Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[SteveVH]

For example you discredit modern findings on what the early christian church believed that supports LDS teaching by making the claim that is was from a heretical group... and therefore not valid.

Modern findings? You forget. Our Church was there and we have written records of what the early Church believed. These records are undisputed. If you choose to follow doctrines of heretical groups whose beliefs contradict what the early Church believed you are free to do so, but we know very well what the early Church believed; it is documented for all to see. So compare and contrast away. Read the determination of the early councils. Read the early Church Fathers. Then read those found to be heretics. It is they who strayed from the deposit of faith given by the Apostles.

[Vort]

Modern findings? You forget. Our Church was there and we have written records of what the early Church believed. These records are undisputed.

Surely you jest. Surely you cannot actually believe this. There was nothing BUT dispute on these points. One school of thought won out, and the others were destroyed along with their documents -- in the case of the documents, literally destroyed, burned as heretical.

[estradling75]

Modern findings? You forget. Our Church was there and we have written records of what the early Church believed. These records are undisputed. If you choose to follow doctrines of heretical groups whose beliefs contradict what the early Church believed you are free to do so, but we know very well what the early Church believed; it is documented for all to see. So compare and contrast away. Read the determination of the early councils. Read the early Church Fathers. Then read those found to be heretics. It is they who strayed from the deposit of faith given by the Apostles.

Early Church as in 400 years after Christ? When they had their councils, came up with their creeds, established their cannon and burned and destroyed any thing that disagreed with what they came up with?

Sorry but your solid evidence reads as anything but.

[Maynard]

Which I gave clear back in post 6

http://www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/48699-evidence-great-apostasy.html#post697919

And like everyone else I give more weight to that supports what I believe... For example you discredit modern findings on what the early christian church believed that supports LDS teaching by making the claim that is was from a heretical group... and therefore not valid. Yet from the LDS that belief that an apostasy occurred and that the Catholic church lost doctrine then the logical place to find it would be in groups that the Catholic church considers heretical. Thus 'proof' is exactly were we would expect to find it and were you will not accept it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.

So while you might be critical of us saying we believe because we believe... we see you doing the same thing

I don't discredit the teachings of the heretical sects as evidence for the LDS cause. I actually see many similarities between the greek influenced beliefs of gnostics and what the LDS believe, specifically where the natures of gods and men are concerned. There is however, no clear development of these beliefs from the early church to the gnostic beliefs, or from the gnostic beliefs to the LDS doctrine peculiar to the restored church. Irenaeus writes clearly on these gnostic beliefs in his book "Against Heresies." Included in this is Irenaeus's discussion on how it can be difficult to determine who is correct because the gnostics use the scriptures (twisting them) to support their claims. Because both groups relied on the Scriptures as the authority for their case a higher authority must be appealed to. Irenaeus then traces the lineage of the Bishop of Rome from his day back to the Apostle Peter claiming that the bishops in this succession all shared the same Christian doctrine. If you are in line with the first and most glorious church, the church in Rome founded upon the greatest Apostles Peter and Paul then you are in line with the Truth. So said Irenaeus.

Regardless I don't discount the heretical writings as evidence, and I would embrace the LDS making such a case publicly as a step forward in the legitimacy of their argumentation.

[estradling75]

Regardless I don't discount the heretical writings as evidence, and I would embrace the LDS making such a case publicly as a step forward in the legitimacy of their argumentation.

Do you think God really cares about legitimacy of argumentation?

I'd say he does not. I'd say he cares about souls. He gets those by getting people on their knees praying for his guidance and help. That is the thrust of the LDS church.

[Maynard]

Surely you jest. Surely you cannot actually believe this. There was nothing BUT dispute on these points. One school of thought won out, and the others were destroyed along with their documents -- in the case of the documents, literally destroyed, burned as heretical.

I would love to read a book by any non partisan historian on this. I have studied under great professors of history Jewish, agnostic, and atheist, who would vehemently disagree with these claims. There is no doubt that the gnostic texts were not preserved but the idea that there was nothing but dispute on these points is an exaggeration. At the height of the Arian Heresy 75% of the bishops held a heretical stance. The early Catholic Church was not heterodox.

