Why did The Great Apostasy happen and similarities between Mormonism & Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Protestantism

[Agnostic1]

I just signed up and I'm not sure if I can ask this question here. I tried to ask it on the general discussion but I wasn't allowed I guess.

I just want to mainly ask about why God let apostasy within Christianity. And because of that apostasy, Joseph Smith kind of reformed the faith and restorated the church, right? But how is this any different than Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestantism?

Islam: The books before the Quran are corrupted so the Quran is the last reformed(?) perfect word of God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: The churches at that time started teaching heretically(?). So Charles Taze Russell kind of reformed(?) the faith.

Protestantism: Martin Luther thought that the Catholicism was corrupted so there was a need to reform the church.

But against all these movements or religions, the Catholic or Orthodox Church seem to stand as unchanged because AFAIK they say that God wouldn't change his mind or start a new church/religion since he already started one.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

[bluebell]

I only have a sec so I'm not going to respond to the questions right now, but just wanted to let you know that you have to have 25 posts before you can start a thread in the discussion forum.

[Pyreaux]

The question reminds me of the book "The Falling Away" by B.H. Roberts. It just contains an amassed collection of quotes and sources from justabout every church, since the Anglican Church, all started up saying all the previous institutions were apostates, from the end of Bible until they arrived, some 800 years later if it's the Anglican church, and much later for others. But what sets Mormonism, or rather the Latter-Day Saints, leaps ahead of the pack is the reservation for future inscripturation. All these other admittedly institutions of men are uninspired; that is, they were not started by any prophet able to add to the Bible nor the Quran. In our opinion, this is the primary feature of an apostasy. No ongoing or new revelations, they even deny any possibility of it as doctrine. So, as similar we might seem superficially, we stand out from all of them in that way.

The idea additional scriptures and revelation is to be strongly resisted is a symptom of apostasy. It is why out of necessity they've invented an anti-scriptural standard to replacing God's living authorities who are capable of preventing apostasy with only dead ones on paper subject to multiple interpretations, thus incapable of stopping apostasy. Closing the canon is an attempt to lock God into stasis, and to deny God can change his mind, more specifically, change his mind today about what the scriptures may have said in the past.

When the Christianity became infused into Rome, the Greek Neo-Platonic Philosophers (the Intellectual community) of Rome had already long abandoned their pantheon of embarrassingly human-like gods for a philosophically perfect god called, "The One".

"Socrates and Plato held that (God is) The One, the single self existent nature... all variety of names point immediately to mind. God therefore is mind.. that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passable" (Plutarch, in Eusebias, Preparations for the Gospel 14:16)

There was a Roman Christian desire to interpret all the human-like qualities of God in scripture as poetry and metaphor, and to believe in this new intellectual Roman god influenced the Council of Nicea to begin to formulate aspects of the Trinity. The Trinity for instance dictates that the three persons in the Godhead are all made out of one indivisible substance, this substance cannot change at all. Like The One, they declared God to be likewise "impassable"; that is God cannot change in emotion, He has no passions, and He cannot change His mind. That extreme sort of unchangeability is alien to scriptures.

That is the Philosopher's god, not the God the Bible describes. The Bible has a God who loved, was jealous, he forgave, became wroth, etc. If he is a God that does not change in himself, and is impassable, how can we possibly engage with Him? With an impassible God, no appeal could be made to Him, for He has no sympathy in our struggle, He is not glad about our success, neither disappointed in our failure. How could a prayer change His mind or actions?

Didn't God send Jonah to condemn Nineveh to destruction, but through Nineveh's prayer and fasting, "God repented", "He did it not", did not what "He said that He would do" (Jonah 3:10). Did not God want to destroy Israel and make a nation out of Moses, until Moses, "besaught" God, so then God "repented of the evil, which he thought to do" (Exo 32:10-14).

