Church Promoted a False "Great Apostasy" Narrative according to Maxwell Institute

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/6/2023 at 5:42 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I am familiar with the perspective you're sharing here. 

Thank you for clarifying the matter of Book of Mormon populations and authority.

After the passing of the 12 Nephite disciples, were the Nephite believers without necessary authority? Were the 12 Nephite disciples a necessary foundation for Christ's Church in the Americas, or something? I don't expect a lengthy answer, but I don't think I understand all the elements here.

Yes, the 12 disciples were necessary for Christ's Church in the Americas. Jesus chose them and ordained them. They were given authority to preach, baptize, give the Gift of the Holy Ghost, administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, perform miracles, organize churches throughout the land, ordain others to Priesthood offices, etc. When asked by Jesus what was the desire of their hearts, three of them asked that He allow them to tarry on the Earth until He comes again so that they could minister to the people of the Earth. He granted them their desire and caused a change in their bodies so that they would not die. We believe John the Beloved (Revelator) received the same gift.

4 Nephi 1:

Quote

4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father? 5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto him the thing which they desired. 6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me. 7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. 8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father. 9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand...

14 And it came to pass that the seventy and first year passed away, and also the seventy and second year, yea, and in fine, till the seventy and ninth year had passed away; yea, even an hundred years had passed away, and the disciples of Jesus, whom he had chosen, had all gone to the paradise of God, save it were the three who should tarry; and there were other disciples ordained in their stead; and also many of that generation had passed away....

34 Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did dwindle in unbelief and wickedness, from year to year, even until two hundred and thirty years had passed away. 35 And now it came to pass in this year, yea, in the two hundred and thirty and first year, there was a great division among the people. 36 And it came to pass that in this year there arose a people who were called the Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them there were those who were called by the Lamanites—Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites; 37 Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites...

41 And thus did two hundred and fifty years pass away, and also two hundred and sixty years. 42 And it came to pass that the wicked part of the people began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton. 43 And also the people who were called the people of Nephi began to be proud in their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, and become vain like unto their brethren, the Lamanites. 44 And from this time the disciples began to sorrow for the sins of the world. 45 And it came to pass that when three hundred years had passed away, both the people of Nephi and the Lamanites had become exceedingly wicked one like unto another.

Mormon 1: (about 325 AD)

Quote

13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people. 14 And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief.

Mormon 3:

Quote

17 Therefore I write unto you, Gentiles, and also unto you, house of Israel, when the work shall commence, that ye shall be about to prepare to return to the land of your inheritance; 18 Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem. 19 And I write also unto the remnant of this people, who shall also be judged by the twelve whom Jesus chose in this land; and they shall be judged by the other twelve whom Jesus chose in the land of Jerusalem.

Mormon 8: (about 415 AD)

Quote

10 And there are none that do know the true God save it be the disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth. 11 But behold, my father and I have seen them, and they have ministered unto us.

This would be the "Great Apostasy" of the Lehites in America. The Lord promised they would be reclaimed in our day through the Gentiles by the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, the 12 disciples were necessary for Christ's Church in the Americas. Jesus chose them and ordained them. They were given authority to preach, baptize, give the Gift of the Holy Ghost, administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, perform miracles, organize churches throughout the land, ordain others to Priesthood offices, etc. When asked by Jesus what was the desire of their hearts, three of them asked that He allow them to tarry on the Earth until He comes again so that they could minister to the people of the Earth. He granted them their desire and affected a change in their bodies so that they would not die. We believe John the Beloved (Revelator) received the same gift.

4 Nephi 1:

Mormon 1: (about 325 AD)

Mormon 3:

Mormon 8: (about 415 AD)

This would be the "Great Apostasy" of the Lehites in America. The Lord promised they would be reclaimed in our day through the Gentiles by the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Wow, !

Great stuff, thanks.  And some young and uneducated guy wrote this?

I am still flabbergasted intellectually by this book on a daily basis.  Testimony is one thing, but this kind of stuff?

How could Joseph have made it all up?

He couldn't. A coherent history AND theology intertwined?

No possiblity 

Edited April 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

A coherent history AND theology intertwined

Coherent history, theology, and anticipation of pragmatist epistemology before logical positivism was even a thing. Multiple steps ahead. 

I mean seriously, the way Alma 32-36 is situated as a considered response to Korihor from chapter 30 is basically a scripted response to the Reddit worldview a century and a half (at least) before the time.

Let's just say I've been revisiting my Northern European existentialism lately and hoOooly cow.

Edited April 8, 2023 by OGHoosier

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Coherent history, theology, and anticipation of pragmatist epistemology before logical positivism was even a thing. Multiple steps ahead. 

