The Great Apostasy: A Timeline


spamlds
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul and John both taught about rejecting teachers who teach doctrine different than what they taught. That's my objective. How can someone follow that objective if they have to ignore what they already believe about the Bible while investigating the LDS church?

 

Haha. Yeah. Because what people believe about the Bible defines truth... Oh...wait.  People believe all sorts of different stuff about the Bible?

 

Everyone who views the Bible differently thinks their (or their church's) interpretation is the right one. And yet they all believe differently.

 

You expect us to just fall down, roll over, and abandon ours just because you believe differently. On what? Your logic is better than ours?

 

At least we recommend prayer when we are suggesting people question their long-held beliefs. We ask them to turn to God. You're asking us to turn to some man or to a committee of men's views. Actually, since you haven't revealed your faith, you're really asking us to just turn to your views.

 

I think I'm going with prayer and the Spirit over you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...At least we recommend prayer when we are suggesting people question their long-held beliefs. We ask them to turn to God. You're asking us to turn to some man or to a committee of men's views....

 

But TFP, don't you also believe that turning to God, also means accepting "some man" as in Joseph Smith and "a committee of men's views" like words from modern day Prophets, if one wishes to become a member of your church. Yes, you believe that these "men" speak for God, but they are still men.

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please cite the doctrine that we teach that contradicts Paul and John. I suspect it may contradict your understanding of what they are saying or lack of understanding on what we truly believe.

Also, please tell us what denomination of Christianity you are a part of so that we can have a better discussion.

For one thing, don't you include the doctrine of 3 kingdoms in heaven as part of your Gospel? If a protestant asks you why they should join your church since they already have faith in Christ, would you refer to that doctrine in some way?

But Paul and John didn't say there are 3 kingdoms in heaven and they certainly didn't include it in the Gospel they taught. So a Gospel with 3 heavenly kingdoms is not the Gospel Paul taught.

chapelbythesea.com

baxterroadchurch.com

I went to the Chapel for about 10 year before I moved to another area of town near Baxter. Praise God that shortly after I moved, the two churches started partnering up on various ministries including sending mission teams to bush Alaskan villages. That's my church family. As the Chapel page says, we're non-denominational so we're not tied down to what any men or creeds say. We just follow the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But TFP, don't you also believe that turning to God, also means accepting "some man" as in Joseph Smith and "a committee of men's views" like words from modern day Prophets, if one wishes to become a member of your church. Yes, you believe that these "men" speak for God, but they are still men.

 

M.

 

I do not, nor have I ever taken Joseph Smith's word for it. Neither have i ever just taken Paul's word for it. Or any other prophet or apostle.

 

This entire thread, and many like it, we LDS consistently claim that the Spirit teaches us the truth and it is by the Spirit that we know what is right and what is wrong, and who is and who isn't a prophet.

 

That men lead the church, and write scripture, and prophesy, and give us Gods' word, is obvious. But whether to accept any given man as a prophet REQUIRES the Spirit.

 

And my belief has no bearing on whether these men are speaking for God. My belief does not make the Bible true. No one's belief has any bearing on the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jungler wrote:

 

"That's my church family. As the Chapel page says, we're non-denominational so we're not tied down to what any men or creeds say. We just follow the Bible."

 

You do realize that the three thousand or so Christian sects today all claim to do the same thing--follow the Bible.  That's why there's so much contention and division between them.  Each one thinks that the others are in error and none of them have any keys or authority to declare what is true.  That's not how Jesus set it up.

 

Faith4's views are much more "Mormon" in their nature because she recognizes that there must be a central authority.  Otherwise, it's spiritual anarchy.  Let me share a personal example from my wife.

 

Before she converted to Mormonism, she grew up going to a Methodist church with her mother in the small town where she lived.  When she got into her teen years, she stated going to the Baptist Church because they had an active youth group, whereas the Methodist congregation didn't have any teens, just old ladies.  Of course, the Baptists had their own take on things and they mildly disparaged the Methodists.  Then, seeking a closer walk with the Lord, she started attending an Assemblies of God church.  These folks believed in spiritual gifts, like prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc.  

 

In one of their meetings, as the "Spirit" began to work in the congregation, one man stood up and "prophesied" something under the influence of this "Spirit."  Another man was offended by what the other guy had said and began shouting, "That's false!  I rebuke you!  I rebuke you!"  Meanwhile there were people joining sides and a big fracas ensued.  She realized then and there that it wasn't the Spirit moving these people, because God's house is a house of order, not one of confusion.  

