Except the writings in the Bible noted bishops had been self appointed, teaching false doctrines, and refused to recieve the Apostles. (3 Jn. 1:9–10 among the others listed above.)There is no Biblical basis for believing there continued to be a need for Apostles and Prophets – the Apostles ordained their successors, the Bishops.
Among other things,What teachings did the members “change” after all the Apostles were dead?
How does that show a TOTAL apostasy? We’ve already acknowledged that individual Churches will apostacize, always have, always will, Jesus said so. But Jesus also promised the gates of hell will NOT prevail, and he’ll be with us always to the end of time. Just like today Mormons have the stragites and an entire host of other Churches that have apostacized from your Church, how do you say the Mormon Church isn’t in a total apostasy then? It’s the same exact thing.Except the writings in the Bible noted bishops had been self appointed, teaching false doctrines, and refused to recieve the Apostles. (3 Jn. 1:9–10 among the others listed above.)
What comes from a succession of leaders in an apostasy?
My friend, take care you don’t make yourself a liar.NDM, you can give no date. Not even approximate. That pretty much destroys your argument. You say something happened, but cannot give even minimal details about it and no evidence it occured. I am afraid you fail the history test. On the other hand Catholicism has ample evidence, as you have seen, that no general apostasy occurred and that our Church has perdured since apostolic times.
This proves nothing. Just because some Bishops were self-appointed doesn’t mean they were accepted by the authorized representatives of the Church. It doesn’t say anywhere that all of the Bishops were self-appointed. This is a ridiculous line of argument. Joseph Smith self-appointed himself with unsubstantiated claims of angelic ministration – what evidence is there anywhere that I should accept his claims when I have an unbroken line of Bishops in the Catholic Church?Except the writings in the Bible noted bishops had been self appointed, teaching false doctrines, and refused to recieve the Apostles. (3 Jn. 1:9–10 among the others listed above.)
What comes from a succession of leaders in an apostasy?
It doesn’t. It is Biblical evidence that one was in process.How does that show a TOTAL apostasy?
It’s only Biblical evidence that some people were in apostasy, not Biblical evidence that a general apostasy was in process. There simply is no evidence to back up your claims.It doesn’t. It is Biblical evidence that one was in process.
None. There is evidence, but you don’t have to find it persuasive. You can accept whatever conclusions you will.what evidence is there anywhere that I should accept his claims when I have an unbroken line of Bishops in the Catholic Church?
But all of these teachings were denounced by the Catholic Church. They don’t show the Catholic Church to have been in apostasy. Since these teachings didn’t survive, they show how well the Catholic Church maintained the Christian faith and defeated heresy.Among other things,
"Some defined matter as intrinsically evil, an idea representing both Greek and Oriental thought (see E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1965, p. 14). Hence, if the body constitutes a “dark jail” from which we should seek to escape, why desire a resurrection? (see ibid., p. 30, note 1). This view contrasts so sharply with modern revelation, which declares that only when the resurrected body and the individual spirit are inseparably connected can there be a “fulness of joy” (D&C 93:33; see also D&C 88:15–16; D&C 138:17). Besides, God used matter to create this earth so it could “be inhabited,” after which He “saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good”—not evil! (Isa. 45:18; Gen. 1:31).
Furthermore, some questioned worshipping a God who suffers. One modern scholar observed that “the human sufferings of Jesus … were felt as an embarrassment in the face of pagan criticism” (Dodds, p. 119)…
Many fell away from the gospel and its “plain and precious” truths (1 Ne. 13:40). It was too simple. They preferred “looking beyond the mark” and searching for things “they could not understand” (Jacob 4:14).
