LDS If a universal apostasy really happened?

[Daniel Marsh]

What is a jot? What is a tittle?
What is a jot? What is a tittle?

If a universal apostasy really happened?

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

In Matthew 5:18 Jesus was talking about only the Hebrew Bible.

If there was an universal apostasy, We would not have the Greek Bible, NT today at all.
The NT would have been destroyed and all Christian teachings would be based on only oral contradictions, all the Church Fathers works would have been destroyed too.

This is not an anti-Catholic thread since I believe they are fellow believers in Christ.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. What do the jot and tittle have to do with the idea that we wouldn't have an NT, or any of the writings of the fathers?

I don't speak or read Hebrew, but I do speak to a limited degree and read to a greater degree Arabic, and it works in a similar fashion, with several letters only being distinguished by one feature -- usually a dot or a series of dots (2 consecutive dots or one dot on top of two consecutive dots) or the absence of dots:

ت taa (two dots) = "t" sound vs. ث thaa (three dots)= "th" sound (as in "thin", not as in "the")
د daa (no dot) = "d" sound vs. ذ thaa (dot) = "th" sound (as in "the", not as in "thin")
س siin (no dots) = "s" sound vs. ش (three dots) = "sh" sound (as in "shop")
ي yaa (two dots) = "y" or "long e" (ee) sound vs. ى alif maqsura = "a" sound, or how Egyptians write their yaa (so you have to know from context which is meant; luckily there are rules about when to use alif maqsura vs. the regular alif which looks like this ا and makes the same "a" sound, so it's usually clear if an "a" or a "y"/"ee" is meant)
خ khaa (dot above) = "kh" sound in the German pronunciation of "Bach" vs. ج jiim/giim (dot below) = "j" sound as in "journey" or "g" sound as in "ground" (if you're from certain parts of Egypt) vs. ح haa (no dot) = there's no English equivalent for this, but it's an "h" sound like you might make if you were fogging up your glasses with your breath in order to clean them (that's how they told us to imagine it in my Arabic classes, anyway).

etc.

So I guess the "tittles" would be the dots in Arabic. The yaa is the equivalent of the Hebrew yodh, but it's not the smallest letter in Arabic -- that's probably the hamza, which is a glottal stop like the space between sounds in "uh-oh", or the noticeable pause you can observe in certain English (as in "from the UK") pronunciations of words like "butter" and "bottle" that come out like "buh-[e]r" and "bah-l" (the vowels in brackets aren't strictly necessary, as both words end in syllabic consonants).

Because that saying would therefore not make sense (since yaa isn't the smallest letter in Arabic), in Arabic translations of the Bible like the popular Smith & Van Dyke (SVD; this is the one used on most Coptic websites that I've seen, even though it was done by Protestants, not Coptic Orthodox people), it reads:

حَرْفٌ وَاحِدٌ أَوْ نُقْطَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ
harfun wahidun au nuqtatun wahidun
"one letter or one point" (nuqta 'point' can also mean speck, dot, period, etc.)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I'm not sure I

From the picture, I think you can see that jot and tittle relates to Hebrew, not Greek nor any other Biblical languages. Some of OT is is not in Hebrew and would be saved because they are part of the OT.

Jewish people would not allow their scriptures to be completely destroyed, but would hide some from the mobs.

If there was an universal Christian Apostasy, then they would destroy specifically Christian documents.

The NT can be recovered in the writings of the church fathers, thus their works would be destroyed by those who left the church. An universal apostasy is not simply a revised Christianity. But, complete rejection of Christianity. They would hate the NT and destroy it.

In the absence of the Church and Christian Writings, those who want to form their secular brand of Christianity that would be compatible with religions of their day would have to make up oral traditions.

Jesus promise in that verse I quoted relates only to the OT or Jewish Bible. It does not relate to the NT.

Paul's comments to Timothy concerning the Scriptures in context also refers to the OT or Jewish Bible alone since the NT had not been formed yet.

If you think about it why even bother creating another form of Christianity if you have left the Lord or turned your back on him.

To fit in, one would do their own thing or make up what they want to believe that conforms to the world around them.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay. I see what you mean now. Thank you for explaining.

I agree with your overall point, but I feel like it's also important to point out that "creating another form of Christianity" is exactly what JS and company did after leaving the Lord themselves, thinking that the supposed visions JS had claimed to receive superseded the words of Christ and all of His saints. So while it might not make sense, it did in fact happen. That's the dichotomy of Mormonism, wherein either it is 100% true and the restoration of some lost ancient form of Christianity or a complete fabrication and lie.

And that's not just me saying that; I learned that from their leader Jeffrey R. Holland and their other leaders, who have stated as much!