I mean seriously, the way Alma 32-36 is situated as a considered response to Korihor from chapter 30 is basically a scripted response to the Reddit worldview a century and a half (at least) before the time.

Let's just say I've been revisiting my Northern European existentialism lately and hoOooly cow.

Yes Fabulous!

And you should notice Parley Pratt's Key to the Science of Theology which is Pragmatism from page 1, on!

Even the title; it is Alma 32. Theology a Science? Heck yeah, per Alma!

McMurrin as well.

It's basis is in Kant, who was about the purposes of thoughts, rather than their contents. His "synthetic a priori."

"How does this belief affect my life" rather than "How did God make the world".  And then this is Kuhn.  And Heidegger! Phenomenology and as you say, existentialism!  In English it starts around the time of Royce.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Royce

I think there is evidence that this whole thing, now worldwide, was SUPPOSED to come forth in these times.  Fancy that!

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

@OGHoosier

I forgot a quote from Royce that is above the stage in Royce Hall, UCLA

"Education is learning to use the tools which the race has found indispensable"

You just cannot get more "Pragmatic" than that!

Again, it is not about "true beliefs" that change weekly, it is about the PURPOSE of the belief and how it FUNCTIONS in your life that makes it indispensable!

[MiserereNobis]

Do you think pragmatism is the end of philosophy? I know Wittgenstein believed he had solved philosophy with the Tractatus, but then, you know, he came back to philosophy. 

If philosophy progresses past pragmatism, what of your attempts to link the LDS faith to pragmatism?

 Strong Buddhists thinkers resist popular attempts to link Buddhist thought to quantum physics, arguing that it could leave them in a bind when the science changes. 

[Orthodox Christian]

On 1/26/2023 at 2:10 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Most definitely, yes. My understanding is that Latter-day Saints believe that Peter gave his keys to Joseph Smith, and that LDS have a succession process going from that. Catholics believe that Peter and the other apostles have passed on their authority to the bishops, and that that chain of succession is unbroken. Both groups are clear about Peter having the keys.

I'm learning more about the LDS perspective and am appreciative of those who have patiently explained a few things to me. 

From a Catholic perspective, quotes like this one from St. Clement of Rome in the late 1st century are vital:

And from St. Ignatius of Antioch in the very early 2nd century:

And from St. Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century. He's refuting the Gnostics:

What I think we have here is a difference in authority claims, and also different understandings of how God works in history. Catholics (and Orthodox, and basically, Anglicans) see themselves as part of a continuity that goes back to the ekklesia at Sinai, and that while there have always been apostasies from the Church, there hasn't been a total apostasy by the Church. I believe that LDS see a pattern of apostasy and restoration, with authority departing during total apostasy and then returning with a restoration. I'm not quite sure how the LDS approach fits with the Book of Mormon, as I believe the Book of Mormon describes people having authority into the 5th century A.D. I'm very willing to be set straight on all of this.

I love the Fathers and the Orthodox also claim apostolic succession. 

[PacMan]

On 4/6/2023 at 6:42 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I am familiar with the perspective you're sharing here. 

Thank you for clarifying the matter of Book of Mormon populations and authority.

After the passing of the 12 Nephite disciples, were the Nephite believers without necessary authority? Were the 12 Nephite disciples a necessary foundation for Christ's Church in the Americas, or something? I don't expect a lengthy answer, but I don't think I understand all the elements here.

Well, we don't know a lot about the 12 Nephite disciples.  But what we do know is that three wanted to remain on earth and never taste of death--like John the beloved.  The Lord granted their request.  They remained involved until the end of the Nephite civilization (from time to time).  They ministered to Mormon many years later at the collapse of the Nephite civilization.  So, technically, the authority was maintained until it was taken away(not off) the earth.  Indeed, the  authority via John and the 3 Nephites has always been on the earth, if not hidden.

[Saint Bonaventure]

13 hours ago, PacMan said:

Well, we don't know a lot about the 12 Nephite disciples.  But what we do know is that three wanted to remain on earth and never taste of death--like John the beloved.  The Lord granted their request.  They remained involved until the end of the Nephite civilization (from time to time).  They ministered to Mormon many years later at the collapse of the Nephite civilization.  So, technically, the authority was maintained until it was taken away(not off) the earth.  Indeed, the  authority via John and the 3 Nephites has always been on the earth, if not hidden.

What you've written is very interesting. Thanks.

