The Great Apostasy: A Timeline

[Guest]

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.

 

I don't want an apology for me.  You said nobody is perfect.  I said that's why there's Apology.

 

I said this thread should have ended on Page 1.  I didn't say Moderators should have closed it at Page 1.

 

I never said anything about Moderators being incompetent and if you hop onto Suzie's Where is Everyone thread you will see me state emphatically that interrogating moderator's decisions is not a good discussion.

 

I don't know why you went off on this tangent.

 

Let me repeat, for the umpteenth time, why I'm empathic on this thread.  The OP is offensive to Catholics - that is a fact - and it is unnecessary as all the points presented in it does not show "The Great Apostasy - A Timeline".  Therefore, this thread had nowhere to go but to contention.  I saw the direction it was headed on Page 1.  And sure enough, that's where it went.

 

And, estradling, you just sent it spinning on a whole different contentious tangent.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't want an apology for me.  You said nobody is perfect.  I said that's why there's Apology.

 

I said this thread should have ended on Page 1.  I didn't say Moderators should have closed it at Page 1.

 

I never said anything about Moderators being incompetent and if you hop onto Suzie's Where is Everyone thread you will see me state emphatically that interrogating moderator's decisions is not a good discussion.

 

I don't know why you went off on this tangent.

 

Let me repeat, for the umpteenth time, why I'm empathic on this thread.  The OP is offensive to Catholics - that is a fact - and it is unnecessary as all the points presented in it does not show "The Great Apostasy - A Timeline".  Therefore, this thread had nowhere to go but to contention.  I saw the direction it was headed on Page 1.  And sure enough, that's where it went.

 

And, estradling, you just sent it spinning on a whole different contentious tangent.

 

You're missing the point. You're offending others to defend against offensiveness. Your posts to spamlds have been cringe-worthy offensive to my third-party reading. As I read through the posts, spamlds is the one who seems to be attacked personally throughout. He's the one I'm feeling sorry for -- not those who are oversensitive in their defense of Papal authority.

[Guest]

I am LDS, therefore, I believe that the Great Apostasy happened.  But spamlds' "proof of the Great Apostasy" is just as bad as anti-LDS' "proof that Joseph Smith is a prophet".

 

The LDS position is that the Great Apostasy happened not too long after the death of the last Apostle.  It does not, nor does it even try, to provide "proof" that it happened outside of scriptural support for the possibility of it happening because you cannot prove the presence or absence of Priesthood Authority.  Prove that Joseph Smith, and even President Monson today, has Priesthood Authority - even Apostolic and Prophetic Keys.  You can't.  I can give you just as many bad mistakes Joseph Smith and the succeeding Prophets did as the first 200 years of the Catholic Church.  It is so bad that even Emma and Joseph Smith's children themselves left the Church rather than follow Brigham Young.  Give it 600 more years and you can pile up even more dirt on our Prophets.

 

One does not have to bring down another Church to prove the LDS claim of Authority.  One simply has to have faith that it has.  You can ask me why I think the LDS Church has the authority intead of the Catholic or other Churches.  But, I'm not going to minimize the great and wonderful things that have been achieved by these Churches.

 

And I hope this will be the end of this stupid thread.

 

 

The book The Great Apostasy was not written to give the Apostasy a Timeline and used terrible acts of Catholic people to prove it.  The book The Great Apostasy provided a historical account of Papal Authority only as it is necessary to support scriptural references to the Great Apostasy so as to have the reader think about the POSSIBILITY or PLAUSABILITY of a Great Apostasy.

 

There is a reason that book is not scripture.

 

The FACT of the matter is that terrible actions of people DOES NOT PROVE nor ESTABLISH that a Great Apostasy happened in the same manner that good actions of good people DOES NOT PROVE that they have Priesthood Authority.

 

Picking and choosing historical records sympathetic to your cause and calling it a Great Apostasy Timeline does nothing but anger the millions of amazing Catholics, especially the ones who are contributors to this forum.  It sure does not do anything else.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.  LDS means - Latter-day Saints.  This means - modern era - more specifically, the period after the Restoration of the Priesthood in the 1800's.  This is what we LDS call the Last Dispensation.  So, no, LDS will not exist in the time of the events in Acts because that's a different dispensation.

