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

ArmenianJohn said:

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.


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.


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.


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.

Click to expand...

ArmenianJohn says: 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.

Apostles were an office of the Church for the establishment of the Church and therefore the office did not continue beyond the original Apostles.

You never read Eph. 4:11-14. If you had, you would know that what you have said here is, per the bible, not correct.

Do you really think that the most important office in the church, a foundational office, like apostle, that Jesus called and ordained and set up to lead and guide the entire world church would go away after they set up a few churches around the Mediterranean? Do you really think that a lower non-foundational office, like deacon, would be essential to the church and continue forever? Hint: It takes an apostle in order to have deacons. No apostles, no bishops, no bishops, no deacons. No apostles, no primitive church as Jesus set up. That was the main reason for the apostacy. When the foundation was murdered, the church was volnerable to all the things that the bible predicted would happen when they died. Read post #5 & #6 to see what was going to happen.

Armenianjohn says:
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.

I would agree with you that Catholic was not right. I only know that for a time the church was one, catholic with a small c. There is evidence that the 4 major sees did look to Rome as the 1st church, and there is evidence that it was because ot the keys that Peter was given by Christ, and Peter died in Rome, hence were passed on to the next bishop of rome, who eventually became the father/pope of the church. The next in line was Constantinople, then Jerusalem, then Antioch, then Alexandria.

ArmenianJohn says:
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.

If Peter's successor really had the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the Eastern Orthodox Church finally broke away from Peter's successor, they are apostate, not having the power to do the things that are essential. Regardless of whether you think they agree for the most part or not. The EOC does not have the power that Peter's respresentative has. They have rejected Jesus's representative on earth. They are apostate and the EOC is in apostacy.

ArmenianJohn says:
My Church in particular has a direct line of Apostolic Succession to the Apostles Thaddeus (St. Jude) and St. Bartholomew. Where is the "apostasy"???

The Armenian Church has no apostolic succession. You call it an apostolic succession, but it is not. What you have is a succession of bishops. Big difference. Bishops are not apostles. Bishops do not have apostolic powers for the universal church. Apostles are foundational, bishops are not. Hint again: It takes an apostle to have a bishop. Jesus ordained the apostles, the apostles ordained the bishop. Never in the bible to you read that a bishop ordained a bishop. No apostles, no bishops. No apostles, no primitive church that Jesus set up. That's why it is important to read Eph. 4:11-14. Why we need apostles and how long they needed to be in the church, and nowhere in this scripture does it say until the apostles set up a few churches around the Mediterranean.

Read Eph. 4:11-14 and tell me what you think.

ArmenianJohn said:

So you believe that Brigham Young apostatized from Joseph Smith's mormon church? I didn't realize you were RLDS.

Click to expand...

After Joseph's death they tried to set up a dynasty type system with the son of Joseph Smith taking over, but that wasn't the way the Lord instructed Joseph to set it up. Non of those involved had any authority to do so, note the vast majority followed BY.

Sec 107
Revelation on the priesthood, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, about April 1835. Although this section was recorded in 1835, the historical records affirm that most of verses 60 through 100 incorporate a revelation given through Joseph Smith on November 11, 1831.

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

When the First Presidency is dissolved due to a death then all of the Keys and Authority are held by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They elect the next prophet who calls two men to be his counselors, the Twelve then sustain and ordained them to their callings. Similar as what was done in Acts 1. Traditionally it has always been longest member of the Twelve and who is called the President of the Quorum of the Twelve but technically it could be anyone.

Albion said:

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.



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.

Click to expand...

Do you think for one minute that the true Church of Jesus Christ and it's representatives would compel another church to not break away by starting insurrections, political plots, murder at the stake, and persectution of innocent people etc., etc., etc.

You had 2 corrupt tyrants, the pope and Henry and they were battling each other for power and money and lands.The pope I believe had some thoughts of the religious ramifications that this battle had on people, but Henry had no thoughts for his people, he just wanted what he wanted and if he had to become the head of the church to get it, then so be it. You want to talk about apostate and apostacy, Henry was the poster boy for that condition. Unfortunately, he pulled his people into the apostacy too, but by that time the apostacy was already complete.

Do you feel good about Henry being the representative of Christ on earth?

ArmenianJohn said:

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.

Click to expand...

The bible says to be a Christian, all you have to be is a follower of Christ. Since we are followers of Christ, by definition we are Christians. You see the bible set the definition. They who followed Christ were called Christians first at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

The verbiage did not say this: They who followed Christ and believed exactly how I believe in things were called Christians first at Antioch.

You don't get to set the definition. The bible set it first at Antioch, over 2000 years ago.

ArmenianJohn said:

No, I never said that. This is now the second time you're saying that I said that and it is after my response where I clarified that I did not say that. Do not make that false accusation again.

Click to expand...

In post #214, you said "I'm saying that these verses are ones that contain proof that certain doctrines are core, essential beliefs for one to be a Christian."

