Why do Mormons claim an "apostasy" happened?

[Horton]

Here is my issue with the whole LDS “eternal family” idea. So grandpa marries grandma - they have 6 kids, 3 boys & 3 girls, all are “sealed” as an “eternal family”. So the kids grow up and get married, have kids and all are sealed. The grandkids grow up, get married, have kids and all are “sealed”. And on & on

My question is which eternal family are they all sealed to? If daughters are sealed to their fathers, then their husbands, who exactly do they spend “all time & eternity” with? Do sons spend “all time & eternity” on daddy’s planet, grandpa’s planet, or their own planet.

What if there is a divorce somewhere along the line? This is so absurd to me. I fail to understand how anyone can believe this.

 

[Stevenrushing]

There is a strong emphasis in the current LDS faith on the difference between the truths of the Gospel and their interpretation. As an example, previous prophets were absolutely right when they spoke of a “great apostacy”. That is a gospel truth. Those early prophets made a bad interpretation when they spoke ill of early church fathers, or so goes the current teaching. Where 50 years ago you would hear about how evil church fathers after the apostles were, now you hear about how “they did the best they could with what they had”. Often today we hear about how they honestly believed some false doctrine, and so changed scripture with the best of intentions, believing that someone before them must have translated it incorrectly, or transcribed it incorrectly. Before, 50 years ago, and even worse in JS’s day, they were just evil priests who changed the scriptures to fit their own whims.

All of this is largely in keeping with the LDS church’s “we aren’t weird” advertising campaign. The LDS church really is trying to reach out and be more ecumenical. (A church can be “nice” without being correct)

These questions would be for the LDS church to decide.

What I do understand (and any LDS member can correct me if I am wrong) is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that it is always growing in knowledge and understanding of the truth of the Gospel. It admits there have been mistakes, such as with how it handled issues of race in the past. But their understanding is that the mistakes have been with certain interpretations of the truths they cherish, not in the truths themselves.

There is no less emphasis on Joseph Smith or the fundamental teaching on Restoration, however. The Great Apostasy still occurred, and Catholics were involved. But Mormons do realize that their understanding is never all-encompassing, and that final judgment lies with our Heavenly Father and not how any particular Mormon doctrine is understood at any given time.

As I mentioned before, some Mormons find this new view unacceptable and have since left their church because of it and other such admissions. But for the most part Mormons believe that seeing things in more practical terms is far more realistic than mere credulity. Their own experience with the Catholic Church today is a favorable one, and you are unlikely ever to find a Mormon who would openly condemn the Church with the language some have done generations ago in the LDS church.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Here is my issue with the whole LDS “eternal family” idea. So grandpa marries grandma - they have 6 kids, 3 boys & 3 girls, all are “sealed” as an “eternal family”. So the kids grow up and get married, have kids and all are sealed. The grandkids grow up, get married, have kids and all are “sealed”. And on & on

My question is which eternal family are they all sealed to? If daughters are sealed to their fathers, then their husbands, who exactly do they spend “all time & eternity” with? Do sons spend “all time & eternity” on daddy’s planet, grandpa’s planet, or their own planet.

What if there is a divorce somewhere along the line? This is so absurd to me. I fail to understand how anyone can believe this.

It gets even worse.

Sally and Dave get married in the temple and have 2 kids. Then 7 years later when Sally is pregnant with number 3 Dave is killed in an accident. Sally has number 3 goes on a few years and meets Tom falls in love gets married for time only this time since she’s sealed to Dave. Sally and Tom go on and have 3 more kids, unfortunately for Tom they are sealed to Dave because well Sally is. Tom doesn’t ever get to be with his 3 kids for eternity because guess what they go to Sally and Dave. Sally just leaves Tom out in the cold alone in what ever heaven he gets and takes all the kids to live happily ever after with Dave in the CK
Mormon heaven really blows when examined closely.

 

[Marie5890]

It gets even worse.

Sally and Dave get married in the temple and have 2 kids. Then 7 years later when Sally is pregnant with number 3 Dave is killed in an accident. Sally has number 3 goes on a few years and meets Tom falls in love gets married for time only this time since she’s sealed to Dave. Sally and Tom go on and have 3 more kids, unfortunately for Tom they are sealed to Dave because well Sally is. Tom doesn’t ever get to be with his 3 kids for eternity because guess what they go to Sally and Dave. Sally just leaves Tom out in the cold alone in what ever heaven he gets and takes all the kids to live happily ever after with Dave in the CK
Mormon heaven really blows when examined closely.