[SteveVH]

Early Church as in 400 years after Christ?

We could start with the New Testament. Then we could go on to the early Church Fathers whose writings begin in the early 2nd century, such as St. Ignatius who was a co-worker and disciple of St. John the Apostle and was martyred in 110 A.D., or Polycarp who was a student of St. John. You know, that early Church.

When they had their councils, came up with their creeds, established their cannon and burned and destroyed any thing that disagreed with what they came up with?

Yes, those dirty rotten scoundrels. How dare they protect the faith given to them by the Apostles from heretical beliefs. Just who did they think they were? You go get em.

Edited September 21, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

I would love to read a book by any non partisan historian on this. I have studied under great professors of history Jewish, agnostic, and atheist, who would vehemently disagree with these claims. There is no doubt that the gnostic texts were not preserved but the idea that there was nothing but dispute on these points is an exaggeration. At the height of the Arian Heresy 75% of the bishops held a heretical stance. The early Catholic Church was not heterodox.

I was just getting ready to post on this and saw that you beat me to it. Don't have anything really to add. It is certainly no secret that the Church has battled heresy from the beginning but the idea that one side simply won out over the other and it happened to be the false doctrines of the Catholic Church is ludicrous. Once again the promises of Christ himself to remain with his Church and to guide into all truth through the Holy Spirit must be completley ignored in order to buy into this.

[estradling75]

We could start with the New Testament. Then we could go on to the early Church Fathers whose writings begin in the early 2nd century, such as St. Ignatius who was a co-worker and disciple of St. John the Apostle and was martyred in 110 A.D., or Polycarp who was a student of St. John. You know, that early Church.

Yes, those dirty rotten scoundrels. How dare they protect the faith given to them by the Apostles from heretical beliefs. Just who did they think they were?

Right... which is fine if you believe they had the authority then and were lead by God on what to keep. (Which you do) But if you believe the apostasy was in full swing at this point, then it become about politics and power, with the will of God being trampled under by the feet of men.

I was just getting ready to post on this and saw that you beat me to it. Don't have anything really to add. It is certainly no secret that the Church has battled heresy from the beginning but the idea that one side simply won out over the other and it happened to be the false doctrines of the Catholic Church is ludicrous. Once again the promises of Christ himself to remain with his Church and to guide into all truth through the Holy Spirit must be completley ignored in order to buy into this.

You keep saying this... With the subtext that the Church must be the Catholic church... And yet every other Christan church would disagree with such a narrow interpretation

[Jason_J]

Orthodox and Catholic doctrines are nearly identical and the differences that do exist are extremely minor. One is the "filioque". Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Orthodox believe in the primacy of the Pope, but not his supremacy. Catholics believe both. Those are the major differences. The foundational doctrines held by the Church since the beginning are believed by both without any difference. And both have valid apostolic succession. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox as the other lung; together we breathe life into the Body of Christ. They have extremely beautiful and rich liturgies and valid sacraments. The situation isn't near as grim as you wish to paint it. I would feel very much at home in the Orthodox Church.

Like I mentioned, Catholics tend to be more "forgiving" on this matter than Orthodox. This is readily seen on the multitude of debates over on Catholic Answers Forum (and some Catholic posters have even said as much), and can be seen at Orthodox Christianity Forums and Monachos. Orthodox certainly wouldn't accept a belief that they are "the other lung" to the Catholic Church. And many Orthodox apologists and scholars would not agree that "the foundational doctrines held by the Church since the beginning are believed by both without any difference" (that depends on what you are referring to as the "foundational doctrines"). Also, the Papacy is a very interesting issue, since that's one of the things I was thinking about when I mentioned that Catholics and Orthodox look at the same ECFs, the same history, and come to different conclusions. How many discussions have I seen at CAF where each side slings ECF quotes at the other to prove/disprove whether the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and supremacy. There are books by Catholics and books by Orthodox (I have them) quoting the Church Fathers to prove their view on that matter. Very interesting in light of this discussion.

