The Apostasy

[Bethie]

I've been away from the Church for about 6 months, but now I'm back and stronger in the faith than ever before. I went back to my Catholic "roots" for a while, and while I do love some things about the Catholic Church, the love and concern I experienced from my LDS friends was overwhelming. When the Bishop came to visit me, it was answer to prayer, because I was "stuck between two loves". When I went back to my Ward last Sunday, I knew I was where I was suppose to be. I talked to the Bishop for two hours after the meetings and I learned alot about the true Priesthood.

So now, I am interested in studying about The Apostasy and why the Restoration of the Fullness of the Gospel was really so necessary and vital,

I would love to hear from others here about this subject.

This morning I listened to two YouTube videos about this subject and learned that most all faiths had a part to play in the Father's plan. You

can watch these videos HERE. I would like to hear (read) your comments

on these talks, also.

Thank you for this site. It's good to be back!

[Shawn_]

Here's a great article about the apostasy: Early Signs of the Apostasy - Ensign Dec. 1984 - ensign

Also this: Apostasy and Restoration - general-conference

[Misshalfway]

In one of the talks you mentioned, the gentleman says that he loves being in interfaith conversations where everyone can be themselves and no one is in fear of "being changed." I like that too.

I have a great appreciation for other faiths and I like to study them. I'm no scholar. But I love it when a kernal of insight resonates with me. I've spent some time studying Buddhist ideas and they've really blessed my life and helped me to become more compassionate and mindful. I like this better than the perfectionism that I learned as a young latter-day saint. So, while I still believe in the foundations of faith that came out of the restoration, I look for how God is working throughout the earth. I still love that quote from Joseph Smith about adopting truth wherever we find it.

[bytebear]

If you want to go the scholarly route, I would recommend The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage. It's not for the casual reader, and it's not particularly kind to Catholicism, so you may want to prepare yourself for some historic criticisms. You should be able to find it online for free.

[pam]

Welcome back Bethie. It's good to see you posting here again.

[LinuxGal]

I've asked missionaries what it is, exactly, where the Catholic Church is "apostate" and it boils down to this: In Catholicism, any baptized Christian can baptize a convert, but in the CoJCoLDS this power is held in the priesthood. And that's pretty much it.

[Guest Doctrine]

My back ground is in the Catholic Church, and I even started my trainning in the Jesuit Order, but something came over me, telling me I needed to find something, and that journey brought me to the LDS church where I never turned back. I will always have a soft spot for my Jesuit Brothers, because they taught me to read, study, and follow the scriptures, and when I told them about my future they were( well only a few )happy that I was Happy.

We should all study our religion and when we have a strong testamony then should we study others because I feel that when we understand where others are coming from then could we get peace and give people a chance.

Why the restoration

Joseph Smith—History 1:39

39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

why the apostasy

to show that even though we were following the truth we make mistakes and leave for awhile but not to fear god makes a way for us to come back home.

[Dravin]

I've asked missionaries what it is, exactly, where the Catholic Church is "apostate" and it boils down to this: In Catholicism, any baptized Christian can baptize a convert, but in the CoJCoLDS this power is held in the priesthood. And that's pretty much it.

Priesthood authority would be the heart of the matter. If the Catholic Church had continued to have the authority and exercise of the priesthood it would have the same flow and methods of revelation, and if I might put it this way, correction mechanisms, that the LDS Church has. In a way it can be likened to a ship that had it's rudder lost/damaged.

[Traveler]

It appears to the that Jesus taught that the sign of apostasy (as Jesus taught the Pharisees) is the institutionalized killing of those that oppose the "traditional" doctrines.

It seems to me the indication of apostasy in history was the treatment of heretics. It was not until 1649 that any "traditional" "Trinitarian" Christian Society in western civilization past a law that a person could not be put to death (or property confiscated) for refusing to become a member for not being a member of the predominate Christian sect.

BTW - the historical definition of a Christian was a Trinitarian as an exercise for the reader what was the year that a Trinitarian Christian Society passed a law protecting the religious rights of non-Trinitarians?

The Traveler

[Bethie]

I've been doing alot of reading about the apostasy and I was surprised to learn that it was actually predicted and it began even before the first Apostles were gone. The book I've been learning the most from is, "The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration" by Tad R. Callister. He is the same author who wrote, "The Infinite Atonement". It's an easy read, and he quotes James Talmage alot and makes Talmage's scholarly discourse in "The Great Apostasy" more clear. Thanks to all who

joined in this discussion so far. I love to read your thoughts.