 

But, the LDS Church claims to hold the same Priesthood Authority as those of the Apostles in Acts.  Also, this is the same Priesthood Authority held by Prophets in other different dispensations throughout Biblical History.  This history shows that Priesthood Authority does not have to be passed in an unbroken line of living people for it to be valid.  It does show that Priesthod Authority has to come in an unbroken line of living people directly from Christ Himself... in the same manner that Moses started his dispensation as He was given the authority straight from Christ in the form of a burning bush, the Apostles started their dispensation from the authority straight from Christ in His mortal ministry, and Joseph Smith started the last dispensation straight from Christ as well...  Make sense?

 

 

You're missing the point. You're offending others to defend against offensiveness. Your posts to spamlds have been cringe-worthy offensive to my third-party reading. As I read through the posts, spamlds is the one who seems to be attacked personally throughout. He's the one I'm feeling sorry for -- not those who are oversensitive in their defense of Papal authority.

 

I quoted all my posts above found on Page 1.  Nowhere does it defend Papal Authority.  It simply points out that pointing unrighteous acts of Popes is not a "Great Apostasy Timeline".  If that is cringe-worthy offensive to you, then this forum is lost.  They have now gone down the same tactics used by the noisy anti-LDS crowd and any attempt by a fellow LDS to stop it on its tracks get thrown into the "other side".

 

I left CAF for this same reason except it was the Catholics doing this to the LDS.  Sadly, it hurts more when the LDS does this to others because being a minority constantly on the receiving end of this crap, they should know better.  I'm done with lds.net.  It's just not healthy anymore.

[estradling75]

I don't want an apology for me.  You said nobody is perfect.  I said that's why there's Apology.

 

I said this thread should have ended on Page 1.  I didn't say Moderators should have closed it at Page 1.

 

I never said anything about Moderators being incompetent and if you hop onto Suzie's Where is Everyone thread you will see me state emphatically that interrogating moderator's decisions is not a good discussion.

 

I don't know why you went off on this tangent.

 

Let me repeat, for the umpteenth time, why I'm empathic on this thread.  The OP is offensive to Catholics - that is a fact - and it is unnecessary as all the points presented in it does not show "The Great Apostasy - A Timeline".  Therefore, this thread had nowhere to go but to contention.  I saw the direction it was headed on Page 1.  And sure enough, that's where it went.

 

And, estradling, you just sent it spinning on a whole different contentious tangent.

 

 

I brought it up to show a simple point.  We don't always know how people will respond to our post.  Spamlds posted.  Others found his post offensive even though he stated that was not his intent.  Instead of accepting that people are trying to brow beat an apology out of him (or at least are coming off that way).

 

So I held up a mirror.  Statements were made that I as a moderator found to be a bit offensive and felt like a personal attack.  When I point this out to you, you responded exactly like Spamlds did, with that was not your intent and you don't understand why I should feel offended and attacked when you clearly meant none. 

 

So now you are in the role of Spamlds...  Do you want to apologize for something your didn't plan or intend to be offensive, but have now been clearly told that was? Or do you want to try to continue to convince me that I am foolish for taking offense at your statement?  Personally I think you should take the path that you are trying to get Spamlds to take, but that is really your choice.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.   

I am not here to argue with you either but I am confused about you wanting it to stop and then you say you want a conversation.  I would not be offended by any postings you would have on another site, I would not think it is unfair and I would certainly not be angry.  I have made no postings with any "seed of discord", that is your perception and not my intent.  Are you prepared to judge me that way?

 

This is what our recent prophet said; "

President Gordon B. Hinckley taught that the reformers were doing their best to find the truths that had been lost to the Great Apostasy:

“This was … a season of growing enlightenment. As the years continued their relentless march, the sunlight of a new day began to break over the earth. It was the Renaissance, a magnificent flowing of art, architecture, and literature.