 

This is what comes from "just following the Bible." There's so much that the Bible doesn't tell us.  It doesn't tell exactly how to perform a baptism.  It doesn't say what the duties of a bishop are and how they're different from an elder's duties. It doesn't.  The reason it doesn't tell us those things because the Church was guided by living prophets and apostles and the Holy Ghost guided them.  They imparted delegated authority to others to administer the Church.  They didn't write all of this stuff down because, as long as there was the true Church, there would be key-holders who could preside and direct the Church.

 

The Bible is not an instruction book on how to run the Church.  It is immeasurably valuable as a source of inspiration and instruction for one's own benefit.  However, if you took the Bible alone and dropped it off into one of those Stone Age tribes in South America or the Philippines that never had contact with the outside world, and then you didn't come back for 500 years to check on them.  I guarantee you that, in reading the Bible, they wouldn't come up with anything that looks remotely like any Catholic or Protestant church today.  They'd never read the Bible alone and come up with a Triune God, one without body, parts or passions.  They'd never arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is his own Father and that he prayed to himself in Gethsemane.  

 

The world needs to understand that the Bible is the product of the Church, not the creator of it.  The foundation of the Church is revelation--that is the rock that Jesus told Peter to build his church upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do all LDS agree on how to interpret all LDS scripture and propehecy? If there is some disagreement, does that make both sides wrong? Of course not. That would be absurd. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make you both wrong.

Yes, that Assemblies of God was not following the Bible. So what? Why does their mistake mean Protestant churches aren't following the Bible?

You're right that an isolated tribe studying the Bible wouldn't get it right. But it's a faulty analogy. Protestants don't study the Bible in isolation. If that tribe had access to data on the Hebrew and Greek, historical information on how people lived and what was happening in Biblical cities and basic training in how to determine what an original author was saying to the original audience and how it can translate to modern times, then they would get pretty close. They wouldn't be identical because some issues, like style of music, is flexible. Many churches don't follow those principles. They care more about what they feel the Bible is saying than actually looking for the original meaning. That doesn't mean those of us who do carefully read the Bible are wrong.

The original word for baptism meant 'immerse.' Some people don't care about the original word and invent the idea of sprinkling, but that doesn't make the immersion people wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jungler,

 

Every Protestant denomination has differences of interpretation of what the Bible means.  You say that Protestants don't study the Bible in isolation.  Then why don't they agree?  Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopals, Lutherans all have different teachings on who should be baptized, when they should be baptized, how they must be baptized, or if baptism is required at all.

 

One teaches that only "saved" people should be baptized.  Others consider baptism a necessary part of the spiritual regeneration to become "saved."  Some believe it remits sins.  Others believe it's just a nice, optional token--a public display of an inner commitment.

 

One of the things they disagree on is WHO can baptize.  Several years ago, I corresponded with a non-Mormon who went to an evangelical church like you describe.  It was unaffiliated with any denomination.  They just based their actions and their teachings on the Bible.  Then, their hireling pastor left them for greener pastures.  Shortly thereafter, while they were still seeking to hire another preacher, a few new people wanted to be baptized.  A sharp disagreement arose among them that was about to split the church in two.  Some members argued from the Bible, that only an ordained minister could perform the ordinance.  Others argued that anyone could do it, or that one of their "deacons" could baptize.  

 

The contention could not be resolved from the Bible.  These people studied it our long and hard and they could not resolve the issue.  Many people left the church because of the confusion and ill will and started their own church.  

 

If you study the various denominations and their teachings, you'll discover that some Baptist churches won't accept the baptisms performed by some other Baptist churches!  

 

If we were to take Mormonism out of the picture entirely, and this discussion was happening between Jungler (a Protestant) and Faith4 (a Catholic) we would never see agreement on many issues.  Yet both of you rely upon the Bible for your truth.  Are a billion Catholics reading the Bible wrong, yet you and your little church group right because you read the Bible differently?  

 

That's the very reason God gave the world the Book of Mormon.  It settles those differences.  It unites the body of Christ.  Those who find it is true find that truth through personal revelation.  It points seekers toward the true Church, the one that has authority, living prophets and apostles, and the understanding on how, when, and why ordinances are to be performed.

 

As a final point, Jungler says that his church follows the Bible.  I must suppose then that they are performing baptisms for the dead, because that's mentioned in 1st Corinthians 15:29.  If not, they're not following the Bible are they?

