The Great Apostasy?

[Big Dogger]

This chapter is very short and deserves to be read in its whole. I fail to see how this chapter has anything to do with the "Great Apostasy".

1 Corinthians chapter 13

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

So, did Jesus ordain 12 Nephite Apostles?

If Jesus knew they would "fail" then why would he ordain the 12...or 24 Apostles?

Peace be with you.

[mom4life]

This is correct. But it is no different than the Catholic's need to hold tightly to the succesion of bishops from Peter. I would still like to see any strong evidence of the primacy of the bishop of Rome prior to AD 600 and Gregory the great. I don't believe it can be done, which washes away the foundation of the Catholic Church.

There's a nice little book, in the Penguin Classics series called "Early Christian Writings" compiled by Maxwell Staniforth. It demonstrates the Catholic position very well. The words of the Apostolic Fathers and Post- Apostolic Fathers are beautiful, Faithful, and enlightening. If you want to wet your whistle further I would move on up to the three volume set "THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS translated by William A. Jurgens" This is also excellent and takes you up through the time of St. John Damascene in 749 A.D.

[T-Shirt]

While admittedly, I have not read all those volumes, I have read much of the apostolic fathers and post apostolic fathers. From that which I have read including world history, I have yet to find any strong evidence that the church had a central controling authority after the death of the apostles until about AD600, with Pope Gregory the Great.

The Cathoilic Church believes that starting with Linus, the bishop of Rome has been the central authority of the entire church. I can find little to no strong evidence for this. How is it that Clement was ordained by Peter if Linus replaced Peter, and Clement was third and according to some fourth after Linus? What about John? He was still around during the time of these Roman bishops. I have heard some Catholics say that John was offered the see of Rome as he had rights to it, but he declined. Can anyone give me a credible reference to this? Peter ordained several bishops, why was Rome more important than the others. Why was Caonstantine, who was not even Catholic, or Christian for that matter, the one to organize and preside at the council of Nicaea? My understanding is that the Roman bishop was not even in attendance. Historically, as long as Rome stood, there was no way for the church to have a central controling authority. After Rome fell, the church was still under the thumb of Bizantium until about AD 570. In came Gregory the Great, and fills the void of the emporers and declares himself the central authority of the church. This is when the first real pope began his reign, at least as far as I can tell. Before that you just had many independant bishops doing their best to keep the pieces together. Many helped each other out, they wrote letters back and forth, but I just don't see that central authority until the empire was out of the way and Gregory filled the void. As I think about it, this sounds like a possible fullfilment of 2 Thessalonians 2.

I can certainly be wrong on the way I see this, can anyone provide a strong argument against it?

T-Shirt

[tubaloth]

So, did Jesus ordain 12 Nephite Apostles?

If Jesus knew they would "fail" then why would he ordain the 12...or 24 Apostles?

You know my answer to the first question.

Because if 4 or 5 generations get the blessings of the gospel isn

[mom4life]

An excellent historical series is Warren H. Carroll's "History of Christendom". There are several volumes such as:

The Founding of Christendom

The Building of Christendom

The Glory of Christendom

The Cleaving of Christendom

They take you form the Creation in the Garden up through the Reformation. A little pricey if you want to buy, but my library carried them. They are very good and will answer your questions. Dr. Carroll is the founding and first President of Christendom College and Chairman of its History Department for twenty-five years. This series has had very good reviews on Amazon.com. It is a lot to wade through, but you might enjoy it.

[Big Dogger]

So, did Jesus ordain 12 Nephite Apostles?

If Jesus knew they would "fail" then why would he ordain the 12...or 24 Apostles?

You know my answer to the first question.

Here is your quote from our other thread that answered my question.

Christ gave them the same keys to watch over the Church, to be a Special Witness for the Nephite People. I don

[Programmer]

Or maybe a better question would be, when was the Great Apostasy complete?

Elder James Talmadge in his book "The great apostacy" has some interesting footnotes about the foul behavior of the popes in during the 10th and 11th centuries. I like to point to that as proof positive that whatever had happened was complete. If it was complete by then, nothing else matters. The protestant reformation was still 5-6 centuries away, and the restoration still 8 centuries away. In all it's not called the dark ages for nothing.

