Define Apostasy

[Scottie]

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

Making sound, thought provoking arguments! Or... not.

[Calm]

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?.....

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

We as the LDS church do not believe in the Apostasy because of logical arguments, but because it was revealed to Joseph Smith (that and the need for a restoration). There is no double standard if the starting point of understanding is revelation.

[Scottie]

You need to read that sentence again.

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

Sorry, I meant to say the ancient church. My bad.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Making sound, thought provoking arguments! Or... not.

I would say you are making good conversation. Don't down play your comments to much. I am interested in digging deeper on this issue. Lets see were it goes.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We as the LDS church do not believe in the Apostasy because of logical arguments, but because it was revealed to Joseph Smith (that and the need for a restoration). There is no double standard if the starting point of understanding is revelation.

This is an interesting point.

[Vance]

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.

Quite frankly the church is the Lord's problem not mine. I have found that it consumes to much of my own time keeping myself straight to worry about the church.

I would think that if all members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve passed away without leaving any other apostles, then I would need to worry. Until then, no worries!

PS The FLDS church was started by apostates several years AFTER they left/were excommunicated from LDS church.

Edited to add,

If left the LDS church and started the FLRLDS church, how would that affect the truth claims of the LDS church?

[ELF1024]

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.

Yes, well the FLDS Church is bunch of misogynistic child abusers... I think their claim to the truth is refuted by their actions; which are far louder than their words ever could be.

[Scottie]

We as the LDS church do not believe in the Apostasy because of logical arguments, but because it was revealed to Joseph Smith (that and the need for a restoration). There is no double standard if the starting point of understanding is revelation.

Is it safe to say that your definition is "we don't know, save Joseph said God said so. And we also know we are not in apostasy because the current leaders tell us we are not"?

[Scottie]

Yes, well the FLDS Church is bunch of misogynistic child abusers... I think their claim to the truth is refuted by their actions; which are far louder than their words ever could be.

Perhaps, yet they still believe they are not in apostasy and that the LDS church is.

[Scottie]

If left the LDS church and started the FLRLDS church, how would that affect the truth claims of the LDS church?

What is the FLRLDS?

[Vance]

We as the LDS church do not believe in the Apostasy because of logical arguments, but because it was revealed to Joseph Smith (that and the need for a restoration). There is no double standard if the starting point of understanding is revelation.

Nothing like getting to the real point!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is it safe to say that your definition is "we don't know, save Joseph said God said so. And we also know we are not in apostasy because the current leaders tell us we are not"?

Hmm that sounds circular. I don't think that is what Cal means.

BTW I don't know of single comment from the brothern that says "We as a church are not in apostasy".

[Vance]

What is the FLRLDS?

I don't know. I have started it yet. You are free to define it for me if you would like.

Edited to add,

How about Free Loaders Reformed Latter-Day Saints?

[LeSellers]

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?

We now get back to Priesthood keys.

They died out sometime before John disappeared c. AD 100. John was the last one to hold a legitimate Priesthood and authorized to use his Priesthood by someone (Peter?), now dead, with keys. There were not enough Saints left to sustain a president of the Church, no Quorum of the Twelve, so all authority he did not hold was lost until the required Restoration (some 1730 years later). Without keys, he, himself, could not pass the Priesthood along. He held no presiding keys, whatever other authority he held.

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.

Well, to the extent that the Prophet is acting within his stewardship, then ,yes, that's all that's required. But it's precisely because he is the Prophet (which is nothing more than a shorthand way of saying "President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and President of the Hight Priesthood, which would have been the same back then, too) that he can authorize auch modifications to ordinances and clarify doctrine. Of course, we Saints believe that the prophet would not do that unless inspired to do so by God, Who is the Ultimate Authoirty.

Now we are back to Priesthood keys.

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?

It's no double standard.

If that mythical ancient leader had held those Priesthood keys, the changes would have been authoroized and acceptable. He did not because John and the other Apostles did not pass those keys along, and God did not restore them until 1830~36.

Lehi

[Scottie]

Hmm that sounds circular. I don't think that is what Cal means.

BTW I don't know of single comment from the brothern that says "We as a church are not in apostasy".

Then how do you know you aren't in apostasy?

[bluebell]

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?

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?

You've missed my point.

The OP seemed to make the claim that the LDS church's beliefs about apostasy prove that the LDS church is in apostasy. My posts to you was directed to the OP. I have not made any arguement for or against whether or not the apostasy happened. I was refuting John Larsen's specific point and showing that it wasn't a valid criticism.

[ELF1024]

Perhaps, yet they still believe they are not in apostasy and that the LDS church is.

Could you pick a different church that at least has a chance to merit up a real argument? The FLDS are a parody of a Church. It's like picking the Westboro Baptist as proof that the Baptist Church (in general) is an apostasy.

[LeSellers]

Then how do you know you aren't in apostasy?

We still have the keys and the Priesthood.

And, as John the Baptist said, "[The Priesthood] shall never again be taken from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering ... in righteousness."

Lehi

[Scottie]

We now get back to Priesthood keys.

They died out sometime before John disappeared c. AD 100. John was the last one to hold a legitimate Priesthood and authorized to use his Priesthood by someone (Peter?), now dead, with keys. There were not enough Saints left to sustain a president of the Church, no Quorum of the Twelve, so all authority he did not hold was lost until the required Restoration (some 1730 years later). Without keys, he, himself, could not pass the Priesthood along. He held no presiding keys, whatever other authority he held.

Thank you for helping me to understand the history.

I have a few clarifying questions, if you don't mind.

"The Church" that we are referring to is the Roman Catholic Church?

After Peter died, the church continued on and is still alive today?

They believe that they still retain all the keys and never were in apostasy?

[Scottie]

You've missed my point.

The OP seemed to make the claim that the LDS church's beliefs about apostasy prove that the LDS church is in apostasy. My posts to you was directed to the OP. I have not made any arguement for or against whether or not the apostasy happened. I was refuting John Larsen's specific point and showing that it wasn't a valid criticism.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then how do you know you aren't in apostasy?

A witness of the spirit. Among other things that we have talked about that has to do with the priesthood keys.

Of course I am in a state of Apostasy. I am just in a less state than you.

[Scottie]

We still have the keys and the Priesthood.

And, as John the Baptist said, "[The Priesthood] shall never again be taken from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering ... in righteousness."

Lehi

Not to sidetrack, but BY said the priesthood will never be given to the blacks until all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God. That didn't exactly happen either, so I'm not sure how much faith I would put into John the Baptists statement.

[Scottie]

Of course I am in a state of Apostasy. I am just in a less state than you.

Welcome, brother!!

[Calm]

Is it safe to say that your definition is "we don't know, save Joseph said God said so. And we also know we are not in apostasy because the current leaders tell us we are not"?

The procedure for knowing would be the same for knowing any revelation was valid.

And that is not because "someone else said so" unless that someone else is God.

[Scottie]

The procedure for knowing would be the same for knowing any revelation was valid.

And that is not because "someone else said so" unless that someone else is God.

Not to belabor the FLDS again, but what would you say to an FLDS member who told you that they had prayed and God spoke to their heart that the FLDS church was the one true church? That the LDS church was in apostasy?