By this logic, all the breakaways from the original church started by Smith are evidence of another apostasy.
Upvote
0
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.
The Eastern Orthodox church is the prime witness of the apostacy. Why did you feel a need to break away from the western church?
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.
ArmenianJohn says:
What did I say that's any different?
Here are your exact words:
Christ is the Chief Cornerstone of the Church and therefore He is the Foundation. His Apostles were charged and authorized to build upon the Church further upon Him.
According to Eph. 2:20 Jesus is only the Chief Cornerstone, but not the entire foundation of the Church.
According to Eph. 2:20 the whole foundation is made up of apostles and prophets and Jesus. Therefore this is the foundation, not just Jesus. Do you see the difference?
ArmenianJohn says:
How do you make that leap? You're saying the "prophets were still alive"... Really? Joshua was still alive? Moses was still alive? Daniel was still alive? Where do you get this from? John the Baptist was the last prophet, by the way.
When Eph. 2:20 says that part of the foundation is made up of "prophets", do you think it meant Joshua, and Moses, and Daniel? No, it did not, it meant living, current prophets. John the Baptist was not the last prophet.
Acts 21:10-11
10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
And
Titus 1:12-13
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.
The apostles were prophets, they had a special witness of Jesus and bore a special testimony that he lives. That is the spirit of prophecy.
These are the kinds of men that receive revelation from Jesus about certain circumstances, that helps to lead and guide the people of the church. They are essential to a living church. That is why they are part of the foundation of the true church of Jesus Christ.
My unfounded assertions that Paul was talking about "living apostels and prophets" is biblical, not unfounded. It is well grounded.
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.
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.
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).
The RCC broke away from the Church of England.Let's run with your idea that there was no apostasy for a minute: if that's true, then why did your church feel the need to break away from the RCC?
"flawed" does not equal "apostasy." As I wrote earlier, I suspected that the use of the word being made by the Mormons here does not appear to be the actual meaning of "apostasy," which does NOT mean the church dividing into different Christian church bodies or even a seriously wrong doctrine or doctrines being introduced into the faith. An apostasy is a complete renunciation of the Christian faith, and history does not indicate that such a thing has ever happened to the church overall, although individuals have apostasized, abandoning Christianity altogether in favor of Atheism or Buddhism, for example.The mere fact that you are Angelican and not RCC points to the fact that you believe something was/is critically flawed about the RCC (aka that there was in apostasy).
By this logic, all the breakaways from the original church started by Smith are evidence of another apostasy.
Disagreements and errors do not mean the same thing as "critically flawed" or "apostasy". Catholics and Anglicans still recognize each other as Christians despite big differences in various non-essential doctrines.The mere fact that you are Angelican and not RCC points to the fact that you believe something was/is critically flawed about the RCC (aka that there was in apostasy).
Nauvoo was not a dismal failure. You need to read up on your Mormon history by Mormons, and not the anti Mormon literature. It would give you a true prospective of JS and the Mormon experience.What employment did JS hold while creating his church? Did he work as a ditch digger? A glasslooker, then? An honest, successful banker? How about a tavern innkeeper? What else was there.... Oh, yes. Illustrious Mayor of Nauvoo, IL.
All dismal failures.
JS hated physical work, and said so quite often to many people. That and so much more is edited out of his personal works as they are painstakingly gone through with a fine-toothed comb before being slowly released to LDS. If the LDS has nothing to hide, why not just publish what JS's secretaries wrote down for all to see?
Wouldn't be all that "faith promoting" then, would it?
So you believe that Brigham Young apostatized from Joseph Smith's mormon church? I didn't realize you were RLDS.Yes, there are those who apostatize from the fullness of the Gospel and from the Lord's church. There always has been and until the Lord comes it will be that way.
How in the world do you figure that?The RCC broke away from the Church of England.
"Critically flawed" = "apostasy". Please read what I wrote."flawed" does not equal "apostasy."
The bolded parts are EXACTLY what apostasy means. Creedal Christians can't even agree on how many book aren't in the Bible..."flawed" does not equal "apostasy." As I wrote earlier, I suspected that the use of the word being made by the Mormons here does not appear to be the actual meaning of "apostasy," which does NOT mean the church dividing into different Christian church bodies or even a seriously wrong doctrine or doctrines being introduced into the faith.
