• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,134
20,128
Flyoverland
✟1,408,710.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Evidently Brigham Young had promised all of the Fancher cattle to local Indian leaders:
You know, I'm not interested in the details of this massacre. My only point was that the LDS seems to position itself above the fray of evil Catholics saying they couldn't have a valid priesthood because of the 'hundreds of massacres' the pope is supposedly ordered. If the evil Catholics are dispossessed of the priesthood then the LDS would be too, for the same reasons. It didn't even make a dent in the armor. Mormon massacres are tiny things that can be swept under rugs. Notice I didn't try at all to sweep any Catholic wrongdoings, hypothetical or actual, under any rugs. Not my point. My point was to look more closely at history, which is not friendly to Catholics, but not friendly either to Mormons. My point was not popular.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟120,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
This doesn't address what I've asked about clearly. My specific question is about if there was anyone capable of being a Prophet/Apostle during the 1700 years of God's absence on Earth. We've already established some criterion for what it takes to be a Prophet. Namely the only thing that seems to be required is a sincere faith. Having wrong Ideas, being a sinner or possibly making mistakes and sinning during one's tenure as God's anointed doesn't automatically disqualify a person.

The question isn't about whether people were called by God.
I believe there were people who were capable of being a prophet or apostle.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,897
14,169
✟465,838.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I believe there were people who were capable of being a prophet or apostle.

Why did that not happen, then, between the time of the 'great apostasy' 1,700 or whatever years ago and Joseph Smith Jr.? God just didn't want to or something?
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
9,065
4,768
✟360,169.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I believe there were people who were capable of being a prophet or apostle.

Okay. Was there any way for the early Christians to have preserved themselves from Apostasy without the presence of an Apostle?
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟120,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
You know, I'm not interested in the details of this massacre. My only point was that the LDS seems to position itself above the fray of evil Catholics saying they couldn't have a valid priesthood because of the 'hundreds of massacres' the pope is supposedly ordered. If the evil Catholics are dispossessed of the priesthood then the LDS would be too, for the same reasons. It didn't even make a dent in the armor. Mormon massacres are tiny things that can be swept under rugs. Notice I didn't try at all to sweep any Catholic wrongdoings, hypothetical or actual, under any rugs. Not my point. My point was to look more closely at history, which is not friendly to Catholics, but not friendly either to Mormons. My point was not popular.
The Mountain Meadow Massacre was not a small thing and all of the information about it is out in the open where anyone can see it. It has not been hidden from anyone. It was indeed a tragedy. It should never have happened. A lot of people were killed needlessly. It was a very sad incident in the history of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. Neither was it condoned by Brigham Young the prophet.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟120,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Why did that not happen, then, between the time of the 'great apostasy' 1,700 or whatever years ago and Joseph Smith Jr.? God just didn't want to or something?
I believe I have already explained why that didn't happen. I believe it is very clear that God did not call a prophet and apostles until Joseph Smith. Does your church have a prophet and apostles?
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟120,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Okay. Was there any way for the early Christians to have preserved themselves from Apostasy without the presence of an Apostle?
Apparently the church got entangled into politics and the precepts of man:

"Our tour of the strange world of medieval justice starts with The Cadaver Synod of 897. Or, as many have come to call it, “The Dead Pope Trial.”

The mid to late 800s was a bad time for popes. Charlemagne’s empire had crumbled and Europe had split into smaller and smaller fiefdoms. Many of these fiefdoms eyed Rome’s treasury and sought protection money. Because of Rome’s weakened condition, popes in the late 800s depended on the support of secular leaders to hold office and to achieve goals. It was a time of political factions. A pope had to be aligned with the right faction to accomplish much of anything.

In this turbulent time, Bishop Formosus of Portus—Portus being a western suburb of Rome—was making a name for himself in Catholic circles. In the 860s, the Pope called on Formosus to manage important Church matters in Bulgaria, France, and Trent. Each time he received high marks for his work, so much so that people began mentioning Formosus as a candidate for pope when the next vacancy opened up.

But when an opening occurred in 872, the papacy went to a rival, Pope John VIII. And then when Formosus found himself on the wrong side of the issue of who should be crowned the new emperor, he fled Rome. Pope John VIII convened a synod and charged Formosus with a laundry list of crimes under Church law. Among the charges were deserting his diocese without permission, opposing the crowning of the emperor, and (quote) “conspiring with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see.” Formosus was convicted, defrocked, and excommunicated.

