LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[Peter1000]

It upsets Mormons to no end that mormonism remains staunchly unrecognized as legitimate by all of Christianity, but Christianity will recognize those who severely argued with each other over doctrinal points throughout history, causing schism, and even persecuted each other to death. Some of those arguments are still ongoing, yet we continue to recognize the "doctrinally different side" as legitimate brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.

The LDS sees all other branches of mormonism as apostates from them. There is no alliance or spiritual brotherhood within mormonism's ranks, like there is within Christianity.

It is no concern of ours that we are not recognized by all of Christendom as a legitimate church. However, we are the 4th largest Christian church in America and closing in on 3rd. We are the fastest growing world-wide Christian church. We just do our work, regardless of recognition. We have a missionary force of over 120,000 missionaries almost world wide. We do millions of dollars of world wide humanitarian work and so we don't even care if the NCC or WCC recognizes us as legit. They do recognize us as the 2nd fastest growing church in America.

There is only 1 thing that bothers me, and that is some Christians will not recognize us as Christians because we don't believe exactly the same way you believe in Jesus. It is not for you to set the rules for being a Christian. The bible set the rules in Acts when it says that the followers of Jesus were called Christians first in Antioch. A very simple definition. Since we are followers of Jesus, we, by the biblical definition are Christians. And that is all that matters.

 

[Peter1000]

By this logic, all the breakaways from the original church started by Smith are evidence of another apostasy.

That might be true. Accept Jesus told JS about 2 important points pertaining to the restoration of his church. And when JS learned of these points, he prophecied that this would happen.
1) There would be many small breakaways from the original church.
2) None of these breakaways would ever rival the original church.

These other small breakaways have indeed apostatized from the original church, but they are not growing and will never rival the original church. So this prophecy is being fulfilled in our day. You are seeing it fulfilled.

The problem with the early church of Jesus Christ was the breakaways got to a point that they rivaled the original church and it eventually became impossible to recognise the true primitive church. It will not be the same for the restored church in our day. The original church will continue to expand and grow, the breakaways will continue to be of no significance.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That might be true. Accept Jesus told JS about 2 important points pertaining to the restoration of his church. And when JS learned of these points, he prophecied that this would happen.
1) There would be many small breakaways from the original church.
2) None of these breakaways would ever rival the original church.

These other small breakaways have indeed apostatized from the original church, but they are not growing and will never rival the original church. So this prophecy is being fulfilled in our day. You are seeing it fulfilled.

The problem with the early church of Jesus Christ was the breakaways got to a point that they rivaled the original church and it eventually became impossible to recognise the true primitive church. It will not be the same for the restored church in our day. The original church will continue to expand and grow, the breakaways will continue to be of no significance.

The Salt Lake Brighamist church broke away from the Original Mormon Church which is now the RLDS or "Church of Christ". Joseph Smith's own wife Emma and his children kept the original mormon scriptures and laws - they even own the copyright to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

I don't know which denomination of LDS you are but the biggest branch in Salt Lake is also one of the apostate ones, according to the Joseph Smith prophecy you mention, since Brigham Young broke away from Joseph Smith's church (all due to his desire to practice polygamy).

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Actually, the only part of your list Mormon's don't believe as well is the co-substantion of the Father/Son/Spirit (that's no where in the Bible). You and I agree that rest of your list is Biblical.

Really? The ONLY part??? What about this part:

• Authority of the Bible - The Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God and no other writings, revelations or prophecies are to be considered as an authoritative source of truth and/or interpretation of the Bible.

So you don't believe the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price, or any other prophecies or revelations that the Mormon religious leaders have given are to be considered as an authoritative source of truth?

And bytheway: who decided that the above list is the "essential" doctrines of being a "Christian"? I don't see that list in the Bible...

I don't rest my faith in the arm of man, but rather in God, whom tells me that CoC is apostate. Rest of this doesn't matter.

