in Catholicism. And I am not going through this exercise to make you feel better that you did your best to convert me. Everything I said about the eucharist is both my belief and the LDS belief, and I cited statements by Brigham Young to show that I believed the same thing as he did.