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not sure the argument really holds. Instead, if there was a universal apostasy, so much so as to render the historic Church un-credible on matters even of basic dogma, then that does call into question the Christian Bible altogether. Since what we effectively have, then, is an apostate church creating an apostate canon of Scripture.

If one really, truly believes that the Church fell into widespread, universal apostasy--so much so that it needed to be restored one earth, then that means even the Bible itself is called into question. The consistent thing to do would be to start from scratch and build a "Bible" from the ground up.

Except virtually no Primitivist or Restorationist groups do that, but instead take the Bible (specifically the modern Protestant Bible) as-is.

It just seems a little strange to me to argue that catholic Christianity is apostate and wrong and then go ahead and use the exact same books those apostate catholic Christians use. This sort of thing suggests that the founder(s) of such movements haven't done their homework, and that alone calls into question their claims of credibility. This isn't exclusive to Mormons, this applies to all Primitivist and Restorationist groups of all kinds; including some nominally orthodox modern [neo-]Protestant groups.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Marsh]

look at the nature of Apostasy

2 Peter 2:20-22 ESV / 134
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

1 Timothy 4:1 ESV / 126
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,


Hebrews 6:4-8 ESV / 97
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 ESV / 83
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

2 Timothy 3:1-9 ESV / 74
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. ...

Matthew 24:10 ESV / 70
And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 ESV / 63
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 4:3 ESV / 59
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

2 Timothy 4:4 ESV / 32
And will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

What we can tell most will become secular, non religious while some will become religious following false religions that already exist.

I don't even want to think about the religions of Rome, since some had Temple Prostitutes.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Would not deceitful spirits seek to destroy the complete NT and other Christian books that could recover it?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I'm not sure I

From the picture, I think you can see that jot and tittle relates to Hebrew, not Greek nor any other Biblical languages. Some of OT is is not in Hebrew and would be saved because they are part of the OT.

Jewish people would not allow their scriptures to be completely destroyed, but would hide some from the mobs.

If there was an universal Christian Apostasy, then they would destroy specifically Christian documents.

The NT can be recovered in the writings of the church fathers, thus their works would be destroyed by those who left the church. An universal apostasy is not simply a revised Christianity. But, complete rejection of Christianity. They would hate the NT and destroy it.

In the absence of the Church and Christian Writings, those who want to form their secular brand of Christianity that would be compatible with religions of their day would have to make up oral traditions.

Jesus promise in that verse I quoted relates only to the OT or Jewish Bible. It does not relate to the NT.

Paul's comments to Timothy concerning the Scriptures in context also refers to the OT or Jewish Bible alone since the NT had not been formed yet.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm not sure the argument really holds. Instead, if there was a universal apostasy, so much so as to render the historic Church un-credible on matters even of basic dogma, then that does call into question the Christian Bible altogether. Since what we effectively have, then, is an apostate church creating an apostate canon of Scripture.

If one really, truly believes that the Church fell into widespread, universal apostasy--so much so that it needed to be restored one earth, then that means even the Bible itself is called into question. The consistent thing to do would be to start from scratch and build a "Bible" from the ground up.

Except virtually no Primitivist or Restorationist groups do that, but instead take the Bible (specifically the modern Protestant Bible) as-is.

It just seems a little strange to me to argue that catholic Christianity is apostate and wrong and then go ahead and use the exact same books those apostate catholic Christians use. This sort of thing suggests that the founder(s) of such movements haven't done their homework, and that alone calls into question their claims of credibility. This isn't exclusive to Mormons, this applies to all Primitivist and Restorationist groups of all kinds; including some nominally orthodox modern [neo-]Protestant groups.

-CryptoLutheran

In what way does it not hold if the implications are followed through (to a point) in the Restorationist group itself? When Mormons claim that they believe in the Bible "insofar as it is translated correctly", they're still stating that they believe in the Bible, but with some qualifiers that make it clear that they are restorationists. It doesn't really make sense in practice (LDS using the KJV and not the Joseph Smith translation), but it's still a distinction they make.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

In what way does it not hold if the implications are followed through (to a point) in the Restorationist group itself? When Mormons claim that they believe in the Bible "insofar as it is translated correctly", they're still stating that they believe in the Bible, but with some qualifiers that make it clear that they are restorationists. It doesn't really make sense in practice (LDS using the KJV and not the Joseph Smith translation), but it's still a distinction they make.

Why don't LDS do complete translations of the Bible without alleged revelations? Where exactly in Greek texts is the following?

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;
5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came into the world for a witness, to bear witness of the light, to bear record of the gospel through the Son, unto all, that through him men might believe.
8 He was not that light, but came to bear witness of that light,
9 Which was the true light, which lighteth every man who cometh into the world;
10 Even the Son of God. He who was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

[Ironhold]

The Joseph Smith Translation is an "inspired" translation intended to reveal concepts that failed to come forward in the writing and transmission over the centuries. It was not meant to be a literal re-translation from the original languages.