It's all in the Bible. It's not in the same list order that I provided but it's all in the Bible. If you clicked the link I provided you'd see that each point in that list is proven by references to Bible verses.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The Salt Lake Brighamist church broke away from the Original Mormon Church which is now the RLDS or "Church of Christ". Joseph Smith's own wife Emma and his children kept the original mormon scriptures and laws - they even own the copyright to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

I don't know which denomination of LDS you are but the biggest branch in Salt Lake is also one of the apostate ones, according to the Joseph Smith prophecy you mention, since Brigham Young broke away from Joseph Smith's church (all due to his desire to practice polygamy).

False telling of events all around. For starters, the RLDS church did not even exist with Brigham Young & crew moved to UT, but was founded sixteen years later.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Really? The ONLY part??? What about this part:

• Authority of the Bible - The Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God and no other writings, revelations or prophecies are to be considered as an authoritative source of truth and/or interpretation of the Bible.

Sorry- my mistake, I meant to talk about that part and distracted before including it in my post. No: LDS do not believe in a closed cannon, because such ideas are not in the Bible.

It's all in the Bible. It's not in the same list order that I provided but it's all in the Bible. If you clicked the link I provided you'd see that each point in that list is proven by references to Bible verses.

I did click on your link and look through it. There's not a single verse about a closed cannon or co-substantion.

Your list of "essential doctrines" is also not in the Bible.

 

[Peter1000]

When you say "the apostasy" you are referring to the Mormon idea of there having been one. I asked what that is supposed to have been. Do I take it that you don't know, not any more than the other Mormons asked before? If so, I'd think it very wrong to base a religion upon believing that something happened a long time ago to end the church that Christ founded and in defiance of his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church...but no one knows what it was or, for that matter, when it happened. Just say "apostasy" and you've got the justification for making a new one.

I would not be a member of the Mormon church if I did not know and believe in the apostacy.

Since you don't know what apostacy is or you don't want to admit it, I will tell you what it is.

During Paul's life, which is just a short time after Jesus's ascension, (mark the time) he made 2 statements that should make anyone stop and think. The first see 1 Tim. 1:15
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Paul's statement to Timothy may have been on a day when Paul was feeling bad from a letter he received with bad news from one of the Asian churches, and he over-reacted. It may also be a revelation from Jesus that the mystery of iniquity was already at work in the church, starting to pull the church in different directions and away from their leadership (apostles). Being corrupted by false prophets and false apostles in sheep's clothing that were really ravenous wolves. (see Mat. 7:15) In any event, Paul certainly is not sure that Asia is doing well.

The second see 2 Thes. 2:1-3 & 7
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

This scripture has several interesting points.
1) Paul is telling his converts that the day of Christ is not at hand.
2) Paul is telling his converts that that day shall not come, except there be a falling away first (there must be an apostacy first).

Is Paul teling us that there is going to be an apostacy? Yes, if you are an honest student of the bible. He doesn't tell us how deep the falling away will be, but in his lifetime, he can already see things happening that he feels to warn of an impending apostacy. This apostacy was slow to get started and stayed in check to a certain degree as long as the apostles lived, but once they were all murdered, then there was nothing to stop the falling away from happening just as JS said so. Again, read your Christian history with the thought that there was an apostacy and you will find ample evidence that the mystery of iniquities were indeed working, even in Pauls lifetime.

See post #5 & #6 for much more biblical info on the falling away (apostacy).

 

[ArmenianJohn]

ArmenianJohn says:
What did I say that's any different?
...
My unfounded assertions that Paul was talking about "living apostels and prophets" is biblical, not unfounded. It is well grounded.

To avoid getting entangled in a tangent on which I don't even fundamentally disagree with you I won't get into everything about the "foundation" and the "prophets" of the early church.

I will say that your statement about "living apostles and prophets" is incorrect because Paul was talking about all Apostles and Prophets, including the dead, not just the living ones. I don't know if I'm understanding you right or not, but it sounds like you are trying to assert that Paul is talking about only living apostles and prophets.

