LDS View of the Great Apostasy

This is from my perspective and studies. I have not only studied from LDS sources but from Non LDS sources. I do not want to disrespect, and if I do I apologize first off.

The apostacy did not just occur after the death of the last apostle. It was taking place during the ministry of the apostles. When they would go to a city and convert jews to the gospel, they set up a organization there. But many times because of communications they were left to themselves with only the old law. There was not bible or New testiment to study and glean truths from. This is why Paul wrote letters of correction to the different cities. But you can imagine that Paul could not address all the concerns, and could not correct fast enough. So jewish traditions and outside influences crept in.

    When the apostles were killed off faster than they could replace them, the apostacy sped up. For a couple of hunderd years after the death of the last apostle, there was still not a combined book of the New Testament. You had parts of the written gospel here and there. I am not saying that those who in apostacy were evil doers, but that they were doing their best with what they had. The gosple message was so good, and so strong that even though I believe that it had started to be distorted and truths had been lost or replace that it still brought people together. It united people. It caused them to be better than they were. But because I believe that authority to act in Gods name left with the last of the apostles, the whole earth tumbled into the dark ages. For centuries little or no progress was made. Men in power desires were not to improve the people as a whole but only about them gaining more power and control. Under this setting came Constantine. A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force. And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this. Because of this, wars were started in the name of Christ. There was such a control over the people that if there were differing views about religion, they were either banned or killed. This was a great motivator follow oners leaders. 

    This is a very brief overview, and I am sure that you have heard this many times. This is my view.

I will address one of the views about why I believe Catholics believe there is a unbroken link. I will go to the first prophet of the church after the death of Christ. Peter. The scriptures teach that Christ was asking his disciples who men thought he was. Some said that he was Elijah, or an Elias, or some said he was John the Baptist. But Christ said who do you think it is I am… Peter stated that,“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Christ said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonah, For flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.

He is my understanding. Peter did not know that Jesus was the Christ because Jesus told him so. At that time Jesus was flesh and blood. And as much as someone can tell another truth, as someone here has said, they really do not know 100% that it is true. But Jesus said that through personal revelation from the Father that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ.

   Jesus then went on to say that "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" In my view Christ was not refering to Peter as the rock. But the rock that gave Peter the understanding that Jesus is the Christ. Christ would not build his church on the arm of the flesh, because we know not long after this Peter denied the very Christ and Savior of the world. Not once, but three times. Christ stated that the very gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Again my understanding is that the Gates of Hell are the gates that hold the dead in. Once the gospel has been accepted, and the resurrection has taken place, the gates that hold the dead will be open and make it possible that a reuniting of the spirits and bodies takes place. 

That is my understanding of this.

This is from LDS dot org

“One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.”

As you can see, your church leadership’s view differs from yours right off the bat. They say it happened 'After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles’

Again, nobody in mormon leadership has ever been able to tell us when or how this happened.

They also fail to address the issue that Christ himself said he would never leave his Church, but yet, your leaders seem to think he left it for 1800 +/- years. Is Christ a liar? Is he confused?

Let’s talk about those two things first, and then we can go on to the rest shall we?

Also, how do you know the apostles were killed off faster than they could be replaced? Please provide a reference.

The apostacy did not just occur after the death of the last apostle. It was taking place during the ministry of the apostles. When they would go to a city and convert jews to the gospel, they set up a organization there. But many times because of communications they were left to themselves with only the old law. There was not bible or New testiment to study and glean truths from. This is why Paul wrote letters of correction to the different cities. But you can imagine that Paul could not address all the concerns, and could not correct fast enough. So jewish traditions and outside influences crept in.

Documentation please.

Under this setting came Constantine. A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force. And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this.

Documentation please.

I

It does not differ at all really. Apostacy is when one strays from truth. Paul could see they were straying and wrote letters of correction. Even though he corrected many things, he could not correct all of them.

First off we know that when Judas killed himself, they replaced him. I will finish this later got go chase cows

It differs greatly from what you posted. You said it started before the death of the last apostle. Your church leadership says differently. What is your source for saying it occured earlier?

Here’s the thing. Mormons believe that John was destined to stay on the Earth and never die. Therefore, the last apostle hasn’t died. :shrug:

Can’t wait to hear how you explain Christ leaving his church for 1800 +/- years.

