I think the first one is the nature of God as a triune being. We (RCC) understand and profess that Jesus IS God and is fully divine and fully human - not just an enlightened person.

Can you explain how you understand this revelation?

PabloSerna said:

---

I think the first one is the nature of God as a triune being. We (RCC) understand and profess that Jesus IS God and is fully divine and fully human - not just an enlightened person.

Can you explain how you understand this revelation?

---

I grew up Roman Catholic and went to Catholic school for 12 years, including attending to a Jesuit high school. However, I was not a devote Catholic for many years before joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. I would consider myself knowledgeable in both RCC and LDS doctrine but do not claim to be an expert in either.

We also believe Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully Devine. I'll explain the differences between the godhead and the trinity a bit later after church.

As I understand it, the doctrine of the trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost share the same Devine essence. They are different manifestations (for lack of a better word) of the same one God. The doctrine of the Godhead is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 3 distinct personages but unified in purpose.

Personally, I don't think either doctrine can fully explain the nature of God and both can teach us more about God, but that may just be me reconciling my Catholic upbringing with my Mormon faith. I think we all agree that there is a sameness about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but there are some differences as evidenced by Jesus's Baptism, Jesus praying to the Father, and Jesus promising to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles.


As for the nature of Jesus, in one of our most sacred ordinances, the endowment in the temple, the story of creation and the fall is recounted with some added detail. Elohim (Heavenly Father) instructs Jehovah (Jesus Christ) to create the world, following Genesis 1. Then Elohim and Jehovah create Adam and then Eve. After both eat the forbidden fruit and are caste out of Eden, we make covenants to obey 5 laws. Obedience, Sacrifice, Gospel, Chastity, and Consecration.

There's a bit more, not directly the nature of the god head, but that which surrounds it. LDS teaches that God was once a man, just like us, and exalted to god hood. It teaches that we can do the same and become exalted as gods. This enters the polytheistic nature of LDS. The analogy is the ladder. Paraphrasing Smith's view on this, once God steps up a rung on the ladder, Jesus can step up and, having redeemed a world, became the eternal God of that world, Now the Saints can step on the ladder and become as Jesus is to another world, and all the Saints would all do the same, "so that there would be Gods many and Lords many".

Joseph Smith went into detail on this in King Follett discourse (KFD) in 1844. He had mentioned in before, but this really locked it down. This was at the last general conference before he was killed. For most sermons, he had 1 scribe, for the one he considered important he would have a second. For this one, he had 3, he felt it his most important revelation to date. He staked his status as a prophet on the truth of this sermon. This type of declaration typically served to prevent people from challenging it as much. Line of thought with this declaration, "if KFD is false, then so is everything I've taught you, so to deny this sermon would be to deny everything else."

Printing was halted of this in 1912, because it caused a lot of concerns among members, but is still part of the doctrine.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/king-follett-discourse?lang=eng
https://josephsmithjr.org/king-follett-sermon-transcription/

This video explains it pretty well. It's not from an LDS member, so take it with a grain, but it walks through what was described in the KFD, earlier teachings, comments from his contemporaries on what he felt, and what the people at the time took issue with.

So the nature of God is one big difference. I also think the understanding the Catholic Church has regarding public revelation having ended with the death of the last Apostle is something else to consider.

From the little I understand, maybe you can elaborate, the Book of Mormon came through an angel to John Smith. That eliminates apostolic tradition don't you think?

PabloSerna said:

---

So the nature of God is one big difference. I also think the understanding the Catholic Church has regarding public revelation having ended with the death of the last Apostle is something else to consider.

From the little I understand, maybe you can elaborate, the Book of Mormon came through an angel to John Smith. That eliminates apostolic tradition don't you think?

---

The catch all used to cover all bases is two-fold:

First, the claim is that the RCC lost its way, and Joseph Smith was told by God and Jesus in a vision to restore the original church (happened in 1820, first mention to anybody was in 1830, story finalized in 1842, there were 4 or 5 different versions of the vision in that time). So they claim with sincerity that LDS church is a restoration of the original church that Jesus said would be found.