This contradicts a strictly unchanging God, but it doesn't contradict what the Bible claims about God's "unchanging" nature, because it is nothing like the Greeks describe in any absolute sense. Instead, it merely describes specific attributes that don't change, God is consistent, honest, just and merciful (*** 1:2; Num 23:19; 1 Sa 15:29). Also, in contrast to men, God keeps his promises even though men break their promises (Isa 40:28; Exo 34:9-10).

Beyond God's changing mind, not even the written scriptures nor commandments are subject to finality. Jeremiah wrote a book, which the Israelites later burned, he rewrote it and then "added" upon it (Jer 36:32). Jeremiah preaches against the finality of the written scriptures, "the Law". A closed canon is not a replacement for revelations from future Prophets which can supersede the commandment and the Law, especially because, once the canon gets closed, the 'lying pen of scribes' could then freely alter the scriptures (Jer 8:8-9) and falsely claim that following their edited editions of "the Law" will cause Jerusalem to prosper (Jer 27:9), while rejecting the "word [davar] of the Lord", which is a phrase that means the spoken oracles, the prophets, like Jeremiah. Jeremiah, who told them; ignoring prophets and obeying past scripture will not yield its past promises, Jerusalem shall be destroyed as he decreed. The scribes seek to close the canon and to control the words in scriptures, and outlaw all new words and innovations that deviate from the written words, thus the scribes sought to execute the prophet Jeremiah for violating scripture for saying that Jerusalem will not prosper, it will fall (Jer 26:1-19).

A closed canon is apostasy. Muslims, Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses all have closed canons. Even though the Bible had a church structure and priests that were never officially disbanded, if the Catholic and Orthodox churches are remnants of it, the end of public revelation and inscripturation would render an apostasy inevitable. In the time of Christ, the Jews were generally apostates who killed the prophets and tried to close the canon, so they rejected Jesus because he spoke not like the scribes, but with authority that superseded the scriptures. Like Jeremiah, they tried to kill Jesus over it. Like Jeremiah, the bookkeepers again tried to kill prophets to keep power and succeeded to kill Joseph Smith. The churches today are as the scribes, not prophets, just keepers of books and feigning to be arbiters of God word, acting like they are the same; They are not and never will be. Proof-texts are not a substitute for authority. Scripture is not a matter for the private interpretation of its readers; it came by prophesy, and only prophets can interpret it, or apply it correctly, or even counter it if need be (2 Peter 1:19). For "the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power [authority]", (1 Corinthians 4:20).

"Carnegie: People will come from all over, they'll do exactly what I tell 'em... if the words... are from the book. It's happened before and it'll happen again" ~ The Book of Eli

Edited April 14 by Pyreaux

[JVW]

On 4/13/2025 at 10:53 AM, Agnostic1 said:

I just want to mainly ask about why God let apostasy within Christianity

I just read this in a passover guide written by OneForIsrael. I thought this little speech was very interesting as it implies that God actually uses apostasies as a tool to build His people.

KARPAS (PARSLEY) AND MA’IM MEH-LUCHIM (SALT WATER) (Leader holds up a piece of parsley.) LEADER: This represents life, and the produce of the earth that gives us life. A vegetable begins its life as a seed planted in the ground, then it sprouts and grows until ready for the harvest. This is a beautiful picture of the nation of Israel. When she was just a “seed”—a tiny group of 70 people—God brought her to Egypt where He planted her; there she grew. When God brought her out of egypt, she was a nation 2 million people strong. However, life is not always sweet. So, we dip this parsley into salt water as a reminder of the tears that were shed by the slaves in Egypt (and which many of us shed through our own struggles in life). The salt water can also represent the salty water of the Red Sea that God parted and allowed His people to pass through on dry ground to safety.

To your question. Why did God plant the seed of Israel in Egypt and raise them as slaves in a heathen nation? Why not just leave them where Jacob lived and let them multiply there, in freedom? All of the seeds of the restoration were planted in historical Christianity. God performed many mighty miracles during the Great Apostasy and raised up some mighty men who accomplished miraculous things through their faith in Jesus Christ.

[InCognitus]

On 4/13/2025 at 8:53 AM, Agnostic1 said:

I just want to mainly ask about why God let apostasy within Christianity.

