Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[SteveVH]

The “Great Apostasy” seems to be the fundamental justification for the need of a restoration of the Church, and therefore an indispensable part of the stool upon which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stands. I have related, on another thread my experience in receiving a response from a Mormon bishop to the request for any historical evidence of the “great apostasy” and won’t repeat it here. Suffice it to say that it was less than convincing but I won’t hold it against the good bishop. Knowing that there has to be more I would appreciate a real Mormon response to this question. I don’t mean to limit it to just to historical evidence, that is just the question I asked of the bishop, any evidence will do. If the answer just comes down to “that is what we believe by faith” I understand and can accept that. I am just wondering if there is something more on which you base this belief. Thanks.

[Guest]

Dark ages, for starters.

[Traveler]

The fact that there was no Christian society with power to enact laws, that for over 16 hundred years that would protect by law the lives and property of those that did not believe their particular brand of Christian doctrine. Even longer than that before any Christian society with power to do so would respect (by Law) the rights of non-Trinitarian.

How much proof do you want and what proof do you expect.

Jesus said that his disciples are to be identified by their love for others. What more proof could there be that the entire Christian society had gone astray?

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

First, the Great Apostasy does not equate to a complete and total blackout of truths and light. This is often a straw man set up to knock down the concept that there was a falling away.

Second, history shows that there was lots of competition in early Christianity for the soul of the main Church. Prof Bart Ehrman has written several books related to this, all excellent. He explains that scripture was being modified by both Gnostics, proto-orthodox and others, trying to prove their version of scripture was correct. The Comma Johanneum is an example of a proto-orthodox interpolation. Ehrman notes that of the ancient New Testament texts currently available that were written before the printing press, there are more changes/differences than there are words in the New Testaments. Yes, most of these are minor, but many are very significant, as well.

That Origen taught that the Godhead was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with the Son and Holy Ghost "subordinate" to the Father was accepted in his day as a defender of the proto-orthodox Church, is undeniable. That a couple centuries later, St Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius and others denounced him as a heretic, is also true. So, we see a change in the earlier doctrines to newer beliefs later on.

Councils such as Nicea and Chalcedon were established to settle doctrines that could not be decided within the Bible. At Nicea, two different doctrines were discussed about the Trinity, though a third doctrine Origenism, was also present. The concept of whether the Godhead was one being, but three persons; or whether they were three physically separate persons/beings was disputed. Athanasius' Trinity won the day, but almost lost over the ensuing century to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea and others were followers of Origen's view that the three were separate beings, Christ subordinate to God, but all were Gods in a Trinity.

Bart Ehrman writes that the Bible was eventually closed by the proto-orthodox Athanasius and Jerome, because they wanted to end the varying arguments over what constituted doctrine and what constituted scripture. Many extra-Biblical books were used for centuries as scripture: Shepherd of Hermas, Enoch, Odes of Solomon, Gospel of Barnabas, etc. These were all rejected, because there was no strong evidence that they were actually written by its claimed author. We almost lost Revelation and Hebrews for the same reason, except the Western Church insisted they remain if they were going to accept the canon. Eventually, the closed canon defeated Gnostics and others, leaving us with a proto-orthodoxy to run things. In closing the canon, they closed the book on future prophets and future scriptural revelation from God.

In his treatise and dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr explained that Judaism had lost its way when they rejected continuing revelation, and if Christianity ever did the same, the religion would be as dead as Judaism.

Today, most Bible scholars believe that 1/2 of Paul's letters were not written by him. The Gospels were not originals, with the exception of Mark. Matthew and Luke are both derivative works from Mark. The epistles of Peter, James and John are also suspect. So, closing the canon did not give us what Jerome was looking for. Do LDS believe the New Testament and Bible to still be inspired? Yes. Do we believe it is complete? No.

Almost 70 years ago, archaeologists found the Dead Sea Scrolls. In it, we find all the books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), except Esther. We also find hundreds of other books that were considered inspired words of God. One book is thought to be another book of Moses! Some foresee the Messiah, describing a baptism akin to John the Baptist's, and a Sacrament of bread and wine. What do we do with all of those writings? Should the Old Testament be opened up to accept them?

The New Testament quotes or references statements from the Book of Enoch about 39 times. The biggest quote is found in Jude. If Christ and his apostles quoted Enoch, then why did Jerome reject it and not include it in his Bible? The same can be said of some other early books, as well.

