The Apostacy

[David T]

An interesting explanation -- and one that I had not heard so

directly articulated previously.

The Apostles had "keys," but did not pass them down to successors,

and so (I presume) God ceased accepting ordinances, sacraments,

baptisms, ordinations, prayers, pleas for revelation, etc. thereafter.

So -- somewhere -- must have occurred the last sacrament service

in which the emblems were truly blessed. Was it on the day that the

last Apostle finally died?

UD

If it was anything like it is today, Bishops are granted keys over those ordinances in the location of their jurisdictions. The Bishops would continue to authorized the eucharist as well as baptisms (which is exactly what the ANF say - no baptism or eucharist is to be done without the Bishop's authorization) - However, they could not legally name authorized successors.

Example: in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans, chapter VIII. (As cited in The Ante Nice Fathers 1:89), Ignatius being a first generation Christian, and a direct student of John the Apostle, who appears to have received his authority from him. He served as Bishop at Antioch. "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that deemed a proper Eucharist which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be...it is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

[Beck]

name='rpn' date='01 May 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1272747690' post='1208844042']

But the doctrinal changes probably happened quite gradually, and could not be corrected when there were no longer those with priesthood authority to do so.

That's what I need to know. When the authority of the apostles cease to exist. Clement says that authority was passed down to other bishops and no early Church Father disagreed with him.

It was the absence of proper authority that was the fundamental element of The Apostasy. And that happened when there was no one yet alive who had been properly ordained by either Jesus Christ or by Peter, James and John, or their designees.

If this could be proven to be true I would agree but where is the historical proof of an apostasy? Surely someone in the first 1500 years would have accused the Catholic heirarchy of apostasy.

[David T]

That's what I need to know. When the authority of the apostles cease to exist. Clement says that authority was passed down to other bishops and no early Church Father disagreed with him.

If this could be proven to be true I would agree but where is the historical proof of an apostasy? Surely someone in the first 1500 years would have accused the Catholic heirarchy of apostasy.

Are you familiar with the many councils established to debate and vote upon doctrine? Where those who opposed the decisions were branded anathema?

[Beck]

name='nackhadlow' date='01 May 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1272747168' post='1208844037']

Gates of Hell [Hades] = Death. Death didn't prevail, because the Rock/foundation of the Church is itself revelation from God, and not on vested in the lives of individual men

.

This is what I am having trouble with. The bible says the Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles who were individual men and they entrusted the Church with fellow Bishops as Acts of the Apostles, letters to Timothy and Titus show.

While death had a temporary victory over the inhabitants of the earthly kingdom, when the time and circumstances were conducive, the Lord himself personally re-established the earthly manifestation of His Kingdom , and had the keys and authority thereof delivered to mortal men again in our day.

I can't see this happening because of scripture. Can someone explain how the Church could have vanished from the earth for over 40 generations until Joseph Smith when scripture says " to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever" Eph.3:21 That sounds like a promise that the True Church would always exist.

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven....and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

This is why I am struggling. Jesus changed Simon's name to "Rock". Why, if Simon isn't the rock upon which Jesus would build His Church?

[Beck]

I've you're willing to purchase a book, this is the best one I've found that goes into methodical detail concerning your specific questions, and has heavy use of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It expresses a very well researched and well organized expression of our point of view on this topic,

Thank you. That is what I was hoping I could find by getting on this forum. The people at Mormon.org couldn't suggest anything.

[LeSellers]

How can you trust your prophet? A prophet must be infallible, never changing with the times. Truth is eternal

Sorry, in this you are off track.

Prophets are men. They have always been fallible. Moses did not enter the Promised Land because of his (accidental?) pride. Jesus Christ alone was infallible. Peter denied Him, Paul complained of a thorn in the flesh. Balaam failed to follow the counsel of God, and Elisha's servant took Naman's money and clothing.

Truth itself is relevant in its own sphere. The Law of Moses is complete, and we do not follow its rituals. Jesus told us to carry swords, but that is not practical in today's world. Even His counsel to the rich young ruler (to sell all that he had and give it to the poor) is out of place in most situations.

Peter had the Saints living with all things common among them

[Beck]

name='wenglund' date='01 May 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1272752076' post='1208844068']

The difference, as I see it, is my suggested approach is reliant upon God, whereas your preferred approach is reliant on mankind--particularly yourself. My approach applies spiritual methodology in making a spiritual choice, whereas your approach applies a secular discipline in making a religious choice.

But, to each their own.

What God tells me and what history shows me must be the same.

Yet, you are using a man-made instead of a God-given approach when looking for the God-given Truths. To me, that seems backwards. But, again, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-

By the grace of God, the man-made approach will line up with the God-given appoach.

