Questions To Be Answered

[Jeff K.]

There was a blog out there, and I thought I might toss some of the questions of that blog here. I do not want to post the comments on the blog but will invite the blogger to link here to see the responses.

I personally tend to have much more leniency and respect for those who ask good pertinent questions that are not the normal anti-Mormon psuedo traps. These seem like good pertinent questions to ask with a wry sense of humor, and ones that deserve thought and consideration. I would like to see the responses both for a position and against to reflect the verbage that would be shared among friends without being chained to an agenda of attacking either our church or the Catholic church. Since we can ask people to be banned from a thread, I would like to think such will not be necessary here if we establish how your response should be.

Remember, if you can't articulate your opinion well enough for others to understand it, then perhaps you are not prepared to post it. Meaning everyone should understand what you are posting. I want to try this because of two reasons

1-I have tremendous respect and fond memories of the Catholic church and my Catholic friends are fine examples.

2-I hope to have good responses that allow everyone including myself to think more fully of the answers we may know we have, or rethink the answers we have, but only partially understand.

So lets see how it goes...

Edited July 2, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

So from Shameless Popery

I . The "Great Apostasy" and Apostolic Succession

Cary went right for this one, because he'd been reading about it, and was genuinely confused by the Mormon position. In a nutshell, here's the LDS position:

Mormonism teaches that not long after Jesus Christ's lifetime, internal rebellions within the early Christian community caused the primitive Christian Church, led by the Twelve Apostles to disappear and be replaced by many factions, each of which had pieces of the truth, but not a fullness. More importantly, this falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) resulted in a loss of authority, which Mormons call Priesthood. Without proper authority from God, man cannot perform the ordinances of the Church. [...]

Many of the Apostles and righteous members of Christ’s Church were killed by the wicked, and the priesthood along with Christ’s Church were taken from the earth. Persecution of those who were called Christians began in about the first century by the Roman Empire. Revelation could no longer be received on behalf of the Church, because there was no one authorized by God to receive it, although individuals could and continued to receive inspiration in their personal lives. [...]

The Restoration, a necessary event after an apostasy, came about through Joseph Smith. In the spring of 1829, while translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were visited by heavenly messengers who restored to them the Priesthood, the authority to act in God's name. In 1830, the Church of Christ, as the Mormon Church was originally called, was organized officially. The authority to act in God’s name was restored, as was true doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe there are again Apostles on the earth, and a Prophet who guides the Church of Christ through revelation and the power of the priesthood.

So in about 95-105 A.D., the Church which Jesus promised wouldn't be overcome by the gates of Hades, death (Matthew 16:17-19), was overcome by the death of the last Apostle, St. John. But then the Church was restored through Joseph Smith, and it hasn't been wiped out again.

The missionaries explained that the early Church died out because of the wickedness of the people. If Mormons thought Catholics were wicked God-hating apostates, this view would make sense. But that's not the view they take these days. They tend to think that the early Catholics were God-fearing, but just didn't have the full truth. In fact, they think that these early Christians (1) more or less recognized which Books were the word of God (the Old and New Testaments), and (2) preserved these Books carefully. The Mormon Joseph Smith Edition of the Bible is based off of the King James Version, which is based off of the early Christian manuscripts. The JSE makes a few minor tweaks, but it's very close to the KJV.

So we're left to believe that there were early Christians trying to follow God, and doing a pretty good job of it (preserving the Bible, going to the death for the faith, and all that), yet who God considered too wicked for the Church to remain with. If they're too wicked to be trusted with the Church, how can we trust them with the Bible? We raised a few major points in response to these Apostasy/Restoration claims:

1.Why was Joseph Smith able to carry on the Church and Jesus wasn't? Jesus personally founded the New Testament Church in Matthew 16:17-19, and calls it His Church. Within the Mormon view, God's own Church died out faster than 8-track tapes. Cary asked why this view didn't elevate Joseph Smith over Jesus.

2.Doesn't this view leave Mormonism's status in serious question? If the early Church unwittingly fell into a total Apostasy, who's to say that it hasn't happened again?

