Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Apostasy

[cestusdei]

NDM, calling me a liar and still not giving a specific answer to the question is what I have come to expect from Mormon apologists. If you don’t know then say so.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

My interpretation is obviously that yes in LDS theology Christ is a liar and miserable failure, since His promises were not kept and He allowed billions of Christians to worship Him falsely to damnation by trusting in a Church by His own words would never fail us, for nearly two millenia. If you’re offended by that, I don’t know what to say, that’s my only take as a Catholic, that’s any Catholic’s only take. You stating that the Catholic Church rejected Christ and the Gospel and corrupted Christians is offensive to me (and yes the only Christians in the Early Church were “catholics” so saying “people” instead of the “Catholic Church” is no different), but I do not attack you.

Than, as you will, I will happily take back the olive branch. You have revealed your intent sufficiently.

You have now deliberately misstated LDS theology and purposely turned it to say something it does not say. This after having said you understood your accusation was based on a different interpretation of scripture. And now for a third time you have intentionally blasphemed.

You accuse me of attacking the Catholic view. I specifically included, at the beginning of this thread, a quote from a Catholic minister stating that there are two ways to see it. The fact is I have never attacked the view that, from the Catholic interpretation of the scripture, there was never an apostasy, nor could there be, since Christ cannot be a liar. Reading the scripture from that premise I find the conclusion 100% true.

Furthermore, I never stated that “the Catholic Church rejected Christ and the Gospel and corrupted Christians.” You are putting words into my mouth and further doing disservice to yourself. It is preposterous to think I would argue that “Christians” rejected Christ.

Instead, I have said the world rejected Christ (Isa. 53:3), his Gospel (2 Tim. 4:3), and His Apostles. After that, the Lord withdrew the keys and the priesthood. The LDS view is that what the Catholic Church held or put back together, good as it was and is, falls short of the Restored Gospel and Church of Christ. That is the LDS view.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Instead, I have said the world rejected Christ (Isa. 53:3), his Gospel (2 Tim. 4:3), and His Apostles. After that, the Lord withdrew the keys and the priesthood. The LDS view is that what the Catholic Church held or put back together, good as it was and is, falls short of the Restored Gospel and Church of Christ. That is the LDS view.

Blah blah blah more ad-hominem attacks:

" the people rejected Christ, the Apostles, and the Gospel, and thus, Christ pulled the keys and priesthood from the Earth. There was no failure of Christ in LDS doctrine"

That’s what you said, and yes the Catholic Church is included by “the people” is it not? Your snowjob may work on people who have not read a lick of LDS theoology, I’ve read Nephi I and Nephi II, I know darn well what it says, and what the LDS taught for over 100 years about the Catholic Church, or any other Christian Church for that matter. I mean just until what 15 years ago the endowment ceremony had Catholic priests and Protestant ministers taken payment from satan, so seriously enough with this snowjob about what the LDS thought of the Catholic Church and all Churches, they are all an abomination in His site, so let’s stick to reality instead of revisionist history here. I am not blaspheming anything, you are simply not in agreeance with what I’m writing. Why it bothers you to the point of attacking I don’t know.

I don’t need an olive branch, I do request you stop attacking me though. When you have two churches both laying claim to the one and only authority there will be heated discussion, no reason to try and read my intent, or judge my heart, just argue the words.

 

[majick275]

Brother. I appreciate you restating the challenge. Unfortunately, you are still asking me to show, in the Bible, how the restored knowledge of the initial Church and its teachings, that were lost, are evidenced in scripture (the Bible) that was pieced together after they were lost!

no I am NOT! The JST is supposed to overcome the translation errors and restore the “plain and precious things” that are attributed to the “apostate” bible. That would appear to overcome your limitations of “the bible”. More importantly I invited you to use the BoM for this as well. The chief piece of the “restoration” according the the LDS church is the BoM. That is NOT the bible and it has been touted since Joseph Smith as having the “fullness of the gospel”. So once again show me what was restored please.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

NDM, calling me a liar and still not giving a specific answer to the question is what I have come to expect from Mormon apologists. If you don’t know then say so.

Sorry, cestudei, but I didn’t. I said you risked making yourself a liar. The answer to your question/s, which you accuse me of not answering, appears throughout the thread, specifically in post 54.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

That’s what you said, and yes the Catholic Church is included by “the people” is it not?

Post 114.

And all these off-topic attacks you offer were discussed last week. Your attempted diversion is not helping your case any.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Post 114.