[Beck]

You'd have to find a God-given historical record that hasn't been tampered with, and being God's own record, is also a spiritual record. What records are you using?

I could say the same thing with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants, the Gospel Priniciples, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the writings of the Church Fathers and with the Bible itself. I trust that the historical record will give me enough evidence to find what is true and what is false.

[wenglund]

How do you know it is God who is speaking to you? Satan can appear as an angel of light.

Clearly, it is a matter of faith, but such is the nature of all religion, and this by Godly design.

Are you so lacking in faith in God that you can't even trust that God will answer your prayers, and this in a way that you can have confidence therein?

If so, then I am not sure there is much point in your deciding between religions since it will all come down to faith on a number of levels, particularly faith in Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[russianwolfe]

Some think that the apostasy was the corruption of doctrine. I have a different point of view. In one of the letters to Timothy, Paul laments that a large segment of the church had already rejected his authority. I think that this is the beginning of the apotasy and it didn't happen all at once. The corruption of doctrine is only a symptom of the apostasy. In my view, what the apostasy really was all about was the rejection of the true Apostalic authority. When the members of the church rejected the true apostles, there was no way to correct untrue doctrine. I think The Sheperd of Hermas or maybe a letter of Clement gives several ways to detect false apostles. This is a hint that one of the problems plaguing the church at that time (and in the early days of this dispensation, also) was false claims to church authority. What I think happened was false teachers claiming to be authorized by true apostles taught false doctrine. When true apostles attempted to correct the false teachings, the people sided with the false teachers and rejected the apostles. Hence, Paul's lament to Timothy.

If you are looking for a writing from one of the ante-Nicene Fathers claiming to point out that there is now a complete apostasy, I don'think you'll find it. It doesn't make sense that someone would admit that he was in apostasy but his neighbor was more apostasized. They all had no authority but were attempting to correct each other with the only authority they all recognized: the scriptures. And you can see where that got us today by looking around at all the different churches.

I agree with Wenglund, if you want the absolute truth, you will have to ask God. Any other way will only be the arm of flesh. I know that the problem with this method is that you can't use it to "prove" to any one else that it is true. But isn't obtaining a relationship with deity worth that one little sacrifice?

Marvin

[Beck]

name='selek' date='01 May 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1272752247' post='1208844070']

Since history is, by definition, man-made truth, these statements are contradictory.

History, as we know it, is "what historians believe came to pass". It will inescapably vary to one degree or another from "what actually took place".

How can I know that the claims of Joseph Smith are true and are actually what took place? How can I know that what the Church Fathers said is true and actually took place?

But rather than relying upon man-made histories, you should be approaching Heavenly Father directly for your answers.

I agree that with God's help I will come to know the truth. But God gave us an intellect and we are to use it. Man-made history is what we have to go on. WE have to discern how trustworthy it is.

The claims of the Mormon and Catholic churches hinge on access to God's authority.

If that authority does indeed exist, it should be demonstrable to you when you take God at his word and ask

I agree. One Church is true and one is false. One has been guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth and the other is a false religion with doctrines of men.

[Beck]

Begin reading to begin to understand..... http://fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html

This book online can give you the basic jist of the Apostacy and the Restoration.

http://www.fairlds.o...Ancient_Church/

Good luck....

p.s. Don't be lazy like most people who ask questions and/or judge us, but who don't really want to put forth the effort to actually understand our thinking and position, because they actually have to take the time to read out of our best scholarship etc... You've got to put for the "work" and "faith" into a thing to understand a thing.

Thank you. That's a lot of material to look over but I want to read the best material out there. That is what it takes to find the Truth.

[Beck]

I'd say that generally they were part of the apostate Church. However, it is clear that the farther back you go in time, the more LDS in doctrine the Church looks which is exactly what one would expect considering LDS claims of a universal apostasy.

That's an interesting response. What LDS doctrine can I find in the early Church Fathers?

[wenglund]

What God tells me and what history shows me must be the same.

By the grace of God, the man-made approach will line up with the God-given appoach.

Okay, then, contrary to what you intimated before, you must be using the God-given approach, and not just the man-made approach. You must be letting God tell you which Church is "true".

That is great!!

By the way, has God already told you which Church is "true"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Beck]

The Pastor of Hermas is an interesting revelation in which the demise of the Church is predicted to be very very soon. So if you want to take the Pastor as an actual revelation or scripture (as many in the Church did at the time), one might suppose that the Church lasted to at least 90 to 150 A.D. I think it not an unreasonable range as many of those ordained by the original twelve likely lived into that range and the corruption of doctrine, which began before 90 A.D., really accelerated afterwards.

What doctrine became corrupt by AD 150?

[russianwolfe]

What God tells me and what history shows me must be the same.

