Did the True Church Apostasized?

may · Oct 10, 2005

Victor said:
When did he leave? When did he come back? You have anything other then your private interpretations to back it up?

~Victor

the master Jesus christ left when Jesus went to heaven and he came back to inspect his faithful slave in 1914 that was the year that Jesus was made king of Gods heavenly kingdom but the question is did he find a faithful slave class to give more responsibilties to , who was being faithful to Jesus teachings , and who was not , so who seems to have been given greater work to do . the last thing Jesus said to his disiples was
And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.....matthew 28;18-20 so then have they taught what Jesus taught or have they strayed from that.?

Quiddity · Oct 10, 2005

may said:
the master Jesus christ left when Jesus went to heaven and he came back to inspect his faithful slave in 1914 that was the year that Jesus was made king of Gods heavenly kingdom but the question is did he find a faithful slave class to give more responsibilties to , who was being faithful to Jesus teachings , and who was not , so who seems to have been given greater work to do . the last thing Jesus said to his disiples was
And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.....matthew 28;18-20 so then have they taught what Jesus taught or have they strayed from that.?

All the days? I don't think you believe that. Apparently it was absent for a little over 1,900 years. Thanks anyways May.

~Victor

Searcher of Light · Oct 10, 2005

While I respect your opinion, it really has no bearing on this discussion... the fact that you, as an outsider, can not see how vastly different we are in our respective theologies means absolutely nothing to me.

Although I may not see the differences, I do see the similarities. Isnt the Catholic church a root of all Protestant beliefs?

may · Oct 11, 2005

Victor said:
All the days? I don't think you believe that. Apparently it was absent for a little over 1,900 years. Thanks anyways May.

~Victor

their have always been ones who have tried to stick to the command from jesus , they have wanted to worship in spirit and truth
The first-century slave class proved faithful to its commission

Scott1 · Oct 11, 2005

Searcher of Light said:
Although I may not see the differences, I do see the similarities. Isnt the Catholic church a root of all Protestant beliefs?

In the "similarities" of our worship of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, yes. In some cases, that is where our similarity ends.... but it is hard to lump up "Protestant" into one group since there are 30,000+ groups that all claim to be Christian non-Catholics.

DeepShadow · Oct 11, 2005

Scott1 said:
Hehe... all the Catholics are giggling.... Kat, you've just explained the reason for the development of doctrine including the Trinity, Theotokos, etc.

I think I get it...we (LDS) have changes (additional scripture, revelations, etc.) and point to it as sign of a living church. Some are inclined to point fingers at similar "changes" in the Catholic Church over time as evidence of apostasy.

I see the three fingers pointing back on this one. :biglaugh:

It's late, but I would like to submit my own feeble thoughts on the matter of apostasy. Given that changing doctrine over time is 'apostasy' only if such changes are not coming from God, it seems to me that the only reliable source to enquire of would be...God. Having already made many such changes in my own faith a matter of prayer and study, it may be time for me to review such changes in Catholic doctrine, and discover if any of them were inspired of God.

Any profundity in the above statement is attributable to the author. Any absurdity is attributable to sleep deprivation. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.:149:

Searcher of Light · Oct 11, 2005

In the "similarities" of our worship of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, yes. In some cases, that is where our similarity ends.... but it is hard to lump up "Protestant" into one group since there are 30,000+ groups that all claim to be Christian non-Catholics.

Excellent point, Scott. So the Catholic religion sees the Reformation as the Apostasy? If true, what of Martin Luther's reluctance (at first) to break away from the Catholic Church? Did he not just want to end the indulgences and other forms of worldliness that were later removed because of the Reformation?

Scott1 · Oct 12, 2005

DeepShadow said:
Having already made many such changes in my own faith a matter of prayer and study, it may be time for me to review such changes in Catholic doctrine, and discover if any of them were inspired of God.

Bless you my friend... that's all I ask of anyone. I sincerely hope that your studies help increase your devotion to Christ and your church.

Searcher of Light said:
Excellent point, Scott. So the Catholic religion sees the Reformation as the Apostasy? If true, what of Martin Luther's reluctance (at first) to break away from the Catholic Church? Did he not just want to end the indulgences and other forms of worldliness that were later removed because of the Reformation?

No, the Reformation was not the Apostasy.... I believe the reformation was needed.... and, like the Schism, I don't see the Catholic Church as without "guilt" in what happened. The changes to orthodox Christianity post-reformation are another story, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

dan · Oct 12, 2005

A main difference I see here is that the Catholics feel God's church can be guilty of transgression and be wrong at times, yet maintain their position as God's church. Others of us feel God's church cannot err and still be considered to be led by God. The former feel it was ok for doctrine to come about through debate and years of molding, while we feel doctrine had to be the result of direct revelation and never change.

