Infant LDS vs. Infant Catholicism

[Quiddity]

It seems to me (and forgive me for butting in)... but the "apostasy" seems to have happened right after Christ died...

Right off the bat you have the various apostles splitting up and starting vastly different churches, Paul with the Catholics for example. The early Gnostic churches based on the writings of other apostles that other churches consider invalid... Twelve apostles, most of them lost to winds of history.

IMHO it hasn't gotten any better over time.

The LDS fragmented after Joseph Smith died as well.. perhaps this is just the way of faiths that are held together by charismatic central figures like prophets.

wa:do

Although fragmentation that is a problem in almost every faith...I'm more interested in whether they have a system in place to maintain order. This probably needs further explanation.

 

[Katzpur]

There is a HUGE difference here. You'd agree that Christ is a "the fix" for man's fall, right? So, for every mess up we create, God has a "fix" for it, you'd agree? And what your basically saying is that God created the LDS Church as a fix to the early church, right? The problem is that the LDS formula is no different then that of early times. It's still ran by humans who can screw things up. So how is that a "fix"?

Simple. As long as the Apostles were in charge, nothing was getting screwed up. As long as there are currently Apostles in charge, nothing will get screwed up.

On another note, we have a slightly different understanding of the Fall.

Oh yeah... I remember. :yes:

Ever had a chance to actually listen to a debate on history between our theologians?

I've had the chance to listen to Bickmore, who is one of your leading theologians on this stuff.

Good stuff...

I've never had a chance to actually listen to Bickmore, but I've read a lot of his stuff. I also attend the FAIR Conference every year that I am able to. (FAIR = Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) Early Christianity and the Apostasy is a topic that is pretty addressed to some degree every year. I eat that stuff up.

In otherwords, having the LDS hierarchy in place in early times wouldn't of made a difference.

Not if they'd been killed, it wouldn't.

 

[Quiddity]

Simple. As long as the Apostles were in charge, nothing was getting screwed up. As long as there are currently Apostles in charge, nothing will get screwed up.

But wasn't this the case in the early Church? What's the difference?

Not unless you're saying the early Apostles never had authority...which I doubt.

Oh yeah... I remember. :yes:

...

I've never had a chance to actually listen to Bickmore, but I've read a lot of his stuff. I also attend the FAIR Conference every year that I am able to. (FAIR = Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) Early Christianity and the Apostasy is a topic that is pretty addressed to some degree every year. I eat that stuff up.

You guys should invite us trouble-making catholics to that conference. We'd certainly stir things up...

Not if they'd been killed, it wouldn't.

Why would that make a difference if they could simply pass it on? I mean, if one gets killed, you guys don't say "oh well, I guess we'll just have eleven".

 

[SoyLeche]

So...are you saying that it's simply a matter of degree? In otherwords, if we were only "a little" corrupt, that would somehow change things?

Just want to make sure I read you correctly.

The doctrinal changes weren't anywhere near as important as the loss of authority. That's really what defined the apostasy.

 

[painted wolf]

Although fragmentation that is a problem in almost every faith...I'm more interested in whether they have a system in place to maintain order. This probably needs further explanation.

I think the main stream LDS have a pretty good system to prevent further fragmentation. The system of apostles and so on is very business-like... add to that the regular meetings on all levels and it's quite capable of keeping things running. IMHO

wa:do

 

[Katzpur]

But wasn't this the case in the early Church? What's the difference?

I think you may have misunderstood me, Victor. I believe that as long as there were Apostles on the Earth and a Prophet who held the keys of authority (you and I agree that Peter was this individual), the Church they led continued to teach correct doctrine and the authority to perform the ordinances of the gospel (i.e. the sacrements) was still on earth.

You guys should invite us trouble-making catholics to that conference. We'd certainly stir things up...

You're invited. Anyone is free to come. It's not held in the Temple, after all.

Why would that make a difference if they could simply pass it on? I mean, if one gets killed, you guys don't say "oh well, I guess we'll just have eleven".