If you will again read Eph. 4:11-14 you will know that the apostles job was not finished because they started a few churches around the Mediterranean Sea. You should quickly find out that we need apostles and prophets today more than eve.
The bible text gives evidence that there could have been 16+ apostles. As one died, another was ordained in his place. It is difficult to know exactly how many were ordained after Mathias, Paul, and Barnabas. Probably Timothy and others, that are not recorded.

Here you make a leap in which you presume that your concept or definition of an "apostle" matches that of Christianity's. It does not. Apostles were an office of the Church for the establishment of the Church and therefore the office did not continue beyond the original Apostles. The Bible indicates that an Apostle was one of Christ's Disciples or at least one who was selected by Him and had seen the Risen Lord. The Bible further indicates that the Apostles' job was finished when the Early Church was established and Christians were first called "Christians" at Antioch. The Church was finally established at Antioch, the foundation was laid.

ArmenianJohn says:
Thrones? Argued? LOL!!!

You have never read the history of the Christian church. Look how we go round and round over simple doctrines. Now add to that the power of a throne in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and add to that the enormous egos and wealth and the prestige of being the number 1 see. If you can't see the massive confict after about 200ad, I can't help you.

Not only have I read the history of the Christian Church but I have read it from both Christian and secular sources. It sounds to me like your sources are mormon sources. I'm not sure where you get some of your ideas, otherwise. You are talking about "thrones" and as a result of the "thrones" that there was a "conflict after about 200 AD".

Well, considering that the first Christian Nation (first "throne" to be Christian") was Armenia in 301 AD, I think your view of history is quite a bit off. And considering that Armenia and the Armenian Church did not "fight" with the other churches but, instead, quite the opposite worked together with the others (in particular the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) your fables of fighting and arguing are unfounded. Armenians and Ethiopians (among others like Arabs, Copts (Egyptians), Assyrians, Greeks, etc.) were among the earliest Christians and had presence in Jerusalem with the Disciples and Apostles since earlier than 70 AD. Our Canons matched and there was widespread agreement on the Canon of scripture thanks to the guidance of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers that they passed knowledge and scripture to, mostly in the form of the completed Bible.

Sorry, the Catholic church at one time had the entire church, but because of the corruption and murder, and power-grabbing, it lost 1/2 of its followers to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and then of the 1/2 they had, they lost 1/2 of those followers to the reformation. Not very agreeable were they. No, they were haute and cruel masters and eventually, the people revolted and the Christian world was split asunder, never to be one again. Then the reformers couldn't agree on anything and that part of Christendom split, and split, and split until you have over 3000 denominations today. Not very agreeable, would you say. The apostacy struck deep and hard and there eventually needed to be a "restitution of all things" (see Acts 3:19-21).

That's a bizarre and wrong view of Christian history. Right off the bat, your use of the term "Catholic" is confusing. "Catholic" with a capital "C" typically means Roman Catholic but it could also be one of the other Catholic Churches such as Ukrainian, Greek, etc. "Catholic" with a small "c" ("catholic") means universal. Early on, there was no "Roman Catholic" church but rather a "catholic Church" (small "c"). Churches took on names based on their locations and that didn't change when there were divisions, but it wasn't the result of the divisions. The Early Church even had churches based on location - The Church at Ephesus, the Church at Phillipi, the Church at Corinth, etc. - these were all the same Church but different local churches. All were under the headship of Christ and were established and guided by the Apostles.

So where in all this is the "apostasy"? Having churches with different locations is not apostasy? Having churches with disagreements over NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines is not apostasy.

My Church in particular has a direct line of Apostolic Succession to the Apostles Thaddeus (St. Jude) and St. Bartholomew. Where is the "apostasy"??? It simply isn't there. It was simply made up by Joseph Smith so he could discredit the Bible's inerrancy and completeness so that he could open the door for himself to add his own "revelations" to it to form a new religion.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Sorry- my mistake, I meant to talk about that part and distracted before including it in my post. No: LDS do not believe in a closed cannon, because such ideas are not in the Bible.