“Reformers worked to change the church, notably such men as Luther, Melanchthon, Hus, Zwingli, and Tyndale. These were men of great courage, some of whom suffered cruel deaths because of their beliefs. Protestantism was born with its cry for reformation. When that reformation was not realized, the reformers organized churches of their own. They did so without priesthood authority. Their one desire was to find a niche in which they might worship God as they felt He should be worshiped”

 

And our current Prophet; President Monson; "Honest men with yearning hearts, at the peril of their very lives, attempted to establish points of reference, that they might find the true way. The day of the reformation was dawning, but the path ahead was difficult. Persecutions would be severe, personal sacrifice overwhelming, and the cost beyond calculation. The reformers were like pioneers blazing wilderness trails in a desperate search for those lost points of reference which, they felt, when found would lead mankind back to the truth Jesus taught.

“When John Wycliffe and others completed the first English translation of the entire Bible from the Latin Vulgate, the then church authorities did all they could to destroy it. Copies had to be written by hand and in secret. The Bible had been regarded as a closed book forbidden to be read by the common people. Many of the followers of Wycliffe were severely punished and some burned at the stake.

“Martin Luther asserted the Bible’s supremacy. His study of the scriptures led him to compare the doctrines and practices of the church with the teachings of the scriptures. Luther stood for the responsibility of the individual and the rights of the individual conscience and this he did at the imminent risk of his life. Though threatened and persecuted, yet he declared boldly: ‘Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me.’

“John Huss [or Hus], speaking out fearlessly against the corruption within the church, was taken outside the city to be burned. He was chained by the neck to a stake, and straw and wood were piled around his body to the chin and sprinkled with resin; and he was asked finally if he would recant. As the flames arose, he sang, but the wind blew the fire into his face, and his voice was stilled.

“Zwingli of Switzerland attempted through his writings and teachings to rethink all Christian doctrine in consistently biblical terms. His most famous statement thrills the heart: ‘What does it matter? They can kill the body but not the soul.’

“And who cannot today appreciate the words of John Knox? ‘A man with God is always in the majority.’

“John Calvin, prematurely aged by sickness and by the incessant labors he had undertaken, summed up his personal philosophy with the statement: ‘Our wisdom … consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves.’

“Others could indeed be mentioned, but a comment concerning William Tyndale would perhaps suffice. Tyndale felt that the people had a right to know what was promised to them in the scriptures. To those who opposed his work of translation, he declared: ‘If God spare my life, … I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou dost.’

“Such were the teachings and lives of the great reformers. Their deeds were heroic, their contributions many, their sacrifices great—but they did not restore the gospel of Jesus Christ"

 

This is what I was refering to in terms of ability to say that there was corruption in the Church without having to fear like these men would have to have courage and fear regarding their statements.  Nowadays we do not have to have that kind of fear when truth is presented, the kind of fear that would cause their actions to be heroic.   Do you not think these men were heroic?

[faith4]

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.

 

I already understand this.  In fact, I've mentioned this already a few times, I *know* I'm on an LDS forum, I don't need to be reminded. There have been several threads on this forum, in the past, where I've seen a few bites taken here and there out of my faith, I *expected* this when I joined.  I've always let it go, b/c I already *know* I'm on an LDS forum, and a little Catholic bashing is bound to happen from time to time.  THIS post differs from the others, however, in lack of credibility and respect for history & my faith altogether.  I can use his outline in the OP, to make a near identical thread on a Catholic forum to "prove" your church's total apostasy (Corruption? check.  Lust?  check.  Greed?  check.  Heresy?  check.  etc...do you understand what I'm trying to say now??)  And yet, you wouldn't accept it at face value b/c you would know, that I was taking "facts" out of historical context.  So is this a little Catholic bashing?  Nope, this one is way different than what I've seen before.  Spam needs some serious correction b/c he's teaching falsehoods as truth, and none of you can tell the difference of which is false and which is truth.  This is un-Christian.  THIS is WHY this thread is contentious, it's a bad seed to begin with.  Spams post is the bad fruit from a bad seed that he received from someone/somewhere else.  Anatess can recognize this b/c she used to be Catholic, she can see that he's taking things out of context w/no reference, respect, or understanding to my faith.  And in extension, this thread is dispresctful to my very person by it's anti-Catholic method.  I am here to respect your faith by avoiding anti-LDS methods such as this, why would I quietly roll over then when someone uses an unrighteouss anti-Catholic method?  And why don't you care that what he's posting is not historically accurate??  Why would you rather defend deception then try to respectfully find out what's true?  How is that Christian??  You aren't defending your faith here, you're defending your right to spread anti-Catholic material and believe it.   