3.The third pope was already in Rome by the death of St. John. Cary mentioned this, but I thought his point was great. By the time the Apostle John dies, we know from Church history that Peter (who'd died about thirty years before) was succeeded by Popes Linus and Clements. If the papacy was a false Church, and if the rest of the bishops throughout Christendom were phonies, why didn't the Apostle John say anything to condemn them?

4.Jesus praises the early Church. Not only do we see, from the Book of Acts, a Church which is on fire for Christ and rapidly growing, but even by the end of John's life, the Church is still pleasing God. Just read the praises bestowed in the Book of Revelation, perhaps the last-written Book of the Bible. In Revelation 1, Jesus tells St. John to deliver specific messages to each of the seven area churches. And He's got mostly good things to say to the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Philadelphia. Sure, the Church, both locally and globally, had / has / will have problems, but Jesus is encouraging these Christians, not denouncing their wickedness.

This last point is important, I think, because it basically disproves the Mormon case for the Great Apostasy. If, towards the close of the Apostle John's life, there are still worthy men following Christ, men who Jesus Christ Himself announces that He's pleased with, there are surely men to draw the next generation of Church leaders from. The Mormon claim that these Christians were simply too wicked runs headlong into the praises bestowed by Jesus.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Jeff K.

[CV75]

This last point is important, I think, because it basically disproves the Mormon case for the Great Apostasy. If, towards the close of the Apostle John's life, there are still worthy men following Christ, men who Jesus Christ Himself announces that He's pleased with, there are surely men to draw the next generation of Church leaders from. The Mormon claim that these Christians were simply too wicked runs headlong into the praises bestowed by Jesus.

1. Because it is still Jesus’ Church, with Jesus at the head. Joseph Smith is more like Peter (as to holding the keys Jesus gave him), or like the patriarchs through whom dispensations were delivered, than Jesus.

2. The reason Jesus permitted the Apostasy was the same reason He allowed His death (John 12:24). This is one way in which His thoughts are not our thoughts; neither are His ways our ways (Isaiah 55:7-9). The “corn of wheat” is in the “bringeth forth much fruit” stage and so is past death, just as Christ’s resurrection is well beyond death (“as the heavens are higher than the earth…”). So His Church will not die again.

3. John may well have had something to say. It is a weak argument, but perhaps these writings were expunged along with other plain and precious things.

4. Christ is pleased with the faithful in His Church, but such worthy saints do not necessarily hold the keys of the high priesthood, presidency, (or prophesy, seership revelation, translation, etc.), maintain a majority or have the influence to prevent subsequent generations from slipping into error, and from error into wickedness until wickedness prevails (Mormon 1:13-14; 8:10). Much of this may have simply been compounded by communication, distance and organization problems, facilitating apostasy. The tone in the verses containing praise seems to come across as part of a swan song, especially in light of the writings about the apostasy.

[elguanteloko]

1. Because it is still Jesus’ Church, with Jesus at the head. Joseph Smith is more like Peter (as to holding the keys Jesus gave him), or like the patriarchs through whom dispensations were delivered, than Jesus.

This is not an answer.

2. The reason Jesus permitted the Apostasy was the same reason He allowed His death (John 12:24). This is one way in which His thoughts are not our thoughts; neither are His ways our ways (Isaiah 55:7-9). The “corn of wheat” is in the “bringeth forth much fruit” stage and so is past death, just as Christ’s resurrection is well beyond death (“as the heavens are higher than the earth…”). So His Church will not die again.

"Son, why did you break my car's windshield?! "

"Because my ways are not your ways, dad."

Do you see how this doesn't answer the problem? In the same sense, saying "because those are not His ways" doesn't answer the problem.

3. John may well have had something to say. It is a weak argument, but perhaps these writings were expunged along with other plain and precious things.

...yeah, perhaps but not likely.

