The Possibility Of A 2Nd Apostasy

[Ahab]

Only when it is delivered with an arrogant attitude.

Confidence is often confused with arrogance, I think. I speak boldly about what I know but I am never arrogant.

[MiserereNobis]

Oh that one.

They're not seeing it because they choose not to, and don't know that they can actually ask God for him to reveal it to them.

They are busy believing that "Magesteria" and their ministers actually have something to teach them instead of asking God himself.

<ducking for "incoming">

Incoming!

Your assumption is that us Catholics don't pray to God to ask for light, truth, and understanding. Far from it, friend, far from it. I am constantly asking God for greater understanding.

By the way, did you watch or listen to General Conference? I don't suppose you believed while watching that your "ministers actually have something to teach" you? Or do you just ignore the teachings of your magisterium ("the Brethren") and ask God alone?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to be that your over-emphasis on personal revelation/testimony seems to downplay the importance the LDS church gives to priesthood leaders having the right to receive revelation for those underneath them.

[MiserereNobis]

Confidence is often confused with arrogance, I think. I speak boldly about what I know but I am never arrogant.

Just for your information, it certainly comes off as arrogance to those listening.

[MiserereNobis]

I guess I would recognize apostasy by the abandonment of simple true doctrines

It appears that some members on this board disagree with this and say that apostasy is not about doctrine but about priesthood keys.

i.e. predominance of kindness, adherence to scripture and prayer, and ascetic self-denial.

These three things are found in spades in other Christian churches. The Catholic religious orders abound in them, especially the last two.

[MiserereNobis]

The "primitive" Church, as a body, didn't fall away. That's not what happened. Some members became apostate, but many were killed while still being honorable members, and at some point in time those with the keys were either killed or forbidden to keep the Church functioning while the individual members were either being killed or falling into apostasy. Rome couldn't keep killing Church members if at some point there was an end to them. And when they stopped, what remained on the Earth were only the apostates or those who had never been members... or those who didn't have keys or were not authorized to use them.

This just makes me ask my question one step removed. Why did God allow all the leaders to be killed before they could pass on their "keys"? And why won't God allow that to happen now? Say, a bombing of the conference center during general conference (or some such thing) that removes all the apostles, etc, at once.

Or does the LDS church keep apostles in reserve, in an "undisclosed location" (like during the State of the Union address) to cover that contingency?

[Ahab]

Just for your information, it certainly comes off as arrogance to those listening.

What does? What have I said that makes me sound arrogant to you, in your opinion?

I consider people to be arrogant when they tell me I'm being arrogant and I know I'm not being arrogant.

[MiserereNobis]

Catholicism and Protestantism never adopted the Aaronic priesthood.

In that respect, Mormonism seems to be alone in declaring that its priestly lineage goes back to the days of Moses.

To clarify the Catholic position: the old law and covenant was fulfilled in Christ and that includes the old priesthood. The destruction of the temple at Jerusalem was the external evidence of what happened when the veil was torn in two at the death of Christ (another reason why we point to the Crucifixion as the pre-eminent moment in the redemption, but that's for another thread).

In other words, the old priesthood was completed by the new and therefore is no longer necessary.

[MiserereNobis]

Christ didn't employ that solution the first time, because if He had the prophecies concerning the Apostasy and Restoration would not have been fulfilled.

This seems rather circular at best or, at worst, like God is to blame for the apostasy. He didn't have to make the prophecy and then the apostasy would not have needed to happen.

[Ahab]

This just makes me ask my question one step removed. Why did God allow all the leaders to be killed before they could pass on their "keys"?

Do you mean why did God tell them not to pass on their keys before they were killed?

It would have only resulted in more members being killed, and more apostates and nonmembers being guilty of murder.

The circumstances just weren't conducive to the Church continuing in those circumstances, and it wasn't even meant to, then.

After all, if God had wanted it to continue, he could have arranged things so that it would have worked out that way, given the fact that he has foreknowledge of all that will happen before it happens.

And why won't God allow that to happen now? Say, a bombing of the conference center during general conference (or some such thing) that removes all the apostles, etc, at once.

It's not in his plan now. He wants more people to be able to join the Church, if they want to, and for that to happen the Church needs to be here with authorized representatives that can bring more people into the Church. He still allows people to have their free agency to do whatever they want to do, that they can do, but he knows enough about all of us to know that none of us will ever do anything to cause anything to happen that would bring an end to his Church here now, and he doesn't want it to end. He has a way of fulfilling his purposes, and the Church being here today is an integral part of his plan.

