the apostacy

[arizona_sunshine]

Thats funny, if I had to make the call, I would say that it is the salt lake lds church that is in apostacy. At least the "splinter" groups, as you call them, have the guts to hold to what they believe. They didnt cow down to the federal government and call it a revelation when they told them to stop polygamy. They dont have a new revelation every time something paints them in the wrong political light. They dont change their ceremonies or garment styles. They dont place mans laws above what they believe (mistakenly) to be Gods. No sir, I think your church is in apostacy if you look at it right.

For the reasoning being presented right here, we cannot "win."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints holds firm in many ways, which means we can be labeled "old fashioned" and "bigoted." (i.e. recent embrace of Christian community to homosexual relations)

But if we change anything to grow with the times, we are "cowing down" or worse: adding and changing what we tell everyone else is a perfect gospel. (i.e. end of polygamy, preisthood ban being lifted, temple ceremony wording change)

Do you know what messes up the Gospel of Christ? People do! That is why a good chunk of the New Testament exists, is it not?

Well, the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are people as well, and we are not perfect. The Lord is doing His best to move His work forward as quickly as we can handle it. This is a Living Gospel, and it will grow.

 

[ByGrace]

For the reasoning being presented right here, we cannot "win."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints holds firm in many ways, which means we can be labeled "old fashioned" and "bigoted." (i.e. recent embrace of Christian community to homosexual relations)

But if we change anything to grow with the times, we are "cowing down" or worse: adding and changing what we tell everyone else is a perfect gospel. (i.e. end of polygamy, preisthood ban being lifted, temple ceremony wording change)

Do you know what messes up the Gospel of Christ? People do! That is why a good chunk of the New Testament exists, is it not?

Well, the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are people as well, and we are not perfect. The Lord is doing His best to move His work forward as quickly as we can handle it. This is a Living Gospel, and it will grow.

Now that is funny. I thought your church was established as the perfect church by revelation by God who the Bible says is unchanging. How do you then say that His one and only true church must "grow with the times" I thought the polygamy thing was a "NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT?" Why does the perfect temple ceremony have to have a revelation of change as soon as people start objecting to its content? Sorry bud but God does not change His laws because people dont like them. He is God and His laws are everlasting. Your church changed because it was going to lose tax free status and because it was going to lose paying members. That is not necessarily a bad thing. All good fortune 500 style corporations must take into account its income base.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Now that is funny. I thought your church was established as the perfect church by revelation by God who the Bible says is unchanging. How do you then say that His one and only true church must "grow with the times" I thought the polygamy thing was a "NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT?" Why does the perfect temple ceremony have to have a revelation of change as soon as people start objecting to its content? Sorry bud but God does not change His laws because people dont like them. He is God and His laws are everlasting. Your church changed because it was going to lose tax free status and because it was going to lose paying members. That is not necessarily a bad thing. All good fortune 500 style corporations must take into account its income base.

We are way off topic.

The New and Everlasting Covenant, as I understand it, is eternal marriage, not polygamy.

I dont believe we profess to be a perfect church, ByGrace. We do, however, have a perfect leader: Jesus Christ. Just as in our own personal quests to know Christ, the CoJCoLDS is striving to emulate the ideals of our Saviour. Its taking us time and new understanding. Do you not find sometimes you must take a step back to see the big picture? Do you not find sometimes your must rethink your approach in order to grow?

It all boils down to this, as always:

I believe that the CoJCoLDS is divinely led by the Lord thru His servants:a living, growing gospel.

You do not believe that.



Its pretty much that simple.

 

[ByGrace]

The New and Everlasting Covenant, as I understand it, is eternal marriage, not polygamy.

See, that is what I am talking about. The "new and everlasting covenant" was established as polygamy but then when that was done away with (very confusing) your leaders tried to make it eternal marriage. Not too easy to do when it is in the d and c as polygamy though. Just another drop in the ocean of problems. You say your leader is Jesus. I say that is blasphemy to say that Jesus is such a God that he cannot even keep His own everlasting covenants from ending. No, your church is not led by Jesus or it would not have these mistakes.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

See, that is what I am talking about. The "new and everlasting covenant" was established as polygamy but then when that was done away with (very confusing) your leaders tried to make it eternal marriage. Not too easy to do when it is in the d and c as polygamy though. Just another drop in the ocean of problems. You say your leader is Jesus. I say that is blasphemy to say that Jesus is such a God that he cannot even keep His own everlasting covenants from ending. No, your church is not led by Jesus or it would not have these mistakes.

D & C refers to the New and Everlasting Covenant as that of eternal marriage. It applied to polygamy, when the institution was in practice... however the New and Everlasting Covenant is that of eternal marriage--- which is very much in practice right now.