That being said, the gist of it is that the priesthood authority was lost as people who held it were killed faster than they could be replaced and that past a certain point this loss, coupled with human foibles and the interference of external philosophies, led to people no longer understanding what the proper teachings were supposed to be and losing sight of who God truly was.

 

[drstevej]

The Joseph Smith Translation is an "inspired" translation intended to reveal concepts that failed to come forward in the writing and transmission over the centuries.

Not true in the case of Roman 8:30

JST (Joseph Smith Translation)
Moreover, him whom he did predestinate, him he also called; and him whom he called, him he also sanctified; and him whom he sanctified, him he also glorified.

====

New International Version
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

English Standard Version
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

New American Standard Bible
and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

King James Bible
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

====

With ZERO manuscript support he changes justified to sanctified to teach works salvation.

This is mangling not translation.

It is INSPIRED, by the Devil.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The Joseph Smith Translation is an "inspired" translation intended to reveal concepts that failed to come forward in the writing and transmission over the centuries. It was not meant to be a literal re-translation from the original languages.

That being said, the gist of it is that the priesthood authority was lost as people who held it were killed faster than they could be replaced and that past a certain point this loss, coupled with human foibles and the interference of external philosophies, led to people no longer understanding what the proper teachings were supposed to be and losing sight of who God truly was.

This sort of begs the question why God would commit his Church to Human hands he knew would fail when he should have taken the initiative and made John (while he was alive) replace the Apostles who died when he had the chance. There was no shortage of devout followers willing to die for the sake of Christ at any point in the Church's history, thus there is no excuse for there not being appointed Apostolic successors. This is unless Mormon theology is wrong and the Apostles never intended to have their unique mission replaced. They only did it once in the case of Judas who we can effectively call an Apostate.

 

[Ironhold]

This sort of begs the question why God would commit his Church to Human hands he knew would fail when he should have taken the initiative and made John (while he was alive) replace the Apostles who died when he had the chance. There was no shortage of devout followers willing to die for the sake of Christ at any point in the Church's history, thus there is no excuse for there not being appointed Apostolic successors. This is unless Mormon theology is wrong and the Apostles never intended to have their unique mission replaced. They only did it once in the case of Judas who we can effectively call an Apostate.

One John vs. how many churches in how many cities?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

One John vs. how many churches in how many cities?

We don't know the number of Churches but given Apostolic efforts to spread the Gospel, raise up leaders, there were communities all over the Empire. It seems inconceivable there was not one person apparently worthy of receiving a position as Apostle, especially given how important it was (after all the lack of them lead to the world's greatest false religion, Christianity).

 

[Ironhold]

We don't know the number of Churches but given Apostolic efforts to spread the Gospel, raise up leaders, there were communities all over the Empire. It seems inconceivable there was not one person apparently worthy of receiving a position as Apostle, especially given how important it was (after all the lack of them lead to the world's greatest false religion, Christianity).

It's not "there was a lack of people worthy to receive" as it was "a lack of people who had the direct and appropriate priesthood authority".


Imagine, if you will, that a safety inspection conducted on the local law school determines that the building has a number of issues which need to be addressed. The entire facility will have to be closed for about a year so that upgrades and repairs can be made.

That's a year in which the school will not hold the certification exams for new lawyers.

Now imagine that there's already somehow a shortage of lawyers as it is, and this closure hurts things significantly. In response to this shortage, people who may well be learned declare themselves lawyers without having the actual bar certifications. These people do well enough that people don't immediately think to check their credentials. By then, the concept that you don't have to actually be certified to practice law, however actively illegal, is sown in society.

How long before the entire practice of law is upturned?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's not "there was a lack of people worthy to receive" as it was "a lack of people who had the direct and appropriate priesthood authority".


Imagine, if you will, that a safety inspection conducted on the local law school determines that the building has a number of issues which need to be addressed. The entire facility will have to be closed for about a year so that upgrades and repairs can be made.

That's a year in which the school will not hold the certification exams for new lawyers.

Now imagine that there's already somehow a shortage of lawyers as it is, and this closure hurts things significantly. In response to this shortage, people who may well be learned declare themselves lawyers without having the actual bar certifications. These people do well enough that people don't immediately think to check their credentials. By then, the concept that you don't have to actually be certified to practice law, however actively illegal, is sown in society.

How long before the entire practice of law is upturned?