You might think that would be the end of Formosus’s papal ambitions, but you’d be wrong. Six years later, the excommunication was lifted. In return, Formosus promised never to return to Rome or execute priestly duties. And for a while, he didn’t.

But then, in 882, Pope John VIII was clobbered over the head with a hammer, thus becoming the first pope to be assassinated.

Newly installed Pope Marinus didn’t share his predecessor’s grudge with Formosus. So he released Formosus from his oath, and restored him to his old diocese.

Three more popes came and went—they seemed to drop dead with alarming regularity around this time—until at last, in 891, Formosus became the first former ex-communicant to be elected Pope.

But the job came with a host of thorny problems. The most important concerned the messy politics of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire. The previous pope had made a commitment to crown as Roman emperor the very young Guy Spoleto III. But Formosus had his own idea as to who should be emperor."

More at: Medieval Trials, Great and Gruesome
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
9,065
4,768
✟360,169.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Apparently the church got entangled into politics and the precepts of man:

"Our tour of the strange world of medieval justice starts with The Cadaver Synod of 897. Or, as many have come to call it, “The Dead Pope Trial.”

The mid to late 800s was a bad time for popes. Charlemagne’s empire had crumbled and Europe had split into smaller and smaller fiefdoms. Many of these fiefdoms eyed Rome’s treasury and sought protection money. Because of Rome’s weakened condition, popes in the late 800s depended on the support of secular leaders to hold office and to achieve goals. It was a time of political factions. A pope had to be aligned with the right faction to accomplish much of anything.

In this turbulent time, Bishop Formosus of Portus—Portus being a western suburb of Rome—was making a name for himself in Catholic circles. In the 860s, the Pope called on Formosus to manage important Church matters in Bulgaria, France, and Trent. Each time he received high marks for his work, so much so that people began mentioning Formosus as a candidate for pope when the next vacancy opened up.

But when an opening occurred in 872, the papacy went to a rival, Pope John VIII. And then when Formosus found himself on the wrong side of the issue of who should be crowned the new emperor, he fled Rome. Pope John VIII convened a synod and charged Formosus with a laundry list of crimes under Church law. Among the charges were deserting his diocese without permission, opposing the crowning of the emperor, and (quote) “conspiring with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see.” Formosus was convicted, defrocked, and excommunicated.

You might think that would be the end of Formosus’s papal ambitions, but you’d be wrong. Six years later, the excommunication was lifted. In return, Formosus promised never to return to Rome or execute priestly duties. And for a while, he didn’t.

But then, in 882, Pope John VIII was clobbered over the head with a hammer, thus becoming the first pope to be assassinated.

Newly installed Pope Marinus didn’t share his predecessor’s grudge with Formosus. So he released Formosus from his oath, and restored him to his old diocese.

Three more popes came and went—they seemed to drop dead with alarming regularity around this time—until at last, in 891, Formosus became the first former ex-communicant to be elected Pope.

But the job came with a host of thorny problems. The most important concerned the messy politics of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire. The previous pope had made a commitment to crown as Roman emperor the very young Guy Spoleto III. But Formosus had his own idea as to who should be emperor."

More at: Medieval Trials, Great and Gruesome

I'll have to divert here and comment on this.

What an odd argument. By the time the Church became actively involved with politics it already radically diverged from Mormonism. This implies that God abandoned the Church even before Christians became involved with Politics. That is between the years 100-325. Christians then were not at a height of power so how is politics to blame for the apostasy when Christians weren't involved in them?

Let's actually examine the claim itself. If you're condemning Church participation in politics what does that say about your own Church which changed it's doctrine of marriage to have Utah admitted into the USA? Or Mitt Romney's bid for President? Is not the LDS compromised by it's historic connection to the state of Utah? Or is God able to preserve you in that specific context, but not Christians in a Roman or Medieval context?

I'll note also that we see in the first century there were prominent Roman officials and Romans of wealth and influence who were accepted into the Church. Saint Paul also never denigrates the Roman Authorities for using the sword, nor does he suggest in his discussion with King Agrippa that he can't be a Christian because of his position. Rather he wishes everyone to be as he is. The invitation to faith is for everyone, not just the poor and needy. I think we often underestimate the importance of wealthy widows in the early Church and how they helped build up the local Christian communities.

