Did the True Church Apostasized?

[Scott1]

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

Dang bubba, that is as dumb as looking at polygamy as proof of Mormon apostasy... you should know better.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm curious to know what sort of 'evidence' would be acceptable. Obviously what Katz and others consider to be pretty strong evidence isn't. Do you want a clay tablet written by the 3rd Bishop of Rome saying that he is no longer following what Christ actally taught, for example? Is there any type of evidence that would 'prove' the apostacy in your minds? If not, I think the thread has gone on way too long.

 

[nutshell]

Dang bubba, that is as dumb as looking at polygamy as proof of Mormon apostasy... you should know better.

How do you think this is proof of Mormon apostacy? Polygamy existed in the ancient church and is an eternal law. Just because it's not practiced right now does not mean otherwise.

Maybe you can better clarify what you meant be your statement?

 

[Quiddity]

I'm curious to know what sort of 'evidence' would be acceptable. Obviously what Katz and others consider to be pretty strong evidence isn't. Do you want a clay tablet written by the 3rd Bishop of Rome saying that he is no longer following what Christ actally taught, for example? Is there any type of evidence that would 'prove' the apostacy in your minds? If not, I think the thread has gone on way too long.

First off, objections to teachings of the Church have always been around. So technically, you could point to any of those periods when someone (or group) objected to Church teachings and say "look the Church has apostasized". I don't need to go back 1900 years to say that. People have been saying things like this for eons. In order to prove that the Church has indeed apostasized you must find some inconsistancy or flat out contradiction (meaning the opposite) in what they teach (Go here for clarification on what is binding to Catholics: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18554&page=6&pp=10 post #59). So when I read Church Fathers consistantly defending the same doctrines thru-out time, what evidence can you provide aside from pointing to one event? I mean, if they did apostosize, why the consistancy after 100 AD (I would argue even before 100 AD)? Where are LDS teachings before 100 AD?


Hope this answers your questions.

~Victor

 

[nutshell]

First off, objections to teachings of the Church have always been around. So technically, you could point to any of those periods when someone (or group) objected to Church teachings and say "look the Church has apostasized". I don't need to go back 1900 years to say that. People have been saying things like this for eons. In order to prove that the Church has indeed apostasized you must find some inconsistancy or flat out contradiction (meaning the opposite) in what they teach (Go here for clarification on what is binding to Catholics: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18554&page=6&pp=10 post #59). So when I read Church Fathers consistantly defending the same doctrines thru-out time, what evidence can you provide aside from pointing to one event? I mean, if they did apostosize, why the consistancy after 100 AD (I would argue even before 100 AD)? Where are LDS teachings before 100 AD?


Hope this answers your questions.

~Victor

I think the misunderstanding comes in your desire for us to provide one event. We don't believe it was one event, but a culmination of things that led to the fall of the ancient church. Those things have already been mentioned previously so I won't mention them again here.

 

[Quiddity]

culmination of things

Yet to be seen.

~Victor

 

[Scott1]

I'm curious to know what sort of 'evidence' would be acceptable.

Well, Katz and everyone seem to think that any teaching after the Apostles died is apostasy.... and we bring up the fact that the LDS faith came along 1800 or so years later .... so obviously, the time of a certain teaching is not an accurate guideline for what is or what is not apostasy.... as for what sort of evidence would be acceptable, it has got to be something more than "well... a culmanation of stuff..". Provide evidence that any post-Apostolic era doctrine is refuted by the early Church would be nice.

Polygamy existed in the ancient church and is an eternal law. Just because it's not practiced right now does not mean otherwise.

Ummmm..... it is not part of our Church and not part of our eternal law.... it is an offense against God and the Sacrament of Marriage.... your results may vary.

 

[Katzpur]

Where are LDS teachings before 100 AD?