Chris J.

[Zakuska]

Or maybe a better question would be, when was the Great Apostasy complete?

In or around the year... 570AD

666AD Would be an alternative completion date.

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/intro.htm

"We are informed by the renowned historian, Whelpley, as also in the Revolutions of Europe, that the church of Jesus Christ was overrun, and driven into the wilderness, A.D. 570, and John the Revelator informs us it must remain there 1260 years, which makes exactly the time, the year 1830, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints was organized, with the gifts and blessings."

[tubaloth]

IHMO, your response does show the wide difference of opinion within the LDS members regarding the Twelve Apostles.

I don

[tubaloth]

Double Post. Sorry

[simply_disappear]

i replied to what i thought would post a message here and it sent a private message . i'll send it here too . what culminated in the complete apostasy was there being no authority left for which to run the church . the apostasy and restoration has been compared to the setting and rising of the sun . it didn't happen all at once on either end of the spectrum .

simply

[mom4life]

Elder James Talmadge in his book "The great apostacy" has some interesting footnotes about the foul behavior of the popes in during the 10th and 11th centuries. I like to point to that as proof positive that whatever had happened was complete.

It's easy for people to make accusations, while not giving specifics. Specifically, which Popes is Talmadge referring to, and what erroneous doctrine did they pronounce from the Chair of Peter? He does not say that!

Now, the whole world practically knows there were some corrupt renaissance Popes in their PERSONAL life, but when they were acting in their official position as Pope and pronouncing official doctrine, they did not error. Where did they error? The Pope is considered infalliable ONLY when he is speaking officially. He is not considered "impeccable" in all other areas of his life. Popes are human too, have their own personal opinion on things...etc.

You also need to remember that the keys of the priesthood are (and were) not held exclusively by the Pope himself, but rather jointly with all the Bishops throughout the world. And just because you may have a Pope who goes bad, does not mean every single priesthood holder throughout the entire world became corrupt or apostate. Pretty hard thing to prove. If you take a serious look into the history and documents of the Catholic church, God has been there with it, raising up very holy people, renewing it when it was needed throught the ages.

[Programmer]

Very Well Mom4Life:

End Note #3, in Chapter 9 "Internals Causes, continued", in my book pages 144-147, paraphrased from "Intellectual Development of Europe" J. W. Draper, Volume 1, Chapter 12, pp. 378-381.

You also exposed a whole can of worms with the Jointly with bishops idea. A Pope is elected, he is not called by God in the direct sense Peter or James Or John, or Moses, or Joshua, or Aaron was (See Hebrews 5:4 I believe). He is elected, and as such as to campaign for votes. Therefore his authority comes from the College of Cardinals.

Still, evasion to Bishops is not the issue. But even then, by the 1500's, one of the platforms of the Peasant revolt's in Germany was absentee Bishops. And it didn't just happen in Germany, it happened in England as well. How is a parishoner suppposed to appeal to a bishop for justice or mercy to a bishop who is in Italy? Bishop's by the 15th century were treated as royalty, imposing taxes on the population, living in relative luxury, and also condemning heretics to death. So yes, of course some of the keys of the kingdom were in the hands of the Bishops who were generally I believe just as profligate as the Popes.

[mom4life]

1) Who is JW Draper and what are his credentials in catholic world history?

2) Methinks that you are not familiar with the "election" process of the Pope. There is more to it than casting ballots or "campaigning" as you state it. Prayer and divine will are definately part of the process. You are also forgetting how the Council of Jerusalem in Acts operated.

You are making general statements of all bishops that are unfounded. While there were some bishops who did live in luxury, many did not. If a particular bishop was called to Rome, there were still bishops in nearby dioceses to contact. There was also correspondence back in those days. Your objections don't hold water. The Catholic church also reformed from within, hence the Council of Trent. Catholics believe Christ when he stated that He would always be with His Church. It's his "Bride", and He taught against divorce. Yes, the Catholic Church has had problems through the ages, but Christ is faithful to his covenant to always remain with it.