Or does the LDS church keep apostles in reserve, in an "undisclosed location" (like during the State of the Union address) to cover that contingency?

Nope, no secret apostles out in the world hiding somewhere. God could just send some back as he did Peter, James and John if he wants to ordain others as apostles, but the fact that he didn't do that until around 1830 or so shows he didn't want that to happen until then, and now that the Church is back it no longer needs to be restored.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

it will never be completely lost again.

[Ahab]

To clarify the Catholic position: the old law and covenant was fulfilled in Christ and that includes the old priesthood. The destruction of the temple at Jerusalem was the external evidence of what happened when the veil was torn in two at the death of Christ (another reason why we point to the Crucifixion as the pre-eminent moment in the redemption, but that's for another thread).

In other words, the old priesthood was completed by the new and therefore is no longer necessary.

I realize you're just stating the Catholic position, but in this thread I'd also like to point out that what you're saying is contrary to what God has told us, and because we know that we also know your position is an apostate position.

That's one of the results of people who fall into apostasy. They lose faith in the truth and they accept something else as the truth.

Also, if you understood how things were supposed to be, you'd realize you still need people with priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which is the same order of priesthood our Lord has, so that you would have people who are authorized to do what our Lord would do and wants done.

But you don't have that, either, and you don't even think you need it, which is another evidence that you're in apostasy and don't even know it.

Not that I'm trying to be rude, or arrogant. I'm just laying out the truth as I know it.

[MiserereNobis]

Do you mean why did God tell them not to pass on their keys before they were killed?

It would have only resulted in more members being killed, and more apostates and nonmembers being guilty of murder.

That seems like an awfully strange reason to take away the Church for 1800 years. It also ignores the fact that the vast majority of Christian martyrdoms occurred *after* the majority of LDS believe the apostasy occurred, from 250-313.

The circumstances just weren't conducive to the Church continuing in those circumstances, and it wasn't even meant to, then.

Again, this is strange. If the circumstances weren't conducive, then why did Christ start the Church at the time? Why didn't God wait until things were conducive, instead of having a "failed start"?

After all, if God had wanted it to continue, he could have arranged things so that it would have worked out that way, given the fact that he has foreknowledge of all that will happen before it happens.

I think this is at the heart of my question. Why did God allow it to happen then and won't allow it to happen now? Why the difference?

It's not in his plan now.

Why not?

He wants more people to be able to join the Church, if they want to, and for that to happen the Church needs to be here with authorized representatives that can bring more people into the Church.

This seems to presuppose that He didn't want them joining His Church when He founded it, despite the fact that He tells the Apostles to go forth and baptize all nations.

Nope, no secret apostles out in the world hiding somewhere.

Not even the 3 Nephites?

... the fact that he didn't do that until around 1830 or so shows he didn't want that to happen until then, and now that the Church is back it no longer needs to be restored.

This doesn't answer the question.

[MiserereNobis]

That's one of the results of people who fall into apostasy. They lose faith in the truth and they accept something else as the truth.

Right back atcha, buddy

Also, if you understood how things were supposed to be, you'd realize you still need people with priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which is the same order of priesthood our Lord has, so that you would have people who are authorized to do what our Lord would do and wants done.

But you don't have that, either, and you don't even think you need it, which is another evidence that you're in apostasy and don't even know it.

You don't understand the Catholic priesthood -- perhaps you should study a bit before you make statements about it. All priests are after the order of Melchizedek, after the order of Christ, who is the High Priest. Of course we think we need it.

From the Catechism, emphasis mine:

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men. The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

[volgadon]

I am sure this has been addressed by theologians, but Judaism has certainly abandoned the Aaronic priesthood. No matter how many Hasids say it will return, Judaism is not going to return to the days of a select few males who rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and practice the rites of the priesthood.

What are you talking about?

[Avatar4321]

For better or worse, that would apply to Catholics and Protestants as well if it were the case.

But guess what. No one will ever know if you are right or wrong- at least not until we get to the other side- so how much does it matter?

Incorrect. The Holy Spirit can and does provide revelation concerning the question.

[MormonMason]

I think it is a pretty easy answer as to why God waited so long for the time of the restoration. Not only was it to occur in the latter-days, but if Joseph Smith (or someone else) had come earlier and revealed new scripture in, say, the Medieval period, he likely would have been tortured by the Inquisition and burned at the stake for heresy. It would never have taken off and gotten very far under that religious environment.