And we thought Disney’s Goofy was goofy.

It was the so called “need” for temples and temples sealings that became clear to me that it didn’t make sense and had nothing to do with God.

My family is my family because I love them and love doesn’t die upon death.
Has zero to do with being sealed to them. Being “sealed” is not necessary to God.

 

[Stevenrushing]

It gets even worse.

Sally and Dave get married in the temple and have 2 kids. Then 7 years later when Sally is pregnant with number 3 Dave is killed in an accident. Sally has number 3 goes on a few years and meets Tom falls in love gets married for time only this time since she’s sealed to Dave. Sally and Tom go on and have 3 more kids, unfortunately for Tom they are sealed to Dave because well Sally is. Tom doesn’t ever get to be with his 3 kids for eternity because guess what they go to Sally and Dave. Sally just leaves Tom out in the cold alone in what ever heaven he gets and takes all the kids to live happily ever after with Dave in the CK
Mormon heaven really blows when examined closely.

I am no defender of Mormonism but this is simply not true. A woman who is “sealed” to a man who then dies is pretty much stuck with him unless she can fairly well prove that he was “unworthy”. I am not saying it has never happened, but it is insanely rare for the nullification of a “temple marriage” to occur after the death of the husband. The woman may remarry, but it will be an earthly marriage only, and will not have eternal consequences in the eyes of the Mormon church. If the woman dies it is a different story altogether, as the husband will be able to be “sealed” to another wife, as long as wife number 2 is not sealed to another man.

Again, I don’t believe in any of this nonsense, Christ was quite clear in stating that marriage is not a thing in heaven, except that he is the bridegroom and the true church is his bride, but there is plenty enough to criticize the Mormon church about without making things up or criticizing things we mistakenly believe to be true.

 

[Horton]

I am no defender of Mormonism but this is simply not true. A woman who is “sealed” to a man who then dies is pretty much stuck with him unless she can fairly well prove that he was “unworthy”. I am not saying it has never happened, but it is insanely rare for the nullification of a “temple marriage” to occur after the death of the husband. The woman may remarry, but it will be an earthly marriage only, and will not have eternal consequences in the eyes of the Mormon church. If the woman dies it is a different story altogether, as the husband will be able to be “sealed” to another wife, as long as wife number 2 is not sealed to another man.

Again, I don’t believe in any of this nonsense, Christ was quite clear in stating that marriage is not a thing in heaven, except that he is the bridegroom and the true church is his bride, but there is plenty enough to criticize the Mormon church about without making things up or criticizing things we mistakenly believe to be true.

I think she was making this point. Sally and ALL her children are “sealed” to the dead husband.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I am no defender of Mormonism but this is simply not true. A woman who is “sealed” to a man who then dies is pretty much stuck with him unless she can fairly well prove that he was “unworthy”. I am not saying it has never happened, but it is insanely rare for the nullification of a “temple marriage” to occur after the death of the husband.

I think you misread her post. She was saying exactly this. Dave was the celestial husband (husband #1). Dave passed away. Tom is the civil husband (husband #2). Tom will have to be content with his wife Sally spending time and all eternity with Dave, the person with whom she has a valid temple marriage, and not being sealed to any of his own biological children who never even met Dave.

Again, I don’t believe in any of this nonsense, Christ was quite clear in stating that marriage is not a thing in heaven, except that he is the bridegroom and the true church is his bride, but there is plenty enough to criticize the Mormon church about without making things up or criticizing things we mistakenly believe to be true.

I agree. Mormonism has made the mistake in seeing marriage as an end in and of itself rather than a means to an end: the end being salvation. Marriage is a Sacrament; a vehicle of salvation just like the other Sacraments. Just as we don’t get baptized for the sake of being baptized, neither do we marry simply to be married. Once the end of marriage is met marriage is unnecessary.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I am no defender of Mormonism but this is simply not true. A woman who is “sealed” to a man who then dies is pretty much stuck with him unless she can fairly well prove that he was “unworthy”. I am not saying it has never happened, but it is insanely rare for the nullification of a “temple marriage” to occur after the death of the husband. The woman may remarry, but it will be an earthly marriage only, and will not have eternal consequences in the eyes of the Mormon church. If the woman dies it is a different story altogether, as the husband will be able to be “sealed” to another wife, as long as wife number 2 is not sealed to another man.