If they had passed it along, it wouldn't have made a difference. We don't believe they did, except at the very beginning -- which is proof that they recognized that the office of apostle was supposed to continue. Can you, for instance, name any of the Apostles who served with Linus? I believe He succeeded Peter, according to the Catholics. Does the Catholic Church have any record of his ordination to the apostleship? Yes, they also ordained bishops, but a bishop never did hold the same keys of authority as an apostle did. Within a few centuries after the original twelve had died, secular leaders were often the ones appointing new bishops. And the bigger the area a bishop presided over, the more clout he had. That's not how Christ had established His Church.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Interesting...

So, you saying that we could of technically been teaching correctly and still be in a state of Apostasy?

That's new to me.....I must say.

It's like this, councils or no councils, Joseph Smith claimed that God told him (concerning all the churches in existence in 1820):

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Joseph Smith—History 1

He claimed that the mysterious plates were correctly translated to read:

... thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

Wherefore, thou seeth that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

. . . because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceeding great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 13:26-29).
1 Nephi 13

 

[Katzpur]

He claimed that the mysterious plates were correctly translated to read...

Ooooo! The "mysterious" plates! We need some audio here. Maybe the theme to "The Twilight Zone."

 

[Watchmen]

It's my understanding that LDS must believe the Great Apostasy was supposed to happen. Whether this can be proven in light of what I mentioned above (follow Catholic system) is highly questionable IMO.

The idea is that Catholic authority was stripped from the earth due to our rebellious ways. Even though, from a Martian's point of view...LDS is no different in this respect.

And the truth shall set you free!!!
Why the need to be coy in the OP???

 

[ἀλήθεια]

That's even worse IMO. It's like starting something you knew never had a chance.

Are you talking about the early Church not having a chance?

The Book of Mormon says:

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.
12 Because of pride and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.

14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Well, apparently having 12 Apostles and a prophet wouldn't of made a difference...

I'm sure you'd agree that this wouldn't be too difficult to do for God.

Things are different this time around. God supposedly said that the LDS church won't fail.

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).
Gospel Topics, "Apostacy," LDS.org

Doctrine and Covenants 13
1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

 

[Quiddity]

The doctrinal changes weren't anywhere near as important as the loss of authority. That's really what defined the apostasy.

Yeah, I'm trying to understand this further.

 

[Quiddity]

I think the main stream LDS have a pretty good system to prevent further fragmentation. The system of apostles and so on is very business-like... add to that the regular meetings on all levels and it's quite capable of keeping things running. IMHO

wa:do

Oh I agree...however, now your talking a select few of religious organizations that fit this bill.

 

[Quiddity]

I think you may have misunderstood me, Victor. I believe that as long as there were Apostles on the Earth and a Prophet who held the keys of authority (you and I agree that Peter was this individual), the Church they led continued to teach correct doctrine and the authority to perform the ordinances of the gospel (i.e. the sacrements) was still on earth.

Actually, you'd really just have to stick to the Apostles. Anytime I manage to quote anything before 100 A.D. it will most assuredly be dismissed if it doesn't align to LDS belief. Even if the very man I'm quoting is a close follower of St. John or St. Paul. This is where you guys tend to pull out the Apostasy card. So, in this sense, there is no winning with you guys.

You're invited. Anyone is free to come. It's not held in the Temple, after all.

Cool...

If they had passed it along, it wouldn't have made a difference. We don't believe they did, except at the very beginning -- which is proof that they recognized that the office of apostle was supposed to continue. Can you, for instance, name any of the Apostles who served with Linus? I believe He succeeded Peter, according to the Catholics. Does the Catholic Church have any record of his ordination to the apostleship? Yes, they also ordained bishops, but a bishop never did hold the same keys of authority as an apostle did. Within a few centuries after the original twelve had died, secular leaders were often the ones appointing new bishops. And the bigger the area a bishop presided over, the more clout he had. That's not how Christ had established His Church.

The office of Apostle in it's original form is dead. It was never intended to go beyond the first twelve. In this, you already know we disagree. No bishop today, holds the office of Apostle in the same sense. Similar, yes, but no bishops beyond the twelve (or Apostolic era) can spew God's revelation. We can always tackle this in a latter time.

At any rate, I'm not understanding why it would have made no difference. If you guys believe it's an issue of authority and that authority was passed on...you're saying it would make no difference? Especially in light of you saying: Victor, I think the issue concerns authority more than it does doctrine.