 

Do all LDS agree on how to interpret all LDS scripture and propehecy? If there is some disagreement, does that make both sides wrong? Of course not. That would be absurd. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make you both wrong.

Yes, that Assemblies of God was not following the Bible. So what? Why does their mistake mean Protestant churches aren't following the Bible?

You're right that an isolated tribe studying the Bible wouldn't get it right. But it's a faulty analogy. Protestants don't study the Bible in isolation. If that tribe had access to data on the Hebrew and Greek, historical information on how people lived and what was happening in Biblical cities and basic training in how to determine what an original author was saying to the original audience and how it can translate to modern times, then they would get pretty close. They wouldn't be identical because some issues, like style of music, is flexible. Many churches don't follow those principles. They care more about what they feel the Bible is saying than actually looking for the original meaning. That doesn't mean those of us who do carefully read the Bible are wrong.

The original word for baptism meant 'immerse.' Some people don't care about the original word and invent the idea of sprinkling, but that doesn't make the immersion people wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If we were to take Mormonism out of the picture entirely, and this discussion was happening between Jungler (a Protestant) and Faith4 (a Catholic) we would never see agreement on many issues.  Yet both of you rely upon the Bible for your truth.  We rely upon Scripture and Tradition, not the Bible alone.  Tradition encompasses the teachings and instructions that have been handed down by the Apostles themselves and taught and continued throughout the centuries.  Both of these together are guided by the Magesterium of the Church.  Are a billion Catholics reading the Bible wrong, yet you and your little church group right because you read the Bible differently?  

 

That's the very reason God gave the world the Book of Mormon.  It settles those differences.  Not really.  The BOM doesn't contain some of your core teachings either, and it has undergone several scriptural changes over the years.  The one you have now is not the same as the original version.  It unites the body of Christ.  Those who find it is true find that truth through personal revelation. That was not my experience. It points seekers toward the true Church, the one that has authority, living prophets and apostles, and the understanding on how, when, and why ordinances are to be performed. 

 

As a final point, Jungler says that his church follows the Bible.  I must suppose then that they are performing baptisms for the dead, because that's mentioned in 1st Corinthians 15:29.  If not, they're not following the Bible are they?  1 Cor. 15:29 "Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead?  If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?  (v. 30)  Moreover, why are we endangering ourselves all the time?"  Notice the pronouns?  Paul isn't teaching this as a doctrine, he's referring to a different group of people who also believe in a resurrection.  "They" do it, the rest of his letter he refers to himself and the recipients of his letter (the Corinthians) as "we".  The "they" are not included in the "we".   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If we were to take Mormonism out of the picture entirely, and this discussion was happening between Jungler (a Protestant) and Faith4 (a Catholic) we would never see agreement on many issues....  

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree here. I am Protestant and I would say that many of the Catholics that have joined this forum, I have agreed with them fully. I have found them very articulate and knowledgable.

 

 

That's the very reason God gave the world the Book of Mormon.  It settles those differences.  It unites the body of Christ.  Those who find it is true find that truth through personal revelation.  It points seekers toward the true Church, the one that has authority, living prophets and apostles, and the understanding on how, when, and why ordinances are to be performed.

 

 

And you are assuming the members of the LDS church have always got along. Look at the Ordain Women movement and how much that has split members of the LDS church. When Joseph Smith died, the BofM did not keep everyone together. Splinter groups were created, there was much disagreement between members during that time.

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Maureen, there have been splinter groups all along.  They disconnect themselves from the true vine and they wither away.  When these groups break off, the keys don't go with them.  The authority remains with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  When Joseph Smith died, there was some worry about what would happen if the majority of the saints chose to follow Sidney Rigdon or some other leader.  Brigham Young said that it wouldn't matter.  The keys were with the Twelve and, if the whole body of the Church fell away, the keys were still with them and they would use the keys to build the kingdom.  The same thing happens today.  The keys are with the Church.  Those who break away or are excommunicated lose access to them.  

 

I find it disingenuous that you would say that you agree with Catholic dogma fully.  If you did, you would be Catholic, not Protestant.  Would you and Faith4 agree that your pastor has apostolic authority?  Would you and Faith4 agree that you can be saved without receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church?  Do you believe that the bread and wine of the communion is literally--not figuratively--the body and blood of Jesus?  Would you and Faith4 agree on what happens to the soul after death?  If you are Protestant, the tenets of your faith are derived from the teachings of Martin Luther or Jean Calvin.  Why did those men break away from the Roman Church?  

