When and where was the "Great Apostasy"?
Thanks
Thanks
Question for the LDS Church
2,252 Views |
113 Replies |
Last: 18 yr ago by Hank Hill
I dont know if the Mormons will answer to being called the D-lysergic acid diethylamide church.
Oh s***...Maybe I should have posted this one on the humor thread...
Frankenstein - Looks like you saying that your descendants fought in the revolutionary war wasn't the only crazy thing said on this board this week..
My apologies to all the good folks in the LDS Church...
Frankenstein - Looks like you saying that your descendants fought in the revolutionary war wasn't the only crazy thing said on this board this week..
My apologies to all the good folks in the LDS Church...
Texags73,
I can tell you are very devoted to the Catholic church which is admirable. I think there is much to be admired about devout Catholics. You in particular have some great posts. I doubt anyone is going to convince you there was an apostacy, but this is from the LDS website:
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,955-1,00.html
I can tell you are very devoted to the Catholic church which is admirable. I think there is much to be admired about devout Catholics. You in particular have some great posts. I doubt anyone is going to convince you there was an apostacy, but this is from the LDS website:
quote:
When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He organized His Church so that all people could receive His gospel and return one day to live with God, our Heavenly Father. After Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, His Apostles continued to receive revelation from Him on how to direct the work of His Church. However, after they were killed, members changed the teachings of the Church that He had established. While many good people and some truth remained, this Apostasy, or general falling away from the truth, brought about the withdrawal of the Church from the earth. The Apostle Peter prophesied that Jesus would restore His Church before His Second Coming (Acts 3:19–21).
Jesus Christ began to restore His Church in its fulness to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1820. It has grown to become a worldwide Church with over 12 million members. It has the same teachings and basic organization as the Church established by Jesus in New Testament times.
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,955-1,00.html
Texags71 - A good Catholic author to read on this subject is Patrick Madrid. He has his own web site www.SurprisedByTheTruth.com.
On this particular topic, here's a great article from EWTN. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON2.HTM
It addresses such things as...
The myth of a complete apostasy
God's promise to be with his church
Apostolic succession
Lack of historical support for this complete apostasy
etc.
On this particular topic, here's a great article from EWTN. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON2.HTM
It addresses such things as...
The myth of a complete apostasy
God's promise to be with his church
Apostolic succession
Lack of historical support for this complete apostasy
etc.
Fair question. We say that around the end of the first century of the Christian era. It had already begun when the Apostles were alive as evidenced by the many epistles written to the saints to correct the errors and false doctrine that were already creeping in.
The old Testament prophets knew what was coming. Isa. wrote in 29:13-14 the following; "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wonder from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and NOT find it." This period was know as the DARK AGES in the history books!
There are other verses concerning that great apostasy but I don't want to make this post too long. This condition would not last forever. In Isa. 29:13-14 you will read the following; "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the PRECEPT of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous WORK AND A WONDER: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shal be hid."
In 2 thess. 2:1-3 we read: "Now we beseech you brethern, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a FALLING AWAY FIRST, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."
Early Christian leaders such as Roger Williams, the founder of the oldest baptist Church in America, and John Weslesy, the founder of the Methodist Church, identified this phenomena. Roger Williams wrote the following: :There was NO regularly constituted Church of Christ, NOR ANY person AUTHORIZED to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until NEW APOSTLES are sent by the great head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking." Shortly afterward, he retired to the woods of Rhode Island.
John Wesley wrote, for me, these amazing comments: "It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the chuch for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that FATAL period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and from a VAIN imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power upon Christians in general, but in PARTICULAR upon the Christian Clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instance of this kind were found.
The cause of this was NOT, (as has been vulgarly supposed,) because there was no more occasion (need) for them, because all the world was become Christians.' This was a MISERABLE mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The REAL cause was that the 'love of many was waxed cold.' The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other HEATHENS. This was the real cause;..The Christians were turned heathen AGAIN and had only a DEAD FORM LEFT!"
John Wesley concluded that the fruits and gifts of the Holy Ghost did not survive in the Church in the Middle Ages, the cause being the failure of the later Church to uphold the teachings and doctrines set forth in the New Testament.
I think it was interesting that when Joseph was asked to exlain the main difference between the LDS Church and the rest, Joseph, simply replied; "We have the Holy ghost."
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 3/26/2006 4:57p).]
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 3/26/2006 4:59p).]
The old Testament prophets knew what was coming. Isa. wrote in 29:13-14 the following; "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wonder from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and NOT find it." This period was know as the DARK AGES in the history books!
There are other verses concerning that great apostasy but I don't want to make this post too long. This condition would not last forever. In Isa. 29:13-14 you will read the following; "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the PRECEPT of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous WORK AND A WONDER: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shal be hid."
In 2 thess. 2:1-3 we read: "Now we beseech you brethern, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a FALLING AWAY FIRST, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."
Early Christian leaders such as Roger Williams, the founder of the oldest baptist Church in America, and John Weslesy, the founder of the Methodist Church, identified this phenomena. Roger Williams wrote the following: :There was NO regularly constituted Church of Christ, NOR ANY person AUTHORIZED to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until NEW APOSTLES are sent by the great head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking." Shortly afterward, he retired to the woods of Rhode Island.
John Wesley wrote, for me, these amazing comments: "It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the chuch for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that FATAL period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and from a VAIN imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power upon Christians in general, but in PARTICULAR upon the Christian Clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instance of this kind were found.
The cause of this was NOT, (as has been vulgarly supposed,) because there was no more occasion (need) for them, because all the world was become Christians.' This was a MISERABLE mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The REAL cause was that the 'love of many was waxed cold.' The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other HEATHENS. This was the real cause;..The Christians were turned heathen AGAIN and had only a DEAD FORM LEFT!"
John Wesley concluded that the fruits and gifts of the Holy Ghost did not survive in the Church in the Middle Ages, the cause being the failure of the later Church to uphold the teachings and doctrines set forth in the New Testament.
I think it was interesting that when Joseph was asked to exlain the main difference between the LDS Church and the rest, Joseph, simply replied; "We have the Holy ghost."
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 3/26/2006 4:57p).]
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 3/26/2006 4:59p).]
quote:
The old Testament prophets knew what was coming. Isa. wrote in 29:13-14 the following; "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wonder from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and NOT find it." This period was know as the DARK AGES in the history books!
This was the time from about 400BC until Christ came to Bethleham, when there were no prophets.
You are saying then that the priesthood was not in ancient Israel during that time? Where is your evidence that there were no prophets during that time. Anyway Isaiah is writing about a much, much later day to come.
