New Book about the Apostasy. Any thoughts or comments?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think anyone would consider the Articles of Faith to be and complete list of all doctrine.

Most definitely not. It contains in itself a rebuttal to that idea (continuing revelation).

[Tacenda]

https://gospeltangents.com/2022/10/restoration-walls-patrick-mckay/

Much better site to listen or read about restoration breakouts perhaps.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Tacenda

[RevTestament]

On 11/4/2022 at 10:45 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

A God that is omnipotent but acts like that is not a God that makes sense to me or one that I can believe in.

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to ^aconceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 11/10/2022 at 5:14 PM, Tacenda said:

Actually I didn't understand Saint Bonaventure's Domino Pizza reference, haha. Sorry about that.

Imagine that, instead of using a wafer or a crust of bread for communion, someone thinks that a box full of Dunkin' donuts will be more spiritually appropriate.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Stargazer]

On 10/27/2022 at 5:15 PM, teddyaware said:

Do you believe if some of these devout non-LDS Christians turn out to anti-Mormons that they will still be considered to be members of the church of the Lamb of God?

 

DC 123:12... "For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it"

These would include those who persecute the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only because they sincerely believe that it is apostate. Surely we can cut them some slack for their ignorance? Saul of Tarsus was once among their number.

[Saint Bonaventure]

What do Latter-day Saints think of St. Clement of Rome? Is he a Christian? Had the Great Apostasy already happened?

Clement wasn't an apostle, but he is described in Philippians 3 as a "fellow laborer" with Paul. Clement wrote the following ca A.D. 80-90:

Quote

 

The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Christ, was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God's will...and they [the apostles] appointed their first converts...to be bishops and deacons of the future believers....

Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop. For this cause, therefore, since they had received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have been already mentioned and afterward added the provision that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.  

 

 

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do Latter-day Saints think of St. Clement of Rome? Is he a Christian? Had the Great Apostasy already happened?

Clement wasn't an apostle, but he is described in Philippians 3 as a "fellow laborer" with Paul. Clement wrote the following ca A.D. 80-90:

There was an article by Richard Lloyd Anderson in the August 1976 Ensign magazine that stands out to me, because it influenced my interest in the writings of the early Christians.  The title of the article is:  Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy.  Below is the portion of the article that deals with Clement (with the preceding paragraph included for context, and some hyperlink references and emphasis added by me):

Quote

New Testament books contain many warnings that such bishops should expect the church’s disintegration in their lifetime. The leading example is Paul’s final speech to the local leaders of Ephesus. While Paul labored at populous Ephesus for a full three years, he reached “almost all Asia,” the surrounding province. Naturally, he should have been enthusiastic about the future of the work. Instead, we find the opposite. He called together the “elders” from Ephesus and alluded to their inspired calling as “overseers” (Acts 20:28), a King James term all other times translated as “bishop.” He warned them of inside dangers: “grievous wolves … among you, not sparing the flock.” False leaders would arise “of your own selves,” seeking power by “speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29–30.) That prophecy, equally plain in English or Greek, helps clarify another of Paul’s prophecies where translation somewhat obscures the meaning. Near the time of his death, Paul wrote Timothy regarding Christian believers: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” (2 Tim. 4:3.) “Having itching ears” describes the false teachers in this English translation, but in Greek the participle can only modify “they.” That is, Christian believers (the topic of Timothy’s instructions) will have fickle ears for new teachers that please them. The result is simply corruption of the Christian gospel: “They shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:4.) Both of these prophecies have this in common: every false doctrine is brought by a false teacher. Paul warns not merely of erroneous teachings, but of the scheming leader.

The Christian letter called 1 Clement reveals exactly that situation in a major Christian center. Eusebius identifies its author, the bishop at Rome, as the same Clement Paul praised as being written in “the book of life.” (Philip. 4:3.) Because Clement’s writings seem to refer to Domitian’s persecution about A.D. 96, his letter is commonly dated then. He thus speaks of Peter and Paul in “our own generation” and seems intimately familiar with the details of Paul’s life. (1 Clement 5:1–7.) His writings reveal Clement as a man of profound love and deep ideals, serving freely despite inconvenience, persecution, or death. Writing to correct Corinthian schism, as did Paul, he similarly emphasizes the power of love to unite and refine the character to Christlike perfection. (1 Clement 49.) Clement’s conviction of the resurrection and the Second Coming is certain and his respect for the apostles and their work unlimited.

More motivated by conscience than authority, Clement writes the Corinthians to express his shock that they had removed their leaders. These deposed officers had been appointed by the apostles, “with the consent of the whole church.” Nothing but the jealousy of “a few rash and self-willed persons” (1 Clement 1) could have brought unlawful rejection of the priesthood leaders: “Your schism has turned aside many, has cast many into discouragement, many to doubt, all of us to grief, and your sedition continues.” (1 Clement 46:9.) A few years afterward John wrote a similar letter concerning Diotrephes, who loved “to have the preeminence” (3 Jn. 1:9) and thus rejected John’s authority. John promised to discipline him when he came.

But what would happen if there were no John in Asia and no Paul in Corinth? Then unstable members could elect the most popular men as leaders. Eusebius, the earliest known Christian historian, seemed to indicate such an occurrence when he wrote that as soon as the body of the apostles left, “the deceit of false teachers” moved into the vacuum with a counterfeit message.4   In the prophecies of the New Testament as in such historical glimpses of the church, we see not apostolic succession but apostolic subversion.

Clement says that the apostles appointed converts, after “testing them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons.” (1 Clement 42:4.) The apostles provided that “other approved men should succeed to their ministry” after their deaths. (1 Clement 44:2.) But Clement seems pessimistic about how long this succession would last: “Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop.” (1 Clement 44:1.) Thus Clement sees the Corinthian rebellion as a fulfillment of prophecy. Certainly local leaders could be removed, but only by those holding authority—and the Corinthian Christians had just removed those who held that power. They had broken the proper priesthood chain.