Do you really believe the Church getting involved in the secular realm was the cause of God causing himself to utterly abandon it? What about those Christians who rightly saw the temptation of the world and fled from it to live lives dedicated to himself? Did monks really deserve to be abandoned? Or of those Christians who lived Zoroastrian Persia or under the power of Pagan Kingdoms in later centuries?

But since we're going with this, let's assume it. God hates politics and everyone who participates in it. Not just those who participate in it corruptly. Does it then seem right to abandon the whole Church because of the actions of a few in power?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟120,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I'll have to divert here and comment on this.

What an odd argument. By the time the Church became actively involved with politics it already radically diverged from Mormonism. This implies that God abandoned the Church even before Christians became involved with Politics. That is between the years 100-325. Christians then were not at a height of power so how is politics to blame for the apostasy when Christians weren't involved in them?

Let's actually examine the claim itself. If you're condemning Church participation in politics what does that say about your own Church which changed it's doctrine of marriage to have Utah admitted into the USA? Or Mitt Romney's bid for President? Is not the LDS compromised by it's historic connection to the state of Utah? Or is God able to preserve you in that specific context, but not Christians in a Roman or Medieval context?

I'll note also that we see in the first century there were prominent Roman officials and Romans of wealth and influence who were accepted into the Church. Saint Paul also never denigrates the Roman Authorities for using the sword, nor does he suggest in his discussion with King Agrippa that he can't be a Christian because of his position. Rather he wishes everyone to be as he is. The invitation to faith is for everyone, not just the poor and needy. I think we often underestimate the importance of wealthy widows in the early Church and how they helped build up the local Christian communities.

Do you really believe the Church getting involved in the secular realm was the cause of God causing himself to utterly abandon it? What about those Christians who rightly saw the temptation of the world and fled from it to live lives dedicated to himself? Did monks really deserve to be abandoned? Or of those Christians who lived Zoroastrian Persia or under the power of Pagan Kingdoms in later centuries?

But since we're going with this, let's assume it. God hates politics and everyone who participates in it. Not just those who participate in it corruptly. Does it then seem right to abandon the whole Church because of the actions of a few in power?

Although we believe in sustaining the law, The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not run by the government. Wasn't the Catholic Church run by the government for a time? Wasn't the Pope told what to do during the Spanish inquisition? I believe that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella controlled the church at that time and told the Pope what to do that is according to what I have read. I believe that the church should be involved in the secular realm, but not to be controlled by it. God does not hate politics or those involved in politics. That being said I actually admire the Jehovah's Witnesses for NOT fighting in wars. Do you have a prophet and apostles in your church?
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
9,065
4,768
✟360,169.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Although we believe in sustaining the law, The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not run by the government. Wasn't the Catholic Church run by the government for a time? Wasn't the Pope told what to do during the Spanish inquisition? I believe that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella controlled the church at that time and told the Pope what to do that is according to what I have read. I believe that the church should be involved in the secular realm, but not to be controlled by it. God does not hate politics or those involved in politics. That being said I actually admire the Jehovah's Witnesses for NOT fighting in wars. Do you have a prophet and apostles in your church?

Popes were sometimes ruled by the rulers around them and sometimes ruled themselves. Sometimes they died to defend the faith or their prerogatives. Sometimes they were wicked beyond measure. Yet that doesn't convince me the Catholic Church as a whole is wrong. No, I disagree with the Catholics doctrinally on the notion that the Pope is the sole infallible leader of all Christians everywhere. Preferring the idea instead of Papal primacy instead of supremacy.

When it comes to assessing the Church's relationship with the political authorities I take into account the time and place it happened and the context of the world then. I don't insert an American vision of strict secularism and say that is or should be the standard for all time. I also reckon that given time and the ascendance of any community they will inevitably be given political power. The people who want political power are ambitious and there are those unscrupulous people who would lie and cheat in order to attain power. The humble and the meek will not naturally seek out that political power. Few people of ambition are ever pure of heart, though there have been plenty of good monarchs who were ambitious. If Mormons were to ever become a majority religion (who knows through birthrates they might be able to in a hundred years) there will be plenty of corruption done in the name of Mormonism and the argument you're using now will be readily abandoned.