4. Christ is pleased with the faithful in His Church, but such worthy saints do not necessarily hold the keys of the high priesthood, presidency, (or prophesy, seership revelation, translation, etc.), maintain a majority or have the influence to prevent subsequent generations from slipping into error, and from error into wickedness until wickedness prevails (Mormon 1:13-14; 8:10). Much of this may have simply been compounded by communication, distance and organization problems, facilitating apostasy. The tone in the verses containing praise seems to come across as part of a swan song, especially in light of the writings about the apostasy.

...

[Palerider]

So from Shameless Popery

I . The "Great Apostasy" and Apostolic Succession

Cary went right for this one, because he'd been reading about it, and was genuinely confused by the Mormon position. In a nutshell, here's the LDS position:

Mormonism teaches that not long after Jesus Christ's lifetime, internal rebellions within the early Christian community caused the primitive Christian Church, led by the Twelve Apostles to disappear and be replaced by many factions, each of which had pieces of the truth, but not a fullness. More importantly, this falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) resulted in a loss of authority, which Mormons call Priesthood. Without proper authority from God, man cannot perform the ordinances of the Church. [...]

Many of the Apostles and righteous members of Christ’s Church were killed by the wicked, and the priesthood along with Christ’s Church were taken from the earth. Persecution of those who were called Christians began in about the first century by the Roman Empire. Revelation could no longer be received on behalf of the Church, because there was no one authorized by God to receive it, although individuals could and continued to receive inspiration in their personal lives. [...]

The Book of Revelations intimates that Satan will attempt to destroy the Church and that for a time it will be carried into the wilderness (be hidden among the nations without a true head) until the time for the restoration of Israel, but I see nothing in Old or New Testament that indicate definitively that the restoration will occur as layed out by Joseph Smith.

As a matter of fact the Old Testament nearly always indicates the restoration will take place after the second coming of the Messiah. The Old Testament prophecies are crucial to a correct understanding of the restoration of Israel.

I don't have time to give all of the Old testament "restoration of Israel" references here but leave it to one's own initiative to look them up and look specifically for order of occurences. Most indicate restoration after the second coming of the Messiah.

Again I would also refer one to the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt: 13:24

There is no indication of an attempt to restore the field to it's original purity. As a matter of fact the Lord specifically commands that the wheat and tares are to be allowed to grow together until the harvest and then the tares are gathered first, not the wheat. There is no mention of an attempt to "prepare a people" in advance of the Lord's coming in this parable.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Palerider

[elguanteloko]

The Book of Revelations intimates that Satan will attempt to destroy the Church and that for a time it will be carried into the wilderness (be hidden among the nations without a true head) until the time for the restoration of Israel, but I see nothing in Old or New Testament that indicate definitively that the restoration will occur as layed out by Joseph Smith.

As a matter of fact the Old Testament nearly always indicates the restoration will take place after the second coming of the Messiah. The Old Testament prophecies are crucial to a correct understanding of the restoration of Israel.

I don't have time to give all of the Old testament "restoration of Israel" references here but leave it to one's own initiative to look them up and look specifically for order of occurences. Most indicate restoration after the second coming of the Messiah.

Again I would also refer one to the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt: 13:24

There is no indication of an attempt to restore the field to it's original purity. As a matter of fact the Lord specifically commands that the wheat and tares are to be allowed to grow together until the harvest and then the tares are gathered first, not the wheat. There is no mention of an attempt to "prepare a people" in advance of the Lord's coming in this parable.

"Son, why did you break my car's windshield?!"

"I wrote yesterday that I was going to. I'm a man of my word and I had to fulfill it."

Do you see why saying "The Lord said he was going to allow this or to do this" doesn't justify doing it or allowing it to be done?

Edited July 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Palerider]

"Son, why did you break my car's windshield?!"

"I wrote yesterday that I was going to. I'm a man of my word and I had to fulfill it."

Do you see why saying "The Lord said he was going to allow this or to do this" doesn't justify doing it or allowing it to be done?

Sorry I'm not following your analogy here. Feel free to explain your position more fully. What's your point?

[blackstrap]

Anyone who studies the history of the Middle East and European areas from 100 AD to 1500 AD should be able to see the apostacy and corruption in the religion that Christ presented. To me it is a confirmation of what I call the "200 year " rule. The vast majority of humans are incapable of maintaining a society of peace and brotherly love for more than about 200 years.