So, while I appreciate your perspective, shared by many Catholics, it is not shared by many Orthodox when discussing their relationship with the Catholic Church. Orthodox Christian Information Center provides a little taste of that, FWIW.

[Jason_J]

Once again the promises of Christ himself to remain with his Church and to guide into all truth through the Holy Spirit must be completley ignored in order to buy into this.

Latter-day Saints do not ignore any promises of Christ.

Mormon Answers: Questions about the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Apostasy, Authority, Restoration)

[Guest]

Like I mentioned, Catholics tend to be more "forgiving" on this matter than Orthodox. This is readily seen on the multitude of debates over on Catholic Answers Forum (and some Catholic posters have even said as much), and can be seen at Orthodox Christianity Forums and Monachos. Orthodox certainly wouldn't accept a belief that they are "the other lung" to the Catholic Church. And many Orthodox apologists and scholars would not agree that "the foundational doctrines held by the Church since the beginning are believed by both without any difference" (that depends on what you are referring to as the "foundational doctrines"). Also, the Papacy is a very interesting issue, since that's one of the things I was thinking about when I mentioned that Catholics and Orthodox look at the same ECFs, the same history, and come to different conclusions. How many discussions have I seen at CAF where each side slings ECF quotes at the other to prove/disprove whether the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and supremacy. There are books by Catholics and books by Orthodox (I have them) quoting the Church Fathers to prove their view on that matter. Very interesting in light of this discussion.

So, while I appreciate your perspective, shared by many Catholics, it is not shared by many Orthodox when discussing their relationship with the Catholic Church. Orthodox Christian Information Center provides a little taste of that, FWIW.

Jason, do you kinda feel this same thing I feel when I look back to the times when we debated the Orthodox vehemently as Catholics? I mean, in the Philippines, there was a "wider divide" than what I see here in the States - which is either a newer trend in the Catholic Church or just something that was different in the Philippines. But I had those pow-wows, especially with the Anglicans, and I was saying all the same things that Steve is saying here. You must have had the same experience, as I knew you were quite a loud voice in Catholicism. I still look back on those days fondly which gives me great respect for Catholics taking on the issue of the Great Apostasy and "keeping their cool".

[Maynard]

Right... which is fine if you believe they had the authority then and were lead by God on what to keep. (Which you do) But if you believe the apostasy was in full swing at this point, then it become about politics and power, with the will of God being trampled under by the feet of men.

You keep saying this... With the subtext that the Church must be the Catholic church... And yet every other Christan church would disagree with such a narrow interpretation

Estradling,

Let me first say that I am willing to acknowledge that God does not always guide history down what men would consider the most likely path. Also, I do not consider this an confession of any spiritual truths. I would like to ask you the following question.

From a purely historical perspective, doesn't it make more sense that the coworkers and students of the Apostles, (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and others) would be preservers of the teachings of the Apostles rather than die for a teaching that they did not learn from the apostles?

Put another way, would the logical place to look for the teachings of the Apostles be the writings of their students?

[Guest]

I would love to read a book by any non partisan historian on this. I have studied under great professors of history Jewish, agnostic, and atheist, who would vehemently disagree with these claims. There is no doubt that the gnostic texts were not preserved but the idea that there was nothing but dispute on these points is an exaggeration. At the height of the Arian Heresy 75% of the bishops held a heretical stance. The early Catholic Church was not heterodox.

This will sound stupid and crazy... But as Catholics, we know the history, we know the challenges, we know what the Catholics say about them. I really didn't need the other versions to pinpoint possible points of apostasy. The thing really is to ponder those same historical events that we already know in the light of a possible apostate state and see how it could be possible.

For example, we know the history of Pope Leo III. Read with the possibility of an Apostasy in mind, it takes on a different shade. Of course, no devout Catholic in their right minds would see anything but a papacy here with full sanction of God.

[estradling75]

From a purely historical perspective, doesn't it make more sense that the coworkers and students of the Apostles, (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and others) would be preservers of the teachings of the Apostles rather than die for a teaching that they did not learn from the apostles?