Since Clement was third bishop, according to most Roman succession lists, Catholic scholars have suggested that he as Roman bishop was exercising superior jurisdiction. It is true that Clement’s letter was carried by two “witnesses” to the Corinthian church, but his letter is a complaint about their procedure, not a command to correct it. In fact, Clement does not write as their Christian leader. He reminds them that the apostles “appointed” bishops, but gives no hint that he could do the same. Even a scholar who views 1 Clement as establishing Roman authority admits “that it contains no categorical assertion of the primacy of the Roman See” and that Clement “nowhere states expressly that his intervention binds … the Christian community of Corinth.”5

In fact, Clement does not even use his title of bishop of Rome. He begins in the name of “the church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth”—an equal writing to an equal, concerned, but with no authoritative direction. Not one case exists within the New Testament itself of a bishop writing to someone else’s church, or even of a church writing to a church. The openings of New Testament letters invoke an apostle’s power particularly when they are calling a stubborn branch to repentance. Paul’s letter to the Galatians begins intensely: “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead).” (Gal. 1:1.)6 [see note below]  In contrast, during the second century local churches frequently and typically gave advice to other churches. Clement’s Roman letter is only one example of Christians expressing concern to other Christians in the absence of apostles who could rightfully require obedience. As we will see, Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, wrote to six churches, including Rome, but no one argues that such acts suggest the primacy of his bishopric.

 Footnote Note 6:   Of twenty-one New Testament letters, eleven expressly name “apostle” in the heading, while five use the equivalent “elder” or “servant” (the latter an Old Testament term for Moses’ priesthood leadership). The remaining five either have an implication of authority in the heading or an obvious personal reason for leaving it out.

To summarize, we see Clement as an actual bishop appointed by the apostles, and he was struggling to keep things in check during a difficult period of time.  As said in part of Anderson's summary:

Quote

Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp present a united picture of three great bishops dedicated to morality, seasoned in love, and vigorously alert against factions. But they all notably lack the quality that enabled the apostles to establish the church and teach the world by the vitality of their writings. This dynamic quality is revelation, manifesting itself in the dramatic new programs that swept Christianity through the ancient world. These are quoters of apostles, not apostles and prophets themselves. Therefore, reading the Apostolic Fathers without assuming that they knew of the predictions of apostasy would be like reading Acts and the epistles without assuming that the apostles knew of Christ’s ministry.

So Clement was the legitimate bishop of Rome, but writing as a peer he doesn't write with the authority of an apostle, but he gives his "opinion", his conscience compelling him to question the rebellion at Corinth and the strife for the title of bishop, and he offered his complaint about their procedure.  Clement saw the rebellion at Corinth as a fulfillment of prophecy as foretold by revelation to the apostles.  He also knew that the dissent and apostasy would continue, for he says that the leaders who are martyred or otherwise die are "blessed", for they will not have to endure the contention of men who seek to overthrow their office.  

Edited November 12, 2022 by InCognitus

[3DOP]

On 11/8/2022 at 12:02 AM, InCognitus said:

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point of "the great apostasy" if you think the existence of splinter groups to be evidence of apostasy of the main core group.  In the first century Christian church, there were those who would "walk no more" with Jesus (John 6:66), early schisms of those of "Apollos" or "Cephas" (etc.) - (1 Cor 1:11-13), those after Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), those after Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), those after Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), those after Philetus (2 Tim 2:17), those after Diotrephes (3 John 1:9), and of course the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15).  No doubt there were more than those mentioned in scripture.  But the apostles were there to guide and direct the church in that period of time, and they warned against the perils of following after those apostate groups.

In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, he was quite surprised to learn that the saints at Galatia were "so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel", and that they were perverting the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:6-9).  If Paul had not been there to correct them, how would they know if they were in apostasy, or not?  Would they have considered themselves to be the real Christians?  Or how else could they possibly know?

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul tried to put down the idea that the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ would happen "soon".  He told the saints to not be "soon shaken in mind, or be troubled" that the "day of Christ is at hand".  And one of the two reasons he gave for the second coming not happening "soon" is that there must be an apostasia ("falling away" in the KJV) first.  What kind of apostasy did he have in mind?  Individual apostasy from the church, like all of the examples of that I cited above?  How exactly would it make sense for Paul to ease the "shaken in mind" or those "troubled" that the "day of Christ is at hand", if he was referring to individual apostasy that was already happening all around them?  He had to have something much bigger or different in mind, would he not?

Apostatizing from the church is different than apostasy of the church itself, to where the church ceased to exist in its original form.  This doesn't mean that people ceased to be Christians.  This doesn't mean there were no longer any sincere individuals who tried to serve God and follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of their ability.  But the core organized central authority was different.  There were no longer any apostles or prophets to lead, direct, and correct the Church.  There was strife over the office of bishop (as Clement of Rome reports).  And Eusebius, in his Church History (Book III, chapter 32:7-8), quoted St. Hegesippus as saying:

Ephesians 4:11-14 describes this (in the absence of the divinely appointed leadership) as being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".

But God did continue to direct some individuals during the time of the "great apostasy".  Some of those individuals helped bring about reform that led to changes that prepared the way for the restoration of the gospel. And good comes from all sincere Christians throughout the world, on whatever path God is leading them.   

Hi InCognitus, I am providing the quote you gave from Eusebius since it doesn't carry over from your post. 

"In addition to these things the same man [Hegesippus], while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.

But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the 'knowledge which is falsely so-called.'"

-----------------------------------------

When I looked this up just now, I was surprised to see that it was highlighted already in orange, which was the code I used to indicate a passage that might point one toward the teaching of the Latter-day Saints.

However, I think you would have to agree that the purpose of Eusebius' quote of Hegesippus was only intended as one of hundreds of illustrations in history to show how fiercely God's enemies tried to destroy Christ's Church before She could convert a pagan empire.       

He states two of his three purposes in the writing of this history at the very beginning:

"It is my purpose to write an account of the lines of succession of the holy apostles, as well as of the times that have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events that are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

It is my purpose also to give the names and number and dates of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves mercilessly devastated the flock of Christ."

--- The Church History of Eusebius, 1:1:1 and 2

Eusebius sees the conflict that he is about to describe as a glorious triumph for the Church of which the bishop of Rome is preeminent. Eusebius discusses St. Irenaeus' catalogue of all of the bishops of Rome up to his own time. Why would Irenaeus, a bishop in far away Gaul, try to prove the Apostolic pedigree in one particular Church? Here is what Eusebius apparently believes about it:

"In the same order and succession the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the Apostles unto us."

---ibid. 5:6:5

The five volume work of Irenaeus is entitled "Against Heresies"! It would be foolish to deny that heresy followed the post-Apostolic Church, as it had when the Apostles lived. Heresies serve a purpose in God's providence over the Church of which Christ is the Head. Without Luther, there is no Council of Trent. Without Novatian, there is no Council of Ephesus. Without Arius, there is no Council of Nicea. Doctrine is refined and deepened by its contact with new ideas that are incompatible with what has been handed down from the Apostolic deposit. Heresy isn't stupid. It's new. It is like this Synod on Synodality that is ravaging the Church today with its new theories on how the true Church has always opposed female ordination, but it is okay to consider it after a 2,000 year history of not being able to recognize what Christ's Gospel teaches about the subject. The Catholic does not so much oppose women's ordination as he opposes anything which doesn't come from Catholic Tradition. St. Paul affirms to the Corinthians that there is a reason to understand why heresy will never be vanquished and establishes a principle that will ever follow the Church. The presence of souls with "itching ears" following after heresies does not destroy, but rather purifies the Church:

"I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you."

