the apostacy

[SiSSYGAL]

Here’s a list of a few items that strike me as being plain and precious as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that either don’t appear in the Bible or don’t appear in a plain enough manner so that they are easily or correctly understood:

1. Eternal marriage
2. Pre-mortal existence
3. True nature of God
4. Accurate Christology
5. Gospel is preached to the dead.
6. Proxy ordinance work for the dead.
7. True nature of priesthood.
A. Adam was a high priest
B. Abraham was a high priest
C. Noah was a high priest
8. True nature of scripture
9. True doctrine of plural marriage.
10. True nature of theosis (eternal progression)
11. True nature of prophecy
12. True nature of spirits
13. True correlation between grace, faith and works
14. The great apostasy
15. True nature of the Fall
16. Necessity of authority to act in the name of God.
17. Power of godliness
18. Translation of John the apostle
19. Authorship of the Apocalypse
20. Election and sustaining of Church leaders
21. Church structure
22. Necessity of living apostles
23. True doctrine of adoption
24. Separate creations (spirit, spiritual, mortal)
25. True doctrine of the gift of the Holy Spirit
26. True doctrine of the resurrection
27. True doctrine of baptism
28. True doctrine of the meaning of creation
29. True doctrine of the meaning of being born again
30. True doctrine of Jesus as our father.
31. True nature of prophets
32. True doctrine of justification
33. True doctrine of sanctification
34. Doctrine of the degrees of glory in the resurrection
35. Necessity of the Fall
36. Opposition in all things
37. Purpose of creation and the existence of man
38. The correct answer to the problem of evil
39. True concept of Satan and evil spirits.
40. The covenant of baptism
41. The covenant of the sacrament
42. The eternal effects of the atonement
43. The eternal nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ

The doctrines have been taught by prophets, Jesus and his apostles, but weren’t preserved.
Those are a couple of the plain and precious doctrines and concepts that didn’t make it through the apostasy. If I had some time to look at some books, I think I could come up with more. (originally Posted by Alma)

Sherman

 

[SiSSYGAL]

sherman:
I've asked numerous people to provide this explanation of the apostasy and have never gotten an answer. I actually began to believe it was a trick question! I am so elated to read this. Not that I agree--just that there is an answer. Is this answer finite or is there more? Your notes at the bottom state that these are "a couple of"
things. I wasn't quite sure what to make of this. Thanks so much for posting this post.

 

[JVAC]

Would you mind returning to Melchidezek? I have read (on-line which might not be the most reliable source) that Melchidezek was unique in that he didn't ask for or require a tithe. This is unlike the tithe of the OT Jews where it was more or less compulsory. In fact, Melchidezek counciled his flock and gave them bread and wine.
He was unique among priests and therefore famous. Hundreds & thousdands of years later, folks still talked about and loved the priest Melchidezek. Later, in the NT, Jesus is referred to as being a priest according to the order of Melchidezek. In other words, he's in a priesthood of one (like Melchidezek was in a priesthood of one) He doesn't ask for or require a sacrifice--except that it be freely given without outside nudging--and you are fed with the bread and the wine. (ie given spiritual sustenance.) So, does someone else have other info? ps I realize the Mormons have thousands of priests calling themselves Melchidezek--I really don't have much of a comment on that one way or another. My church (Lutheran) calls all believers priests (according to the Book of Hebrews) but not according to any specific order other than the body of Christ.

Sissygal it could also be interpreted as to 'The order of Melchezedek' means King and priest, for that is what Christ was, both king and priest, forever.

Melchezedek is a funny picture also because most religons were polytheistic, and to have this guy recognize God, and have only him, none other, is quite amazing. But the main reason of this story is to show that, we should thank God for our victories, in contrast you have the King of Sodom. Melchezedek isn't much of use in that story, contextwise other than showing the true way to behave, that is, to give God glory and praise.

 

[ByGrace]

For now I am only aware that the Temple will be rebuilt before Christ's Second Coming. How it will be accomplished, I will research what I can. I think it would be most fitting for it to be done by God's chosen people. But as Amos said: I assume that the Prophet at the time of its construction will have major input.
I am ignorant at this time of its design to be, and will soon fill that mental void.
Thanks for that link, I will be most interested in its content. I recall some talks presented that a LDS Scholar was working with local Jewish authorities about the Temple and was able to contribute some key issues of its reconstruction. I am speaking vaguely, so let me get my facts together.

I still find it laughable and pompous that the lds church should think they will have ANYTHING to do with the Temple in Jerusalem. That belongs to the Jewish people as they and not the mormons are Gods chosen vessel. If it was built by a mormon it would not be the true temple of God as your temples have no similarity to what the temple in Jerusalem was or was for.

 

[ah_muse]

I have often stressed the fact that the Christian Body is divided, where the inspired Word states its purpose is to be one.