You misunderstand the nature of our covenants as well: they are a two way promise between the Lord and ourselves. Because polygamy is no longer in practice (sigh of relief from this girl) it does not make null and void the promises the Lord made to those who accepted and faithfully fulfilled the calling.

In light of your refusal to accept our church's "growing with the times," let me ask you this of the entire Bible: In the Old Testament and the New Testament, the general idea is that the author is consistantly God / Jesus Christ. Why is it that God / Jesus instituted the Law of Moses only to repeal it, in your beliefs, during His walk on the earth? During His ministry, Christ presented some pretty different ideas compared to that which He had established with His people before. Could it be He was hoping His followers were ready for a higher law? Were they?

Members of the church are not perfect, not even our stalwart, beloved leaders (you know, Fortune 500 CEO and what not). We are still learning from the Master.

To say that we have no more to learn from Him, that we are ahead of Him, ByGrace, I believe would be blasphamy.

 

[Salsa_1960]

what of the different denominations in the LDS church? most of the protestant denominations were created by a difference in church structure or form of worship. the mainstream protestant denominations are not quite as different as most would picture them. just because we worship in different ways because we interpret the same scriptures in different ways, that does not mean that there is this huge division or dislike for one another. we are united, just not uniform.

The biggest split came at the time of the death of Joseph Smith. Many went on to follow Brigham Young while many others saw this as apostacy and believed that Joseph Smith's son (when he was older) would lead the church in his father's footsteps. They became the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints" and recently have been known by the name "Community of Christ" though officially they are still RCoJCoLDS.

 

[MormonFriend]

Thats funny, if I had to make the call, I would say that it is the salt lake lds church that is in apostacy. At least the "splinter" groups, as you call them, have the guts to hold to what they believe. They didnt cow down to the federal government and call it a revelation when they told them to stop polygamy. They dont have a new revelation every time something paints them in the wrong political light. They dont change their ceremonies or garment styles. They dont place mans laws above what they believe (mistakenly) to be Gods. No sir, I think your church is in apostacy if you look at it right.

Your comment here is nothing less than a distraction tactic, taking the focus off of the real topic at hand, which is the apostasy of the original Church of Jesus Christ. I stated to Solar that one of the evidences of apostasy is the splintered factions / denominations within the Christian faith. This reality exists with or without the LDS Church.

Solar's question about the splinters within our Church was reasonable, and I explained that we do not recognize those splinters as valid. Meaning of course that within the Christian Body they consider one another valid, which is impossible because if they all were guided by the Spirit, then they would be one in understanding.

So to simplify matters, why not talk about apostasy pre 1830, before the LDS Church was restored. Then we can determine, or at least convince this poster, that there was no need for a restoration.

I hope to hear from Solar on this.

 

[MormonFriend]

i have done research on the mormon church. a lot of research. the mormon church says that there was an apostacy, that the church has fallen away from its original beliefs. things like baptizing for the dead and believing that God and Jesus are different beings. do they really believe this? what evidence is there of this apostacy?

If you really are serious about research, find the book "The Great Apostasy" by James E. Talmage. It has 1,000 times + more info, and documentation than you will ever get here by us posting.

 

[MormonFriend]

..... The Body of Christ has many different functions. This is accomplished by using people from different walks of life. Not all people worship the same or function the same. I personally go to a Baptist denomination but I am not a "Baptist" but a Born Again Christian. I would walk into any other true Christian Church and feel just fine worshiping Jesus within their walls. While we may see some things different, the basis of Christianity is agreed upon.

The Body of Christ cannot exist unless those who are members are led by the same Head. Using people from different walks of life that understand the same scripture differently means that they are hearing different spirits that teach them. That creates divisions, not unity. That is what the apostasy is all about.

If they understand scripture differently, how can you come up with "the basis of Christianity?"

 

[TOmNossor]

Actually, something ByGrace speaks of is very profound evidence of which church is God’s true church.

The CoJCoLDS does change as God sees the need to guide his flock differently. God of course does not change, but we do.

What ByGrace seems to have missed however is that the Catholic and all Protestant Churches do not subscribe to the Church that Jesus Christ established, but only the Catholic Church has any answer for why, and if ByGrace was Catholic I could explain why I find their answer inferior to the answer provided by the CoJCoLDS.

As I quoted earlier in this thread:



"...This one thing is at least certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this...To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant..."1

"The position, that historical Christianity is not Protestantism, is certainly true...We maintain Protestantism was the Christianity of the apostles-that very soon after their time, corruptions in doctrine and government were introduced into the church..."2

…

"Whatever be the Christianity of the New Testament, it is not Romanism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this, and Romanism has ever felt it."3



1 John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Univ. Of Notre Dame Press (1989) pp.7,8.

2 William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles, Still Water Revival Books (1991) pp.46,47.

3 William Cunningham, ibid., p.48.



All of the above statements are true based on my read of history. Newman’s words da*n all Protestants in that they have no way to explain how they exist. They are not Biblical in that their interpretation of the Bible is a combination of an invention by the Catholic Church (who claimed the authority to do so) and the reformists (who have no special claim to authority). The Reformist changed the face of Christianity into something never before seen on the face of the Earth, and in some cases did this by openly declaring that portions of the Bible were “Epistles of Straw.” To change Christianity radically like this as ByGrace points out can by held up as changing God. This is exactly why the theology ByGrace espouses fails to rise to the level of “internally consistent.”