That's always the question that people ask, why would God allow.... X, Y, Z, whatever?   Why did God allow the fall of Adam?  Why did God allow men to become so wicked that he had to destroy them in the flood of Noah?  Why did God allow the northern tribes of Israel to apostatize and be scattered?  Why did God allow the temple at Jerusalem to be destroyed?  Why did God allow Jesus to be killed and the remaining tribes of Israel to be scattered?

The great apostasy within Christianity is one of those questions.  But it was one that was foretold in several places in scripture (as was the restoration).

On 4/13/2025 at 8:53 AM, Agnostic1 said:

And because of that apostasy, Joseph Smith kind of reformed the faith and restorated the church, right? But how is this any different than Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestantism?

Here are the big differences as I see them:

Islam:  Muslims have various schools and branches today, so their modern beliefs may vary depending on who you are talking to.  But Muslims consider the Quran (which was completed around 632 AD) to be the final revelation from God and Muhammad was the final Islamic prophet, so all the various interpretations of the faith revolve around each group's interpretations of the Quran.  Islam has gone through various phases of reform, similar to the Protestant reformers in Christianity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses:  Charles Taze Russell developed a theology that tried to reevaluate many of the assumed Christian traditions in his day and therefore he departed from many of those traditions in various ways. Jehovah’s Witnesses view the Bible as a complete guide for day-to-day living, and therefore they are not all that different from other Protestant sects in their view of scripture as the "final authority" (which is in itself a Christian tradition that Jehovah's Witnesses did not reject).  Their justification for their existence is that they believe they have the correct interpretation of scripture.

Protestantism:  Protestant reformers like Martin Luther saw differences between what they read in the scriptures in comparison to what they were taught in Catholicism, and they used scripture to justify their separation from Catholicism resulting in the establishment of new denominations of Christianity.  But Protestantism continues many of the traditions of Catholicism, including the insistence on a closed canon of scripture and adherence to the doctrines professed in the early creeds (resulting in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in and after the fourth century AD) and doctrines about creation that developed at the end of the second century AD.  The justification for the existence of each of the denominations is that each denomination believes they have the correct interpretation of scripture.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:  Joseph Smith was not looking to start a new branch of Christianity, nor was he trying to reform anything to do with Christianity:  He merely wanted to know which church he should join.  He prayed to God and in answer to his prayer he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in vision, and was told not to join any of the existing churches, but that the church of Jesus Christ would soon be restored.  Through further visions and revelations from God and through the ministering of angels, Joseph Smith brought about additional scripture (the Book of Mormon), and God restored priesthood authority to the earth through him and others and reestablished the Church of Jesus Christ and its original intended organization of apostles and prophets, again upon the earth.  The restored church was built upon direct revelation from God for doctrines and teachings, and the understanding that there will be continuing revelation from God and therefore it has an open canon of scripture. 

Comparison: 

Islam:  Latter-day Saints are similar to Islam only in the sense that the Islamic faith initially began by revelation to a prophet.  But it differs drastically in the sense that Islam believes in a closed canon of scripture and that Muhammad was the last prophet, while Latter-day Saints believe in continuing revelation and ongoing apostles and prophets and an open canon of scripture.

Jehovah's Witnesses:  The main similarity I can see here is our common belief that there was an apostasy from the original teachings of Christianity that occurred in the early centuries following the departure of the apostles.  Other than that, Latter-day Saints have nothing in common with the idea that seems to be the basis of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, which is that everything that we need to know is contained in the Bible and that it must be interpreted by men in exactly the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses interpret it.

Protestantism:  Joseph Smith didn't seek to reform Christianity like the Protestant reformers, nor does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rely on the declarations of the early creeds of Christianity as the basis for our faith.  Protestantism relies on individual interpretation of the Bible as the sole authority, and teaches that the canon of scripture is closed (like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Islamic faith), while Latter-day Saints believe in an open canon of scripture.  But both Latter-day Saints and Protestants recognize that there was some degree of slippage from true teachings (or otherwise we'd all be Catholic)

The most important difference is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the heavens are open and that God is the same as he was in Bible times and continues to give revelation to direct his church like he did in Bible times and continues to give more scripture, and that was the basis for the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, while other groups have primarily tried to reconstruct what they see as the original teachings using the Bible alone.

