Did the True Church Apostasized?

[James the Persian]

Well I, unsurprisingly agree with Ted and Victor. Not sure what else there is to say on the matter really - particularly given the gargantuan posts Ted has made.

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No. The True Church did apostasize, but was restored. Just because it goes away does not mean it can't come back. One of the criteria of the True Church will be the priesthood being able to trace their authority back to Christ. Catholics claim this and so do the LDS. I know of no other denomination or group that claims the priesthood authority that was given to Peter by Christ. Do you?

Yes the Anglicans Believe they are an Apostolic Church, Though the Catholics disagree.
The Anglicans were not a Lutheran Based church. But continued with the Catholic Bishop lineage,and forms of worship, whilst reforming the church. until the appearance of the short lived puritans the two churches were almost indistinguishable, except for their leader.


Terry________________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Quiddity]

Interesting you would say that, Victor. I am absolutely not offended by your statement. Since you have narrowed the contenders for the title of "the one true Church" down to two, here (from The Strength of the Mormon Position by Orson F. Whitney) is another point of view on the subject:

"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us: while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism: but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.' "

Unsuprisingly Katzpur, I agree with that statement. It would be in vain for us to really discuss anything other then apostasy. For if that crumbles then all of Mormon beliefs crumble with it. At least the wrong ones will.

~Victor

 

[ted1234]

nutshell and Katzpur,

You both put forth the suggestion (Katzpur with the quote from the RC, and nutshelll with his question), that aside from Roman Catholicism, it is Mormonism that has a claim to the priesthood. Orthodox Christianity has an unbroken succession of bishops that goes in an UNBROKEN line from today's bishops to the first century. Needless to say, therefore, that I disagree that it's Roman Catholicism or Mormonism.
Thanks.
Ted

P.S. James, sorry for the gargantuan post earlier. That's why I don't post very often. Cheers.

 

[nutshell]

nutshell and Katzpur,

You both put forth the suggestion (Katzpur with the quote from the RC, and nutshelll with his question), that aside from Roman Catholicism, it is Mormonism that has a claim to the priesthood. Orthodox Christianity has an unbroken succession of bishops that goes in an UNBROKEN line from today's bishops to the first century. Needless to say, therefore, that I disagree that it's Roman Catholicism or Mormonism.
Thanks.
Ted

P.S. James, sorry for the gargantuan post earlier. That's why I don't post very often. Cheers.

Ted, thanks for your post. I was away from my computer and was thinking about this. One thing I'm unsure of is the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. Can you please explain the differences, especially in regards to priesthood succession? Thanks.

 

[Scott1]

I was wondering if an LDS member could tell me when and where exactly, that the Church became apostate?

 

[jonny]

I believe that most say it was shortly after the Apostles were killed. This is an article entitled the Great Apostasy. You can find it here: http://www.cumorah.com/language/greatapostasy.html

I'm sure that you won't agree with it, and there may be portions that would probably offend a faithful Catholic, but this is the LDS answer to your question. It also explains why and how.

I'll try and go through some of it and pull some of the points that he tries to make so you don't have to read the entire book.

 

[jonny]

From Wikipedia:

According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon), the Great Apostasy started not long after Jesus' ascension and continued until Joseph Smith's First Vision in 1820. To Latter-day Saints, the Great Apostasy is marked by:

• the difficulty of the Apostles to keep early Christians from distorting Jesus' teachings and to prevent the followers from dividing into different ideological groups;
• the persecution and martyrdom of the church's apostles;
• the loss of leaders with Priesthood authority to administer the church and its ordinances;
• the lack of continuous revelation to instruct the leaders and guide the church; and
• the corruption of Christian doctrine particularly with the infusion of Greek or other pagan philosophies such as Neo-Platonism, Platonic realism and Asceticism.

Beginning in the 1st century and continuing up to the 4th century A.D. the various emperors of the Roman Empire carried out occasional violent persecutions against Christians. Apostles, bishops, disciples and other leaders and followers of Jesus who would not compromise their faith were persecuted and martyred. The persecutions were so successful that near the end of the 3rd century under the reign of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, monuments were erected memorializing the extinction of Christianity.

