Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Questions To Be Answered


Recommended Posts

There are a great deal of assumptions we make using scripture and even writings of contemporaries, regarding the question of the apostasy.

But there is no official doctrine regarding it beyond Christ's words to Joseph Smith. But much can be inferred. For instance if there were no apostasy, there would have been no need for a restoration of priesthood, Joseph Smith would simply have been told where to go in order to study, and who should ordain him. Of course for us Christ's words are enough.

Catholics however would ask what evidences other than Joseph Smith's view could be brought forth to help bolster (in their minds) the claims we make.

Link to comment

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp:

The end of the apostolic era carries special fascination. Paul compared the apostles to a parade of men “appointed to death,” a spectacle in the world’s theater on their way to execution. (1 Cor. 4:9.) James, brother of John, was executed in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and James, brother of the Lord, followed in 62. Nero’s persecution then destroyed Peter and Paul in 67. John outlived the rest but was not seen after the “times of Trajan” (A.D. 98 to 117). And things were not to get any better for the Church: predictions of a dark future only deepen in the last books of the New Testament, including the writings of John. What happened after he finished Revelation?

The answer can be found in the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, Christian authors writing soon after the apostles. 1 The writings of three bishops—Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna—are particularly informative of dangerous administrative and doctrinal deviations that occurred twenty to forty years after the Church lost Peter and Paul. Their letters date from the time of John’s Revelation and a little beyond—critical years when nonapostolic church government was first fashioned and, oddly, the most poorly documented years in Christian history. Anyone arguing for Christian continuity has little evidence from the decades after the second century began, even though by the end of that century (as the accompanying chart suggests) a rich literature pours from Christian apologists, administrators, scholars, and historians. Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 crystallized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyranny. The pre-Nicene church visibly shows the shock of losing apostolic leadership; the earlier the writing, the deeper that shock.
New Testament books contain many warnings that such bishops should expect the church’s disintegration in their lifetime. The leading example is Paul’s final speech to the local leaders of Ephesus. While Paul labored at populous Ephesus for a full three years, he reached “almost all Asia,” the surrounding province. Naturally, he should have been enthusiastic about the future of the work. Instead, we find the opposite. He called together the “elders” from Ephesus and alluded to their inspired calling as “overseers” (Acts 20:28), a King James term all other times translated as “bishop.” He warned them of inside dangers: “grievous wolves … among you, not sparing the flock.” False leaders would arise “of your own selves,” seeking power by “speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29–30.) That prophecy, equally plain in English or Greek, helps clarify another of Paul’s prophecies where translation somewhat obscures the meaning. Near the time of his death, Paul wrote Timothy regarding Christian believers: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” (2 Tim. 4:3.) “Having itching ears” describes the false teachers in this English translation, but in Greek the participle can only modify “they.” That is, Christian believers (the topic of Timothy’s instructions) will have fickle ears for new teachers that please them. The result is simply corruption of the Christian gospel: “They shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:4.) Both of these prophecies have this in common: every false doctrine is brought by a false teacher. Paul warns not merely of erroneous teachings, but of the scheming leader.

Showing contemporary views which were reflected in Christs point to Joseph Smith.

Link to comment

EbedWorldwide.png

Sadly, the history of God dealing with people is one of the people turning away from God. Isaiah prophesied it and gave the reasons why.

“The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” (Isaiah 24:5)

Christ foretold that the Kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and then sent his disciples to preach to the gentiles.

“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

However, Paul, the principal missionary to the gentiles, predicted the apostasy would happen after he was gone. (Acts 20:29-30)

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30)

Paul said that the people would turn from the truth to fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Paul described the living conditions today; the marriage problems, the hypocritical lying, the false doctrine and the departure from the faith. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

Paul foreshadowed the divisions and many denominations of today. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)

“For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)

Paul told us that we are deceiving ourselves if we believe that Christ will come without the falling away or apostasy happening first. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3)

“NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3)

According to the nineteenth century theologian, Barton W. Johnson, this apostacy was the result of a “gradual declension, corruption, and departure from the ancient faith”.