 

And, I never stated, and neither did Anatess, that anyone on this forum has no right to defend their faith.  She said that it was un-Christian to spread deception, and then defend and argue the right to do so.  This OP is not attacking anyone's faith but mine, do I not also have a right to at least try to correct some of the wrongs he's posted?  So everyone here can defend their faith, except me?  Nothing I have said has been to attack your church at all, spams post is an unhonorable & unrighteouss method of "witnessing" the LDS church.  And any anti- method such as this is always contentious and a huge turnoff. 

 

And if I gave off the impression that I'm trying to "beat" an apology out of anyone, then I apologize, I'm not trying to "beat" an apology out of anyone, I just want spam to recognize that what he's posting, is not exactly historically correct or useful in converting others.  If this is how he attempts to convert others, then I'm more surprised more people haven't chased him off their lawns with a shovel!  None of his posts I can ever take at face value, or weigh with any merit, b/c he has shown me several times now, that he's unable to post with credibility.  ALL of you who post on here regurlarly I respect, and I have been able to learn from your well-thought out discussions and links.  I can not extend this same courtesy to spam.  Now, if somehow you truly believe that I am stepping on spams toes, and I'm the one out of line, then by all means, continue in your anti-Catholic learning.  Seminary, you can stand with Joseph Smith, I'll go stand with Jesus Christ and learn to love my neighbors regardless of their religious affiliation.     

 

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹²Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

[The Folk Prophet]

So everyone here can defend their faith, except me?

 

No one has said that.

[faith4]

I am not here to argue with you either but I am confused about you wanting it to stop and then you say you want a conversation.  I would not be offended by any postings you would have on another site, I would not think it is unfair and I would certainly not be angry.  I have made no postings with any "seed of discord", that is your perception and not my intent.  Are you prepared to judge me that way?

 

 

Oh, I beg to differ!!!!  A similar conversation is going on at CAF about Joseph Smith, and you would hate it.  And yes, it is unfair.  I went to a Temple once w/a friend for an Easter production, and surrounding the gates were anti-mormons handing out anti-mormon material and shouting out terrible things about your faith.  I stood their and berated these "Christians" and defended your church's honor in front of everyone on that corner who was passing by, b/c I always feel that methods such as these are unfair and unrighteouss.  If you think posting anti- material is fair and righteouss, then I don't know how you can possibly also say you've felt the Holy Spirit in you.  And don't be confused, I want a decent, respectful conversation.  I shouldn't have to spell that out for you. 

[estradling75]

I already understand this.  In fact, I've mentioned this already a few times, I *know* I'm on an LDS forum, I don't need to be reminded. There have been several threads on this forum, in the past, where I've seen a few bites taken here and there out of my faith, I *expected* this when I joined.  I've always let it go, b/c I already *know* I'm on an LDS forum, and a little Catholic bashing is bound to happen from time to time.  THIS post differs from the others, however, in lack of credibility and respect for history & my faith altogether.  I can use his outline in the OP, to make a near identical thread on a Catholic forum to "prove" your church's total apostasy (Corruption? check.  Lust?  check.  Greed?  check.  Heresy?  check.  etc...do you understand what I'm trying to say now??)  And yet, you wouldn't accept it at face value b/c you would know, that I was taking "facts" out of historical context.  So is this a little Catholic bashing?  Nope, this one is way different than what I've seen before.  Spam needs some serious correction b/c he's teaching falsehoods as truth, and none of you can tell the difference of which is false and which is truth.  This is un-Christian.  THIS is WHY this thread is contentious, it's a bad seed to begin with.  Spams post is the bad fruit from a bad seed that he received from someone/somewhere else.  Anatess can recognize this b/c she used to be Catholic, she can see that he's taking things out of context w/no reference, respect, or understanding to my faith.  And in extension, this thread is dispresctful to my very person by it's anti-Catholic method.  I am here to respect your faith by avoiding anti-LDS methods such as this, why would I quietly roll over then when someone uses an unrighteouss anti-Catholic method?  And why don't you care that what he's posting is not historically accurate??  Why would you rather defend deception then try to respectfully find out what's true?  How is that Christian??  You aren't defending your faith here, you're defending your right to spread anti-Catholic material and believe it.   

