What Was the Apostasy?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Your quotes perfectly define the Mormon position, but there is no basis for your conclusion that He was formed or begotten from the beginning. It says BEFORE Abraham. It could have been before the “beginning” too.

You will only find scriptural support for the Mormon position because there is no such thing as ontological substance in the scripts

 

[mfbukowski]

“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

All this proves is that Christians and Hindus disagree about how many gods there are. It doesn’t disprove Hinduism. Disprove it so that a Hindu will give it up or face an irrational conflict. That is the standard

 

[mfbukowski]

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

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?

I was speaking of Mormon and early christian temple ordinances like baptism for the dead. We can get into baptism for the dead if you like, but I won’t go beyond that in discussing temple ordinances.

 

[mfbukowski]

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

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

I don’t believe this. SUBSTANCE IS X. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUBSTANCE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IN SUBSTANCE, THEREFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS APOSTATE. ITS SUPPOSEDLY WHAT GOD IS MADE OF

GOT THAT?

You know like trans SUBSTAN-tiation, and homoousious or whatever that greek word is? “Being”-- ever heard of any of those?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Ryan, if you are interested in Mormon temple ordinances, I can tell you about them because I’ve had connections in the past from which I received info about them in detail. I’m told they’re based on Masonic rituals but I don’t know whether they are or not since I don’t know anything about Masons. If they are not truly God’s Holy Ordinances, I fail to see the relevance in exploring their nature within this thread.

To the point of this thread, however, there is absolutely no evidence that such rituals were ever conducted in the past, whether the “baptisms for the dead” or the other “endowment” rituals. (All part of the “Great Apostasy” and “Restoration” story.) The claim that these rituals were “restored” is not grounded in any evidence. Similar to the Book of Mormon story, not a shred of evidence exists to support it, while abundant evidence exists to refute it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t believe this. SUBSTANCE IS X. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUBSTANCE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IN SUBSTANCE, THEREFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS APOSTATE. ITS SUPPOSEDLY WHAT GOD IS MADE OF

GOT THAT?

This is a definition of the Mormon “apostasy” that I’ve never heard before. Perhaps what is going on is that anything a Mormon doesn’t understand gets filed under “apostasy”.

You know like trans SUBSTAN-tiation, and homoousious or whatever that greek word is? “Being”-- ever heard of any of those?

It is nothing more than a more precise use of language, describing what has always been believed. The language we use does not change the nature of God.

If you just want to use the word God, fine, but then you have to understand that your definition of the word God is not a Christian definition.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t believe this. SUBSTANCE IS X. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUBSTANCE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IN SUBSTANCE, THEREFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS APOSTATE. ITS SUPPOSEDLY WHAT GOD IS MADE OF

GOT THAT?

You know like trans SUBSTAN-tiation, and homoousious or whatever that greek word is? “Being”-- ever heard of any of those?

I’m missing something. I thought you Mormons believed in a bodily God? Doesn’t that imply some kind of substance.

We however believe in a Spiritual God, who became incarnate as Jesus Christ for our salvation. and you know in John, he is described as the word of God: John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here it describes how Jesus was with God and at the same time was God. It seems that this is a little different than what you say as Mormons…

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m missing something. I thought you Mormons believed in a bodily God? Doesn’t that imply some kind of substance.

We however believe in a Spiritual God, who became incarnate as Jesus Christ for our salvation. and you know in John, he is described as the word of God: John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here it describes how Jesus was with God and at the same time was God. It seems that this is a little different than what you say as Mormons…

Mormons, at least the ones I know, believe that God (aka Heavenly Father) has a body of “flesh and bone” and He appeared, alongside Jesus Christ, who has a similar body of “flesh and bone” to Joseph Smith in the “First Vision” story. For a Mormon to state that God has no substance would appear to contradict their own doctrine. God/Heavenly Father are 2 separate “personages” but “one in purpose” so they re-define the “trinity” that way.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t believe this. SUBSTANCE IS X. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUBSTANCE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IN SUBSTANCE, THEREFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS APOSTATE. ITS SUPPOSEDLY WHAT GOD IS MADE OF
GOT THAT?
You know like trans SUBSTAN-tiation, and homoousious or whatever that greek word is? “Being”-- ever heard of any of those?

Oh, you mean the philosophical idea of essence and substance: Essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.
Yes, I believe there is something about a chair that makes it a chair and not a table.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUBSTANCE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IN SUBSTANCE,

Maybe some of the ex-mormon converts can tell us what it was like as a mormon. Did they grab a fork, shovel, or broom to clean the wet mess off the floor? When you became Catholic did you discover there was something about a mop that made it a mop and not a broom? It must have been very frustrating before you became Catholic.