What things couldn’t Paul correct? References please.

You’ve got alot of resources to provide now. :stuck_out_tongue:

Prior to the official canonization of the New Testament, the books to be included were largely agreed upon, although not widely circulated since the printing press had not yet been invented. So there was a collection of books that were largely agreed upon, it just wasn’t “official.”

I am not saying that those who in apostacy were evil doers, but that they were doing their best with what they had. The gosple message was so good, and so strong that even though I believe that it had started to be distorted and truths had been lost or replace that it still brought people together. It united people. It caused them to be better than they were. But because I believe that authority to act in Gods name left with the last of the apostles, the whole earth tumbled into the dark ages.

This is something I never understood when I was a Mormon. The LDS church has altered doctrines several times in its history. There hasn’t been anything close to a consistent doctrine or theology. Also, it is interesting that the only major so-called prophetic acts that have taken place since the LDS Faith’s establishment can be attributed to common sense decisions and decisions of convenience (tithing, reversing stance on polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, word of wisdom), and reversals of former acts of prophets. Why is it that the LDS faith can sway so greatly and not fall into apostasy, but the Catholic faith which appears to have remained constant in its primary theology since the second century had no such immunity? Why would God leave the world without the restored Gospel for 17 centuries, give or take, only to re-establish it as a peculiar and relatively small group?

For centuries little or no progress was made. Men in power desires were not to improve the people as a whole but only about them gaining more power and control.

Plenty of progress was made. The Catholic Church established the first hospitals, made progresses in science, and other advances. The “Dark Ages” are a myth. As for the rulers of the time, doesn’t sound too much different than today.

Under this setting came Constantine. A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force. And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this. Because of this, wars were started in the name of Christ. There was such a control over the people that if there were differing views about religion, they were either banned or killed. This was a great motivator follow oners leaders.

If those with differing beliefs were so readily rooted out and killed, why is history full of examples of heretical and schismatic groups, such as the gnostics, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church?

Jesus then went on to say that “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” In my view Christ was not refering to Peter as the rock. But the rock that gave Peter the understanding that Jesus is the Christ.

In the original Greek, and in the Aramaic, the text essentially says “thou art Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” One has to do some serious linguistic gymnastics to get around what the verse seems to be clearly stating: that Peter is the rock. Even non-Catholic biblical scholars have acknowledged this. I recommend the following for more information:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php

Christ would not build his church on the arm of the flesh, because we know not long after this Peter denied the very Christ and Savior of the world. Not once, but three times.

That is what is so beautiful about Christ establishing Peter as his Vicar. It demonstrates that the Church is made up of sinners, and yet he still blesses us with his presence. Additionally, how is this different from any other church, including your own, that are run by men with weaknesses?

Just out of curiosity, why are you a member of the LDS Church, and not the FLDS or RLDS? It seems like they have been more constant in their religious doctrines.

Like many interpretations of the life of the Church it excludes several most important factors

(1) the promise of Jesus that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.
(2) the promise of Jesus not to leave us as orphans, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, including the role of the Holy Spirit as the Guide which influenced the fathers of the Church in the decisions they made, including choice of bishops, code of scripture, etc…
(3) Jesus’ co-identification with the Church, as in “Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me” (note: not “…my church.”).

So, to suggest of an apostacy - great or small - that led the Person of Christ, as expressed in the Body of the faithful, is completely bloody bonkers! It insults the whole Trinty by making the Heavenly Father impotent, The Son a fool, and the Holy Spirit a mere floating thing of no consequence!

God help the genius who invented that lie!!! Better to be an sincere atheist who gets a pleasant surprize than such a blasphemer who due an unpleasant one!

Jesus said he would always be with his Church. He has never abandoned it. There was no Great Apostasy. You can’t give an exact year or place. The apostles appointed successors, passing down the teachings of Jesus until the books of the bible were chosen (the canon). This has continued for 2000 years.

Why would Jesus abandon his church for 1800 years and then send an ANGEL, not come HIMSELF, to talk to a man who was a known fraud?