---I Cor. 11:18, 19

3DOP  

PS: I have to make a qualification. I should have said that heresy is not "necessarily stupid". Historically, I think my theory holds up pretty well until recently. But I am questioning my theory these days about "the successful error" which I have touted here through the years, as a way of reducing the claims that this or that widely believed error can be absurd or ridiculous.

Edited November 12, 2022 by 3DOP
ps

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do Latter-day Saints think of St. Clement of Rome? Is he a Christian? Had the Great Apostasy already happened?

Clement wasn't an apostle, but he is described in Philippians 3 as a "fellow laborer" with Paul. Clement wrote the following ca A.D. 80-90:

 

 

"The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Christ, was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God's will...and they [the apostles] appointed their first converts...to be bishops and deacons of the future believers....

Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop. For this cause, therefore, since they had received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have been already mentioned and afterward added the provision that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." 

The above is the quote from St. Clement that St. B gave us. It argues that the Apostles had no intention of "ordaining" Apostles. They ordained bishops because in that office alone is the fullness of Holy Orders. When a replacement Apostle for the fallen away Judas was sought, we can see why the Apostles would not give any thought to replacing themselves with any further Apostles. Notice the qualification that was required:

"Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection."

---Acts 1:21, 22

These were those who St. Paul describes as "the great apostles". (2 Cor. 11:5) St. Paul is an apostle to the gentiles, but not one of those. There are others who were apostles in the sense that they were sent on a mission, similarly to the "Apostle of the East", St. Francis Xavier. But none of these could be numbered among "the great apostles", who were twelve and who were succeeded by bishops who could not qualify to be numbered among those who were in company with our Lord on the earth as reliable eye witnesses of what took place between John's baptism until the Lord's glorious Ascension. This would be why as the "great apostles" passed off of the scene, it would have been eventually impossible to find candidates to replace them with as "a witness with us of his resurrection".  

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by 3DOP

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do Latter-day Saints think of St. Clement of Rome? Is he a Christian? Had the Great Apostasy already happened?

Just in case there is confusion…

Even if we believe many truths were lost as well as priesthood authority, Latter-day Saints in general define anyone who looks to Christ as the Son of God and their Savior a Christian, even if misguided at times in attempts to follow his teachings.  An apostate or apostate organization that still believes in Christ is Christian.  Thus the world had many, many Christians in it during the Great Apostacy and there is no question that St. Clement of Rome was a Christian.

There are a few articles referring to him briefly on the Church’s website (the one Incognitus refers to is the most in-depth reference I see).  Here are two for an example…

Quote

Tacitus condemned Nero for this injustice. He, along with the Christian writer Clement of Rome, described what they had learned of the Christians’ horrible suffering. Clement, writing some thirty years after Nero’s death, attributes the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to Nero’s persecution. (1 Clement 5–6.)

https://basic.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/10/whither-the-early-church?lang=eng
 

Quote

Clement of Rome, in the opening lines of the Recognitions, says that what drew him to investigate the gospel and join the church was his burning desire to find answers to the great questions of life: “When was this world made? What was there before it? Was it always there? Is there a life after death?” He says that he wore himself out at school but could find no professor or philosopher who could give him a satisfactory answer.356

https://basic.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/04/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-11?lang=eng

Edited November 13, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 11/11/2022 at 5:20 PM, Calm said:

Most definitely not. It contains in itself a rebuttal to that idea (continuing revelation).

Not sure I see much difference between the LDS Articles of Faith and a non-LDS creed. I can't think of any creeds that don't include a belief in the Holy Spirit to counsel, guide, comfort, and direct us. As long as one believes in the Holy Spirit, one believes in continuing revelation, especially when it comes to God's will, direction, and leading for our lives. Creeds are not exhaustive or meant to be all-encompassing either.

 

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

DC 123:12... "For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it"

These would include those who persecute the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only because they sincerely believe that it is apostate. Surely we can cut them some slack for their ignorance? Saul of Tarsus was once among their number.

How about those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who persecute the non-LDS world-wide Christian church (community) only because they sincerely believe that it is apostate. Should we cut them some slack too? I do.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do Latter-day Saints think of St. Clement of Rome? Is he a Christian? Had the Great Apostasy already happened?

Clement wasn't an apostle, but he is described in Philippians 3 as a "fellow laborer" with Paul. Clement wrote the following ca A.D. 80-90:

 

Clement is quoted and given some prominence in the new book about the apostasy that began this thread. It seems like the individual members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have disparate views about the apostasy. I don't quite understand how they believe the differences in views of non-LDS Christians about issues cause confusion and therefore are contrary to the truth, but they don't seem to see that about their own differences in their own disparate views about doctrinal issues.

For example, the author of the new book on the apostasy, who appears to be a knowledgeable and faithful member, indicates that he believes that Protestants maintained the Aaronic priesthood, but lost the Melchizedek priesthood. Therefore their baptisms are valid for admission to the Terrestial Kingdom, while the Melchizedek priesthood is the only valid path to the Celestial Kingdom. I wonder how many members of the LDS church here agree with that? He seems to leave out the Catholics from that discussion. He also doesn't believe the keys were lost when the apostles all died. He also doesn't seem to believe that God withdrew the priesthood from the earth, but that it slowly faded away, with the Aaronic priesthood continuing on in the ordinance (baptism) of the Protestants. Interesting book.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

An apostate or apostate organization that still believes in Christ is Christian.

I find this a bit confusing. I also know you not be an author of confusion. So help me out. If I am an apostate and I belong to an apostate organization (the Mennonite church), and I am and it is Christian, then both are Christian - naming the name of Christ and apostate at the same time. I thought being an apostate is one who consciously turns away from Christ and the original message of His atonement or good news? It is a rejection of Christ and His gift to us, not a rejection of any one church. I suppose a Christian church could also be apostate if it as a collective rejected Christ and his atonement, walking away from Christianity en mass. I am simply not sure I have ever heard of such a thing occurring en mass.

