Yes it has both as to doctrine and membership, and this Church is not yet 150 years old. . There are many groups claiming to originate from Joseph Smith and they seem hopelessly divided. They accuse each other of being heretical and of espousing doctrines that are not of Joseph. For example of the Reorganized LDS Church denies the doctrines of a plurality of Gods, polygamy and baptism for the dead, all major teachings of the Utah Church.
One of the claims of the LDS is that the early church changed the “ordinances”, and thereby lost God’s favor and authority.
Another LDS claim is that their own ordinances were revealed from heaven to Joseph Smith and his successors and cannot be altered.
Yet this web page details the some of the fundamental changes to the LDS temple ordinances.
Of course, now we’ll hear all about how those divinely revealed temple ordinances were just somebody’s opinion. :rolleyes:
I recently stood on the very spot that Joseph Smith and others laid the marker for the Temple in Independence. Other pertinent passages are found in the D & C
And thus saith the Lord your God, if you will receive wisdom here is wisdom. Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse.
Well the thing is the group of saints that own the land legally and have their church on the site are the true remnant of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) established by Joseph Smith and they never needed to be reorganized they stated
Point well taken Bill!
When Christ taught the parable of the sower, He taught that there would be those who would not stay planted with the good seed of the gospel, even though they might have received it. He taught the same concept in talking about the sheep and the goats. He taught it about people who would build their “house” upon a sandy foundation, rather than upon a rock-solid foundation.
Of course people will be human, especially when taught with the concept that free agency is absolutely paramount. No force, no coercion, no fear factor to keep people in the church.
Just because people have their agency and choose something different for themselves than what the covenant gospel teaches, does not mean (1) that they are “bad” people or will “go to eternal punishment”, nor (2) that the church they left was a wrong path. People have all sorts of reasons for making the decisions they make in life. They want what they want, and choose based on what they want, including some choosing to “start their own church” or to follow some appealing belief or leader. So what’s new with that? Nothing.
The LDS church and its progeny IS the Great Apostasy.
THIS is the church described in their own Book for Morons as “great and abominable above all the Churches.”
Among other precious promises and covenants it rejects are the Apocrypha and tradition of the Fathers.
And of course you know we all think of JS there with your statement:)
As soon as I saw the title of this thread I was going to mention something along these lines.
How is it that in one breath LDS apologists point to non-immersion baptism as evidence of the apostasy (based on their assumption that immersion was the only valid form instituted by Christ) yet in another defend the various alterations of LDS ordinances over the years?
How could one say that the First Presidency in conjunction with the Quorum of the Twelve have the authority to alter the ordinances without opening the door to the possibility that the Catholic Church had this kind of authority all along?
. The best known of the many groups and the one with the largest membership are the Mormons with their headquarters in Salt Lake City. The Reorganized Church has its center in Independence, Missouri. All of Joseph’s descendants belong to this group.
. Some of the other groups include: Church of Christ, Temple Lot; Church of Jesus Christ; Church of the First Born; Order of Aaron; the Strangites; the Bickertonites.
The RLDS is now the Community of Christ and some of the Smiths have gone to splinter groups because of the changes in the RLDS/CoC
The most seriously apostate Mormon offshoot, because of its teachings and size, is the Utahan CoJCoLDS. IMHO. The others are either too small to be of concern (except for the child abuse in the FLDS), or have mainstreamed so much that they merge towards ordinary Protestantism.
I’d be very careful with this line of reasoning if I were you.
The fact that some Mormon groups consider themselves the “remnant church” of the original Latter-day Movement, and that their practices model more closely to the 19th century LDS Church I don’t think makes a very convincing argument that they are indeed “less apostatized” than the SLC based LDS Church. Remember that the LDS believe in the necessity of a visible head to their priesthood, and the convention for selecting that head has been well established since Brigham Young.
Contemporary LDS can trace their “succession” back to Brigham Young, while the FLDS and other “Fundamentalists” trace theirs back to some early 20th century founder who claims to have been ordained secretly by some General Authority. Nevertheless, none of these non-LDS “prophets” ever served as the Senior Apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve, thus diminishing their claim to being the true First President.
Similarly, just because the Sedevacantists, and the schismatic traditionalists within OUR fold have completely resisted any kind of doctrinal and cultural development doesn’t necessarily mean that Pope Benedict XVI is an apostate Pope.
Now obviously this only applies to the “Rocky Mountain Saints”; those Mormon denominations which arose after the initial succession crisis of Joseph Smith Jr. since the convention of selecting the Senior Apostle of the Quorum of the Twelve was one of the major factors in that initial schism. Hence this criticism only applies the FLDS, TLC, Manti House, etc. The RLDS and the Strangites (and all their successive sects) do not apply.