Scott1 · Oct 12, 2005

dan said:
A main difference I see here is that the Catholics feel God's church can be guilty of transgression and be wrong at times, yet maintain their position as God's church.

The Church can not err... people inside the Church may go astray, but in the teaching of faith and morals that Church can not (and never in 2,000 years) be in error.

The former feel it was ok for doctrine to come about through debate and years of molding, while we feel doctrine had to be the result of direct revelation and never change.

This is a good point... but I wonder what your ancestors will be saying in 2,000 years.

Katzpur · Oct 12, 2005

Scott,

Will you please clarify something for me. A couple of posts back you said:

Scott1 said:
I believe the reformation was needed.... and I don't see the Catholic Church as without "guilt" in what happened.

And now you're saying:

The Church can not err... in the teaching of faith and morals that Church can not (and never in 2,000 years) be in error.

It sounds to me as if these two statements directly contradict one another. If the Church cannot err, why would a reformation have been needed? And if the Catholic Church (not the people) was not without "guilt," I'd say it sounds very much to me as if it did, in fact, err.

Uncertaindrummer · Oct 12, 2005

I have read through this whole thread and still not found one single example of when where why and what the "apostasy" entails...

Quiddity · Oct 12, 2005

Katzpur, do remember that when catholics say the Church hasn't erred we are always talking about doctrine/dogma. A reformation, although it most likely deals with doctrine/dogma it can serve as a positive thing for the Church. It moves her to clarify truths and opens up dialogue within the Church. It gets lazy priest to get up and dance. There is many examples that can be given but I think Scott was saying that the Church sometimes needs a kick in the pants to get moving. Her failure lies in her actions, not in her teachings.

Hope this helps

In Christ
~Victor

Scott1 · Oct 12, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
I have read through this whole thread and still not found one single example of when where why and what the "apostasy" entails...

... and you won't ever get one I'm afraid.

Victor said:
Her failure lies in her actions, not in her teachings.

As usual, right on the money!:jam:

Katzpur · Oct 12, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
I have read through this whole thread and still not found one single example of when where why and what the "apostasy" entails...

I think that's because you are expecting to see something different than we're providing. Scott and I finally had to simply agree to disagree on this. I believe we've provided evidence but you don't see it as evidence, so we're at an impasse. To me, if the Catholic Church is not teaching the same doctrines today as were taught anciently, that's evidence of an apostasy. You haven't seen any examples of "when, where and why" from the Latter-day Saints, and I haven't seen any proof that many of the doctrines you believe today were truly part of the ancient Church.

may · Oct 13, 2005

Following the death of the apostles, the good news came to be overshadowed by pagan teachings and philosophies. As foretold, false teachers distorted and polluted the pure message of truth. Gradually, true Christianity was eclipsed by a counterfeit called Christendom. A clergy class arose that tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people. Though the numbers of those who called themselves Christians increased, their worship was not pure. Christendom grew geographically and became a powerful institution and a dominant force in Western culture, but it had neither Gods blessing nor his spirit.......so the question is who really are the faithful ones doing the things that Jesus wants done? matthew 24;45-47

Scott1 · Oct 13, 2005

may said:
Following the death of the apostles, the good news came to be overshadowed by pagan teachings and philosophies.

[yawn] Same tired argument without any evidence. [/yawn]

may · Oct 13, 2005

Scott1 said:
[yawn] Same tired argument without any evidence. [/yawn]

trinity doctrine ...pagan...... immortality of the human soul .... pagan Greek religious influence..... also hellfire , not Jesus teaching . torment for the souls of the wicked , is not a biblical teaching .oh dear pure worship out the door, i think it speaks for its self

Aqualung · Oct 13, 2005

Also, being able to pay the priests (in land or money) to clear the sins of your dead ancestors.

Scott1 · Oct 13, 2005

may said:
trinity doctrine ...pagan...... immortality of the human soul .... pagan Greek religious influence..... also hellfire , not Jesus teaching . torment for the souls of the wicked , is not a biblical teaching .oh dear pure worship out the door, i think it speaks for its self

Oh vey... this is not evidence, this is a list of things you are confused about.... for it to be evidence you have to provide something more than "i think it speaks for its self".:bonk:

Did the True Church Apostasized?

Did the Chruch Apostasized?

Yes it did!

No it didn't.

MAybe

Not yet

Well-Known Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

White Crow

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Active Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Tasty

Well-Known Member