The LDS church contends all Priesthood leaders with authority to conduct and perpetuate church affairs were either martyred, taken from the earth, or apostatized. Latter-day Saints conclude that what survived was but a fragment of what Jesus had established: Christianity continued but not in its original form. Survivors of the persecutions were overly-influenced by various pagan philosophies either because they were not as well doctrinated in Jesus' teachings or they corrupted their Christian beliefs (willingly or by compulsion) by accepting non-Christian doctrines into their faith.

Latter-day Saints interpret various writings in the New Testament as an indication that even soon after Jesus' ascension the apostles struggled to keep early Christians from distorting Jesus' teachings and to prevent the followers from dividing into different ideological groups. However, some of those who survived the persecutions took it upon themselves to speak for God, interpret, amend or add to his doctrines and ordinances, and carry out his work without proper authority. During this time, important doctrines and rites were lost or corrupted. Latter-day Saints point to the doctrine of the Trinity adopted at the Council of Nicaea as an example of how pagan philosophy corrupted Jesus' teachings. (Mormonism teaches that God and His son, Jesus, are not one substance, but distinct personages.) The Latter-day Saints reject the early ecumenical councils for what they see as misguided human attempts without divine assistance to decide matters of doctrine, substituting democratic debate or politics for prophetic revelation. The proceedings of such councils were evidence to them that the church was no longer led by revelation and divine authority.

Thus, Latter-day Saints refer to the "restitution of all things" mentioned in Acts 3:20-21 and claim that a restoration of all the original and primary doctrines and rites of Christianity was needed and happened via Joseph Smith. Latter-day Saints contend that other religions--Christian or otherwise--have a portion of the truth, though mingled with inaccuracies. They claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Jesus' original church, has the authentic Priesthood authority, and all doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel.

The leading LDS work on the Great Apostasy is James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy. See also Apostasy from The Divine Church by James L. Barker. Also The World and the Prophets by Hugh Nibley.

 

[Katzpur]

And LDS or any other denomination can not have a Scripture unless they trust THE CHURCH that ratified what that Holy New Testament Scripture is. If they don't trust what the Church has ALWAYS TAUGHT, from the beggining, what was believed always and by all, how do they trust the Church to have gotten the Books of the New Testament write. It is undeniable that the list, the New Testament canon that we all read was ratified by BISHOPS of the One, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we believe that the Church is wrong and in apostasy, how can we be so sure about the Biblical books that they chose as TRUE TESTIMONIES TO THE ONE TEACHING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST? We can't have our cake and eat it too. No Protestant will argue against the books of the New Testament. Well there is no doubt that these books were ratified as TRUE, by the Holy Church, by the bishops of the ONE HOLY CHURCH. If we don't trust the Church, or if they are in apostasy, how can we trust their selections?

Hi, Ted.

The Latter-day Saints don't contest the scriptures. What we object to are the extra-Biblical doctrines and the "traditions" which we see as having emerged over the years from uninspired sources. You talk about what the Church has ALWAYS TAUGHT. That's where we disagree with you. We don't believe that either the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church is now teaching (or has taught for close to two millenia, for that matter) the same doctrines that Jesus Christ and His Apostles were teaching. That's why we claim that a universal apostasy took place. While we aren't inerrantists, by any means, we do accept the Bible as the word of God and give the early Church fathers credit for having preserved the ancient writings of the prophets and apostles as well as they did.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the World will apostasized but it does not mean that totally "ALL" of the Church members will apostasized. If all the members apostasized then Satan destroyed God's Church.

Hi, defense.