[Guest]

I don't feel it necessary to "stop loving" the Catholic Church.

I was born and raised devout Catholic. It is my foundation. And looking back into my spiritual journey, it would have been very difficult to gain a testimony of the LDS faith unless I would have gone through Catholic catechism first.

So yes, I gained a testimony of the Apostasy... Philippine history is littered with apostate practices of the Catholic church... but that doesn't mean I turned my back on the truths that I learned as a Catholic.

I gained a testimony as a Catholic that Jesus atoned for our sins. It doesn't become false just because I got baptized LDS. If that was the case, I wouldn't have converted.

And yes, I fasted and prayed and then read James E. Talmage's book. And everything I know as a Catholic and as a Filipino started clicking into place like a giant puzzle.

[Desertknight]

As a Catholic, I have heard of this idea of a 'great apostasy', but of course, reject it. It raises several problems, but suffice it to say, that the greatest would be that the Word of God would be in error when Christ told His Church that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that the Holy Spirit would reside within the Church for eternity (John 14:16), that the Church would always be the instrument of God's truth and wisdom, (Eph. 3:10), that the Church is to be the "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), that the Church is the faithful bride of Christ and that marriage is indissoluble (Eph. 5:23–32,).

The idea of such an apostasy also raises the obvious question of what the purpose was of Christ's atonement if almost immediately after Pentecost, the Church would have effectively, disappeared from the known world for almost 2,000 years, leaving all who followed Him to wander in the darkness, century after century.

I'm not here to convert, but thought I would try to explain why Catholics may take a different view. As a Catholic convert, I was first attracted to and have remained so for over thirty years, to the consistent teaching of biblical Truth the Church has maintained, for 2,000 years.

[Traveler]

I don't feel it necessary to "stop loving" the Catholic Church.

I was born and raised devout Catholic. It is my foundation. And looking back into my spiritual journey, it would have been very difficult to gain a testimony of the LDS faith unless I would have gone through Catholic catechism first.

So yes, I gained a testimony of the Apostasy... Philippine history is littered with apostate practices of the Catholic church... but that doesn't mean I turned my back on the truths that I learned as a Catholic.

I gained a testimony as a Catholic that Jesus atoned for our sins. It doesn't become false just because I got baptized LDS. If that was the case, I wouldn't have converted.

And yes, I fasted and prayed and then read James E. Talmage's book. And everything I know as a Catholic and as a Filipino started clicking into place like a giant puzzle.

I liked your post. Often when we realize the problems created by specific religious understandings we overlook their contributions. Because of the opposition of the Pharisees towards Jesus as a group - most Christians are willing to point in disdain at their apostasy - but then forget that if it was not for the hundreds of years of efforts specifically by the Pharisees - there would not be a Bible as we know and revere it today.

The Traveler

[Guest]

As a Catholic, I have heard of this idea of a 'great apostasy', but of course, reject it. It raises several problems, but suffice it to say, that the greatest would be that the Word of God would be in error when Christ told His Church that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that the Holy Spirit would reside within the Church for eternity (John 14:16), that the Church would always be the instrument of God's truth and wisdom, (Eph. 3:10), that the Church is to be the "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), that the Church is the faithful bride of Christ and that marriage is indissoluble (Eph. 5:23–32,).

The idea of such an apostasy also raises the obvious question of what the purpose was of Christ's atonement if almost immediately after Pentecost, the Church would have effectively, disappeared from the known world for almost 2,000 years, leaving all who followed Him to wander in the darkness, century after century.

I'm not here to convert, but thought I would try to explain why Catholics may take a different view. As a Catholic convert, I was first attracted to and have remained so for over thirty years, to the consistent teaching of biblical Truth the Church has maintained, for 2,000 years.

And as a Catholic to LDS convert, I went through this same exact logical pathway...

Once I understood pre-mortal existence, the word Church ceases to be just a mortal organization. So that when you say, "the Church would always be the instrument of God's truth and wisdom", it doesn't mean that the Church and her Priesthood authority is only present in mortality. And that, though Priesthood authority is not on earth, the Church of Christ lives as Jesus Christ lives by the authority of the Priesthood held by all of the valiant spirits. So that it is very true that no man can put the Church asunder. And that this Church does not cease to exist just because all Priesthood bearers alive today die before having had the opportunity to call the next generation of Priests. The Church lives on.