The CoJCoLDS, lead by Revelation from God, can navigate the course of human existence and develop appropriately without falling to the above problem. The Catholic Church with ordained authority and what Newman calls “Natural Revelation” can also do so. But all Protestant churches who embrace sola scriptura are “fatally flawed” from the starting gate.



ByGrace, before you accuse the CoJCoLDS of changing God, perhaps you should “become deep in history.” Then when you “cease to be Protestant,” we can talk about which read of history is more consistent Catholic or LDS.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

If you really are serious about research, find the book "The Great Apostasy" by James E. Talmage. It has 1,000 times + more info, and documentation than you will ever get here by us posting.

And what do you want to wager that Talmage, a former President of the LDS Utah, will prove by selectively quoted and out-of-context quoted "sources" that all Christian churches, with one exception, are apostate? And do you want to guess which church he "proves" is the only scriptural church?

If one is really serious about research, don't rely on any middle man, go to the historical sources yourself. Click this link and read the actual history of the church as written by the early church fathers. For example Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, and Barnabus believed to be the disciple of Paul, and other early church leaders from the time of the apostles until past the Nicaean council in 325 AD.

 

[Wrigley]

And what do you want to wager that Talmage, a former President of the LDS Utah, will prove by selectively quoted and out-of-context quoted "sources" that all Christian churches, with one exception, are apostate? And do you want to guess which church he "proves" is the only scriptural church?

If one is really serious about research, don't rely on any middle man, go to the historical sources yourself. Click this link and read the actual history of the church as written by the early church fathers. For example Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, and Barnabus believed to be the disciple of Paul, and other early church leaders from the time of the apostles until past the Nicaean council in 325 AD.

Sounds like a lot of work. Wouldn't it be easier to read what someone else says the history is and take that person's word for it? That's easier than independent thought. Plus it frees up evenings.

 

[Der Alte]

Sounds like a lot of work. Wouldn't it be easier to read what someone else says the history is and take that person's word for it? That's easier than independent thought. Plus it frees up evenings.

Of course, how silly of me. We should just let Talmage, or some other leader, do our thinking for us. Then when someone disagrees with our church doctrine we can just quote Talmage. Heaven forbid that we should actually go and read the actual history for ourself.

 

[TOmNossor]

And what do you want to wager that Talmage, a former President of the LDS Utah, will prove by selectively quoted and out-of-context quoted "sources" that all Christian churches, with one exception, are apostate? And do you want to guess which church he "proves" is the only scriptural church?

If one is really serious about research, don't rely on any middle man, go to the historical sources yourself. Click this link and read the actual history of the church as written by the early church fathers. For example Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, and Barnabus believed to be the disciple of Paul, and other early church leaders from the time of the apostles until past the Nicaean council in 325 AD.

Der Alter,

I have done more than this actually, but what say you about this course of action.



First, read the Bible and the 3 earliest ECF (you only listed two of these men). These are Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome (be sure to read the works that likely were written by these men not some of the spurious works attributed to them by latter authors).

As you read these, think on the following questions.

Was ordained authority important?

Was ordained authority to be passed on?

While there seems to be evidence that ordained authority existed and was passed on, is there any evidence that there is a head of the church on the earth after the Apostles died/left public ministry?



If you come to the conclusion that ordained authority existed and was passed on, but there was not a head of the church, then learn how the Papacy came into existence. Read Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. (Newman was a Protestant when he started his essay, but by the end he became a Catholic because, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”) With an understanding of the fact that the Papacy developed, then read James Barker. He has a compilation book, but I have read the 1952, 1953, and 1954 Priesthood lesson manuals myself (I also read Talmage, and while he has a little more scripture, his history is much less convincing than Barker).



With Newman and Barker under your belt, decide if the CoJCoLDS or the Catholic Church is the most likely successor of Christ and the New Testament Apostles.



Whatever your decision is, pray to have a Spiritual witness of the truth.



The above is quite a bit of work. It is not quite as much work as reading all the pre-Nicea ECFs. It also does not solely rely on someone else to choose which Father’s you emphasize (I choose the earliest three). Der Alter, you left out Clement of Rome (wrote before Irenaeus and who likely knew both Peter and Paul) and Justin Martyr ( also wrote before Irenaeus and believed in creation of the Earth from pre-existent matter). Another advantage is that you would be reading a Catholic and a LDS source then deciding for yourself.