On 4/13/2025 at 8:53 AM, Agnostic1 said:

But against all these movements or religions, the Catholic or Orthodox Church seem to stand as unchanged because AFAIK they say that God wouldn't change his mind or start a new church/religion since he already started one.

I don't agree with your premise that the Catholic or Orthodox Church "seem to stand as unchanged".  I think that would be the assumption given that they both started out a long time ago and are still around today, but it's easy to see trends of changing doctrines through the passage of time in the early Christian writings (from the second century AD through the forth century AD), and it wasn't really until the late fourth century AD that provisions were set in place to try to solidify the doctrines and theology.

[Chum]

8 hours ago, JVW said:

I thought this little speech was very interesting as it implies that God actually uses apostasies as a tool to build His people.

(a repost of sorts) Even better, IMO, is who God picks to do prophet stuff.  Noah had a drinking problem. Jonah had a courage problem. Isaiah had a normality problem. I think. And it may have been wiser to give Joseph $20 than invest it with him. Brigham was Brigham. 

Any yet, the things they did testify that they bore the mantle. 

Messed up people getting stuff done is what God's hand looks like (I think you could of God-slapped someone with Paul).

Edited April 15 by Chum

[Tacenda]

I'm too far gone, but just go by my heart and what it's telling me. The LDS church is my home base. But I don't think it's the only one. I think everyone can choose and it's okay with God. 

[3DOP]

On 4/13/2025 at 9:53 AM, Agnostic1 said:

I just signed up and I'm not sure if I can ask this question here. I tried to ask it on the general discussion but I wasn't allowed I guess.

I just want to mainly ask about why God let apostasy within Christianity. And because of that apostasy, Joseph Smith kind of reformed the faith and restorated the church, right? But how is this any different than Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestantism?

Islam: The books before the Quran are corrupted so the Quran is the last reformed(?) perfect word of God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: The churches at that time started teaching heretically(?). So Charles Taze Russell kind of reformed(?) the faith.

Protestantism: Martin Luther thought that the Catholicism was corrupted so there was a need to reform the church.

But against all these movements or religions, the Catholic or Orthodox Church seem to stand as unchanged because AFAIK they say that God wouldn't change his mind or start a new church/religion since he already started one.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

What is apostasy? It can't be horrifically bad behavior. Look at the Old Testament. And the New. When did Christ ever say or act as though the  "chair of Moses" was obsolete? If the Old Covenant endured through centuries of bad behavior...maybe the same could be said during Apostolic times until today? 

I suspect that many of the criticisms of the post apostolic Church fail to appreciate how Jesus, at the Last Supper, Holy Thursday, linked the Pasover Sacrifice to His own New Passover. It was a smooth transition, which some faithful Jews at the time were already looking for. The new Manna. A new Exodus. Another and better Promised Land.

Catholics know the history of evil popes. But we also compare this history, which without us, it might be hard to discover. The kings, priests, and prophets of Israel and Judah, teach Catholics not to assume apostasy because of human and evil appearances. They did not hide their warts and wrinkles. Good children of Abraham.

All authority comes from God...whether the authority is Moses and his successors, Peter and his successors, or even Caesar, Pilate, the traffic cop,  and their successors. The Scriptures tell us to obey them that have the rule over us. 

Unless King David commands us to murder someone whose wife you want, we obey authority. If this medieval pope who digs up his predecessor from the grave and puts him on trial insists that we must do similarly if we can with our enemies, we obey in all other respects, as though God has spoken through an unworthy vessel. 

Obedience is better than sacrifice. I know of not the least worthy pope, successor of St.Peter, who has commanded Catholics to sin. That being the case, I have after almost 30 years being Catholic, decided to submissively obey...in all things but sin.

