The Apostasy

[Vort]

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.

But this is a bogus argument. It depends totally on how you define "worship" and "polytheism".

Reality exists. It does not matter what we call it or how we perceive it; the underlying reality is impervious to our attempts to understand it. It simply is.

God is the way God is. Prophets have tried to explain that in various ways, always based on what people's current understanding is. You have a certain view of God, perhaps that he's everywhere present but nowhere localized, or that he dwells in one's heart, or that he is three persons in one substance. But your beliefs are irrelevant. God is the way God is, regardless of your attempts to quantify him or to pigeonhole him into convenient boxes.

So you have invented a term that you call "monotheism" and you have imbued it with a bunch of traits. Then you apply that term to God. Then you look at the fuller, more truthful LDS understanding of God and say, "Why, their beliefs and definitions do not fit within my pigeonholes! They do not complete my personal definition of monotheism! Therefore, they must be false!"

Guess what? You're wrong. The fact that your understanding is too deficient to allow you to perceive the truth says nothing about the truth and everything about your perception. Perhaps this is one reason God chooses to communicate with us through revelation instead of rhetoric.

[Desertknight]

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.

For those who may not have heard the Gospel, we leave that up to God's mercy. We never say with certainty, that anyone is condemned to hell, as God is the one who saves who He wills, not our judgement. It can't be understood without understanding the idea that there is only one God; all powerful, all knowing, completely sovereign. Even those who respond to the Gospel, do so in response to God's grace. We do not save ourselves. A classic way of understanding this is, God does not call the justified, He justifies the called. Will God save the unbaptised? I dunno. That is up to God. I can only trust in His mercy.

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.

OK, that did make that point much more clear to me now. Thanks.

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.

That is not at all the understanding that I have of 2 Thesalonians. It would invalidate, for one thing, all those passages that I sited in my first post. There is certainly a great deception that people can and will believe, and there is greater in the future of mankind, before He comes again. I think this is just one of those areas where Mormon belief and Catholic belief are of a completely different framework. It is an essential point of the Christian faith that the New Covenant is of a different nature than the Old. The old covenant of law, was a relationship entirely dependent on adherence to that law, down to the finest detail. The New Covenant is a covenant of Love, and one that is unbreakable. Christ (God) is the groom and His bride is the Church. The two become one flesh and Christ will not and cannot divorce His bride. His bride, cannot and will not divorce Him. God has promised so repeatedly. The New Covenant is of a fundamentally different nature than the old. Christ's ministry, and His sealing of the marriage to His Church with His blood once and for all, cannot be broken.

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.

I think you again, have seriously misunderstood Catholic belief. Baptism is certainly required for the called, but God can and does, save who he will save. Ironically, one of those Catholic teachings that is usually pilloried as far too harsh is, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, "outside of the Church, there is no salvation", i.e., only the baptised are saved. That is the only thing that Catholic dogma teaches definitely, for the unbaptised. So was Ghandi saved? Only God knows, but I suspect he was not. I suspect as a matter of private opinion, most Catholic theologians would say he was not, but they would also say that our obligation is to pray for him and leave it to God's mercy. No Catholic can re-write what Scripture plainly says...

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5.

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.

Man yes, but not the Bride of Christ. Again, I think it is just a vast difference in the whole framework of thinking.

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.

Not at all, as I explained in my first statement in this post. I think though that somewhere along the line, you failed to grasp this essential Catholic teaching. Those outside of the Church (baptism) may be saved, if God and God alone, mercifully chooses to do so, but baptism and the Church is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism. There is big, big difference between saying that, and what you are asserting that the Church believes.

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.

OK, that does clarify and make more sense to me. Again, thanks.

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.

OK, I accept that it is LDS belief, as I have nothing else to judge it by, but that again, would seem to turn the entire Incarnation, ministry of Christ on earth, and most importantly, His atonement on the cross, on it's head. Again, it certainly on it's face, would require me to abandon the whole scriptural assertion, of the Gospels.

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.

Again, I think somewhere along the line as a Catholic, you missed an essential teaching of the Church. To the contrary of your assertion here, I stated exactly the opposite earlier. The dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church is that it is One, both earthly, (the Church Militant), and heavenly, (the Church Triumphant). One bread, one body. The bride of Christ cannot be cut into.

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.

Well I do thank you for illuminating LDS belief on this matter. I don't agree with it but you have been kind to take the time and help educate me..and you have.

[Desertknight]

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.

Who used it in such a way? Are you sure you are addressing the right poster? I don't recall ever making such a statement. Perhaps you can quote from what I said.

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.

Can not a man loose citizenship and then gain it back? I'm not saying that is the correct interpretation of issue, just asking you the question. Why would the Fall necessitate that the god of Moses must somehow be a different god? There is but one God, and that God is totally soverign in whom and how He saves. There is a fundemental diference in the nature of the Old Covenant, from the new, however.