If these verses say it (your "in" group), then it logically follows that rest of the verses are the "out" group, and do not contain essential core beliefs. It is simple logic and sentence structure. Is that not what you're trying to say?

Albion said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is a much firmer foundation than Henry. if you think that there was no apostacy, then you have to believe that Henry kicked the true Church of Jesus Christ out of his country with all kinds of blood and horror. Then set himself up as head of another church. Then he put into place the bishops of his church. How much true authority do you think Henry recieved from Jesus Christ? None. Do you think for one minute that Jesus would trust the keys of the kingdom of God with Henry? No. If Henry doesn't have the proper keys, then there is nothing done in the CofE or the Angican Church that is recognized in heaven. Not one thing.

You may think the same is the case with the Mormons. So from our different prospectives, we are both in a bad spot. Sorry.

I can hope and believe the true church of Jesus was set up by the apostles. I can believe that the bible is right about the apostacy. i can hope and believe that the restitution of all things spoken of by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the beginning was accomplished through the prophet JS. I really can hope and believe these things. Can you really hope and believe the say the same about Henry?

Jane_Doe said:

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

Click to expand...

He also says that the RLDS came first.

Peter1000 said:

It is a much firmer foundation than Henry. if you think that there was no apostacy, then you have to believe that Henry kicked the true Church of Jesus Christ out of his country with all kinds of blood and horror.

Click to expand...

Listen, please. Apostasy--as I explained before--means to abandon Christianity altogether. It does not mean to let a false doctrine or other into the church. Look it up in the dictionary, if you must.

As far as the English church is concerned, Henry was a Catholic in belief and practice until his dying day and prohibited ideas from the Reformation from coming into the church. He himself wasn't even declared to be a heretic by the Roman Church, let alone an Apostate!

Albion said:

Listen, please. Apostasy--as I explained before--means to abandon Christianity altogether. It does not mean to let a false doctrine or other into the church. Look it up in the dictionary, if you must.

Click to expand...

Mormons are disciples of Christ (aka the Bible's definition of Christian). And yet you say that Mormons are "a non-Christian cults due to their false doctrines".

Which is it?

Jane_Doe said:

Mormons are disciples of Christ (aka the Bible's definition of Christian). And yet you say that Mormons are "a non-Christian cults due to their false doctrines".

Which is it?

Click to expand...

I didn't say what you've quoted me here as having said. But by the way, it's the Mormons here who are saying that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with whatever they consider to be God's truth, in any matter whatsoever, has apostasized from the Christian religion. That's what it means to apostasize. So asking me what you did here seems awfully strange, regardless of that 'quote' you made up.

Albion said:

I didn't say what you've quoted me here as having said. But by the way, it's the Mormons here who are saying that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with whatever they consider to be God's truth, in any matter whatsoever, has apostasized from the Christian religion. That's what it means to apostasize. So asking me what you did here seems awfully strange, regardless of that 'quote' you made up.

Click to expand...

I was not meaning an exact quote but a gistted idea-- in 20/20 hindsight my choice in grammar was poor. I apologize for that and any offense I have unintentailly caused.

Peter1000 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Even if we entertain your interpretation, none of this points to a total apostasy or loss of Christ's Church.

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).

Click to expand...

Yes, there must be a falling away first, an apostasy. What is your evidence that this falling away is a falling away, or apostasy, of the Church? Where is it saying that Christ's Church must apostatize? Or is that what you're reading into the text?

Peter1000 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church could say exactly what you have said above. Also, please point to historical evidence of the breakaways that rivaled the original church. What specifically are you referring to?

Again, the logic employed in this thread, pointing to the existence of multiple churches in "orthodox" Christianity, could be used against the LDS movement itself. Therefore, that is not a valid evidence for an apostasy of Christ's Church.

Peter1000 said:

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.

Click to expand...

But then, the "original" (if not necessarily the largest or best known) is the RLDS (i.e. the Community of Christ, as it's now known). The church that came later to be headed by Brigham Young isn't the original, and it's being the original that matters in this particular line of thought.

And if you say that the LDS is better, more authentic, truer, what JS had in mind, or anything else like that...it's exactly the kind of thing that many Protestants say in response to Catholics using the "original church" argument on them.

It's also interesting how the LDS argument on numbers varies, at least from what I've seen on various forums. Some will say something like this-"we're the largest LDS-related church, the others are very small by comparison, this is proof we're the true LDS church". Then, when discussing how minuscule the LDS church is compared to various Christian churches, as well as the world population as a whole, some LDS will then say-"well the scriptures say that the church will always be small, etc". Very amusing.

Albion said:

Listen, please. Apostasy--as I explained before--means to abandon Christianity altogether. It does not mean to let a false doctrine or other into the church. Look it up in the dictionary, if you must.

As far as the English church is concerned, Henry was a Catholic in belief and practice until his dying day and prohibited ideas from the Reformation from coming into the church. He himself wasn't even declared to be a heretic by the Roman Church, let alone an Apostate!