I have also known many devout Mormons in my day, but I never heard of "The Great Apostasy" until I read an article the other day.
Were there any practicing Mormons from the time of the great apostasy until Joseph Smith received the golden plates?
Were there any practicing Mormons from the time of the great apostasy until Joseph Smith received the golden plates?
No. Remember "Mormonism" is a nickname given to those whe believe that the Book of Mormon is another canon of scripture equal in value to the Bible.
If there had been no apostasy there would have been no need for a restoration. If the Gospel had not been lost, the angel Moroni would not have been sent back with it as contained in The Book of Mormon. Read the verses in Rev. 14:6&7: "and I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give glory to him for the hour of his judgement is come, and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the fountain of waters."
If the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the last days mind you, was still here, why would the Lord feel the need to send it back? If any nation or people still possessed the Gospel, it would have been totally unnecessary to have done so!
Ask your good Mormon friends about the great apostasy and Restoration. For the necessity of a restoration, something had to be lost. In this case it was the gospel of Jesus Christ as was taught and implemented in his time.
If there had been no apostasy there would have been no need for a restoration. If the Gospel had not been lost, the angel Moroni would not have been sent back with it as contained in The Book of Mormon. Read the verses in Rev. 14:6&7: "and I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give glory to him for the hour of his judgement is come, and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the fountain of waters."
If the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the last days mind you, was still here, why would the Lord feel the need to send it back? If any nation or people still possessed the Gospel, it would have been totally unnecessary to have done so!
Ask your good Mormon friends about the great apostasy and Restoration. For the necessity of a restoration, something had to be lost. In this case it was the gospel of Jesus Christ as was taught and implemented in his time.
How come this great apostocy lasted almost 2000 years?
If it was lost, how come God waited so long to raise up a restoration prophet?
According to this assumption, would the first century church have doctrine very similar to yours, and then there was a doctrinal warpage because of the apostasy?
If it was lost, how come God waited so long to raise up a restoration prophet?
According to this assumption, would the first century church have doctrine very similar to yours, and then there was a doctrinal warpage because of the apostasy?
The only religion that can even question the validity of the Great Apostasy is the Catholic Church.
Here is the question that must be answered, was there an Apostasy from the Gospel taught by the Apostles?
If there was not a falling away then all Churches not named the Catholic Church are nothing more than ******* offshoots from the true Church of God and the doctrine taught are nothing more than heresy.
If there was a falling away then the question is when did this falling away take place?
Evidence suggests that the falling away took place while the Apostles were still alive. A close look at the letters of the NT states that the Churches in all the cities were already falling from the truth.
History tells us the last of Christ's Apostles to die was John. John: No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD.
Now we know that the Apostles were given Authority from Christ, so we must ask was this authority passed from the Apostles to the Rome Bishops as the Catholic Church claims.
But between 120 AD and 400 AD what happened to the church?
Well there was lots of persecution and lots of killings but there was also lots of people from lots of pagan religions coming in. A good book to read on the subject was "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick. He talks a lot about the Pagan influence that came into the church between 200 AD and 400 AD.
Many of our Christian Holidays today have roots in Pagan ceremonies.
It's pretty plain from a historical perspective that the Church of Constantine had no resemblance to the one lead by the Apostles. It was more of a conglomeration of many different pagan religions mixed with Christian ideology.
When the Apostles had a question they prayed and received revelation from God. Constantine had all the leaders from each local church come together for a big conference and they voted on what the doctrine would be. This is hardly the pattern set in the Old or New Testament.
I think the question is not was there a Great Apostasy but rather Did God set straight this Apostasy and if so which is the true Church.
Here is the question that must be answered, was there an Apostasy from the Gospel taught by the Apostles?
If there was not a falling away then all Churches not named the Catholic Church are nothing more than ******* offshoots from the true Church of God and the doctrine taught are nothing more than heresy.
If there was a falling away then the question is when did this falling away take place?
Evidence suggests that the falling away took place while the Apostles were still alive. A close look at the letters of the NT states that the Churches in all the cities were already falling from the truth.
History tells us the last of Christ's Apostles to die was John. John: No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD.
Now we know that the Apostles were given Authority from Christ, so we must ask was this authority passed from the Apostles to the Rome Bishops as the Catholic Church claims.
But between 120 AD and 400 AD what happened to the church?
Well there was lots of persecution and lots of killings but there was also lots of people from lots of pagan religions coming in. A good book to read on the subject was "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick. He talks a lot about the Pagan influence that came into the church between 200 AD and 400 AD.
Many of our Christian Holidays today have roots in Pagan ceremonies.
It's pretty plain from a historical perspective that the Church of Constantine had no resemblance to the one lead by the Apostles. It was more of a conglomeration of many different pagan religions mixed with Christian ideology.
When the Apostles had a question they prayed and received revelation from God. Constantine had all the leaders from each local church come together for a big conference and they voted on what the doctrine would be. This is hardly the pattern set in the Old or New Testament.
I think the question is not was there a Great Apostasy but rather Did God set straight this Apostasy and if so which is the true Church.
Lone Star Stranger Wrote:
Modern Day revelation about the Apostasy tells us that the Lord was preparing the world for the return of the Gospel in its fullness. Key word being fullness, you see even though there was an Apostasy all the truth was not taken from the earth, but rather the Authority to act in the name of God, and many key doctrines such as the true nature of God.
Key to the return of the Gospel was that it needed to be brought forth in a Land with Religious freedom and the only place where it could be brought forth is America. Second the old world had to be free from the Roman Empire and later the Catholic Church. Two keys to this were the break up of Europe into separate kingdoms and also the invention of the printing press which directly resulted in the mass printing of the Bible and later the reformation.
And yes, the more we learn about the primitive church the more we see similarities between Mormon theology and that of the ancient church.
But keep in mind this Apostasy was already taking root while the Apostles were still alive. I have a whole list of NT scriptures that talk about the churches beginning to fall away.
quote:
How come this great apostasy lasted almost 2000 years?
If it was lost, how come God waited so long to raise up a restoration prophet?
According to this assumption, would the first century church have doctrine very similar to yours, and then there was a doctrinal warpage because of the apostasy?
Modern Day revelation about the Apostasy tells us that the Lord was preparing the world for the return of the Gospel in its fullness. Key word being fullness, you see even though there was an Apostasy all the truth was not taken from the earth, but rather the Authority to act in the name of God, and many key doctrines such as the true nature of God.
