Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[flavo]

You are confusing "church" with "people". Christ did not die for a church, he died for sinful human beings, which make up the Church. There is no "church", as in your definition, which will make it to heaven in its entirety.

The "gates" interpretation can go either way, as far as I'm concerned. It's not really that definitive, as the symbolism can be read to support my view or yours. Perhaps it depends on which side of the gates the Church is on...

Let me clarify, I use the term as a group of people, just as you do. If a group of people decide to follow Christ, they will conform to that lifestyle. If you use the term church of people it is the same thing. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church, it is a group of people that all believe the same. The Baptist is a church, it is also a group of people that believe the same thing. I think this hang up on the definition of church is kind of trivial. The scriptures refered to it as the church. So I use it in the same content as the scriptures. How is it allso different. I don't go to a Baptist church because that "group" doesn't teach the same as what I see in the "group" Christ built. So in your own definition, if a church is a group of people that follow Christ, then that group will go to heaven. The group that doesn't, won't. So the question is, do you belong to the proper group?

Absolutely. Can you still drink a glass of water with stuff in it? Unless you are a water-purifier kind of guy, you do it every day. A better question might be, "when does it get too dirty to be useful?"

The verses you use are the same old prooftexts that don't prove much. Yes, the Galatians had a big problem. But they do not represent the Church as a whole. Read almost all of Paul's letters, and the good churches far outnumber those that struggle. Paul commends the Philippians on the strength of their faith, for example, and tells the Colossians that the gospel is spreading all over the world, with more and more opportunities to share it all the time. Likewise, the Thessalonians, and even Paul's 2nd letter to the Corinthians shows a marked improvement in that church despite earlier sins. Let's face it, you are editing the good stuff out of your interpretation of the New Testament, in order to make the failure of the early Church a proven fact. That simply is not the case.

Where is apostasy "of" the church mentioned. Is it not always apostasy "from" the church? Indeed, this is also the general thrust you find in the early church fathers. There is not apostasy of the church, but there are plenty who leave it, plenty who want to destroy it, from within or without.

Yes there are impurities in water. These are the imperfections of man. Even your tap has a screen on it to catch impurities. This is why the epistles were being written. The apostles saw that false doctrine was entering in and the churches were heading in the wrong direction. I'm not editing anything. Again you misunderstand the apostasy. They all were still believers of truth, but there were false doctrines also creeping in. I used those scriptures to show this was happening. If small impurities are o.k., why warn against them? You yourself said that as a whole the church was good right? then why would a little impurity, which is far outweighted by the good by your estimation, even matter? The apostles constantly warned the churches against these things. Also, if impurities in the gospel are o.k then why:

Matt. 9: 17

17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

There has to be a change. Men are imperfect, but Christ set the bar to be perfect. To be perfect, there can be no impurities. We cannot achieve that alone, we must strive to become the best we can, and Christ will grant us the grace to make up the rest.

Or maybe their teachings were in error, or maybe they didn't walk with Christ during his earthly ministry? There are, again, many interpretations possible here. And given that the churches addressed in Revelation are sometimes judged based on what doctrines they believe or hate, teaching would appear to be more of an issue than authority in the LDS sense.

The scriptures are not open to private interpretation. They were in error because they had apostasized. But if what I gather from your understanding, if there core beliefs are in tact, what is a little error in teachings?

Again, confusing "church" with "people". The church does not matter, it is pointless, without the people. And with regard to setting the bar too high, I was referring to your criteria for a "true church", not to salvation for human beings. A church utterly without error and corruption does not exist, and will never exist as long as imperfect people are the only ones in there.

Also, I am not equating "the Church" with "all faiths". You also seem to assume this here:

The church is the people. I get it. It fits, move on. And I beg to differ with the whole will never exist thing. What happened to Enoch and his city? The people are sinful I agree, but the dictrine given can be right on. Jesus gave the people correct principles, flawed as we are we must conform to those principles, it is when we try to change those principles that were correct and perfect to conform with our own imperfection that we begin to see apostasy rear its head. There has to be a group of people that have those perfect principles as taught by Christ and are trying to live those principles as he taught them, if not then the devil has prevailed against what Christ refered to as his church (you decide which definition, they both fit) and broke it into peices so that the origional origanized doctrine that Christ gave is held by religions collectively and not singularly. If this is so then the true doctrine as Christ taught it in its purety (because as you said a little impurity does not matter) does not exist. If it doesn't the world as a whole is in apsotasy. Please explain then, if the church is not all faiths, a group of people with core beliefs, then what is it?