“Except there come a falling away first. An apostasy must precede the Coming. That is, there shall be a general falling away from the purity of the faith. No apostasy of magnitude occurred in the history of the church for centuries, which could answer to Paul's description, but the gradual declension, corruption, and departure from the ancient faith, which was fully developed a few hundred years later, has always been spoken of by Protestant church historians as The Apostasy. There is no good reason for doubting that it is to the apostle refers.” (Barton W. Johnson, “The People's New Testament”, St. Louis: Christian Board of Publications, [1891], vol 2 of 2, pg 252)

If the members of the early church were “deserting” Jesus (Galatians 1:6) when the apostles and prophets were among them, what did the church do when there were no apostles or prophets to guide them?

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6-CEV)

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ to follow a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6-ISV)

“I can't believe your fickleness--how easily you have turned traitor to him who called you by the grace of Christ by embracing a variant message!” (Galatians 1:6-MSG)

In answer, the church fulfilled what John the Revelator foresaw – a world-wide apostasy inspired by Satan.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:7-8)

Paul wrote to the saints in Ephesus and described how Jesus the organized his church. He listed some of the offices of the priesthood: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. (Ephesians 4:11)

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” (Ephesians 4:11)

Paul taught that Jesus designed this organization to extend the ministry of Christ, to aid in the perfection of the saints and to build the church. (Ephesians 4:12)

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” (Ephesians 4:12)

We know that it was a total apostasy because Paul went on to say that this organization was needed until we all believed the same, until we truly know Christ and until we reached a point of perfection similar to the perfected level attained by Christ. (Ephesians 4:13)

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:” (Ephesians 4:13)

Obviously we do not believe the same or we would not be having this conversation, nor do we measure up to the full measure of the stature of Jesus Christ. Sadly, the structure as outlined by Paul ceased to exist with the death of the Apostles and prophets of the early church.

In Ephesians 4:14 Paul explained what happens without Christ’s organization. This is a vivid description of the current state of affairs with Christianity, with its multitude of denominations fractured by doctrinal differences.

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” (Ephesians 4:14)

This general apostasy fulfills the prophecy of a long famine without “hearing the words of the LORD.” (Amos 8:11-12) For 1700 years, the longest period ever recorded in the history of God’s dealings with man, no prophets were called, no apostles were set apart, no communication from God was received, written or delivered to the people.

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:11-12)

The good news is that the famine ended in the early 19th century when Jesus restored His Gospel and His church. God has chosen a prophet who is in communication with Jesus Christ, the true head of the church. Once again apostles are set apart to be special witnesses of the risen Christ. All the other officers of the church are called and they carry out their official duties using the authority extended by Jesus. The ordinances have been revealed and the covenants have been renewed. Christ’s Church is now restored.

Link to comment

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.

Whoa big guy. Nowhere did I say that "God said he was going to do so". Just because the scriptures reveal something is going to happen, doesn't mean God is causing it to happen. If you're asking me why God chose to allow it to happen that way, you're asking the wrong person (ask Him) and I'm not sure that is a question that is being asked in this thread.

Perhaps you need to start a different one?

Link to comment

Whoa big guy. Nowhere did I say that "God said he was going to do so". Just because the scriptures reveal something is going to happen, doesn't mean God is causing it to happen.

What I said God said was going to do was to allow the Great Apostasy to happen. I'm not saying he caused the Apostasy like an active thing he did, that's silly. God said (according to Mormons, that is) that he was going to do something. That something was to allow the GA.

If you're asking me why God chose to allow it to happen that way, you're asking the wrong person (ask Him) and I'm not sure that is a question that is being asked in this thread.

Perhaps you need to start a different one?

Not why he allowed it to happen "that way" but why he allowed it to happen at all. The reasons given don't work. I also never said he "made it happen" (in an active way) but that the reason you gave does NOT explain why he would let SOMETHING (anything, really) happen nor make anything happen.That you said you were going to do X or allow X to happen does NOT justify you doing X or allowing X to happen. Example: "I said I wasn't going to help my family so I'm justified in not doing it." lol

Edited by elguanteloko
Link to comment

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.

Man, you are choosing to do this the hard way when you don't really need it to answer this issue. Simply show the traditional reasons given by Mormons don't work and then you have no reason to follow what they say (and that would show THEY also don't have good reason to follow what they say with regards to the GA and the Restoration).

admittedly, your way is much more profitable but inconvenient for the average Joe who doesn't have time to specialize.

Link to comment

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?

What?

Link to comment
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.