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).

I have no doubt it may have been a point of contention with many of those you name, but suffice it to say, that Mormonism is radically different from Christianity, or Judaism, or even Islam, in it's polytheism. It may be a question that some have asked, but if one were to go to pretty much any run of the mill professor of Western Civ. at any university, and asked him what is the central religious idea of the Judeo-Christian tradition, he would say without a moments hesitation; Monotheism. It's really imposable to understand the whole history of the Jewish tradition, and the Christian faith that arose from it, without grasping that one foundational truth. I think you may understand this, but in my long interactions with Mormons over the years, I don't think it is well understood among many. I think that is what often causes hurt to Mormons when told that they are not accepted as Christians.

[Windseeker]

I have no doubt it may have been a point of contention with many of those you name, but suffice it to say, that Mormonism is radically different from Christianity, or Judaism, or even Islam, in it's polytheism. It may be a question that some have asked, but if one were to go to pretty much any run of the mill professor of Western Civ. at any university, and asked him what is the central religious idea of the Judeo-Christian tradition, he would say without a moments hesitation; Monotheism. It's really imposable to understand the whole history of the Jewish tradition, and the Christian faith that arose from it, without grasping that one foundational truth. I think you may understand this, but in my long interactions with Mormons over the years, I don't think it is well understood among many. I think that is what often causes hurt to Mormons when told that they are not accepted as Christians.

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

FAIR

[Desertknight]

FAIR

I for one, am not trying to confuse anyone. I only posted in this thread to explain the Catholic position of why a 'great apostasy' is an impossibility in Catholic teaching, in our reading of the Gospels. The thread devolved from there into a wider discussion in replies to my original post. I am simply pointing out what is hardly a secret, but simply a fact of Mormon belief that can be easily found in numerous LDS sources; in LDS theology and cosmology, in core LDS scripture. Indeed, Traveller reinforced the point. I don't think ill of Mormons for it. I just think it is what it is.

I will try to stick to just answering questions or statements that come up about my own Church's beliefs, from now on. That's all I was trying to do in the first place, but it serves no one well to ignore obvious differences of belief.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Desertknight

[bytor2112]

The morning breaks; the shadows flee;

Lo, Zion’s standard is unfurled! …

The dawning of a brighter day

Majestic rises on the world.”

Great talk by Elder Bruce McConkie on the Apostasy

[Vort]

I for one, am not trying to confuse anyone. I only posted in this thread to explain the Catholic position of why a 'great apostasy' is an impossibility in Catholic teaching, in our reading of the Gospels.

Why? This forum is LDS Gospel Discussion, not Roman Catholic Doctrine Discussion. The OP wanted some information regarding her (that is, the LDS) Church's teachings on the matter, not a Catholic rebuttal based on your own peculiar doctrines. Offering reasons why LDS doctrine is wrong is inappropriate on this forum.

[Desertknight]

Why? This forum is LDS Gospel Discussion, not Roman Catholic Doctrine Discussion. The OP wanted some information regarding her (that is, the LDS) Church's teachings on the matter, not a Catholic rebuttal based on your own peculiar doctrines. Offering reasons why LDS doctrine is wrong is inappropriate on this forum.

Because I assumed there might be some interest in why Catholics may hold to a different belief concerning the topic. Apparently, I was mistaken. As to the wider discussion that ensued, perhaps the board should restrict this forum to LDS members only. That they do not, also gave me the mistaken impression that any member of the board was free to post here. Edited June 21, 2012 by Desertknight

[Guest]

Again, I think somewhere along the line as a Catholic, you missed an essential teaching of the Church. To the contrary of your assertion here, I stated exactly the opposite earlier. The dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church is that it is One, both earthly, (the Church Militant), and heavenly, (the Church Triumphant). One bread, one body. The bride of Christ cannot be cut into.

Oh no, I didn't miss it at all. I've been Catholic for a looooonnnggg time. Went to Catholic Schools from Kindergarten all the way to when I graduated with a Bachelor's Degree with religious education part of the curriculum. One bread, one body is one of my favorite Catholic communion songs. :)

I never said to cut the bride of Christ in two. Church Militant/Church Triumphant is not at all the same as what I'm talking about in LDS doctrine.

Well I do thank you for illuminating LDS belief on this matter. I don't agree with it but you have been kind to take the time and help educate me..and you have.

Anytime. I've been there. Right where you are. I understand how difficult it is to understand.

[Vort]

Because I assumed there might be some interest in why Catholics may hold to a different belief concerning the topic. Apparently, I was mistaken. As to the wider discussion that ensued, perhaps the board should restrict this forum to LDS members only. That they do not, also gave me the mistaken impression that any member of the board was free to post here.

You are free to post here. You should not need to be restricted. The forum is clearly marked.