Now, the really interesting thing here is, once pre-mortal existence is understood, it opens up so much of the Catholic beliefs into a richer understanding, so that it is not that the Catholics got it all wrong, they just have stuff missing. Then it becomes a great stepping stone towards a fuller understanding of the Plan for our Salvation.

Edited June 20, 2012 by anatess

[Desertknight]

And as a Catholic to LDS convert, I went through this same exact logical pathway...

Once I understood pre-mortal existence, the word Church ceases to be just a mortal organization. So that when you say, "the Church would always be the instrument of God's truth and wisdom", it doesn't mean that the Church and her Priesthood authority is only present in mortality. And that, though Priesthood authority is not on earth, the Church of Christ lives as Jesus Christ lives by the authority of the Priesthood held by all of the valiant spirits. So that it is very true that no man can put the Church asunder. And that this Church does not cease to exist just because all Priesthood bearers alive today die before having had the opportunity to call the next generation of Priests. The Church lives on.

Of course, as a former Catholic, you know the Church is not simply the visible Church on earth. That is the 'Church Militant', the assembly of those living, there is also the 'Church Triumphant' in heaven. That is the point of the belief in the Communion of Saints. We are one Church, on earth and in heaven, one mystical Body of Christ. The purpose of the Church's mission however, is to the living, which is why it's disappearance on earth, worse, it's apostasy for almost 2,000 years, still makes little sense to me. I confess, I know little of LDS beliefs concerning pre-mortal existence, as well.

[Guest]

Of course, as a former Catholic, you know the Church is not simply the visible Church on earth. That is the 'Church Militant', the assembly of those living, there is also the 'Church Triumphant' in heaven. That is the point of the belief in the Communion of Saints. We are one Church, on earth and in heaven, one mystical Body of Christ. The purpose of the Church's mission however, is to the living, which is why it's disappearance on earth, worse, it's apostasy for almost 2,000 years, still makes little sense to me. I confess, I know little of LDS beliefs concerning pre-mortal existence, as well.

And that's what I'm saying. The difference is in the pre-mortal existence. I believe it is necessary to the understanding of the Great Apostasy by a Catholic. Because that little snippet gives a much wider viewpoint of the Catholic plan of salvation. It sweeps up the people who were born and died before Christ was born, the people who are born and died without ever hearing the name Jesus, and the people who are born and died without the presence of Priesthood authority on earth.

Also, in addition to pre-mortal existence is baptism for the dead. Those two go hand in hand.

Because yes, the Church is to the living and the saving ordinances are to be performed in mortality. But without pre-mortal existence and baptism for the dead, all of these people's lives that I mentioned would make not much sense within the framework of the Church and Christ's Atonement. Hence, it becomes impossible to contemplate a Great Apostasy after Jesus Christ's resurrection.

But once it is understood then all those people - infants who die before they have a chance to be baptized, etc. etc. - all their paths are clear. They follow the same path that we, as a Church, do. The Church, therefore, is not only for those who have heard the gospel and repented and got baptized while living.

Edited June 20, 2012 by anatess

[Desertknight]

And that's what I'm saying. The difference is in the pre-mortal existence. I believe it is necessary to the understanding of the Great Apostasy by a Catholic. Because that little snippet gives a much wider viewpoint of the Catholic plan of salvation. It sweeps up the people who were born and died before Christ was born, the people who are born and died without ever hearing the name Jesus, and the people who are born and died without the presence of Priesthood authority on earth.

Also, in addition to pre-mortal existence is baptism for the dead. Those two go hand in hand.

If you remember from the Apostles Creed, Christ descended to the dead before His resurrection, and lifted up the just with Him into paradise, who had existed and died on earth, before His own death and reserection.

Because yes, the Church is to the living and the saving ordinances are to be performed in mortality. But without pre-mortal existence and baptism for the dead, all of these people's lives that I mentioned would make not much sense within the framework of the Church and Christ's Atonement. Hence, it becomes impossible to contemplate a Great Apostasy after Jesus Christ's resurrection.

I must not be understanding you. How does the pre-mortal existence make understanding the great apostasy possible? What exactly is the relationship?

But once it is understood then all those people - infants who die before they have a chance to be baptized, etc. etc. - all their paths are clear. They follow the same path that we, as a Church, do. The Church, therefore, is not only for those who have heard the gospel and repented and got baptized while living.