On another thread I stated:
I love Jesus and know that He is truth. Yet so many understand Him differently. Reading my Bible, I learn that the things of God are understood by the Spirit of God. When people understand differently, can they be listening to the same Spirit? Absolutely not!
The Church that Jesus organized has divided and multiplied over the centuries because of differences of understanding, yet the Bible teaches there are to be no divisions among us. Therefore, the Spirit could not have inspired or sanctioned such divisions. Where is the original Church of Jesus today where we can depend on a ministry that is truly guided by the Spirit of God?

I have found it by first searching for answers as to how one learns to communicate with the Spirit of God. That is the only way to know and understand.


That to me in part is evedince of the apostacy.

If that is what you call apostacy, why didn't Jesus call it apostacy when he addressed the seven churches in the book of Revelation?

Jesus never said he had a problem with His church being comprised of seven churches - why do the Mormons argue with Jesus?

FYI, The church of Jesus Christ was founded on the TESTIMONY OF HIS PERSONAL DIETY (Matt. 16:18). He said of it, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Jesus could speak prophetically of the future destiny of the Church because He intended to see to it personally that the Church He established would be protected.

Chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation give the message of Christ to the seven churches of Asia and go beyond them to the CHURCHES which will come later.

 

[SiSSYGAL]

Just want to say that the missionaries came to our house and converted my son to Mormonism. (my fault for letting them in) One thing I noticed was that the missionaries weren't Bible literate. They didn't have a grasp of the big picture. They were able to quote scriptures they wanted to quote. For example, they said that there's no book of Josher so that proves the Bible is missing something. I have a better grasp of the Bible then they so I responded that I'm glad the Bible is without the Book of Josher. Further, I'm certain that there is a ton of things written in ancient times that is not a part of our Bible. Just as there is a ton of things written today that is not part of my post here. But, the OT is a group of books that all tell one story and one story only--but in a million different ways: All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God and all the OT folks knew that and knew they were awaiting their messiah. So, what do you suppose Josher had to add to that? You know, I think that the Bible had to stop some where otherwise it would fill and entire library. Some books had to be left out because God wanted us to read the whole Bible. Nobody reads every book in a library. God knows that and He knows which books to leave out. Praise be to God that the Book of Josher is not included in our Bible.

 

[TOmNossor]

sherman:
I've asked numerous people to provide this explanation of the apostasy and have never gotten an answer. I actually began to believe it was a trick question! I am so elated to read this. Not that I agree--just that there is an answer. Is this answer finite or is there more? Your notes at the bottom state that these are "a couple of"
things. I wasn't quite sure what to make of this. Thanks so much for posting this post.

On the Apostasy:



There are many theories on the apostasy. The foundation of the CoJCoLDS is that the Restoration occurred. God would not have restored the church for no reason and thus there was an apostasy. When God stands before you and witnesses this to you, theories about the apostasy are really not that important.

So for quite some time I could easily say, there was a restoration. It was miraculous. I have Spiritual and Logical reasons to believe that the restoration did in fact happen. So because there was a Restoration there was an apostasy.


Early Church doctrines were restored. The “peculiar” doctrines of the CoJCoLDS have witness in the writings of the ECF. The BOM tells of the Frankincense Trial. The BOM has ancient Hebrew poetic structures, …

The above things and many others witness a true restoration.



When challenged, I began to look for an apostasy, Restoration not withstanding. I found that too.



If you really want to know then you can try the below. It will take some time and effort though.





First, read the Bible and the 3 earliest ECF. 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? Specifically, did Clement of Rome have any idea he was the earthly head of the Church?



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.



So, Sissygal, if you want to find the apostasy you may do what I did. When you are done, I hope that you will at least view me as I view the Catholic. I love the Catholic Church. I think there are many reasonable knowledgeable Christians with an internally consistent and logical theology. But I do not think that I am to be a Catholic Christian, because for me it is radically clear that the CoJCoLDS makes much more sense.



So, the CoJCoLDS does not have a doctrinal apostasy theory. We rely on the witness of the Holy Ghost. But in the case of all truth, ones mind can also find truth too.



Charity, TOm

 

[SiSSYGAL]

Tom:
thank you for this answer. I would really like to delve into these things as you have. Actually, I take Bible classes, and have for ten years, but I'm ready to learn what others have written about the Bible, especially early writers ie Clement. One thing the Bible does say, and this I know, is that the keys to the kingdom were passed to Peter. But, he is not specifically instructed to pass them along to anyone else. Later in Hebrews we are told that all believers possess keys to the kingdom. So, despite a lack of explanation about how this actually happened, it would seem that Peter did in fact pass the keys on. (All believers are also priests--as most Protestant Denominations believe) Peter passed everything on to everyone (male and female) You know, Mary Magdalene was the first one entrusted with the truth of the risen Lord. She spoke to Peter. (Buzz)

 

[SiSSYGAL]

That does not make sense to me. If the early church was already in apostasy, are they going to make record that "we are apostates?" Perhaps some of the "other thinking" that was "stamped out" was the correct gospel, or at least portions of it.