I have been thinking while away from the forum for a few days, that somehow we need a way to define our terms in order to understand better what we are each saying. Would you mind telling me/us what your definition of apostasy or being apostate is, especially if the apostate and his or her church is apostate and Christian at the same time? Perhaps we are thinking of two very different things. As I said before in a post, I can't think of anything worse to call a fellow Christian than an apostate, which for me is the ultimate rejecting - turning away from the gospel and the Christian faith - a form of blasphemy of the mission and gift of the Holy Spirit that may not be able to be forgiven. It is a conscious moving away from and rejection of the truth of the atonement and Christ.

I can't see a Mennonite who becomes a member of the LDS church being called an apostate. She simply is a migrant, having migrated to another Christian home, taking her faith in Christ with her. There are many places to find a home in Christianity - that is why there are denominations and groups. I don't find them or their differences to be confusing at all. Many of the differences are cultural, some are doctrinal, lots are personal preference, but the rich diversity of worship and fellowship allows the individual believer to find a home in the place he or she is most comfortable. Nothing confusing about that. I have heard Saints reject the diversity of Christian groups because "God is not an author of confusion." I don't find the rich diversity of the Christian mosaic or any other kind of mosaic as confusing. If it were not for the individual pieces of the mosaic, even with all their crooked lines, there would be no whole image to enjoy. Take care.

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

"The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Christ, was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God's will...and they [the apostles] appointed their first converts...to be bishops and deacons of the future believers....

Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop. For this cause, therefore, since they had received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have been already mentioned and afterward added the provision that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." 

The above is the quote from St. Clement that St. B gave us. It argues that the Apostles had no intention of "ordaining" Apostles. They ordained bishops because in that office alone is the fullness of Holy Orders.

I don't read Clement at all the same way you are interpreting him above.  The statements you quoted don't have anything to do with the intent (or not) of ordaining apostles, but it is the order of authority set forth in the church.  Here's the first quote from Chapter 42:

Quote

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

The order that I see above is as follows:

1. Christ was sent forth by God
2. The apostles were sent by Christ (the apostolic appointment is done "in an orderly way, according to the will of God", with these qualifications:  "being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost")
3. The apostles and other area authorities appointed bishops and deacons in the various countries and cities.

Clement doesn't even hint that bishops are to be the successors of the apostles, he is simply establishing the order that was set forth in the church:  Christ is above all, and Christ called apostles to govern the entire church, and the apostles called the bishops and deacons to govern in the various countries and cities.

The second quote is from Chapter 44, where Clement gives further insight into how the office of bishop (episcopate) was to be perpetuated:

Quote

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Clement's focus was on the office of bishop, not on the apostleship, since the bishops appointed by the apostles at Corinth were being replaced by other men trying to take control.  He says that the office of episcopate [bishop] was by appointment of the apostles.  And when a bishop should "fall asleep" (pass away) then other "approved men should succeed them in their ministry".  And the office of bishop was established through the appointment by the apostles or "afterwards by other eminent men", and it is done "with the consent of the whole church".  This is how new bishops should have been appointed.

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

When a replacement Apostle for the fallen away Judas was sought, we can see why the Apostles would not give any thought to replacing themselves with any further Apostles. Notice the qualification that was required:

"Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection."

---Acts 1:21, 22

These were those who St. Paul describes as "the great apostles". (2 Cor. 11:5) St. Paul is an apostle to the gentiles, but not one of those. There are others who were apostles in the sense that they were sent on a mission, similarly to the "Apostle of the East", St. Francis Xavier. But none of these could be numbered among "the great apostles", who were twelve and who were succeeded by bishops who could not qualify to be numbered among those who were in company with our Lord on the earth as reliable eye witnesses of what took place between John's baptism until the Lord's glorious Ascension. This would be why as the "great apostles" passed off of the scene, it would have been eventually impossible to find candidates to replace them with as "a witness with us of his resurrection".  

I think there is too much read into Acts 1:21-22 about the qualifications for an apostle.  In context, that simply seems to be the pool of candidates that they had in view for that purpose at that time.  In fact, we only find mention of Matthias two times in the entire New Testament:  Acts 1:22 and 26.  I think Clement had it right, in the first quote above.  He gives these qualifications for the office of apostle:  "Being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost".  Christ was sent by God, and the apostles by Christ, and "both these appointments... were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God".   Matthias was called to replace Judas.  And Paul and Barnabas were ordained to the apostleship (Acts 13:1-3) shortly after the martyrdom of James (Acts 12:1-2).  Paul and Barnabas both met the qualifications described by Clement. 

And how was the apostle Paul "fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ"?  Paul saw him in a vision, on the road to Damascus.  And I believe there are other ways that an individual could be "fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ".  By this process the office of apostle could be perpetuated indefinitely.  

And I don't think Paul is referring to the original 12 as being the "great apostles" in 2 Cor 11:5.  He is simply acknowledging the equality that is in the office of apostleship (i.e. "I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles").  

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

I thought being an apostate is one who consciously turns away from Christ and the original message of His atonement or good news? It is a rejection of Christ and His gift to us, not a rejection of any one church.

So only Christians are capable of apostasy? There are no apostate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? 

Sounds like maybe you are using the word "apostasy" in a much more narrow way than everyone else. 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Amulek

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

So only former Christians are capable of apostasy? There are no apostate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? 

Sounds like maybe you are simply using the word "apostasy" in a much more narrow way than everyone else. 

 

You may be right. I have never heard the word apostate used except in a Christian and Jewish context. I will think about that. I know I have been told by those in the LDS church that I am reprobate, but not apostate. Is there a difference in those two spiritual conditions in your thinking?

But I ask you to please do a couple of other things as well. Can you please define what you believe the word apostate and apostasy means for you, together with what is your understanding of how, if by any manner one can "cure" his or her apostasy? Also, it would help a lot if you could state whether or not you believe non-LDS Christians and/or their churches (denominations) remain (currently abide) in apostasy by their lack of affiliation with the LDS church? Is there some other cause?  If so, what is the cure for the church and/or the person? Is there a cure outside of the LDS church? Is the LDS church the only cure?

If one remains outside the LDS church (assuming that is the only cure) what is the impact of that mortal apostasy on the eternal future of the person? Is it of no relevance to eternity if one accepts the truths of the LDS church on the other side of the veil? Last, what is the impact of my apostate state on my relationship to the Godhead (all three persons) in this life right here and now? For example why would the LDS church allow me to take the sacrament if I am an apostate? If I were still in the pastorate, I don't think I would offer the sacrament to someone I knew to be an apostate from Christianity. But their denominational affiliation would make no difference to me. There are tons of ex-Mennonites in the world. That would be of no consequence to me because I don't see that as apostasy.

