Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[SteveVH]

The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, among others.

There would be no such thing as a "schism" had they not at first constituted one Church. Separate "churches" cannot divide from one another. They were all "Catholic" until 1054 A.D. The Church had spread to many parts of the world in a very short time. Both have apostolic succession because of the very fact that they were part of the Apostolic Church and had bishops who had been ordained by an Apostle for the . As such our doctrines are nearly identical and I have already pointed out the main differences.

[SteveVH]

Yep, as a Latter-day Saint, I believe all of those, and like I mentioned, Latter-day Saints do not "ignore" any promises made by Jesus Christ. Please read the link I provided.

No matter how you slice it, a complete disruption or end of apostolic succession would mean that Jesus' promises were not kept. The same would be true of an apostolic succession which had abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors.

[Vort]

No matter how you slice it, a complete disruption or end of apostolic succession would mean that Jesus' promises were not kept.

Clearly, this is false. You have no authority to call Christ a liar, nor do you have any ability to divine whether the apostasy that occurred someone contradicts Christ's word.

For someone who rejects continuing prophecy and modern prophets, you demonstrate an amazing proclivity toward wanting to interpret ancient scripture according to your peculiar beliefs.

[SteveVH]

I was unclear... Let me rephrase... You believe the Catholic church is true, so it is easy for you when you read promises of the Savior to interpret them to mean that the Catholic church will always remain in God's favor as his one an only true church. This is an understandable thing to do, we all do to some degree or another understand things through our own biases and opinions.

Estradling, I will not pretend that I do not have certain biases. As you correctly state, we all do. But we cannot dismiss certain objective truths as mere opinion colored by bias. If Christ kept his promise to remain with the Church that he established in 33 A.D. until the end of time then that means that he never left it and if he never left it then the Truth, who is Jesus himself, never left it. It assumes that the Church that Jesus himself founded on earth failed. It assumes that there was no divine assistance, as promised (the sending of the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth) but rather that its success or failure was dependent upon the weakness of sinful men. One indespensible aspect of the Church is that it is a divine institution, that means it has God himself (Jesus Christ) as its head. Christ said "...upon this rock I will build my church..." This point seems to always be ignored. The failures of men within the Church are brought up as evidence of its demise, as if its success and survival was dependent upon these individuals. No, God is in control of the Church he founded and it will succeed inspite of the weakness of sinful man. That is why Jesus could proclaim that the gates of hell would never prevail.

I was simply pointing out the clear and unmistakable fact your interpretation of what those scriptures mean in not any where near universal. Many other seekers of truth have read those same passages of scripture, and have not come to around to your way of thinking. My proof is in the hundreds of church that do currently exist.

So your attempt to force your 'interpretation' of certain scripture as a 'proof' of the Catholic Church doesn't work... and hasn't worked since the first successful breakaway from the Catholic church.

Okay, let me see if I understand your line of thinking here. Because certain groups of individuals have chosen to leave the original Church and formulate their own set of doctrines based upon their personal preferences, this is somehow a reflection on the truth contained within that original Church? If this is the case I would draw your attention to the great number different groups who have splintered off from the LDS Church. When you compare the two in light of the number of years each has existed, I would say the LDS is way ahead in terms of rapidity of splintering.

Edited September 24, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

One of the great little stories in my mind comes to us from the fairytale of Cinderella when one of the step sisters tries on the glass slipper and forces part of her foot into the slipper proclaiming, "See it fits perfectly!!!"

The Traveler

Yes, you should think about that.

[SteveVH]

Clearly, this is false. You have no authority to call Christ a liar, nor do you have any ability to divine whether the apostasy that occurred someone contradicts Christ's word.

Clearly? Only if I accept your premise which has nothing to stand on other than you believe it. And far from calling Christ a liar I have done just the opposite. I have tried to demonstrate that he kept his promises. He only lied if he did not remain with his Church and did not send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. Clearly we can depend on Jesus to keep his promises which is the very reason that the "Great Apostasy" could not have happened.