I'm still not understanding then, why despite all of Christ's admonitions that the Church would always be a pillar of fire and foundation of truth to those on earth, that the HS would reside within it and guide it on earth until He came again, always be the instrument of His wisdom, etc. (see my first post), that the Church, who was founded by Christ for it's urgent earthly mission, would then almost immediately disappear for nearly 2,000 years until it was restored? Leaving centuries and centuries of those in the dark, falling into apostasy and error, into the untruth, that Christ promised His Church would never happen. I may be missing something, but I am trying to get my head around the LDS view of why this would happen and more importantly from my perspective, why it is at such variance with what God's Sacred Word, seems to state in passage after passage of scripture.

[Jason_J]

I think that Latter-day Saint apologist Jeff Lindsay's article on this topic answers many of the traditional Christian/Catholic objections to the possibility of an apostasy of Christ's Church.

Questions About the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ

[Guest]

If you remember from the Apostles Creed, Christ descended to the dead before His resurrection, and lifted up the just with Him into paradise, who had existed and died on earth, before His own death and reserection.

Sure. What about after?

I must not be understanding you. How does the pre-mortal existence make understanding the great apostasy possible? What exactly is the relationship?

The relationship is that WE chose Christ before we came to earth. Therefore, we became members of the church at that time. That's everybody who was ever born and is going to be born on this planet.

I'm still not understanding then, why despite all of Christ's admonitions that the Church would always be a pillar of fire and foundation of truth to those on earth, that the HS would reside within it and guide it on earth until He came again, always be the instrument of His wisdom, etc. (see my first post), that the Church, who was founded by Christ for it's urgent earthly mission, would then almost immediately disappear for nearly 2,000 years until it was restored? Leaving centuries and centuries of those in the dark, falling into apostasy and error, into the untruth, that Christ promised His Church would never happen. I may be missing something, but I am trying to get my head around the LDS view of why this would happen and more importantly from my perspective, why it is at such variance with what God's Sacred Word, seems to state in passage after passage of scripture.

Okay. Let's suppose that the Catholic Church never went into Apostasy... Let's consider what the fate is for those who, after Jesus' resurrection, was born on earth, never heard of the Catholic Church, nor the name Jesus, nor were blessed with Priesthood power, then died.

How are they in any different fate than those who... if the Apostasy happened... were born within those apostate years and died before the gospel was restored?

That's what I've been trying to illustrate. Priesthood power being on earth or retained in heaven until such time that man is qualified to hold it on earth again does not really change the Plan of Salvation of God's people. God does not force man to be righteous. He gives us free will to act and be acted upon. He does not leave us. We choose to leave Him. Our choices cannot put God's plan asunder. When man is rife with evil, as in the Dark Ages, He may remove Priesthood Authority from the earth and restore it when man is ready to hold it once more.

Just like we choose Jesus Christ in our pre-mortal existence, we may also choose to accept Jesus Christ's Atonement through baptism after death if we have not had the opportunity in life.

2,000 years is just a number just like 6,000 years prior to Jesus' birth is also just a number. In the calendar of eternity, it's a drop in the bucket.

This quote from Jason's link explains some of what I'm trying to say:

But didn't Christ say that he would be with the Church forever?

In Matthew 28:20, the Greek has Jesus saying that he will be with the church until the end of the "aion" -- which means "eon," "epoch," "age," or "period." We believe that Jesus was with His Church until the end of that dispensation. Then came the apostasy. But for those who follow Him in any age, He is always there. However, there are times when the truth is not found on earth - or when authorized prophets and apostles are absent. Such a time was predicted in Amos 8:11,12, referring to a coming age in which there will be a famine of truth. Fits the dark age of the Apostasy very well! That's why there had to be a time of refreshing (Acts 3:19), to bring again that which was lost.

Remember, Christ is always with His followers, but that does not mean that they are always with Him. It was the rejection of Christ and His gospel in favor of worldly doctrines and practices that resulted in the Apostasy - this was not caused by Christ withdrawing from us, but the other way around. The scriptures also prophesy of the Apostasy and the Restoration - and he continues to be with His followers.

Edited June 20, 2012 by anatess

[Desertknight]

Sure. What about after?

After Christ, the gates of heaven are open to all who cooperate with His grace, through their faith.

The relationship is that WE chose Christ before we came to earth. Therefore, we became members of the church at that time. That's everybody who was ever born and is going to be born on this planet.

