Is Teaching The Great Apostasy Attacking Other Faiths?

[Joseph Antley]

So, do you think that teaching the great apostasy is attacking other faiths? Does it provide justification for Christian critics who actively oppose the Church?

[fatherofone]

So, do you think that teaching the great apostasy is attacking other faiths? Does it provide justification for Christian critics who actively oppose the Church?

I don't believe it is attacking other faiths, I just believe its pointing out an error somewhere in the line

[cksalmon]

Teaching the Great Apostasy is quite obviously an attack on traditional, "creedal" Christianity.

"Your version of Christianity is perverted and corrupt. Your Bible has been altered. Your beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ are wrong. God the Father had to achieve Godhood; he was once a man; now, he's an exalted manâ??a God. Jesus, too, became a God. Let me show you 'real' Christianityâ??Mormon-style."

I don't believe it is attacking other faiths, I just believe its pointing out an error somewhere in the line

Then defenders of traditional Christianity are not attacking Mormonism, either. They're just pointing out error.

CKS

[fatherofone]

Teaching the Great Apostasy is quite obviously an attack on traditional, "creedal" Christianity.

"Your version of Christianity is perverted and corrupt. Your Bible has been altered. Your beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ are wrong. God the Father had to achieve Godhood; he was once a man; now, he's an exalted manâ??a God. Jesus, too, became a God. Let me show you 'real' Christianityâ??Mormon-style."

Then defenders of traditional Christianity are not attacking Mormonism, either. They're just pointing out error.

CKS

I could accept that. I do not believe there is a need for any attack.

[PacMan]

Of course, it depends who's doing the "teaching."

I think when we are adults, we realize up front that we implicitly disagree with others. When we promulgate certain beliefs, we are in essence saying, "You're wrong." But that doesn't mean that the attack is overt or beyond meaningful discussion.

The real issue isn't the great apostasy as attacking anything...religion's can't be proven true or false. The great apostasy comes from established facts and assumptions. The RRC authoritative claim is untenable, and those holes in their claim are exploited through the defining of the great apostasy. Combative? I think not...at least not nearly as opportunistic.

PacMan

[maklelan]

edit: duplicate post.

[Tsuzuki]

In a general sense, no. When you start naming names, maybe. It depends on how you do it. I think respect is a large factor.

I would also point out that this is only is an issue with faiths that claim infallibility, and that there are certain scientific and technological advances that are/were technically also an attack on these faiths. In the arena of ideas, it's good not to place so much importance on being right all the time, and be willing to accept correction.

[maklelan]

Teaching the Great Apostasy is quite obviously an attack on traditional, "creedal" Christianity.

"Your version of Christianity is perverted and corrupt. Your Bible has been altered. Your beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ are wrong. God the Father had to achieve Godhood; he was once a man; now, he's an exalted manâ??a God. Jesus, too, became a God. Let me show you 'real' Christianityâ??Mormon-style."

Then defenders of traditional Christianity are not attacking Mormonism, either. They're just pointing out error.

CKS

It is an attack, huh? Here's the definition of attack:

Main Entry: 1at

[structurecop]

We firmly believe this and do not waste a penny of our money on trying to tear down anyone's faith. The idea that the sum of these beliefs constitutes an attack at all comparable to sneaking around at midnight and hanging anti-Mormon DVD's on members' doorknobs so that they'll be tricked into thinking they're supportive of the church is ludicrous.

That's all well and good, but try getting through a series of missionary discussions with an evangelical Christian without at some point having to tell them that their current beliefs are wrong (or having them say, "are you trying to say that X,Y,Z that I believe are wrong?"). I've seen more than a few LDS interpret rather benign criticism as an "attack." Try the other shoe on and see how it fits.

[The Dude]

It is a basis for attacking other faiths, but it may not be an attack itself.

[cksalmon]

Everyone who believes they are right has to explain how others are wrong. I believe the question is whether or not teaching the Great Apostasy constitutes an "attack." Our third discussion does not single out any individual faith or doctrine, but teaches that man stopped following God's servants and the priesthood was taken from the earth. Subseq

Hi Mak--

I agree with this, "Everyone who believes they are right has to explain how others are wrong." That's why I fail to see contra-Mormon explanations of traditional Christianity vis-a-vis Mormonism as "anti-Mormon" attacks in the way that some Mormons are so ready and willing to highlight.

The third discussion is not the issue here, Mak. Historically, the point is that the extant Protestant churches known to JS were corrupt and wrong. Their beliefs were wrong. Their creeds were wrong. They proclaimed as doctrine about God things that were false. You're right: the LDS faith does not single out any individual or faith or doctrine. The LDS faith assumes that all pre-Restoration conceptions of Christianity teach blatant falsehoods. There is no specificity here; the brush is broad enough to include all non-LDS conceptions of deity.