It's hard to address this without knowing which teachings you are specifically referring to. However, I would say offhand that there is as much evidence for our teachings in the ancient writings as there is for yours, and that more of this evidence dates from an earlier period than yours does. I think that any teaching that can be found in the Bible trumps any teaching that is first mentioned four or five hundred years later, although I am willing to concede that on many issues it is simply a matter of interpretation. You see certain scriptures as meaning one thing and we see them as meaning something else. But when I do not see a particular dogma mentioned in the Bible or in any writings earlier than the fourth or fifth centuries, I can't help but be a little bit wary of their accuracy.

 

[Scott1]

Well said Katz... frubals to thee.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, Katz and everyone seem to think that any teaching after the Apostles died is apostasy.... and we bring up the fact that the LDS faith came along 1800 or so years later .... so obviously, the time of a certain teaching is not an accurate guideline for what is or what is not apostasy.... as for what sort of evidence would be acceptable, it has got to be something more than "well... a culmanation of stuff..". Provide evidence that any post-Apostolic era doctrine is refuted by the early Church would be nice.

It's asking a lot to expect that a doctrine not taught until the 6th century be refuted in the 2nd century, don't you think?

The time when a particular teaching was first mentioned is very significant when those who are teaching it reject the concept of continued revelation. We believe that God spoke to Joseph Smith in 1830 and revealed doctrines to him that had been lost for centuries. If you were to say that God spoke to St. Augustine and revealed something to him sometime in the late 4th century, perhaps we would not feel it necessary to continue to bring up this objection.

Ummmm..... it is not part of our Church and not part of our eternal law.... it is an offense against God and the Sacrament of Marriage.... your results may vary.

And yet, God did not appear to have been offended by Father Abraham.

Kathryn

 

[Quiddity]

Well said Katzpur, although I would obviously contend this part:

However, I would say offhand that there is as much evidence for our teachings in the ancient writings as there is for yours

Obviously interpretation will be the issue.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Obviously interpretation will be the issue.

I'm sure you're right, but I would like to offer you a challenge. Pick any LDS doctrine you wish (that you believe was "invented" by Joseph Smith) and let's see if I can come up with any ancient writings which would support it.

 

[defense of truth]

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;:biglaugh: Sorry I laugh so hard because I found this sentence very very funny. Yes I know that the apostles are having difficulties. But the church is a society of men not a building. If you told us that the Apostles are having difficulties that caused the Apostasy. We cannot accept that as the cause. That's why Paul and the others wrote the Epistles to strenghten the faith of the Christians these is the Work of God Not the work of men. If God's work failed then how did it failed. Christ said in his Acension "I am with you till the close of Age."
• the persecution and martyrdom of the church's apostles;:biglaugh: Again even though they are persecuted many Christians and successors of Apostles are hidden in the Catacombs.
• the loss of leaders with Priesthood authority to administer the church and its ordinances; THere are many ordained people. GOd can use his disciples to ordain other worthy people. He gave them authority. "Whatever you shall bound on earth, shall be bound in heaven."
• the lack of continuous revelation to instruct the leaders and guide the church. As I said when the apostles of God gave them auhtority to speak in his name. Like Moses his successor is one of his fellows. And St. Peter his successor is St.Linus, THen St. Cletus and many more. So you cannot say that there is lack of instructions because Peter gave his auhtority to his successores to instruct the CHurch with its full authority. 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 The Trininity is affrimed by the council. It did not originated originally in that council. Although the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. The Trinity is being described in the Bible. Like Can you find the word Mormon in the Bible? Or the word Bible in the Bible? 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.

I Found this article very weak. SOrry But I am not meaning to insult your religion.. Iam just telling the truth.:biglaugh:

 

[defense of truth]

Scott,

If you will remember back on the thread entitled something like "The Catholic Church has Never Changed It's Doctrines," I asked for some evidence of the Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, in Mary's perpetual virginity and in the belief that she ascended bodily into Heaven at the end of her life. I was looking for some indication that Jesus Christ or His Apostles or even their contemporaries taught these things about her. No one was able to provide me with anything.:biglaugh: :biglaugh: No one provided you anything because Some Catholics tought its no need to answer such an easy question. THe Immaculate Conception and Assumption is already a Tradition before it became a Dogma. The Pope announced it Infallibly to end the confusion among Catholics. It means it was affirmed. It does not mean that it isn,t being taught in the early centuries.