Since the precise time of the apostasy cannot be ascertained and the structure of the church went through various changes from apostles and prophets to cardinals and popes, it would be difficult to show exactly when and where. We are reduced to tracking the changes alone with an understanding of the end result.

Link to comment

Man, you are choosing to do this the hard way when you don't really need it to answer this issue. Simply show the traditional reasons given by Mormons don't work and then you have no reason to follow what they say (and that would show THEY also don't have good reason to follow what they say with regards to the GA and the Restoration).

admittedly, your way is much more profitable but inconvenient for the average Joe who doesn't have time to specialize.

What you are missing from your assumptions about what Mormons believe about agency (which is understandable as Mormons ourselves sometimes fail to understand why God allows things contrary to His law to happen).

One of the most enduring and important gifts God gave His children is the ability to choose evil and good for themsevles (our agency). Study Mormon beliefs about pre-mortal life and Satan's plan to force our obedience, vs. Christs plan to allow us to choose for ourselves and provide the atonement for when we inevitable fell short.

The great apostacy is a parallel on a macro scale of our individual failings and redemption.

Our ability to choose does not keep God from knowing our character and predicting how we will choose, and thus put into place the proper mechanisms to correct our course when we lose our way.

The parent of any child will try to teach them not to play sharp objects. They will also be intelligent enough to stock extra bandaids for their curious children.

The understanding of the underlying belief in God's respect for his children's agency is fundamental to understanding the LDS point of view on individual sin and group apostacy. This is a concept that those with a calvinist or similar view sometime struggle to understand.

Link to comment

I have also enjoyed many wonderful conversations with a faithful Catholic friend who shared my commute. We set aside the differences of "which church was right" and were able to listen to each others reasons for our belief. It was instructive and edifying as we explored similarities and differences between our common faith in Christ.

My attempt at the OP:

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.

Jesus did carry on His Church through prophets in several dispensations. The primary role of Jesus mortal ministry was to atone for our sins. Prophets in other dispensations were to establish His Church on earth which points people forward or back to the meridian of time and brings them unto Christ. Joseph's role was not different than other prophets who were commissioned to bring people unto Christ. None of those prophets were the savior. The fact that Christ gave his authority to apostles during his lifetime was no different than Christ restoring them in other dispensations. The failure of manking to perpetuate the church as Christ organized it was not a failure of Christ it was a failure of men - leading to the need for additional dispensations of the Gospel.

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?

Either the Catholics are correct or the Mormons are correct or neither is correct. Continually seek the truth and go with what the Holy Spirit tells you is true (I am very honest in telling my non-Mormon friends to follow that advice for themselves). Mormons of course believe that God's promise that His established Church would not fail in this last dispensation (preparation for the second coming of Christ) will not fail.

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?

I'm not sure but were the Bishops in rome considered the head of the entire world church at that time, or is that a more contemporary interpretation of what happened with the authority of the Church (i.e. when did the head of the church in Rome assume the authority of head of the worldwide church?) Without that knowledge I cannot say what the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and the living apostles truly was. I plead ignorant.

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.

None of the other churches or congregations were universally praised or condemned by the apostles. The apostolic writings indicate that debates and corrections did exist. The LDS don't set a specific date on the great apostacy and in fact view the events as a gradual falling away from authorized practices and creeping in of false traditions. It is not an all or nothing event at a specific time. The apostolic debates confirm our belief that there were irregularities and disagreement. History is full of historical issues that cast doubt on the authority of the Papacy including Popes excommunicating each other (Popes in my own ancestry did this - sorry folks!)

Please don't mistake my belief for authority residing in the LDS priesthood for disrespect of the Papacy. The long history of the Popes and Catholics is full of admirable and miraculous events and I have very high respect for modern Popes who I describe as men of God.

Link to comment

Catholics however would ask what evidences other than Joseph Smith's view could be brought forth to help bolster (in their minds) the claims we make.

Well, nothing really. We have the Book of Mormon, modern revelation, we have almost fifteen witnesses to various divine events such as the visitation of angels and the vision of the Lord. We have a very specific test of JS's calling as given by the Lord to receive personal revelation.

Outside that, we have absolutely nothing.

A small footnote, a book was recently written by the archivist of the church archives, and she made an interesting comment: The early Christians had a welfare program very similar to the one by the LDS church.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

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.