 

I would encourage you to ask your Protestant minister if Catholics are going to be saved.  Then go ask a Catholic priest if he thinks Protestants will be saved if they don't convert to Catholicism.  You'll find that the centuries-old conflicts are still there.

 

The Great Apostasy is not about whether people are nice, or kind, or good, or even whether they believe in Jesus or not.  The falling away occurred because ancient Christians ceased to follow the apostles of Jesus and God took the keys out of their midst.  

 

Ephesians 4:11-14 says that Christ placed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in the Church to build it up.  Ephesians 2:19-20 tells us that the foundation is built upon apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone.

Think about that analogy.  When you take away the foundation of a building, it collapses.  But there are still pieces of the building around that are recognizable.  There's a window, a door, a sink, rafters, and beams, etc.  

 

Without the foundation of apostles and prophets--and the primitive Church officially began to teach around 150 A.D. that there would be no more revelation--the Church collapsed.  Without the keys, no one could rebuild it.  There were still vestiges of that original Church that remained, but no one had authority to put it back together as Christ had built it.  That's why the Lord said in the First Vision that they had a "form of godliness" but they "denied the power thereof" (revelation and the keys).  It was not until the restoration of the priesthood and the apostleship that God conferred that power again unto men in the flesh.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the strongest historical evidence for a total apostasy is the loss of apostles to lead the Church.  Catholics do claim that the bishops are "successors" of the Apostles, but I have never really found that view compelling.  Curiously, many Catholic apologists refer to the selection of Matthias in the New Testament as evidence of apostolic succession.  Latter-day Saints would agree, however it actually shows the succession of an apostle with...another apostle, and not a bishop.  Where did the original Apostles appoint bishops to be their successors, and have their authority?  We do see that the Apostles appointed bishops and gave them authority to function in their roles, but the specific issue is where they appointed bishops to be their successors as leaders of the Church, coupled with giving the bishops "apostolic" authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you are assuming the members of the LDS church have always got along. Look at the Ordain Women movement and how much that has split members of the LDS church. When Joseph Smith died, the BofM did not keep everyone together. Splinter groups were created, there was much disagreement between members during that time.

M.

Sure; the same pattern of apostasy and dissent that plagued the primitive church troubles the modern church as well. The differences are a) that a critical mass of the modern church is still refusing to buy into the notion that apostolic leadership is extraneous; and b ) for the first fifty years of Mormon history, the modern world--while it picked off a few Mormon apostles and even mobilized armies against them (on four separate occasions!), was not able to prevent the Apostles from gathering and ordaining replacements faster than the world can kill them; and for the past century or so killing Mormons has sort of fallen out of fashion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This discussion is interesting.  We have a Catholic who is defending her doctrinal line and the doctrine of papal succession and reliance on tradition as well as scripture.  We have a Protestant who rejects the need for priesthood keys, authority,tradition, or anything else beyond a Bible and faith. The difference between those two views is evidence of the apostasy!

 

 

This is evidence of an apostasy.  NOT a Great Apostasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want proof go to a Roman Catholic church and you will find a chart hung up somewhere with a picture of Christ at the top and every Pope down to modern time. This is documented and traceable undisputed fact.

 

As LDS there comes a point and time in our religion were a leap of faith is needed....a big leap.

 

 

Why? How is doctrinal disagreement evidence of the apostasy? I've seen many LDS list verses that mention false prophets as evidence of the apostasy, but it doesn't make sense. There were false teachers and people who believed them very early in the church. Does that mean the early church was in apostasy? There's more false teachers and disagreements now than there was 200 years ago. Does that mean the apostasy is getting worse?

 

The Bible clearly teaches there will be false teachers and SOME people will believe them. That's it. There's no reason to assume those verses are saying none of the teachers in the coming church age have the true gospel.

 

 

 

You do realize that the three thousand or so Christian sects today all claim to do the same thing--follow the Bible.  That's why there's so much contention and division between them.  Each one thinks that the others are in error and none of them have any keys or authority to declare what is true.  That's not how Jesus set it up.

 

Faith4's views are much more "Mormon" in their nature because she recognizes that there must be a central authority.  Otherwise, it's spiritual anarchy.

 

 

 

If we were to take Mormonism out of the picture entirely, and this discussion was happening between Jungler (a Protestant) and Faith4 (a Catholic) we would never see agreement on many issues.  Yet both of you rely upon the Bible for your truth.  Are a billion Catholics reading the Bible wrong, yet you and your little church group right because you read the Bible differently?  