Put another way, would the logical place to look for the teachings of the Apostles be the writings of their students?

Logically if you were limited to purely human methods... But also logically if you believe in an Unchanging God that did reveal the truths in the past then he seems like the best source to go to when you have reason to doubt...

I don't know if you have ever played a game where you whisper in someones ear a sentence... Then they try their best to past that along to someone else and then on to do someone else etc... Then you compare the final sentence as the person heard it with the first sentence spoken and then see how wildly different the message is.

That is what we have here when it comes to doctrine. Over two thousand years the message is remarkably well preserved. You claim perfectly, we claim there are there are distortions, omissions, losses.

And unlike teaching or doctrine, authority can not be gleaned from someone's notes. Either it is an unbroken line or it was broken and no amount of papers or document or well wishes will restore it. Catholic's claim it from Peter who got it from Christ which would be valid if it remained unbroken. Catholic make that claim knowing it hangs on the weakest link, if any one of those early links from Peter is invalid in the eyes of God its game over. They would be just another Christan Church and a restoration (which we claim) is necessary.

[Maynard]

This will sound stupid and crazy... But as Catholics, we know the history, we know the challenges, we know what the Catholics say about them. I really didn't need the other versions to pinpoint possible points of apostasy. The thing really is to ponder those same historical events that we already know in the light of a possible apostate state and see how it could be possible.

For example, we know the history of Pope Leo III. Read with the possibility of an Apostasy in mind, it takes on a different shade. Of course, no devout Catholic in their right minds would see anything but a papacy here with full sanction of God.

I see two ways to interpret the dispute over the filioque. 1. Pope Leo III denied the legitimacy of the filioque and thought that it was an erroneous doctrine. 2. Pope Leo III believed in theological implications of the filioque but wanting to preserve unity and knowing it wasn't necessary he decided to leave it out of the symbol.

In light of the potential apostasy, I can see how one would assume that the Pope is illustrating a loss of authority/or a lack there of. If the authority was lost in early 800 during a high profile split between the East and West one is acting in authority and the other is stepping away from that authority. The authority disappearing all together, I don't understand.

[Guest]

I see two ways to interpret the dispute over the filioque. 1. Pope Leo III denied the legitimacy of the filioque and thought that it was an erroneous doctrine. 2. Pope Leo III believed in theological implications of the filioque but wanting to preserve unity and knowing it wasn't necessary he decided to leave it out of the symbol.

In light of the potential apostasy, I can see how one would assume that the Pope is illustrating a loss of authority/or a lack there of. If the authority was lost in early 800 during a high profile split between the East and West one is acting in authority and the other is stepping away from that authority. The authority disappearing all together, I don't understand.

I'm not talking about the filioque. I'm talking about the conditions of him becoming Pope in the first place and his wrestling of power with Charlemagne. Even as a Catholic, you have to admit... there's something questionable about it. The dispute with the filioque was just one of the end results of that whole affair.

I do not believe the Apostasy occurred under one Pope. I believe the Apostasy started early in the Church and became complete sometime in the reign of Leo III. So many Popes that followed this have been really quite controversial - so that even in Catholic History class in high school, it gave me pause. That business with Pope Formosus was quite bizarre. And then you got Pope John XII among other really interesting characters.

P.S. What about the "authority disappearing altogether" do you have difficulty with?

Edited September 22, 2012 by anatess

[Maynard]

I'm not talking about the filioque. I'm talking about the conditions of him becoming Pope in the first place and his wrestling of power with Charlemagne. Even as a Catholic, you have to admit... there's something questionable about it. The dispute with the filioque was just one of the end results of that whole affair.

I do not believe the Apostasy occurred under one Pope. I believe the Apostasy started early in the Church and became complete sometime in the reign of Leo III. So many Popes that followed this have been really quite controversial - so that even in Catholic History class in high school, it gave me pause. That business with Pope Formosus was quite bizarre. And then you got Pope John XII among other really interesting characters.

P.S. What about the "authority disappearing altogether" do you have difficulty with?