Key to the return of the Gospel was that it needed to be brought forth in a Land with Religious freedom and the only place where it could be brought forth is America. Second the old world had to be free from the Roman Empire and later the Catholic Church. Two keys to this were the break up of Europe into separate kingdoms and also the invention of the printing press which directly resulted in the mass printing of the Bible and later the reformation.
And yes, the more we learn about the primitive church the more we see similarities between Mormon theology and that of the ancient church.
But keep in mind this Apostasy was already taking root while the Apostles were still alive. I have a whole list of NT scriptures that talk about the churches beginning to fall away.
quote:Read those letters and tell me where it talks about a complete apostasy. Every church has members that fall away.
Evidence suggests that the falling away took place while the Apostles were still alive. A close look at the letters of the NT states that the Churches in all the cities were already falling from the truth.
quote:Those are what we call conversions.
Well there was lots of persecution and lots of killings but there was also lots of people from lots of pagan religions coming in.
quote:If you mean intentionally placing a christian holiday at the same time as to alter the focus - yes that happened.
Many of our Christian Holidays today have roots in Pagan ceremonies.
quote:Converting a pagan holiday to a christian one is not the same as taking on the pagan beliefs. Please explain this historical perspective you talk about.
It's pretty plain from a historical perspective that the Church of Constantine had no resemblance to the one lead by the Apostles. It was more of a conglomeration of many different pagan religions mixed with Christian ideology.
quote:God sent the Holy Spirit to guide his church. This is true whether its picking leaders or clarifying doctrine. That is no different than what mormon church claims to do.
When the Apostles had a question they prayed and received revelation from God. Constantine had all the leaders from each local church come together for a big conference and they voted on what the doctrine would be. This is hardly the pattern set in the Old or New Testament.
quote:
And yes, the more we learn about the primitive church the more we see similarities between Mormon theology and that of the ancient church.
If this is true, why don't we see the following doctrine in the early church.
Blacks as a cursed race
Temple ceremonies
Polygamy
Mulitple gods
etc
quote:Here's the key. Your modern day 'revelation' doesn't agree with Christ's promises to his church. Christ was the fullness of truth, no other modern 'revelations' were needed.
Modern Day revelation about the Apostasy tells us that the Lord was preparing the world for the return of the Gospel in its fullness.
This claim is so preposterous that he should have appeared on the thread about humor. That is, if it weren’t for all the sincere Christians who are being deceived by this. 
If the Catholic Church were apostate, then how was the Bible put together and how could you trust a book compiled by heretics? There were many Martyrs who gave their lives to spread the Gospel, and all of them being members of the Church you are claiming was apostate.
If the Catholic Church were apostate, then there would be no knowledge of Christianity in the Western hemisphere. It would have played itself out if it were not given grace by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said He would always be with His Church until the end of the world (Matt 28:20) and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Does the LDS think Jesus lied.
Jesus said,
There are some very sincere Mormons who seem to be witnessing the Spirit of Christ, in spite all of the conjured up institutional contrivances. The problem with all these apostasy conjectures is the gross lack of exegesis of scriptures. Any time people get too isolated from the Church that Christ established, their scriptural conjectures have no bounds. That’s not to say that honest exegesis should not be forthcoming to challenge the ecclesiastical body. But it should be done with fear and trepidation – not fear of the ecclesiastical body but from fear of God if they should spread heresy.
If the Catholic Church were apostate, then how was the Bible put together and how could you trust a book compiled by heretics? There were many Martyrs who gave their lives to spread the Gospel, and all of them being members of the Church you are claiming was apostate.
If the Catholic Church were apostate, then there would be no knowledge of Christianity in the Western hemisphere. It would have played itself out if it were not given grace by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said He would always be with His Church until the end of the world (Matt 28:20) and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Does the LDS think Jesus lied.
Jesus said,
quote:Does LDS think they lost the keys and the Gates of Hades really prevailed?
Matthew 16:
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." "
quote:St Paul writes in Romans 1:20:
Many of our Christian Holidays today have roots in Pagan ceremonies.
quote:The pagans, in their ignorance, worshiped things of God’s creation. The early Church Fathers redirected their worship toward God as creator of those things. For instance, on December 25, they originally worshiped the sun as the light of the world, since it started its ascent after winter solstice. The early Church Fathers taught them that actually Jesus was the true light of the world, so they redirected that worship with the corrected perspective and worshiped Jesus’ birth on that day.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
There are some very sincere Mormons who seem to be witnessing the Spirit of Christ, in spite all of the conjured up institutional contrivances. The problem with all these apostasy conjectures is the gross lack of exegesis of scriptures. Any time people get too isolated from the Church that Christ established, their scriptural conjectures have no bounds. That’s not to say that honest exegesis should not be forthcoming to challenge the ecclesiastical body. But it should be done with fear and trepidation – not fear of the ecclesiastical body but from fear of God if they should spread heresy.
What SiValley said...
Every Church has a little bit of the truth. The people who put the Saviour to death got what they deserved. They were wicked.
The gates of hell did not, has not and will never prevail against the "ROCK" of "Revelation" for that was what the Church was built on. The scripures say the Church is built on the foundations of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. NO mortal would God ever "build his Church on". The only way that Peter could declare that Jesus was the Christ was becasue as Jesus said "His father had revealed it to to ime. This principle of revelation, which is always present when the true Priesthood is on the earth, is what guides the Church and its leaders. Got to go to lunch now,will finish this when I get back.
The gates of hell did not, has not and will never prevail against the "ROCK" of "Revelation" for that was what the Church was built on. The scripures say the Church is built on the foundations of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. NO mortal would God ever "build his Church on". The only way that Peter could declare that Jesus was the Christ was becasue as Jesus said "His father had revealed it to to ime. This principle of revelation, which is always present when the true Priesthood is on the earth, is what guides the Church and its leaders. Got to go to lunch now,will finish this when I get back.
What ibmagg said...
Let's look at Jesus' promises to be with his church.
So we've seen that God will not let the gates of hell prevail against his church. We've also seen that he promised to send his holy spirit to lead them thoughout all of time on this earth.
Somehow I don't see Joseph Smith being more successful at setting up the church on earth than Jesus was.
quote:'It' is clearly the church, the church built upon the rock.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
quote:Again, he promises to be with them and the church through all of the days.
Matthe 28: 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
quote:He promises to send the Holy Spirt it guide them with the truth. In the second part of that verse he says the Holy Spirit will teach them all things.
John 14:16,26 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever......... But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
quote:Again, the Holy Spirit is promised to teach us all truth.