Again, I don’t believe in any of this nonsense, Christ was quite clear in stating that marriage is not a thing in heaven, except that he is the bridegroom and the true church is his bride, but there is plenty enough to criticize the Mormon church about without making things up or criticizing things we mistakenly believe to be true.

You are saying the same thing I said. Sally is sealed to her first husband Dave, some one she loved but lost. She finds another man Tom, who she also loves and they marry and have children together. Unfortunately for Sally’s second love ALL of Sally’s children will be sealed to her first husband even though some of them are the second husbands children. The second husband will lose his children for eternity because his wife is sealed to someone else.

 

[Stevenrushing]

You are saying the same thing I said. Sally is sealed to her first husband Dave, some one she loved but lost. She finds another man Tom, who she also loves and they marry and have children together. Unfortunately for Sally’s second love ALL of Sally’s children will be sealed to her first husband even though some of them are the second husbands children. The second husband will lose his children for eternity because his wife is sealed to someone else.

I apologize, you are correct, I absolutely misread your post. After rereading and making certain I understand it, it still stands that according to Mormon thought, dad #2 doesn’t lose his children automatically. His children are not “born in the covenant” as his wife is sealed to another man. The only doctrine concerning this is “God is just and it will work out to everyone’s satisfaction and happiness”. It isn’t a satisfying answer, but it is all the LDS church has left itself.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I apologize, you are correct, I absolutely misread your post. After rereading and making certain I understand it, it still stands that according to Mormon thought, dad #2 doesn’t lose his children automatically. His children are not “born in the covenant” as his wife is sealed to another man. The only doctrine concerning this is “God is just and it will work out to everyone’s satisfaction and happiness”. It isn’t a satisfying answer, but it is all the LDS church has left itself.

That is not how I had it explained. They are born to a sealed mother so they would be automatically sealed to her and consequently her first husband. I suppose there is no authority one can turn to in the LDS church to get a definitive answer though, since no one seems to be willing to state clearly just what is and isn’t Mormon doctrine.

 

[Marie5890]

I apologize, you are correct, I absolutely misread your post. After rereading and making certain I understand it, it still stands that according to Mormon thought, dad #2 doesn’t lose his children automatically. His children are not “born in the covenant” as his wife is sealed to another man. The only doctrine concerning this is “God is just and it will work out to everyone’s satisfaction and happiness”. It isn’t a satisfying answer, but it is all the LDS church has left itself.

So they aren’t sealed to their mother because they are not BIC?
So they are going to be sealed to their biological father? but not their mother?

It’s all screwy if one just takes the time to think it thru…

Not saying this to you, personally Steven, I know you are not Mormon in your heart anymore. Im just saying this as an observation as to what you have said.

 

[Stevenrushing]

So they aren’t sealed to their mother because they are not BIC?
So they are going to be sealed to their biological father? but not their mother?

It’s all screwy if one just takes the time to think it thru…

Not saying this to you, personally Steven, I know you are not Mormon in your heart anymore. Im just saying this as an observation as to what you have said.

No, they aren’t going to be sealed to their nonmormon biological father. It is just that there is no real way to know how it will turn out in this life, but in the next it will be to everyone’s benefit and all will agree with the decision (according to Mormon thought). I mean, there are plenty of civilly married Mormons who were BOTH sealed to others, and either their spouses died or they divorced. Who do the kids go to then? There really isn’t any doctrinally sound answer in mormondom except “it will all work out”.

I can see Marie’s point though, many will say that if husband #2 isn’t a member or faithful or something, then the way it will work out is for the kiddos to be sealed to the mom and husband #1.

 

[Marie5890]

No, they aren’t going to be sealed to their nonmormon biological father. It is just that there is no real way to know how it will turn out in this life, but in the next it will be to everyone’s benefit and all will agree with the decision (according to Mormon thought). I mean, there are plenty of civilly married Mormons who were BOTH sealed to others, and either their spouses died or they divorced. Who do the kids go to then? There really isn’t any doctrinally sound answer in mormondom except “it will all work out”.