"We", as in all before they are born? If all, or the elect or whoever chooses Christ before they are born, then what does baptism do on earth? Who chooses baptism on earth, if they have already chosen Christ before they were born? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Okay. Let's suppose that the Catholic Church never went into Apostasy... Let's consider what the fate is for those who, after Jesus' resurrection, was born on earth, never heard of the Catholic Church, nor the name Jesus, nor were blessed with Priesthood power, then died.

How are they in any different fate than those who... if the Apostasy happened... were born within those apostate years and died before the gospel was restored?

That's what I've been trying to illustrate. Priesthood power being on earth or retained in heaven until such time that man is qualified to hold it on earth again does not really change the Plan of Salvation of God's people.

By that reasoning, what is the purpose of the visible Church on earth, at all then? If it does not really change the plan of salvation and as your example says, if the absence of the earthly priesthood is no contributor of the salvation that people may choose, then what is the purpose of the Church as an instrument of salvation to begin with? Why send missionaries out to convert to the LDS church, if there was no effect on the plan of salvation when the priesthood was absent for nearly 2,000 years? Why restore it, if it does not change the plan of salvation?

God does not force man to be righteous. He gives us free will to act and be acted upon. He does not leave us. We choose to leave Him. Our choices cannot put God's plan asunder. When man is rife with evil, as in the Dark Ages, He may remove Priesthood Authority from the earth and restore it when man is ready to hold it once more.

Well, I don't think man was any more rife with evil during the middle ages then any other time in the last 2,000 years. Indeed, if you want to see a time of evil, the 20th century is as bad as it gets. And why would God remove the priesthood, when in such an evil time, when man needed it the most? That is what the priesthood is for, to be ministers of Christ's grace in combating evil.

Just like we choose Jesus Christ in our pre-mortal existence, we may also choose to accept Jesus Christ's Atonement through baptism after death if we have not had the opportunity in life.

Again, if that is the case, then why worry about choosing the Church in this life? Surely after death when the veil is removed, even the hardest heart would choose heaven, and if not, then they obviously never would on earth either, no matter what. It would seem to make our necessity to cooperate with God's grace on earth, kinda' pointless. Not the desire that some may have, but the necessity that they must. I mean, I know lots of perfectly good people, who love their spouse and are faithful, who raise good children and care for them, who contribute to society and are decent, and who never go to church. Why convert them, as they don't need any visible earthly priesthood, do they?

2,000 years is just a number just like 6,000 years prior to Jesus' birth is also just a number. In the calendar of eternity, it's a drop in the bucket

Well if I'm getting this right, from the LDS perspective, there is no real difference as there is no change in the plan of salvation before Christ's life on earth than after it. If people chose Christ in a pre-mortal existence before being born in the days of the old convent, and they can chose Christ now before being born, or even choose Christ after death, then what was the point of Christ on earth, of His sacrifice on the cross at the time it happened, (seeing as one could chose Christ before Christ was even born.), or of working to convert people now? Indeed, why not just tell them, "you can join now, or you can join in the after life." Why not just tell them, "just stay a Buddhist and be righteous, it doesn't really matter anyway as you can always just decide after death."? Indeed, why tell them anything at all? Just take down their names and baptise them after their death.

No offence, but such a belief would require throwing out huge chunks of the bible. It would seem to make Christ's ministry on earth rather pointless as once the church disappeared shortly after His ascension, it changed nothing in the plan of salvation from before Christ's birth. Not to mention, it would mean that a terrible sinner here on earth may be baptised by someone a day after their death, and be accepted into the kingdom of heaven, but a baptised Mormon here on earth may through falling into lesser sin here before death, would be consigned to hell for eternity...or do they get another chance after they die? It just doesn't make any sense to me. But maybe I am just not getting it still.

This quote from Jason's link explains some of what I'm trying to say:

Actually, what it is translated even in the KJV is, 'until the end of time', the end of the earth, until He comes again. It is not a scripture that stands alone, as I posted earlier, the very words of Christ repeatedly promise that His Church will always be the foundation of truth, the pillar of fire, that the HS would reside within it on earth and hell never prevail against it, until He comes again. The Church is the bride of Christ as scripture says. The two become one. It is why there can be no apostasy of the Church, in heaven or on earth. One Church, one Bread, one Body of Christ. Edited June 20, 2012 by Desertknight

[Desertknight]

I don't mean to sound combative, btw, it's just the more I dig into Mormon theology, the more confusing it seems. I'm finding it very difficult to follow as I did when reading a discussion on another thread and me trying to discern if it is the Father that is worshipped, the Son, or the "Godhead" in total. I still don't know, but that is a different kettle of fish.