[estradling75]

Because I assumed there might be some interest in why Catholics may hold to a different belief concerning the topic. Apparently, I was mistaken. As to the wider discussion that ensued, perhaps the board should restrict this forum to LDS members only. That they do not, also gave me the mistaken impression that any member of the board was free to post here.

Let me see if I can clarify a few things

Under the umbrella of LDS.net there are many sub fourms each of these subfourms has different sets of restrictions on what can be discussed based on the purpose of that subfourm

Some of the sub fourms are

Admin Alerts

Introductions

Advice

Marriage and Relationship Advice

Current Events

Church News

etc..

Each of these sub fourms work under a different set of expectation depending on their purpose.

This thread is in the LDS Gospel Discussion subforum. This subforum's purpose is to give a safe place for those who are interested in learning about what LDS doctrine. Ideally the answers would come from official church sources, but as you can tell personal opinion, experiences, and takes also get shared.

Now you think there might be some interest in learning about Catholic doctrine, and under the LDS.net umbrella this would and is allowed (as long as everyone remains respectful) just not (for reasons I hope are now clear) this subfourm.

I'd recommend the Christian Beliefs Board - LDS Social Network Forums Start a thread or two there saying you want to compare/share doctrines. Again, assuming all sides remain respectful, this will not pose any problems

[Traveler]

Who used it in such a way? Are you sure you are addressing the right poster? I don't recall ever making such a statement. Perhaps you can quote from what I said.

Can not a man loose citizenship and then gain it back? I'm not saying that is the correct interpretation of issue, just asking you the question. Why would the Fall necessitate that the god of Moses must somehow be a different god? There is but one God, and that God is totally soverign in whom and how He saves. There is a fundemental diference in the nature of the Old Covenant, from the new, however.

I have no doubt it may have been a point of contention with many of those you name, but suffice it to say, that Mormonism is radically different from Christianity, or Judaism, or even Islam, in it's polytheism. It may be a question that some have asked, but if one were to go to pretty much any run of the mill professor of Western Civ. at any university, and asked him what is the central religious idea of the Judeo-Christian tradition, he would say without a moments hesitation; Monotheism. It's really imposable to understand the whole history of the Jewish tradition, and the Christian faith that arose from it, without grasping that one foundational truth. I think you may understand this, but in my long interactions with Mormons over the years, I don't think it is well understood among many. I think that is what often causes hurt to Mormons when told that they are not accepted as Christians.

Before I begin I would like to introduce myself. I am what the world calls – a Mormon. I am also an ultra-nerd engineer and scientist and currently work as a consultant engineer in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. I am also an avid cyclist but no longer compete and I have been married for about 40 years. I love to read – religion and history are hobbies (I used to regularly correspond with Rev Tom Newman (retired chair of archeology at Harvard) until his passing.

As a scientist, I understand why religion in general is failing and has historically failed mankind. As a deeply devout religious individual, I understand that science lacks moral enlightenment. What is most confusing to me is the seemingly bitter rivalry between religion and science. That religion in general is anti-logic and in essence touts confusion and ignorance as though it is a blessed gift from G-d – while many scientists are unable to see purpose and sacredness of life as a most rare and precious commodity.

With rare exception my posts have not targeted any individual – though from time to time some have felt so. Because this is a religious site (with few scientists) I have been forced often to defend rhetorical logic as a means of discovering truth and even as an element deeply imbedded in divine moral enlightenment.

You speak of Polytheism as though it were poison and anti-G-d and in so doing over look both logic and moral enlightenment not just of our universe but of sacred scripture. Let me explain – it appears that your view of the kingdom (society) of G-d as a society of some highly advanced and intelligent being presiding over nothing more than a collection of dumb worms – as though G-d is unworthy, incapable and unable to preside over peers. I find that illogical and morally repugnant. In contrast – I see G-d as the first among many extremely brilliant, powerful, kind, compassionate and wonderful individuals comprising a most advanced society of wonderful and truly free beings – of which we may and can become – not just part of – but one with. And that true religion is and does exactly (logically and morally) that. And any religion or devout person incapable of understand the intent of G-d to create “eternal light and enlightened” beings like into himself; of his own children – is in my mind – illogical, immoral and clueless of the majesty of the universe in which we temporarily exist as mortals as well as the rich symbolism embedded in ancient and modern sacred scripture for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

Yes – on one point you are correct – Mormonism is fundamentally and radically different. The pain in not being accepted as “Christians” – at least for me – is not the pain of being excluded for a society of would be dumb worms – bet the pain of wasted resources for that which is destined for so much more noble things than not accepting others as they think of themselves.

The Traveler

[beefche]

Traveler, see estradlings post above yours.

This forum is not to discuss the doctrine/belief of other religions. Desertknight understands this now, so no need to continue the discussion on how Mormon belief is different or right or better than another.