Also about 70 years ago, a cache of Coptic Christian books were found in Nag Hammadi Egypt. While many of the books are Gnostic in nature, there are several that are believed to have been used by most early Christians. Why are those not included in our Bible?

So, the Great Apostasy is a loss of some ancient teachings and concepts. It is a loss of prophets, who can add to the official scripture whenever God commands. It is a loss of authority, as apostolic authority and power were replaced with philosophies of men in the councils.

For those who insist on a God-breathed text, these evidences show the Bible is not perfect, nor complete. We believe it to be inspired of God, regardless. And we're amazed at how well the Lord's teachings were preserved in it. Still, the creeds that came out of a variety of uninspired councils affected many key issues of Christianity that needed to be restored.

For this reason, we believe in an apostasy, and in a Restoration of lost truths, revelations, and authority from God.

Edited September 12, 2012 by rameumptom

[rameumptom]

BTW, asking the average bishop for proof of the apostasy can be problematic.

First, proof is very hard to establish. Evidence is a better term to use, as there is no way to prove most things via history, except basic facts. For example, prove whether Arius or Athanasius was correct by more than just the voting of the council. It can't be done, especially if both are incorrect.

Second, bishops and most members are not theologians. Mormons tend more towards orthopraxy than orthodoxy. Had you asked the bishop for information on the commandments or how a certain process in Mormonism should work, he probably could have given you a good discussion regarding it. Unlike Catholic bishops or evangelical pastors, who spend years in training on orthodoxy, we take our bishops off the streets. I've had bishops who have been brick layers, carpenters, lawyers, grocers, military, insurance agents, doctors, prison workers, machinists, etc. Never have I had a theologian for a bishop.

[estradling75]

The core basis of the LDS belief in an Apostasy comes from our belief in Modern Prophets and revelation.

In Joseph Smith's first vision he sees God the Father and Jesus Christ and is told.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

The whole context can be found here Joseph Smith?History 1*

In the LDS belief it is God that has declared the apostasy and the need for a restoration. Thus like many religious claims it is primary based on faith. One can of course look for other evidences but when one does this one needs to be very careful not to take what they believe the 'Word of God' box it with their own understandings of what God must of meant and then go looking for that. That would be a very good way of destroying one's faith when they find he doesn't fit within their box or demands.

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

I just found out that The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage is on Project Gutenberg! You can download it from here. Best if you have an ereader.

It's a difficult thing to read for a Catholic, at least that was my experience. I suggest before you read it, pray to God to fill you with the Spirit first. You have a very strong grasp of Catholic History so you should be able to bounce this book with what you know is true of the Catholic Church.

This is written like a history textbook - so it's very encyclopedia-ish. But, it covers historical accounts from Jesus Christ all the way to 1830 when Joseph Smith claimed to have been given the authority to restore the gospel.

Edited September 12, 2012 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

I agree with the notion that "Great Apostasy" can neither be proven or disproven. Ironically, the Unification Church just lost it's leader, Rev. Moon. He declared that Adam failed by giving in to temptation. Then Jesus failed by not raising up disciples that would resist temptation. He called Jesus the Second Adam. Rev. Moon said he was the Last Adam, and that he would succeed.

Throughout history Christians have done great good and great evil. Proving that a church is sufficiently corrupt as to need a restoration--especially on a total scale--not sure that could be done. Doubt it could be convincingly refuted either.

One simple example would be analyzing the councils of the early church. I assume the Catholic Church would take a good deal of pride in how the Holy Spirit directed those proceedings. They would perhaps hold out the doctrine of the Trinity as exhibit A. It has remained central to Catholicism, and to the vast majority of Protestantism, especially since the Council of Nicea. Protestants would concur that much of Catholic doctrinal formation was anointed of God. Yet, LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as other "Christian Non-Trinitarians" would highlight some of the difficulties of those councils, and suggest that it was "man's politics" that got the job done. Of course, they would question the product as well.

The test of powerful evidence is when both sides are convinced. I doubt you'll find that concerning the "Great Apostasy."

[SteveVH]

First, the Great Apostasy does not equate to a complete and total blackout of truths and light. This is often a straw man set up to knock down the concept that there was a falling away.

Yes, I have heard this before. From what I understand, (though I have heard more than one version) it was the puported loss of "priesthood authority" that was the main issue, and along with that the end of revelation. Am I correct?