[estradling75]

Okay, let me see if I understand your line of thinking here. Because certain groups of individuals have chosen to leave the original Church and formulate their own set of doctrines based upon their personal preferences, this is somehow a reflection on the truth contained within that original Church? If this is the case I would draw your attention to the great number different groups who have splintered off from the LDS Church. When you compare the two in light of the number of years each has existed, I would say the LDS is way ahead in terms of rapidity of splintering.

I am going to try once more then I am done... Because if this fails then communication is not going to happen between us and I am going to quit pounding my head against the wall.

You have one interpretation of certain scriptures of the many currently exist. While that interpretation works for you, you aren't the only one who has read the scriptures, studied them and come to a conclusion. Many of those conclusion which other people have reach are quite different from your claims that the Lord will not have allowed the Catholic church to fail.

So when you trot out those scriptures and give your spin on them... its not the smoking gun, hard core irrefutable evidence, you present it as. The people you talking with already have read those scriptures, believe them to be true, but don't believe they stretch as far as you claim they do. So you get no where with them.

And like I have always claimed in this thread you are not going to find a winning augment or proof with evidence leading to the right way to God. Because God doesn't work that way. He works on faith and people choosing to believe

[Vort]

I am going to try once more then I am done... Because if this fails then communication is not going to happen between us and I am going to quit pounding my head against the wall.

I have entered back into conversation at least a half-dozen times with Stephen, only to swear each time that I will not continue with such a useless and dishonest conversation. Stephen will not or cannot see his own biases. In his mind, his viewpoint defines the truth of whatever matter he is discussing. It literally Does Not Matter how clearly you express yourself or how explicitly you show your logic. Stephen will simply dismiss what you say with something approaching "nuh-uh" and continue on his way.

Don't bother holding his feet to the fire. He will simply ignore your arguments. It really is not worth the bother. Stephen may not in fact be a dishonest man; he may simply be so wrapped up in his beliefs that he is actually unable to understand argumentation from another interpretation. But in any case, further discourse is pointless.

[Guest]

Clearly? Only if I accept your premise which has nothing to stand on other than you believe it. And far from calling Christ a liar I have done just the opposite. I have tried to demonstrate that he kept his promises. He only lied if he did not remain with his Church and did not send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. Clearly we can depend on Jesus to keep his promises which is the very reason that the "Great Apostasy" could not have happened.

Haven't we been through this discussion before?

Catholics have a very different interpretation than anybody else on the verse "upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.".

So, this verse only makes sense in the way you interpret it for Catholics... you, of course, stake your interpretation on My Rock - as Peter, the person.... which leads you to your stand on Apostolic Succession. It doesn't matter that a good number of those successors were worthy of ex-communication from your own Church... because, you know, we can list them one after another year after year from 33 A.D. to 2012.

Of course, as an LDS, Apostolic Succession does not work that way. My Rock, is not merely Peter, the person. My Rock is God's direct revelation which was handed down to Peter which can be made clear if you read the entire Chapter and not just that verse. Apostolic Succession therefore is dependent upon the worthiness of Church Leaders to receive direct revelation from God and be worthy of holding the priesthood keys of binding/sealing on earth.

[SteveVH]

I have entered back into conversation at least a half-dozen times with Stephen, only to swear each time that I will not continue with such a useless and dishonest conversation. Stephen will not or cannot see his own biases. In his mind, his viewpoint defines the truth of whatever matter he is discussing. It literally Does Not Matter how clearly you express yourself or how explicitly you show your logic. Stephen will simply dismiss what you say with something approaching "nuh-uh" and continue on his way.

Don't bother holding his feet to the fire. He will simply ignore your arguments. It really is not worth the bother. Stephen may not in fact be a dishonest man; he may simply be so wrapped up in his beliefs that he is actually unable to understand argumentation from another interpretation. But in any case, further discourse is pointless.

You can disagree with me all you want, Vort, but don't you ever call me dishonest. You have had nothing of value to say in this entire discussion. Instead you prefer to sit back and take pot shots and I've had enough of you. Welcome to my "ignore" list.

[Vort]

You can disagree with me all you want, Vort, but don't you ever call me dishonest. You have had nothing of value to say in this entire discussion. Instead you prefer to sit back and take pot shots and I've had enough of you. Welcome to my "ignore" list.

