Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[Sput]

As Nisfor pointed out, when considering the road Mormonism has traveled in the past 175 years, it's hard to to look at a 2,000 year old Church and accuse them of apostacy just because some things changed.

A big difference is that the 2000 yr old church claims it cant change and has the literal meaning of so called claims. The LDS church claims that it can change in righteousnous. If the LDS church changes it does so through a modern day prophet seer revelator. If the other church changes they look at the old manuscripts to and change their interpretation to fit their change. But thats just my opinion. I believe Heavenly Father loves us so much he would want a direct line to someone to communicate his will to his children here on earth. And the 2000 year old church severed that line with its dogma of the heavens are sealed and the bible is all we need to guide us. And this is as I understood it when i investigated this church. Thats why and where i see the apostasy.

[Deborah]

You were looking for a church with a President, 12-year old deacons and 18 year old Elders?

Technically I had stopped looking. I had read the Bible and felt that there was something missing in all the churches I had been investigating and had decided I would just build my beliefs on what I had read and not join any churches. I felt the doctrine they were teaching wasn't consistent with what was being taught in the NT. I particularly had problems with what was being taught about God and the Godhead; it just didn't feel right. I was also bothered by the inconsistency in what was being taught by the many different churches. It was more the spirit of what I felt in reading that was contrary to what I had found so far. As soon as I walked into an LDS building I knew by what I felt that this is what I was searching for; I felt that same spirit I felt in reading the scriptures. I only learned afterwards that I had found a church with an organization that was consistent with Biblical accounts and that was consistent throughout the world, and with a leadership that spoke authoritatively on doctrine which made sense to me. I found a church that like that in the NT that sent missionaries to teach the world.

I do not find a problem with 12 year old priesthood holders. Both Samuel the prophet in the OT and King David were called to serve when they were very young. Jewish boys are considered to come of age at age 13 even today. I would think that the church of Christ would train it's priesthood holders from an early age and expect more of them than the world does.

[Neighbor]

Probably there is a scholarbable term for my sort of restorationist inquiry -- but I find

very few kindred souls within Latter Day Saintism, as the focus here seems to be

entirely upon the post-Pentecost "church," without reference to what went on before

that, in the various Jesus-follower groups.

I wonder, if seated at the feet of James the Just, say, in about 45 CE, whether I would

have heard the theology evident in the Pauline epistles ---- or, perhaps something else?

Uncle Dale

Neighbor: Having a restorationist background myself, I've had similar experience and considerations cross my mind. One poster said it there was a void of understanding of what Jesus taught during the fourty days between His resurrection and ascention to heaven - I rather doubt that an issue except for those who want to think they have some special truth that is not in the recorded gospel texts.

Early Christians taught the gospel by the OT, as the NT was not yet written. Even Revelation is mostly quotes from the OT in showing their future application. We are without excuse for ourselves if we have the very teachings of Jesus Christ in our hands today (Bible, Bible, you've got a Bible:-). It is as though we are there with our Lord as He taught from town to town, the very events of His trial, testimony, crucifiction and resurrection. No, we are without excuse to say we just don't know enough to have faith in what He said to do. We need to be about hearing those things and doing them. The gospel is about belief, repentance, faith in and obediance to Jesus Christ as Lord - no apostle said differently.

Someone questioned what Jesus taught during the 40 days after His resurrection. I marvel at that because it is giving in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Just read Acts 1!!!:-) Basicly, Jesus did the following:

1. Showed proof to enough people to verify He indeed had resurrected from the dead.

2. As with the two disciples on the road - He taught those things about prophecy that He indeed had fulfilled.

3. Gave the apostles commandments. (Acts 1:2, 10:34-48)

4. Taught about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ( what was yet to come to fulfilled prophecy about the kingdom and Israel)

Perhaps the more interesting question is that after these things the disciples still had a couple of questions. The last being "Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" This past weekend we attended a prophecy conference with David Hocking in Modesto - the most powerful witness of the Revelation of Jesus Christ that I've ever heard - and to see how current events are falling into place for the very Day of the LORD. Better get ready.

IMO - the forceful taking of the Lord's body on earth could happen at any time now. I don't think anything stands in the way, and then you should see the falling away as the man of purdition is revealed?

What do LDS teach about the beast and the false prophet of Revelation?

(escatology) (forgive my bad spelling:-)

[Hyrum Page]

A big difference is that the 2000 yr old church claims it cant change and has the literal meaning of so called claims.  The LDS church claims that it can change in righteousnous.  If the LDS church changes it does so through a modern day prophet seer revelator.  If the other church changes they look at the old manuscripts to and change their interpretation to fit their change.  But thats just my opinion.