Second, history shows that there was lots of competition in early Christianity for the soul of the main Church. Prof Bart Ehrman has written several books related to this, all excellent. He explains that scripture was being modified by both Gnostics, proto-orthodox and others, trying to prove their version of scripture was correct. The Comma Johanneum is an example of a proto-orthodox interpolation. Ehrman notes that of the ancient New Testament texts currently available that were written before the printing press, there are more changes/differences than there are words in the New Testaments. Yes, most of these are minor, but many are very significant, as well.

With all due respect I always like to consider on what side of the fence one sits before I consider where they stand. Bart Ehrman is an anti-Christian polemicist. A glance at even a few of his comments makes it clear where he is coming from. No offense but, but he doesn't even come close to having credibility despite his voluminous writing. Having said that, it is no secret that the Church has had to fight heresies from the beginning. People, and even some clergy, were coming up with all kinds of novel ideas. The Church's job was to protect the truth, the deposit of faith, handed down to it by the Apostles. Anything that contradicted that truth was anathamized.

Origen taught that the Godhead was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with the Son and Holy Ghost "subordinate" to the Father was accepted in his day as a defender of the proto-orthodox Church, is undeniable. That a couple centuries later, St Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius and others denounced him as a heretic, is also true. So, we see a change in the earlier doctrines to newer beliefs later on.

Yes, good ole Origen. First of all, before one can say that "we see a change in the earlier doctrines to newer beliefs later on" one must understand that Origens beliefs were never, ever, Church doctrine to begin with. There was no doctrinal change whatsoever. His beliefs were suspect from the beginning and the Church took him to task on more than a few of his beliefs, finally officially declaring him to be a heretic.

Councils such as Nicea and Chalcedon were established to settle doctrines that could not be decided within the Bible.

No. The councils were convened in order to officially define dogma in defense of the faith and against heresy. The Council of Nicea was convened to defend the Church doctrines agains Arianism (the belief that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created and is therefore distinct from God the Father). This could not be an argument over the Bible as the Bible would not even be canonized for approximately another 75 years.

Chalcedon was convened to fight a heresy concerning the nature of Christ (the Catholic doctrine being that Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person).

At Nicea, two different doctrines were discussed about the Trinity, though a third doctrine Origenism, was also present. The concept of whether the Godhead was one being, but three persons; or whether they were three physically separate persons/beings was disputed. Athanasius' Trinity won the day, but almost lost over the ensuing century to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea and others were followers of Origen's view that the three were separate beings, Christ subordinate to God, but all were Gods in a Trinity.

As I have already stated the issue was Arianism, not Origenism, although Arius may very well have borrowed from Origen. The result was a definitive creed in which more detail was given to the three Persons of the Trinty in order to clearly define exactly what the Church believed as to the nature of the Persons of Trinity. Nearly every council convened was for the same purpose. To defend the faith against heresy by more clearly defining the doctrines which were challenged.

Almost 70 years ago, archaeologists found the Dead Sea Scrolls. In it, we find all the books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), except Esther. We also find hundreds of other books that were considered inspired words of God. One book is thought to be another book of Moses! Some foresee the Messiah, describing a baptism akin to John the Baptist's, and a Sacrament of bread and wine. What do we do with all of those writings? Should the Old Testament be opened up to accept them?

Yes, I am well aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But I don't know what this has to do with the "Great Apostasy".

The New Testament quotes or references statements from the Book of Enoch about 39 times. The biggest quote is found in Jude. If Christ and his apostles quoted Enoch, then why did Jerome reject it and not include it in his Bible? The same can be said of some other early books, as well.

Also about 70 years ago, a cache of Coptic Christian books were found in Nag Hammadi Egypt. While many of the books are Gnostic in nature, there are several that are believed to have been used by most early Christians. Why are those not included in our Bible?

They are not included in the Bible because the Church that determined the canon did not include them. Now one of two things is true here. Either the Church was, indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit in making this determination or it was not. If it was not, then we can all consider our Bible interesting reading and nothing more. If it was guided by the Holy Spirit then we must accept it as it was given to us, and without question. The New Testament is a Church document so the Church determined its contents through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Trust it or don't trust it, but don't just partially trust it and partially distrust it. The Holy Spirit was either involved or He wasn't. You choose.

For those who insist on a God-breathed text, these evidences show the Bible is not perfect, nor complete. We believe it to be inspired of God, regardless.

I find that curious. Why if you believe the Bible is not perfect or complete, then say that "We believe it to be inspired of God, regardless."?