[ERMD]

I'm not aware that the Church teaches the early Christians were "too wicked" to have the Priesthood remain with them.

Straw man.

[Jeff K.]

CV75, on 02 July 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

1. Because it is still Jesus’ Church, with Jesus at the head. Joseph Smith is more like Peter (as to holding the keys Jesus gave him), or like the patriarchs through whom dispensations were delivered, than Jesus.

This is not an answer.

Your response is not proper since it does not explain "why" its not an answer. Only that you believe it is not an answer. I would like you to refrain from your usual pattern and explain yourself properly when you make your value judgements upon other people's answers, otherwise I will ask you to withdraw from the thread.

Quote

2. The reason Jesus permitted the Apostasy was the same reason He allowed His death (John 12:24). This is one way in which His thoughts are not our thoughts; neither are His ways our ways (Isaiah 55:7-9). The “corn of wheat” is in the “bringeth forth much fruit” stage and so is past death, just as Christ’s resurrection is well beyond death (“as the heavens are higher than the earth…”). So His Church will not die again.

"Son, why did you break my car's windshield?! "

"Because my ways are not your ways, dad."

Do you see how this doesn't answer the problem? In the same sense, saying "because those are not His ways" doesn't answer the problem.

It is a little better, but not quite there.

Quot

e

3. John may well have had something to say. It is a weak argument, but perhaps these writings were expunged along with other plain and precious things.

...yeah, perhaps but not likely.

Then you need to explain "why" it isn't likely. In other words it is not enough to pronounce the opinion you have as an axiom.

I would like this discussion to be one in which people fully explore the issues without making haphazard judgements upon other poeple's answers. Note that some scriptural backing was made in reply, as a basis for judgement. You offered very little to counter the issues beyond your lack of acceptance. I would enjoy reading your response more clearly when it is a full response. In other words, if a Catholic were to come and read the dialogue they would see that people are giving thought to the answers and questions involved, not simply judging them.

I tried to set the rules and tone in order to get everything off on the right foot.

[elguanteloko]

Sorry I'm not following your analogy here. Feel free to explain your position more fully. What's your point?

All your answer practically said was, "God said (through the scriptures and prophets) he was going to do so" but nowhere in here is that in question. The point is "Why?"

The son of the analogy could have indeed written and promised yesterday that he was going to break the car's windshield but saying that he wrote it or promised he was going to do it doesn't answer the question "Why did he choose to do it?" satisfactorily any more than if someone asks Y why she chose to kill her husband she answers she wrote yesterday she was going to.

[Jeff K.]

So from Shameless Popery

I . The "Great Apostasy" and Apostolic Succession

Cary went right for this one, because he'd been reading about it, and was genuinely confused by the Mormon position. In a nutshell, here's the LDS position:

Mormonism teaches that not long after Jesus Christ's lifetime, internal rebellions within the early Christian community caused the primitive Christian Church, led by the Twelve Apostles to disappear and be replaced by many factions, each of which had pieces of the truth, but not a fullness. More importantly, this falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) resulted in a loss of authority, which Mormons call Priesthood. Without proper authority from God, man cannot perform the ordinances of the Church. [...]

Many of the Apostles and righteous members of Christ’s Church were killed by the wicked, and the priesthood along with Christ’s Church were taken from the earth. Persecution of those who were called Christians began in about the first century by the Roman Empire. Revelation could no longer be received on behalf of the Church, because there was no one authorized by God to receive it, although individuals could and continued to receive inspiration in their personal lives. [...]

The Book of Revelations intimates that Satan will attempt to destroy the Church and that for a time it will be carried into the wilderness (be hidden among the nations without a true head) until the time for the restoration of Israel, but I see nothing in Old or New Testament that indicate definitively that the restoration will occur as layed out by Joseph Smith.

As a matter of fact the Old Testament nearly always indicates the restoration will take place after the second coming of the Messiah. The Old Testament prophecies are crucial to a correct understanding of the restoration of Israel.

