The Great Apostasy

[nutshell]

First, your claim to authority is traditional, too. It is the tradition handed down from Joseph Smith, who has no theological or historical connection to Jesus Christ. He wasn't alive during the time of Peter, John, and James, or Jesus; and he was not part of any Christian tradition that can be historically traced back to this time period. I agree, the only connection that Smith or any LDS have with these people is by faith - that is, the historical connection must be fabricated because it does not exist in any historical writings - including the NT.

Are you even aware of what we believe? Joseph Smith has no connection to Jesus Christ? That statement is outrageous, IMO. To the LDS community, Jesus Christ himself appeared to Joseph Smith. Did he appear to any of the councils? I don't think so. Further, it was Peter, James, and John who appeared to Joseph Smith and layed their hands upon his head, giving him the authority and priesthood to lead God's church here upon the earth.

However, you are right. It is through faith that we come to know these things.

The BoM and all Mormon literature is well beyond any deuterocanonical or apocryphal writings - being produced in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. The writings that legitimate the Catholic and EO churches originate as contemporary with the NT, and this fact can be historically proven.

The Book of Mormon was not produced in the 19 century. It was translated. It was produced from 600 BC to 400 AD and saved for a time to come forth and correct the truths that had been lost through the traditions of mainstream Christianity.

EDIT: I want to emphatically agree that we both depend on faith. However, the Catholic, EO, and other churches can trace their lineage back to Jesus whereas the LDS cannot. That is a quantitative difference. At the same time, however, none of us can demonstrate that God actually ordained us. That is sealed outside of debate. Who can know the wonderful works of Almighty God? Yes, it is by faith.

We can and do trace our lineage directly to Jesus Christ. I hold the priesthood in the LDS church and I can trace it directly back to Jesus Christ. Of course, you'll disagree, but again, that's where faith comes in and my faith is no more or less valid than yours.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you even aware of what we believe? Joseph Smith has no connection to Jesus Christ? That statement is outrageous, IMO. To the LDS community, Jesus Christ himself appeared to Joseph Smith. Did he appear to any of the councils? I don't think so. Further, it was Peter, James, and John who appeared to Joseph Smith and layed their hands upon his head, giving him the authority and priesthood to lead God's church here upon the earth.

However, you are right. It is through faith that we come to know these things.

So it is a historically verifiable connection vs. someone in the 20th century who says that three guys who were dead for 2000 years laid hands on him?

The Book of Mormon was not produced in the 19 century. It was translated. It was produced from 600 BC to 400 AD and saved for a time to come forth and correct the truths that had been lost through the traditions of mainstream Christianity.

The MoM was produced for the first time in human history in the 20th century. There is no evidence that it ever existed before this time period. Regardless of whether or not it is actually the production of something ancient, it was produced for the first time only recently.

We can and do trace our lineage directly to Jesus Christ. I hold the priesthood in the LDS church and I can trace it directly back to Jesus Christ. Of course, you'll disagree, but again, that's where faith comes in and my faith is no more or less valid than yours.

The way that you trace it back to Christ is quanitatively different than the Christian churches. One is an unverifiable vision, and the other is actually through history.

EDIT: I agree that one faith is not more valid than another. However, the LDS claim to historical and theological continuance with Christianity is a historical and theological fairy tale.

 

[nutshell]

So it is a historically verifiable connection vs. someone in the 20th century who says that three guys who were dead for 2000 years laid hands on him?

Just because you have a connection does not mean it was not corrupted along the way. Paul even spoke of a time when things would be restored.

The MoM was produced for the first time in human history in the 20th century. There is no evidence that it ever existed before this time period. Regardless of whether or not it is actually the production of something ancient, it was produced for the first time only recently.

That's right. It was planned to come out in the last days to clarify the truth.

The way that you trace it back to Christ is quanitatively different than the Christian churches. One is an unverifiable vision, and the other is actually through history.