I know all that is more than one question. But, it would go a long way to helping me understand your position on the state of being an apostate or in apostasy as you see it. Do you agree with the author of the book in question (a faithful LDS church member) that Protestants have maintained the keys to the Aaronic priesthood and thus a path to the Terrestrial kingdom? That is not something I have ever heard before. Thanks so much.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

Because of Amulek's comment, I just read the category for Apostate in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Here is in part what it says, "The most frequent causes of apostasy are failure to maintain strict standards of morality, taking personal offense (real or perceived), marrying someone who is of another faith or who is irreligious, neglecting to pray and maintain spirituality, or misunderstanding of the teachings of the church." To me those are exceptionally broad definitions of apostasy. They are similar to what we in the Mennonite faith would describe as "backsliding" or signs of "worldliness." Maybe my issue is I am reading my understanding of apostasy or apostate into the LDS use of the world which is a much milder definition. I am not quite sure what is meant by "who is of another faith or who is irreligious." There seems to be some kind of delineation between those two attributes. Ditto with "misunderstanding of the teachings of the church." With all the variety of understanding of the teachings of the church on this forum, we must have some LDS apostates herein!? How does one "maintain spirituality?" It would seem to me that with these broad definitions, there must be a bunch of apostates still in the LDS church. If these are the accepted standards for apostasy, then I and my wife are certainly apostate. I misunderstand the teachings of the church. If by "another faith" is meant a person of a church other than the LDS church, then I am apostate for that. Failure to maintain strict standards of morality, is certainly subjective. I have no idea what that means. When I grew up that meant women who wore slacks, Mennonites who played cards or danced, or watched TV on Sunday. Taking personal offense is a fairly human trait as well.

It seems that being apostate according to these definitions is something that probably happens to most members of the LDS church over their lifetime in the church. If these are not the current standards to be considered apostate, then what is? Apostasy in an LDS context doesn't seem too bad a thing! If the Great Apostasy (I suppose referring to extent) involves these things, then perhaps it wasn't so bad. Now let me go get my "G" volume of the encyclopedia so I can see a definition of that Apostasy. I bet (oops) it is different! Take care all.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Just in case there is confusion…

Even if we believe many truths were lost as well as priesthood authority, Latter-day Saints in general define anyone who looks to Christ as the Son of God and their Savior a Christian, even if misguided at times in attempts to follow his teachings.  An apostate or apostate organization that still believes in Christ is Christian.  Thus the world had many, many Christians in it during the Great Apostacy and there is no question that St. Clement of Rome was a Christian.

Calm, pardon my confusion . . . According to this  and to what you are saying, I am both an apostate and a Christian. That is a very new and different concept for me.

Does my current status as an apostate or as a Christian impact my eternal life? If so, how?

If I die as an apostate Christian, one who rejects the idea of denominations or mortal affiliations in the afterlife (as I do), then is the assumption I will wake up in the spirit world, find out I am wrong, accept the then-evident truths of the LDS faith, and then start all over again on the other side of the veil to determine my destiny in one of three kingdoms, and if in the Celestial, in one of three levels of that kingdom?

Then in my case, my status in eternity in the presence of the Godhead has more to do with what happens after I die than before I die? Because even those who are not Christian in this life will wake up on the other side, discover and accept the truths of the LDS faith and begin their Christian or eternal journey into one of the three kingdoms from that point forward? If all that is true (please tell me if it is not), then how does my current life as a non-LDS apostate Christian (with faithfulness to the gospel (generic) message) impact my eternal destiny? Does my mortal life as apostate and Christian impact the eternal status of my wife as well?

My LDS friends never seem to comment on those who wake up on the other side, find an LDS missionary greeting them and then reject the LDS message there. Is it assumed that Christ Himself or the Holy Spirit will then minister to us the truth of the LDS church both back on earth and in the heavens? Therefore all will accept it in the spirit world, be baptized again or have our proxy baptism counted on our behalf and begin the exaltation process that ultimately determines whether or not we spend eternity in the presence of Christ and Heavenly Father? I think it must also be true that no one who joins the LDS church here on earth has any more certainty about their future destiny in the eternities than I do as a non-LDS apostate Christian. Is that correct?

This is all very complicated. I don't know a single person in our ward, stake, or area who could answer these questions for me in an authoritative manner on behalf of the church, so I bring them here. I really do want to understand. My faith teaches me to be confident in a future eternity with the Godhead through the atonement, the sufficiency of the grace of Christ as Savior,  and in His perfect mercy and righteousness at the final judgment. My assurance is in Christ's worthiness and consistency; not in my own.

It seems the LDS church makes it much much much more complicated and difficult to understand for one diligently trying to do so. I can't also help but be confused because I do think if I spent three hours on these questions with eight different LDS members of this forum, I would perhaps get nine different answers. Is that unfair? To be fair to those LDS church members in this forum, I also believe that would happen if I had those discussions with local, stake, and area members/leaders. Because I have had them! This apostasy thing is a new twist to the rompecabeza (jigsaw puzzle) of salvation and exaltation in the LDS soteriology. Thanks.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Because of Amulek's comment, I just read the category for Apostate in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Here is in part what it says, "The most frequent causes of apostasy are failure to maintain strict standards of morality, taking personal offense (real or perceived), marrying someone who is of another faith or who is irreligious, neglecting to pray and maintain spirituality, or misunderstanding of the teachings of the church." To me those are exceptionally broad definitions of apostasy. They are similar to what we in the Mennonite faith would describe as "backsliding" or signs of "worldliness." Maybe my issue is I am reading my understanding of apostasy or apostate into the LDS use of the world which is a much milder definition. I am not quite sure what is meant by "who is of another faith or who is irreligious." There seems to be some kind of delineation between those two attributes. Ditto with "misunderstanding of the teachings of the church." With all the variety of understanding of the teachings of the church on this forum, we must have some LDS apostates herein!? How does one "maintain spirituality?" It would seem to me that with these broad definitions, there must be a bunch of apostates still in the LDS church. If these are the accepted standards for apostasy, then I and my wife are certainly apostate. I misunderstand the teachings of the church. If by "another faith" is meant a person of a church other than the LDS church, then I am apostate for that. Failure to maintain strict standards of morality, is certainly subjective. I have no idea what that means. When I grew up that meant women who wore slacks, Mennonites who played cards or danced, or watched TV on Sunday. Taking personal offense is a fairly human trait as well.

It seems that being apostate according to these definitions is something that probably happens to most members of the LDS church over their lifetime in the church. If these are not the current standards to be considered apostate, then what is? Apostasy in an LDS context doesn't seem too bad a thing! If the Great Apostasy (I suppose referring to extent) involves these things, then perhaps it wasn't so bad. Now let me go get my "G" volume of the encyclopedia so I can see a definition of that Apostasy. I bet (oops) it is different! Take care all.