Second, the claim is that the Bible is corrupted, so any conflicts with BoM are because the Bible is corrupted. Joseph Smith did a "new translation" of the Bible, which adds a lot of extra text to validate his prophet status.

when do Mormons say the Church was corrupted, and how do we know?

Is the idea that every single Apostolic See was so thoroughly corrupted at the same time to the point that there was no visible Church for however long 1,700 to 1,800 years before Smith's private revelation?

Is there an event or series of events that mark universal apostasy?

Bob Lee said:

---

when do Mormons say the Church was corrupted, and how do we know?

Is the idea that every single Apostolic See was so thoroughly corrupted at the same time to the point that there was no visible Church for however long 1,700 to 1,800 years before Smith's private revelation?

Is there an event or series of events that mark universal apostasy?

---

More that the authority was lost. Obviously Peter had the authority given by Christ, but who does Peter pass that authority to and how is it passed down through the ages.
Tied into to the "no revelation after the apostles died".

Without the authority (and revelatory guidance), there was drift over time and errors introduced.

We do believe the bible "as far as translated correctly". Smith did undertake to "translate" the bible, referred to as the Joseph Smith Translations or JST, but it is more clarifying phrases than a complete rewrite. For what it is worth, our scriptures include the KJV with footnotes referencing the JST.

For example, Genesis 20

"And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar; [u]and gave thanks unto the Lord, and rejoiced in his heart.[/u]"

The next couple of verses are altered so that Noah is asking God to not flood the earth again rather than the God just deciding not to flood the earth again.

There are some more significant additions, such as the book of Moses and book of Abraham which as said to have come from some additional scrolls. But we don't add those to the Old Testament and instead they are in a different book.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

when do Mormons say the Church was corrupted, and how do we know?

Is the idea that every single Apostolic See was so thoroughly corrupted at the same time to the point that there was no visible Church for however long 1,700 to 1,800 years before Smith's private revelation?

Is there an event or series of events that mark universal apostasy?

---

There are some more significant additions, such as the book of Moses and book of Abraham which as said to have come from some additional scrolls. But we don't add those to the Old Testament and instead they are in a different book.

---

Do those additions hold equal weight or authority to the Bible?

As for revelation, are we specifically referring to adding scripture or a general "no revelation". The RCC has the doctrine of papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. Presumably there is some divine guidance there to avoid error, so I am assuming the "no revelation" is more about adding to the scripture.

We believe in both prophetic revelation in that our modern day prophet receives divine guidance for the church as well as personal revelation where God answers prayers and can guide us through the Holy Spirit.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

when do Mormons say the Church was corrupted, and how do we know?

Is the idea that every single Apostolic See was so thoroughly corrupted at the same time to the point that there was no visible Church for however long 1,700 to 1,800 years before Smith's private revelation?

Is there an event or series of events that mark universal apostasy?

---

There are some more significant additions, such as the book of Moses and book of Abraham which as said to have come from some additional scrolls. But we don't add those to the Old Testament and instead they are in a different book.

---

Do those additions hold equal weight or authority to the Bible?

---

Our Scripture (the standard work) includes Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doctrines and Covenants. D&C is mainly a series of revelations to Smith (or Smith with others), but has some sections after Smith's death. This includes things like the Word of Wisdom where we are instructed to not drink alcohol, "hot drinks" (coffee and tea), and avoid tobacco. There are a few bigger ones including the 3 degrees of glory. The books of Abraham and Moses are published as part of D&C.

So yes, they are given similar weight to OT, NT, and BoM.

A clarification/correction. Abraham is from Smith translating sections of Genesis. Moses is from some ancient Egyptian papyri. There is also Smith's translation of sections of Matthew.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

when do Mormons say the Church was corrupted, and how do we know?

Is the idea that every single Apostolic See was so thoroughly corrupted at the same time to the point that there was no visible Church for however long 1,700 to 1,800 years before Smith's private revelation?

Is there an event or series of events that mark universal apostasy?

---

There are some more significant additions, such as the book of Moses and book of Abraham which as said to have come from some additional scrolls. But we don't add those to the Old Testament and instead they are in a different book.