So you can bring up any circumstance you want, none of it voids the whole of the Church or makes a point that God would utterly vacate the world for 1700 years. He didn't do it when the Jews were given a Kingdom and most of their Kings were terrible. Why would he specifically do it when Christians assume political power? Is God a French secularist and thinks Christians and Christianity should be kept totally out of the power structures of the secular world? There are worse systems of government than Christian Monarchy or the Old Christian Italian Republics and Theocracies. Like Communism or modern Britain.

So ultimately, if politics is not the reason why God abandoned the world for 1700 years, what is? How could that be the reason?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,890
2,682
Livingston County, MI, US
✟228,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know, I'm not interested in the details of this massacre. My only point was that the LDS seems to position itself above the fray of evil Catholics saying they couldn't have a valid priesthood because of the 'hundreds of massacres' the pope is supposedly ordered. If the evil Catholics are dispossessed of the priesthood then the LDS would be too, for the same reasons. It didn't even make a dent in the armor. Mormon massacres are tiny things that can be swept under rugs. Notice I didn't try at all to sweep any Catholic wrongdoings, hypothetical or actual, under any rugs. Not my point. My point was to look more closely at history, which is not friendly to Catholics, but not friendly either to Mormons. My point was not popular.

Review: [Untitled] on JSTOR

It is the preaching of Brigham Young that encouraged such behavior.

Google LDS danites for more information.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,890
2,682
Livingston County, MI, US
✟228,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I believe I have already explained why that didn't happen. I believe it is very clear that God did not call a prophet and apostles until Joseph Smith. Does your church have a prophet and apostles?

To everyone, what is the definition of Apostle? Requirements?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,890
2,682
Livingston County, MI, US
✟228,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Although we believe in sustaining the law, The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not run by the government. Wasn't the Catholic Church run by the government for a time? Wasn't the Pope told what to do during the Spanish inquisition? I believe that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella controlled the church at that time and told the Pope what to do that is according to what I have read. I believe that the church should be involved in the secular realm, but not to be controlled by it. God does not hate politics or those involved in politics. That being said I actually admire the Jehovah's Witnesses for NOT fighting in wars. Do you have a prophet and apostles in your church?

To my knowledge, the Government does not run any church in any time.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,890
2,682
Livingston County, MI, US
✟228,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Popes were sometimes ruled by the rulers around them and sometimes ruled themselves. Sometimes they died to defend the faith or their prerogatives. Sometimes they were wicked beyond measure. Yet that doesn't convince me the Catholic Church as a whole is wrong. No, I disagree with the Catholics doctrinally on the notion that the Pope is the sole infallible leader of all Christians everywhere. Preferring the idea instead of Papal primacy instead of supremacy.

When it comes to assessing the Church's relationship with the political authorities I take into account the time and place it happened and the context of the world then. I don't insert an American vision of strict secularism and say that is or should be the standard for all time. I also reckon that given time and the ascendance of any community they will inevitably be given political power. The people who want political power are ambitious and there are those unscrupulous people who would lie and cheat in order to attain power. The humble and the meek will not naturally seek out that political power. Few people of ambition are ever pure of heart, though there have been plenty of good monarchs who were ambitious. If Mormons were to ever become a majority religion (who knows through birthrates they might be able to in a hundred years) there will be plenty of corruption done in the name of Mormonism and the argument you're using now will be readily abandoned.

So you can bring up any circumstance you want, none of it voids the whole of the Church or makes a point that God would utterly vacate the world for 1700 years. He didn't do it when the Jews were given a Kingdom and most of their Kings were terrible. Why would he specifically do it when Christians assume political power? Is God a French secularist and thinks Christians and Christianity should be kept totally out of the power structures of the secular world? There are worse systems of government than Christian Monarchy or the Old Christian Italian Republics and Theocracies. Like Communism or modern Britain.

So ultimately, if politics is not the reason why God abandoned the world for 1700 years, what is? How could that be the reason?