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.
So we've seen that God will not let the gates of hell prevail against his church. We've also seen that he promised to send his holy spirit to lead them thoughout all of time on this earth.
Somehow I don't see Joseph Smith being more successful at setting up the church on earth than Jesus was.
I simply do not see historical evidence to agree with this thinking.
People began to fall away from the church from the day of penticost.
There has been a mix of pagan and Christian elements in holidays. Anyone who can do a little research knows that. That doesn't mean that LDS is truth.
I see zero evidence from scripture of LDS doctrines. You have to wait for golden tablets for that.
In scripture or early church history do we see evidence of...
1. Jesus and Satan being brothers.
2. Jesus having a better plan for salvation than His bro., so His bro. got pissed and became Lucifer.
3. The idea that there is multiple gods, and that Jesus was simply one of them.
4. Adam coming for a fun visit with Mary.
5. The idea that each one of us males can achieve godhood and rule our own section of the cosmos.
6. Protective underwear.
7. The idea that salvation or the priesthood is not for blacks, until recently, that is.
I could go on, but I don't see much evidence of any of that in the scriptures or church history.
Smith restored nothing; he created a new system.
[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 3/27/2006 1:14p).]
People began to fall away from the church from the day of penticost.
There has been a mix of pagan and Christian elements in holidays. Anyone who can do a little research knows that. That doesn't mean that LDS is truth.
I see zero evidence from scripture of LDS doctrines. You have to wait for golden tablets for that.
In scripture or early church history do we see evidence of...
1. Jesus and Satan being brothers.
2. Jesus having a better plan for salvation than His bro., so His bro. got pissed and became Lucifer.
3. The idea that there is multiple gods, and that Jesus was simply one of them.
4. Adam coming for a fun visit with Mary.
5. The idea that each one of us males can achieve godhood and rule our own section of the cosmos.
6. Protective underwear.
7. The idea that salvation or the priesthood is not for blacks, until recently, that is.
I could go on, but I don't see much evidence of any of that in the scriptures or church history.
Smith restored nothing; he created a new system.
[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 3/27/2006 1:14p).]
Lone Stranger,
Part of that list you are mixing up doctrine with how certain LDS people have intrepreted issues at different times ie blacks and the priesthood. I think I had a lengthy discussion with Guitarsoup about that. Please source, "Adam coming for a fun visit with Mary." Let's not just hit and run.
Part of that list you are mixing up doctrine with how certain LDS people have intrepreted issues at different times ie blacks and the priesthood. I think I had a lengthy discussion with Guitarsoup about that. Please source, "Adam coming for a fun visit with Mary." Let's not just hit and run.
It is hard to have a dialogue about something when little pieces are taken and examined by themselves reworded to anothers viewpoint and then passed off as the original belief. Most of the items disussed and rediscussed and rediscussed are items of interest that have very little to do with more IMPORTANT beliefs of the LDS church.
quote:I think one of the points is that you have no support for a complete apostasy. If there was not apostasy, there is no need for your church.
Most of the items disussed and rediscussed and rediscussed are items of interest that have very little to do with more IMPORTANT beliefs of the LDS church.
quote:Are saying that was not doctrine?
ie blacks and the priesthood.
quote:While not taught now, Brigham Young believed it at one point.
Please source, "Adam coming for a fun visit with Mary."
quote:
When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family ... I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp.50-51).
Those things I listed are not minor differences. They are from a different gospel than the one in scripture.
Again, none of them are evidenced either in scripture or early church history.
That's not exacyly a vote of confidence on Smith's "revelation."
Again, none of them are evidenced either in scripture or early church history.
That's not exacyly a vote of confidence on Smith's "revelation."
Lone Stranger,
I don't know what to make of it, as some blacks like Elija Abel were originally given the priesthood. I know that it has been corrected by revelation now and I strongly believe this. Here is a link to the official black LDS website. The first link is the homepage, the second where it talks about Elija Abel. I have already posted this information though on thread that I thought you were also posting on(I may be incorrect, wouldn't be the first time).
http://www.blacklds.org/
http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/priesthood.html
quote:
Are saying that was not doctrine?
I don't know what to make of it, as some blacks like Elija Abel were originally given the priesthood. I know that it has been corrected by revelation now and I strongly believe this. Here is a link to the official black LDS website. The first link is the homepage, the second where it talks about Elija Abel. I have already posted this information though on thread that I thought you were also posting on(I may be incorrect, wouldn't be the first time).
http://www.blacklds.org/
http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/priesthood.html
If it was not doctrine, why was the 1978 'Revelation' needed?
quote:
5. The idea that each one of us males can achieve godhood and rule our own section of the cosmos.
Mormons don't achieve godhood, they become "Mighty Mormon Power Rangers."
quote:
Mighty Mormon Power Rangers
Thats actually funny.
Lone Stranger you classify yourself as a
It's obvious from your statement that you don't understand your religion or you don't understand the meaning of the Great Apostasy. If there was no falling away then there would have been no need for a Reformation. Calvin Wesley, Luther and all the rest of the Reformers would be nothing more than Heretics.
Since there is so many that think the Great Apostasy didn't happen here are some historical facts
http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/timeline.htm
AD 100 to 180
The Loss of Prophets and Apostles:
When this century started there were living prophets and possibly one living apostle. When it ended there were neither. What happened? Few documents have survived to tell us. "The first seventy years of the second century constitute one of the obscurest periods in church history" . Concerning prophets, "they gradually disappeared from the scene and are not met with after the third quarter of the second century".
The Leaders at the Time:
The earliest great leader after the apostles was Clement. He spent his time fighting against "certain unpleasant divisions" in the church. Barnabus and Hermas seemed to "lay aside the divine word" and "their imaginations ran riot. They both cherished strange and fanciful ideas." Ignatius was teaching that Jesus never had a physical body. And so it goes on. There were still many faithful saints, but they were on the defensive. Justin Martyr sets the scene for later generations by using philosophy and sophisticated rhetoric to defend the church, linking it with ancient Greek ideas, in contrast with the simple testimony borne by the apostles.
Various Heresies:
The second century saw various parts of the church interpreting the scriptures in different ways. The Nazarenes (originally just the nickname for the church as a whole), believed that Christians should also keep the law of Moses. The Ebionites were even more extreme, and rejected many of the books that later came to be included in the New Testament. The term "Gnosticism" covered a variety of groups who all claimed to have the authentic secret teachings of Jesus. There were various other groups. The group that won the battle naturally called itself "orthodox," and eventually produced the Catholic and Protestant churches that we know today.