Sorry about all the bad behavior from the beginning, but not embarrassed at all. Indeed, Catholics can be proud of the holiness and sanctity of their mothers and fathers in the faith, just as the Jews could and should have, during the times of the Messiah.

Too long. Bed time. My last day of work is May 2! I hope I can resume more frequent chats with you all in the Lord's will in the nearer future. God love you. God bless you all. 

3DOP 

 

[CV75]

On 4/13/2025 at 10:53 AM, Agnostic1 said:

I just signed up and I'm not sure if I can ask this question here. I tried to ask it on the general discussion but I wasn't allowed I guess.

I just want to mainly ask about why God let apostasy within Christianity. And because of that apostasy, Joseph Smith kind of reformed the faith and restorated the church, right? But how is this any different than Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestantism?

Islam: The books before the Quran are corrupted so the Quran is the last reformed(?) perfect word of God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: The churches at that time started teaching heretically(?). So Charles Taze Russell kind of reformed(?) the faith.

Protestantism: Martin Luther thought that the Catholicism was corrupted so there was a need to reform the church.

But against all these movements or religions, the Catholic or Orthodox Church seem to stand as unchanged because AFAIK they say that God wouldn't change his mind or start a new church/religion since he already started one.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

There are a couple of principles taught in the scriptures that explain why God allowed the great apostasy:

1. The agency of man as exercised in a fallen world: failure is inevitable.

2. Jesus descended below all things, including the destruction of His Church. He ascended above all things also, so while failure in a fallen world is inevitable, so is perfection as the tables are turned through His return and Millennial reign. This principle of His descending and ascending is essential to His infinite and eternal atonement. It relates to #1 in terms of the eternal necessity for "opposition in all things" where the reconciliation of all things is in His exaltation, which is greater than ascending above all things.

3. See John 12:24, "24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

God has not changed His mind about this process for the salvation of humanity. The process requires change as a consequence of exercising agency. God offers liberty in contrast to our limitations, and we have to find Him in our weakness as He strengthens us with His grace.

The Restoration is His way of inviting souls on both sides of the veil to prepare for His Second Coming, which opens the way to a fulness of His blessings (exaltation).

[CV75]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

What is apostasy? It can't be horrifically bad behavior. Look at the Old Testament. And the New. When did Christ ever say or act as though the  "chair of Moses" was obsolete? If the Old Covenant endured through centuries of bad behavior...maybe the same could be said during Apostolic times until today? 

I suspect that many of the criticisms of the post apostolic Church fail to appreciate how Jesus, at the Last Supper, Holy Thursday, linked the Pasover Sacrifice to His own New Passover. It was a smooth transition, which some faithful Jews at the time were already looking for. The new Manna. A new Exodus. Another and better Promised Land.

Catholics know the history of evil popes. But we also compare this history, which without us, it might be hard to discover. The kings, priests, and prophets of Israel and Judah, teach Catholics not to assume apostasy because of human and evil appearances. They did not hide their warts and wrinkles. Good children of Abraham.

All authority comes from God...whether the authority is Moses and his successors, Peter and his successors, or even Caesar, Pilate, the traffic cop,  and their successors. The Scriptures tell us to obey them that have the rule over us. 

Unless King David commands us to murder someone whose wife you want, we obey authority. If this medieval pope who digs up his predecessor from the grave and puts him on trial insists that we must do similarly if we can with our enemies, we obey in all other respects, as though God has spoken through an unworthy vessel. 

Obedience is better than sacrifice. I know of not the least worthy pope, successor of St.Peter, who has commanded Catholics to sin. That being the case, I have after almost 30 years being Catholic, decided to submissively obey...in all things but sin.

Sorry about all the bad behavior from the beginning, but not embarrassed at all. Indeed, Catholics can be proud of the holiness and sanctity of their mothers and fathers in the faith, just as the Jews could and should have, during the times of the Messiah.