But what good is tracking through a corrupt history? Say the priesthood is like rope being made. Christ created the perfect rope and the apostles, such as Peter, were given this rope, which represents authority. When the apostles were killed there was no more rope, so the believers did the best they could, tying on their own rope and spinning what they hoped was Christ's true rope. The point is, however, there was a break. It was no longer Christ's original rope.

I have no idea if that analogy really works. I admit I just made it up, but perhaps it can help the discussion.

EDIT: I agree that one faith is not more valid than another. However, the LDS claim to historical and theological continuance with Christianity is a historical and theological fairy tale.

I don't call your beliefs a fairy tale and I'd appreciate the same respect. Every faiths' beliefs could be called a fairy tale from the outside and that comment contributes nothing to the conversation.

Further, we don't claim a direct historical or theological continuance with Christianity. The whole point is there was no pure continuance. So your basis for labeling our beliefs a fairy tale is not sound.

 

[Quiddity]

But what good is tracking through a corrupt history?

A corrupt history vs. a holy one? The whole thing was corrupt? Every single year and person? Wow...

 

[nutshell]

A corrupt history vs. a holy one? The whole thing was corrupt? Every single year and person? Wow...

Did you read my analogy? From the point the original rope was ended, there was no getting back to Christ, regardless of the good intentions of the people. Corrupt does not mean the year or person, it means the original link no longer exists.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, Scott, we certainly have different interpretations. Chapter 4 seems to be comparing our labor and eventual rest with the Lord to God resting on the seventh day. Chapter 5 takes the topic chapter 4 ended with (Jesus as High Priest) and mentions that men must be called of God to be in this same position. The chapter ends with more about Jesus' role.

A High Priest is the pinnacle, there is but ONE at a time. If Jesus IS HIGH PRIEST in heaven. There can be no other, no succession is required.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

This debate began with the thesis that true religion requires a priesthood.

I see my religion as "true" and yet it has no priesthood whatsoever. In fact the priesthood has been removed from office for failure to perform.

Which is correct?

God knows best, and we'll have to wait for further clarification.

Regards,
Scott

 

[nutshell]

A High Priest is the pinnacle, there is but ONE at a time. If Jesus IS HIGH PRIEST in heaven. There can be no other, no succession is required.

Regards,
Scott

Obviously, we have different interpretations. Please help me understand where it says there is only ONE High Priest at a time. Thanks.

 

[Quiddity]

Did you read my analogy? From the point the original rope was ended, there was no getting back to Christ, regardless of the good intentions of the people. Corrupt does not mean the year or person, it means the original link no longer exists.

I know what you meant. Do you know where I meant?
A corrupt Church was able to form, grow, and even come to agree with LDS on several issues. Why do you think that is?

 

[nutshell]

I know what you meant. Do you know where I meant?
A corrupt Church was able to form, grow, and even come to agree with LDS on several issues. Why do you think that is?

They obviously had/have elements of truth, the most important one being that we are saved through Jesus Christ.

However, growth is not a measurement of truth and I think the Roman Empire probably had something to do with it.

 

[Popeyesays]

They obviously had/have elements of truth, the most important one being that we are saved through Jesus Christ.

However, growth is not a measurement of truth and I think the Roman Empire probably had something to do with it.

In other words it is the will of God that false religions prosper, or religion without authority from God will prosper. I don't I think the greatest proof of religious truth is that true religion prospers. Why? Because it is the will of God and the will of God might be challenged it can never be thwarted.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

They obviously had/have elements of truth, the most important one being that we are saved through Jesus Christ.

However, growth is not a measurement of truth and I think the Roman Empire probably had something to do with it.

I wasn't only basing it from growth. So much has gone on since the conception of the Church that it's amazing it was even able to maintain that Christ is our Savior.
I would be interested in understanding what exactly "corrupt" means to LDS. I would assume it's talking about deviating from truth so much as to where it's non-recognizable. Trying to make such a case based on the early writings is very difficult to do. Have you read any early writings?