The Roman Catholic Church had to be broken of its political power and its hold upon the hearts of men. The Protestant Reformation had to come first and be followed in time by an America founded upon the principles of religious freedom for an environment truly conducive to the founding of a new dispensation.

Edited October 18, 2012 by MormonMason

[Tacenda]

I think it is a pretty easy answer as to why God waited so long for the time of the restoration. Not only was it to occur in the latter-days, but if Joseph Smith (or someone else) had come earlier and revealed new scripture in, say, the Medieval period, he likely would have been tortured by the Inquisition and burned at the stake for heresy. It would never have taken off and gotten very far under that religious environment.

The Roman Catholic Church had to be broken of its political power and its hold upon the hearts of men. The Protestant Reformation had to come first and be followed in time by an America founded upon the principles of religious freedom for an environment truly conducive to the founding of a new dispensation.

Do you think God also tried to use others in JS time to restore the church since a few others had visits and/or visions also?

[cesc101]

Do you think God also tried to use others in JS time to restore the church since a few others had visits and/or visions also?

Possibly.

But Visitation doesn't equate Calling (a fact, the bible clearly teaches).

[Storm Rider]

You don't understand the Catholic priesthood -- perhaps you should study a bit before you make statements about it. All priests are after the order of Melchizedek, after the order of Christ, who is the High Priest. Of course we think we need it.

Hello, I have had more than one Catholic tell me that there is only one High Priest and that our concept of having priesthood holders of the Melchizedek preisthood is sacriledge because there is one one without any need for others. Your statement conflicts with their positions and I would appreciate reading more about the Catholic position. Do you have a reference or link you can share with me? I appreciate your assistance.

[MiserereNobis]

Hello, I have had more than one Catholic tell me that there is only one High Priest and that our concept of having priesthood holders of the Melchizedek preisthood is sacriledge because there is one one without any need for others. Your statement conflicts with their positions and I would appreciate reading more about the Catholic position. Do you have a reference or link you can share with me? I appreciate your assistance.

Yes, your concept of the Melchizedek priesthood and the Catholic one is different (as is our concept of about everything, eh?). It is true that there is only one High Priest, and that High Priest is Christ. All Catholic priests act in the person of Christ. Christ is the only one "authorized," so to speak, to offer a full and complete sacrifice to His Father, the sacrifice of Himself. Ordained priests act as Christ -- they participate in His one priesthood. The priests are authorized representatives/ministers of the One High Priest Jesus Christ.

For example, during the consecration at Mass, the priest becomes an "alter Christus", another Christ. It is Christ who is confecting the Sacrament. It is Christ who is offering Himself to the Father. We say at Mass that there is one priest -- Jesus Christ -- and one sacrifice -- that of the Cross. The priest, by himself, could never do such a thing. It is Christ who does it through His priesthood in the person of the priest.

The Trinity is an analogy for this. While there is only one Being, there are three Persons. While there is only one High Priest and only one priesthood, there are multiple priests.

(mfbukowski, don't you love how new-Platonism is in all aspects of Catholicism? ha! )

As for reading, I recommend reading the section of the Catechism dealing with the priesthood. I'll quote some relevant sections here:

The one priesthood of Christ

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."¹⁵ The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek";¹⁶ "holy, blameless, unstained,"¹⁷ "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"¹⁸ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. the same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."¹⁹

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."²⁰ The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. the faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."²¹

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.²² In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace - a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit - ,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. the ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

In the person of Christ the Head . . .

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:²³

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).

24

Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.

25

1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.²⁶ In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.²⁷

1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. the power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.

1551 This priesthood is ministerial. "That office . . . which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service."²⁸ It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. the sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a "sacred power" which is none other than that of Christ. the exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all.²⁹ "The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him."³⁰

. . . "in the name of the whole Church"

1552 The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.³¹

1553 "In the name of the whole Church" does not mean that priests are the delegates of the community. the prayer and offering of the Church are inseparable from the prayer and offering of Christ, her head; it is always the case that Christ worships in and through his Church. the whole Church, the Body of Christ, prays and offers herself "through him, with him, in him," in the unity of the Holy Spirit, to God the Father. the whole Body, caput et membra, prays and offers itself, and therefore those who in the Body are especially his ministers are called ministers not only of Christ, but also of the Church. It is because the ministerial priesthood represents Christ that it can represent the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

While we don't teach exactly when the Apostasy occurred. Many feel that it was all over but the shouting no later than 120 CE.