OK, so there are two things that are core, essential Christian beliefs which you and mormonism don't agree with.

I did click on your link and look through it. There's not a single verse about a closed cannon or co-substantion.

Your list of "essential doctrines" is also not in the Bible.

Sure it is, it's just not in list form. It's throughout the Bible.

1. "Central doctrines" of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faithChristian and not something else.
   1. The meaning of the expression "Christian faith" is not like a wax nose, which can be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
   2. The Christian faith is a definite system of beliefs with definite content (Jude 3
      
      )
   3. Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central doctrines include theTrinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
   4. Scripture teaches that the beliefs mentioned above are of central importance (e.g., Matt. 28:19
      
      ; John 8:24
      
      ; 1 Cor. 15
      
      ; Eph. 2:8-10
      
      ).
   5. Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one cannot be saved and deny these.
   6. Central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about which Christians may legitimately disagree.
      Peripheral (i.e. non-essential) doctrines include such issues as the timing of the tribulation, the method of baptism, or the structure of church government. For example, one can be wrong about the identity of "the spirits in prison" 1 Peter 3:19
      
      ) or about the timing of the rapture and still go to heaven, but one cannot deny salvation by grace or the deity of Christ (John 8:24
      
      ) and be saved.
      
      
   7. All Christian denominations — whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant — agree on the essential core. The relatively minor disagreements between genuinely Christiandenominations, then, cannot be used to argue that there is no objectively recognized core of fundamental doctrine which constitutes the Christian faith.
   – Source: Source: Alan Gomes, Cult: A Theological Definition, excerpt from "Unmasking The Cults"
   
   Zondervan Publishing Company (May 11, 1995)
   

 

[Peter1000]

The Salt Lake Brighamist church broke away from the Original Mormon Church which is now the RLDS or "Church of Christ". Joseph Smith's own wife Emma and his children kept the original mormon scriptures and laws - they even own the copyright to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

I don't know which denomination of LDS you are but the biggest branch in Salt Lake is also one of the apostate ones, according to the Joseph Smith prophecy you mention, since Brigham Young broke away from Joseph Smith's church (all due to his desire to practice polygamy).

To know which is the original church, per the prophecy of JS, look at the growth of the Brigham Young/SLC church of Jesus Christ, and the RLDS, now the Community of Christ. It is an interesting study in contrast.

There are 2 major doctrines that Joseph Smith the 3rd rejected when he became president of the RLDS church. They were:
1) The RLDS would not practice plural marriage. He despised the Brighamites in SLC for continuing to practice plural marriage. His church would not.
2) Tithing paid to the church would be after all other expenses. He stated that Brigham Young was stealing from the people in SLC because our tithing was based on the gross increase. JS3 would have his people pay tithing only after all other expenses or their net increase.

Ironically, if there was 2 reasons why the RLDS did not grow and expand, it is because they never got to a critical mass in population, and they never had enough money in the church to do what they needed to expand and grow. In fact the money issue became so accute that they gave up their name, stopped speaking of their founder JS and stopped preaching the BOM over the pulpit and joined the NCC so they could get money from that organization in order to stay afloat. Today they are called the Community of Christ and are not in any way a rival to the Brighamites in SLC.

The Brighamites on the other hand have continue to grow at a rapid pace because they did reach critical mass for a population to establish a community. The population of the church is now over 16,000,000 world wide. It is the 4th largest church in America, and closing in on 3rd. The church is well known for having enough money to finance a world-wide church and also has enough money to do millions of dollars of humanitarian work all over the world.

So you tell me which church is the original church, regardless who has some documents from JS? It is not hard to tell that Jesus wanted Brigham Young to be the next prophet of his church. Read his story from Mormon journals to see how BY became the next prophet and lead 20,000 people from Nauvoo to SLC. It is one of the great stories in American history.