Too long. Bed time. My last day of work is May 2! I hope I can resume more frequent chats with you all in the Lord's will in the nearer future. God love you. God bless you all. 

3DOP 

 

I think "the" apostasy as referred to here in many ways is simply a reflection of our limitations in resisting evil. The faithful followers were subject to and beguiled by the few "powers that be" that intentionally undermined Christ's early Church (according to the Book of Mormon). But their faith and traditions kept the legacy of Christ, if not His Church, sufficiently alive to engender the faith necessary for the Restoration of authority, teachings (including ordinances and their respective covenants) and organization which come together in the Church.

Edited April 15 by CV75

[JVW]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

What is apostasy? It can't be horrifically bad behavior. Look at the Old Testament. And the New. When did Christ ever say or act as though the  "chair of Moses" was obsolete? If the Old Covenant endured through centuries of bad behavior...maybe the same could be said during Apostolic times until today? 

I suspect that many of the criticisms of the post apostolic Church fail to appreciate how Jesus, at the Last Supper, Holy Thursday, linked the Pasover Sacrifice to His own New Passover. It was a smooth transition, which some faithful Jews at the time were already looking for. The new Manna. A new Exodus. Another and better Promised Land.

Catholics know the history of evil popes. But we also compare this history, which without us, it might be hard to discover. The kings, priests, and prophets of Israel and Judah, teach Catholics not to assume apostasy because of human and evil appearances. They did not hide their warts and wrinkles. Good children of Abraham.

All authority comes from God...whether the authority is Moses and his successors, Peter and his successors, or even Caesar, Pilate, the traffic cop,  and their successors. The Scriptures tell us to obey them that have the rule over us. 

Unless King David commands us to murder someone whose wife you want, we obey authority. If this medieval pope who digs up his predecessor from the grave and puts him on trial insists that we must do similarly if we can with our enemies, we obey in all other respects, as though God has spoken through an unworthy vessel. 

Obedience is better than sacrifice. I know of not the least worthy pope, successor of St.Peter, who has commanded Catholics to sin. That being the case, I have after almost 30 years being Catholic, decided to submissively obey...in all things but sin.

Sorry about all the bad behavior from the beginning, but not embarrassed at all. Indeed, Catholics can be proud of the holiness and sanctity of their mothers and fathers in the faith, just as the Jews could and should have, during the times of the Messiah.

Too long. Bed time. My last day of work is May 2! I hope I can resume more frequent chats with you all in the Lord's will in the nearer future. God love you. God bless you all. 

3DOP 

 

I'm curious about whether Catholics regard the canon as closed with the Bible. Is the pope regarded like how a prophet is and are his words regarded as scripture? Does the Catholic church have additional text that they regard as being the word of God besides the Bible?

[JVW]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

...

Protestantism:  ... and doctrines about creation that developed at the end of the second century AD.  ...

...

What doctrines are you referring to? Original Sin? Creationism?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

What doctrines are you referring to? Original Sin? Creationism?

Specifically I had in mind the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing), which was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and was developed further by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. The development of that doctrine completely changed man's relationship to God and made God "wholly other", since (by that teaching) humans were created out of nothing, and only God existed eternally. (For references, see my prior posts here and here).  This doctrine was also later adopted in Judaism as well.

Prior to that time the earliest Christians (Clement of Rome in the first century AD) taught that the matter from which the earth was created is "eternal" (Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians 60:1) and around 150 AD Justin Martyr taught that God created all things from unformed matter (Justin Martyr, First Apology of Justin, Chap. X), which was said to be a teaching that came down to them from Moses and was later borrowed by Plato and Greek Poets (Justin Martyr, First Apology of Justin, Chap. LIX).

Protestantism, like Catholicism, holds to the later tradition that God created all things from nothing.

[Vanguard]

On 4/13/2025 at 8:53 AM, Agnostic1 said:

I just signed up and I'm not sure if I can ask this question here. I tried to ask it on the general discussion but I wasn't allowed I guess.