 

[ryanoneil]

I was speaking of Mormon and early christian temple ordinances like baptism for the dead. We can get into baptism for the dead if you like, but I won’t go beyond that in discussing temple ordinances.

You could tell me about that if you want. (after my Thursday finals are done) I believe it is only mentioned in one verse of the bible (1 Cor 15:29), and there is no mention of it being an early christian temple ordinance.

To be honest, I’ve never heard of such a thing as christian temple ordinances.

 

[MelanieAnne]

To be honest, I’ve never heard of such a thing as christian temple ordinances.

That’s because there was no such thing until Joseph Smith “restored” them.

 

[ryanoneil]

Ryan, if you are interested in Mormon temple ordinances, I can tell you about them because I’ve had connections in the past from which I received info about them in detail. I’m told they’re based on Masonic rituals but I don’t know whether they are or not since I don’t know anything about Masons. If they are not truly God’s Holy Ordinances, I fail to see the relevance in exploring their nature within this thread.

To the point of this thread, however, there is absolutely no evidence that such rituals were ever conducted in the past, whether the “baptisms for the dead” or the other “endowment” rituals. (All part of the “Great Apostasy” and “Restoration” story.) The claim that these rituals were “restored” is not grounded in any evidence. Similar to the Book of Mormon story, not a shred of evidence exists to support it, while abundant evidence exists to refute it.

I like hearing about different things like that. Thanks for sharing.
I always figure if an idea carries any weight it can withstand having holes poked in it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I like hearing about different things like that. Thanks for sharing.
I always figure if an idea carries any weight it can withstand having holes poked in it.

You’re right, it can and should be able to withstand having holes poked in it.

But people don’t always like it.

 

[Snow]

Similar to the Book of Mormon story, not a shred of evidence exists to support it, while abundant evidence exists to refute it.

I’d be willing to wager anything you like that your statement above is demonstrably false.

Will you take the wager?

Prediction: NO

 

[Snow]

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

You know full well (or should) that I have given dates repeatedly.

What the point of incorrectly claiming that I have not?

Do you think it makes you more credible to claim something that is untrue?

 

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Snow
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow
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.

Tsk, tsk tsk.

You know perfectly well that I never claimed I could prove that the RCC is invalid or that God rejects it.

On the other hand, YOU did claim and YOU could prove that God rejects Hinduism or that you could prove that it is invalid.

Yet you try and equate your untrue claim with a non-claim on my part. Busted again.

 

[Snow]

“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

Great - very interesting.

I understand that you don’t care for Hindu theology. You said you could prove that it is invalid - rejected by God.

Are you even going to try?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Great - very interesting.

I understand that you don’t care for Hindu theology. You said you could prove that it is invalid - rejected by God.

Are you even going to try?

Oh yeah, I forget, Mormons think the ten commandments are merely guidelines.

 

[Snow]

snow, you just don’t get it.

Let me assure you that there is no point you could think of that I can’t grasp. You’re points are notable only by their lack of sophistication.

Individual Catholics and individual Mormons sin. I don’t believe anyone is disputing this.

And the point you obviously don’t get that I am alluding to is The Church of Jesus Christ ability to teach/inspire/instill moral behavior into it’s constituents vs that of the RCC

The founding person of your church taught his sin (adultery) as doctrine.

That is not an accurate representation and you know it - that is your representation is deliberately inaccurate. The belief, whether you accept it or not, was that God instructed JS to take plural wives. If one believes the Bible to be the word of God that is not so much a stretch since God did the same thing in the OT. If God commands it, it isn’t simple adultery.

Please post honestly and accurately about our beliefs.

He convinced women who were already married to marry him. He convinced their husbands that it was God’s will.

How many times now have I asked for proof that he committed adultery with women that were married to other men?

How much longer do you think I’ll be waiting for you to back up your claims?

Awhile longer?

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.

I’ll stack up the record of The Church of Jesus Christ in instill Christlike behavior over the track record of the RCC any day.

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

I recommend you bone up on the Ecclesiastical relationship in the RCC of burning heretics at the stake and charges/convictions of witchcraft.

Yes, I get the idea. You have nothing to defend Smith’s actions other than pointing to sins that are common to all humans.

That is untrue as you have been told before. The standard defense is that if God instituted polygamy historical, it is not unreasonable to conclude he might do so again.

 

[Snow]

Oh yeah, I forget, Mormons think the ten commandments are merely guidelines.

Oh - sarcasm. Clever.

You said you can prove it.

Well can you or can’t you??? It was YOUR claim.