And it is an opinion that seems to arise from ignorance about how the Catholic Church actually works. Catholics also believe in continuing revelation, no? I was told that popes supposedly do receive revelation, and that this is one reason why the pope's words carry the weight they do. But I may be just as ignorant about Catholicism, or more. I am just trying to be fair.

I thought one of the major Protestant beefs with Catholicism was the Apostolic Tradition, which "added" to scripture. Sola scriptura, from a Protestant view, was really the only correct way to arrive at the right doctrine. If only it were this simple. And it is precisely because some folks concluded it was not so simple that the desire for a new revelation from God to set things straight emerged.

And so . . . there was this young man in upstate New York who was confused about which church to join . . .

Obviously I am not an expert historian of Christianity through the ages. If I am substantially wrong on some point, please correct me.

[Sput]

ACatholics also believe in continuing revelation, no?

Like what indulgances? Heavenly father revealed to its prophet you can buy your way to heaven? From Church and Pope infallibility how can they change something? From what I understand and like i said before this is my opinion. I was under the impression that they looked for scriptural reference and interpretation to make policy and doctrine.

So your still on your typical theme of attack with verbal garbage with your superior intellect and knowledge of every subject. I personaly rather remain in humility and continue to use identifiers such as my opinion from my understanding and other words that reference myself.

And yes due to the confusion and the world not having a place of religous freedom. Heavenly father came to a boy named Joseph Smith to set things straight.

Moderator: The mockery is unnecessary. Be respectful of other religions when on this board.

[Smith]

Probably there is a scholarbable term for my sort of restorationist inquiry -- but I find

very few kindred souls within Latter Day Saintism, as the focus here seems to be

entirely upon the post-Pentecost "church," without reference to what went on before

that, in the various Jesus-follower groups.

If we are talking about apostacy are you suggesting there was apostacy of the Church as it is being established as this is the time that Christ is just barely gone and the apostles are in full swing?

Someone questioned what Jesus taught during the 40 days after His resurrection.  I marvel at that because it is giving in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.  Just read Acts 1!!!:-)  Basicly, Jesus did the following:

1.  Showed proof to enough people to verify He indeed had resurrected from the dead.

2.  As with the two disciples on the road - He taught those things about prophecy that He indeed had fulfilled.

3.  Gave the apostles commandments.  (Acts 1:2, 10:34-48)

4.  Taught about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ( what was yet to come to fulfilled prophecy about the kingdom and Israel)

So what did he do for the other 39 days? And why not one word recorded?

[Hyrum Page]

So your still on your typical theme of attack with verbal garbage with your superior intellect and knowledge of every subject.    I personaly rather remain in humility and continue to use identifiers such as my opinion from my understanding and other words that reference myself.

Sput, I am *trying* to be nice here. I disagreed with your assessment of the Catholic Church. I said it _seemed_ that your position on it was springing from ignorance, and then I granted that I may be *just as* ignorant about this subject, or even MORE. I see very little of the humility you claim in your characterization of Catholicism. Furthermore, I invite you to reread my actual post, in which I repeatedly point out my possible shortcomings in the field of Christian history.

I thank you for the generous assessment of my superior intellect and knowledge of every subject, but I disagree. I am simply trying to be reasonable and fair. I will point out instances in which I see others being less reasonable and fair than I think they ought to be. Your post looked to me to be an example of this.

And yes due to the confusion and the world not having a place of religous freedom. Heavenly father came to a boy named Joseph Smith to set things straight.

So I take it that you do not classify this portion of my post as part of my persistent "theme of attack with verbal garbage." At least I said one thing that did not set you in high dudgeon.

[SteubieU]

We do not believe in continuing revelation, we believe in the development of doctrine. I already posted an explanation of this understanding, but here it is again:

If we believe that God revealed everything in Jesus Christ, yet, as John says that if everything about Jesus could not be contained in an entire library, than it would stand to reason that what is left for the Church, besides proclaiming the gospel, is unpacking that revelation.

And that is what we find: a development of doctrine.

All it means is that there are certain revealed truths that the Church is given, and as more and more people come along and internalize these truths, the fuller meaning of them is unpacked. It also means that when more and more people are explaining these truths, it is inevitable that some people will make honest, though dangerous mistakes. Since we believe in an authority structure that is protected by God from making mistakes in doctrine, there is a solution to this problem: this authority structure clarifies what is true doctrine and what contradicts that fundamental revelation that we have been given.

So, to recap: there is nothing new given for public revelation after the death of John, the last apostle. Everything that seems to be "new" is really a fuller explanation of the basic truths that the early Church new about.