I don't have time to give all of the Old testament "restoration of Israel" references here but leave it to one's own initiative to look them up and look specifically for order of occurences. Most indicate restoration after the second coming of the Messiah.

Again I would also refer one to the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt: 13:24

There is no indication of an attempt to restore the field to it's original purity. As a matter of fact the Lord specifically commands that the wheat and tares are to be allowed to grow together until the harvest and then the tares are gathered first, not the wheat. There is no mention of an attempt to "prepare a people" in advance of the Lord's coming in this parable.

The question he will ask of course is "Which sections in the Old Testament indicate the restoration will take place after the second coming and not later before the apocalypse?"

[Jeff K.]

Anyone who studies the history of the Middle East and European areas from 100 AD to 1500 AD should be able to see the apostacy and corruption in the religion that Christ presented. To me it is a confirmation of what I call the "200 year " rule. The vast majority of humans are incapable of maintaining a society of peace and brotherly love for more than about 200 years.

How is that apostasy and corruption different from other times listed in the Old Testament, how is it worse? What indiciates the corruption existed to such an extent that God felt the need to withdraw the priesthood from that portion of the world?

Edited July 2, 2011 by Jeff K.

[elguanteloko]

Your response is not proper since it does not explain "why" its not an answer. Only that you believe it is not an answer. I would like you to refrain from your usual pattern and explain yourself properly when you make your value judgements upon other people's answers, otherwise I will ask you to withdraw from the thread.

I didn't think I had to answer the patently obvious but that's fine. That didn't address the problem because to say Christ is the head of the Church doesn't answer why God chose to not call others to sustain the truth while there where many good Christians around.

It is a little better, but not quite there.

If you get the point then that's enough. Do you get it?

Then you need to explain "why" it isn't likely.

because it is unlikely that you live to see your successors at the head of what you consider the most important work in history teaching false doctrines or to overtly divert from the truth and not vehemently oppose them or their teachings. That's why.

In other words it is not enough to pronounce the opinion you have as an axiom.

If it is obvious, then of course only to pronounce it is enough! Why do you think axioms are axioms? lol!

[Jeff K.]

What is patently obvious to you might not be to others, I presume you think you see things differently, so you may need to explain more clearly. Its all I am asking.

[Jeff K.]

Axioms are obvious, and easily accepted. You have not produced axioms so much as opinions. Your opinion and an axiom might be confused by you, but not necessarily by others.

[ERMD]

double post

Edited July 2, 2011 by ERMD

[altersteve]

1.Why was Joseph Smith able to carry on the Church and Jesus wasn't? Jesus personally founded the New Testament Church in Matthew 16:17-19, and calls it His Church. Within the Mormon view, God's own Church died out faster than 8-track tapes. Cary asked why this view didn't elevate Joseph Smith over Jesus.

The Primitive Church certainly did not "die out faster than 8-track tapes." It was a gradual event that could have taken hundreds of years. When the time was right, Jesus personally founded the Restored Church too, and also calls it His Church. Joseph Smith was merely the man through whom Christ restored and carried on His Church in these last days.

2.Doesn't this view leave Mormonism's status in serious question?

If you let it. In my opinion, absolutely not.

If the early Church unwittingly fell into a total Apostasy, who's to say that it hasn't happened again?

Because the Lord has promised that it won't.

3.The third pope was already in Rome by the death of St. John. Cary mentioned this, but I thought his point was great. By the time the Apostle John dies, we know from Church history that Peter (who'd died about thirty years before) was succeeded by Popes Linus and Clements. If the papacy was a false Church, and if the rest of the bishops throughout Christendom were phonies, why didn't the Apostle John say anything to condemn them?

How do you know he didn't?

4.Jesus praises the early Church. Not only do we see, from the Book of Acts, a Church which is on fire for Christ and rapidly growing, but even by the end of John's life, the Church is still pleasing God.