I just want to mainly ask about why God let apostasy within Christianity. And because of that apostasy, Joseph Smith kind of reformed the faith and restorated the church, right? But how is this any different than Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestantism?

Islam: The books before the Quran are corrupted so the Quran is the last reformed(?) perfect word of God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: The churches at that time started teaching heretically(?). So Charles Taze Russell kind of reformed(?) the faith.

Protestantism: Martin Luther thought that the Catholicism was corrupted so there was a need to reform the church.

But against all these movements or religions, the Catholic or Orthodox Church seem to stand as unchanged because AFAIK they say that God wouldn't change his mind or start a new church/religion since he already started one.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

Dumbed Down Layman's version -

Man's departure from what Christ had taught during His ministry coupled with the eventual passing of the apostles set the stage for the apostasy. 

And yes, there are myriad examples of men and women in good faith trying to correct back to the original gospel intent. In some sense, Joseph was very similar and in some sense distinctively different.

 

[Calm]

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I hope I can resume more frequent chats with you all in the Lord's will in the nearer future.

That would be lovely…

[Calm]

On 4/13/2025 at 9:26 AM, bluebell said:

I only have a sec so I'm not going to respond to the questions right now, but just wanted to let you know that you have to have 25 posts before you can start a thread in the discussion forum.

This seemed like a good discussion so I asked if the thread could be moved so more would see it in case anyone wondered what happened.  I might not have been the only one.

Edited April 15 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This seemed like a good discussion so I asked if the thread could be moved so more would see it in case anyone wondered what happened.  I might not have been the only one.

I figured someone did.

[2BizE]

Here is a book review of a new book (2022) on the apostasy published by the Neil A Maxwell Institute 

 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/11/19/not-your-parents-apostasy-and-restoration-a-review-of-iancient-christians-an-introduction-for-latter-day-saints-i/

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/01/23/what-latter-day-saints-get-wrong/

 

[3DOP]

13 hours ago, JVW said:

I'm curious about whether Catholics regard the canon as closed with the Bible. Is the pope regarded like how a prophet is and are his words regarded as scripture? Does the Catholic church have additional text that they regard as being the word of God besides the Bible?

Hi JVW.

I think it should be best to say that the Catholic Church teaches that "the canon" is closed with Christ. This is not to say that there is no advance or progress in the understanding of God's Word. 

The pope is regarded as the "vicar" of Christ, succeeding St. Peter. For disciplinary actions, whatsoever he shall "bind or loose" on earth, shall be ratified by heaven. His doctrinal authority is limited. Popes are fallible in this area. Only under certain rare circumstances can popes declare and define dogma on their own authority. Even then, his words would never be regarded as Scripture.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churces have always accepted additional books as canonical which post-Christian Judaism eventually rejected, as did Protestantism after a millennium and a half of Christian history. 

Good questions!

 

 

 

 

[3DOP]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think "the" apostasy as referred to here in many ways is simply a reflection of our limitations in resisting evil. The faithful followers were subject to and beguiled by the few "powers that be" that intentionally undermined Christ's early Church (according to the Book of Mormon). But their faith and traditions kept the legacy of Christ, if not His Church, sufficiently alive to engender the faith necessary for the Restoration of authority, teachings (including ordinances and their respective covenants) and organization which come together in the Church.

If I were considering apostasy theory, this would be a direction I would explore today. But not without also considering how priesthood authority was maintained from Moses to Jesus. 

[3DOP]

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Engagement-Latter-day-Saints/dp/158617925X

A new work about Catholic and LDS interaction!

 

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Engagement-Latter-day-Saints/dp/158617925X

A new work about Catholic and LDS interaction!

 

Thank you for bringing this book to our attention, I wasn't aware of it.

I was also intrigued by Francis Beckwith's involvement in the book, because my familiarity with him was in Evangelical circles and with the book, New Mormon Challenge, published in 2002.  