 

 

 

And you are assuming the members of the LDS church have always got along. Look at the Ordain Women movement and how much that has split members of the LDS church. When Joseph Smith died, the BofM did not keep everyone together. Splinter groups were created, there was much disagreement between members during that time.

 

M.

 

 

Yes Maureen, there have been splinter groups all along.  They disconnect themselves from the true vine and they wither away.  When these groups break off, the keys don't go with them.  The authority remains with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

 

To me, the strongest historical evidence for a total apostasy is the loss of apostles to lead the Church.  Catholics do claim that the bishops are "successors" of the Apostles, but I have never really found that view compelling.  Curiously, many Catholic apologists refer to the selection of Matthias in the New Testament as evidence of apostolic succession.  Latter-day Saints would agree, however it actually shows the succession of an apostle with...another apostle, and not a bishop.  Where did the original Apostles appoint bishops to be their successors, and have their authority?  We do see that the Apostles appointed bishops and gave them authority to function in their roles, but the specific issue is where they appointed bishops to be their successors as leaders of the Church, coupled with giving the bishops "apostolic" authority.

 

 

Sure; the same pattern of apostasy and dissent that plagued the primitive church troubles the modern church as well. The differences are a) that a critical mass of the modern church is still refusing to buy into the notion that apostolic leadership is extraneous; and b ) for the first fifty years of Mormon history, the modern world--while it picked off a few Mormon apostles and even mobilized armies against them (on four separate occasions!), was not able to prevent the Apostles from gathering and ordaining replacements faster than the world can kill them; and for the past century or so killing Mormons has sort of fallen out of fashion.

 

 

Okay, reading all these posts that I've taken samples of above...

 

Spamlds Omega JAG are LDS, Jason_J and I are both Catholic turned LDS, faith4 is Catholic, jungler and Maureen are Protestant...

 

Every single one of us - all of different denominations appeal to the Holy Spirit to guide us as Christians and we have followed our faith diligently with prayer and study.

 

Yet all of us have different views of our spirituality and have applied it all in very unique ways to our lives... ALL OF US having one purpose - TO LIVE AS CHRIST HAS INSTRUCTED US TO LIVE.

 

This bickering of "your Church is wrong, my Church is right", "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, my interpretation is right", "Your leaders have no authority, my leaders have authority"... ALL TO PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT - IS NOT-CHRISTIAN. 

And it is SPECIFICALLY AGAINST the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church - so that's double trouble for the LDS.

 

It is Christian to do what Omega did on that first quote above - to acknowledge that everyone follows their faith according to their own understanding.  It is Christian to do what Jason_J did above - to simply state, "This is why I feel the way I do".

 

I feel faith4 was put on the defensive here so she had to defend her faith and she is trying to do it in a manner that is Christian.  Jungler may have came out with claws as the first post came out with claws.

 

But the mood of this thread from the TITLE and the FIRST POST was set with all the dirt-throwing that proves nothing.  This thread needed to stop at PAGE 1.  And this thread started by an LDS with all the crap it had is where this thread went on a downward spiral.

 

Let me repeat what I wrote repeatedly on this thread... The LDS Church cannot PROVE Authority and the occurrence of a Great Apostasy just like the Catholics and Protestants cannot PROVE Authority and the non-occurrence of a Great Apostasy.  It is easier for Catholics to defend their claim as the Catholics stem from the first Church built on Peter - but even then, they can't prove that Linus had Authority in the first place.  Attempting to PROVE anything by pointing out terrible events in history is like attempting to prove God exists by pointing out the oceans and mountains and flowers.  WITHOUT FAITH, it does not prove a single thing!

 

Therefore, as each of us here of different denominations have our own journey to cultivate that FAITH - it is Christian to inquire and bear testimony of a Great Apostasy.  It is un-Christian to write A GREAT APOSTASY TIMELINE in an attempt to PROVE it happened.

 

I don't hate many things in this world.  One thing I do hate are Christians arguing among each other on who is right.... there are Christian ways to spread the gospel.  This is not one of them.  We need to concentrate on DOING Christian things and giving people the opportunity to inquire about the gospel.  We need to stop PROVING our own Christian faith by arguing with others of different faith than we are... because, if we REALLY have faith that we believe is true - simply encouraging people to inquire about our faith and answering their questions with an appeal to the Holy Ghost is the way to let the Spirit do His work.  Answering them by pointing out the dirt in their faith is a sure way to drive away the questioning child of God...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it is SPECIFICALLY AGAINST the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church - so that's double trouble for the LDS.