By the grace of God, the man-made approach will line up with the God-given appoach.

So what you are really saying is that God must agree with the historians? Really!??

I thought God's ways were above our own. Can you show me from the scriptures where this has ever happened?

Do God and science agree?

I think you have backwards. First you must obtain God's witness, and then you will know when men are correct. And by witness I am not talking about your understanding of what the scriptures say. I am talking about a spiritual experience where you learn from God what the truth is. It will be something only for you and you cannot deny. But it will not be something you can use to prove to anyone else.

I wish you well in your search for the truth and I hope you find it.

Marvin

[Beck]

name='nackhadlow' date='01 May 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1272762274' post='1208844113']

If it was anything like it is today, Bishops are granted keys over those ordinances in the location of their jurisdictions. The Bishops would continue to authorized the eucharist as well as baptisms (which is exactly what the ANF say - no baptism or eucharist is to be done without the Bishop's authorization) - However, they could not legally name authorized successors.

Can you show me a Church Father that said the Bishops could no longer name authorized successors? I've read Eusebius History of the Church written somewhere around AD 330 and he speaks of apostolic succession as if it never stopped.

Example: in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans, chapter VIII. (As cited in The Ante Nice Fathers 1:89), Ignatius being a first generation Christian, and a direct student of John the Apostle, who appears to have received his authority from him. He served as Bishop at Antioch. "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that deemed a proper Eucharist which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be...it is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

How does that quote prove that valid apostolic succession ceased to exist?

[Beck]

Are you familiar with the many councils established to debate and vote upon doctrine? Where those who opposed the decisions were branded anathema?

I am familiar with the Councils. The Councils were called because of what the Catholic Church considered to be heretical teachings so naturally those who disagreed were anathema. The Council of Nicaea was called and it defined that God was three divine persons in one God. You, as a Mormon, would disagree with that correct? Do Mormons consider Arian to have held some Mormon beliefs on the Trinity?

[selek]

I've read Eusebius History of the Church written somewhere around AD 330 and he speaks of apostolic succession as if it never stopped.

By 330 AD, this view was 1)traditional and accepted, and 2) Eusebius' own authority relied on such a succession.

He had a vested financial and philosophical interest in the legitimacy of such a succession.

How does that quote prove that valid apostolic succession ceased to exist?

It does not. Nor does it prove that apostolic succession took place.

It simply records the claims of the Catholic Church.

I trust that the historical record will give me enough evidence to find what is true and what is false.

This has to be the most wildly optimistic statement I've ever seen on these boards.

History is written by the victors....and for roughly fifteen hundred years, the Catholic Church was the "victor". They wrote the histories, based upon the assumption that they were the "true" Church descended from Paul.

Do you really expect any history of the period- written by the Catholic Church and its agents- to contradict that assumption?

We also know that the Bible itself has been tampered with- unauthorized additions and redactions have taken place. For fifteen hundred years, the Catholic Church had sole control over the content....and took advantage of that control to "refine" Scripture to match dogma and support their claims to authority.

No serious scholars of either Scripture or antiquity question this basic fact.

The bible says the Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles who were individual men

Does it? Seems to me that that's an interpretation read into the statement. Also, if that's the case, then where are the Apostles today? If Christ's Church was built upon a foundation of Apostles, then why did that change?

Who- precisely- authorized the Apostles to alter the structure of the Church and do away with the apostolic office?

and they entrusted the Church with fellow Bishops as Acts of the Apostles, letters to Timothy and Titus show.

Again, these letters do not authorize Bishops to assume charge over the Church as a whole- that's an interpretation written into the Scriptures well after the fact.

In point of fact, there is no explicit, authoritative statement from any of the Apostles that mentions Bishops as anything other than LOCAL authorities.

Yes- the Bishop of Rome ASSUMED (or arrogated) that authority to himself- but he did so while John the Revelator was still alive. There is no letter, no statement authorizing him to do so. He arrogated that authority to himself in the face of a living apostle.

If I produce a will which claims that I'm Howard Hughes' illegitimate son- and thus his heir- do I automagically receive his fortune? Of course not. I'd have to first prove that the will was authentic- and then prove that I was his heir.

And during the course of events, my own financial interest would be a legitimate target for scrutiny.

Yes- the Catholic Church can produce documents supporting Apostolic succession- but they can't produce any independent, verifiable evidence to support their claim.

It's a circular argument.

"The Catholic Church is God's Church because it says so and God's Church would never lie."

Like a dog chasing its own tail, the argument runs in circles but never accomplishes anything.

To a lesser, but nonetheless real extent, the Mormon Church has the same problem.

You cannot settle the matter with an appeal to history- for the histories are all tainted by bias and self-interest.

Your only recourse is to ask of God.