[rhinomelon]

To build on what Steubie was saying in the last post:

I've been reading through the church fathers as of late, and I was reading Polycarp last night. I found a couple references that might be of interest. In one, Polycarp clearly says that as followers of Christ, we should look back on the apostolic foundation already laid, i.e. the teachings of Christ and his apostles. Also, at one point he also made reference to the Sacred Scriptures, and then included Paul's letter to the Ephesians as just that.

All through the ECF, even the earliest apostolic fathers (who were direct disciples of the apostles themselves), in the search for truth, the emphasis is always looking backward, to already given revelation. They did not look forward to new revelations, as they were utterly captivated by that singular and penultimate revelation found in Christ. Since this emphasis is so early in the church, to the generation after the apostles, it carries a great bit of weight, and makes the Great Apostasy all the more untenable in my mind.

Add to that the awareness of the apostles themselves, in the writings of the New Testament, that they were handing down the deposit of the faith, not a means to new and different revelations. To them, the revelation had already been given; the task was now to guard it and unpack its meaning, as Steubie has already pointed out.

Take care, everyone

[Hyrum Page]

So, to recap: there is nothing new given for public revelation after the death of John, the last apostle. Everything that seems to be "new" is really a fuller explanation of the basic truths that the early Church new about.

From my position as a non-Catholic, this seems to be a semantic difference, but you are Catholic and it is not for me to tell you what you believe.

As an outsider, when I see doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation, they look like something new. I suppose you would say that they were implicit in the tradition already. I don't know. I see very little to suggest that Mary's parents did not conceive her by natural means, or that they did, in the New Testament. How would one naturally arrive at the conclusion of Immaculate Conception?

[SteubieU]

To them, the revelation had already been given; the task was now to guard it and unpack its meaning, as Steubie has already pointed out.

Take care, everyone

Actually, I am going to have to disagree with you on this point Rhinomelon. We believe that revelation ended at the death of the last apostle, even though Jesus is the fullness of revelation. The reason we believe this is because of Jesus's promise that He would send the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth: John 16:13.

Though it is all found in Jesus, He also makes it so that the Holy Spirit will give them insight and revelation after His Ascension because, as Jesus Himself says, "he will nto speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13).

Also, this explains the New Testament, which we believe are inspired by God. Everyone after the apostles could only guard and unpack: the apostles could "add" when told to add by the Holy Spirit, and they were also charged to guard and unpack what had already been revealed to them.

[Deborah]

And so a loving God leaves us to continue to flounder in our confusion without any concern that we might be getting it wrong? Or doesn't care enough about us to continue to send prophets and give them guidance for our day and time?

[Sput]

So even though rough around the edges my interpretation and simple understanding; how ignorant and gruff it may be was correct in that sense.

Deborah I testify that he loves us so much that he has talks to us again through his prophets. Even though they are fallable they are still his prophets.

[SteubieU]

From my position as a non-Catholic, this seems to be a semantic difference, but you are Catholic and it is not for me to tell you what you believe.

As an outsider, when I see doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation, they look like something new. I suppose you would say that they were implicit in the tradition already. I don't know. I see very little to suggest that Mary's parents did not conceive her by natural means, or that they did, in the New Testament. How would one naturally arrive at the conclusion of Immaculate Conception?

Though this is a little off topic, I will explain to give an example of the development of doctrine.

First, the doctrine is this: Human beings contract original sin upon their conception. Mary, though conceived in a natural way by her parents, was preserved from original sin by a singular grace of God in anticipation of the merits of Christ.

Of course as a non-Catholic, you probably won't agree with original sin, but lets, for the sake of this argument, take it for granted through the interpretation that the Catholic Church has taken of Romans 5.

According to the Catholic understanding, Adam and Eve were created without original sin. When they fell, they lost the original justice and holiness in which God had created them.

Catholics would also understand that Jesus, because of His divinity, could not have original sin; it would be an impossibility.

The Bible reveals that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and that, as a result, a lot of bad consequences (even if they eventually led to a lot of good ones) happened. The Bible says that a woman was tempted by a serpent, she transgressed and then in some way caused her husband to transgress. (Later revelation clarifies that this serpent is the devil: see Rev. 12).

In the redemption, Mary was approached by an angel, and her "yes" in some way allowed for the Christ to be born, by whom all of humanity was saved.

Paul writes of Jesus as the "last Adam" in Romans 5.

Now, a writer of the second century, reflecting on these pieces of revelation, wrote:

"[Eve], having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve

[SteubieU]

And so a loving God leaves us to continue to flounder in our confusion without any concern that we might be getting it wrong? Or doesn't care enough about us to continue to send prophets and give them guidance for our day and time?