Or what? You're going to beat me up?

In fact, I didn't call you dishonest. Quite the opposite. I did call the conversation dishonest, which it is. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, you will never see this, will you? Cool.

[SteveVH]

I am going to try once more then I am done... Because if this fails then communication is not going to happen between us and I am going to quit pounding my head against the wall.

I can empathize.

You have one interpretation of certain scriptures of the many currently exist. While that interpretation works for you, you aren't the only one who has read the scriptures, studied them and come to a conclusion. Many of those conclusion which other people have reach are quite different from your claims that the Lord will not have allowed the Catholic church to fail.

Yes. I disagree with nothing that you have said.

So when you trot out those scriptures and give your spin on them... its not the smoking gun, hard core irrefutable evidence, you present it as. The people you talking with already have read those scriptures, believe them to be true, but don't believe they stretch as far as you claim they do. So you get no where with them.

And like I have always claimed in this thread you are not going to find a winning augment or proof with evidence leading to the right way to God. Because God doesn't work that way. He works on faith and people choosing to believe

If I am to assume that because someone has a different opinion that this opinion is to be given the same weight, simply because it exists, as the Church to which Christ gave his authority, then I might agree with you. But the very fact that there are so many denominations, all disagreeing with each other, and assuming that there is one, true Church, the objective truth is that the rest are in error to one degree or another. I believe the true Church is the Catholic Church. You believe it is the LDS. A Baptist belives it is the Baptists. But the truth is always the truth and is not dependent or subject to anyone's particular view. I am only giving you my view. You are obviously free to disagree.

[Anddenex]

Okay, let me see if I understand your line of thinking here. Because certain groups of individuals have chosen to leave the original Church and formulate their own set of doctrines based upon their personal preferences, this is somehow a reflection on the truth contained within that original Church? If this is the case I would draw your attention to the great number different groups who have splintered off from the LDS Church. When you compare the two in light of the number of years each has existed, I would say the LDS is way ahead in terms of rapidity of splintering.

To be fair, I will openly admit, I am playing the devil's advocate with your statement, up to the first period.

No, his point was not understood. The Catholic church, according to LDS doctrine is one of the groups which set their own doctrine, toward personal preferences, and it reflects solely an example of the apostasy. People creating their own doctrines is an individual apostasy which occurred throughout the Old Testament.

If the original church is maintained, then people leaving the truth, bare no resemblance or reflection on its author.

Now, the second statement. In comparison, let's admit StephenVH, it is not fair in the least.

Let's see, how fast would the LDS church have splintered if only the prophets and apostles were allowed scriptures in their homes?

How fast would the LDS have splintered if they, like the Catholic church, would kill, burn at the stake, anybody who held a different belief and openly taught it?

Yes, it is much easier to keep a church from splintering if you have a self-divine authority to kill anybody who preaches against it.

And thus the debate continues.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

Yes, you should think about that.

As a scientist to the up most detail. Just wondering? How do you understand Daniel Chapter 2?

The Traveler

[Jason_J]

There would be no such thing as a "schism" had they not at first constituted one Church. Separate "churches" cannot divide from one another. They were all "Catholic" until 1054 A.D. The Church had spread to many parts of the world in a very short time. Both have apostolic succession because of the very fact that they were part of the Apostolic Church and had bishops who had been ordained by an Apostle for the . As such our doctrines are nearly identical and I have already pointed out the main differences.

Um, unfortunately none of this explains the historical fact that the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East were separate churches prior to 1054 AD (Oriental Orthodox say this about themselves as well). Oriental Orthodoxy is not Eastern Orthodoxy, and the schism involving Oriental Orthodoxy happened in the 5th century. So no, they not "all 'Catholic'" until 1054 AD, as the examples of the Oriental Orthodox churches (schism in the 5th century) and the Assyrian Church of the East demonstrate, for a start.

Also, as far as "nearly identical" doctrines, well, as I have already pointed out, that is the common Catholic view (I have seen it many times at CAF), however it is not shared by many, if not most Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox (as I have seen many times at Orthodox forums). I believe I linked to a few articles documenting Orthodox views on that matter.