Yes- you were given an intellect and the ability to reason. You must therefore examine the claims of each, and look at what evidence remains regarding Christ's original Church.

But the only way you will be able to SETTLE the matter is to ask of God.

Anything less is relying on the "arm of man"- which you are expressly forbidden to do by God's commandment.

[Beck]

name='LeSellers' date='01 May 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1272763385' post='1208844122']

Sorry, in this you are off track. Prophets are men. They have always been fallible

.

I disagree. Moses was infallible when he spoke for God. (Exodus 4:16 and 7:1)

Moses did not enter the Promised Land because of his (accidental?) pride

.

When Moses spoke on his own he was fallible, he could be in error and sin but not when he spoke for God.

Jesus Christ alone was infallible

.

Not true. Jesus told the Jews to do whatever the Pharisees tell them to do when the sit "on the chair of Moses" Matt.23:2 Notice he says not to do what they do but what they say when they are sitting on this chair of authority. Peter and the apostles had the authority to "bind on earth what is bound in heaven". If that is not infallibility, then what is?

Peter denied Him, Paul complained of a thorn in the flesh. Balaam failed to follow the counsel of God, and Elisha's servant took Naman's money and clothing

.

That's not infallibility. That is personal sin. Two different things.

Truth itself is relevant in its own sphere

.

Truth is never revelant some of the time or in one time and not in the other. Truth is always true.

The Law of Moses is complete, and we do not follow its rituals.

The Law of Moses was not the fullness of the truth. It pointed to the truth.

Jesus told us to carry swords, but that is not practical in today's world

.

Jesus told the disciples to carry swords and they did.

Even His counsel to the rich young ruler (to sell all that he had and give it to the poor) is out of place in most situations.

Not if you wish to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. There are those in the religious life that give up everything. Mother Teresa is an example

Peter had the Saints living with all things common among them

[selek]

Is it just me, or is this thread starting to smell like the Second Coming of our old friend Johnny.......

...the arguments, the presuppositions, and the sheer stubborn insistence on Catholic talking points seem awfully familiar.

I am familiar with the Councils. The Councils were called because of what the Catholic Church considered to be heretical teachings so naturally those who disagreed were anathema. The Council of Nicaea was called and it defined that God was three divine persons in one God. You, as a Mormon, would disagree with that correct? Do Mormons consider Arian to have held some Mormon beliefs on the Trinity?

Since when is divine truth defined by majority vote?

Let alone by a vote taken at sword point and under pain of death?

[BCSpace]

I'd say that generally they were part of the apostate Church.

I disagree. I think they were some of the last diligent authorized Bishops (ordained under the hands of the original Apostles) and remnants of the Authorized Church, who simply didn't have the keys to name successors, yet diligently saught to maintain a purity of Doctrine and fight against schism.

I think my post #22 allows for that, but seeing as how they probably didn't have the keys, I would define that as the apostate Church.

[selek]

The apostles thought that the end of the world would happen within their lifetimes so many sold all they had and lived in communities.

Yet when they promulgated this doctrine and commanded the people to live in these communities, they were sitting in the "seat of authority".

Truth is never revelant some of the time or in one time and not in the other. Truth is always true.

Truth is what it is. It is not different for each individual.

Yet their authoritative teachings about the end of the world did not come to pass- they were not TRUE, despite being given in God's name.

Those teachings were authoritative, and people died because of it- but they were WRONG- even while those putting them forth were speaking in God's name.

If that's not fallibility, then what IS?

[BCSpace]

The Pastor of Hermas is an interesting revelation in which the demise of the Church is predicted to be very very soon. So if you want to take the Pastor as an actual revelation or scripture (as many in the Church did at the time), one might suppose that the Church lasted to at least 90 to 150 A.D. I think it not an unreasonable range as many of those ordained by the original twelve likely lived into that range and the corruption of doctrine, which began before 90 A.D., really accelerated afterwards.

What doctrine became corrupt by AD 150?

Baptism was one of the first to go (no longer was immersion necessary or even traditional), even before 100. It's likely the seeds for the trinity doctrine 200 years later were planted by 150. Tertullian (155-225) and Theophilus (Bishop of Antioch, 180) were just after this time. Though trinitarians like to quote them, they definitely were NOT trinitarians and likely would've rejected that doctrine. They were merely developments on the path to the trinity heresy.

[Uncle Dale]

...

without the Bishop's authorization

...

So then, assuming this is true, I wonder if God communicated the

final fragment of revelation at that last sacrament service:

"This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft

as ye drink... but henceforth I will not accept your sacrament;

henceforth you will receive no benefit from your gathering together;

and henceforth I will not speak to mankind again, until the opening

of the Seventh Dispensation."

Then again, perhaps revelation ended before acceptable sacraments ended.

UD