Because Jesus first of all, had to die for the sins of the world, so we could have the atonement, and repent. He had a limited time here on Earth. And when God the Father asked him to die, so he did. Jesus was able to carry the church... but he was also bringing to past a new law... the old one being fulfilled. I would imaigne it would be really difficult to show a people so used to the old law, a new one, of more spiritual things. This may make it harder for Christ to carry the church past his time.

As for his church... it didn't die out. It was just corrupted for a while. God allows us to go astray... and he will give us a chance to come back too. For us, we believe he was waiting for Joseph Smith to restore his ordinances. Why? I don't know. Perhaps Joseph was in the right place, at the right time... I do not know God's mind... I just know that whatever God chose, it was right =).

There's a verse in 3rd Nephi, actually, that describes what Christ's church is:

And how be it amy bchurch save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

...If it so be that they are built upon my gospel. I think the Church still existed... it had just lost it's priesthood power... similarly to what happened to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon... except that they lost it differently... more in some ways.

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?

The word's of the prophet's tell us otherwise. However, in terms of individual apostasy, yes, that could happen, but nah, not the entire church, because it has been spoken that it will not happen. If you would like a source, I would be happy to give one, just ask =). Or if someone else posts one, that is good too =).

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?

I don't think the Pope's had quite the sense of position as they did in the middle ages and onward. Technically, was not the Pope just the Bishop of Rome, at that time? In any case... there was still much fighting going on... consider the issue of the Trinity, for instance. It did not solidify until many years later... council of Nieca. How many years was that... 'twas quite a few. Because of this, I don't think things were quite as centralized... and as they centralized... without an apostle, or a prophet, to lead them, things got... slightly off, so to say. And as the years passed by, more things were lost and changed... not even necessarily on purpose. But it happened. God had a plan though... a Restoration. Perhaps that is why he waited - he had a plan to do the things he thought were best.

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.

One sec... Acts... Jesus had been crucified before then, right?

In any case, yes, things were going fine then. But again... Christian doctrine didn't exactly solidify until well later after John died. Things were changed, whether we like it or not. It is up to the opinion of many though, as to what was changed.

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.

That's how Jesus works =).

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.

And yet, they didn't cooperate. Were there not bickerings between the various groups at this time? Things were not perfect. If you look in his letters 1st to 3rd John... he does have some criticisms... bad things have entered into the world. He compliments them for being faithful... but at the same time, he warns them... things are not going to be perfect. I think this sets the stage that John thinks things could go either way. After all, why would he right Revelation... a powerful book... if things were not seen to go awry. And things were slowly taken away, I think. Maybe not immediately... but sometime.

The Mormon claim that these Christians were simply too wicked runs headlong into the praises bestowed by Jesus.

We do not claim this actually... we claim that things slowly fell apart... little by little slipped away. We claim that the Great Apostacy didn't happen 'quickly', but neither 'slowly' either. It happened... at a steady rate... with many groups bickering, years after Christ's death. For all I know... Christ's ordinances and priesthood could have still been upon the Earth by John's death... but not long after, it was removed, in our view.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

Link to comment

Since the precise time of the apostasy cannot be ascertained and the structure of the church went through various changes from apostles and prophets to cardinals and popes, it would be difficult to show exactly when and where. We are reduced to tracking the changes alone with an understanding of the end result.

Jeff,

I think there are many problems one would have to overcome. Not the least of which is with determining who or what sources could be trusted. Relying on Paul, the earliest author, is challenging in that he does not even claim to be an eyewitness to the ministry of Christ. In fact, much of his authentic writings showcase his apparent pride in being in conflict with the Jerusalem apostles. Add to that the number of disputed epistles and we have a hard time indeed.

But setting that aside, I think you have a major problem with the methodology you suggest above. Rather than explain, maybe we can illustrate it simply by examining a shortlist of what you feel are the authentic teachings and institutional structures the modern LDS church and the early Christians shared? If you could put a list of what you feel are the best examples together, I think we'll find the discussion more illuminating than if I were to try and guess at it.

Thanks.

Link to comment

A small footnote, a book was recently written by the archivist of the church archives, and she made an interesting comment: The early Christians had a welfare program very similar to the one by the LDS church.

A little personal study on Sidney Rigdon's history and the Stone-Campbell movement will make this less mysterious.