[Jason_J]

No matter how you slice it, a complete disruption or end of apostolic succession would mean that Jesus' promises were not kept. The same would be true of an apostolic succession which had abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors.

Again, the article I linked to demonstrates why that is not the case.

[Connie]

Wheee! I love merry-go-rounds.

Here is a good quote from the link Jason provided since it seems there is some confusion on exactly what apostasy is:

"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."

Hope that helps.

[Maynard]

I know very well the differing views of Leo III and Charlemagne. The fact remains that crowning the Emperor changed the face of the Church to consolidate great power at the foot of the papacy. As a Catholic, one sees this as a necessary turn of events to protect the Church from those who would destroy it.

Taking the apostasy into consideration, one would have a differing interpretation where the Church becomes the root of temporal abuses right at the very top BECAUSE it has lost its way. After Leo, the papacy is now open to the one who has enough power and riches to buy himself a cardinal or papal office. An LDS would shudder at the thought of a Church led in this manner.

The Apostasy was complete before the schism. The issue that led to the schism itself is one of the by-products of a Church with "blind" leaders. Therefore, neither East nor West had proper Apostolic succession. Think about the issue of the Filioque as an LDS - who was right? The answer is - neither!

Unfortunately, a caricature has been created out of the history surrounding the Church and its popes over the last two millennia. There are several contributing factors to this. One is a misunderstanding of the Papacy. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. As the head of the church he is responsible for leading the church and its members into a closer union with Christ. However, as the visible head of the Bride of Christ he is not guaranteed to be impeccable, nor are his personal views protected from error. The popes can err as leaders and theologians, and can even be deeply sinful men without violating the authority given to the Church by Christ. The protection of the Holy Spirit over the Pope is only that he will not err when making official statements on faith and morals.

As for the root of temporal abuses, sin is the root of any temporal abuse. Peter was clearly the head of the early Church and he openly denied Christ during the Lord’s passion. Did this invalidate Peter as the leader of the Church? Was the Apostolic Church in apostasy because the leader of the Apostles rejected Christ? I am sure that you have heard this point before, but one ‘blessing’ of the bad popes is that they were so driven by selfish worldly desires that they did not spend their time writing or discussing the teachings of the Church. Because of this they couldn’t do damage to the teaching authority of the Church, or its doctrine.

You claim that, "an LDS would shudder at the thought of a Church led in this manner." Many historians, including some LDS historians, have pointed out grievous acts committed by leaders in the LDS church. Many LDS deny that these acts ever took place, I have spoken to a few Temple Mormon's who are also historians who have admitted to me (in front of missionaries) that it would be very difficult, after analyzing all historical evidence, to deny that the atrocities took place and that LDS leaders were responsible for them.

Most LDS do not shudder at these, they deny the accuracy of reports, create alternate scenarios, or lay the blame at the feet of someone other than their leaders.

Thinking about the Filioque as an LDS… I would say that the Holy Spirit is a separate god from the heavenly father and Jesus, united only in will. I would deny the historical teachings of the early Christians in conjunction with the accounts of the Holy Spirit being breathed into Adam by the Father and breathed onto the Apostles by Jesus. Therefore eliminating the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son).

Regardless the filioque does point to another issue with classic GA apologetics, the thought that the effects of Greek Philosophy and paganism on early Christianity can be used as an illustration of the Apostasy. This is a classic attack against the early Christians. They adopted Greek thoughts (Neo-Platonism) and pagan religious practices (worshipping idols, holidays, etc), corrupting the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the fact that early Christians, seeking to use the science of philosophy to explain Christian beliefs, adopted Greek terms and ways of speaking does not mean that the beliefs were changed. On the other hand, one can see many Greek and Pagan ideas flourishing in LDS theology. The concept of a heavenly goddess procreating with the god of heaven is clearly evident in many polytheistic pagan religions. The concept of the pre-existence of humans is woven through the works of several different pagan philosophers including Plato. The concept of eternal progression is also present in paganism. Interestingly enough, the early Christians rightly called these adoptions of Greek and Pagan thought heretical and defended the teachings of Christianity against them from the very beginning.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, a caricature has been created out of the history surrounding the Church and its popes over the last two millennia. There are several contributing factors to this. One is a misunderstanding of the Papacy. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. As the head of the church he is responsible for leading the church and its members into a closer union with Christ. However, as the visible head of the Bride of Christ he is not guaranteed to be impeccable, nor are his personal views protected from error. The popes can err as leaders and theologians, and can even be deeply sinful men without violating the authority given to the Church by Christ. The protection of the Holy Spirit over the Pope is only that he will not err when making official statements on faith and morals.