And all these off-topic attacks you offer were discussed last week. Your attempted diversion is not helping your case any.

Uhhh post 114 was the one I was talking about, I read it, I quoted what you said, then you backtracked, but clearly “the people” includes the Christian Church of the day a.k.a The Catholic Church, if it didn’t no need to remove the keys right?

My case has sufficiently been proven by the scores of posters here, specifically the ex-LDS members whom I thank for their knowledge. I like to think I helped, anyway it’s important that Catholics or any Christians know the true history of the Church of the devil and what Mormonism believed about all other Christian Churches for the vast majority of their history.

The fact is proving a total apostasy is impossible because all Biblical evidence is on the Catholic side, as well as historically. That’s been proven here time and again.

You can’t say that the apostasy can’t be proven Biblically because the “plain and precious parts” were removed, then try to use the Bible (which you say is corrupted) to prove a total apostasy. You also cannot show between the JST and the BofM what exactly was restored. If the BofM contains the fullness of the Gospel, show us what was restored in the BofM.

 

[majick275]

The institution of the Twelve Apostles was meant to last forever. The individual Apostles would have died, and others would have been appointed to succeed them.

and yet we don’t see that in scripture anywhere. In fact the biblical definition of apostles proves that CAN’T be the case. And I still ask why does the LDs church have 15 apostles?

 

[majick275]

Than, as you will, I will happily take back the olive branch. You have revealed your intent sufficiently.

You have now deliberately misstated LDS theology and purposely turned it to say something it does not say. This after having said you understood your accusation was based on a different interpretation of scripture. And now for a third time you have intentionally blasphemed.

You accuse me of attacking the Catholic view. I specifically included, at the beginning of this thread, a quote from a Catholic minister stating that there are two ways to see it. The fact is I have never attacked the view that, from the Catholic interpretation of the scripture, there was never an apostasy, nor could there be, since Christ cannot be a liar. Reading the scripture from that premise I find the conclusion 100% true.

Furthermore, I never stated that “the Catholic Church rejected Christ and the Gospel and corrupted Christians.” You are putting words into my mouth and further doing disservice to yourself. It is preposterous to think I would argue that “Christians” rejected Christ.

but you DO! for the Great Apsotasy theory to be true as you describe it the Catholic Church MUST have at some point or at least over some period of time have rejected the “true” gospel and the people calling themselves Christians had to have chosen to follow the apostate church. (at least those who didn’t die off) so for about 1800 years this must be true for the LDS position to be correct.

Instead, I have said the world rejected Christ (Isa. 53:3), his Gospel (2 Tim. 4:3), and His Apostles. After that, the Lord withdrew the keys and the priesthood. The LDS view is that what the Catholic Church held or put back together, good as it was and is, falls short of the Restored Gospel and Church of Christ. That is the LDS view.

okay but the world includes the Catholic church and at that time it would have been pretty much “the world” of christendom at least. LDS doctrine is clear that the existing church of that time (which was solely Catholic) rejected the “true” gospel of Christ and deviated from what the Apostles taught so much that ALL sacramental authority was pulled. The doctrines of the Catholic church have not changed since then so it must follow that it “held” rahter than put back together it’s teachings and for LDS doctirne to be correct those doctrines must be apostate. I still want to know on this what makes the Nicene creed an abomination?

 

[cestusdei]

Now this is an intelligent request. I’ll try to give you all four.

(1) As certainly as there was apostasy occurring within the Church (as cited in scripture above), there is no one date that can be attributed the “general” apostasy of the church membership. Such apostasy began during the lives of the Apostles and continued through (if not hastened by) their deaths.

(2) I cite posts 1, 15, and 18.

(3) For obvious reason, I cannot tell you from the Bible when the Lord withdrew the keys, revelation, and priesthood (the authors) from the apostatizing church, if that is what you are asking, but I can give you these suggested dates of letters chronicling the apostasy:

1 and 2 Thessalonians (ca. A.D. 50–51)
James (ca. mid-50s A.D.)
1 Corinthians (ca. A.D. 56)
2 Corinthians (ca. A.D. 57)
Galatians (ca. A.D. 58)
Colossians (ca. A.D. 61)
1 Timothy, Titus (ca. A.D. 63)
2 Timothy (ca. A.D. 67)
Jude (ca. A.D. 80)
Revelation (ca. A.D. 96)
1–3 John (ca. A.D. 98)

(4) Again, there is no “date” of the apostasy, so in that respect, I cannot give you one. It was not a council held at a certain time to decide to abandon the Apostles and their teachings. It was a process of deviation and a struggle of men seeking power to usurp the leadership of the Church of Christ, and a general falling away from the Apostles and the doctrines of the Gospel. It began early and continues, in many respects, today.