The Importance of Montanism:
A sect that deserves special mention is the Montanists. They saw how dead the church had become, and tried to revive passion and the spirit. However, they obviously did not have the true spirit, and because of them, prophecy and passionate preaching got a bad reputation. This, according to the book (pp 35-36) is why "Preaching virtually ceased for many centuries." This is why the formality of the priest and the mysterious mass became the centre of the church, not the sermons or spiritual life that used to dominate.
It gets better a lot better so lets call this part 1
quote:
--quasi-fundamental, semi-calvinistic, neocharismatic, born again believer(as if there is any other kind).
It's obvious from your statement that you don't understand your religion or you don't understand the meaning of the Great Apostasy. If there was no falling away then there would have been no need for a Reformation. Calvin Wesley, Luther and all the rest of the Reformers would be nothing more than Heretics.
Since there is so many that think the Great Apostasy didn't happen here are some historical facts
http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/timeline.htm
AD 100 to 180
The Loss of Prophets and Apostles:
When this century started there were living prophets and possibly one living apostle. When it ended there were neither. What happened? Few documents have survived to tell us. "The first seventy years of the second century constitute one of the obscurest periods in church history" . Concerning prophets, "they gradually disappeared from the scene and are not met with after the third quarter of the second century".
The Leaders at the Time:
The earliest great leader after the apostles was Clement. He spent his time fighting against "certain unpleasant divisions" in the church. Barnabus and Hermas seemed to "lay aside the divine word" and "their imaginations ran riot. They both cherished strange and fanciful ideas." Ignatius was teaching that Jesus never had a physical body. And so it goes on. There were still many faithful saints, but they were on the defensive. Justin Martyr sets the scene for later generations by using philosophy and sophisticated rhetoric to defend the church, linking it with ancient Greek ideas, in contrast with the simple testimony borne by the apostles.
Various Heresies:
The second century saw various parts of the church interpreting the scriptures in different ways. The Nazarenes (originally just the nickname for the church as a whole), believed that Christians should also keep the law of Moses. The Ebionites were even more extreme, and rejected many of the books that later came to be included in the New Testament. The term "Gnosticism" covered a variety of groups who all claimed to have the authentic secret teachings of Jesus. There were various other groups. The group that won the battle naturally called itself "orthodox," and eventually produced the Catholic and Protestant churches that we know today.
The Importance of Montanism:
A sect that deserves special mention is the Montanists. They saw how dead the church had become, and tried to revive passion and the spirit. However, they obviously did not have the true spirit, and because of them, prophecy and passionate preaching got a bad reputation. This, according to the book (pp 35-36) is why "Preaching virtually ceased for many centuries." This is why the formality of the priest and the mysterious mass became the centre of the church, not the sermons or spiritual life that used to dominate.
It gets better a lot better so lets call this part 1
quote:
The Nazarenes (originally just the nickname for the church as a whole), believed that Christians should also keep the law of Moses.
The early church father, Epiphanius, identified the "Nazarenes" as a distinctly different group from the "Christians." You are correct that they believed in keeping the Law of Moses, but the term did not refer to the church as a whole. It was a distinct sect of Judaism.
quote:
"But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Y'shua the Messiah. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29)
[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 3/27/2006 3:16p).]
I know that it is difficut to accept the fact of a complete aposatasy. All of you who are of the Catholic faith should know why Martin Luther tried so hard to reform the Catholic and not start a new Church. The Priesthood leadership from the Pope down had become corrupt to the core. The selling of indulgences was the last straw. The fact you could pay for your sins in advance of your intention of committing them, because you might get killed in your endeavors was "it" for Luther! This was not a sign of "true repentance". Luther challenged the Pope that if he "had" the power to reduce ones stay in purgatory for "money" and get them an early release, why not in the name of love and mercy reduce everbody's stay (no money)? This enraged the Holy See and his accomplices!
Although Constantine saved Christians from a martyr's doom he opened wide the flood gates of escalating apostasy until little remained of the Church Jesus had organized. Pride, power and GREED -habitual problems in ancient Israel -also became commonplace in Christianity as ecclesiastical position became the sure means to royal favor. A practice know as SIMONY (research this for yourselves) enabled men to PURCHASE ecclesiastical appointments from POLITICAL RULERS and LATER from leaders of the CORRUPT Church hierarchy. Such men sold their souls for power and influence RATHER than developing Christlike attributes and obtaining genuine authority through receiving an inspire call from the Lord.
Unlike Peter and John, who said to the author of this evil practice, Simon, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money" (Acts 8:20), clerics gladly accepted priestly position in return for SUPPORTING the rulers who secured their election. That support, however, too often meant they became mere pawns to the kings or emperors who brought them to power. This paractice, which began with the edict of Milan in 313 AD, soon became widespread under Constantius, the son of Constantine, and continued into modern times. Bishops and abbeys were the lucrative postions that were most purchased. There are these and so many more docmented evidences in history of corrupt pracices up till modern times when over 5,000 priests (so far) have been convicted of sodomizing over 25,000 little boys. The investigation is just beginning in Mexico and South America and Africa.
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 3/27/2006 3:27p).]
Although Constantine saved Christians from a martyr's doom he opened wide the flood gates of escalating apostasy until little remained of the Church Jesus had organized. Pride, power and GREED -habitual problems in ancient Israel -also became commonplace in Christianity as ecclesiastical position became the sure means to royal favor. A practice know as SIMONY (research this for yourselves) enabled men to PURCHASE ecclesiastical appointments from POLITICAL RULERS and LATER from leaders of the CORRUPT Church hierarchy. Such men sold their souls for power and influence RATHER than developing Christlike attributes and obtaining genuine authority through receiving an inspire call from the Lord.
Unlike Peter and John, who said to the author of this evil practice, Simon, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money" (Acts 8:20), clerics gladly accepted priestly position in return for SUPPORTING the rulers who secured their election. That support, however, too often meant they became mere pawns to the kings or emperors who brought them to power. This paractice, which began with the edict of Milan in 313 AD, soon became widespread under Constantius, the son of Constantine, and continued into modern times. Bishops and abbeys were the lucrative postions that were most purchased. There are these and so many more docmented evidences in history of corrupt pracices up till modern times when over 5,000 priests (so far) have been convicted of sodomizing over 25,000 little boys. The investigation is just beginning in Mexico and South America and Africa.
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 3/27/2006 3:27p).]