Charity, TOm

 

[ByGrace]

D & C refers to the New and Everlasting Covenant as that of eternal marriage. It applied to polygamy, when the institution was in practice... however the New and Everlasting Covenant is that of eternal marriage--- which is very much in practice right now.

You misunderstand the nature of our covenants as well: they are a two way promise between the Lord and ourselves. Because polygamy is no longer in practice (sigh of relief from this girl) it does not make null and void the promises the Lord made to those who accepted and faithfully fulfilled the calling.

In light of your refusal to accept our church's "growing with the times," let me ask you this of the entire Bible: In the Old Testament and the New Testament, the general idea is that the author is consistantly God / Jesus Christ. Why is it that God / Jesus instituted the Law of Moses only to repeal it, in your beliefs, during His walk on the earth? During His ministry, Christ presented some pretty different ideas compared to that which He had established with His people before. Could it be He was hoping His followers were ready for a higher law? Were they?

Members of the church are not perfect, not even our stalwart, beloved leaders (you know, Fortune 500 CEO and what not). We are still learning from the Master.

To say that we have no more to learn from Him, that we are ahead of Him, ByGrace, I believe would be blasphamy.

You have much to learn of your church. I was a member and now (sigh of relief to this guy) am not. Polygamy, in the words of the illustrious briggy young, is such a requirement that only those abiding by it will be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. If you then, according to your "modern day Moses prophet" are not living it, you are heading to hell.

Jesus did not do away with anything when He came. He showed people the higher nature of the laws and what they were supposed to mean to them. He showed them what the sacrifices and rituals were a type of, and said that not one jot nor tittle of His words will pass away. Oh, I wonder if that is unless it is not "translated correctly?"

 

[ByGrace]

The biggest split came at the time of the death of Joseph Smith. Many went on to follow Brigham Young while many others saw this as apostacy and believed that Joseph Smith's son (when he was older) would lead the church in his father's footsteps. They became the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints" and recently have been known by the name "Community of Christ" though officially they are still RCoJCoLDS.

And if one of them is the "true church" (which is just not the case) it would definately be the reorganized. At least they had the guts to hold to what they believed.

 

[ByGrace]

Your comment here is nothing less than a distraction tactic, taking the focus off of the real topic at hand, which is the apostasy of the original Church of Jesus Christ. I stated to Solar that one of the evidences of apostasy is the splintered factions / denominations within the Christian faith. This reality exists with or without the LDS Church.

Solar's question about the splinters within our Church was reasonable, and I explained that we do not recognize those splinters as valid. Meaning of course that within the Christian Body they consider one another valid, which is impossible because if they all were guided by the Spirit, then they would be one in understanding.

So to simplify matters, why not talk about apostasy pre 1830, before the LDS Church was restored. Then we can determine, or at least convince this poster, that there was no need for a restoration.

I hope to hear from Solar on this.

Well, isnt that convenient. If it doesnt line up with you then you just "dont recognize it."

 

[ByGrace]

If you really are serious about research, find the book "The Great Apostasy" by James E. Talmage. It has 1,000 times + more info, and documentation than you will ever get here by us posting.

Yeah, thats a great idea. And if you want to know about the wonders of the white only race, go see hitler.

Want to know what is really on a comet? Go see a heavens gater.

Want to know what the government is up to? Talk to the unibomber.

Sorry, if you want truth you dont go to a place that lacks it.

 

[ByGrace]

The Body of Christ cannot exist unless those who are members are led by the same Head. Using people from different walks of life that understand the same scripture differently means that they are hearing different spirits that teach them. That creates divisions, not unity. That is what the apostasy is all about.

If they understand scripture differently, how can you come up with "the basis of Christianity?"

Hence the mormon church and the way each different ward seems to have a different understanding of every doctrine they teach.

 

[fatboys]

And what do you want to wager that Talmage, a former President of the LDS Utah, will prove by selectively quoted and out-of-context quoted "sources" that all Christian churches, with one exception, are apostate? And do you want to guess which church he "proves" is the only scriptural church?

If one is really serious about research, don't rely on any middle man, go to the historical sources yourself. Click this link and read the actual history of the church as written by the early church fathers. For example Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, and Barnabus believed to be the disciple of Paul, and other early church leaders from the time of the apostles until past the Nicaean council in 325 AD.

FB: Talmage was the President of what LDS Utah. He was never the president of the Church. Also, Talmage was a scientist who was amoung his peers considered a genius. Was called to be an apostle, and was probably the first apologist who had looked at and publicly debated critics before he was an apostle. Some of his works are the best documented books out there. One of this books called Jesus the Christ is a joy to read. Timeless. There are now many other apologists who have written much and by reading early church fathers, I think you would be terribly disappointed as to what they taught compared to what you believe.