The Problem with your analogy is that those subsequent leaders of the Church did not claim to be Apostles. They claimed apostolic authority to their office but not to the office of Apostle. So they did not self-appoint themselves, but were rather appointed as leaders (bishops) of their particular jurisdiction by Apostles or those appointed by Apostles themselves.

This should put to question the idea that the Apostles were not capable of appointing Apostolic replacements, especially as they began to die off. The persecution against them wasn’t simultaneous nor was it coordinated, but sporadic and taking place over the course of many years. Plenty of opportunity for another Apostle (especially John), once he learned of the fate of his fallen comrade, to appoint from the already chosen pool of local Bishops replacements. Yet there were none.

Now this leads me to conclude the Apostles never intended nor had a mandate that their particular office go beyond them and their time. If it were so important, they would have appointed Apostles. John in particular since he possibly lived to the beginning of the second century. Mormons can’t really address this unless they implicate the entirety of the apostolic mission and the men they chose to be leaders. Were none of them Bishops worthy of being Apostles? None whatsoever? What does that say of the Church at the time? Was it all a lie, stories about the dedication of followers in acts and subsequent generations? Mere propaganda? I don’t think so.

I contend that the Mormon explanation of the early Church material is insufficient and cannot account for all the details. It raises more difficulties and problems trying to explain something that never happened to begin with (loss of authority). Authority was never lost in the Church, faithfulness was never lost.

 

[Ironhold]

No one questions the presence of devout faith.

The issue is divine authority.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's not "there was a lack of people worthy to receive" as it was "a lack of people who had the direct and appropriate priesthood authority".

You do realize that from the perspective of literally every non-Mormon Christian this is literally inventing a problem.

"There was a lack of people who had the direct and appropriate priesthood authority" And we would ask, "What priesthood authority?" And you would then explain to us how Christ established for His true Church a priesthood, and it is this priesthood authority that was lost but has now been restored in God's true Church. We would then ask, "Where, exactly, can we find out about this 'priesthood authority'?" And of course you then tell us that it can be found in scriptures outside of the Bible which God gave Jewish prophets who sailed to America, which our founder found written on golden tablets in his backyard after being told where to find them by an angel. He was also told directly by God the Father and Jesus Christ that he was the prophet to restore the true Church and so he was uniquely able to translate the golden plates by use of a special stone placed into a hat. And that it is in these writings, and the authority of the prophet God chose, that the true Church was basically lost because it lost the priesthood authority, which was then restored. To which we would say, "Golly that sounds awfully convenient." And it may seem like I'm being rude and/or cheeky here. But this is, quite literally, what your church is telling us. This is the reason we are supposed to leave our churches and join yours, and is the crux of the whole matter: Our churches lack a thing your church does, a thing which is only found in writings and statements that are associated exclusively with the founder of your church--either from things he claimed to have translated or have said/written by divine authority as a prophet.

This isn't me trying to be insulting, this is me trying to point out exactly what it is Christians, such as myself, are hearing here. This is what various Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians are hearing when you say there was a lack of people who had the direct and appropriate priesthood authority.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dzheremi]

No one questions the presence of devout faith.

The issue is divine authority.

In addition to ViaCrucis' good post above, I would say that if we are talking about divine authority, then we must be talking about authority given divinely, i.e., by God.

To this, I'm sure a Mormon could say "Yes! Exactly! We believe that God gave authority directly to Joseph Smith via ______" (the first vision, or some other time when JS claimed to receive messages from God). Okay then. And then your leaders subsequent to JS received that same authority how? Did they all, as in each and every one of them down to a man, also have 'first vision' experiences, wherein God the Father and Jesus appeared to them and told them anew that all the other churches were wrong, and only they individually would have the power to restore what had been lost? No, right? The Mormon restoration is a one-time deal, completed with the establishment in 1830 of the Church of Jesus Christ under the leadership of Joseph Smith.

This begs the question of where the supposed 'divine authority' went in Mormonism after the death of JS (well, this and the succession crises/shattering of Mormonism into hundreds of pieces), or at least it would if I did not already know that you guys believe that the authority given to JS by God is maintained in those who followed him in the Mormon leadership, even though this stance -- like all restorationists' stances on this point -- lays bare the hypocrisy of the Mormon religion on this point in claiming that their religion (Mormonism) can be maintained by the passing on of divine authority beyond the founding generation even if the mechanism for receiving that authority has changed in the meantime, whereas others' religion (Christianity) cannot be maintained because the mechanism for receiving that authority has changed since the founding generation (e.g., the apostolic fathers were taught and/or ordained by the apostles, not by Christ Himself, so they are not to be trusted for some reason).

It's complete and utter hypocrisy and Mormonism must invent lie upon lie in a desperate attempt to exonerate itself from its own rules, and still inevitably fails to do so in the eyes of everyone but the already-convinced.