Hey, thanks for taking so much time on this post. You have given me a lot of helpful information.

Edited September 13, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve,

I just found out that The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage is on Project Gutenberg! You can download it from here. Best if you have an ereader.

It's a difficult thing to read for a Catholic, at least that was my experience. I suggest before you read it, pray to God to fill you with the Spirit first. You have a very strong grasp of Catholic History so you should be able to bounce this book with what you know is true of the Catholic Church.

This is written like a history textbook - so it's very encyclopedia-ish. But, it covers historical accounts from Jesus Christ all the way to 1830 when Joseph Smith claimed to have been given the authority to restore the gospel.

I'll check it out. I have a pretty thick skin. :)

[SteveVH]

The core basis of the LDS belief in an Apostasy comes from our belief in Modern Prophets and revelation.

In Joseph Smith's first vision he sees God the Father and Jesus Christ and is told.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

The whole context can be found here Joseph Smith?History 1*

In the LDS belief it is God that has declared the apostasy and the need for a restoration. Thus like many religious claims it is primary based on faith. One can of course look for other evidences but when one does this one needs to be very careful not to take what they believe the 'Word of God' box it with their own understandings of what God must of meant and then go looking for that. That would be a very good way of destroying one's faith when they find he doesn't fit within their box or demands.

Okay, thanks.

[SteveVH]

The fact that there was no Christian society with power to enact laws, that for over 16 hundred years that would protect by law the lives and property of those that did not believe their particular brand of Christian doctrine. Even longer than that before any Christian society with power to do so would respect (by Law) the rights of non-Trinitarian.

Could you explain further? That's quite a lot to throw without at least some specifics. Do you mean like starting higher education and opening hospitals (to everyone). Is that how the Church disrespected the rights of non-Trinitarians? By feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, regardless of their state in life or beliefs. Like that?

How much proof do you want and what proof do you expect.

I have no expectations.

Jesus said that his disciples are to be identified by their love for others. What more proof could there be that the entire Christian society had gone astray?

And upon what do you base that comment?

[SteveVH]

Dark ages, for starters.

Okay. Do you think the Dark Ages were caused by the Church? Maybe you could explain a little more.

[Traveler]

Could you explain further? That's quite a lot to throw without at least some specifics. Do you mean like starting higher education and opening hospitals (to everyone). Is that how the Church disrespected the rights of non-Trinitarians? By feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, regardless of their state in life or beliefs. Like that?

Toleration act of 1649 - the first attempt at law to protect religious minority views - unless you know of another previous.

And upon what do you base that comment?

John 13:35

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I have made one post concerning one reason I believe there was a great Apostasy. That post was specific. With this post I will be more general and list many reasons I believe indicates there was a great Apostasy.

1. The fall of Jerusalem and the loss of the “Peace” covenant.

2. The scattering of G-d’s covenant people throughout the gentile nations of Earth.

3. End of most of the covenants of Israel – Beyond the ‘Peace” covenant

4. The shrinking and loss of scripture – This has many sub items

a. There is no covenant society where scripture is law and law is scripture

b. No one with authority to speak anything worthy as scripture

c. Remaining scripture divides society rather than unite (uncertainty creates division and conflict)

d. Substituting creeds for scripture

e. Failure to keep scripture available to the Public for most of the early periods of Christianity

f. Failure to preserve sacred text. – most of the accurate ancient scripture remaining to the modern era came from private libraries – including individuals considered heretics.

5. Changing of sacred ordinances (example – Baptism no longer meaning baptism (immersion)

6. Separation of church and state – with the corrupt notion of the “divine right of kings”.

7. Separation and conflict between church and science

8. Changing and redefining Church organizational structure.

9. End of Prophesy worthy of becoming scripture

10. Rather than unite nations, tongues and peoples there has been conflicts (war) between Christian societies separated by culture.

11. Institutionalized, systematic, deliberate and planned destruction of “gentile” nations and cultures considered non-Christian or heretical Christian – violence (killing) against innocent civilians (including women and children) of gentile nations in the name of G-d.

12. Failure of divine guidance in the Crusades.

13. Justifications of Slavery.

14. Creation of social classes – noble and vulgar or common as well as a separate clergy class.

15. Failure for much of history to support the institutionalize education of women

16. Creation of deliberate misinformation concerning archeological discoveries. (Example the Dead Sea Scriptures – calling the place – Qumran (a modern Arabic term) rather than the ancient name of the settlement - “Damascus” – in order to disavow any possible connection to early Christianity.