 

[Jane_Doe]

OK, so there are two things that are core, essential Christian beliefs which you and mormonism don't agree with.

Because those two beliefs are not in the Bible.

Sure it is, it's just not in list form. It's throughout the Bible.

1. "Central doctrines" of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faithChristian and not something else.
   1. The meaning of the expression "Christian faith" is not like a wax nose, which can be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
   2. The Christian faith is a definite system of beliefs with definite content (Jude 3
      
      )
   3. Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central doctrines include theTrinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
   4. Scripture teaches that the beliefs mentioned above are of central importance (e.g., Matt. 28:19
      
      ; John 8:24
      
      ; 1 Cor. 15
      
      ; Eph. 2:8-10
      
      ).
   5. Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one cannot be saved and deny these.
   6. Central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about which Christians may legitimately disagree.
      Peripheral (i.e. non-essential) doctrines include such issues as the timing of the tribulation, the method of baptism, or the structure of church government. For example, one can be wrong about the identity of "the spirits in prison" 1 Peter 3:19
      
      ) or about the timing of the rapture and still go to heaven, but one cannot deny salvation by grace or the deity of Christ (John 8:24
      
      ) and be saved.
      
      
   7. All Christian denominations — whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant — agree on the essential core. The relatively minor disagreements between genuinely Christiandenominations, then, cannot be used to argue that there is no objectively recognized core of fundamental doctrine which constitutes the Christian faith.
   – Source: Source: Alan Gomes, Cult: A Theological Definition, excerpt from "Unmasking The Cults"
   
   Zondervan Publishing Company (May 11, 1995)

But you (rather the fallible human being whom made this website) are picking out verses of the Bible and declaring these ones to be essential, and the others to not be. No where in the Bible does it say "These beliefs are essential and these are optional".

 

[ArmenianJohn]

False telling of events all around. For starters, the RLDS church did not even exist with Brigham Young & crew moved to UT, but was founded sixteen years later.

That's not the way the RLDS tell it.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Because those two beliefs are not in the Bible.



But you (rather the fallible human being whom made this website) are picking out verses of the Bible and declaring these ones to be essential, and the others to not be. No where in the Bible does it say "These beliefs are essential and these are optional".

No, I'm not saying these verses are essential. ALL verses are essential.

I'm saying that these verses are ones that contain proof that certain doctrines are core, essential beliefs for one to be a Christian.

 

[Albion]

I would not be a member of the Mormon church if I did not know and believe in the apostacy.

I'm sure you do believe in it, but since no one knows what it was or when it happened...

It's not surprising that the average person thinks that simply saying "Yep, there must have been an apostasy"--and then proceeding to invent a new meaning for the word--is a highly questionable idea on which to build an entire religion.

That, in a nutshell, is what this is all about.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I'm saying that these verses are ones that contain proof that certain doctrines are core, essential beliefs for one to be a Christian.

And that the other verses are nonessential to being a Christian.

 

[fatboys]

That's not the way the RLDS tell it.

They can say anything they want Joseph Smith lll was twenty eight when he decided to become president of the RLDS. Emma didn't want anything to do with either church until his son decided to become president. Now the RLDS is no longer

 

[Albion]

As you know, just about every court has ruled that the RLDS was/is the original church. That's why she, and not your church, holds the Temple Lot, the Kirtland Temple, etc. etc.

And saying "the RLDS is no longer" really doesn't do you credit. That church changed its name; that's all there is to that. You know this...but what of other readers here who don't know too much about the saints?

 

[Jane_Doe]

As you know, just about every court has ruled that the RLDS was/is the original church.

And why should I care what a court of fallible men says? I care what God says!

 

[fatboys]

And why should I care what a court of fallible men says? I care what God says!

Because of JS wife and properity rights that is it

 

[Jane_Doe]

.