 

[dan]

I would cite prayers aimed at the virgin Mary as an example of shifting the role of savior away from Christ. The images that are worshipped all over the world by Catholics, as well. One only need paint them gold and call them a calf to complete the transition. Israel worshiped the calf as a representation of Jehovah, as well. They weren't breaking the first commandment, they were breaking the second.

 

[dan]

Here's a fascinating site:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

[nutshell]

In other words it is the will of God that false religions prosper, or religion without authority from God will prosper. I don't I think the greatest proof of religious truth is that true religion prospers. Why? Because it is the will of God and the will of God might be challenged it can never be thwarted.

Regards,
Scott

Your argument doesn't make sense. If it did, then Islam and naturalism would be the ones with authority because they are currently prospering. For that matter, LDS is considered one of the fastest growing (if remove birthrates).

 

[Quiddity]

I would cite prayers aimed at the virgin Mary as an example of shifting the role of savior away from Christ. The images that are worshipped all over the world by Catholics, as well.

I'm going to assume that such ignorance is of your doing alone and that other LDS members know the differece. What a shame.

 

[Quiddity]

Here's a fascinating site:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Dog and ponny show with no substance.

 

[Popeyesays]

Your argument doesn't make sense. If it did, then Islam and naturalism would be the ones with authority because they are currently prospering. For that matter, LDS is considered one of the fastest growing (if remove birthrates).

Fastest growing percentage wise? No. And one cannot measure growth by number s if one cannot measure thsoe who fall away and lapse their status without announcement.

Islam DID have authority. But it was not Christianity. The authority of Christ was fulfilled in Islam.

You see Joseph Smith was not a Great Prophet in the sense of Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha`i Faith. No new revelation was made. Smith spoke not with any authority of his own, but cited the authority of Christ. So he is a prophet in the likes of Isaiah, or Paul. No new revelation was claimed.

Islam claims a NEW reveltion. So Muhammad is a Great Prophet - a "Rasul" in Arabic rather than a "Nabi" in Arabic.

Smith is "Nabi" in regards to Christianity.

Islam has prospered.

Since Islam the Revelation of the Bab and Baha`u'llah has prospered. The Bab was a "Rasul" in His own right as well as "Nabi" to Baha`u'llah. Its a new Revelation with its own authority which is passed on by God to fulfill all the major religions.

I recognize that authority and you do not. You have the right to examine the claim and accept or reject it. If you reject your rejection has no power over me.

My rejection of the claims to new revelation by Smith gives Smith no power over me.

Regards,
Scott

 

[nutshell]

Fastest growing percentage wise? No. And one cannot measure growth by number s if one cannot measure thsoe who fall away and lapse their status without announcement.

Islam DID have authority. But it was not Christianity. The authority of Christ was fulfilled in Islam.

You see Joseph Smith was not a Great Prophet in the sense of Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha`i Faith. No new revelation was made. Smith spoke not with any authority of his own, but cited the authority of Christ. So he is a prophet in the likes of Isaiah, or Paul. No new revelation was claimed.

Islam claims a NEW reveltion. So Muhammad is a Great Prophet - a "Rasul" in Arabic rather than a "Nabi" in Arabic.

Smith is "Nabi" in regards to Christianity.

Islam has prospered.

Since Islam the Revelation of the Bab and Baha`u'llah has prospered. The Bab was a "Rasul" in His own right as well as "Nabi" to Baha`u'llah. Its a new Revelation with its own authority which is passed on by God to fulfill all the major religions.

I recognize that authority and you do not. You have the right to examine the claim and accept or reject it. If you reject your rejection has no power over me.

My rejection of the claims to new revelation by Smith gives Smith no power over me.

Regards,
Scott

What an interesting mish-mash of nonsense. If you haven't checked recently, the LDS Church is prospering.

 

[Halcyon]

Dog and ponny show with no substance.

I don't quite understand how you can say that...