I think that a reading of some primary sources such as the Lorsch Annals, the Frankish Royal Annals, Liber Pontificalis, and Charles Einhard (close friend and biographer of Charlemagne) you might have a different view of the relationship between Charlemagne and Leo III. Even when I was no friend of the Catholic Church I never viewed the relationship of those two men as a struggle for power. Church state dynamics were something that continually must be sorted out.

As for John XII, Pope Stephen VI and Formosus, and Alexander the VII whom you failed to mention, do you account for personal piety when considering authority? I am sure you know that Catholics have never believed that the truth of the faith relies on the personal piety of those administering it. While the faithful can be scandalized and continue to be scandalized by the immorality shown by former leaders of the Church, that immorality has no effect on the deposit of the faith, nor does it invalidate their authority. Look at the writings of Alexander VII instructing the members of the Church on faith and morals.

I honestly have no clue what the LDS teach in regards to this. If the current Prophet of the Church were caught in an adulterous affair, or paying a hit man, or something similar, would he be removed from his position? Would it be a sign that the LDS had fallen into apostasy?

Why do I have an issue with authority disappearing altogether. We all agree that the authority was there in the first place. There are clear indications in the New Testament of the idea of authority continuing in the church. If one church that makes up the whole of Christianity splits into two Churches over an issue they cannot resolve, and each church claims that it is THE Church that maintains that authority, why would one deduce that the authority had disappeared? I cannot think of a similar situation in which both players would lose their authority.

[Guest]

I think that a reading of some primary sources such as the Lorsch Annals, the Frankish Royal Annals, Liber Pontificalis, and Charles Einhard (close friend and biographer of Charlemagne) you might have a different view of the relationship between Charlemagne and Leo III. Even when I was no friend of the Catholic Church I never viewed the relationship of those two men as a struggle for power. Church state dynamics were something that continually must be sorted out.

As for John XII, Pope Stephen VI and Formosus, and Alexander the VII whom you failed to mention, do you account for personal piety when considering authority? I am sure you know that Catholics have never believed that the truth of the faith relies on the personal piety of those administering it. While the faithful can be scandalized and continue to be scandalized by the immorality shown by former leaders of the Church, that immorality has no effect on the deposit of the faith, nor does it invalidate their authority. Look at the writings of Alexander VII instructing the members of the Church on faith and morals.

I honestly have no clue what the LDS teach in regards to this. If the current Prophet of the Church were caught in an adulterous affair, or paying a hit man, or something similar, would he be removed from his position? Would it be a sign that the LDS had fallen into apostasy?

Why do I have an issue with authority disappearing altogether. We all agree that the authority was there in the first place. There are clear indications in the New Testament of the idea of authority continuing in the church. If one church that makes up the whole of Christianity splits into two Churches over an issue they cannot resolve, and each church claims that it is THE Church that maintains that authority, why would one deduce that the authority had disappeared? I cannot think of a similar situation in which both players would lose their authority.

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!

[SteveVH]

Right... which is fine if you believe they had the authority then and were lead by God on what to keep. (Which you do) But if you believe the apostasy was in full swing at this point, then it become about politics and power, with the will of God being trampled under by the feet of men.

You keep saying this... With the subtext that the Church must be the Catholic church... And yet every other Christan church would disagree with such a narrow interpretation

Okay. I'll bite. Please give me the name of the other church or chuches in existence prior to the schism of 1054? The early Church received the name "Catholic" in the first century because of its universal nature.

Edited September 23, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Latter-day Saints do not ignore any promises of Christ.

Mormon Answers: Questions about the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Apostasy, Authority, Restoration)

Do you believe this?

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

Or this?

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18)

Or this?

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” (John 16:12-15)

These are promises that Jesus made to his Church through the Apostles. They are commanded to "go and make disciples of all nations...". The succession of their authority would be an absolute necessity in order for them to accomplish this task. I think we can safely assume that Jesus knew very well that the Apostles, being mortal men, would someday die. This is Jesus' Church and Jesus has divine authority, in fact all authority in heaven and earth had been given to him. He passed this authority on to his Church. The Church was to continue Christ's mission. It would be Christ's presence on earth as he promised to remain with it until the end of the age (until he comes again).