I can see Marie’s point though, many will say that if husband #2 isn’t a member or faithful or something, then the way it will work out is for the kiddos to be sealed to the mom and husband #1.

Thanks Steven, for what the train of thought is these days.

Reinforces to me that temples really are not needed, since it all works out regardless.
Convoluted thinking

 

[RebeccaJ]

And we thought Disney’s Goofy was goofy.

It was the so called “need” for temples and temples sealings that became clear to me that it didn’t make sense and had nothing to do with God.

My family is my family because I love them and love doesn’t die upon death.
Has zero to do with being sealed to them. Being “sealed” is not necessary to God.

It is not necessary to God, but it is a Sacramental grace. Our confirmation seals us to Jesus.

1296 Christ himself declared that he was marked with his Father’s seal.108 Christians are also marked with a seal: “It is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has commissioned us; he has put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” This seal of the Holy Spirit marks our total belonging to Christ, our enrollment in his service for ever, as well as the promise of divine protection in the great eschatological trial.

So much simpler, no convoluted sealing to humans to be figured out, because we are all sealed to Christ.

 

[JaminB123]

Often today we hear about how they honestly believed some false doctrine, and so changed scripture with the best of intentions…

StevenRushing,

I hear this charge from Mormons occasionally, that early Catholics changed scripture. We hear echoes of this claim in the LDS Articles of Faith (“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”), implying that false translations, whether innocent or intentional, are ample. Specifically what scriptures did we change? What evidence is there of such changes? Archeological evidence seems to suggest that the scriptures are quite reliable, so I’m always perplexed at this charge. Any insight?

 

[Stevenrushing]

A Mormon would point to all the scriptures that JS “fixed” (although his fixes can be found in no ancient text, them not being in the Dead Sea scrolls shook folks faith). The sad truth is that just about any biblical passage that a Mormon disagrees with, they will assume a bad translation before they will assume their understanding is faulty.

 

[XuDan]

A Mormon would point to all the scriptures that JS “fixed” (although his fixes can be found in no ancient text, them not being in the Dead Sea scrolls shook folks faith). The sad truth is that just about any biblical passage that a Mormon disagrees with, they will assume a bad translation before they will assume their understanding is faulty.

There is also the tendency to place weight on “scripture” The D&C, BoM, PoGP, all carry more weight to them than the Bible. You can quote the Bible until blue in the face and it is meaningless if they can justify their beliefs through their own unique scriptures.

I commonly encountered folks who viewed the Bible and corrupted and unreliable, while viewing the LDS scriptures as pure and not corrupted. This is why quoting the Bible lacks impact and influence with many LDS - remember, they believe that they have more reliable and accurate scripture than anyone else and that they hold the only authority to interpret/receive “revelation” on it.

 

[kimg901]

There is also the tendency to place weight on “scripture” The D&C, BoM, PoGP, all carry more weight to them than the Bible. You can quote the Bible until blue in the face and it is meaningless if they can justify their beliefs through their own unique scriptures.

I commonly encountered folks who viewed the Bible and corrupted and unreliable, while viewing the LDS scriptures as pure and not corrupted. This is why quoting the Bible lacks impact and influence with many LDS - remember, they believe that they have more reliable and accurate scripture than anyone else and that they hold the only authority to interpret/receive “revelation” on it.

So why do they use the KJV of the bible if its corrupt? Its the same bible (minus the books taken out) us catholics use (other than the kings English). Does it have to do with the anti-Catholic sentiment of the times?

 

[kimg901]

A Mormon would point to all the scriptures that JS “fixed” (although his fixes can be found in no ancient text, them not being in the Dead Sea scrolls shook folks faith). The sad truth is that just about any biblical passage that a Mormon disagrees with, they will assume a bad translation before they will assume their understanding is faulty.

Is this because they are taught this when entering the church or from an early age? So why would the lds continue to believe when their own teachings cannot be verified?

 

[XuDan]

So why do they use the KJV of the bible if its corrupt? Its the same bible (minus the books taken out) us catholics use (other than the kings English). Does it have to do with the anti-Catholic sentiment of the times?

This is very likely, it was also the most commonly used version in that region during Smith’s time so that probably has more to do with it than anything else. The question is then, why did they stick with it? For that the simplest answer is probably the most correct, because their othe scriptures were written to match the KJV, and it would mean “retranslating” it to more common English.