17. The end of recorded events (wars, individuals maintaining covenants in gentile nations, validations of miracles and many other such things) worthy of becoming scripture

I am sure if I thought about it – I could recall many more.

The Traveler

Edited September 14, 2012 by Traveler

[Traveler]

Okay. Do you think the Dark Ages were caused by the Church? Maybe you could explain a little more.

Without a doubt - Traditional Christianity was part of that tapestry and legacy.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I have made one post concerning one reason I believe there was a great Apostasy. That post was specific. With this post I will be more general and list many reasons I believe indicates there was a great Apostasy.

1. The fall of Jerusalem and the loss of the “Peace” covenant.

2. The scattering of G-d’s covenant people throughout the gentile nations of Earth.

3. End of most of the covenants of Israel – Beyond the ‘Peace” covenant

4. The shrinking and loss of scripture – This has many sub items

a. There is no covenant society where scripture is law and law is scripture

b. No one with authority to speak anything worthy as scripture

c. Remaining scripture divides society rather than unite (uncertainty creates division and conflict)

d. Substituting creeds for scripture

e. Failure to keep scripture available to the Public for most of the early periods of Christianity

f. Failure to preserve sacred text. – most of the accurate ancient scripture remaining to the modern era came from private libraries – including individuals considered heretics.

5. Changing of sacred ordinances (example – Baptism no longer meaning baptism (immersion)

6. Separation of church and state – with the corrupt notion of the “divine right of kings”.

7. Separation and conflict between church and science

8. Changing and redefining Church organizational structure.

9. End of Prophesy worthy of becoming scripture

10. Rather than unite nations, tongues and peoples there has been conflicts (war) between Christian societies separated by culture.

11. Institutionalized, systematic, deliberate and planned destruction of “gentile” nations and cultures considered non-Christian or heretical Christian – violence (killing) against innocent civilians (including women and children) of gentile nations in the name of G-d.

12. Failure of divine guidance in the Crusades.

13. Justifications of Slavery.

14. Creation of social classes – noble and vulgar or common as well as a separate clergy class.

15. Failure for much of history to support the institutionalize education of women

16. Creation of deliberate misinformation concerning archeological discoveries. (Example the Dead Sea Scriptures – calling the place – Qumran (a modern Arabic term) rather than the ancient name of the settlement - “Damascus” – in order to disavow any possible connection to early Christianity.

17. The end of recorded events (wars, individuals maintaining covenants in gentile nations, validations of miracles and many other such things) worthy of becoming scripture

I am sure if I thought about it – I could recall many more.

The Traveler

Thanks, I'll tuck those away. Either that or give me about six months and I'll mail you a harbound copy of my response.

[estradling75]

Okay. Do you think the Dark Ages were caused by the Church? Maybe you could explain a little more.

I know you asked Eowyn but I don't think she will mind me adding my two bits.

I believe she is referring to the idea that if God is with a people the people will prosper and progress. Two things that didn't really happen during the Dark Age. Given that the Church (I assume you meant Catholic church) was the main religious power at the time it would seem to indicate that the God was not with the Church at this time. Which would mean apostasy.

However when it comes to being Evidence it is entirely circumstantial. There are other reasons a group might prosper and not be with God, and reasons why a group with God would see hardships.

[rameumptom]

The reality is, all religions have highlights and lowlights in their history. The Catholics have had some issues with Inquisitions, the Southern Baptists supported slavery and the KKK, and the LDS once believed blacks were cursed and were involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The Catholics also started the first schools, via the Jesuits. The first hospitals, promoted science and lots of charitable activities in the world. The LDS church has also done and taught some wonderful things in its short history.

History does not prove whether a Church is approved of God or not.

We cannot prove the apostasy. But Stephen cannot disprove it, either. It is a belief, based upon one interpretation of history. History can support it, just as history can possibly support the idea of papal succession. There are both things for and against both propositions.

As a historian, I will say that I do not have a testimony of the history of the LDS Church. But then, Stephen shouldn't have a testimony of the history of the Catholic Church, either. We both should have a testimony of the teachings of the Bible, of Christ, and the good teachings coming from our spiritual leaders.