As for the root of temporal abuses, sin is the root of any temporal abuse. Peter was clearly the head of the early Church and he openly denied Christ during the Lord’s passion. Did this invalidate Peter as the leader of the Church? Was the Apostolic Church in apostasy because the leader of the Apostles rejected Christ? I am sure that you have heard this point before, but one ‘blessing’ of the bad popes is that they were so driven by selfish worldly desires that they did not spend their time writing or discussing the teachings of the Church. Because of this they couldn’t do damage to the teaching authority of the Church, or its doctrine.

You claim that, "an LDS would shudder at the thought of a Church led in this manner." Many historians, including some LDS historians, have pointed out grievous acts committed by leaders in the LDS church. Many LDS deny that these acts ever took place, I have spoken to a few Temple Mormon's who are also historians who have admitted to me (in front of missionaries) that it would be very difficult, after analyzing all historical evidence, to deny that the atrocities took place and that LDS leaders were responsible for them.

Most LDS do not shudder at these, they deny the accuracy of reports, create alternate scenarios, or lay the blame at the feet of someone other than their leaders.

Thinking about the Filioque as an LDS… I would say that the Holy Spirit is a separate god from the heavenly father and Jesus, united only in will. I would deny the historical teachings of the early Christians in conjunction with the accounts of the Holy Spirit being breathed into Adam by the Father and breathed onto the Apostles by Jesus. Therefore eliminating the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son).

Regardless the filioque does point to another issue with classic GA apologetics, the thought that the effects of Greek Philosophy and paganism on early Christianity can be used as an illustration of the Apostasy. This is a classic attack against the early Christians. They adopted Greek thoughts (Neo-Platonism) and pagan religious practices (worshipping idols, holidays, etc), corrupting the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the fact that early Christians, seeking to use the science of philosophy to explain Christian beliefs, adopted Greek terms and ways of speaking does not mean that the beliefs were changed. On the other hand, one can see many Greek and Pagan ideas flourishing in LDS theology. The concept of a heavenly goddess procreating with the god of heaven is clearly evident in many polytheistic pagan religions. The concept of the pre-existence of humans is woven through the works of several different pagan philosophers including Plato. The concept of eternal progression is also present in paganism. Interestingly enough, the early Christians rightly called these adoptions of Greek and Pagan thought heretical and defended the teachings of Christianity against them from the very beginning.

Like I said Maynard, I can argue both sides with equal fervor so telling you this or that is, like Connie said, going in circles. Because, all you really have to do is look at that post you just posted in there and consider the alternate possibility and debate with yourself.

You have to invoke the Holy Spirit of promise that you will know what is true if you truly desire to know. But you will have to do lots of humbling and kneeling and praying for personal revelation.

One thing is fact, an LDS Prophet worthy of ex-communication from the LDS Church will not remain Prophet. Peter denying Christ in the situation that he was in was weakness. In his heart, he did not deny Christ. In his heart, he was merely weak. You can't say the same for John XII.

[Maynard]

Now, the second statement. In comparison, let's admit StephenVH, it is not fair in the least.

Let's see, how fast would the LDS church have splintered if only the prophets and apostles were allowed scriptures in their homes?

How fast would the LDS have splintered if they, like the Catholic church, would kill, burn at the stake, anybody who held a different belief and openly taught it?

Yes, it is much easier to keep a church from splintering if you have a self-divine authority to kill anybody who preaches against it.

And thus the debate continues.