 

[SiSSYGAL]

I do believe that there would be records that the faith had gone into apostasy. Early Christian theologians would write things like: "We have to get back to the faith.
We have discontinued teaching something or another." Actually, from within the contents of some of the Books of Bible themselves, we learn that Jews, Baal and Gnostics kept trying to incorporate their faith into Christianity. They tried to create a fused religion. Paul warned against this repeatedly. This is what I referred to when I said that the Nicene Creed stamped out this infusion of these other doctrines by stating what Christianity was and is: What the belief is and thereby what it is not.
In the twentieth century so many Bible fragments were found and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. They add to the authenticity of the Bible rather than take anything away from it. That's why so many people have increased confidence that the Bible is what it always was and that there is no apostasy. Charity Tom said that he has faith in a restored church. And--why would God restore something that doesn't need restoring--to him that obviously means there was an apsotasy. I'm liberal enough to admit that there's nothing hugely wrong with that except I'd invite him and others to keep reading: Read the Dead Sea Scrolls, Read the tablets at Alba. This will give anyone a huge appreciation of the original state of the Bible as written. So--read on
Dig deeper. I plan to take my own advice.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom:
thank you for this answer. I would really like to delve into these things as you have. Actually, I take Bible classes, and have for ten years, but I'm ready to learn what others have written about the Bible, especially early writers ie Clement. One thing the Bible does say, and this I know, is that the keys to the kingdom were passed to Peter. But, he is not specifically instructed to pass them along to anyone else. Later in Hebrews we are told that all believers possess keys to the kingdom. So, despite a lack of explanation about how this actually happened, it would seem that Peter did in fact pass the keys on. (All believers are also priests--as most Protestant Denominations believe) Peter passed everything on to everyone (male and female) You know, Mary Magdalene was the first one entrusted with the truth of the risen Lord. She spoke to Peter. (Buzz)

All believers are priests. This is quite Catholic and even in accordance with LDS views, but there is more than just the priesthood of all believes spoke of in the Bible and the ECF. There is ordained priesthood (which is different than Old Testament priesthood).



I agree that Peter didn’t pass on his authority, but Catholics would not agree with this. It is the clear witness of ordained authority and the passing on of this ordained authority that I see in the Bible and ECF, combined with the usurped authority of the Pope that points me towards a belief that neither the Catholics nor the Protestants have the proper authority to not be apostate in authority. And it is really this apostate in authority that the CoJCoLDS claims. Without the proper authority wrong ideas creep in and truths are lost, but there is not a wholesale loss of truth from the Early Church such that no one has the light of Christ.

St Thomas Aquinas was amazing, and he is so late in the game I know of no apostasy theories that do not have the apostasy in effect during his time.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I do believe that there would be records that the faith had gone into apostasy. Early Christian theologians would write things like: "We have to get back to the faith.
We have discontinued teaching something or another." Actually, from within the contents of some of the Books of Bible themselves, we learn that Jews, Baal and Gnostics kept trying to incorporate their faith into Christianity. They tried to create a fused religion. Paul warned against this repeatedly. This is what I referred to when I said that the Nicene Creed stamped out this infusion of these other doctrines by stating what Christianity was and is: What the belief is and thereby what it is not.
In the twentieth century so many Bible fragments were found and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. They add to the authenticity of the Bible rather than take anything away from it. That's why so many people have increased confidence that the Bible is what it always was and that there is no apostasy. Charity Tom said that he has faith in a restored church. And--why would God restore something that doesn't need restoring--to him that obviously means there was an apsotasy. I'm liberal enough to admit that there's nothing hugely wrong with that except I'd invite him and others to keep reading: Read the Dead Sea Scrolls, Read the tablets at Alba. This will give anyone a huge appreciation of the original state of the Bible as written. So--read on
Dig deeper. I plan to take my own advice.

So as I said above I think we have enough written to see apostasy, but we have also lost much writing and had writings altered.

Things that disagreed with the Church in many cases were destroyed. The things that we have that survived where kept generally by the church.

I think it is amazing that we have enough writing to see LDS and non-Catholic beliefs in the ECF. I think it amazing that we have enough writings to see that the Papacy developed and that Clement had no idea he was Pope.

We also have spurious writings that show Peter ordaining Clement as the Pope, but not even Catholic scholars believe these to be authentic any longer.

The truth is muddied, but from what I have read, what has survived is a plus for the CoJCoLDS.