By this logic, all the breakaways from the original church started by Smith are evidence of another apostasy.
"Non-essentail" doctrines = the number of books in the Bible?Disagreements and errors do not mean the same thing as "critically flawed" or "apostasy". Catholics and Anglicans still recognize each other as Christians despite big differences in various non-essential doctrines.
Your facts here are incorrect.Or, if you believe that a split is evidence of apostasy, then apparently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is an apostate church as evidenced by Joseph Smith's own wife Emma and his son and children breaking away from the Apostate Brigham Young followers who kept Polygamy alive and moved to Salt Lake City.
Let's run with your idea that there was no apostasy for a minute: if that's true, then why did your church feel the need to break away from the RCC?
The mere fact that you are Angelican and not RCC points to the fact that you believe something was/is critically flawed about the RCC (aka that there was in apostasy).
Those are apostates that represent a partial apostasy: a full apostasy occurs when the fullness of the gospel is lost from the face of the earth.
The Church of England was many centuries old at that point, so no new church was created. Under Henry, it resumed an earlier status of independence from the Pope but otherwise remained what it had been. The Papacy for some years thereafter attempted to undermine the CofE through insurrections, political plots, and so on, but failing this, finally broke it off with the CofE and called all Englishmen still loyal to the Vatican to come out of their churches and be separate from the Church of England, which situation persists to this day.How in the world do you figure that?
That may be your definition, and it may be the Mormon definition, but it's not the actual meaning of the word. So, I guess that we've come to the decision in all of this. No apostasy occurred, but it's claimed by the LDS anyway."Critically flawed" = "apostasy".
"Essential doctrines" = Those doctrines that are found in scripture which address the core beliefs of Christianity:"Non-essentail" doctrines = the number of books in the Bible?
"Non-essentail" doctrines = What is required for salvation?
"Non-essentail" doctrines = Whether or not Christ has a special personal representative on this Earth?
CoC says Brighamist Mormonism is apostate - who to believe, Brigham Young or Joseph Smith? CoC is Joseph Smith's family, including Emma Smith. Do you believe Emma apostatized?Your facts here are incorrect.
And suffice it to say that the CoC church is apostate.
That may be your definition, and it may be the Mormon definition, but it's not the actual meaning of the word. So, I guess that we've come to the decision in all of this. No apostasy occurred, but it's claimed by the LDS anyway.
How many flaws does it take for it to be impure enough to break away? If you have a glass of pure water and take one drop of contamination is it still pure.The RCC broke away from the Church of England.
"flawed" does not equal "apostasy." As I wrote earlier, I suspected that the use of the word being made by the Mormons here does not appear to be the actual meaning of "apostasy," which does NOT mean the church dividing into different Christian church bodies or even a seriously wrong doctrine or doctrines being introduced into the faith. An apostasy is a complete renunciation of the Christian faith, and history does not indicate that such a thing has ever happened to the church overall, although individuals have apostasized, abandoning Christianity altogether in favor of Atheism or Buddhism, for example.
"Essential doctrines" = Those doctrines that are found in scripture which address the core beliefs of Christianity:
- 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.
- The Deity of Christ - Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This essential teaching addresses the nature of God, and includes the doctrine of the Trinity – one God in three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
- Man is sinful and in need of salvation - The Bibles says that “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23). “[T]he wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)
- Jesus died a substitutionary atoning death for our sins; and rose bodily from the dead
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/158-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith
- Salvation is by grace through faith - Salvation is a gift from God. It cannot be earned by good works or any other efforts on our part.
Those are the essential, core beliefs of Christianity that all Christian denominations, from Catholic to Protestant to Orthodox believe in. Mormons do not believe in all of these.
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.CoC says Brighamist Mormonism is apostate - who to believe, Brigham Young or Joseph Smith? CoC is Joseph Smith's family, including Emma Smith.
In the historic situation I was asked about, this apparently would be answered, "only one"--not accepting the claimed authority of the bishop of Rome.How many flaws does it take for it to be impure enough to break away? .
In the historic situation I was asked about, this apparently would be answered, "only one"--not accepting the claimed authority of the bishop of Rome.
But that would be the answer only as your question was fielded by that particular denomination/church body.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?