Anddenex,

I couldn't let this one go. Could you cite any sources showing how the Catholic Church killed or burned anyone at the stake prior to the 5th century? I would argue you couldn't supply evidence of such before the 9th century, but regardless, the 5th century provides four hundred years of church history absent of the methods you claim were in use. Your claim is shameful. Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, and many others have writings from their non-Catholic periods that have been to some degree preserved to this day. Were any of these prominent men (only one of them died in line with Catholic teaching) killed by the hierarchy , burned at the stake? The Gnostics, Pelagians, Donatist, Arians, etc etc were all preaching against the Church and were not persecuted for it.

As for the comment about scripture, I don't follow. Are you repeating the tired claim that in the pre-printing press era, where the manufacture of the Bibles cost the equivalent of $20,000 the church oppress the nearly 90% of the population that was illiterate by not handing out copies of the Bible for them to keep in their homes? Another blatant misunderstanding of history that any Non-LDS scholar (and many LDS scholars) would find utterly ridiculous. Forget that the Gospel was being preached openly in the streets by men who would eventually be murdered as a consquence. Forget that later in history cathedrals with picture gospels (sculptures, stained glass windows, paintings, mosaics, etc) were erected so that those who could not read could have a standing witness to the scriptural accounts. Otherwise you may have to admit that the Catholic Church wasn't some secretive organization unwilling to debate its ideas, or to share its teachings with nonmembers.

Joseph Smith III left the LDS fold after the death of his father. Some of the witness of the BOM left the church before their deaths. Off shoots of Smith's religion were created and are still in existence. This is an issue that those proposing the GA have to deal with.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex,

I couldn't let this one go. Could you cite any sources showing how the Catholic Church killed or burned anyone at the stake prior to the 5th century? I would argue you couldn't supply evidence of such before the 9th century, but regardless, the 5th century provides four hundred years of church history absent of the methods you claim were in use. Your claim is shameful. Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, and many others have writings from their non-Catholic periods that have been to some degree preserved to this day. Were any of these prominent men (only one of them died in line with Catholic teaching) killed by the hierarchy , burned at the stake? The Gnostics, Pelagians, Donatist, Arians, etc etc were all preaching against the Church and were not persecuted for it.

As for the comment about scripture, I don't follow. Are you repeating the tired claim that in the pre-printing press era, where the manufacture of the Bibles cost the equivalent of $20,000 the church oppress the nearly 90% of the population that was illiterate by not handing out copies of the Bible for them to keep in their homes? Another blatant misunderstanding of history that any Non-LDS scholar (and many LDS scholars) would find utterly ridiculous. Forget that the Gospel was being preached openly in the streets by men who would eventually be murdered as a consquence. Forget that later in history cathedrals with picture gospels (sculptures, stained glass windows, paintings, mosaics, etc) were erected so that those who could not read could have a standing witness to the scriptural accounts. Otherwise you may have to admit that the Catholic Church wasn't some secretive organization unwilling to debate its ideas, or to share its teachings with nonmembers.

Joseph Smith III left the LDS fold after the death of his father. Some of the witness of the BOM left the church before their deaths. Off shoots of Smith's religion were created and are still in existence. This is an issue that those proposing the GA have to deal with.

Not shameful, not ridiculous, as I mentioned "playing the devil's advocate", just history. You can find these yourself.

However, here is some I have found, just by a simple search:

"Pope Innocent VIII - probably the most evil of all the Popes, in the number of innocent men, women and children killed because of his words. Read his moronic declaration against witches in 1484. Essentially, because the causes of disease, bad weather, and other problems were not known in those dark times, their causes were attributed to imaginary witches who must be hidden in the populace."

Rudolph J. Rummel estimates that the Inquisition butchered 350,000 innocent men, women and children.

The Spanish Inquisition.

The Crusades. Rudolph J. Rummel estimates the Crusades killed 1 million innocent civilian men, women and children (not in combat).

Found this on wiki, "Charlemagne allegedly ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons who had been caught practicing their native paganism after conversion to Christianity, known as the Massacre of Verden."

You may want to read a little more into Joseph III. If Emma would have went with the LDS to Utah, this wouldn't have happened.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Anddenex

[Maynard]

Haven't we been through this discussion before?

Catholics have a very different interpretation than anybody else on the verse "upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.".