Part 2
AD 180 to 250 - "The Catholic Fathers
In this period, "spiritually, the church had become weak". New written creeds arose, which later cause great problems "as people got farther away from apostolic times and traditions became vague and unreliable". There was greater and greater emphasis on the tradition, which later led to the scriptures being sometimes pushed aside. The bishops became more and more autocratic. More and more the church relied on philosophy to prove its case.
AD 250 to 325 - Rome Declines, and Blames the Christians
This period saw more and more pressures on Rome from the barbarian tribes. The Roman emperors often tried to get back to the strength of previous centuries, the good old days of Paganism and power. A side effect of this was the persecution of the Christians who were seen as weakening the empire. This was a period when many of the most faithful Christians became martyrs.
This is also the time when many Christians began to look to escape from the pressures of real life. St Anthony (born 257) began to popularise the idea of being a monk. From then on more and more Christians would live alone, wearing simple robes and starving themselves in an effort to become more pious.
AD 325 to 496 - Three Men Who Changed the Church
Constantine:
Eventually, in 312, the highly successful General Constantine decided to become a Christian (it was normal for generals to attribute their success to some god or other). When he became emperor he first issued a decree of tolerance towards Christians, then (in 325) made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Constantine wasn't baptised until just before his death, and in many ways remained a sun worshipper, but some historians say he was still a sincere Christian.
Augustine:
Augustine (354-430) did more than any other to decide the doctrine of the church (Nibley describes this as "the great transition" from prophets to philosophers - see his book The World and the Prophets, available from FARMS.
Leo I:
Pope Leo I (390-461) was second only to Gregory in creating what became the medieval church. Leo was "the first truly great churchman to appear in Rome since Apostolic times". He tirelessly promoted the ideas that
a) the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and
b) this "universal bishop" was head of the church. The council of Chalcedon (451) gave him and his successors the title "pope."
The New Church Decides What to Believe
Constantine (and his successors) held various great councils, to try and decide what exactly the Christians should believe. Constantine would often intervene to tell the bishops what they should believe, and he also invented the idea of bishops wearing costly robes like the emperor.
What the Councils Were Like:
"It was a particularly turbulent age in the theological sphere. In the fifth century, in particular, it was not uncommon for opposing parties to seek victory by physical force, and shameful fights ensued.". Despite all the evidence, the modern churches, whose doctrines were decided at this time, insist that the Holy Spirit was guiding all this!
What the Councils Decided:
The issues decided at these councils were not unimportant details, but the central doctrine
- the nature of God. This was when the church decided who it worshipped! More important, their decisions are still followed by both Catholics and Protestants today.
In AD 324 came the first council of Nicea (on the nature of Christ). Then in 381 the council of Constantinople (on the nature of the Holy Spirit). Then in 431, the council of Ephesus (the nature of Christ again) which Scholars admits was "glaringly unjust". In 449 the council of Chalcedon had yet another go at deciding what the church believed about the nature of Christ, and so it went on. The church did not know what it believed.
And all this was done without a Prophet to guide them.
Amos 3:7
AD 180 to 250 - "The Catholic Fathers
In this period, "spiritually, the church had become weak". New written creeds arose, which later cause great problems "as people got farther away from apostolic times and traditions became vague and unreliable". There was greater and greater emphasis on the tradition, which later led to the scriptures being sometimes pushed aside. The bishops became more and more autocratic. More and more the church relied on philosophy to prove its case.
AD 250 to 325 - Rome Declines, and Blames the Christians
This period saw more and more pressures on Rome from the barbarian tribes. The Roman emperors often tried to get back to the strength of previous centuries, the good old days of Paganism and power. A side effect of this was the persecution of the Christians who were seen as weakening the empire. This was a period when many of the most faithful Christians became martyrs.
This is also the time when many Christians began to look to escape from the pressures of real life. St Anthony (born 257) began to popularise the idea of being a monk. From then on more and more Christians would live alone, wearing simple robes and starving themselves in an effort to become more pious.
AD 325 to 496 - Three Men Who Changed the Church
Constantine:
Eventually, in 312, the highly successful General Constantine decided to become a Christian (it was normal for generals to attribute their success to some god or other). When he became emperor he first issued a decree of tolerance towards Christians, then (in 325) made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Constantine wasn't baptised until just before his death, and in many ways remained a sun worshipper, but some historians say he was still a sincere Christian.
Augustine:
Augustine (354-430) did more than any other to decide the doctrine of the church (Nibley describes this as "the great transition" from prophets to philosophers - see his book The World and the Prophets, available from FARMS.
Leo I:
Pope Leo I (390-461) was second only to Gregory in creating what became the medieval church. Leo was "the first truly great churchman to appear in Rome since Apostolic times". He tirelessly promoted the ideas that
a) the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and
b) this "universal bishop" was head of the church. The council of Chalcedon (451) gave him and his successors the title "pope."
The New Church Decides What to Believe
Constantine (and his successors) held various great councils, to try and decide what exactly the Christians should believe. Constantine would often intervene to tell the bishops what they should believe, and he also invented the idea of bishops wearing costly robes like the emperor.
What the Councils Were Like:
"It was a particularly turbulent age in the theological sphere. In the fifth century, in particular, it was not uncommon for opposing parties to seek victory by physical force, and shameful fights ensued.". Despite all the evidence, the modern churches, whose doctrines were decided at this time, insist that the Holy Spirit was guiding all this!
What the Councils Decided:
The issues decided at these councils were not unimportant details, but the central doctrine
- the nature of God. This was when the church decided who it worshipped! More important, their decisions are still followed by both Catholics and Protestants today.
In AD 324 came the first council of Nicea (on the nature of Christ). Then in 381 the council of Constantinople (on the nature of the Holy Spirit). Then in 431, the council of Ephesus (the nature of Christ again) which Scholars admits was "glaringly unjust". In 449 the council of Chalcedon had yet another go at deciding what the church believed about the nature of Christ, and so it went on. The church did not know what it believed.
And all this was done without a Prophet to guide them.
Amos 3:7
quote:
Surely the Lord God will do nothing, save he revealth his secrets to his servants the Prophets
Part 3
AD 496 to 570 – The Church Gets Ready to Replace the Empire
Clovis:
King Clovis, first of the Merovingian dynasty and king of the Franks, became a Christian in 496. Whether this was because he sincerely believed in Roman Christianity or because it gave him greater power is not clear. But the ultimate result was to increase the influence of the church of Rome in western Europe.
The Final Decline of the Empire:
Continued barbarian invasions destroyed what was left of the power of the Roman empire in the west, and forced the church in the east to re-evaluate and look forward instead of backward. The power vacuum was filled by the church.