In the Doctrine and Covenants (I forget the chapter and verse), we read that the Lord is pleased with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "collectively and not individually." Likewise, the Lord was pleased with the faithfulness of the Primitive Church, collectively. He was certainly not pleased with how members of the Church were apostatizing.

Just read the praises bestowed in the Book of Revelation, perhaps the last-written Book of the Bible. In Revelation 1, Jesus tells St. John to deliver specific messages to each of the seven area churches. And He's got mostly good things to say to the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Philadelphia. Sure, the Church, both locally and globally, had / has / will have problems, but Jesus is encouraging these Christians, not denouncing their wickedness.

Who said those churches were wicked?

This last point is important, I think, because it basically disproves the Mormon case for the Great Apostasy. If, towards the close of the Apostle John's life, there are still worthy men following Christ, men who Jesus Christ Himself announces that He's pleased with, there are surely men to draw the next generation of Church leaders from. The Mormon claim that these Christians were simply too wicked runs headlong into the praises bestowed by Jesus.

God can still be pleased with someone, even if they are not LDS. I think this implies otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe that God is in all religions and that He is certainly pleased with the faith of Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians, just as He is with the faith of Muslims, Jews, and so on. Christ can announce that He is pleased with whomever, but just because He is pleased with them does not mean that they are the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited July 2, 2011 by altersteve

[elguanteloko]

What is patently obvious to you might not be to others, I presume you think you see things differently, so you may need to explain more clearly. Its all I am asking.

That's a fair thing to ask. It was rather obvious for me as it was written but if it isn't to others then I will explain if asked.

[elguanteloko]

In the Doctrine and Covenants (I forget the chapter and verse), we read that the Lord is pleased with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "collectively and not individually." Likewise, the Lord was pleased with the Primitive Church, collectively. He was certainly not pleased with the apostates.

but yet you have God sustaining his church today (and in many other similar times) and not then in the Great Apostasy times. why?

[altersteve]

but yet you have God sustaining his church today (and in many other similar times) and not then in the Great Apostasy times. why?

If I understand your question, it is because the current dispensation is the dispensation of the fullness of times, meaning it is the final dispensation that will carry the world out to the Second Coming. Every other dispensation was not.

[elguanteloko]

If I understand your question, it is because the current dispensation is the dispensation of the fullness of times, meaning it is the final dispensation that will carry the world out to the Second Coming. Every other dispensation was not.

Those are prophesies that God planned in the first place (look at the son and father analogy I posed here). So, why did he plan a Great Apostasy and not not-a-Great-Apostasy?

[CV75]

1. This is not an answer.

2. Do you see how this doesn't answer the problem? In the same sense, saying "because those are not His ways" doesn't answer the problem.

3. ...yeah, perhaps but not likely.

4. ...

1. As Jeff K said, it is not helpful to offer nothing but your personal lack of acceptance, as if that meant anything to anyone.

2. The reason Jesus permitted the Apostasy was the same reason He allowed His death (John 12:24). “My ways are not your ways” is a reminder that Christ’s reason for allowing this is counterintuitive to a more worldly ambition that would not allow it to occur.

3. Another fussy, excessively self-centered comment will not merit another reply in the future.

4. See 3.

Edited July 2, 2011 by CV75

[Honorentheos]

The question asked is a good one, but I think the responses so far do not reflect the most critical question - in order to show that the apostasy happened, one should first be able to demonstrate what it was Christ actually taught and what structure his church had prior to it falling into apostasy.

I'm curious, since I've never seen an apologetic on this. What characteristics, based on which sources, do you know were instituted by Christ that were lost?

Thanks.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Honorentheos

[cdowis]

Hello!

There is NO "church position on the apostacy", outside the statements of Christ to Joseph Smith in the First Vision, and found in subsequent revelations.

The rest here in this thread is based on personal opinions and assertions on how the apostacy occurred, and do not represent the "church position".

Just a sanity check, folks.

Now, having said that, I think that Nibley has given us the best description of what happened when he asked, How Will It Be When None More Saith 'I Saw'? here.

You might look at the first few chapters of "The World and the Prophets".

Edited July 2, 2011 by cdowis