So, this verse only makes sense in the way you interpret it for Catholics... you, of course, stake your interpretation on My Rock - as Peter, the person.... which leads you to your stand on Apostolic Succession. It doesn't matter that a good number of those successors were worthy of ex-communication from your own Church... because, you know, we can list them one after another year after year from 33 A.D. to 2012.

Of course, as an LDS, Apostolic Succession does not work that way. My Rock, is not merely Peter, the person. My Rock is God's direct revelation which was handed down to Peter which can be made clear if you read the entire Chapter and not just that verse. Apostolic Succession therefore is dependent upon the worthiness of Church Leaders to receive direct revelation from God and be worthy of holding the priesthood keys of binding/sealing on earth.

I have some questions that might help to clear the murky waters. First let me state the premise that m questions are based on so that you can disagree with them if you like.

1. Christ claimed that He would establish His church.

2. Christ indicated that this Church would be present on earth during the time of the Apostles.

3. There are only 2 plausible interpretations of Scripture where Christ's Church is concerned

a) Christ established a Church with a visible form and an authority structure

b) Christ established a Church of believers, the Church is invisible without an earthly head and all authority lies in the word of God rightly interpreted.

Those premises being stated. It is my understanding that Catholics, LDS, and Greek Orthodox all subscribe to 3a. Of these three churches, the LDS church is the alone in believing that the authority of the Church was lost in an apostasy.

The Orthodox would disagree that Peter rules over the other Apostles, but not that he is first in honor among the apostles. They would agree that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church and Apostolic succession is the reason why. The Orthodox even believe that the Catholic Church has valid apostolic succession.

All of that being said, the point made by Stephen seems to be a reasonable point of discussion amongst those who share the belief that Christ established a Church with a visible form and an earthly authority structure. The LDS church has a distinctly different understanding from the other churches that share 3a.

If Christ's Church had as an essential element earthly authority how does the LDS belief live up to Christ's promises about the Church?

If earthly authority is not essential what need is there for a restoration?

On a side note am I hearing that the prophets get revelation because they are worthy spiritually?

Hypothetically, if the LDS prophet were to commit a heinous crime or just be found to be a horribly sinful person in general would that mean that the LDS church was in apostasy?

(I am not making accusations, I have never heard this before and am seeking clarity)

[Maynard]

Not shameful, not ridiculous, as I mentioned "playing the devil's advocate", just history. You can find these yourself.

However, here is some I have found, just by a simple search:

"Pope Innocent VIII - probably the most evil of all the Popes, in the number of innocent men, women and children killed because of his words. Read his moronic declaration against witches in 1484. Essentially, because the causes of disease, bad weather, and other problems were not known in those dark times, their causes were attributed to imaginary witches who must be hidden in the populace."

Rudolph J. Rummel estimates that the Inquisition butchered 350,000 innocent men, women and children.

The Spanish Inquisition.

The Crusades. Rudolph J. Rummel estimates the Crusades killed 1 million innocent civilian men, women and children (not in combat).

Found this on wiki, "Charlemagne allegedly ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons who had been caught practicing their native paganism after conversion to Christianity, known as the Massacre of Verden."

You may want to read a little more into Joseph III. If Emma would have went with the LDS to Utah, this wouldn't have happened.

Anddenex,

We can talk about the points that you brought up if you'd like, but they miss the point that I was attempting to make. You compare the less than 200 year history of the LDS to what happened 600+ years after the Catholic Church was established. You claimed that the LDS would not have had as many splinter groups if it acted as the Catholic Church in killing dissenters. Your argument implies that the Catholic Church employed such practices from its earliest inception. This purposely blurs the line between when the supposed apostasy took place and multiple centuries later.

At issue is the question about splintering during respective eras of each church's history. In which case the question is legitimate. It may have a really great answer, but it is legitimate.

[SteveVH]

This thread has officially hit bottom. Thanks for your input. I think I have a pretty good representation of the Mormon defense of the "Great Apostasy". I don't have enough energy to keep beating this horse.

[Guest]

I have some questions that might help to clear the murky waters. First let me state the premise that m questions are based on so that you can disagree with them if you like.