Click to expand...

You seem to think that in order to use the word apostasy, one has to completey abandon Christianity, and you quote a dictionary to prove your point. Well, the apostasy from the primitive Church of Jesus Christ was gradual, irregardless of your dictiionary. Here is an example of gradual apostacy: Read 1 Corinthians 15:12
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Paul was talking to people he converted, but some of them, who obviously believed in Jesus, did not believe that there was a resurrection of the dead.. What state of apostasy were these people in? It is obvious that they were not in a complete apostasy, but they were in a partial apostasy of not believing all the doctrines of the church. We don't know what happened to these people, they may have believed Paul and come into complete agreement with the church, or they may have never been able to reconcile the resurrection story and finally went into complete apostasy and lost there belief in Jesus altogether.

The other part of apostasy is in some cases unseen. For instance, you may confess to the public that you are a believer in Christ, but your actions would prove you have apostatized from Christ. A person cannot kill, rape, persecute innocent people, cause wars and contentions, wreak havoc, torture innocents, burn people at the stake for reading the scriptures, etc., etc., etc. and be a disciple of Christ, and be in church on Sunday. That kind of person is in complete apostasy in reality, but puts a public face on as being for Christ.

Jesus would not allow a complete apostasy, for if he had, then the gates of hell would have prevailed. So throughout the centuries, Jesus has always been available and thousands of people have done thousands of good works to keep the light shining even in the darkest hours of a general apostasy. The gates of hell were not allowed to prevail over the church.

The times of the restitution of all things, was a refreshing new day, and God and Jesus both came to a young boy to let him know not to join any of the existing Christian churches. Jesus told him they drew near to him with their lips, but their hearts were far from him. Jesus told him they had a form of godliness, but denied the power thereof. Jesus told him the he would be a new prophet in this new dispensation of the fullness of times and that Jesus would restore his primitive church back to the earth through JS. A short time later, the true foundation of Christ's church was reestablished and 12 apostles were chosen and began to function. And so the Church of Jesus Christ again had apostles and prophets, with Jesus being the chief cornerstone. Then came the deacons, teachers, priests, bishops, pastors, evangelists, elders just like the primitive church. Missionary work was instituted from the beginning and today there are 120,000 missionaries a year, teaching the people the name of Jesus Christ. The membership is up to over 16,000,000 people and is 1 of only a few churches that can say they have a world-wide church presence. It is the 4th largest church in America, and will be the 3rd shortly. All from an obscure farmboy in upstate New York in the year 1820.

The partail and complete apostasy was real, the restitution of all things spoken of in the bible is real too.

NYCGuy said:

It's also interesting how the LDS argument on numbers varies, at least from what I've seen on various forums. Some will say something like this-"we're the largest LDS-related church, the others are very small by comparison, this is proof we're the true LDS church". Then, when discussing how minuscule the LDS church is compared to various Christian churches, as well as the world population as a whole, some LDS will then say-"well the scriptures say that the church will always be small, etc". Very amusing.

Click to expand...

Be amused, but keep your eye on the growing population of the Mormon church. It will grow even faster in the next few years. It will be rather astonishing.

Peter1000 said:

You seem to think that in order to use the word apostasy, one has to completey abandon Christianity, and you quote a dictionary to prove your point.

Click to expand...

That's the meaning of the word, yes. And it's understood that way throughout Christendom. I suggested a look at the dictionary as merely a quick and easy way for anyone here to check it out and see that what I (and others) have said about the meaning is not just made up in order to be contrary.

Here is an example of gradual apostacy: Read 1 Corinthians 15:12
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Paul was talking to people he converted, but some of them, who obviously believed in Jesus, did not believe that there was a resurrection of the dead.. What state of apostasy were these people in? It is obvious that they were not in a complete apostasy, but they were in a partial apostasy of not believing all the doctrines of the church.

Click to expand...

That's only your own attempt to re-define the word apostasy.

The other part of apostasy is in some cases unseen. For instance, you may confess to the public that you are a believer in Christ, but your actions would prove you have apostatized from Christ.

Click to expand...

That's true. So are you saying that the apostasy that Mormons say happened in early Christianity was some abandonment of the faith by every congregation and member--but done unseen by everyone else??

Jesus would not allow a complete apostasy, for if he had, then the gates of hell would have prevailed.

Click to expand...

Meaning that there was no apostasy. That's what the non-Mormons here have been contending.

Whether any alleged apostasy were open and known--or, as you suggested, secret--there couldn't have been one without the promise of the gates of hell not prevailing against Christ's church being countermanded.

So throughout the centuries, Jesus has always been available and thousands of people have done thousands of good works to keep the light shining even in the darkest hours of a general apostasy. The gates of hell were not allowed to prevail over the church.

Click to expand...

Because there hasn't been a general apostasy. And if that's so, the theoretical basis for a restored church thereafter doesn't exist. The original church would be continuing on, even though some members might have apostasized.