I'm missing something here because it seems to me authority is the major issue.

 

[Quiddity]

And the truth shall set you free!!!
Why the need to be coy in the OP???

It makes for a better movie...

I have a knack for complicating the simple sometimes.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Victor, I'm pretty sure "wouldn't of" was a typo. I don't want to speak for Katzpur but I think it would make an enormous difference. If the apostles had continued to pass on their callings and authority, the church would still be on the earth in its original form. They were unable to do so, however.

I'm curious. You say you don't think there were meant to be any more apostles after the originals. Where does Paul fit in to that picture? As a replacement for Judas? I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that.

 

[Quiddity]

Ah! ok...that would make more sense. I hope that's what she means.

Good question by the way...however, I'm short on time at the moment and I'll have to get back to you on this.

I will however note that the fact that authority was indeed passed onto Paul only helps to prove our point that it was intended to get passed on and continue on in history. Versus taking a long break.

If the Apostles were aware of some sort of Apostasy, why pass it on at all?

 

[zomg]

The office of Apostle in it's original form is dead. It was never intended to go beyond the first twelve. In this, you already know we disagree. No bishop today, holds the office of Apostle in the same sense. Similar, yes, but no bishops beyond the twelve (or Apostolic era) can spew God's revelation. We can always tackle this in a latter time.

And what of Matthias?

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Ah! ok...that would make more sense. I hope that's what she means.

Good question by the way...however, I'm short on time at the moment and I'll have to get back to you on this.

I will however note that the fact that authority was indeed passed onto Paul only helps to prove our point that it was intended to get passed on and continue on in history. Versus taking a long break.

If the Apostles were aware of some sort of Apostasy, why pass it on at all?

Yeah, I agree. The church would carry on as long as possible. The apostasy wasn't the work of God. It was the work of man. Of course God didn't want the apostasy to happen, he just forsaw it.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yeah, I'm trying to understand this further.

Basically...

If the LDS claim that the apostasy took place is true, then we would expect to see differences between the church today and the early church. We do see differences, so the LDS claim isn't disproven right off the bat.

The fact that there are changes doesn't mean the the LDS claim it true though - and a lot of LDS people miss this essential point. In all actuality, since the world today is a different place than it was 2000 years ago, I would fully expect that even if the Catholic church was the true one there would be changes. Churches evolve along with the people that make them up. The question then becomes, then, were the people and processes involved in making the changes authorized to make them? That question is what the apostasy debate actually centers on.

The councils tended to be collections of politicians and philosophers. They were not prophets, and, we believe, they were not authoritative figures as far as God was concerned. Could God still work through politicians and philosophers rather than Prophets and Apostles? Sure. We don't believe he did though - I'm not sure what the reason for this is, other than possibly that they wouldn't let Him.

When an LDS person quotes someone from the early centuries of the church it is mostly to point out that an idea that was restored in the latter days existed in the primative church - and depending on how well known that fact is, that Joseph Smith probably didn't come up with it by reserching the writings of early Christians. We don't quote them as authoritative sources, but as sources that were familiar with a church that had been less "tainted" by the apostasy.

The apostasy was well underway by the end of the first century. After all - fighting off apostasy was the purpose of most of the epistles that make up the New Testament.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, I got lost somewhere along the line. Victor, you said, "In otherwords, having the LDS hierarchy in place in early times wouldn't of made a difference." I replied, "Not if they'd been killed, it wouldn't." There seemed to be some confusion as to what I meant. Let me see if I can clarify. I believe that if the LDS hierarchy had been in place in the first century instead of the Apostles we both agree Jesus called to serve with Him, the Apostasy would have occurred just as it did. I'm assuming that it wouldn't have mattered much who had been leading the Church in that period of time. There were simply too many factors why, despite their best efforts, they were unable to hold the Church together any better than they did. There were external causes (i.e. Judiastic and pagan persecution, etc.) and internal causes (dissentions, heresies and rebellion against the Church's legitimate leadership) for the Church to have survived in its original form. No group of men could have tried harder or done a better job than the Apostles did. It's just that in the end, the forces working against them were too much.