NDM, you admit you cannot give even an approximate date. You cannot say much other then it was a process and happened after the apostles. Rather vague since we do have records from that time period. Those records do not indicate any general apostasy. I am afraid you have been lied too, but not by me. I believe the lie was promulgated by one Joseph Smith in order to give a facade of apostolic authority to himself. Thanks, so far Mormons are unanimous in being unable to give me an answer on when the alleged apostasy occurred.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

no I am NOT! The JST is supposed to overcome the translation errors and restore the “plain and precious things” that are attributed to the “apostate” bible. That would appear to overcome your limitations of “the bible”. More importantly I invited you to use the BoM for this as well. The chief piece of the “restoration” according the the LDS church is the BoM. That is NOT the bible and it has been touted since Joseph Smith as having the “fullness of the gospel”. So once again show me what was restored please.

Well, you need to make up your mind. Do you want me to show you what truths were restored (out of the BOM and JST), or how those restored truths are evidenced in the early Church? They are not the same question. One is too easy and would take a thousand posts, and the other is ridiculous.

As to your curiosity over the “fullness of the Gospel,” Joseph Smith wrote in the Book of Mormon introduction that the Bible contains the “fullness of the Gospel.”

What is the “fullness?”

“The Savior declared that the Book of Mormon contains “the fulness of [His] everlasting gospel.” How did He define the gospel? The resurrected Lord taught, “This is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.” [3 Ne. 27:13]

Then He amplified that one-sentence definition: “My Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me.” [3 Ne. 27:14]

This unique mortal mission of the Lord—the gospel as He defined it—we know as the Atonement. The fullness of the gospel, therefore, connotes a fuller comprehension of the Atonement.” Russell M. Nelson, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 69

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Uhhh post 114 was the one I was talking about, I read it, I quoted what you said, then you backtracked, but clearly “the people” includes the Christian Church of the day a.k.a The Catholic Church, if it didn’t no need to remove the keys right?

The withdrawing of the keys and priesthood and the rejection of Christ are two different issues. Yes, the LDS believe the Catholic Church (if we assume it is the remnant of the early church) lost the keys. No, the Catholic Church did not reject Christ.

You asserted I claimed the latter. I didn’t.

 

[Saint_Michael]

The withdrawing of the keys and priesthood and the rejection of Christ are two different issues. Yes, the LDS believe the Catholic Church (if we assume it is the remnant of the early church) lost the keys. No, the Catholic Church did not reject Christ.

You asserted I claimed the latter. I didn’t.

You didn’t say the priesthood, this is what you said:

“the people rejected Christ, the Apostles, and the Gospel”, the people includes the early Christian Church, which for arguments sake we will say is the Catholic Church. If that isn’t the case then there is no need to remove anything correct?

 

[majick275]

Well, you need to make up your mind. Do you want me to show you what truths were restored (out of the BOM and JST), or how those restored truths are evidenced in the early Church? They are not the same question. One is too easy and would take a thousand posts, and the other is ridiculous.

using the BoM and/or JST as the “evidence” of what the doctrines and practices were in the early church (defined as the period starting with Jesus Christ baptism and ending with the death of the last apostle) show me what doctrines and practices that are unique to the LDS church were restored by Joseph Smith. Specifically I am looking for the ones that the LDS church has indicated are most important: Eternal Marriage, Temple Endowment, First Presidency, Necessity of Perpetuation of the body of the Twelve Apostles, necessity of the perpetuation of the OFFICE of prophet as head of the church, redeeming the dead, Aaronic and Melchisadec Priesthood with offices of bishop, high Priest, Seventy, Elders, Priest, Teacher and deacon as discrete functions with specific responsibilities, bishoprics and stake presidencies as leadership of local congregations…that’s a good start and appears neither ridiculous nor something that requires “thousands of posts”.

As to your curiosity over the “fullness of the Gospel,” Joseph Smith wrote in the Book of Mormon introduction that the Bible contains the “fullness of the Gospel.”

What is the “fullness?”