Yes, this constitutes an attack. Or, what would you call it? A friendly correction? Then, so is mine. The LDS conception of God is far more blatantly anti-traditionally-Christian than traditional Christians are anti-Mormon. It's a cool buzzword, I guess. But, use of the term "anti-Mormon" utterly fails to acknowledge that "Mormons" are committed to beliefs that are "anti-traditionally-Christian." Mormons are "anti" traditional Christianity. Period.

CKS

[ghedmondson]

I am TBM and I voted YES but not for the same reasons that cksalmon did.

The Restoration is a death blow to over 1500 years of Traditional Christianityâ??s Scholarly Authority. It completely undercuts what Christian philosophers and theologians having been trying build for nearly 2000 thousand years.

â??19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: â??they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.â? JSH 1:19

All were wrong because of the sources of their authority, namely the religious professors and the creeds that they produced. The Prophet boldly declared that his authority wasnâ??t granted to men upon graduation from a seminary, but only when the heavens are opened.

It is little wonder that the professors of his day hated him so and continue to even to this day.

â??21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. â?? JSH 1:21

From the Great Apostasy until Restoration they were in charge, and they were the source. But when the heavens were opened they were fully exposed for the entire world to see. They should have just ignored Joseph but they couldnâ??t. They couldnâ??t just pass him off as a poor crazy farm boy. They planned, conspired, and stirred up those that they could to utterly wipe the Prophet and his new religion.

The Prophet was martyred but much to the criticâ??s dismay the Church flourishes to this day.

The ultimate irony is such events have a very important precedent.

Christ himself was poor unschooled farm boy. He too claimed special authority, not of scholarly study, but from The Heavens Themselves. To the religious leaders of His time He couldnâ??t simply be ignored and so they planned and conspired against Him and his new religion.

And like Joseph Smith, the Saviors fate was sealed when he declared that His authority did not derive from the almost 1500 years of religious tradition but from The Heaven.

â??And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.â? Mark 14:62 see Daniel 7:13-14

By declaring that His authority came from Heaven he undermined the authority of all the religious professors of his day and therefore was guilty of the ultimate sin of blasphemy. A sin for which there was only resolution, death.

Did Joseph Smith and Jesus attack the religious leaders of their day? Yes, but they did not debate the finer points of doctrinal difference, they went straight to the heart of the matter, the authority. Once the foundation of authority is taken away the rest falls in short order.

Bro. Edmodnson

[No Touch]

No.

Saying someone is wrong, mistaken, misinformed, or ignorant is not the same as calling someone evil, a liar, a Satanist, or a cult member.

The word of God having been lost does not mean that those who have lost it have by choice, and that they are evil. However, people who call this an attack will call us an evil cult, undermining Christianity with ideas like abstaining from alcohol, chastity, and obeying the commandments.

[helix]

If teaching about an apostasy is attacking another belief...then the only religious people who don't attack others are Universalists.

How many beliefs state in some form of another "We are right, you are wrong."

How many beliefs state in some form of another "You cannot go to heaven with your current beliefs."

Some people take the concept of a religious belief and turn that into attacking other faiths. "A ha! You believe differently than me. That means you think I'm misguided. You are attacking me!"

[It occurs to me . . .]

I voted yes, but I debated about voting "it depends". I think it's a perception thing. Most LDS members would probably not consider it attacking, whereas many other church's members (ie CK Salmon) would feel they were being attacked, although benignly.

There have been enough books on the subject, and enough quotes by various GAs, to give sufficient fuel to anyone who feels they are being attacked. (see The Great Apostacy, Mormon Doctrine etc).

An alternate question: Is the LDS church being attacked when fundamentalists preach that the LDS apostacized from the "true Mormonsim", that the church leaders went astray, and that they are the only ones with the truth and authority as restored by JS?

[No Touch]

If teaching about an apostasy is attacking another belief...then the only religious people who don't attack others are Universalists.

How many beliefs state in some form of another "We are right, you are wrong."

How many beliefs state in some form of another "You cannot go to heaven with your current beliefs."

Some people take the concept of a religious belief and turn that into attacking other faiths. "A ha! You believe differently than me. That means you think I'm misguided. You are attacking me!"

I completely agree, but then I think it's important to distinguish such beliefs from a real attack - like calling our leaders frauds, liars, and cultists.

[jwhitlock]

Teaching the Great Apostasy is quite obviously an attack on traditional, "creedal" Christianity.

"Your version of Christianity is perverted and corrupt. Your Bible has been altered. Your beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ are wrong. God the Father had to achieve Godhood; he was once a man; now, he's an exalted manâ??a God. Jesus, too, became a God. Let me show you 'real' Christianityâ??Mormon-style."