---

Do those additions hold equal weight or authority to the Bible?

---

Our Scripture (the standard work) includes Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doctrines and Covenants. D&C is mainly a series of revelations to Smith (or Smith with others), but has some sections after Smith's death. This includes things like the Word of Wisdom where we are instructed to not drink alcohol, "hot drinks" (coffee and tea), and avoid tobacco. There are a few bigger ones including the 3 degrees of glory. The books of Abraham and Moses are published as part of D&C.

So yes, they are given similar weight to OT, NT, and BoM.

A clarification/correction. Abraham is from Smith translating sections of Genesis. Moses is from some ancient Egyptian papyri. There is also Smith's translation of sections of Matthew.

---

A bit of clarity here.

Book of Abraham and Book of Moses are translated from Egyptian papyri that was purchased from a traveling salesman, along with several other books. They are confidently linked in origin to Napoleon's armies looting in Egypt, and these types of road shows (for lack of a better term) were not uncommon at this time.

They are also part of the Pearl of Great Price, not the D&C, along with several other books. Additionally, the LDS church gives more weight to the BoM than to the OT or NT, because of the corruption claims.

Here you can see the books they consider part of their scripture

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures?lang=eng

There's an excellent notebook showing Joseph Smith's notes during this translation, though I can't find it now. Character by character with the meaning for each. It's actually a brilliant piece of writing, in that the translation is completely internally consistent. However, when the papyri were found in the 1960s, they were translated by Egyptologists and found to be funerary texts that were not uncommon. Recall, at the time JS was working on this, hieroglyphics had not been translated, and most believed it to a language that would never be translated. The Rosetta Stone had only been found a few decades prior, and this wasn't wide spread knowledge at the time. Brilliant work, completely incorrect. This was a tremendous embarrassment for the LDS church.

The LDS was largely silent on this for several decades, never anything official, only snippets here and there. However, they just released an essay last year that detailed their official stance now, though it still largely ambiguous. The stance has moved from what Joseph Smith said, "written by the hand of Abraham", and changed how he described his translation process. They now consider it to be a revelation that came to him while in possession of these papyri, and they call the notebook a later attempt to translate Egyptian, completely unrelated to the Book of Abraham.

"Translation" clearly isn't the correct term for what Smith did. He didn't have any linguistic knowledge of the language the golden plated (BoM) were written in. Didn't have Hebrew/Greek source material other than KJV for OT and NT.

For those who believe, it was a revelatory process guided by the Holy Spirit. To that end, the JST was a divine correction to the true meaning. Genesis was an oral tradition long before being written, so it is conceivable that something was lost before it was written down and then preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls.

For those who don't believe, he made it all up.

That said, the "first vision" happened because Smith was praying (as instructed in James 1:5) to know which church (mainly Protestant varieties given the time and place) to join and the last chapter of the Book of Mormon tells the reader to pray to know the truth. ("I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Moroni 10:4).

It is also what the missionaries will tell any new investigator… read the BoM and then pray to know the truth. If the Holy Spirit confirms the BoM is truth, then joining the Church is the logical step. If the Holy Spirit doesn't confirm the BoM is true, then it would be a bad idea to join the church.

Bob Lee said:

---

Does that mean the Petrine See is lost for eternity after his crucifixion. The apostles' successors were unanimously wrong on the Church's ecclesiology, and it happened in some of the Apostles' lifetimes, and before Revelation was written that some of these bishoprics changed hands, but was never addressed by anyone that we know of? Why? They addressed a lot of other errors in their writings, but were silent on that?

---

It isn't clear to me exactly when and I haven't seen where the LDS church specifies a specific time point.

Clearly, there was a time after Peter and the apostles where there wasn't a single leader of the church, rather a number of bishops leading their own area, some in significant disagreement. Thus we end up with the councils, plus a period where Roman Emperors were alternating between Christian traditions and killing people on the wrong side for heresy.

There are also other times when the RCC had some pretty problematic practices, such as indulgences.