I had to look him up in Wikipedia to find this:  "In November 2006, Beckwith became the 58th president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), only to resign both his presidency and membership in May 2007, a week after he returned to the Catholic Church. Over a decade later, he became the 90th president of the American Catholic Philosophical Association (ACPA)."  And:  "In May 2007, Beckwith returned to the Catholicism of his youth, after decades as an Evangelical Protestant."

Good for him!

Edited April 16 by InCognitus

[CV75]

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

If I were considering apostasy theory, this would be a direction I would explore today. But not without also considering how priesthood authority was maintained from Moses to Jesus. 

I think the two situations differ in a couple of areas. The etiology outlined in the Book of Mormon are very different that what sems to be recorded in the Old Testament concerning the apostate condition of the Jewish nation and rulers by the time Jesus was born. 

Despite the national apostasy, in some ways priesthood authority existed among the Jewish nation all along, and it was by lineage as recognized in our D&C. This allows it to continue, at least in form if not practice, without a formal governing body (which had become corrupted). The Gentiles did not have this advantage.

What the Jews did with their priesthood in Jesus' time is another thing: John the Baptist is a good example; the faithful priests who served in the temple are also good examples (until their work ended after the veil was rent by the New Testament). Anything they did in God's name would have been apostasy in relation to the new Church, whether willingly, ignorantly, or in good faith or not. A lineal possessor of the priesthood must officiate in the work of the Lord at it is presently constituted.

The "great and abominable church" of the Book of Mormon imposed an apostasy that was not countered by any possessor of the priesthood officiating in the work of the Lord at it was then constituted. The Gentiles had no lineal priesthood, and the Jews who did operated in apostasy vis-a-vis the Primitive Church. There was no way to win, the Church had to die just as Jesus did (at the hands of the Gentiles and the apostate Jews).

Maintaining priesthood authority from Jesus to Peter and then to the bishops onward to our day had to be a function of ordinance and record-keeping (in heaven and earth). That sounds a bit artificial, but if it isn't recorded it didn't happen because the proper pattern cannot be passed on among and to the weak (only a lineal priesthood can, where the "book on earth" is the body), and there is a good deal of emphasis on the need for the books in heaven and earth to agree. That may be one built-in weakness that ensured an apostasy of the early Church among the Gentiles.

This is why I think the death of the apostles who could not pass the priesthood on by lineage, and the ensuing erosion of their pattern of doctrine, covenants and ordinances, are brought up as the causes of the apostasy in the Old World (among the Gentiles) during the first century or two after Jesus' resurrection. This lineal vs ordained right to and possession of the priesthood may answer one aspect of the question, and the natural tendency for people to apostatize answers another. I believe the Lord will come before either kind of apostasy occurs again. Jesus' was not to be Ongoing Restoration uninterrupted by apostasy before His Second Coming.

[CV75]

To clarify the above, the pattern of priesthood promulgation in the early Church, as in the Restored Church, was nonhereditary/nonlinear/acquired ordination of Jews and Gentiles alike. Priesthood ordinations in form have continued since the early Church, but the power thereof was interrupted by the great and abominable church which actively  destroyed the saints of God and ensured their spiritual captivity on earth (1 Nephi 13:9). The Restoration takes care of all that, and God has always judged the hearts of those who lived and died without a fulness of the Gospel anyway.

Edited April 16 by CV75

[CV75]

ETA: (sorry, I keep thinking of things!): The lineal priesthood under the Mosaic law was the Lesser priesthood. The Melchizedek Priesthood was transmitted to the prophets succeeding him by calling and assignment. The power of God that transmits lineally in the seed of Abraham by way of the Abrahamic Covenant encompasses both, but its forerunner is the promise and its realization as the lesser and greater priesthoods requires an organization ("church") with a presiding priest (Melchizedek or Aaronic as the case may be). Jesus set up His Church without a lineal priesthood, but made allowances (e.g., the literal descendants of Aaron having a right to preside as bishops, which right is activated by the presiding high priest in the Melchizedek order) in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise concerning seed in terms of birth in and adoption into the covenant.

Edited Thursday at 11:30 AM by CV75