Again, He does care. He gave us everything we need to know about Himself through the Apostles. He entrusted the Church to be the pillar and foundation of truth, and He protects her from making error.

[Hyrum Page]

Mary, though conceived in a natural way by her parents, was preserved from original sin by a singular grace of God in anticipation of the merits of Christ.

And this flows out of the New Testament how? I'm sorry. I just don't see how this isn't something "new," i.e. akin to revelation. But again, I could be wrong; I cannot tell you what such things mean in Catholic tradition; and I am simply trying to point out what they look like from out here.

Now here is the interesting part: Ephesus has a place that claims to be the place where Mary died. However, there is no place that claims to be the place where Mary is buried, nor are there any relics of Mary's body.

This gives credence to the idea that Mary was assumed into Heaven, body and soul, upon her death.

We get our bodies back after death in the Resurrection; the only persons who would get them back sooner is a person who has no stain on their soul from sin or original sin: since Mary was assumed, she must have been conceived without original sin.

I see. This must be where the Apostolic Tradition part comes in? Or not? I can't recall all of this stuff about Mary living in Ephesus and being taken up into heaven being in the New Testament, so I am just asking.

[rhinomelon]

Actually, I am going to have to disagree with you on this point Rhinomelon. We believe that revelation ended at the death of the last apostle, even though Jesus is the fullness of revelation. The reason we believe this is because of Jesus's promise that He would send the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth: John 16:13.

Though it is all found in Jesus, He also makes it so that the Holy Spirit will give them insight and revelation after His Ascension because, as Jesus Himself says, "he will nto speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13).

Also, this explains the New Testament, which we believe are inspired by God. Everyone after the apostles could only guard and unpack: the apostles could "add" when told to add by the Holy Spirit, and they were also charged to guard and unpack what had already been revealed to them.

Actually, I agree with you here completely. I was getting the apostles and their instructions to their disciples mixed up. My bad. Thanks for the correction!

[SteubieU]

And this flows out of the New Testament how? I'm sorry. I just don't see how this isn't something "new," i.e. akin to revelation. But again, I could be wrong; I cannot tell you what such things mean in Catholic tradition; and I am simply trying to point out what they look like from out here.

I see. This must be where the Apostolic Tradition part comes in? Or not? I can't recall all of this stuff about Mary living in Ephesus and being taken up into heaven being in the New Testament, so I am just asking.

Well, this doctrinal development is something that won't necessarily be clear simply by looking at the New Testament, though I did try to give you pretty much the basis of the doctrine, and how it is based in, though not restricted to, the New Testament.

Well, that there is no evidence of Mary's burial or of relics of Mary's body is simply historical fact. Combine that with the veneration that Mary was shown right from the beginning, and there ya go.

Remember, these doctrines are not something that have to be clear right away since that is the whole point of them "developing." Even great Saints have doubted some of these points of development. A person is not obliged to believe them until they are defined by the Church as part of the Deposit of Faith.

[Uncle Dale]

Probably there is a scholarbable term for my sort of restorationist inquiry -- but I find

very few kindred souls within Latter Day Saintism, as the focus here seems to be

entirely upon the post-Pentecost "church," without reference to what went on before

that, in the various Jesus-follower groups.

If we are talking about apostacy are you suggesting there was apostacy of the Church as it is being established as this is the time that Christ is just barely gone and the apostles are in full swing?

Indeed --

I sincerely doubt that Jesus ever established a church. His "congregation" or "ecclesia"

was the Jewish people, already divided into a number of sects and classes when he

first began to preach the Gospel, about a generation before the destruction of the

temple in Jerusalem.

I also sincerely doubt that Jesus ever had "Twelve Apostles" that constituted the core

structure of a "church," or that Saul/Paul became an additional apostle after Jesus'

crucifixion.

Given those understandings, the beginnings of a falling away from Jesus' doctrines

may be seen as early as the final year or two of his life, with both the "confession"

and "denial" of Peter, the recorded inability of some of the Jesus desciples to fully

understand their master's message, the incipient divisions hinted at in the Coptic

Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of the Apostles, etc.

My view is that the Gospel of Jesus barely survived his own lifetime -- though its spirit

and purpose have been spread world-wide in the last 2000 years. In that sense, yes,

an apostasy -- but not "of the Church." Rather, a splintering and a falling away "within

the congregation," from a period before the betrayal by Judas, and continuing down

through history to this very day.