Obviously the Mormon church has some pretty problematic practices at points, such as polygamy, so I'm not claiming the apostasy was caused by indulgences or anything like that.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Does that mean the Petrine See is lost for eternity after his crucifixion. The apostles' successors were unanimously wrong on the Church's ecclesiology, and it happened in some of the Apostles' lifetimes, and before Revelation was written that some of these bishoprics changed hands, but was never addressed by anyone that we know of? Why? They addressed a lot of other errors in their writings, but were silent on that?

---

It isn't clear to me exactly when and I haven't seen where the LDS church specifies a specific time point.

Clearly, there was a time after Peter and the apostles where there wasn't a single leader of the church, rather a number of bishops leading their own area, some in significant disagreement. Thus we end up with the councils, plus a period where Roman Emperors were alternating between Christian traditions and killing people on the wrong side for heresy.

There are also other times when the RCC had some pretty problematic practices, such as indulgences.

Obviously the Mormon church has some pretty problematic practices at points, such as polygamy, so I'm not claiming the apostasy was caused by indulgences or anything like that.

---

I'm glad you edited this. I was gonna say...lol

Quote:

---

"Translation" clearly isn't the correct term for what Smith did. He didn't have any linguistic knowledge of the language the golden plated (BoM) were written in. Didn't have Hebrew/Greek source material other than KJV for OT and NT.

---

I understand the view of today. However, "translation" is what Joseph Smith said he did, and his translation notes align more with what he said, than what is said today about the process. Character by character, with meaning associated, he even made notes about what the images in the papyri were. The church's story behind it changed once the translation was found to be false.

I am only stating the history of what Joseph Smith said, what his contemporaries said, when the church's stance changed, and what the stance is today, as of the essay released last year. We are free to disagree.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said that there are not a lot of people that truly hate the Catholic, there are many people though, that hate what they think the Catholic Church is about (paraphrasing).

Indulgences are a prime example. Many people, even some Catholics, think one thing about indulgences and the truth is actually quite different. Luther was just one of many who misunderstood the doctrine of indulgences, which the Church still practices today.

It would be a total derail from this topic, however, I can tell you it is on solid, scriptural ground. So much so that books in the original cannon had to be pulled out to remove the scriptural references. They are there still.

I bring this up, because it seems to me that people need to test and dig deep for the truth. I think that is great, because I did the same except I started with the faith passed down to me and haven't reached the bottom.

The concern some have about their loved ones going down a different path, like the LDS, is that they will wander so far off the path blazed by Christ, that their soul could be in trouble. That may be true of some who are not interested in asking the hard questions about their new faith and are content to follow their spouse down a path that can disconnect them from the sacraments for good.

I pray for all to search for the answers like the existence and nature of God. Who was Jesus? Why did he establish a church? And on.

The idea of doing good deeds to offset punishment for sin isn't really the issue, at least to me. I get there are some of the Protestant faith who want faith alone to absolve us of sin would strongly disagree with the need to do something, but Mormons would say true faith would guide you to strive to live like Christ.

Really it was the historical practice of paying for indulgences that I find problematic. And so does the Catholic Church having corrected.

I'm kinda disappointed that the LDS church uses the Protestant version of KJV with the books missing. My understanding is Smith did have access to the books but God told him while there are truths there, he was to skip over them.

PabloSerna said:

---

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said that there are not a lot of people that truly hate the Catholic, there are many people though, that hate what they think the Catholic Church is about (paraphrasing).

Indulgences are a prime example. Many people, even some Catholics, think one thing about indulgences and the truth is actually quite different. Luther was just one of many who misunderstood the doctrine of indulgences, which the Church still practices today.

It would be a total derail from this topic, however, I can tell you it is on solid, scriptural ground. So much so that books in the original cannon had to be pulled out to remove the scriptural references. They are there still.

I bring this up, because it seems to me that people need to test and dig deep for the truth. I think that is great, because I did the same except I started with the faith passed down to me and haven't reached the bottom.