Christ was not dependent upon man in order for his Church to fulfill its mission on earth. Indeed, inspite of man (no honest Catholic will dispute the fact that we have had some bad actors in our history), his Church flourished. It is not dependent upon the personal holiness of any individual. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The truth is, however, that by far, the great majority of Catholic Popes have been men of incredible sanctity and holiness. Only about 10 out of 266 Popes, over a period of 2000 years, can be said to have been corrupt (and several of these were really bad). That's about 3%. 97% have been great and holy men. I only bring this up because of the myths that are out there among those that choose to charactarize the extreme minority as representative of the entire body. Not a single one of the "bad popes" made an ex cathedra pronouncement that affected doctrine.

[Traveler]

Do you believe this?

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

Or this?

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18)

Or this?

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” (John 16:12-15)

These are promises that Jesus made to his Church through the Apostles. They are commanded to "go and make disciples of all nations...". The succession of their authority would be an absolute necessity in order for them to accomplish this task. I think we can safely assume that Jesus knew very well that the Apostles, being mortal men, would someday die. This is Jesus' Church and Jesus has divine authority, in fact all authority in heaven and earth had been given to him. He passed this authority on to his Church. The Church was to continue Christ's mission. It would be Christ's presence on earth as he promised to remain with it until the end of the age (until he comes again).

Christ was not dependent upon man in order for his Church to fulfill its mission on earth. Indeed, inspite of man (no honest Catholic will dispute the fact that we have had some bad actors in our history), his Church flourished. It is not dependent upon the personal holiness of any individual. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The truth is, however, that by far, the great majority of Catholic Popes have been men of incredible sanctity and holiness. Only about 10 out of 266 Popes, over a period of 2000 years, can be said to have been corrupt (and several of these were really bad). That's about 3%. 97% have been great and holy men. I only bring this up because of the myths that are out there among those that choose to charactarize the extreme minority as representative of the entire body. Not a single one of the "bad popes" made an ex cathedra pronouncement that affected doctrine.

It is our understanding as LDS that G-d will always stand behind his covenants and those that keep their covenants before G-d. That G-d will keep his promises forever. It is important to note that G-d made covenants with Israel (see Isaiah 61:8, Jeremiah 32:40 and 1Chronicles 16:17). In the days of Jesus the Pharisees and Scribes used your same arguments that such promises meant that authority had remained with the Jews and there was no need for the Baptism of John the Baptist or for the revelations of Jesus.

I personally believe that ancient Biblical history is a type and shadow of things to come (see Ecclesiastes 1:9) That when Jesus comes again there will be many things will accrue according to the prophesy in Ecclesiastes in a like manner as we see at the time of Jesus. That the arguments of the Pharisees and Scribes concerning traditions will be used again against the restoration is sacred things in preparations for Jesus' return.

The term Apostasy is to the LDS a falling away and was prophesied in Thessalonians Chapter 2. Note that this prophesy says that Jesus will not return until there has been an Apostasy or in the words of the scripture - a falling away first.

For my final point at this time, I point to Danial chapter 2. I submit that the kingdom of Iron is the Roman empire. I submit that according to prophesy that the Roman empire will be divided into 2 parts or kingdoms as symbolically represented by the legs of the figure. Then later in history that the Roman empire will be divided into 10 kingdoms that will be connected but weakened as symbolized with iron mixed with clay. Then in those "days" of those kings - is the time foretold that G-d will establish his kingdom that is the kingdom that will not be left to others. That is the kingdom over which Jesus will preside as King when he returns.

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

[estradling75]

Okay. I'll bite. Please give me the name of the other church or chuches in existence prior to the schism of 1054? The early Church received the name "Catholic" in the first century because of its universal nature.

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.

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.

[Jason_J]

Do you believe this?

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

Or this?

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18)

Or this?

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” (John 16:12-15)

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.

[Jason_J]

Okay. I'll bite. Please give me the name of the other church or chuches in existence prior to the schism of 1054? The early Church received the name "Catholic" in the first century because of its universal nature.

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