“The Savior declared that the Book of Mormon contains “the fulness of [His] everlasting gospel.” How did He define the gospel? The resurrected Lord taught, “This is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.” [3 Ne. 27:13]

Then He amplified that one-sentence definition: “My Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me.” [3 Ne. 27:14]

This unique mortal mission of the Lord—the gospel as He defined it—we know as the Atonement. The fullness of the gospel, therefore, connotes a fuller comprehension of the Atonement.” Russell M. Nelson, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 69

I see Russel Nelson defining “fullness” I want to see the scriptures doing the same. I think he extrapolates here. I think we BOTH know what “fullness of the gospel” means in LDS terms. In this particular usage I mean it should overcome the obstacle to knowing what was restored by telling what the original was.

 

[majick275]

The withdrawing of the keys and priesthood and the rejection of Christ are two different issues. Yes, the LDS believe the Catholic Church (if we assume it is the remnant of the early church) lost the keys. No, the Catholic Church did not reject Christ.

You asserted I claimed the latter. I didn’t.

then what did you mean in post 121 when you said the world rejected Christ? If the Catholic church was the only church worshipping Christ on the earth at that time (i hope this isn’t in dispute) and if the entire world rejected Christ (necessary claim of the great apostasy) then how did the Catholic church NOT reject Christ? if we didn’t ( which I believe) then we never apostatized which means no great apostasy which means joseph Smith was wrong.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

You didn’t say the priesthood, this is what you said:

“the people rejected Christ, the Apostles, and the Gospel”, the people includes the early Christian Church, which for arguments sake we will say is the Catholic Church. If that isn’t the case then there is no need to remove anything correct?

Post 108 and 114. Read it in context.

What ever it is you think you need it to say is just not happening.

To restate:

The people (of the world) rejected Christ, not the Christian Church/s or believers (as evidenced in scripture cited above).

The people (of the world) and the Church/s or believers generally, rejected the Gospel the Apostles taught (as evidenced in scripture cited above).

The people (of the world) killed the Apostles and some of the Church/s or believers had begun to reject them (as evidenced in scripture cited above).

After all that, the Lord withdrew the keys and the priesthood and those remaining with them.

This is the LDS view.

 

[majick275]

so you are saying that the church never rejected Christ but lost it’s authority because the “people of the world” rejected Christ ?

It appears that you are saying that the Church never rejected Christ but DID reject the gospel that the Apostles taught and THAT is why it lost it’s authority. is that true?

if so, which teachings and when?

 

[NotreDameMormon]

so you are saying that the church never rejected Christ but lost it’s authority because the “people of the world” rejected Christ ?

It appears that you are saying that the Church never rejected Christ but DID reject the gospel that the Apostles taught and THAT is why it lost it’s authority. is that true?

if so, which teachings and when?

We’re getting closer, I think.

mormon.org says it like this:

“After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord took the priesthood authority and His Church from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it.”

To me this says the LDS view is:

There were still some righteous members of the Church remaining.

The rest departed from the truth.

Despite the few righteous remaining, the apostasy was sufficient to require Christ to withdraw the keys and those that held them from the world.

The remaining Church, with what truth/error it contained, continued.

That continuing Church was not what had been established by Christ.

 

[kellie]

I have been following this thread intently, and have been doing research of my own about the Mormons.

I wish to say my opinion, and please bear in mind that I live in Melbourne Australia, and will give my opinion as an Australian, who does not wish to offend any Americans, as you guys are our mates.

It appears to me, and I have stepped back from my Catholic faith, and read this thread from a logical viewpoint, that it is so highly illogical that Jesus would set up His church on earth, telling His Apostles that He would never leave us, and then change His mind, and leave us for 1800 years.

The Apostles were killed for preaching the Word of Jesus, so I find it so illogical that they would set themselves up for early deaths, if they had no plan as to how the church was going to continue.

It seems to me, and this is where I may offend some Americans. and that is not my intention, that an American named Joseph Smith decided, after reading the Bible, that he didnt want to be loyal to “Rome”, so made up his visions and revelations, and started his own “American” church, so that he could proudly boast that Jesus chose an American to be the new leader of the “proper” church.

Therefore giving another facet of power to America, in the way of the “correct” religion.

I know America has lots of power, and I applaud all you guys do in being at the forefront of technology and economic strength, but to think Jesus chose an American to rebuild His church with is truly laughable.

Maybe Jesus tried to reveal Himself to an Aussie, but couldn’t understand our accent

 

[Maxply]

Kellie: Good post, and you would be showing courtesy and kindness to we Americans if you forebore pointing out that American archeology shows that the whole early American context of Mormon history could not possibly have existed.

Let alone the substantive DNA evidence.