No offence, but standard Christian theology is much easier to understand. :)

[Vort]

I don't mean to sound combative, btw, it's just the more I dig into Mormon theology, the more confusing it seems. I'm finding it very difficult to follow as I did when reading a discussion on another thread and me trying to discern if it is the Father that is worshipped, the Son, or the "Godhead" in total. I still don't know, but that is a different kettle of fish.

No offence, but standard Christian theology is much easier to understand. :)

Of course. And English is much easier to learn and to speak than Italian. Just ask any English speaker who has had to learn Italian.

Obviously "standard Christian theology" is easier for you to understand. You have grown up with it. In my view, LDS theology (if you care to call it that, though in the strict sense, there is no such thing) is astoundingly logical and surprisingly compact, lacking as it does many of the theological flourishes that other Christian religions have had to invent over the years to account for this or that perceived doctrinal deficiency. It is like drinking from a pure mountain stream. Those used to brackish or chlorinated water find the taste startling and strange, but once you get used to it, you can't go back.

[Guest]

After Christ, the gates of heaven are open to all who cooperate with His grace, through their faith.

Remember, we're talking about people who have never heard of the name Jesus. They wouldn't have a clue to cooperate nor even know what faith means.

"We", as in all before they are born? If all, or the elect or whoever chooses Christ before they are born, then what does baptism do on earth? Who chooses baptism on earth, if they have already chosen Christ before they were born? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Pre-mortal. Before you are born. You are born on earth BECAUSE you chose to follow Christ in the Plan for our Salvation. Before the Plan was presented, we were merely intelligences that God organized and taught. We needed experience to progress and grow. The Plan through mortality was presented and Christ chose to be our mortal father, our Savior. The Plan through Christ is that you will be separated from Heavenly Father's influence, strap you with opposition (the mortal body) and see if you would still desire God on your own free will. Christ's atonement is necessary to fulfill justice - because, our mortal flesh without perfect knowledge of God is bound to sin.

Lucifer rebelled against the plan because he did not want the intelligences to risk not choosing the path to the Father, therefore, he does not want to allow the intelligences to have free will - he does not want us to have to pass through mortality and be stripped of perfect knowledge. 1/3 of the intelligences followed him and they never got mortal bodies. The rest followed Christ and were therefore given mortal bodies. Yes, that's all of us that are born here on earth.

Baptism on earth is the first ordinance that we require to take that first step in making a covenant to follow God in our mortal state.

By that reasoning, what is the purpose of the visible Church on earth, at all then? If it does not really change the plan of salvation and as your example says, if the absence of the earthly priesthood is no contributor of the salvation that people may choose, then what is the purpose of the Church as an instrument of salvation to begin with? Why send missionaries out to convert to the LDS church, if there was no effect on the plan of salvation when the priesthood was absent for nearly 2,000 years? Why restore it, if it does not change the plan of salvation?

The question is not whether the Church on earth CAN fall. We already know it can. It fell several times in the Old Testament and it was in an apostate state when Jesus was born. Even after Jesus' resurrection it is still stated in the scriptures, a most notable one is in 2 Thesalonians 2, that the church will fall. The only question therefore is when.

BUT, baptism is a MORTAL ordinance. And it is required. In the Catholic doctrine, it is not necessary. Because, even if you are not baptized Catholic - such as Ghandi, or those aborted babies, you can still live with God. But, baptism IS required. It is not optional. And you can't perform baptisms in heaven. Those who die without having been baptized on earth would still require this mortal ordinance. Hence the baptism for the dead. And this requires that the Priesthood Authority be present on earth to perform this ordinance. If not during the time that a person is alive on earth, at least at a point in time so that the ordinance can be performed past the person's death.

Well, I don't think man was any more rife with evil during the middle ages then any other time in the last 2,000 years. Indeed, if you want to see a time of evil, the 20th century is as bad as it gets. And why would God remove the priesthood, when in such an evil time, when man needed it the most? That is what the priesthood is for, to be ministers of Christ's grace in combating evil.