With regard to the role of Peter, i have always been impressed that the Gospel of John, written circa 90a.d., should have taken such pains to emphasise it. As we are aware, the epilogue of John’s Gospel contains the 3 fold commission - a point by point response to Peter’s 3 fold denial! - to Peter from the Risen Lord. Why write that detail in 30 years or more after Peter’s death? The answer is simple : John understood the primacy role of Peter, and used his Gospel to ensure the early church, emerging as it was from primative to coherent and organised, would never forget that it was Peter, and Peter alone, who was charged to be the Chief Shephard, a role handed to Linus, and so on to today!

Historians originally called a period of time after the fall of Rome the “Dark Ages” because there is little written record of those times, so we don’t know as much about what happened. That is, they are “in the dark” and we can’t “see them” very well. Someone, I can’t remember who, decided to use the phrase “dark ages” to refer to a time of lawlessness and no strong central religious leadership. But that’s not what it means, really.

The Church was a lot more organized than you seem to think, which you would know if you read the writings of the ancient Church Fathers. Those writings that were made before any dark ages ensued and continued through the codification of the Canon of Scripture. This is why it is part of the statement of faith, the Creed we all say, that we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church.

“Apostolic” here does not mean we recognize the Apostles, it means handed down through the centuries as they taught.

I have absolutely no idea what your church taught you about some “great apostasy” and I actually don’t care. Until you enlighten yourself by going back and reading the earliest writings of the ancient Christians, you really are still in the dark ages, yourself.

Try to at least keep in mind that the Canon of Scripture, the Bible as it came to be called, all 72 books of it, came from the Church, not the other way around.

Well, LDS is not Christian let alone do they have any authority to interpret Christian Sacred Scriptures, so I hardly think they have anything authoritative to say regarding “the Apostasy.”

Hmmm…more later…but please consider this…how about factoring in the persecution of Christians by the romans for 300 years…the persecution of bishops and popes…and the lack of a printing press to mass produce bibles…and the lack of literacy among the peoples prior to the printing press…so how does this factor in to your apostasy theory?

Good points, Pablope…reason is of no avail…

Fatboy…Practically all books of Sacred Scripture were compiled for public revelation, with the exception of the Book of Hebrews, by 100 AD. Also, the there were conciliar and episcopal forms of administrating, and the Jewish episcopal model was most workable and put into the approved form of governing of the Church by 100 AD. The liturgy was in place, and practiced in structure, form, and spirit throughout the ancient Christian world by 100 AD. You can look up S. Justin the Martyr explaining what happens at Mass to the ancient Roman emperor written around 150 AD. Finally, the Apostles Creed was composed and professed in the Church by 100 AD.

So you see, Christ Himself was at work in establishing His Church through the Holy Spirit in the face of martyrdom, most horrific under Nero around 60 AD, as well as by other emperors of the Empire before 100 AD.

Later Emperor Justin the Apostate attempted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem to prove Christianity wrong and after a number of efforts including balls of fire dispelling the reconstructionists, it was likewise a failed project.

All this happened because Jesus is the Son of God and He did not make mistakes and we have documentation.

The heresy of ancient times was Gnosticism. It was taken care of by St. Ireneaus by 200 AD.

The common belief was then as is now that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist, the summit of our faith.

When all of Christ’s followers abandoned Him except the Apostles, Peter said, ‘Where we can we go?..only You can give us eternal life’. This discourse happened when Christ, before the Last Supper, said we must eat and drink of Him, of His body and blood.

Christ gave context to His words at the Last Supper…as sign He was to become the Sacrificial Lamb to atone for sin, no more blood sacrifices but that finalized by His alone. There was bread and wine at the Last Supper…the same offerings Melchizedek offered…the mysterious high priest in the Old Testament who prophecized the coming some day of one perfect perpetual, sacrifice.

To encounter Jesus is an Event with Him as Person. When we encounter a new life with Jesus Christ, we need no other prophet afterwards.

There was no apostasy. Joseph Smith is a heretic and mentally ill (at least according to those close to him). You’re in the wrong faith friend. Instead of trying to become God of your own planet and have spirit children, why not focus on Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and see what He “really” wants for you and expects from you. When you do I’ll be the first to welcome you to His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

How can anyone who believes this bizarre and contorted humbug be trusted in a position calling for the utmost in rational thought and decision-making where the future of a nation is hanging on the edge?

That is a legitimate question.

Better that than a professed advocate of genocide… just saying…

Fatboys.
Still waiting for you to answer post number three.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.