Link to comment

What you are missing from your assumptions about what Mormons believe about agency (which is understandable as Mormons ourselves sometimes fail to understand why God allows things contrary to His law to happen).

One of the most enduring and important gifts God gave His children is the ability to choose evil and good for themsevles (our agency). Study Mormon beliefs about pre-mortal life and Satan's plan to force our obedience, vs. Christs plan to allow us to choose for ourselves and provide the atonement for when we inevitable fell short.

The great apostacy is a parallel on a macro scale of our individual failings and redemption.

Our ability to choose does not keep God from knowing our character and predicting how we will choose, and thus put into place the proper mechanisms to correct our course when we lose our way.

The parent of any child will try to teach them not to play sharp objects. They will also be intelligent enough to stock extra bandaids for their curious children.

The understanding of the underlying belief in God's respect for his children's agency is fundamental to understanding the LDS point of view on individual sin and group apostacy. This is a concept that those with a calvinist or similar view sometime struggle to understand.

First of all, what you said had nothing to do with the post you responded to. In that post I'm talking about mere methodology; that's it.

Secondly, agency is not in question and is not in opposition to my objections. The fact is many many Christians were NOT presented with the truth because God chose not to, as he had been doing from time immemorial (he sent prophets with the truth to extremely wicked people at most other times... but not to thousands of Christian believers?).

Link to comment

First of all, what you said had nothing to do with the post you responded to. In that post I'm talking about mere methodology; that's it.

Secondly, agency is not in question and is not in opposition to my objections. The fact is many many Christians were NOT presented with the truth because God chose not to, as he had been doing from time immemorial (he sent prophets with the truth to extremely wicked people at most other times... but not to thousands of Christian believers?).

I think he did, of some sort... at least revelators. Not sure if they listened though.

But that is pure speculation on my part, and I am probably totally wrong =P.

Derp. =(

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

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".

Good point, cdwois!!

What we have here is an "apostasy" from the writings and understanding of Hugh Nibley, particularly his well-documented examination in "When the Lights Went Out", a very gradual process -- which has been vastly oversimplified and shortened by the RC blog. Truly a straw man.

There is, of course, nothing unusual in the congregation of God going astray. God's own chosen people have been sent into exile several times for apostasy, as witness the thousands of years of the Diaspora of the Jews, only now coming to an end. One could examine the Nephite apostasy in the Book of Mormon in that same context. God doesn't desire apostasy, and he sends his prophets to stem that tide, only to be confronted with disobedience and denial.

For those who do not understand, it might be well to begin with St. Paul's comments in Romans 9 - 11, and then move on to Jacob 5 - 6. The Catholic doctrine of supercession is false and the time for another axial shift is nigh. For the promise to Abraham and his successors was unconditional.

Link to comment

First of all, what you said had nothing to do with the post you responded to. In that post I'm talking about mere methodology; that's it.

Secondly, agency is not in question and is not in opposition to my objections. The fact is many many Christians were NOT presented with the truth because God chose not to, as he had been doing from time immemorial (he sent prophets with the truth to extremely wicked people at most other times... but not to thousands of Christian believers?).

I never said they weren't presented with the truth. No LDS believes they weren't presented with the truth. The Apostacy deals with the authoritative earthly governance of the Church which is only a subset of the Gospel and the Truth.

You are making too many assumptions about LDS beliefs and that is resulting in a lack of comprehension of what others are trying to communicate to you. This in turn makes your responses inaccurate and sometimes incomprehensible.

Link to comment

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp:

The end of the apostolic era carries special fascination. Paul compared the apostles to a parade of men “appointed to death,” a spectacle in the world’s theater on their way to execution. (1 Cor. 4:9.) James, brother of John, was executed in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and James, brother of the Lord, followed in 62. Nero’s persecution then destroyed Peter and Paul in 67. John outlived the rest but was not seen after the “times of Trajan” (A.D. 98 to 117). And things were not to get any better for the Church: predictions of a dark future only deepen in the last books of the New Testament, including the writings of John. What happened after he finished Revelation?

Showing contemporary views which were reflected in Christs point to Joseph Smith.