The concern some have about their loved ones going down a different path, like the LDS, is that they will wander so far off the path blazed by Christ, that their soul could be in trouble. That may be true of some who are not interested in asking the hard questions about their new faith and are content to follow their spouse down a path that can disconnect them from the sacraments for good.

I pray for all to search for the answers like the existence and nature of God. Who was Jesus? Why did he establish a church? And on.

---

I understand the concern over family members following a different path. It follows from the belief that your faith tradition is the true path to salvation and that deviation from that risks salvation. You can't really love someone if you ignore that risk to their eternal soul.

Unfortunately, I know several people whose families cut them off when they became Mormon and while I understand that also happens to some of those leaving the LDS church, it is not what is taught. Rather it is love them and pray for them to find their way.

There is absolutely a tendency by Mormons to associate with other Mormons, so much so that Church Leaders have actively encouraged members to associate with non members. Specifically there was a talk a few years back encouraging members to get to know their non-member neighbors and to show love and kindness to them. That talk wasn't about getting to know them so you can sic the missionaries on them, but, unfortunately, there is a recurrent request by the missionaries to provide them with names of people they can talk to that I find distasteful.

That said, we still follow the teachings and example of Jesus in the New Testament and a lot of good in the world comes from both the RCC and LDS church. Maybe some of that is Romans 8:28 type thing where "all things work together for good for those who love God" be that an apostatized RCC, Protestant faiths that have split from the RCC and papal authority, or a restoration gospel that came from some kid in New York in the 1830s.

desperate_parent said:

---

Quote:

---

"Translation" clearly isn't the correct term for what Smith did. He didn't have any linguistic knowledge of the language the golden plated (BoM) were written in. Didn't have Hebrew/Greek source material other than KJV for OT and NT.

---

I understand the view of today. However, "translation" is what Joseph Smith said he did, and his translation notes align more with what he said, than what is said today about the process. Character by character, with meaning associated, he even made notes about what the images in the papyri were. The church's story behind it changed once the translation was found to be false.

I am only stating the history of what Joseph Smith said, what his contemporaries said, when the church's stance changed, and what the stance is today, as of the essay released last year. We are free to disagree.

---

He used the same word "translation" for the Book of Mormon but sticking your head in a hat with a stone isn't exactly a good way to translate hieroglyphics to English.

"Really it was the historical practice of paying for indulgences that I find problematic. And so does the Catholic Church having corrected."

To be fair, it was not "paying for indulgences" as much as the idea that heaven was for sale- because almsgiving is still a virtue (charity). Also, the church still has the treasury of grace and merit given to it through Christ and the Saints. All those are layers upon layers of doctrine that at first seem as simple as "selling" then make sense when one considers tradition.

As you allude to, there is no need to proselytize- rather a genuine search for the truth. Like the truth about indulgences. Dig deep enough and you will be surprised at how much it makes sense from a scriptural and pastoral sense. I could go on, because it was a major stumbling block for me, until it wasn't.

Yes they are in the pearl of great price. However, much of what was in the original PGP was duplicative in the D&C or incorporated in D&C only leaving Abraham, Moses, and excerpts of Matthew and the Joseph Smith History.

If you buy a printed copy, D&C and PGP are combined in one volume.

Also, we have a 4 year cycle of studying OT, NT, BoM, and D&C with PGP at the end of the D&C year.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

desperate_parent said:

---

Quote:

---

"Translation" clearly isn't the correct term for what Smith did. He didn't have any linguistic knowledge of the language the golden plated (BoM) were written in. Didn't have Hebrew/Greek source material other than KJV for OT and NT.

---

I understand the view of today. However, "translation" is what Joseph Smith said he did, and his translation notes align more with what he said, than what is said today about the process. Character by character, with meaning associated, he even made notes about what the images in the papyri were. The church's story behind it changed once the translation was found to be false.

I am only stating the history of what Joseph Smith said, what his contemporaries said, when the church's stance changed, and what the stance is today, as of the essay released last year. We are free to disagree.

---

He used the same word "translation" for the Book of Mormon but sticking your head in a hat with a stone isn't exactly a good way to translate hieroglyphics to English.