There are several hundred different sects of Christianity, messianic Jews, and

related religious groups in the world today. Were Jesus to return now, can we really

suppose that he would embrace the Reorganized LDS, or the Church of Christ,

Temple Lot, or some other organization as FULLY representing what he taught, said

and role-modeled nearly 2000 years ago?

No doubt TBMs will say, "yes, yes, yes!" and point at their organization as that fully

orthodox representation of Jesus' "ecclesia."

That, of course, is not my opinion.

Uncle Dale

[USU78]

If I understand LDS dogma correctly, we are in the final dispensation of the Gospel,

and the LDS Church, by definition, cannot fall into apostasy -- nor can any of its

living prophets lead it astray.

Correct?

The RLDS Church, by contrast, went into apostasy even before its formation, in that its

founding members did not follow Brigham Young, the living prophet of the only church

that has never (and will never) become apostate (in that its leader cannot lead it into

doctrinal error, and because in the final dispensation, priestly authority will not again be

taken from the earth)

Correct again?

Uncle "now try telling the Saints down at Short Creek that particular doctrine" Dale

But only if you can find them to serve the arrest warrants.

[flavo]

It says that "On this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18). How can this be true if God's church lost its authority?

A gate is not an offensive weapon. A gate is used to keep people in or keep others out. The "gates" of hell would not prevail against the truth of God. Not that the gates of hell would overtake the church and destroy it. Just that at the proper time when the gospel was restored the gates could not prevail against revelation. This is the rock spoken of, revelation.

"And if ye know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

How can you be freed unless you are captive? Captives are locked up. A gate could be used to keep people captive.

I believe the scriptures quoted from Matt. are the most miss understood in the whole bible.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle "now try telling the Saints down at Short Creek that particular doctrine" Dale

But only if you can find them to serve the arrest warrants.

Actually, the FLDS doctrine is fully in accord with what I said earlier, about the Church

not being able to go into apostasy, and the living prophet not being able to lead that

same Church astray, etc.

All the rest of us have to do, is to believe the FLDS party line -- that John Taylor foresaw

the coming Woodruff apostasy, while still in hiding from U. S. marshalls, and made

provision for the TRUE LEADERSHIP to be passed down via a different line of authority

than the modern CofJCofLDS recognizes.

As a young fellow, living in Idaho Falls, I heard of a Mormon neighbor, who had been

approached by old school polygamists and secretly converted to their doctrines. The

neighbor reportedly performed temple work for the fundamentalists for a number of

years, before eventually declaring his polygamist lifestyle openly, and then joining the

LeBarron group with a half-dozen of his first wife's "sisters."

He was a teacher in the LDS Seminary, then located across the street from Idaho Falls

High School. Next time your seminary or institute teacher assigns you to do a "special

report" on the last days of President John Taylor -- beware.

Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

Having a restorationist background myself, I've had similar experience and considerations cross my mind. ...

Yes -- you and I do parallel each other on a few points. I will never be a Protestant

or Disciples of Christ sort of restorationist -- but I do acknowledge the overlap.

Best wishes,

Your Uncle Dale

[Deborah]

Again, He does care. He gave us everything we need to know about Himself through the Apostles. He entrusted the Church to be the pillar and foundation of truth, and He protects her from making error.

Well, I guess it depends on what church you are talking about because I sure find a lot of error in the non-LDS churches. And how does he protect her from making errors if there is no revelation to set someone straight when they start digressing?

[rhinomelon]

Well, I guess it depends on what church you are talking about because I sure find a lot of error in the non-LDS churches.

I find a great deal of error and confusion in the LDS church as well.

And how does he protect her from making errors if there is no revelation to set someone straight when they start digressing?

This statement could basically sum up one of the reasons I did not convert to the LDS church when I was investigating earlier in my life. One aspect of mainstream Christianity that I have grown to love and appreciate over the years is that it quite stable. This stability was something I found lacking in the LDS church, as revelation could change the foundational beliefs of the faith over night, as it has in the past. With mainstream Christianity, the revelation that informs and reforms all our doctrines, thoughts, and actions has already been given. The Church is built on a foundation of revelation, to which it goes back to find truth. New beliefs and odd ideas that pop up constantly are judged according to what has already been given; we don't sit around waiting for a revelation to sort it all out for us.

The house that is built is only as stable as its foundation, and I've discovered that the most stable foundation around is that found in mainstream Christianity. It does not change. The New Testament and the ECF are saying the same things every time they are read. It is not always clear, nor is it always interpreted and acted out correctly. But over time, it is the oldest ideas and concepts that stay the course and continue to guide the church, while the unfounded speculations of each generation fall by the wayside without support.

Hope this makes sense. Take care, everyone