 

 

Did you know that there is an handy little button at the bottom of every post that is called "Report?"

 

It there to bring problematic  posts to the attention of the mods, because mods are human and have the failing of all humans.  We don't read every post, we might skim over long posts, and we have our own biases that color how we see posts.  Reporting gets the attention of every mod.  It says "Hey this is important look at it."  Mods who would never otherwise would not be at all interested in subject matter will look.  Mods who skimmed over it will give it a better look over.  Mods who took it one way will have a chance to ponder again.  Then we all get a chance to discuss it and figure out how we want to handle it.

 

Reporting a post does not guarantee the mods will act the way you want, in fact you might not know the mods acted at all.  But not reporting and taking it upon yourself to 'correct' it is a sure way to add to the confusion, when it does get flagged for mod review.

[faith4]

 

This is what I was refering to in terms of ability to say that there was corruption in the Church without having to fear like these men would have to have courage and fear regarding their statements.  Nowadays we do not have to have that kind of fear when truth is presented, the kind of fear that would cause their actions to be heroic.   Do you not think these men were heroic?

 

Not all of what you posted is truth either, most of that is also derived from anti-Catholic sources.  A reformation was indeed needed at that time, however, Luther and the other reformers went about it the wrong way, by cutting themselves off from the true vine rather than trying to reform and remain within the Church.  But just b/c there was some corruption in the Church (some, not all), it does not prove a total and great apostasy.  Whenever corrupted leaders came into the Church (the weeds), God raised up some of our greatest saints (wheat) to help shine the light for the people who could not see past the corruption.  Unless you learn both sides of the story, and read history in its actual context, you really can't rely on "historical" truths which are derived from contentious protestant sources when the reformation was first born.  Most of these half-truths come from the 16th-18th centuries, when the contention between the Church and Protestants was still really ugly.  Thank God, it's not as bad as it used to be, but many of these bad seeds have created bad fruit which have multiplied and spread over the centuries.  It's difficult to tell what's truth now unless one goes to the actual sources and read everything within its proper context.   

[faith4]

Did you know that there is an handy little button at the bottom of every post that is called "Report?"

 

It there to bring problematic  posts to the attention of the mods, because mods are human and have the failing of all humans.  We don't read every post, we might skim over long posts, and we have our own biases that color how we see posts.  Reporting gets the attention of every mod.  It says "Hey this is important look at it."  Mods who would never otherwise would not be at all interested in subject matter will look.  Mods who skimmed over it will give it a better look over.  Mods who took it one way will have a chance to ponder again.  Then we all get a chance to discuss it and figure out how we want to handle it.

 

Reporting a post does not guarantee the mods will act the way you want, in fact you might not know the mods acted at all.  But not reporting and taking it upon yourself to 'correct' it is a sure way to add to the confusion, when it does get flagged for mod review.

 

Thank you estradling.  I never thought about "reporting" it b/c I've never had to do that here before. 

[estradling75]

Thank you estradling.  I never thought about "reporting" it b/c I've never had to do that here before. 

 

Such things are necessary when ever you try to be open to all comers.  I'll take it as a complement of the over all nature of the forums that you didn't think about it when you found a time it might have been useful.

 

This will not be the last well-meaning but poorly expressed belief here on LDS.net.  But if we all work hard to remain civil when we disagree we can hopefully learn and become better.  I say that to everyone including myself. 