Some additional thoughts of your four original points:

1. Joseph Smith didn’t carry the Church. The restored keys, and adherence to the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel carry the Church, and the resultant testimony in its individual members carry the Church. This is what carried the Church in every other dispensation, until the natural forces of abusing or misusing agency the fallen world led to an eventual apostasy, calling for the need of a new dispensation. This is also why Jesus knew, and the early apostles accepted, that the Church would fall away just as surely as they knew they were going to die.

2. The reason this cycle doesn’t continue has to do with the Lord’s timing of His return for His millennial reign—the cycle of apostasy and restoration that has gone on since Adam, and is a characteristic of sin and death having entered the world, is being shut down. This is why it isn’t going to happen again, and also explains why Jesus knew, and the early apostles accepted, that the Church would fall away and be restored one last time just as surely as they knew they were going to die and be resurrected once.

3. I understand there are several key “Johns” that may have been operating and writing epistles during the first century of the Church, and we do not know which one(s) did or did not condemn whom by the proper apostolic authority. Also, the Bishop of Rome merely speaks on behalf of the church, and in this capacity Linus and Clement may or may not have held the greater apostolic keys that Peter held. Since Peter only held the keys of his current dispensation and not the one preparing the earth for the Second Coming, any authority he gave Linus may have been limited, especially in light of #2.

4. It makes sense to have praised the early church members for their faith, even if it were known that their church was going to fall, like praising a terminal patient for maintaining optimal health in one area of his remaining life. Many others were likely wicked, as is evident in many of the warnings against personal apostasy, which contributed to the Great Apostasy.

I’ve suggested that “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24). Adam started this process; he died that man might be (otherwise he would abide alone with Eve in the Garden). Jesus finished it in overcoming his own and everyone else’s death, otherwise every spirit would abide alone, without a body and without unity, being under the control of Satan. As far as the first century church goes, it reflected human frailty in its demise and but now reflects divine power and glory in its restoration. The reason for this, or why it took so many cycles before the dispensation of the fullness of times to arrive, might be the subject of another thread (but I think has been discussed before under why God didn’t just make us perfect from the start).

Link to comment

I never said they weren't presented with the truth. No LDS believes they weren't presented with the truth. The Apostacy deals with the authoritative earthly governance of the Church which is only a subset of the Gospel and the Truth.

You are making too many assumptions about LDS beliefs and that is resulting in a lack of comprehension of what others are trying to communicate to you. This in turn makes your responses inaccurate and sometimes incomprehensible.

You couldn't find the true doctrine from God. I really don't see how you could argue against this. You mean God's true doctrine was on the earth for the period of time known as the Great Apostasy.. but that many were constantly presented with the truth so as to reject it as anyone can reject Mormonism today? If that is the case, then there was no Apostasy and prophets sent from God were preaching "from the mountaintops" as in a dispensation.

Link to comment

The next question on the docket is this...

IV. Polygamy and Contradictions

Most people's argument about Mormon's one-time fling with polygamy (what they refer to as "plural marriage") goes something like this: "You used to do polygamy. The Bible says polygamy is bad. You're wrong." That argument is weak. After all, we see polygamy in the Old Testament, and much of it goes uncondemned by God (we talked about that in the comments here, by the way). The Mormon answer is that just as the Jews are forbidden to eat pork, but not Christians, it's possible that plural marriage is right or wrong for specific people, given the particular culture and context.

So here's the approach I took to the question, instead, with a Q&A with the senior of the two missionaries that went something like this:

•Q: Can God contradict Himself? [i genuinely didn't know the Mormon answer to this, so this wasn't just a set-up].

•A: No

•Q: So I can see how God could theoretically say that plural marriage is right for David and not for Solomon, or vice versa, but can God says that plural marriage is both right for Solomon and wrong for Solomon?

•A: No, that would be a contradiction.

I then read from the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24,

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

We all agreed that sounded quite clearly like the Book of Mormon was saying that God was condemning David and Solomon's plural marriages as an abomination. Then I read from Doctrines & Covenants 132:38-39

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Yup, this passage says that not only was David and Solomon's taking of plural wives not an abomination, it was not even a sin; and not only was it not a sin, these women were given to David by God. Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, is the only exception. At this point, the senior missionary protested that he wasn't a "Scriptorian," and realized it had gotten late and that they had to leave.

Link to comment

The next question on the docket is this...

This person clearly didn't read the Joseph Smith Translation of the Doctrine and Covenants... or was that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Book of Mormon... anyway, one of them clears it all up.

H.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...