---

True, it's not any different than translating Reformed Egyptian to English either, but that's what is told. The process he described for the BoM was the seer stone in a hat, the words would appear, he would verify they were written down correctly with the scribe, then the next words would appear. The process described for the Book of Abraham was performed by interpreting the symbols on the papyri. I am not presenting anything that contradicts the church's historical records. If you take issue with this, then your issue is with the church, not with me. On a similar but separate note, I highly recommend anybody to take a look at his translation notebook, it really is an impressive feat to be so internally consistent with the characters. I cannot for the life of me find the link anywhere.

I'll also point out that the church hid the stone in the hat secret for roughly 100 years, knowing it to be the method used. David Whitmer's final writings told this story, he confirmed his belief in the BoM, and reaffirmed his testimony of witness to seeing the plates, despite having been excommunicated in 1838. The church used this pamphlet as verification that Whitmer held his belief to the end, verified his witness to the tablets, however they kept the stone in the hat part secret. Even going so far as to have pictures on the wall of most churches showing Joseph Smith writing with the golden tablets opened next to him. I have to ask why they would present a false story to the members for so many years?

Here is the link to his final publication in 1887: https://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880s-1890s/1887Whit.htm

Page 12 describes the stone in the hat
Page 9 reaffirms his witness to the plates

Maybe here. They have basically digitized everything that Smith wrote.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6/jsppr6-SUB02

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Maybe here. They have basically digitized everything that Smith wrote.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6/jsppr6-SUB02

---

This is a different place than I found it, but it is exactly here. Thank you! I gave up a while ago depending on that site, it had trouble loading for me so many times.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/grammar-and-alphabet-of-the-egyptian-language-circa-july-circa-november-1835/1

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6/jsppr6-SUB05

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Yes they are in the pearl of great price. However, much of what was in the original PGP was duplicative in the D&C or incorporated in D&C only leaving Abraham, Moses, and excerpts of Matthew and the Joseph Smith History.

If you buy a printed copy, D&C and PGP are combined in one volume.

Also, we have a 4 year cycle of studying OT, NT, BoM, and D&C with PGP at the end of the D&C year.

---

Interesting, I did not know that. Thank you for sharing, I am always seeking more information about things, and this is new to me. I've only ever had a physical BoM, after I had learned about my friend's brother in high school, everything is digital since then, and they are separate digitally.

RAB91 said:

---

We haven't had one of these threads in a really long time.

I'll leave the actual theology discussion for another night, but I will leave this Joseph Smith quote here. It goes directly to the idea that they think Joseph Smith was more successful than Jesus in establishing the church here on earth.

Quote:

---

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."

---

---

Whoa! I've never seen that. I did see a reference to him aspiring to be like Muhammad, but I haven't been able to confirm that. It aligns with the keystone of the faith being in the book rather than the person, but it still seems a bit far fetched for me to trust without verification. I will try to find an confirm that

RAB91 said:

---

We haven't had one of these threads in a really long time.

I'll leave the actual theology discussion for another night, but I will leave this Joseph Smith quote here. It goes directly to the idea that they think Joseph Smith was more successful than Jesus in establishing the church here on earth.

Quote:

---

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."

---

---

It seems kind of an odd thing to say given the history of the church. In Ohio, lots of people left after the banking failure. Others left after the revelation of the 3 degrees of glory, essentially teaching that nearly all mankind will be saved rather than many being condemned to hell and few saved.

Bob Lee said:

---

when do Mormons say the Church was corrupted, and how do we know?

Is the idea that every single Apostolic See was so thoroughly corrupted at the same time to the point that there was no visible Church for however long 1,700 to 1,800 years before Smith's private revelation?

Is there an event or series of events that mark universal apostasy?

---

I found a video that addresses it from a Christian point of view arguing against the LDS view of it through scripture.

It begins with listing the claims, then argues against each one of them. I would really like to see and read a similar video/essay from an LDS point of view to better understand this claim. However, even the initial listing of apostasy claims is reaching to all kinds of places to build the list, which says to me it has never really been clearly defined by the LDS church.



And the second part that addresses the last claim on the list