The Apostle John denounced anti-Christs who taught that Jesus hadn’t really come “in the flesh” (1 Jn. 4:3), implying that Jesus’ bodily appearance was an illusion designed to accommodate mortal incapacities (see John 1:1–3, 14)." *Neal A. Maxwell, “From the Beginning,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 18 *
It does nothing of the sort, Christ said the chaff will always be amongst the wheat, no one denied individual Bishops and churches apostacizing, they’re called heretics, there’s been countless in the Christian faith. To quote one verse and claim a total apostasy is taking one gigantic leap. Read up on heresies, the Catholic Church has documented every heresy it has faced, no cover up, you can read extensively exhaustively on any one of them (there is no Mormon heresy, or anything like it, to think the Church erased all memory of this, while documenting every other heresy in detail is another leap of faith I am not going to take with no proof)… And in all this reading there is nothing compelling that points to a total apostasy of the Christian faith, in fact it flies in the face of what Christ said, and clearly makes Christ a liar, and a loser.It doesn’t. It is Biblical evidence that one was in process.
Is it your argument that Biblical evidence that apostasy was occurring in the Church is not evidence that apostasy was occurring in the Church?It’s only Biblical evidence that some people were in apostasy, not Biblical evidence that a general apostasy was in process. There simply is no evidence to back up your claims.
What he’s saying is Jesus said there will be those that apostacize, these are heresies it’s nothing new under the sun, the Church has defeated heresy after heresy, the example you gave is no different than the Church defeating the Montanists, or Judaizers. You can’t show John rebuking one Church and claim the entire faith apostacized. If you’re going to do that be fair, and use the same standard with your faith. After Joseph Smith died the Church broke up into many differeing sects which exist to this day and teach in complete contradiction of each other. Was there a complete apostasy? Or did some of them just apostacize from your faith?You’ve got to be kidding me. Is that really your argument? That Biblical evidence that apostasy was occurring in the Church is not evidence that apostasy was occurring in the Church?
Sorry. You must have missed post 14.And in all this reading there is nothing compelling that points to a total apostasy of the Christian faith, in fact it flies in the face of what Christ said, and clearly makes Christ a liar, and a loser.
I didn’t miss anything, but you are clearly reading past what most people are saying. I don’t have to clean anything up you are not a MOD and shouldn’t rebuke us on the board, I am simply stating that to believe in a total apostasy you have to believe Christ lied, and he was a failure, it’s as simple as that. Total apostasy means Christ failed to set up His Church twice, even Joseph Smith boasted the same thing.Sorry. You must have missed post 14.
And your speaking of Him in that manner is disconcerting, to say the least. Clean it up.
It’s not evidence of the complete apostasy you are claiming. You are the one who has to be kidding about all of this. The whole apostasy claim was simply created out of whole cloth by early reformers and early restorationists as a way to counter the valid claims of the Catholic Church so they wouldn’t have to submit to the Pope. They are the self-appointed ones, not the heirarchy of the Catholic Church.Is it your argument that Biblical evidence that apostasy was occurring in the Church is not evidence that apostasy was occurring in the Church?
That was rude of me. I apologize. I’ve rephrased the response.What he’s saying is Jesus said there will be those that apostacize, these are heresies it’s nothing new under the sun, the Church has defeated heresy after heresy, the example you gave is no different than the Church defeating the Montanists, or Judaizers. You can’t show John rebuking one Church and claim the entire faith apostacized. If you’re going to do that be fair, and use the same standard with your faith. After Joseph Smith died the Church broke up into many differeing sects which exist to this day and teach in complete contradiction of each other. Was there a complete apostasy? Or did some of them just apostacize from your faith?
It doesn’t mean that at all, and the doctrines of the LDS faith posted here clearly demonstrate that.I didn’t miss anything, but you are clearly reading past what most people are saying. I don’t have to clean anything up you are not a MOD and shouldn’t rebuke us on the board, I am simply stating that to believe in a total apostasy you have to believe Christ lied, and he was a failure, it’s as simple as that. Total apostasy means Christ failed to set up His Church twice, even Joseph Smith boasted the same thing.
That’s pretty good. Your asking me to show how what was lost correlates with what was pieced together after it was lost.Please show (and feel free to use BoM JST) the relationship between unique doctrines and practices of the LDS church to the doctrines and practices of the Apostolic age. Show us what was restored. (as opposed to what was completely new to teh world)
Or how well they are coming back to the truth. Interpretations vary.But all of these teachings were denounced by the Catholic Church. They don’t show the Catholic Church to have been in apostasy. Since these teachings didn’t survive, they show how well the Catholic Church maintained the Christian faith and defeated heresy.