I also asked for first century references to the Trinity, as it is understood by Catholics today. Again, I received no responses. With regards to the Catholic Church naming people Saints and believing that they are somehow different from anyone else and can intercede with God on our behalf, well... I asked (on still another thread) when that first took place. No answer. THe Trinity is a doctrine developed in the Church. Like the Canon Law. It also developed. THe Saints don't have any BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Difference with other people. THe Saints had been affirmed to be in heaven. They are INfallibly canonized with full authority given to the Church. Intercession does not mean on our Behalf. It means They are interceding us. Or praying for us. Paul said "Pray for one another."

And so, I am forced to conclude that none of these things (among a myriad of others) simply weren't taught anciently. Also, when I consider certain LDS doctrines and see evidence that they were taught as early as the first century, I can't help but find it to be more than just coincidental. It's not my intention to get into a heated debate on this subject either, and I'm not looking for a fight with anyone. But when you say that we've "taken this apostasy thing hook, line and sinker" without any "evidence" I feel compelled to point out that that's really not the case. Christ said I would be with you till the end.

Kathryn

THERE I HAVE PROVIDED A LIST OF ANSWERS IF YOU WANT MORE GO AT:
http://www.catholics.com
http://www.ewtn.com
http://www.catholic-converts.com
http://www.vatican.com
And many more.

Peace
GBU

 

[defense of truth]

Well said Katzpur, although I would obviously contend this part:
Obviously interpretation will be the issue.

~Victor

Victor my fellow Catholic you're right. Interpretation is an issue about SOla Scriptura.

 

[James the Persian]

I'm sure you're right, but I would like to offer you a challenge. Pick any LDS doctrine you wish (that you believe was "invented" by Joseph Smith) and let's see if I can come up with any ancient writings which would support it.

Invented would be an overly harsh term, but your idea of deification is a clear misinterpretation of St. Athanasios from his work 'On the Incarnation'. It is, to be blunt, blatantly obvious when read carefully (and particularly in the original) that Athanasios talks here of theosis, as is still taught by the Orthodox Church and not the Mormon idea of deification. I do always find it interesting, however, that Mormon apologists will use an Eastern Church Father who lived so long after the Crucifixion to defend their doctrine. I thought that in your view the Church was already apostate by then?

James

 

[Scott1]

If you were to say that God spoke to St. Augustine and revealed something to him sometime in the late 4th century, perhaps we would not feel it necessary to continue to bring up this objection.

I've said it before and I will say it again: The Holy Spirit (GOD) continues to lead Bishops of the catholic Church to all truth.... I hope you no longer feel compelled to continue.

I've tried not to be blunt in the past, but the teaching that revelation has "ended" deals specifically with things like a "new" prophet....a "new" Gospel.... a "new" Church..... see what I'm getting at?

And yet, God did not appear to have been offended by Father Abraham.

Ummmm.... All of a sudden you're a Jew? Well, there was this Jesus fellow, he taught some "stuff" about marriage....

 

[may]

Do not go beyond the things that are written....1 corinthians 4;6.....the bible

In reply he said to them: "Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition.....matthew 15;3

It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines...matthew 15;9

. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit....matthew 15;14so it seems to me that we should stick to the bible other wise we will go down with the blind guides

And I heard another voice out of heaven say: "Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. revelation 18;4

 

[Katzpur]

Victor my fellow Catholic you're right. Interpretation is an issue about SOla Scriptura.

Defense,
I don't accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura any more than you do.

 

[Katzpur]

I've said it before and I will say it again: The Holy Spirit (GOD) continues to lead Bishops of the catholic Church to all truth.... I hope you no longer feel compelled to continue.

I've tried not to be blunt in the past, but the teaching that revelation has "ended" deals specifically with things like a "new" prophet....a "new" Gospel.... a "new" Church..... see what I'm getting at?

You hope I won't feel compelled to continue, and than you ask me a question. I'm not sure whether to answer it or not.