1. Christ claimed that He would establish His church.

2. Christ indicated that this Church would be present on earth during the time of the Apostles.

3. There are only 2 plausible interpretations of Scripture where Christ's Church is concerned

a) Christ established a Church with a visible form and an authority structure

b) Christ established a Church of believers, the Church is invisible without an earthly head and all authority lies in the word of God rightly interpreted.

Those premises being stated. It is my understanding that Catholics, LDS, and Greek Orthodox all subscribe to 3a. Of these three churches, the LDS church is the alone in believing that the authority of the Church was lost in an apostasy.

The Orthodox would disagree that Peter rules over the other Apostles, but not that he is first in honor among the apostles. They would agree that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church and Apostolic succession is the reason why. The Orthodox even believe that the Catholic Church has valid apostolic succession.

All of that being said, the point made by Stephen seems to be a reasonable point of discussion amongst those who share the belief that Christ established a Church with a visible form and an earthly authority structure. The LDS church has a distinctly different understanding from the other churches that share 3a.

LDS view: Neither a nor b are completely correct.

Yes, Christ's Church has the organizational structure - but why? Because, the keys of revelation is given through this structure of authority. So, yes, you need the Apostolic organization but the purpose of which is to receive direct revelation and not just some arbitrary "Apostolic Succession".

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? …

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So, reading these lines (better to read the entire chapter), you can see that Peter was blessed because he received revelation. And so he was given the keys of the kingdom to preside over the church organization.

Now, let's talk about the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it". What is a gate? A gate is merely a passageway. A gate does not force anything to enter or exit - it is merely present to prevent/allow something from entering/exiting the other side. So the verse that says "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" does not mean that Evil shall not overcome the Rock. Because that doesn't make sense for a mere GATE to have that power.

So, in LDS understanding, the verse "Upon this rock I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means -

The Church will be built upon the rock of Revelation for which Peter was given the authority to receive. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it means that even those who have died without having heard of this revelation will hear it because the gates of hell will not stop the Revelation from pouring forth to the other side. And so Peter, holding the keys, can bind on earth and it will thus be bound in heaven - and because the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, that means that even those who are dead may be bound on earth (hence, we have our temple ordinances for the dead).

So, as you can see - this entire chapter has a completely different understanding in LDS doctrine and has nothing at all to do with "Apostolic Succession".

If Christ's Church had as an essential element earthly authority how does the LDS belief live up to Christ's promises about the Church?

What promises are we talking about? Are you talking about the "gates of hell" thing? I explained that above.

If earthly authority is not essential what need is there for a restoration?

It is very essential, hence it needed to be restored.

On a side note am I hearing that the prophets get revelation because they are worthy spiritually?

Hypothetically, if the LDS prophet were to commit a heinous crime or just be found to be a horribly sinful person in general would that mean that the LDS church was in apostasy?

(I am not making accusations, I have never heard this before and am seeking clarity)

Yes, revelation is only given through proper priesthood keys. Priesthood keys is not just the "act" of putting someone's hands over someone's head. It is the fulfillment of the covenant that goes with the priesthood.

Any LDS priest from Prophet to Deacon will lose their priesthood authority if they are not worthy to have the Holy Spirit dwell within them. Committing heinous crimes is one way to lose it.

A prophet who commits a heinous crime will lose his priesthood authority and would then lose his ability to be a seer and revelator. The prophet will be in a state of apostasy until he completes the requirements of repentance upon which he may have his priesthood keys restored. A prophet who is in a state of apostasy cannot remain a prophet. The prophetic keys will be handed down to those worthy to hold it.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not go into complete apostasy unless God removes the authority of the Church to receive revelation. This is what I've been trying to tell you about the Great Apostasy. Saying that the Church was in complete apostasy is not merely because this Pope and that Pope did heinous crimes. The sinful Popes as well as the arguments over doctrine and everything else written by Talmage in his book, were merely signs or indicators of an Apostate Church . The complete apostasy occured because God Himself took the power of revelation from the Church. And that's something that you can only know whether it is true or not by seeking confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

Edited September 26, 2012 by anatess