I would fit into that description of apostasy. May even be in the category of going to outer darkness since I'm an endowed member and don't fully believe now. I don't like how the church believes if one leaves (not me, haven't resigned) that they'll have no where else to go, they're doomed. The leaders do a disservice to those members, leaving them with no options. The church shouldn't have put the prophet in the driver's seat, being the one with all the authority. Now they've put Jesus more in the lime light lately, but still we are to heed the prophet's voice, so Jesus sort of becomes a prop, I know I'll get big condemnation over that remark, but it irks me a lot when the church does this. They seem to be more anti-Christ than anything if they leave members to believe there isn't another road to take. And so many ex LDS are now Atheists or don't believe in Jesus any longer. 

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I don't read Clement at all the same way you are interpreting him above.  The statements you quoted don't have anything to do with the intent (or not) of ordaining apostles, but it is the order of authority set forth in the church.  Here's the first quote from Chapter 42:

The order that I see above is as follows:

1. Christ was sent forth by God
2. The apostles were sent by Christ (the apostolic appointment is done "in an orderly way, according to the will of God", with these qualifications:  "being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost")
3. The apostles and other area authorities appointed bishops and deacons in the various countries and cities.

Clement doesn't even hint that bishops are to be the successors of the apostles, he is simply establishing the order that was set forth in the church:  Christ is above all, and Christ called apostles to govern the entire church, and the apostles called the bishops and deacons to govern in the various countries and cities.

The second quote is from Chapter 44, where Clement gives further insight into how the office of bishop (episcopate) was to be perpetuated:

Clement's focus was on the office of bishop, not on the apostleship, since the bishops appointed by the apostles at Corinth were being replaced by other men trying to take control.  He says that the office of episcopate [bishop] was by appointment of the apostles.  And when a bishop should "fall asleep" (pass away) then other "approved men should succeed them in their ministry".  And the office of bishop was established through the appointment by the apostles or "afterwards by other eminent men", and it is done "with the consent of the whole church".  This is how new bishops should have been appointed.

I think there is too much read into Acts 1:21-22 about the qualifications for an apostle.  In context, that simply seems to be the pool of candidates that they had in view for that purpose at that time.  In fact, we only find mention of Matthias two times in the entire New Testament:  Acts 1:22 and 26.  I think Clement had it right, in the first quote above.  He gives these qualifications for the office of apostle:  "Being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost".  Christ was sent by God, and the apostles by Christ, and "both these appointments... were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God".   Matthias was called to replace Judas.  And Paul and Barnabas were ordained to the apostleship (Acts 13:1-3) shortly after the martyrdom of James (Acts 12:1-2).  Paul and Barnabas both met the qualifications described by Clement. 

And how was the apostle Paul "fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ"?  Paul saw him in a vision, on the road to Damascus.  And I believe there are other ways that an individual could be "fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ".  By this process the office of apostle could be perpetuated indefinitely.  

And I don't think Paul is referring to the original 12 as being the "great apostles" in 2 Cor 11:5.  He is simply acknowledging the equality that is in the office of apostleship (i.e. "I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles").  

Hi InCognitus.

Allow me to retract where I said that St. Clement "argues that the Apostles had no intention of "ordaining" Apostles." I now think you are correct that in the passage under scrutiny, "these who shall fall asleep", is concerning the office of bishop (at Corinth), not the apostles, as I had thought. I did not mean to say that Clement was personally arguing the Apostles had no such intentions. But the context of his letter, in the late 1st Century, with only St. John still alive, suggests (rather than argues), that there is no need for alarm about the dwindling number of Apostles. Do you think Clement, a fellow labourer of St. Paul, had been taught that the office of Apostle was perpetual? It certainly does not seem like he or St. Ignatius of Antioch, our next Father chronologically, had the concerns that should have dominated their thinking if they believed living Apostles were necessary to the life of the Church. Ignatius was so old that there is a legend that he was one of the children who our Lord defended when some were complaining about all the children hanging around. Surely, he would have been instructed properly in the Church of the Former-day Saints? I am not familiar with any credible source from the early church that expresses concern because the Apostles are no longer around.

Your interpretation of the Scriptures that I talked about is as plausible as mine. So how do we break the stalemate? Based on the Tradition of the Church which gave us the same Scriptures, I believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about them. I would look to the LDS to give any interpretations of the Book of Mormon. But I can not think that the LDS interpretation of the Scriptures that the Catholic Church preserved, is the only plausible interpretation. If I am not mistaken, LDS even believe that some writings and teachings in these Scriptures may have been removed or corrupted. Why would the Catholic Church preserve Scriptures that prove her to be apostate? She teaches that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. It does not make sense from a Catholic or LDS point of view that the Catholic Church would save documents that teach that the office of Apostle needs to be perpetual, and then declare them to be inspired Scripture.

One of the reasons that the Catholic Church grew so steadily is that the harsher the persecutions endured the more admirable did it seem to the non-Christians as they observed these souls who calmly refused to renounce their faith in the face of torture and death. I admire them too, and like the converts that replaced the early martyrs, I wish also to be a part of their company. Years ago, when I highlighted those passages from the first three volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, it was for the precise purpose of discovering what these who were faithful unto the spilling of their own blood believed. I had already wanted their fellowship before I fully appreciated their Catholic Church, which in Her ancient Canon of the Holy Mass, has the priest briefly break his silence to make an invocation for himself and for us in audible tone: "Nobis quoque peccatoribus." "To us sinners also, (and then silently again) Thy servants, hoping in the multitude of Thy mercies vouch safe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy Apostles and Martyrs..." I still want to believe as these did and I see no indication that the Church to which they belonged was deficient because it lacked Apostles.       

Regards,

Rory

 

 

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have never heard the word apostate used except in a Christian and Jewish context.

So do you consider Judaism to be in a state of apostasy? Are modern day Jews apostates?

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

I know I have been told by those in the LDS church that I am reprobate, but not apostate. Is there a difference in those two spiritual conditions in your thinking?

I suspect they were just joking around and not using the term in any sort of theological sense, say, in the way that a Calvinist might.

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

But I ask you to please do a couple of other things as well. Can you please define what you believe the word apostate and apostasy means for you, together with what is your understanding of how, if by any manner one can "cure" his or her apostasy?

I would say that the first sentence under Apostasy in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a pretty good approximation: Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority.

I also accept most standard dictionary definitions of the word "apostasy," which generally include concepts like refusing to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith; abandonment of a previous loyalty; etc.

As for "cur[ing]" apostasy, that's done by returning to the fold. Those who repent and come unto Christ with full purpose of heart can certainly be healed. 