[Seminarysnoozer]

Oh, I beg to differ!!!!  A similar conversation is going on at CAF about Joseph Smith, and you would hate it.  And yes, it is unfair.  I went to a Temple once w/a friend for an Easter production, and surrounding the gates were anti-mormons handing out anti-mormon material and shouting out terrible things about your faith.  I stood their and berated these "Christians" and defended your church's honor in front of everyone on that corner who was passing by, b/c I always feel that methods such as these are unfair and unrighteouss.  If you think posting anti- material is fair and righteouss, then I don't know how you can possibly also say you've felt the Holy Spirit in you.  And don't be confused, I want a decent, respectful conversation.  I shouldn't have to spell that out for you. 

What "anti-" material did I post?

[prisonchaplain]

Just to give an evangelical take on the predicted Great Apostasy, those of us who embrace premillenialism, and believe a Tribulation is coming, tend to believe the GA will occur during that Tribulation.  It may take on the appearance of a one-world religion, one-world church, over an overarching embrace by religions of the one called Antichrist.

 

There's no need in arguing over whether denominations, churches, or religious people (including leaders) have done bad things.  Of course.  One person suggested to me, back in the late 80s, that I leave my church, because the two tele-evangelists that had scandals were connected to my movement.  Never mind that both had been defrocked years earlier--my "brand" was tainted in her eyes.

 

Has a Great Apostasy occured, or is it yet to come?  I doubt this is the doctrinal question that will have people either joining or leaving their churches.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Oh, I beg to differ!!!!  A similar conversation is going on at CAF about Joseph Smith, and you would hate it.  And yes, it is unfair.  I went to a Temple once w/a friend for an Easter production, and surrounding the gates were anti-mormons handing out anti-mormon material and shouting out terrible things about your faith.  I stood their and berated these "Christians" and defended your church's honor in front of everyone on that corner who was passing by, b/c I always feel that methods such as these are unfair and unrighteouss.  If you think posting anti- material is fair and righteouss, then I don't know how you can possibly also say you've felt the Holy Spirit in you.  And don't be confused, I want a decent, respectful conversation.  I shouldn't have to spell that out for you. 

So, do you think Boyd K. Packer's statement about reformers is "unrighteous"?; "The line was broken, and the authority to confer the Holy Ghost as a gift was gone. The Dark Ages of apostasy settled over the world.

But always, as it had from the beginning, the Spirit of God inspired worthy souls.²²

We owe an immense debt to the protestors and the reformers who preserved the scriptures and translated them. They knew something had been lost. They kept the flame alive as best they could. Many of them were martyrs. But protesting was not enough; nor could reformers restore that which was gone."

 

Is it unrighteous to "owe an immense debt" to those that protested against the church.  Boyd K. Packer seems to praise those that opposed the Church and states that they kept the flame alive for future events.  Do you disagree with the truth of that statement from a living apostle?  Were those protestors righteous or unrighteous?  Were they inspired by the Spirit of God to protest, like our President of the Apostles states, or were they following an unrighteous spirit? When those "unrighteous" protesters protested, were they protesting over false information and "anti-" material or was it over real and actual corruption and problems?  I am only talking about the ones that the president of the Apostles says we should owe an immense debt to.  What debt?  The courage to stand up against people who said, 'dont say anything bad about the church, dont blaspheme the church.'   Yes, thank you protesters and reformers, thank you for not being caught up in the acusations of evil doings while pointing out corruption in the church without being able to hide behind a computer screen.  Wow, that must have taken a lot of courage.

[mordorbund]

Just to give an evangelical take on the predicted Great Apostasy, those of us who embrace premillenialism, and believe a Tribulation is coming, tend to believe the GA will occur during that Tribulation.  It may take on the appearance of a one-world religion, one-world church, over an overarching embrace by religions of the one called Antichrist.

 

 

So what does that "Falling Away" look like in general? I guess we should start with a better understanding of what "the church" is for evangelicals. I'll write my understanding and you can correct me where I'm amiss.

 

The church is the collective body of believers in Christ. This includes several different denominations (some draw the line at trinitarian confessions, others a professions of Jesus' divinity and Saviorhood). As such, the great apostasy draws many of the faithful (elect) and deceives them with a false gospel and false prophet. It culminates with "the man of sin" (satan? satan's prophet? Anti-Christ?) professing to be God. At this point, God has had enough and kicks everyone out of the pool.