[simply_disappear]

2) Methinks that you are not familiar with the "election" process of the Pope. There is more to it than casting ballots or "campaigning" as you state it. Prayer and divine will are definately part of the process. You are also forgetting how the Council of Jerusalem in Acts operated.

would you care to expound upon the process by which a new pope is place in the vatican ? it would be interesting discourse being there will be a new one soon . another question : why would prayer and divine will be "definitely" part of the process if the rcc does not believe in divine revelation ? finding out who is to be the next pope using prayer and divine "will" sounds very much like revelation . what is your take on how the council of jerusalem was conducted ? another question : why casting ballots and campaigning ? did Christ implement this ? please show us where this was implemented by the Lord . thanks .

peace out

simply

[Alan]

I don't believe there was ever a complete apostacy. The Book of Mormon seems to say the same thing.

Alan

[T-Shirt]

Catholics believe Christ when he stated that He would always be with His Church.  It's his "Bride", and He taught against divorce.  Yes, the Catholic Church has had problems through the ages, but Christ is faithful to his covenant to always remain with it.

Dar Mee,

Can you show me where Christ promised that His church (Bride) would remain on the earth? John and Daniel seem to say that she would not remain on the earth, but would come back at a certain time, after Satan overcomes the church:

Rev. 12:

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman [Christ's Bride] clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days (same as 42 months).

Revelation 13:

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Daniel 7:

19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time (same as 42 months).

How do you view these verses?

T-Shirt

[Zakuska]

Mom:

The "election" in Acts... they basically drew "straws". Big difference between voting.

T-Shirt,

Don't forget Rev 14:6...

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship dhim that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

How can the earth have the Gospel if an Angel has to come back to preach it?

And this is after the chruch flees into the wilderness mind you.

[rameumptom]

This is why the Nephite 12 was more then just a High Counsel. It was the governing body of the Church. How else would Christ form his Church in the Americas with out 12 apostles?

I certainly do appreciate your response to this question. IHMO, your response does show the wide difference of opinion within the LDS members regarding the Twelve Apostles. I mean no disrespect to your opinion, but I think that other LDS members might disagree with you. Essentially, by ordaining two sets of Twelve Apostles, Christ established His church twice.

[Zakuska]

Keep this in mind too...

A stake has a council of twelve elders over it. While we have the council of twelve and seventy over the earth.

So the nephite council of twelve whould be like a stake high council while the Jerusalem 12 and seventy would be like the twelve Apostles in Jerusalem.

What is intresting is that the Jews had the same orignaization. And why wouldn't they? They where the Apostate Church before Christ came.

Ever wondered what "Sanhedran" means?

Seventies

[Big Dogger]

another question : why would prayer and divine will be "definitely" part of the process if the rcc does not believe in divine revelation ? finding out who is to be the next pope using prayer and divine "will" sounds very much like revelation .

This is a common misunderstanding. Catholics do not believe in "ongoing revelation" in regard to the Gospel message. The Gospel of Christ has been proclaimed...no need to change it. No matter how the world changes, the Gospel never will.

We are all entitled to personal revelation and guidance from God.

Peace be with you.

[Big Dogger]

But I don

[T-Shirt]

But I don’t know of any organization that felt they had the same organization that Christ set up. Because no argument could be made that Christ set up a bad (or false) system of worship calling 12 Apostles.

[juliann]

Thanks for the information, Dogger. I've always found it fascinating how two different religions can use the same thing and come away feeling vindicated. Clement presents no problem for our theology. Another thing that disappeared was prophecy...and no one knows why. I have yet to see any declaration that is is no longer necessary...only that it is no longer there. I continue to maintain that apostles were not dispensible the minute one of them was replaced. Without a proclaimation of some sort negating that....I think it is self-evident that this was considered necessary or it would not have been done at all.

[Zakuska]

Exactly T-Shirt. The Apostles where traveling leaders who appointed local authorities. Then moved on to other areas to convert and then... appoint local Bishops all over again.

However... they continued filling their vacanies in their ranks by other Apostles as well (Acts 1). Catholics have to down play this.

What happens when the foundation of a building is taken away?

The stones above fall all over them selves. They acted like a bunch of crabs in a bucket... continually pulling each other down so no one ever gets to the top.