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Also, it would help a lot if you could state whether or not you believe non-LDS Christians and/or their churches (denominations) remain (currently abide) in apostasy by their lack of affiliation with the LDS church?

I believe I answered this before, but I'm happy to repeat / clarify.

1) As to non-LDS churches (denominations) remaining in a state of apostasy, the answer is unquestionably 'yes.' Every other church has strayed from the doctrines and ordinances established by Christ which is why He has restored His institutional church to the earth: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

2) As to non-LDS Christians being in a state of apostasy, the answer is generally 'no.' There is an aspect of individual apostasy which entails knowing the truth and then rejecting it. For most non-LDS Christians, they have never been exposed to nor have they ever accepted the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, so it would be inaccurate to label them as apostates. Something like 'heretical Christians' might be a more accurate description. 

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

If so, what is the cure for the church and/or the person? Is there a cure outside of the LDS church? Is the LDS church the only cure?

Yes, the only cure is through Christ and His Church. 

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

If one remains outside the LDS church (assuming that is the only cure) what is the impact of that mortal apostasy on the eternal future of the person?

At minimum it would entail a lack of progression and access to blessings in mortality. Beyond that it gets a bit trickier say with certainty. 

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is it of no relevance to eternity if one accepts the truths of the LDS church on the other side of the veil?

I wouldn't say "no relevance;" more like uncertain relevance. Of course that's assuming the "if one accepts" part actually happens. You don't magically turn into another person on the other side of the veil. If you're disinclined to accept it now, that's what you will be predisposed to there as well. My hope is that all honest followers of Christ will, in fact, accept the gospel at some point, but this life is the time to prepare to meet God. Better now than later.

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Last, what is the impact of my apostate state on my relationship to the Godhead (all three persons) in this life right here and now?

First, I don't believe that I, nor anyone else on this thread, has called you an apostate. 

As to the impact on your relationship with God, I would say that having access to more light and truth; having the ability to enter into a greater covenantal relationship with Him; etc. would all have a positive, deeply enriching impact on your life in the here and now.

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

For example why would the LDS church allow me to take the sacrament if I am an apostate?

Again, the church doesn't consider you (as an individual) to be an apostate.

From the church's perspective, you haven't ever entered into a binding covenant (and then summarily rejected it), so there's no harm in allowing you to take the sacrament. 

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I were still in the pastorate, I don't think I would offer the sacrament to someone I knew to be an apostate from Christianity. But their denominational affiliation would make no difference to me. There are tons of ex-Mennonites in the world. That would be of no consequence to me because I don't see that as apostasy.

And that makes sense if you don't believe there is an authentic, institutional church. If there's no such thing as an "official" church on the face of the earth, then one is free to wander from one denomination to another and still be part of the Christian Church. 

 

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do you agree with the author of the book in question (a faithful LDS church member) that Protestants have maintained the keys to the Aaronic priesthood and thus a path to the Terrestrial kingdom? That is not something I have ever heard before. Thanks so much.

I haven't read the book, but no, I do not believe that priesthood keys are present in any organization other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Nor do I believe that priesthood keys are necessary for admittance into the Terrestrial kingdom. 

 

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

So do you consider Judaism to be in a state of apostasy? Are modern day Jews apostates?

 

I suspect they were just joking around and not using the term in any sort of theological sense, say, in the way that a Calvinist might.

 

I would say that the first sentence under Apostasy in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a pretty good approximation: Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority.

I also accept most standard dictionary definitions of the word "apostasy," which generally include concepts like refusing to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith; abandonment of a previous loyalty; etc.

As for "cur[ing]" apostasy, that's done by returning to the fold. Those who repent and come unto Christ with full purpose of heart can certainly be healed. 

 

I believe I answered this before, but I'm happy to repeat / clarify.

1) As to non-LDS churches (denominations) remaining in a state of apostasy, the answer is unquestionably 'yes.' Every other church has strayed from the doctrines and ordinances established by Christ which is why He has restored His institutional church to the earth: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

2) As to non-LDS Christians being in a state of apostasy, the answer is generally 'no.' There is an aspect of individual apostasy which entails knowing the truth and then rejecting it. For most non-LDS Christians, they have never been exposed to nor have they ever accepted the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, so it would be inaccurate to label them as apostates. Something like 'heretical Christians' might be a more accurate description. 

 

Yes, the only cure is through Christ and His Church. 

 

At minimum it would entail a lack of progression and access to blessings in mortality. Beyond that it gets a bit trickier say with certainty. 

 

I wouldn't say "no relevance;" more like uncertain relevance. Of course that's assuming the "if one accepts" part actually happens. You don't magically turn into another person on the other side of the veil. If you're disinclined to accept it now, that's what you will be predisposed to there as well. My hope is that all honest followers of Christ will, in fact, accept the gospel at some point, but this life is the time to prepare to meet God. Better now than later.

 

First, I don't believe that I, nor anyone else on this thread, has called you an apostate. 

As to the impact on your relationship with God, I would say that having access to more light and truth; having the ability to enter into a greater covenantal relationship with Him; etc. would all have a positive, deeply enriching impact on your life in the here and now.

 

Again, the church doesn't consider you (as an individual) to be an apostate.

From the church's perspective, you haven't ever entered into a binding covenant (and then summarily rejected it), so there's no harm in allowing you to take the sacrament. 

 

And that makes sense if you don't believe there is an authentic, institutional church. If there's no such thing as an "official" church on the face of the earth, then one is free to wander from one denomination to another and still be part of the Christian Church. 

 

I haven't read the book, but no, I do not believe that priesthood keys are present in any organization other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Nor do I believe that priesthood keys are necessary for admittance into the Terrestrial kingdom. 

 

Thanks so very much for your time and attention to my questions. I do appreciate your and other's patience with me and my questions. It seems we are simply beginning with completely different understandings of apostasy, what it means to be a Christian, the church as a world-wide community, and heresy. Aside from that . . .

I do believe with my whole heart in the teachings of Christ and in the Christian church of which we are both a part. My entire being - body, soul, and spirit is committed to Christ and His gospel - the gospel as I believe it to be - the good news. I assure you I have entered into binding covenants with Christ - in fact most of them are identical to yours. I believe with all my heart in an authentic church - perhaps even an "official" church in the sense of the gathering of the world-wide Christian community of which the LDS and the Mennonites are a part. Oh, and no I do not believe Judaism is in a state of apostasy from its truths. Its truths are not my truths, but in the same way that some LDS truths are not mine either.