Sources please, thanks Daniel It is the "rule of faith" that matters not personalities.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,134
20,128
Flyoverland
✟1,408,710.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
To my knowledge, the Government does not run any church in any time.
The Orthodox had some Caesaropapism going on from time to time, most recently under Soviet rule with the Russian Orthodox. But they have recovered from it fairly well. All in all the Orthodox survived Caesaropapism and I think they are mostly free of it now. Although I think their current schism over Ukraine is a political schism more than a truly religious one. The Church in the West was never keen on emperors or kings or nobility in charge. There were some concessions, but in large the Church had more influence on the State than the State on the Church. But Caesaropapism came back in a big way with the Reformation, where your religion was determined by where you lived and Westminster set doctrines.

There is an ebb and flow between Church and State, with the balance of the Church being independent of the State and the State independent of the Church hard to maintain. Church running the State and State running the Church are both considered bad. Currently in the USA the State is reaching for control.

Didn't the LDS entangle itself in running the State in Utah? Was that a good thing?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,134
20,128
Flyoverland
✟1,408,710.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The Mountain Meadow Massacre was not a small thing and all of the information about it is out in the open where anyone can see it. It has not been hidden from anyone. It was indeed a tragedy. It should never have happened. A lot of people were killed needlessly. It was a very sad incident in the history of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. Neither was it condoned by Brigham Young the prophet.
Even if he did not order it he seems to have incited the thinking that led to it. Even if he did not condone it after the fact he did try to blame the Indians. But I don't want to drag any more out about this. You mention it is a very sad incident in the history of the LDS. Yup. You suppose it doesn't change the status of the LDS as the one true Church. And yet you would claim to know that the Catholic Church and all the rest of Christianity is invalidated by what your friend Peter has claimed as 'hundreds' of similar massacres who he says were ordered by the popes. I didn't ask him how he knew of 'hundreds' or even dozens or even a handful and he wants to stop discussing this with me. OK. It may not be popular with you either. My only point is the standard you use to condemn the Catholic Church is the standard the LDS can be condemned. You need the Catholic Church to be invalidated for the LDS to be valid. But it may not be so.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
23,134
20,128
Flyoverland
✟1,408,710.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
"Our tour of the strange world of medieval justice starts with The Cadaver Synod of 897. Or, as many have come to call it, “The Dead Pope Trial.”
And yet I thought you considered the Catholic Church to have lost it by about 120 AD. What does something 777 years later matter if it was all done and lost in 120 AD? I guess I have to ask just when official LDS teaching has the date of the total apostasy. Or is that an evolving date?
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟120,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Popes were sometimes ruled by the rulers around them and sometimes ruled themselves. Sometimes they died to defend the faith or their prerogatives. Sometimes they were wicked beyond measure. Yet that doesn't convince me the Catholic Church as a whole is wrong. No, I disagree with the Catholics doctrinally on the notion that the Pope is the sole infallible leader of all Christians everywhere. Preferring the idea instead of Papal primacy instead of supremacy.

When it comes to assessing the Church's relationship with the political authorities I take into account the time and place it happened and the context of the world then. I don't insert an American vision of strict secularism and say that is or should be the standard for all time. I also reckon that given time and the ascendance of any community they will inevitably be given political power. The people who want political power are ambitious and there are those unscrupulous people who would lie and cheat in order to attain power. The humble and the meek will not naturally seek out that political power. Few people of ambition are ever pure of heart, though there have been plenty of good monarchs who were ambitious. If Mormons were to ever become a majority religion (who knows through birthrates they might be able to in a hundred years) there will be plenty of corruption done in the name of Mormonism and the argument you're using now will be readily abandoned.

So you can bring up any circumstance you want, none of it voids the whole of the Church or makes a point that God would utterly vacate the world for 1700 years. He didn't do it when the Jews were given a Kingdom and most of their Kings were terrible. Why would he specifically do it when Christians assume political power? Is God a French secularist and thinks Christians and Christianity should be kept totally out of the power structures of the secular world? There are worse systems of government than Christian Monarchy or the Old Christian Italian Republics and Theocracies. Like Communism or modern Britain.