When the Latter-day Saints speak of a universal apostasy, we are referring to “a falling away” from the truth by the Church as an organizational entity. We aren’t trying to imply that “Christianity” has ever ceased to exist, and we definitely aren’t saying that there have not been millions of devout Christians on earth ever since the time of Christ. What we are saying is that the doctrines Jesus and His Apostles taught evolved over time and that the simplicity of the gospel message was complicated by the philosophies of men. We are saying that without the same organization as was found in the original Church (i.e. f foundation built on Prophets and Apostles as opposed to Cardinals and Popes), the priesthood authority Jesus gave to His Apostles was lost. And without that authority, continued revelation and guidance from the Head of the Church ceased.

But if it disappeared it means the Church is destroyed and the gates of hell did prevail against it!

Actually, I think you are completely misunderstanding what Jesus meant when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds as if you are equating the “gates of hell” with the “power of Satan” or even a generalized concept of evil. If you believe that Jesus was saying that Satan would not be allowed to destroy His Church, you are reading something entirely different into the phrase He used than Peter and the other Apostles would have believed He meant.

If we read in Jesus' Acension in heaven we read that "And I Will be with you till the close of age." It means that Christ Church was, not and will benot apostasized forever and ever.

No, actually this is not what He meant. He is not His Church. He is God, and His Church is the organization He established in order that His message could be carried forth to the world and the ordinances of His gospel could be performed by those holding the proper authority. The fact that He said He would always be with us in no way implies that men would not be free to change the doctrines He taught and free to kill the Apostles He ordained.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

From my perspective, the True Church was a parasitic gentile fiction increasingly at odds with its tenuous Jewish roots.

If you're speaking of the period after, say, the end of the first century, I would have to agree.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes the Anglicans Believe they are an Apostolic Church, Though the Catholics disagree.
The Anglicans were not a Lutheran Based church. But continued with the Catholic Bishop lineage,and forms of worship, whilst reforming the church. until the appearance of the short lived puritans the two churches were almost indistinguishable, except for their leader.

Terry,

Considering the origins of the Anglican Church, I can't help but wonder how they would attempt to justify this belief. Would you mind explaining?

Thanks,
Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

You both put forth the suggestion (Katzpur with the quote from the RC, and nutshelll with his question), that aside from Roman Catholicism, it is Mormonism that has a claim to the priesthood. Orthodox Christianity has an unbroken succession of bishops that goes in an UNBROKEN line from today's bishops to the first century. Needless to say, therefore, that I disagree that it's Roman Catholicism or Mormonism.

I’ve heard Orthodox Christians say this before, ted, and I’ve given their opinion some consideration. The only reason I would exclude Orthodoxy from possibly being the Church Jesus Christ established is that I believe that He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to one man, Peter, and not to a body of men. Since the Roman Catholic Church is led by the Pope and the Orthodox Church (to the best of my knowledge) is not, I would exclude it on that basis alone.


Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

The leading LDS work on the Great Apostasy is James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy. See also Apostasy from The Divine Church by James L. Barker. Also The World and the Prophets by Hugh Nibley.

And may I add, Restoring the Ancient Church, by Barry Bickmore. Contrary to what the title may imply, it's really more about the Apostasy than it is about the Restoration.

 

[Searcher of Light]

It seems one of the elements at the heart of this discussion is who exactly is inspired. R.C. and their sister religions claim it is the church body (more accurately the priesthood) while LDS claims Scripture and the Book of Mormon. It seems to me that God is the only one who could answer that completely. Other thanin Scripture (which of course is up for debate itself) God doesnt answer who is inspired and who is not. Perhaps neither are inspired but are only the thoughts of people. People, who may have good intentions but are actually incorrect in what God wants done, can create religions( most often in these cases referred to as cults). Perhaps both religions fall under this. (Just an idea to consider. Truth can only be found when a person thinks themselves wrong: wrongness drives the need to search.)

 

[Merlin]

Yes, I agree. What is the point of a protestant who still thinks the catholic church didn't apostasise? That's just admitting that the catholic church is the true church, but that they don't care enough to follow it, becaus ethey don't like it.

Protestants are called this because they protested about what they saw as the excesses of the Roman papacy. You will all know the story of Martin Luther pinning his objections to the local church door.