 

(If I like your response, I may have to take this to the Christian belief forum and continue there).

[Tom Johnson]

Thank you for writing this article. I have been a student of the Great Apostasy that occurred after the establishment of the Christian church by Jesus Christ for over 40 years. I have done extensive research and have written my own book on the subject. As you have stated, the collection of this research has nothing to do with trying to make the Catholic Church look bad or to offend individual members of the Catholic Church, many of whom I know to be being up-standing, respectable Christians as the on-going cooperation in humanitarian efforts between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church confirms. The question is what evidence is there that an apostasy occurred and when I began my research I had no idea where it would lead. I found that the evidence is overwhelming that an apostasy occurred (as all Protestants agree) and that the restoration of valid authority to represent Jesus Christ (priesthood) was essential.

[prisonchaplain]

So what does that "Falling Away" look like in general? I guess we should start with a better understanding of what "the church" is for evangelicals. I'll write my understanding and you can correct me where I'm amiss.

 

The church is the collective body of believers in Christ. This includes several different denominations (some draw the line at trinitarian confessions, others a professions of Jesus' divinity and Saviorhood). As such, the great apostasy draws many of the faithful (elect) and deceives them with a false gospel and false prophet. It culminates with "the man of sin" (satan? satan's prophet? Anti-Christ?) professing to be God. At this point, God has had enough and kicks everyone out of the pool.

 

(If I like your response, I may have to take this to the Christian belief forum and continue there).

 

It's the bolded part that throws me.  Yes, the Church is made up of Christ-followers.  These will come from various denominational and non-denominational churches.  The coming apostasy (some say "strong delusion") will be a pervasive and damning embrace of deep error.  As I suggested, it could be the jettisoning of faith in Christ for a faith in humanity (be it expressed by Antichrist, or simply by giving supremacy to unity over Truth).  Some of us believe that Christ-followers will have been taken up prior to the Tribulation.  Either way, there will be conversions--and then this incredible delusion.  Certainly, those who do not give in will face beheading.  It will seem that nearly all will embrace the heresy and the Heritic (Satan's prophet, as you said).

[Traveler]

The irony I find with this thread is that most think the apostasy was about doctrine.  I am inclined to think that most Traditional Christians see religion itself as doctrinal – thus the Scriptures have become the means to argue over and define doctrine.  But this is not what the Great Apostasy was about.   In essence the Great Apostasy of Christianity followed the same path of the Great Apostasy of the Jews under the Pharisees and Scribes.  The Great Apostasy is about covenants and the covenant people of G-d and the truning the people of G-d from covenants to doctrines - just as the Jews were turned to doctrines by the Scribes and Pharisees.   The scriptures in essence are a divine witness and symbolic log in history of the covenants G-d establishes among his covenant people.  Doctrine is a secondary fallout of scripture.

 

Jesus called his followers disciples and plainly taught that knowing G-d was in keeping the commandments that must be taken on by covenant.  But the Great Apostasy changed the bases of Christian religion from covenants and commandments to doctrine.   And so Christians argue doctrine trying to demonstrate who believes the best doctrine.  And they have turned from their covenants and commandments just as did the Jews (Pharisees and Scribes) creating instead all kinds of doctrines – thinking that by believing in the correct or best doctrines they will be rewarded and saved by G-d.  The restoration is about the restoration of the covenants of G-d and the preparing a people by the renewal of the covenants, laws and commandments of the Kingdom of G-d.

[Urstadt]

the good things the Catholic Church has done throughout history, and there's far, far more good, and holy people, in our history, then there is bad.  But what else can I say?  The Catholic Church is nearly 2000 years old, our history is so large, of course there are going to be some rotten eggs.  It's a huge target and everyone likes to takes hits at it.  I hope this is the end of this thread as well.   

 

Amen to that! And, I'm born and raised LDS. My mission president taught me that the Catholic Church saved Christianity and the Holy Bible. Those two things in them of themselves are enough for me to forever be grateful to the Catholic church. I have personally never "taken hits" at the Catholic church. I really love and respect that religion.