What I'm pondering, without subtlety, is:

• After the Nephite 12's authority was 'taken away' were Nephite believers without authority for their baptisms and other sacraments?
• Are you considering the Nephites without their 12 disciples as being in apostasy?
• Do Latter-day Saints believe these 3 Nephites who didn't taste of death and St. John are guiding or working with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

Regarding St. John, I read John 21:23 as John's own insertion to discourage rumors that he wouldn't die:

Quote

 

22 ¶ Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” 23 The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” 
24 ¶ This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Jn 21:22–24.

 

Do LDS have their own teachings/scriptures/traditions that guide their interpretation of these verses?

I should add that I'm not intending critique. I'm just fascinated.

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Regarding St. John, I read John 21:23 as John's own insertion to discourage rumors that he wouldn't die:

Quote

22 ¶ Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” 23 The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” 
24 ¶ This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Jn 21:22–24.

Do LDS have their own teachings/scriptures/traditions that guide their interpretation of these verses?

I hope PacMan doesn't mind if I jump in on this (it's a fascinating topic).  

First, here's a portion of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Translated Beings (we consider the apostle John and the three Nephites to be "translated" beings):

Quote

Translated Beings

Latter-day Saint scriptures speak of a unique class of beings, persons whom the Lord has "translated" or changed from a mortal state to one in which they are temporarily not subject to death, and in which they experience neither pain nor sorrow except for the sins of the world. Such beings appear to have much greater power than mortals. All translated beings will eventually experience physical death and resurrection (MD, p. 807-808). Translation is a necessary condition in special instances to further the work of the Lord.

Translated beings are not resurrected beings, though all translated beings either have since been or yet will be resurrected or "changed in the twinkling of an eye" to a resurrected state (3 Ne. 28:8). In effect, this last change is their death, and they therefore receive what amounts to an instantaneous death and resurrection. Resurrection is a step beyond translation, and persons translated prior to the resurrection of Christ were resurrected with him (cf. D&C 133:54-55); it is expected that those translated since Christ's resurrection will be resurrected at his second coming.  (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.4, TRANSLATED BEINGS)

As to what John 21:23 says, "yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die" is correct, since John would at some point experience death (and instantaneously be resurrected - as it says above), but it is also important to see that the request was that he should "remain until [Jesus will] come", which is exactly what he was granted.

And you are correct in asking if there are additional teachings or scriptures to interpret this verse.  Doctrine and Covenants section 7 is a "Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they inquired through the Urim and Thummim as to whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried in the flesh or had died. The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself."   Verses 3-4 say:

"And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.  And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom."  (Doctrine and Covenants 7:3–4)

And the bolded part above is referring to what was said to John in Revelation 10:11. 

Also, what was asked of Jesus by the three Nephites in the Book of Mormon is the same thing asked by the apostle John, and this gives us further insight into what John was granted, as it says 3 Nephi 28:4-10:

Quote

 4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?
 5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto him the thing which they desired.
6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.
9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.
10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;
(3 Nephi 28:4–10)

I should point out that "never tasting of death" and "never enduring the pains of death" is not the same thing as never dying, it just means that it won't be painful to them (they won't notice it), since they will be changed instantaneously.

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

After the Nephite 12's authority was 'taken away' were Nephite believers without authority for their baptisms and other sacraments?

Bernard Gui quoted a relevant part of Mormon chapter 1 above, from the Book of Mormon.  Mormon and his son, Moroni, were the last two prophets in the Book of Mormon timeline.  Mormon reported that the disciples had been with them up until that time when "wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples" (Mormon 1:13).  The "beloved disciples" he has in mind here are the three that Jesus said were to be translated (3 Nephi 28:12).   And in verse 16 he says:  

"And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity."  (Mormon 1:16)

Since Mormon and Moroni were among the last faithful followers of Christ remaining in the land, the taking away of the authority at that time seems relevant. 

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Are you considering the Nephites without their 12 disciples as being in apostasy?

They went into apostasy on their own, and as a result the disciples were taken from among them.  

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Do Latter-day Saints believe these 3 Nephites who didn't taste of death and St. John are guiding or working with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

They have a part in whatever the Lord needs them to do in the last days.  

Edited April 10, 2023 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:01 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Do you think pragmatism is the end of philosophy? I know Wittgenstein believed he had solved philosophy with the Tractatus, but then, you know, he came back to philosophy. 

If philosophy progresses past pragmatism, what of your attempts to link the LDS faith to pragmatism?

 Strong Buddhists thinkers resist popular attempts to link Buddhist thought to quantum physics, arguing that it could leave them in a bind when the science changes. 

Yes, W reversed himself, and in Philosophical Investigations he, I think, imo, showed how to solve the semantic confusions caused by any kind of representationalism.

Words are not things, and cannot fully represent objects in the world.