 

How is defending your faith against someone who is trying to prove it false going against the Articles of Faith?  :hmmm:  I sure haven't read anyone saying, "you can't worship according to the dictates of your conscience."

 

A bit of a stretch of an accusation, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the headlines today...

China will create own Christian belief system amid tensions with church, says official
 

New Chinese theology must suit Chinese culture and values, State Religious Affairs director says

 

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1568209/china-will-create-own-christian-belief-system-amid-tensions-church-says

This is an excellent modern example of how the Great Apostasy occurred.  Constantine created a state church out of Christianity and it was modified to meet the political ends of the Roman Empire.  Henry VIII started a state church so he could get divorced.  Martin Luther was sheltered by German kings so they could diminish the power of the Roman Church over their domain.  Now we see a new state chuch being created in real-time, for political purposes.

 

In 500 years (if the world lasts that long) there will be Chinese Christians contending with Roman Catholics and Protestants that they are the true church!  It's the way of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That bolded and red above.  That's where you err.  That's a conclusion that YOU took out of 20 minutes of reading.

 

Here's THE fact.  Catholics - the exact same Catholics that wrote those exact same things that you read - WROTE those things to ESTABLISH a straight line of authority from Peter.

 

Now ask yourself why.  It will take you 4 semesters at 3 credits each to gain an understanding at an intellectual level - surely not 20 minutes.  But yeah, 20 minutes if you study it through the prism of Faith in the Apostolic Line of Succession claimed by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

And how is that different from the deposit of Faith required to find that the LDS Authority is true?

 

Now, of course you can use that exact same history (interestingly, the Catholics have the most complete unbiased account of one) in the light of your Faith in the Restoration of Priesthood Authority and come out with a different conclusion.  But without that Faith on the Restoration, you will understand why the Catholics see an unbroken line of Authority from Peter to Francis.

 

Ergo... and this is very important so pay very close attention... pointing those things out to somebody who has NO FAITH in the Restoration of Priesthood Authority in these Latter-days does NOTHING but insult Catholics.  AND... for those who has faith in the Restoration of Priesthood Authority, pointing those out does not make them more faithful because they already have faith in the Restoration.

 

Therefore, the only purpose in putting those things as EVIDENCE (not proof!) of the validity of the Restored Priesthood Authority is for personal study - definitely and absolutely NOT for convincing others of it!

Who said I was posting anything as proof of anything or as a faith building message?  I have been posting long enough on this forum to realize that nothing anybody says here is proof of anything.  "Proof" always comes from the spirit when pondering truths.  It does not come from the amount of intellectual effort or the quantity of the gathering of information from men.  If that fact insults Catholics then my hope is that they do not depend on the teachings of men to understand God's will. At one point men also believed that the world is flat and that eating a tomato would kill someone.  At the time of those beliefs if anyone said that wasn't true, they were offended.  The reason we should praise the reformers as was previously stated is because they were not afraid to insult those in charge. I am not sure why you are so afraid of the cutting nature of truth.

 

The truth seems to insult those that believe the opposite to the point of causing anger.  That has been pointed out by the Catholic religion many times over.  So, what is your point?  Am I supposed to be threatened by that?  Am I supposed to go run and hide for fear of being tortured by the great 'God-empowered' leaders of that Church?   If they are insulted instead of enlightened, that is their own prideful problem.  Insult comes from having contentious motives.  The truth is for all to hear, it doesn't have to be kept under a bushel so as to not "offend" anyone who is hurt by the light. Nowadays I don't have to worry about offending a Catholic Priest with my religious views and practice as did my ancestors who at the time of the Conquistadors had their cities and culture destroyed in the name of that insult.  We don't have to fear them like that anymore. LDS truths have been "insulting" to others from the moment Joseph Smith was told that all other religions were corrupt and to not join any of them.  If they don't want to be corrupt then have them come on over to the truth, they would be less angry and less easily insulted.  The only thing I could insult is a false belief, the false belief that the Catholic Church is run by God. If that insults the Catholic Church then so did Joseph Smith.  If we are having to draw the line, then I will stand with Joseph Smith.  You don't have to point out the line any further or be fearful of it, it has been there before you and I were around.  The line is already there, it is not insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is defending your faith against someone who is trying to prove it false going against the Articles of Faith?  :hmmm:  I sure haven't read anyone saying, "you can't worship according to the dictates of your conscience."

 

A bit of a stretch of an accusation, imo.