[Urstadt]

In my humble understanding, I really believe that if all of us could go up to the Savior and ask Him whether or not the Great Apostasy occurred, or which church is correct, He would simply ask:

 

What say ye?

[Traveler]

Shakespeare once wrote something along the line of "Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems only that thinking makes it so."  When Western civilization initially became predominantly Christian; that historians called such an era - "The Dark Ages" - should be telling enough of the direction of mankind towards apostasy of truth.  I, myself find it difficult to reconcile that while man was technologically becoming almost insanely stupid that such civilization was reaching new pinnacles of divine enlightenment.

 

It appears to me that Traditional Christians still, in general, foolishly oppose the quest for learning and understanding and oppose technological and scientific advances as contrary to "established" divine principles.

[Urstadt]

Shakespeare once wrote something along the line of "Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems only that thinking makes it so."

Shakespeare may have wrote that, but the original quote is from Epictetus in (I believe) 2nd century AD. His quote was about the horrible conditions society lived in back then (disease, famine, lack of sanitation, poverty). Epictetus was a stoic, which basic tenets advocate acceptance of your lot in life, emphasis on rationale, and minimizing all desire and emotion. So his quote was basically part of the stoic philosophy to just accept the horrible conditions they found themselves in. Just fyi.

[Genkijeff]

Protestant Era of Great Apostasy  - I want to comment on the contention that "grace alone" doesn't emphasize the need for works enough. Every Bible-believing church I have been a member of has firmly believed that "grace alone" will never be without good works. The difference as I understand it is that we believe good works are necessarily the fruit of the Holy Spirit's work in our hearts. While we battle/struggle, it is because of the Holy Spirit not allowing any true believer to remain the way they are when they first believe. The point the early church made against the Jews who made works a condition of salvation was that salvation then becomes something you earn by keeping rules, not something you are given as a gift from God. Jesus said "Without me you can do nothing", so as we have a relationship with Jesus, He empowers us by the Holy Spirit to bear abundant fruit of the Spirit and to do many good works. 

[Traveler]

On 1/11/2023 at 7:40 AM, Genkijeff said:

Protestant Era of Great Apostasy  - I want to comment on the contention that "grace alone" doesn't emphasize the need for works enough. Every Bible-believing church I have been a member of has firmly believed that "grace alone" will never be without good works. The difference as I understand it is that we believe good works are necessarily the fruit of the Holy Spirit's work in our hearts. While we battle/struggle, it is because of the Holy Spirit not allowing any true believer to remain the way they are when they first believe. The point the early church made against the Jews who made works a condition of salvation was that salvation then becomes something you earn by keeping rules, not something you are given as a gift from God. Jesus said "Without me you can do nothing", so as we have a relationship with Jesus, He empowers us by the Holy Spirit to bear abundant fruit of the Spirit and to do many good works. 

Thank you for your well thought out post and welcome to the LDS 3rd Hour forum. 

There is a very old saying that has roots in many ancient cultures that we cannot know (judge) someone until we have walked in their shoes (boots, moccasins, sandals or whatever) for some extended period of time.  To know Christ, we must keep his commandments.  Isaiah tells us that to know G-d (be near to G-d and to have knowledge and understanding) we must not transgress His Law; we must keep sacred His ordinances and be loyal to His everlasting covenant. 

I personally believe the Grace of Christ forgives all sinners of their infractions and errors.  Death and sin are overcome for all in Christ.  We are also given the great gift of Agency by G-d through Christ; that we may choose to draw near to G-d and Christ – which can only happen through keeping the commandments, learning to love not transgressing the law (even in our hearts), submitting to G-d’s ordinances (in life or by vicarious ordinances in the temple of G-d) and being loyal to G-d’s everlasting covenant.

Christ walked the path himself in that he kept the commandments, did not transgress the law (not even in his heart), submitted himself unto G-d’s ordinances to fulfill all righteousness, and was loyal to G-d’s everlasting covenant.  We must walk in his footsteps if we are to know him, follow him, and be near to him.  To say we know him and not do these things – we deceive (lie to) ourselves.  We know ourselves and what we do and we can trust that G-d knows us all.

 

The Traveler