That means also that we can never get theology "right"; the best we can do is come up with workable paradigms- but that's all one can do w. Science as well!

So in a sense, being religious is like science, both are equally rational.

We come up with workable theories about God, just as science comes up with workable theories about the world; science gives  us theories about the world, religion gives us theories that satisfy our religious needs. -Alma 32. = perfect Wittgensteinism!

Exactly like my Rorty quotes say.

Both are based on what works best according to our needs.

[Hamilton Porter]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

They have a part in whatever the Lord needs them to do in the last days.  

One of them ministered to me when I was in college. One evening when it was legs day, I hurt my legs because I didn't stretch beforehand, and had to go up a long flight of stairs, a Polynesian man named Hana came by and carried me on his back. We parted and I never saw him again.

[PacMan]

On 4/9/2023 at 9:01 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

What you've written is very interesting. Thanks.

What I'm pondering, without subtlety, is:

• After the Nephite 12's authority was 'taken away' were Nephite believers without authority for their baptisms and other sacraments?
• Are you considering the Nephites without their 12 disciples as being in apostasy?
• Do Latter-day Saints believe these 3 Nephites who didn't taste of death and St. John are guiding or working with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

Regarding St. John, I read John 21:23 as John's own insertion to discourage rumors that he wouldn't die:

Do LDS have their own teachings/scriptures/traditions that guide their interpretation of these verses?

I should add that I'm not intending critique. I'm just fascinated.

 

Thank you for the response.

(1) There were Nephite prophets until the destruction of the Nephites around 400 AD.  Consequently, they had the authority...until they were destroyed.

(2) No - they had authority until they no longer existed.

(3) We believe that they have some role, but we have very little knowledge of what that entails.  I personally believe that they minister and prepare persons/communities to accept the restored gospel and kingdom of God.

John 21:23 is very interesting.  As much as the editor is very particular about what the Lord said (and didn't say), it is also important to note what is also truly said (and not said) by this comment.  At no point does he say that the rumors were not true.  Rather, he simply reflected on the particulars of what the Lord actually said.  

Further, this statement well may have not been made by John, but a later editor; see e.g. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 587; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2nd ed. (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1999), 412.  In fact, this verse is not included in all the manuscripts.

As for us, as I mentioned, the Lord in 3 Nephi notes that the 3 Nephites desired the same thing desired by John.  John's tarrying is also revealed in D&C 7.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:01 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Strong Buddhists thinkers resist popular attempts to link Buddhist thought to quantum physics, arguing that it could leave them in a bind when the science changes. 

Nope

  THAT is the effects of their old thinking WITHOUT the new paradigm.

Changes in quantum physics WILL happen, since the human ability to perceive WILL change! And when that perception/understanding changes, it changes the way ALL HUMANITY thinks, just as Descartes and positivists thought that science AND RELIGION were unchanging "facts", and yet the whole culture changed with the progression in science AND Religion, as the observers saw things differently.

So old school Buddhists will see things differently in the future regardless of their present beliefs because it is not that FACTS change, but that HUMANITY's ability to think itself will change, and create new paradigms also will be created.

 UN -changing quantum physics would be based on the idea that quantum theory is an unchanging FACT in a positivist sense,  but there WILL be changes in which the observer effect becomes stronger until all will confess that we are seeing only our own thoughts looking back at us in that "glass darkly".

We are set up to deal with that, through eternal progression, and we refuse to predict the exact details about what WILL happen in the future: HOW mankind will learn to create new worlds, resurrect, and contact perhaps with our brothers and sisters on other worlds- who knows?

Buddhism will change regarding resurrection perhaps, for example etc. Direct revelation will become seen as we see it, imo.

We all will have to learn how to live through totally traumatic world changes we cannot imagine, - literally!

[Hamilton Porter]

The Great Apostasy is a part of LDS identity. It gives the community an "other." Similar to how Muslims imagine the jahliyya, the great age of ignorance and barbarism that existed in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Archaeological evidence has now revealed that the majority of Arabia was Christian or monotheistic in the eve of Islam's advent.

[Saint Bonaventure]

Catherine Gines Taylor's chapter in this book, "Inclining Christian Hearts: Work for the Dead," has some fascinating material and analysis. It's just superb.

She argues that "While vicarious baptism was not considered a universal rite within early Christian practice, we do have patristic evidence that emphasizes it within certain regions and at certain times." (420)

This discussion was particularly interesting (the pages are in reverse order, so start at the bottom):

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Hamilton Porter]

The book says Origen got his views of the pre existence from the Bible. Can someone tell me which verses? I don't have a copy of the book.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

The book says Origen got his views of the pre existence from the Bible. Can someone tell me which verses? I don't have a copy of the book.