I would ask you to receive (you don't have to believe it, but I ask you to receive it) that I have come to Christ with full purpose of heart. I have no idea how I would come to Him more fully than I already have. Because I receive your statement of your having come to Christ via the atonement, I can call you my Christian brother - in the fullness, simplicity, and completeness of the gospel as I know it to be.

Many saints call me their Christian brother, kind of sort of. Whenever I walk into the ward I feel that kind of sort of ness. At MHA meetings, I feel that kind of sort of ness. The same on this forum. I have heard our new bishop on several occasions state publicly how happy he is to have my wife and me "with us" because of all we bring to the ward. I think by that he means my knowledge of LDS history, especially that of the Mexican colonies. He never goes further than "with us," never as "part of us." I still haven't figured out how I as a Christian am deemed a heretic, a brother, and a Christian, while at the same time being deemed as having less than a full commitment to the gospel and person of Christ - A commitment that He has sealed by "if-then" covenants with me and I with Him. 

I am a full-fledged II Chronicles 7:14 sort of Christian. I have no idea how to be any more fully or committed Christian than that. I can certainly be more Christ-like, I can certainly learn more - I grab for all of that I can get. But I can never more fully Christian than I am right now. You used the term "wander" in your above response. I feel that from you as a bit pejorative, perhaps implying I and others like me are lost, "wandering from one place (denomination) to another." I guess my best rebuttal to that is to affirm that my Christian faith and commitment is not dependent on place. It is dependent on a person - Christ. As for me, I am a seeker - one who needs to know and understand all that I can about all that I can, both during and after this mortal life.

I am intentional in having committed five years of my church life to the LDS church for fellowship and worship, learning from an entirely new group of people who I neither knew, or understood. I am a better person for having made the commitment to that journey. Since I was about thirty years old (forty-three years ago) I have created as my life's motto "The Joys of the Journey into the Unknown are the Unknown Joys of the Journey." Thanks again for your time and responses to my questions. I really do appreciate it.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I do not believe Judaism is in a state of apostasy from its truths.

Curious. Previously you said that an apostate was "one who consciously turns away from Christ and the original message of His atonement or good news[.] It is a rejection of Christ and His gift to us, not a rejection of any one church."

I'm fairly certain that Judaism still rejects Christ as the Messiah and does not accept the message of His atonement. Jews don't recognize any gift from Him with respect to salvation, so why do you not consider Judaism to be an apostate faith?

 

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

You used the term "wander" in your above response. I feel that from you as a bit pejorative, perhaps implying I and others like me are lost, "wandering from one place (denomination) to another."

I don't mean "wander" as in "to go astray" but more like "to move about without a fixed course."

If all Christian denominations are equally valid and there is no salvific cost associated with moving from one church to another, then yeah, you are free to wander (or, if you prefer, shop / hop) between churches whenever you please.

And doing so doesn't make one an apostate under that worldview.

However, if there really is a true institutional church organized by Christ Himself, with Him at its head, then falling away from that church would be considered apostasy - even if one were to join with another community who desires to follow after Christ.

 

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am intentional in having committed five years of my church life to the LDS church for fellowship and worship, learning from an entirely new group of people who I neither knew, or understood. I am a better person for having made the commitment to that journey. Since I was about thirty years old (forty-three years ago) I have created as my life's motto "The Joys of the Journey into the Unknown are the Unknown Joys of the Journey." Thanks again for your time and responses to my questions. I really do appreciate it.

Certainly. I wish you the best.

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Curious. Previously you said that an apostate was "one who consciously turns away from Christ and the original message of His atonement or good news[.] It is a rejection of Christ and His gift to us, not a rejection of any one church."

I'm fairly certain that Judaism still rejects Christ as the Messiah and does not accept the message of His atonement. Jews don't recognize any gift from Him with respect to salvation, so why do you not consider Judaism to be an apostate faith?

 

I don't mean "wander" as in "to go astray" but more like "to move about without a fixed course."

If all Christian denominations are equally valid and there is no salvific cost associated with moving from one church to another, then yeah, you are free to wander (or, if you prefer, shop / hop) between churches whenever you please.

And doing so doesn't make one an apostate under that worldview.

However, if there really is a true institutional church organized by Christ Himself, with Him at its head, then falling away from that church would be considered apostasy - even if one were to join with another community who desires to follow after Christ.

 

Certainly. I wish you the best.

 

Thanks again for the reply. First, I know and have taught and interacted with many Messianic Jews. I taught the integration of psychology and theology and homiletics at a college that had a major in Messianic Judaic Studies. I had a number of students over the years from that program. They were a fascinating group drawing from several traditions including that of the Hasidim. Lots of more secular and very religious Jews scorned them, but they didn't seem to mind. I loved going to their worship services and seders. Second, my definition of apostate was one who was Christian apostate. Most Jews have never been nor will be Christian. They could only apostatize from Judaism, not something I have thought much about. My tradition teaches they are a chosen people with a special covenant, that continues to this day.

I have a very fixed course. . .  to live and learn to the fullest. That includes wanting to learn from and about any and all religious traditions. When a superintendent in San Diego I attended an Antiochan Apostolic Church. I learned so much from them I could never learn in a comfortable familiar Mennonite or Baptist environment. I am rooted in my Anabaptist faith and have no need to shop or hop. I need to learn in a way I cannot do from a book.

Here in Chihuahua if I come to a road I have never gone down, if I have time I will take it to see where it goes. I find that enriching and fulfilling. If there is something in Catholicism I don't understand, I go into Nuevo Casas Grandes to the obispado and talk to them about it. My faith in Christ is my iron rod. Seeking to learn about other new and exciting things is no threat at all to that. When I was a pastor I encouraged the three hundred people in my church to visit churches of a different and new faiths on at least a quarterly basis. Often on Sunday evenings we would meet and discuss what we had seen and learned. What was different, and yes, what was better than that which we were doing. We made our church better in that way as well. When there is no apostatizing from a specific church, there is no risk in learning from others. It is a freedom my LDS friends don't share. Of course that is their choice . . . it is a bit limiting however and can lead to mistaken preconceptions about other churches that never are confirmed or rejected by personal experience.

I also have a testimony from five years of faithful attendance that the LDS church is indeed a true institution and perhaps in some ways a one-of-a-kind institution. But certainly not in terms of salvation, sanctification, fellowship, worship, or access to the Spirit. I see the LDS church as well within the normal curve of Christ-likeness and Christian living. Each different Christian tradition, institution, or church brings something unique to the whole. It is enjoyable, educational, and inspiring to find those uniqueness in different groups. We take full advantage of where we live and in our unique situation here, we are committed to learn all we can about all that we can.