[Damien the Leper]

While God is one, the rest of us, at best, are still trying to become one with them. We don't all have to agree with each other on every issue to be members of the same Church.

Different, yes, but collectively they are in harmony on at least most of the major issues.

No. This is not correct. Jesus was a rebellious hippie who basically came and said "Knock all this crap off!" He revolutionized an older paradigm in favor a newer paradigm that was anti-legalistic and promoted the idea of unconditional love, egalitarianism and pluralistic in nature.

Matthew is very Messianic Jewish in nature; just as James' epistle. Paul is an ex-Pharisee that is trying to correct idolatrous observation of Jewish Law and essentially breaking down the theocratic culture that existed at the time.

Christianity is all about following Christ, so the single form of Christianity that existed in the first place was the form of Christianity represented and exemplified by Jesus Christ, himself. From himself it spread to others, some of whom he gave his authority, and along the way people picked up more or less of what he tried to teach them with some falling into apostasy, which is to go against or fall away from what he taught and/or teaches. Something is either in harmony with him and his teachings, or it isn't.

Perhaps you should read the Gospels and the Epistles in light of each other. I don't see a completely cohesive message being portrayed.

Yes, history does exactly attest to that notion, even though you are saying it doesn't.

I disagree still. Martyrdom of the apostles and attempts at committing genocide against the Christian communities of the time does not constitute an apostasy. It constitutes an atrocity. From a Christian perspective, it is more reasonable to understand that God did not remove His Spirit and influence from the Earth in any form. To do so would mean that God had turned His back on all of creation and letting it fend for itself. Christians honorably reject such a notion because they believe in an ultimate and infinite love that comes from the Creator. This is why faith is so important to the Christian community at large because it means that God has not given up on creation, God has not lost hope and that the Christians are to continue to have hope despite the oppression they endured and will continue to endure.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

For better or worse, that would apply to Catholics and Protestants as well if it were the case.

But guess what. No one will ever know if you are right or wrong- at least not until we get to the other side- so how much does it matter?

I wasn't excusing the Catholics, Orthodox or Protestants. But you are right when you ask "How much or why does it matter?" From a philosophical perspective I suggest that it doesn't matter. If God and Jesus are who believers say they are then the Divine shouldn't be concerned with religious or ecclesiastical elitism. It's not about what church you belong to. It's about the relationship that the individual has with God. It is all about God and not about anything of the physical world.

[mfbukowski]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to be that your over-emphasis on personal revelation/testimony seems to downplay the importance the LDS church gives to priesthood leaders having the right to receive revelation for those underneath them.

No, it does not downplay it at all because those in their stewardship are also encouraged to seek their own confirmation that what is taught is correct, or that the leader was correct.

That is what is pretty amazing- that we can individually get "verification" from God about the validity of callings etc. It virtually makes what seems to be subjective, objective by allowing more than one individual to experience knowing God's will for them as revealed by others. If anything does not conform to the guide of our own consciences, or if we object to the revelations of leaders on our behalf, we don't have to - and must not in fact- accept them as direction for our lives.

And yes, of course I listen to conference, and feel the still small voice confirm that advice as being directly applicable to me personally, or I do not follow it. This is precisely why we do NOT have a "Magesterium" and our doctrine is seen as vague by others, because they do not understand this principle because they have not experienced it.

We really CAN get individual confirmation from God about each principle.

I am a rebellious individual and if this principle was not true, there is no way I would be in this church. I trust no one with my life or my path in life but God, but he is always there guiding me, and so far has always always confirmed that my path is correct in every calling, every instance of obedience. I have not always understood why I should do what he has directed- in fact most of the time I have no clue- but I do as he tells me and it always turns out well. Always.

My family will tell you that I am about the most skeptical person you will meet- perhaps our philosophical interactions have confirmed that- I believe nothing but what I personally see feel taste and touch- but that personal interaction is there as "what I feel". If that is not there, I will not obey or accept the principle.

The principle you are doubting only confirms it more- that others can and do receive revelation for us; but the bottom line is if we don't confirm it for ourselves, I don't do it.

All must be established in the mouths of two or more witnesses- ALL. One witness is the one who gives leadership, the other witness is the one who prays about what he has been asked to do and receives an answer. Two witnesses- always!

This is powerful, powerful stuff, that you can do that!

[mfbukowski]

Incorrect. The Holy Spirit can and does provide revelation concerning the question.

I am not disputing that. Read the point a little better.