570-666 – Destroying the Remains of the Old Church
This period saw the end of the old churches that had survived at the fringes of the Roman world. It saw beginning of Islam, which took over in the middle east and North Africa. It also saw the end of the Celtic church which had survived for so long in the north. Vigorous to the end, Columba founded Iona in 563, and Aiden founded Lindisfarne in 635, but ultimately they had to bow to the inevitable. Gregory dispatched Augustine to Britain in 596, and the Celtic church finally submitted to the Roman church at the Synod of Whitby in 664.
Rome finally learned that she was triumphant, probably in the year 666.
666-800 – Complete Domination of Europe
The Roman church continued to grow in power and prestige. In the year 666 it received news that the only serious alternative to Rome – the church in Britain – had given in. Rome was now unopposed.
In 732, Boniface became an archbishop and strengthened the Roman power, especially in Germany. There was no messing about – the Germans in Saxony were forced to be Christian, on pain of death. In 752, Pepin (the Frankish king) was crowned by a Papal legate, further demonstrating the influence of Rome in northern Europe.
800-887 – The "Holy Roman Empire"
On Christmas Day in the year 800, Charlemagne was crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" over a large part of Europe. This dynasty and the Roman church strengthened each other over the following generations. Around 850, forged documents began to circulate, claiming to prove that the Pope had great political authority from the earliest times. These documents were accepted as genuine for centuries. This was a period of "incredible disorder" (p 86). Charlemagne's dynasty ended in 887, when Charles the Fat was deposed, but things did not get better.
887-1073 – It Gets Worse
In this period the church was often controlled by warring princes. It became "a veritable synagogue of Satan. Pope followed Pope in rapid succession, and most of them ended their career in deposition, prison and murder" (p 86, quoting the historian Schaff). For example, the church was controlled for a time by three high ranking "beautiful but utterly unscrupulous women, and the vile tale of their immoralities with popes and nobles is shocking to the last degree. The facts have been frankly recognised, and not without indignation, by Roman Catholic historians of high standing" (p 87).
One of the worst leaders, Pope John XII, appealed to Otto, King of Germany, for help. When John later turned against Otto, Otto had John deposed by a synod, on charges of murder, blasphemy, and gross sensuality. And so it continued. Between 1044 and 1046 there were even three rival popes, each as bad as the other.
1073-1294 – The Height of the Power of the Medieval Church
Hildebrandt (calling himself Pope Gregory VII) made vast claims for the papacy, that no-one on earth could be saved without acknowledging him as their ruler.
1095 to 1270 saw the crusades, where vast numbers of Christians of all classes travelled to Palestine to liberate Jerusalem.
Most crusades were failures, and even those that succeeded were shameful. The first official crusade, for example, was classed a success because they liberated Jerusalem. But only one in ten of those who started the journey reached the end, and then they massacred the Saracens they found there.
The church reached its greatest political power under Innocent III (1198-1216), who was quite able to humble kings such as John of England and Philip of France.
In 1231, Gregory IX put the Dominican monks in charge of the Inquisition (designed to find heretics). This was responsible for all kinds of horrors. Its first famous use was against the Albigensians, who dared to declare that the clergy was corrupt, and tried to have a simple faith based on the Bible. In twenty years, almost every Albigensian was killed.
AD 496 to 570 – The Church Gets Ready to Replace the Empire
Clovis:
King Clovis, first of the Merovingian dynasty and king of the Franks, became a Christian in 496. Whether this was because he sincerely believed in Roman Christianity or because it gave him greater power is not clear. But the ultimate result was to increase the influence of the church of Rome in western Europe.
The Final Decline of the Empire:
Continued barbarian invasions destroyed what was left of the power of the Roman empire in the west, and forced the church in the east to re-evaluate and look forward instead of backward. The power vacuum was filled by the church.
570-666 – Destroying the Remains of the Old Church
This period saw the end of the old churches that had survived at the fringes of the Roman world. It saw beginning of Islam, which took over in the middle east and North Africa. It also saw the end of the Celtic church which had survived for so long in the north. Vigorous to the end, Columba founded Iona in 563, and Aiden founded Lindisfarne in 635, but ultimately they had to bow to the inevitable. Gregory dispatched Augustine to Britain in 596, and the Celtic church finally submitted to the Roman church at the Synod of Whitby in 664.
Rome finally learned that she was triumphant, probably in the year 666.
666-800 – Complete Domination of Europe
The Roman church continued to grow in power and prestige. In the year 666 it received news that the only serious alternative to Rome – the church in Britain – had given in. Rome was now unopposed.
In 732, Boniface became an archbishop and strengthened the Roman power, especially in Germany. There was no messing about – the Germans in Saxony were forced to be Christian, on pain of death. In 752, Pepin (the Frankish king) was crowned by a Papal legate, further demonstrating the influence of Rome in northern Europe.
800-887 – The "Holy Roman Empire"
On Christmas Day in the year 800, Charlemagne was crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" over a large part of Europe. This dynasty and the Roman church strengthened each other over the following generations. Around 850, forged documents began to circulate, claiming to prove that the Pope had great political authority from the earliest times. These documents were accepted as genuine for centuries. This was a period of "incredible disorder" (p 86). Charlemagne's dynasty ended in 887, when Charles the Fat was deposed, but things did not get better.
887-1073 – It Gets Worse
In this period the church was often controlled by warring princes. It became "a veritable synagogue of Satan. Pope followed Pope in rapid succession, and most of them ended their career in deposition, prison and murder" (p 86, quoting the historian Schaff). For example, the church was controlled for a time by three high ranking "beautiful but utterly unscrupulous women, and the vile tale of their immoralities with popes and nobles is shocking to the last degree. The facts have been frankly recognised, and not without indignation, by Roman Catholic historians of high standing" (p 87).
One of the worst leaders, Pope John XII, appealed to Otto, King of Germany, for help. When John later turned against Otto, Otto had John deposed by a synod, on charges of murder, blasphemy, and gross sensuality. And so it continued. Between 1044 and 1046 there were even three rival popes, each as bad as the other.
1073-1294 – The Height of the Power of the Medieval Church
Hildebrandt (calling himself Pope Gregory VII) made vast claims for the papacy, that no-one on earth could be saved without acknowledging him as their ruler.
1095 to 1270 saw the crusades, where vast numbers of Christians of all classes travelled to Palestine to liberate Jerusalem.