In underlying theology, all the branches of Christendom have a great deal in common. Again, "all faiths" is not the issue, as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, whatever don't have much of a bearing on the Christian Church. Also, faith in Christ is definitely a core belief of all Christians, but not the only one by any means.

Then why the great opposition to the LDS and them not being Christian. If the core beliefs is all that matter then the LDS church has most if not all the same core beliefs.

"Not preaching it fervently" is not the same thing as "rejecting it entirely". LDS don't preach fervently about salvation by grace alone much either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't taught or believed. Show me one denomination that completely rejects baptism, and doesn't practice it, then maybe you'll have a point here.

Is it taught as Christ taught it, that it is necessary?

No, God's teachings will be taught and expressed differently by different peoples and cultures. It's the same teachings, but each person and culture brings a unique and invaluable perspective to the Church. I don't think the LDS church has that very much. It is very white, American, and middle-class in its theology and basic outlook. Christianity, on the other hand, is a vibrant tapestry, with people from all unique backgrounds actually looking at the same thing in their own way, seeing things other people won't see, offering that perspective to the rest of the body of Christ. It's one of the things about Christianity that I love most!

I disagree with your thinking that the LDS church is very white middle class. Evidently you don't know to much about the missionary program.

Currently, some 56,000 Latter-day Saints are participating in proselytizing missions around the world.

Membership:

Canada - 169,633

United States - 5,599,177

Mexico - 1,013,071

Caribbean - 138,511

Central America - 527,511

South America - 2,904,085

Europe - 440,945

Asia - 865,987

Africa - 220,798

South Pacific - 396,104

Looks pretty diversified to me. Yes each person brings his own perspectives and cultrue to the group but not at the cost of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. So now we are back at square one.

I absolutely agree. But I also reiterate that complete and perfect unity will always be impossible this side of heaven. The LDS church does not conform to the standard of unity you just mentioned, so why should I accept it as true as opposed to where I am now?

I believe our standard of unity is right on. I can go to church this Sunday and learn the exact same thing that I would learn at a church on the other side of the world. We are unified in our beliefs. Yet I have seen in my area (I won't be specific for fear of offense) faiths that I would have thought to be unified, completely disagree on a doctrine in the bible. The LDS practice the same system of unity as preached in the Holy scriptures.

And why can't the LDS be considered true. If there is no one church, if our core beliefs are the same, then how can you not accept my faith as being true?

Sorry if I am confusing you  It wouldn't be the first time. Sometimes I even confuse myself  God did set a bar, but does not expect us to achieve that on our own. As you said, perfection is the bar, so everyone falls waaaaaaay short. God, in His grace, can put up with our foibles and failings, and does so every day. Likewise, He does so with errors and mistakes in His Church. Why assume that God's patience suddenly ran out after only a generation after Christ?

The confusion is on your part my friend. Let me explain, I understand the imperfections of man. But God's laws are perfect. If we conform to the law of God, we are striving for perfection. It is when the law becomes corrupt, by man changing the law, then man has fallen away from truth.

What instrument one uses to worship God does not matter at all. What matters is the heart doing the worshipping, and Who that worship is directed towards. Instruments of worship is a peripheral issue, that God really doesn't care about. And yet the LDS church makes it an issue, and makes an official doctrine/practice out of something that does not matter. This is an example, to me, of how the LDS church does not understand the wonders of God-given diversity.

Can you go through the scriptures and tell me what matters and what doesn't? All scripture is for our profit and benifit. Some people teach for instance that baptism is not necessary while others teach it is. Which is it? I'm not worried about diversity, not when the scriptures more than not speak of conformity. I hope I can hear Well done thy good and faithful servant. Servant, being obediant to what I have been commanded. Not Well done my friend, your diverse culture brought a welcomed twist to the old and outdated teachings. I agree whole heartedly that there is a diversity among saints of different cultures, but they all conform to the law of God. If it has been commanded by God, then it is an issue. Can you give me an idea (I'm sure you can) of an LDS issue that doesn't matter?

Thanks

[rhinomelon]

This will probably be done in short bites.

If small impurities are o.k., why warn against them? You yourself said that as a whole the church was good right? then why would a little impurity, which is far outweighted by the good by your estimation, even matter? The apostles constantly warned the churches against these things.