BTW, I do not believe in a perverted Bible theory. If any errors crept in they are really quite slight. I believe that the Church pre-canon used books such as the visions of the Pastor of Hermas (which I believe clearly speaks of an Apostasy), but these books were not supportive of the surviving Catholic Church and thus they are not part of the Bible. This is how we lost “plain and precious truths.” It was not the evil scribes who deleted whole sections.



Charity, TOm

 

[SiSSYGAL]

I don't know ECF. Please de-code. Thanks.

 

[TOmNossor]

SiSSYGAL,

Sorry.
ECF - Early Church Fathers.

Charity, TOm

 

[gaetan8888]

Hi there!





That is the easiest response when there isn't a good argument.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that apostasy can be adultery, either of the person or a whole nation. General apostacy is turning away from the Lord and breaking his covenants. Nephite apostasy is a stumbling block to believers. In the early church, apostasy was the false Christs and the false prophets. Joseph Smith taught that all the church were wrong and far from God, that there was a new everlasting covenant with God, the fulness of the gospel of Christ.


It can be mutually agreed that there was apostasy in the early Christian church. Paul identified it and purged it from the teachings on many occasions.

Yet, the Saints refuse to believe what the Scriptures teach.


Your turn.


~malaka~

Hi

The Mormon are a bit mix-up. In the dictionary, apostasy mean that a person renounce to his faith or religion, so you can be a dumb christian doing wrong things, but you still a christian if you still believe in Jesus. The coming great apostasy are the lost of faith for millions of christians, not just lust and sex and goofy actings but a real lost.

My irish sister are in the Mormon and my irish brother in the Bremam, they don't want to see each other or me neither, I'm a christian, but not for them since I'm not with them in their religions (or sects).

Gaetan

A end times web page;
http://www.cyberquebec.ca/prs/gaetan8888

 

[TOmNossor]

It is important to note that the CoJCoLDS does not speak of an apostasy as the Catholic Church would define an apostasy.

For the CoJCoLDS the apostasy is total in that there is no remnant of the ordained authority spoken of in the Bible.

No LDS would suggest there is no belief in Christ remaining on the Earth.

So, it is true that the word apostasy has a different meaning when spoken of by a LDS than it does in the Catholic encyclopedia.

We believe in an Apostasy in Authority and a Heresy in Doctrine.



Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

Do LDS believe that the Holy Spirit indwelled believers after the "apostasy?"

 

[Peterson]

The apostasy was prophecied to happen on a grand scale by Jesus in his Olivet prophecy. In Matthew 24:4-5, he warned that such a thing would happen as his first prophetic utterence. He said that many would come in his name and deceive many. "many" from the Greek "pleistos" means "overwhelming majority." This started even during the ministries of the apostles, and they all warned about it. It came to fruition when the church married the state in 325 AD.

 

[Der Alte]

The apostasy was prophecied to happen on a grand scale by Jesus in his Olivet prophecy. In Matthew 24:4-5, he warned that such a thing would happen as his first prophetic utterence. He said that many would come in his name and deceive many. "many" from the Greek "pleistos" means "overwhelming majority." This started even during the ministries of the apostles, and they all warned about it. It came to fruition when the church married the state in 325 AD.

Virtually everything in this post is false, a figment of somebody’s imagination. The Greek word translated many, in this verse, is not "pleistos," and it does not mean "overwhelming majority."

No proof that Jesus was warning about this particular danger, and no proof that there was any so-called marriage of church and state in 325 AD, or any other year.

I know enough not to follow every Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Peterson who comes along claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that the church is wrong, has been wrong for 2000 years, and that they are the only one with the truth. "Everybody just leave whatever church you belong to, follow me, and hold out your cup for some nice koolaid."

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many [polos].

G4183 poluV polloV polus polos pol-oos'

Including the forms from the alternate “pollos”; (singular) much (in any respect) or (plural) many; neuter (singular) as adverb largely; neuter (plural) as adverb or noun often, mostly, largely: - abundant, + altogether, common, + far (passed, spent), (+ be of a) great (age, deal, -ly, while), long, many, much, oft (-en [-times]), plenteous, sore, straitly. Compare G4118, G4119.
​

 

[MormonFriend]

I know enough not to follow every Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Peterson who comes along claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that the church is wrong, has been wrong for 2000 years, and that they are the only one with the truth. "Everybody just leave whatever church you belong to, follow me, and hold out your cup for some nice koolaid."

I cannot understand how anybody, especially one with your intellect, could liken the LDS to Jones and Koresh. Those cults failed in tragedy with their leaders. We have passed through many generations of leaders, growing steady and solid, teaching values and lifestyles that serve others, not self.

The evidence is there, but falls under the catagory of needing eyes to see and ears to hear.