 

 

Who said I was posting anything as proof of anything or as a faith building message? 

 

 

 

I was specifically referring to the OP of this thread which established the intent of this thread.

 

Anything that was posted past that is simply a defense of everyone else's specific faiths against the accusation of the OP which therefore led to LDS folks like yourselves defending your own beliefs against those of other faiths and in the specific cases of iguy and jungler and you too Seminary - became a "my Bible is better than your Bible" or a "my prophet is better than your pope" discussion... which, as we all know, are contentious discussions if not approached in the proper Spirit.

 

My FIRST post to this thread stands.  This thread should have ended at page 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it disingenuous that you would say that you agree with Catholic dogma fully.  If you did, you would be Catholic, not Protestant.  Would you and Faith4 agree that your pastor has apostolic authority?  Would you and Faith4 agree that you can be saved without receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church?  Do you believe that the bread and wine of the communion is literally--not figuratively--the body and blood of Jesus?  Would you and Faith4 agree on what happens to the soul after death?  If you are Protestant, the tenets of your faith are derived from the teachings of Martin Luther or Jean Calvin.  Why did those men break away from the Roman Church?  

 

 

spamlds, you can believe whatever you want. I don't fixate, like you are doing, on what is different or wrong about other Christian denomination. Catholics and Protestant have their different beliefs but we are still believers in the body of Christ. The Catholics that have visited this site, seem more respectful of others than you do. I have no idea what you are aiming to accomplish with your anti-non-LDS or anti-Bible threads. Do you think you are promoting the LDS faith in a positive light? Would new investigator coming here see it that way?

 

M. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The truth seems to insult those that believe the opposite to the point of causing anger.  That has been pointed out by the Catholic religion many times over.  So, what is your point?  Am I supposed to be threatened by that?  Am I supposed to go run and hide for fear of being tortured by the great 'God-empowered' leaders of that Church?   If they are insulted instead of enlightened, that is their own prideful problem.  Insult comes from having contentious motives.  The truth is for all to hear, it doesn't have to be kept under a bushel so as to not "offend" anyone who is hurt by the light. Nowadays I don't have to worry about offending a Catholic Priest with my religious views and practice as did my ancestors who at the time of the Conquistadors had their cities and culture destroyed in the name of that insult.  We don't have to fear them like that anymore. LDS truths have been "insulting" to others from the moment Joseph Smith was told that all other religions were corrupt and to not join any of them.  If they don't want to be corrupt then have them come on over to the truth, they would be less angry and less easily insulted.  The only thing I could insult is a false belief, the false belief that the Catholic Church is run by God. If that insults the Catholic Church then so did Joseph Smith.  If we are having to draw the line, then I will stand with Joseph Smith.  You don't have to point out the line any further or be fearful of it, it has been there before you and I were around.  The line is already there, it is not insulting.

 

I'm not here to argue w/you.  But I want to make this clear, so maybe this can stop.  Seminary, you're missing the point of why I'm offended.  Believe it or not, it's not b/c I "don't have the truth" therefore I'm "easily insulted and angered". 

 

If I started taking some of your church's history (you know, the less-than-proud moments) and posted them on a Catholic forum as "proof" of how terrible your church was, and therefore, couldn't be true, you would be offended too (provided of course, that we switched spots just as an example).  There are SO MANY instances in your church's history that I could use as an example, where I could just "cut" something out that Smith said or did (or Young or others) and then "paste" it on this forum without any thoughts of historical context, or justification for why said thing was said or done. You would consider this as unfair and disrespectful...but as long as it's not your church, then it must be a-okay!  Why not!  If they're offended, it's all their fault!!   Most members here, b/c you are LDS, can't recognize the half-truths from the truths, which were simply plucked out of history and put on parade for mocking.  Nor do you understand my faith and what we believe, so everything is out of context.  It is frustrating, and I'm trying to respond as best I can w/o getting angry.       

 

Jesus did not teach that the seed which is sown with discord, and made up with half-truths & deception, is the best seed for spiritual growth.  So how can I be enlightened through insults?  How does the Holy Spirit make good fruits come from such a seed?  And do you really think I have contentious motives & have problems with pride?  Do you believe that I'm easily angered and insulted?  Do you know me so well that you are prepared to judge me, without fear of offending, with a clean conscience??  Where is Christ in this conversation? 