Read Amos 8. It is clear there that God can choose to take it away if nobody is there to hear it. And there's something about not casting pearls before swine. Like I mentioned earlier, man has free will. He may need it the most, but that doesn't mean he is going to choose it.

Again, if that is the case, then why worry about choosing the Church in this life? Surely after death when the veil is removed, even the hardest heart would choose heaven, and if not, then they obviously never would on earth either, no matter what. It would seem to make our necessity to cooperate with God's grace on earth, kinda' pointless. Not the desire that some may have, but the necessity that they must. I mean, I know lots of perfectly good people, who love their spouse and are faithful, who raise good children and care for them, who contribute to society and are decent, and who never go to church. Why convert them, as they don't need any visible earthly priesthood, do they?

That doesn't make sense. Your post here is exactly what Catholics believe. So it's making it like you're arguing over Catholic doctrine as a Catholic. I'm getting confused. In the Catholic doctrine, people who are not baptized but led a good life or were still babies at death end up in the same heaven as the Catholics.

For the LDS doctrine, see my commentary on baptism for the dead above. Baptism IS necessary.

Well if I'm getting this right, from the LDS perspective, there is no real difference as there is no change in the plan of salvation before Christ's life on earth than after it. If people chose Christ in a pre-mortal existence before being born in the days of the old convent, and they can chose Christ now before being born, or even choose Christ after death, then what was the point of Christ on earth, of His sacrifice on the cross at the time it happened, (seeing as one could chose Christ before Christ was even born.), or of working to convert people now? Indeed, why not just tell them, "you can join now, or you can join in the after life." Why not just tell them, "just stay a Buddhist and be righteous, it doesn't really matter anyway as you can always just decide after death."? Indeed, why tell them anything at all? Just take down their names and baptise them after their death.

No offence, but such a belief would require throwing out huge chunks of the bible. It would seem to make Christ's ministry on earth rather pointless as once the church disappeared shortly after His ascension, it changed nothing in the plan of salvation from before Christ's birth. Not to mention, it would mean that a terrible sinner here on earth may be baptised by someone a day after their death, and be accepted into the kingdom of heaven, but a baptised Mormon here on earth may through falling into lesser sin here before death, would be consigned to hell for eternity...or do they get another chance after they die? It just doesn't make any sense to me. But maybe I am just not getting it still.

Okay, DesertKnight, in LDS doctrine, there is ONE Plan of Salvation. There's no different versions of the plan depending on how we live our lives or if you are born Buddhist as opposed to Catholic as opposed to LDS or if you are born before or after Christ. So, I don't get this post either.

There's no "you can join now or later". You act on your testimony (present in Catholic doctrine as well). If you gain the knowledge today and don't act on it, then it is on your head. If you don't gain the knowledge today, then you can't possibly act on that knowledge, therefore, what you do as a result of that lack of knowledge is not judged on the same level as if you would have gotten the knowledge today. If you had a testimony that Jesus is the Christ as a Catholic, you are expected to act on it. If you didn't, you will be judged according to that knowledge in the last days. If you are an Australian aborigine who has never heard of Christ, you can't be expected to "follow Him", but you are expected to follow the dictates of your own conscience, diligently seeking truth in all things. We are born with the Light of Christ - a conscience, if you will. The inherent knowledge of good versus evil without the benefit of instruction. Without instruction, the Australian aborigine will still have that light of Christ - the knowledge that he had the ability to act upon and that he will be judged over.

That learning, that knowledge doesn't end in death. Baptized or not, you continue to progress past death. Learning, ministering, aiding others (also present in Catholic doctrine). Baptism for the dead is not effective on the dead unless the dead chooses to accept it. He is still required to learn of Christ and accept Him as His Savior for his salvation. Just because some LDS guy baptized his dead grandmother doesn't save that grandmother - grandma still has to accept that baptism and make that covenant.

Early in our marriage while I was devout Catholic, I asked my inactive LDS husband, "You must think I'm going to hell". And this is my husband's answer, "I have a bigger chance of ending up in hell than you". He had knowledge that he didn't act upon, whereas I acted fully on the knowledge that I had.

Therefore, God's removal of the Priesthood on earth, is not to punish us. It is mercy. Without the Priesthood on earth, people living around wickedness, strongly influenced by evil around them, cannot be judged in the same manner if they would have had the Priesthood imparting knowledge while they have to choose between embracing the gospel or getting killed for it.