I can't answer your question about the Apostasy book (I don't have that book), but just this week I picked up a copy of When Souls Had Wings - Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought, by Terryl L. Givens (it's been out since 2010 - Oxford University Press).  I have only been able to read the intro and first chapter so far, but Givens covers quite a bit on Origen in the book.  I'm hoping I'll get some time to read more of the book this weekend.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I can't answer your question about the Apostasy book (I don't have that book), but just this week I picked up a copy of When Souls Had Wings - Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought, by Terryl L. Givens (it's been out since 2010 - Oxford University Press).  I have only been able to read the intro and first chapter so far, but Givens covers quite a bit on Origen in the book.  I'm hoping I'll get some time to read more of the book this weekend.

Givens totally gets our point of view, and is among the BEST. I don't think he has ever made a point with which I would disagree or debate.

Edited May 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:01 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

What you've written is very interesting. Thanks.

What I'm pondering, without subtlety, is:

• After the Nephite 12's authority was 'taken away' were Nephite believers without authority for their baptisms and other sacraments?
• Are you considering the Nephites without their 12 disciples as being in apostasy?
• Do Latter-day Saints believe these 3 Nephites who didn't taste of death and St. John are guiding or working with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

Regarding St. John, I read John 21:23 as John's own insertion to discourage rumors that he wouldn't die:

Do LDS have their own teachings/scriptures/traditions that guide their interpretation of these verses?

I should add that I'm not intending critique. I'm just fascinated.

 

What I find totally fascinating is that apparently this idea of being snatched from death -incidentally wasn't Mary "assumed" into heaven without death?- known to us by the word "translation" was NOT a uniquely LDS idea, but was accepted widely enough to be the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT USAGE OF THE WORD "TRANSLATE" TO BE LISTED as such in the Webster's Dictionary of 1828

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Translate

"TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain."

Note also that our present usage of "translate" was the SIXTH most important usage in 1828.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

For our LDS folks here, in 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was taken bodily into heaven, without death. This process for Catholics is known as "Assumption" and is identical, I believe, to our term "translation".

At least I saw it that way during my conversation process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For our LDS folks here, in 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was taken bodily into heaven, without death. This process for Catholics is known as "Assumption" and is identical, I believe, to our term "translation".

At least I saw it that way during my conversation process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

Interestingly now, I suppose, we have to find Thomas Aquinas and ask him how there can be at least THREE material human bodies of some "substance" in heaven, the bodies of both Mary and Jesus, as well as Elijah, who was taken into heaven by a "firey chariot". 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For our LDS folks here, in 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was taken bodily into heaven, without death. This process for Catholics is known as "Assumption" and is identical, I believe, to our term "translation".

At least I saw it that way during my conversation process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

I don't doubt that you see Latter-day Saint "Translation" and Catholic "Assumption" as being identical processes. 

I think that there are fundamental differences between those processes, and am willing to respectfully discuss them. Fundamentally, in Catholic teaching Mary's Assumption mirrors the Son's Incarnation; Mary is the new Eve, the mother of all living in Christ.

One area in which I am unclear is how members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would differentiate "Assumption" and "Ascencion." 

I should add at the outset that you've misunderstood Pope Pius XII. He did not declare that Mary was taken bodily into heaven, without death, although such a belief is licit. Rather, it is the "common teaching in the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and in its liturgical worship that Our Lady underwent bodily death. This is the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers of the Church in the context of their teaching on her Assumption...."

Did Mary Die? | Catholic Answers

Thank you for the conversation.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I don't doubt that you see Latter-day Saint "Translation" and Catholic "Assumption" as being identical processes. 

I think that there are fundamental differences between those processes, and am willing to respectfully discuss them. Fundamentally, in Catholic teaching Mary's Assumption mirrors the Son's Incarnation; Mary is the new Eve, the mother of all living in Christ.

One area in which I am unclear is how members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would differentiate "Assumption" and "Ascencion." 

I should add at the outset that you've misunderstood Pope Pius XII. He did not declare that Mary was taken bodily into heaven, without death, although such a belief is licit. Rather, it is the "common teaching in the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and in its liturgical worship that Our Lady underwent bodily death. This is the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers of the Church in the context of their teaching on her Assumption...."

Did Mary Die? | Catholic Answers

Thank you for the conversation.

Thanks for educating me- I'll have to do some digging there. 

That also then would make it consistent with Aquinas.

Thanks!

Edited May 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for educating me- I'll have to do some digging there. 

That also then would make it consistent with Aquinas.

Thanks!

No harm, no foul. We're all just learning.