Jump to content

Define Apostasy


Scottie

Recommended Posts

Mr. John Larson posed a question which has had me perplexed since I heard it, so I thought I'd bring it here to see if the faithful could answer his challenge.

Can you define apostacy, as it relates to why the LDS church had to be restored, in a way that puts all the other religions in apostasy but keeps the current LDS religion from being in apostasy.

GO!

Link to comment
Can you define apostacy, as it relates to why the LDS church had to be restored, in a way that puts all the other religions in apostasy but keeps the current LDS religion from being in apostasy.

Yes.

It's all about Priesthood and Priesthood keys.

We have them, no one else does.

Lehi

Link to comment

Okay, why were they taken away?

Those with the keys were either killed or taken away. Ie John the Beloved.

Link to comment

Those with the keys were either killed or taken away. Ie John the Beloved.

Joseph Smith was killed and the priesthood was not taken away. Why was it taken when John the Beloved was killed?

If it was taken away for other reasons, what reasons?

Link to comment

Joseph Smith was killed and the priesthood was not taken away. Why was it taken when John the Beloved was killed?

If it was taken away for other reasons, what reasons?

From what I have learned the apostles were killed faster than they could ordain them. Remember that the apostles hold all of the keys. And only the Prophet is authorized to use them all. In the case of the prophet being killed or dieing, the apostles then are authorized to ordain and set a part a new prophet.

In LDS theology John the Beloved was not killed but he lived on. I am assuming but I don't know that he was commissioned not to ordain new apostles.

Really this issue boils down to one of faith. Those that are hostile or critical (not that that is bad) will not get this point. To you and others this just does not make sense. This stuff is all basic. I am amazed that John even asked the question. I am amazed that you even asked it. But I am happy to try and provide an answer.

BTW how have things been going?

Link to comment

Mr. Larsen was calling the church hypocrites for changing temple ordinances while at the same time criticizing the ancient church for changing the ordinance of baptism.

But I think there is a whole lot more to apostasy than changing ordinances.

Link to comment

Joseph Smith was killed and the priesthood was not taken away. Why was it taken when John the Beloved was killed?

If it was taken away for other reasons, what reasons?

Well, (so to speak) JS was the first "apostle" of this dispensation, the others survived with the authority and have been able to maintain the quorum since then.

Where as John the beloved was the last living apostle of the ancient church. The authority died with him because it wasn't passed on, the reasons are open to discussion/debate.

Link to comment

Mr. Larsen was calling the church hypocrites for changing temple ordinances while at the same time criticizing the ancient church for changing the ordinance of baptism.

But I think there is a whole lot more to apostasy than changing ordinances.

As Lehi pointed out the major factor was the priesthood keys being taken away. Changing ordinances is not in and of it's self apostasy. Though it can be a sign of apostasy if the proper authority is not used.

Link to comment
The authority died with him because it wasn't passed on, the reasons are open to discussion/debate.

This is where I thought this would go. We simply don't have enough information to really know what happened and why things weren't passed on.

The way Mr Larson made it sound, the reason LDS say the apostasy happened is because the church had become corrupt and had changed ordinances, which displeased God. Since the LDS church has changed ordinances, they should be in apostasy too.

Thank you for your comments.

Link to comment

The way Mr Larson made it sound, the reason LDS say the apostasy happened is because the church had become corrupt and had changed ordinances, which displeased God. Since the LDS church has changed ordinances, they should be in apostasy too.

LDS believe that it displeased God because He did not authorize the changes. That is the key that it sounds like John Larson forgot to mention, which is troublesome, since it's also the key which negates his argument.

Link to comment

LDS believe that it displeased God because He did not authorize the changes. That is the key that it sounds like John Larson forgot to mention, which is troublesome, since it's also the key which negates his argument.

It could be argued that the changes were, indeed, authorized.

Other than "the church" made the changes to the current washing and annointing, can you point to an authorized source that says God said to change it?

Link to comment

Okay, why were [Priesthood and Priesthood keys] taken away?

Largely because even those numbered among the Saints back then rejected the words and authority of the leaders of the Church. I believe it was Paul, but possibly James, who complained that there were brothers who did not accept him as an Apostle. That was the beginning. And the end.

Lehi

Link to comment

LDS believe that it displeased God because He did not authorize the changes. That is the key that it sounds like John Larson forgot to mention, which is troublesome, since it's also the key which negates his argument.

Exactly:

After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

http://lds.org/study/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

Link to comment

Both ordinances and doctrines have changed in the LDS religion as well.

Although, apologetics seem to have mastered the art of downplaying any changed doctrines to mere policy or guidelines, thus claiming the church has never changed any doctrines.

Link to comment

It could be argued that the changes were, indeed, authorized.

It could be, but that would be back peddling a bit because the charge was that the LDS church must be in apostasy because it changed ordinances and the LDS church has claimed that changing ordinances equals apostasy.

The problem of course is that the LDS church made no such claim. It didn't claim that a change of ordinances equalled apostasy, it claimed that unauthorized changes equalled such.

To suddenly make the argue about which church claim is true and which is false would be a considerable moving of the goal posts.

Other than "the church" made the changes to the current washing and annointing, can you point to an authorized source that says God said to change it?

The prophet.

Link to comment

The way Mr Larson made it sound, the reason LDS say the apostasy happened is because the church had become corrupt and had changed ordinances, which displeased God.

I guess it depends on how you define "the church".

It is reasonable to assume that if the membership remained faithful the apostles would have had people available for the authority to be passed to (given that God sanctioned it).

I suspect that the corruption was not just the membership but also the "mid level management"/leadership.

Isn't speculation fun.

Link to comment

It could be, but that would be back peddling a bit because the charge was that the LDS church must be in apostasy because it changed ordinances and the LDS church has claimed that changing ordinances equals apostasy.

The problem of course is that the LDS church made no such claim. It didn't claim that a change of ordinances equalled apostasy, it claimed that unauthorized changes equalled such.

To suddenly make the argue about which church claim is true and which is false would be a considerable moving of the goal posts.

Why is it assumed that the ordinance changes in the apostate church were unauthorized? Couldn't I claim, without any evidence, that the authority figure (who, I might add, DID have priesthood authority at this point) authorized the changes just as you have claimed?

The prophet.

Can you point me to something where the prophet said it was authorized? A document of some kind?

It seems to me that just by being a prophet in charge of God's church, that is all the authority necessary to change ordinances.... as long as it's the current LDS church.

The leader of the ancient church, given all the same ordinances, does not have this same ability to change ordinances. That, someone, he did it without God's consent.

This, to me, seems like a double standard. Why not apply the same standards to the current leader?

Link to comment

Good, thanks! It's amazing how much more productive one can be when they break the mormon discussion board addiction!! :)

Yeah, I have not posted very much. I saw your name and decided to come on in and see what Scottie was doing.

Link to comment
Isn't speculation fun.

I would think that it should be important to understand WHY the ancient church went into apostasy. How can you keep from repeating it if you don't understand it?

Or is the promise that the current church will never go into apostasy enough for you?

If so, I'd like to point you to the FLDS. They, also, believe that God will never allow them to go into apostasy and that the LDS church was the incorrect branch. That LDS is now in apostasy.

Link to comment

Why is it assumed that the ordinance changes in the apostate church were unauthorized?

You need to read that sentence again.

Which came first, "unauthorized changes" or "the apostate church"?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

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