Many Protestant sects believe that all of the church statues of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and many saints are the equivalent of worshipping idols, and should not be allowed. So they tried to bring a version of Christianity which they claimed would revert to the original. Their churches were very spartan, and even today they do not allow any statues in their meeting rooms or churches (which is also true of Islam).

How many people (in addition to Roman Catholic) have faiths that allow people to touch and kiss and pray to statues in churches?

 

[Katzpur]

It seems one of the elements at the heart of this discussion is who exactly is inspired. R.C. and their sister religions claim it is the church body (more accurately the priesthood) while LDS claims Scripture and the Book of Mormon.

You are actually wrong about this. The Latter-day Saints claim theirs to be a restoration of the ancient Church. We are led by a Prophet (who holds the same keys Peter did) and a quorum of twelve Apostles. Scripture alone (including the Book of Mormon -- which we consider to be scripture) is not the source of our authority. We believe in continued revelation from Jesus Christ to those who direct the affairs of His Church in His absence.

People, who may have good intentions but are actually incorrect in what God wants done, can create religions( most often in these cases referred to as cults). Perhaps both religions fall under this.

I see. Mormonism and Catholicism are both cults, but Protestant and non-denominational Christianity are not. :biglaugh:

 

[Katzpur]

Protestants are called this because they protested about what they saw as the excesses of the Roman papacy. You will all know the story of Martin Luther pinning his objections to the local church door.

Many Protestant sects believe that all of the church statues of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and many saints are the equivalent of worshipping idols, and should not be allowed. So they tried to bring a version of Christianity which they claimed would revert to the original. Their churches were very spartan, and even today they do not allow any statues in their meeting rooms or churches (which is also true of Islam).

How many people (in addition to Roman Catholic) have faiths that allow people to touch and kiss and pray to statues in churches?

LDS churches have absolutely none of these things... No statues, no candles, no elaborate ornamentation. I wouldn't exactly call our churches "spartan," but they come pretty close. I actually wish we had a bit more. I just love going to the Catholic Cathedral of the Madeline in downtown Salt Lake. It is SO gorgeous. And I don't care what anyone says, I find that that kind of beauty lifts me spiritually.

 

[Quiddity]

How does one account for the beliefs that both RC and EO hold, that can be found before this supposed apostasy? St. John is most widely known for being the last to have died about A.D. 100. Would any historical documents found to show RC and EO beliefs before this age be found as valid by LDS? If not why not? And if so where are these doctrines in the LDS?

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

How does one account for the beliefs that both RC and EO hold, that can be found before this supposed apostasy? St. John is most widely known for being the last to have died about A.D. 100. Would any historical documents found to show RC and EO beliefs before this age be found as valid by LDS? If not why not? And if so where are these doctrines in the LDS?

~Victor

I think it would be safe to say the Latter-day Saints would find any doctrine specifically taught by Jesus and/or His Apostles to be valid. Of course, that still leaves open the possibility for different interpretations of material we both believe to be valid. The one that comes immediately to my mind is the doctrine of Transsubstantiation or "Real Presence." We Mormons are, of course, as familiar with Jesus' teachings on the subject, but we understand His words differently than you do.

Whenever I hear a Catholic speak of the early Church fathers and then quote from someone who lived in the 5th century, I simply can't buy into the idea that he was any more familiar with what was taught in the apostolic Church than someone who lived in the 10th century. I personally believe that many non-Biblical writings are extremely valuable in helping us to understand the actual beliefs and practices of the ancient Christians. But once you get past the end of the first century, I believe the Apostasy was already in full swing. And of course, even sticking strictly to what was taught in the first century, you can pretty much substantiate a range of viewpoints.

We believe that virtually all of our doctrines have ancient origins. I could take almost any of them and find 1st or early 2nd century writings that support our belief that they were taught in the early Church. As a matter of fact, if you want to name one, please be my guest. I'd be happy to see what I can find on it for you.