Most crusades were failures, and even those that succeeded were shameful. The first official crusade, for example, was classed a success because they liberated Jerusalem. But only one in ten of those who started the journey reached the end, and then they massacred the Saracens they found there.
The church reached its greatest political power under Innocent III (1198-1216), who was quite able to humble kings such as John of England and Philip of France.
In 1231, Gregory IX put the Dominican monks in charge of the Inquisition (designed to find heretics). This was responsible for all kinds of horrors. Its first famous use was against the Albigensians, who dared to declare that the clergy was corrupt, and tried to have a simple faith based on the Bible. In twenty years, almost every Albigensian was killed.
Part 4
1294-1417 – The Reaction Begins
Boniface VIII (1294-1303) began the decline of the Roman church by his arrogance. He issued a bull that clarified the claim that salvation comes from accepting the Roman pope. The papacy became so unpopular that between 1309 and 1377 is based itself in Avignon, in France, for safety.
Then came the great schism – from 1378 to 1409 there were two popes. From 1409 to 1417 there were three.
Wyclif (1320-1384) was the first famous dissenter – a catholic priest who nonetheless disagreed vocally with much of what the church taught. He was the first to translate the Bible into English. John Hus (1360-1415) went further – he attacked the sins of the priests – and he was burned at the stake for his efforts.
1417-1517 – The Effects of the Renaissance
During the great Schism, the church started a series of reforming councils (meeting between 1409 and 1449), but little was achieved. However, events were overtaking the church.
The printing press was being developed, and in 1453 Constantinople fell, bringing in a new wave of scholars from the east. There was a new generation of "Christian humanists" who were devoted to "the New Learning" – looking back to Greek and Roman ideas, and questioning the status quo.
1517-1685 – The Battles of the Reformation
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 theses to the church doors. These listed ninety five ways that the church was going against the Bible. The big issue of the day that provoked him was the sale of indulgences – rich people could pay to have their sins forgiven and in some cases pay to have sins not yet committed be forgiven.
At this time and soon after came the Anabaptists (who rejected infant baptism) and more reformers like Zwingli and Calvin. In 1531, in order to divorce one of his wives, Henry VIII broke with Rome. Many nations embraced Protestantism, some (like Britain, under the murderous "bloody Mary"
tried to back to Catholicism for a time. There were religious wars in Europe such as the "thirty years war" (1618-1648), and persecutions, such as when 400,000 Protestant Huguenots were expelled from France in 1685.
1685-1830 – The Rise of Scepticism
To the outside observer, the reformed Catholic church (after its "counter reformation" was not worse than some of the new Protestants – there were strengths and weaknesses in equal measure on both sides. But worse, both sides were beginning to look a little irrelevant to the common people.
New ideas were gaining popularity – such as Deism (the idea that God set the universe in motion long ago, then left it alone), or rationalism (the idea that an individual's own ideas are the ultimate source of truth). Then there was textual criticism, used by many to doubt parts of the Bible. In the churches, "the full deity of our Lord was widely denied and spiritual deadness invaded congregations" (p 165).
In reaction against this, there was the golden age of hymn writing, and the rise of movements such as Methodism (began 1736-38), and great missionaries such as William Cary (1761-1834). But the churches were on the defences. People were questioning and criticising them, they had lost all pretence of unity, they no longer controlled the world, and they knew it.
1294-1417 – The Reaction Begins
Boniface VIII (1294-1303) began the decline of the Roman church by his arrogance. He issued a bull that clarified the claim that salvation comes from accepting the Roman pope. The papacy became so unpopular that between 1309 and 1377 is based itself in Avignon, in France, for safety.
Then came the great schism – from 1378 to 1409 there were two popes. From 1409 to 1417 there were three.
Wyclif (1320-1384) was the first famous dissenter – a catholic priest who nonetheless disagreed vocally with much of what the church taught. He was the first to translate the Bible into English. John Hus (1360-1415) went further – he attacked the sins of the priests – and he was burned at the stake for his efforts.
1417-1517 – The Effects of the Renaissance
During the great Schism, the church started a series of reforming councils (meeting between 1409 and 1449), but little was achieved. However, events were overtaking the church.
The printing press was being developed, and in 1453 Constantinople fell, bringing in a new wave of scholars from the east. There was a new generation of "Christian humanists" who were devoted to "the New Learning" – looking back to Greek and Roman ideas, and questioning the status quo.
1517-1685 – The Battles of the Reformation
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 theses to the church doors. These listed ninety five ways that the church was going against the Bible. The big issue of the day that provoked him was the sale of indulgences – rich people could pay to have their sins forgiven and in some cases pay to have sins not yet committed be forgiven.
At this time and soon after came the Anabaptists (who rejected infant baptism) and more reformers like Zwingli and Calvin. In 1531, in order to divorce one of his wives, Henry VIII broke with Rome. Many nations embraced Protestantism, some (like Britain, under the murderous "bloody Mary"
tried to back to Catholicism for a time. There were religious wars in Europe such as the "thirty years war" (1618-1648), and persecutions, such as when 400,000 Protestant Huguenots were expelled from France in 1685.1685-1830 – The Rise of Scepticism
To the outside observer, the reformed Catholic church (after its "counter reformation"
was not worse than some of the new Protestants – there were strengths and weaknesses in equal measure on both sides. But worse, both sides were beginning to look a little irrelevant to the common people.New ideas were gaining popularity – such as Deism (the idea that God set the universe in motion long ago, then left it alone), or rationalism (the idea that an individual's own ideas are the ultimate source of truth). Then there was textual criticism, used by many to doubt parts of the Bible. In the churches, "the full deity of our Lord was widely denied and spiritual deadness invaded congregations" (p 165).
In reaction against this, there was the golden age of hymn writing, and the rise of movements such as Methodism (began 1736-38), and great missionaries such as William Cary (1761-1834). But the churches were on the defences. People were questioning and criticising them, they had lost all pretence of unity, they no longer controlled the world, and they knew it.
No one is arguing that there haven't been heresies. If anything, this points to the fact that heresies were addressed.
Neither is anybody arguing that abuses haven't taken place.
But none of the volumes that you've pasted point to a total apostasy. Neither has it addressed Christ's promise to his church. And finally, it has not shown how the early church believed in mormon specific doctrine.
Neither is anybody arguing that abuses haven't taken place.
But none of the volumes that you've pasted point to a total apostasy. Neither has it addressed Christ's promise to his church. And finally, it has not shown how the early church believed in mormon specific doctrine.
JW
Interesting betting lines for futures for A&M football as of April 2024
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
26