I'm curious, CK. Why did you feel the need to paraphrase our beliefs in quotes (or is there a reference I'm missing?) in a way that is an obvious mischaracterization of how we would present them?

[cksalmon]

I'm curious, CK. Why did you feel the need to paraphrase our beliefs in quotes (or is there a reference I'm missing?) in a way that is an obvious mischaracterization of how we would present them?

Hi J--

It was a paraphrase, as you wrote. Nothing I wrote, however, was false. Some of it's just "deep doctrine," (to quote the missionary's response when I asked him, "Do you believe that Elohim had to achieve Godhood?" He would neither confirm nor deny.) I'm not really that much concerned with how something is presented; I'm much more concerned with the actual content of belief.

Best.

CKS

[rpn]

How could it be attacking anyone else's faith, unless a person is Catholic? No other faith was involved and all the Protestant faiths also believed in the apostacy --- or they wouldn't exist.

[cksalmon]

How could it be attacking anyone else's faith, unless a person is Catholic? No other faith was involved and all the Protestant faiths also believed in the apostacy --- or they wouldn't exist.

Well, there are quite a few Catholics on earth. And, as a Protestant, let me be the first the say that, no, I don't believe in an apostasy.

Best.

CKS

[Pahoran]

I answered "No," only because there is no option for "Of course not."

To claim that advancing a truth claim that necessarily repudiates its alternatives is an "attack" upon those alternatives, or any of them, is stretching the meaning of a word to breaking point. To publish lists of reasons why those alternatives ought to be rejected, consisting only or mainly of what is wrong with them, would be an attack; but to say something like "I found out that the alternatives were wrong, and here is what I've found instead," is not an attack. Characterising it as such can be explained in only one of two ways:

1) The person so characterising it suffers from some kind of irrational "victim" mentality; or

2) The person so characterising it is really engaged in some kind of attack, and is attempting to deflect the censure that his or her attack behaviour rightly attracts, by using a false "tu quoque" argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[livy111us]

CK,

Then why aren't you Catholic? If there was no apostasy then the true teachings would come from the Catholic Church.

[No Touch]

Hi J--

It was a paraphrase, as you wrote. Nothing I wrote, however, was false. Some of it's just "deep doctrine," (to quote the missionary's response when I asked him, "Do you believe that Elohim had to achieve Godhood?" He would neither confirm nor deny.) I'm not really that much concerned with how something is presented; I'm much more concerned with the actual content of belief.

Best.

CKS

You can't say that "Mormons believe ________" and then gripe that most don't know a thing about it. You can't believe something you've no idea about. And it's not up to you to decide what we believe so that you can criticize it.

[jwhitlock]

It was a paraphrase, as you wrote. Nothing I wrote, however, was false. Some of it's just "deep doctrine," (to quote the missionary's response when I asked him, "Do you believe that Elohim had to achieve Godhood?" He would neither confirm nor deny.) I'm not really that much concerned with how something is presented; I'm much more concerned with the actual content of belief.

I find that interesting. When you paraphrase, you can change the meaning of something. When you present something, you can control how the content is received, and how the actual content is perceived.

Both are very important. And I think you understand that. Which is why you paraphrased and presented the Church's doctrines the we you did.

I, and most Latter-day Saints, would not present them that way, so what you set up as an LDS "attack" on traditional Christianity is really a straw man.

Let me point out a few things:

Your version of Christianity is perverted and corrupt.

When LDS talk to people of other faiths, is this really the way we say it? Nope. The way you phrased it and presented it to claim what we say is really meant to trigger a negative emotional response, not to discuss the doctrine in question. Ever like what you believe being called perverted?

Your beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ are wrong.

An accusatory presentation - that's not the way we do it. We present what we believe about the nature of God. Again, your misrepresentation about how we present our doctrines is meant to trigger an emotional response of "how dare those Mormons accuse me of false belief".

Let me show you 'real' Christianityâ??Mormon-style.

Phrasing that you use to show that Mormons are arrogant - and it is not at all the way we present it.

Presentation and phrasing can be used to convey very inaccurate representations of your opponants position; they are indeed very important. The way you phrased our approach to the apostacy was inaccurate and does nothing to promote an honest discussion of the doctrine.

[maklelan]

That's all well and good, but try getting through a series of missionary discussions with an evangelical Christian without at some point having to tell them that their current beliefs are wrong (or having them say, "are you trying to say that X,Y,Z that I believe are wrong?"). I've seen more than a few LDS interpret rather benign criticism as an "attack." Try the other shoe on and see how it fits.

But being asked point blank whether or not we believe something is incorrect or not is not an attack.