Small impurities are not "okay". But they do not constitute total apostasy. Small impurities are not okay, but they are inevitable. Did Paul ever tell the Galatians that, "because you've screwed up you're not a church anymore"? No. They were a struggling church, but still a church. The LDS church itself struggles with impurities, as does every religion in the world that has ideals for its members to live up to. The failure of certain LDS ideals points to that reality. Where is the United Order, for example?

There has to be a change. Men are imperfect, but Christ set the bar to be perfect. To be perfect, there can be no impurities. We cannot achieve that alone, we must strive to become the best we can, and Christ will grant us the grace to make up the rest.

This gets into doctrine about salvation, which is a whole different issue. I'll just say I disagree with your last sentence (with biblical reason to do so) and leave it at that.

The scriptures are not open to private interpretation. They were in error because they had apostasized. But if what I gather from your understanding, if there core beliefs are in tact, what is a little error in teachings?

They had not "already apostasized". If they had, why would they be called churches? Why would Christ still be working in them, exhorting them to greater love and purity? Again, error does not equal total apostasy. If it did, then all religions and churches are apostate.

And I beg to differ with the whole will never exist thing. What happened to Enoch and his city? The people are sinful I agree, but the dictrine given can be right on.

So the church is no longer about the people, but the doctrine, in your definition? The people can be corrupt, but if the doctrine isn't then the church is okay? And I've never heard about Enoch's city before. Where are you finding that? Just curious, side issue, I know

Done for now, I think. More later, hopefully.

[SteubieU]

I disagree with your thinking that the LDS church is very white middle class. Evidently you don't know to much about the missionary program.

Currently, some 56,000 Latter-day Saints are participating in proselytizing missions around the world.

Membership:

Canada - 169,633

United States - 5,599,177

Mexico - 1,013,071

Caribbean - 138,511

Central America - 527,511

South America - 2,904,085

Europe - 440,945

Asia - 865,987

Africa - 220,798

South Pacific - 396,104

Looks pretty diversified to me. Yes each person brings his own perspectives and cultrue to the group but not at the cost of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. So now we are back at square one.

His point was not that everyone within your church is a white middle-class American, but that the outlook of the Church as a whole is a white middle-class American one. I believe, though I am not sure, that he would argue that the church cannot help having an outlook of the world that is distinctively American middle-class since (though I don't know this for sure, I would guess) that every president of the church, every apostle in the quorum has been a white middle- class American male.

I'm not sure what exactly he meant by this statement, so I will leave it to him to comment further.

[rhinomelon]

Some other quick comments on peripheral issues:

Then why the great opposition to the LDS and them not being Christian. If the core beliefs is all that matter then the LDS church has most if not all the same core beliefs.

The core beliefs are not all that matters. All issues matter to some extent, but some definitely matter more than others. As far as the LDS church having the same core beliefs, that is simply not true. Many of the main core beliefs that unite all Christians are thought by LDS to be nothing more than evidence of apostasy. Examples include the Trinity, the two natures in the one person of Christ, the ontological distinction between God and man, etc. These core beliefs are rejected by LDS and claimed by all of Christendom, and they matter a great deal.

Issues that matter, but not in terms of truth are method of worship, what instruments you use in worship, what foods you eat or drink, what holidays you celebrate, etc. Many of these revolve around cultural and personal expression, and are not commanded or forbidden in the Bible. The rule of "love your neighbor as yourself" applies to these areas, as I am to do nothing that would cause my fellow Christian to stumble in their faith and walk with God.

Is it taught as Christ taught it, that it is necessary?

Does one have to believe it is absolutely necessary in order for the baptism to be valid? Again, are there any Christian denominations that reject baptism completely?

I disagree with your thinking that the LDS church is very white middle class. Evidently you don't know to much about the missionary program.

Currently, some 56,000 Latter-day Saints are participating in proselytizing missions around the world.

I know the church is located all over the world. But that's not my point. It isn't the demographics I have any difficulty with; it's the character and "personality" (for lack of a better term) of the LDS church all over the world. Do LDS in Africa worship and practice their faith in a distinctively African way, or is their worship comformed to the traditional practices of white American middle-class religion? Does the leadership of the church reflect its international character, or is it made up almost exclusively of white American upper- to middle-class individuals? Are there distinctively cultural ways of looking at the LDS gospel that are different from, say, members in Utah?