[SteveVH]

The reality is, all religions have highlights and lowlights in their history. The Catholics have had some issues with Inquisitions, the Southern Baptists supported slavery and the KKK, and the LDS once believed blacks were cursed and were involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The Catholics also started the first schools, via the Jesuits. The first hospitals, promoted science and lots of charitable activities in the world. The LDS church has also done and taught some wonderful things in its short history.

History does not prove whether a Church is approved of God or not.

We cannot prove the apostasy. But Stephen cannot disprove it, either. It is a belief, based upon one interpretation of history. History can support it, just as history can possibly support the idea of papal succession. There are both things for and against both propositions.

As a historian, I will say that I do not have a testimony of the history of the LDS Church. But then, Stephen shouldn't have a testimony of the history of the Catholic Church, either. We both should have a testimony of the teachings of the Bible, of Christ, and the good teachings coming from our spiritual leaders.

Thanks for all your comments. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church is not a "church of the Bible" (the Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible). We are an apostolic Church and the Bible is one of our documents. So, as far as "receiving a testimony" of the history of the Catholic Church, yes I believe I certainly have. It is very easy to look at all the ills and evils in society over the past 2000 years and attempt to use this as evidence, but then one would have to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church was probably the greatest force in history in establishing a civilized and moral soceity. You have mentioned some of those accomplishments.

[Guest]

Thanks for all your comments. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church is not a "church of the Bible" (the Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible). We are an apostolic Church and the Bible is one of our documents. So, as far as "receiving a testimony" of the history of the Catholic Church, yes I believe I certainly have. It is very easy to look at all the ills and evils in society over the past 2000 years and attempt to use this as evidence, but then one would have to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church was probably the greatest force in history in establishing a civilized and moral soceity. You have mentioned some of those accomplishments.

Stephen, did you glance through the book I linked for you? It has the answers you are looking for.

[rameumptom]

Stephen and everyone else,

While I believe the LDS Church has many great truths revealed to it, many of which were lost long ago, I also believe the Catholic Church to be filled with many wonderful Christians. I cannot think in history since the medieval times of many greater Christians than Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assisi, or John Paul II.

I think there is a great reward awaiting such great people in heaven. I also believe there is great reward for Joseph Smith and other great LDS prophets and others, who have served God to the best of their ability. Perhaps the only difference is in the covenants we make that can make a difference in how our final reward may end up.

I believe there is more to unite us than to divide us in Christianity. I would hope we would first seek to be united as the children of God through Christ.

[SteveVH]

Stephen and everyone else,

While I believe the LDS Church has many great truths revealed to it, many of which were lost long ago, I also believe the Catholic Church to be filled with many wonderful Christians. I cannot think in history since the medieval times of many greater Christians than Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assisi, or John Paul II.

I think there is a great reward awaiting such great people in heaven. I also believe there is great reward for Joseph Smith and other great LDS prophets and others, who have served God to the best of their ability. Perhaps the only difference is in the covenants we make that can make a difference in how our final reward may end up.

I believe there is more to unite us than to divide us in Christianity. I would hope we would first seek to be united as the children of God through Christ.

But then I wouldn't have anything to argue about!

Seriously, I agree with you. I have no doubt that I will enjoy eternity with many Mormons. We have a loving and merciful God who wills that none of us be lost and his love for Catholics is no greater and no less than his love for Mormons or any other denomination. While I believe (as you do) that it does matter what we believe, only God knows our hearts and I have seen very few hearts as sincere as Mormon hearts.

God bless you.

[SteveVH]

Stephen, did you glance through the book I linked for you? It has the answers you are looking for.

Anatess, thank you for the link. No I have just not had the time to read another book right now (reading three simultaneously as it is), but I do have the link and am planning on giving it at least a look. To be honest with you, it will depend upon the credibility of what I find as to whether I will read it in depth. There are a lot of books out there and many versions of history. If Mr. talmage is intellectually honest in his writing I will give it a go.

[Traveler]

Thanks, I'll tuck those away. Either that or give me about six months and I'll mail you a harbound copy of my response.

Keep in mind that you asked for evidence of an Apostasy not necessarily a discussion to prove there was an apostasy. If one is to sit on a jury and render a verdict - they must be willing to consider the evidence impartially.

Previously I inquired of you concerning what you would accept as evidence - and your response very much confused me. It is my honest impression that you have reached a conclusion in this matter - and with speculation on my part - it appears to me that you did so without any consideration of evidence. Which causes me to wonder why and with what motivation you ask now - if you honestly have no intention to consider the matter.

The Traveler