 

How about we have an actual conversation again?  I would like that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I started taking some of your church's history (you know, the less-than-proud moments) and posted them on a Catholic forum as "proof" of how terrible your church was, and therefore, couldn't be true, you would be offended too (provided of course, that we switched spots just as an example).  There are SO MANY instances in your church's history that I could use as an example, where I could just "cut" something out that Smith said or did (or Young or others) and then "paste" it on this forum without any thoughts of historical context, or justification for why said thing was said or done. You would consider this as unfair and disrespectful...but as long as it's not your church, then it must be a-okay!  Why not!  If they're offended, it's all their fault!!   Most members here, b/c you are LDS, can't recognize the half-truths from the truths, which were simply plucked out of history and put on parade for mocking.  Nor do you understand my faith and what we believe, so everything is out of context.  It is frustrating, and I'm trying to respond as best I can w/o getting angry.       

 

 

 

Realistically if I was on a Forum Dedicated to Catholic (Or other group) beliefs...  I would expect from time to time that they would express their beliefs in a no holds barred manor. 

 

I probably wouldn't like their attacks when they pointed at various LDS doctrine but before I attempt to go rebuking them I would have to ask what was I really doing there,  what did I really expect to have happen?  If I wanted to hear from people that agreed with me I could stay with my own.  But when I seek out others I have to realize that sometimes their 'otherness' might be a bit offensive to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically if I was on a Forum Dedicated to Catholic (Or other group) beliefs... I would expect from time to time that they would express their beliefs in a no holds barred manor.

I probably wouldn't like their attacks when they pointed at various LDS doctrine but before I attempt to go rebuking them I would have to ask what was I really doing there, what did I really expect to have happen? If I wanted to hear from people that agreed with me I could stay with my own. But when I seek out others I have to realize that sometimes their 'otherness' might be a bit offensive to me.

No, estradling, Catholic Answers Forum is mean and insulting to Mormons. But one shouldn't expect that from any Christian forum. There is different and then there is insulting. The OP is not just "a bit offensive". We should be able to discuss what we believe without insolence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has any member of any faith lived up the the ideals of there beliefs 100 percent of the time?

 

This thread did not come into existence in a vacuum.  There have been several posters recently that have joined up and pretty much challenged our beliefs.  When someone makes a challenge they should not be surprised if they get both barrels in return.  That is what this thread is,

 

The OP is SpamLDS's answer to why he believes there was an Apostasy in direct response to the challenges of others.  Could he have been more diplomatic?  Of course.  Unfortunately diplomacy is one of the first things to be lost in discussions like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has any member of any faith lived up the the ideals of there beliefs 100 percent of the time?

This thread did not come into existence in a vacuum. There have been several posters recently that have joined up and pretty much challenged our beliefs. When someone makes a challenge they should not be surprised if they get both barrels in return. That is what this thread is,

The OP is SpamLDS's answer to why he believes there was an Apostasy in direct response to the challenges of others. Could he have been more diplomatic? Of course. Unfortunately diplomacy is one of the first things to be lost in discussions like this.

First, when someone challenges your beliefs, you shouldn't sink down to the bashing level.. especially if you start a new thread. Second, one shouldn't present anti-Catholic material without understanding Catholics, especially if you are answering a challenge. Third, one shouldn't present a timeline of the Great Apostasy and present it as fact especially as the Great Apostasy is a matter of faith and then use Popes as evidence when the only valid evidence of it is the truth of the Book of Mormon (accepted as true by Faith). Of course nobody is perfect. That's what an apology is for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, when someone challenges your beliefs, you shouldn't sink down to the bashing level.. especially if you start a new thread. Second, one shouldn't present anti-Catholic material without understanding Catholics, especially if you are answering a challenge. Third, one shouldn't present a timeline of the Great Apostasy and present it as fact especially as the Great Apostasy is a matter of faith and then use Popes as evidence when the only valid evidence of it is the truth of the Book of Mormon (accepted as true by Faith). Of course nobody is perfect. That's what an apology is for.

 

Ok so you want an apology for claiming opinion as fact and not considering how ones words might impact another.  I can agree with that one 100 percent.

 

Anatess... You have repeatedly claimed in factual manor that this thread should have been closed.  While you are entitled to your opinion on the matter it is not a 'fact' as you presented it.  It is your opinion one that you think your are pretty well informed on.  By so doing you really did not (or at least I hope you did not) think about how those whom have the power to close threads might feel about it.  We really don't like the implication that we are incompetent, and unable to do the job we have volunteered our free time and talents to do.  I really hope you just didn't think about the offensive you so easily handed out.  After all empathy and Christ-like concern for others seem to be your main point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share