Actually, what it is translated even in the KJV is, 'until the end of time', the end of the earth, until He comes again. It is not a scripture that stands alone, as I posted earlier, the very words of Christ repeatedly promise that His Church will always be the foundation of truth, the pillar of fire, that the HS would reside within it on earth and hell never prevail against it, until He comes again. The Church is the bride of Christ as scripture says. The two become one. It is why there can be no apostasy of the Church, in heaven or on earth. One Church, one Bread, one Body of Christ.

See here, what puts the hiccup for you is that in this paragraph, Church for you is only the mortal part of it. If you put Church in the concept of eternal, this same paragraph holds true even with the Apostasy.

And I will repeat again my very first words because maybe this will make it more understandable... remember, my first statement is that an understanding of pre-mortal existence is necessary in the understanding of the Apostasy for a Catholic.

The concept of pre-mortal existence addresses the hard-and-fast belief of the Catholic that the body and the spirit are created at birth. Catholics, therefore, has a harder time understanding the separation between the eternal spirit and the mortal body. Once a Catholic understands the concept of pre-mortal existence, it is then easier to understand the Apostasy because it is the exact same separation between the eternal Church to the mortal Church body. The death of the body doesn't kill the spirit. Both in human beings, and the Church of Christ.

Now, you don't have to believe the LDS doctrine to understand it. My intent on all these posts is not to make you agree with it. My intent is simply to make you understand how, as a Catholic to LDS convert, I was able to get past the Apostasy.

Edited June 20, 2012 by anatess

[Traveler]

I don't mean to sound combative, btw, it's just the more I dig into Mormon theology, the more confusing it seems. I'm finding it very difficult to follow as I did when reading a discussion on another thread and me trying to discern if it is the Father that is worshipped, the Son, or the "Godhead" in total. I still don't know, but that is a different kettle of fish.

No offence, but standard Christian theology is much easier to understand. :)

Please define easier. For example the very term mediator. One does not mediate with themself. That is not just confusing it is a misuse of the term.

Also the concept of the fall. How is man excommunicated from a kingdom (lose citizenship) and still have the same Suzerain as their ruler? In other words - how is it that man has the same G-d before and after the fall. If the G-d of Moses (after the fall) was the same as the G-d of Adam before the fall - then there was - in reality - no fall and there is no need what-so-ever that Christ (or anyone else) be a mediator.

I did not make this up - these questions have been unanswered for hundreds of years and been in part the reason for unjust wars fought in the name of G-d and contention between traditional Christians and just about everybody else (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrianism and various so called Pagan religions to name a few).

The Traveler

[Desertknight]

Of course. And English is much easier to learn and to speak than Italian. Just ask any English speaker who has had to learn Italian.

Obviously "standard Christian theology" is easier for you to understand. You have grown up with it. In my view, LDS theology (if you care to call it that, though in the strict sense, there is no such thing) is astoundingly logical and surprisingly compact, lacking as it does many of the theological flourishes that other Christian religions have had to invent over the years to account for this or that perceived doctrinal deficiency. It is like drinking from a pure mountain stream. Those used to brackish or chlorinated water find the taste startling and strange, but once you get used to it, you can't go back.

Some languages are harder to learn then others, even for native speakers. It's a fact. That you say there is no such thing as such, as LDS theology, would give credence to my point. Without one set of grammatical rules, a language becomes exasperatingly difficult.

Of course, I disagree entirely in your assessment of Christian flourishes. Ironically, the lack of those in orthodox Christianity, was the precise quality that so attracted me to it. Like so many converts to Catholicism, reading the New Testament without edits and discovering the writings of the Early Church Fathers, was a primary thing that led me into the Catholic Church. Her essential dogma now, as it has always been, is consistent and timeless, since the day of Pentecost.

Now you will always be able to find a Catholic who is ignorant in the faith. I claim no expertise in the matter either, but there is always one unchanging font of what is the truth of faith and morals, that is easy to find for those who wish. My confusion with much of Mormon theology, is not that individual members seem to hold to so many different beliefs, or are unaware of so many others, but that even the prophets and leaders of the LDS church, seem to have so many varied beliefs. As I referenced with the thread on who exactly is being worship, there seems to be no one official LDS position (and some very high level, public disagreements) and on such a basic foundational question of one's religious faith. It is that polytheism (or henotheism, if you like) and complex LDS cosmology, that makes Mormon doctrine a bit more difficult to grasp than Italian.