So ultimately, if politics is not the reason why God abandoned the world for 1700 years, what is? How could that be the reason?
It was prophesied that that time would come when there would be a famine of God's word:

(Old Testament | Amos 8:11)

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

I believe that the Catholic Church wanted power and they found power in the word of God. It seems to me that they believed that the word of God belonged to them and no one else. They used it for their own benefit:

"The Church Council of Constance assembled in 1414 under pressure from the Holy Roman Emperor to resolve the confusing and embarrassing situation in which the Church found itself with three popes all at once. There had been two rival popes since 1378 and three since 1409. The Council claimed direct authority from Christ and consequently superior power over any pope and succeeded in resolving the papal situation by the time it finished its labours in 1418. Meanwhile, in 1415, the Council had considered, and condemned as heretical, the teachings of the Prague priest Jan Hus and he was burned at the stake in Constance. It also condemned an Englishman whose writings had influenced Hus.

Fortunately for the Englishman, he was dead. Thought to have been born in the mid-1320s, John Wycliffe or Wyclif (there are several other spellings) was a Yorkshireman, who studied at Oxford University, became a fellow of Merton College and went on to win a brilliant reputation as an expert on theology. Ordained priest in 1351, he was vicar of Fylingham, a Lincolnshire village, from the 1360s, but spent most of his time at Oxford. In 1374 he was made rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire.

By that time Wycliffe had developed startlingly unorthodox opinions, which were condemned by Pope Gregory VII in 1377. He had come to regard the scriptures as the only reliable guide to the truth about God and maintained that all Christians should rely on the Bible rather than the unreliable and frequently self-serving teachings of popes and clerics. He said that there was no scriptural justification for the papacy’s existence and attacked the riches and power that popes and the Church as a whole had acquired. He disapproved of clerical celibacy, pilgrimages, the selling of
indulgences and praying to saints. He thought the monasteries were corrupt and the immorality with which many clerics often behaved invalidated the sacraments they conducted. If clerics were accused of crime, they should be tried in the ordinary lay courts, not in their special ecclesiastical tribunals.

Wycliffe advanced his revolutionary opinions in numerous tracts. He thought that England should be ruled by its monarchs and the lay administration with no interference from the papacy and the Church. In his On Civil Dominion of 1376 he said:

England belongs to no pope. The pope is but a man, subject to sin, but Christ is the Lord of Lords and this kingdom is to be held directly and solely of Christ alone.

His opinions gained him powerful supporters, including John of Gaunt, who intervened to protect him from infuriated archbishops and bishops. He lost some support in 1381 when he denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Parliament condemned his teachings the following year, but he was allowed to retire to his parsonage at Lutterworth."

More of this at: John Wycliffe condemned as a heretic | History Today

This leads to some questions, were the popes really prophets of God? Did they have all of the priesthood keys given to Peter? If not what happened to the priesthood of God? I believe that the priesthood was lost as was the true order of Christ's church that was built on prophets and apostles. Therefore the proper order needed to be restored to the earth. It should be noted that John Wycliff's body was exhumed and burned, he being declared to be a heretic. It seems such a shame because he did the right thing.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,897
14,169
✟465,838.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Why is it that the evidence for the 'great apostasy' which supposedly occurred in the early 2nd century (or whenever...presumably very early, though Mormons here seem generally hesitant to fix it at a certain date or time period -- presumably because they'd then be asked for period-appropriate evidence of it, which they don't have) is always something in the middle ages?

So the Church was corrupted in the 2nd century because the Roman Catholic Church in particular did something in the 15th century? How does that make sense in any way whatsoever?
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟120,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Even if he did not order it he seems to have incited the thinking that led to it. Even if he did not condone it after the fact he did try to blame the Indians. But I don't want to drag any more out about this. You mention it is a very sad incident in the history of the LDS. Yup. You suppose it doesn't change the status of the LDS as the one true Church. And yet you would claim to know that the Catholic Church and all the rest of Christianity is invalidated by what your friend Peter has claimed as 'hundreds' of similar massacres who he says were ordered by the popes. I didn't ask him how he knew of 'hundreds' or even dozens or even a handful and he wants to stop discussing this with me. OK. It may not be popular with you either. My only point is the standard you use to condemn the Catholic Church is the standard the LDS can be condemned. You need the Catholic Church to be invalidated for the LDS to be valid. But it may not be so.
Even today there are murderers in the Catholic Church. In fact there are murderers in every church as far as I know. I do not blame the leaders for what the members do. Neither should we blame current leaders for what past leaders have done. God is our judge. That being said, I believe the priesthood was restored to the earth and so was the proper organization of God's church.
 
Upvote 0