I'm not saying all this is evidence of evil or whatever, but it does point to a serious limitation and blind spot in the LDS church. In the culture of the LDS church, unity is expected to mean uniformity, in teaching, style, dress, custom, viewpoint, etc. I think this does an injustice to the wonderfully diverse world God has created. Every culture has its problems, but every culture also has its own contribution to make to the overall body of Christ. This diversity, while it brings struggles of its own, is one of the greatest strengths of Christianity today.

And why can't the LDS be considered true. If there is no one church, if our core beliefs are the same, then how can you not accept my faith as being true?

Quite simply, because if LDS is true, everything else is completely false and apostate, because that's what the LDS church teaches. Why should I even try to accept the truth of your faith, when it is a central tenet of your own faith to deny that acceptance to my faith?

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

I'm not sure what exactly he meant by this statement, so I will leave it to him to comment further.

Steubie's summary is right on. And at this point, I've almost forgotten why this tangent started in the first place, as I see it as a side issue. A point to be made, perhaps, is that the LDS standard for non-apostate unity seems to be complete uniformity (or at least as close to it as possible). I believe this is not only impossible, but also unhealthy and imbalanced, and it creates problems for any church that wants to be effective in all cultures, peoples, tribes and tongues.

Take care, everyone. Back to work for me!

[flavo]

I'm sorry if it seemed a tangent to you. I by no means ment to offend or to belittle. I simply wanted to state that the LDS religion does have valid ground. Yes, I whole heartedly agree, in any religious discussion it is most assuredly a side issue for both parties involved. But one last reference if I may.

I believe this is not only impossible, but also unhealthy and imbalanced, and it creates problems for any church that wants to be effective in all cultures, peoples, tribes and tongues.

I believe the Latter-day Saints have been more than successful in all cultures, peoples, tribes and tongues and continues to be with no problems. The overall membership speaks volumes of how the gospel of Jesus Christ can bride the gaps of cultural diversity and bring together groups of people from all cultures, peoples, tribes and tongues under one universal truth, Jesus is the Christ. In the end it is not what we think that counts, but what God thinks.

Thanks

[flavo]

Examples include the Trinity, the two natures in the one person of Christ, the ontological distinction between God and man, etc. These core beliefs are rejected by LDS and claimed by all of Christendom, and they matter a great deal.

I will have to submit, as to those being a core belief, I will have to say they are different to what I thought a core belief was. But I thought it wouldn't matter seeing that:

1 John 4:2

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

[rhinomelon]

I'm sorry if it seemed a tangent to you. I by no means ment to offend or to belittle.

Don't worry about it at all. I get off on tangents all the time, until I'm red-faced and wondering what I was actually trying to talk about before You weren't being offensive at all.

I will have to submit, as to those being a core belief, I will have to say they are different to what I thought a core belief was. But I thought it wouldn't matter seeing that:

1 John 4:2

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

This is certainly a foundational, core belief. It was the earliest iteration of the gospel, after all. But it is the outflowing and logical following of that one experience, that supreme revelation, that leads to these other core doctrines. Most of these were settled during the first thousand years of the Church, before any notable schisms or divisions took place.

And to be equally candid, I do despise the divisions that have crept into the Church over the past 2000 years. While some of them might have been necessary at the time, I sincerely believe that they're not permanent. If there is one single noble, God-honoring cause that I could seriously devote my entire life to, it would be unity among Christians of all stripes. And I do see something happening in that regard, just in the last fifty years or so. Things are happening, and the Holy Spirit is moving in remarkable ways. It is a rock-solid conviction that God has not abandoned His Church, but has remained ever faithful, even through our ups and downs (of which there are many).

While I do regret the divisions, I do believe that many of them are not over matters of truth, but more of other matters like country of origin or culture. I actually do see a tremendous amount of unity among sincere Christians about the foundations and basic beliefs of the faith. There is disagreement, of course, but I don't see it as necessarily pointing to a Great Apostasy of the entire church.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Take care, flavo and everyone

[1dc]

Quite simply, because if LDS is true, everything else is completely false and apostate, because that's what the LDS church teaches. Why should I even try to accept the truth of your faith, when it is a central tenet of your own faith to deny that acceptance to my faith?

Why? Perhaps because God offers only one truth? All good is from God.

Do traditional Christian scholars search ancient religious writings outside of the Bible only to defend their traditions or to find truth from God?

For whatever reason, your statement is patently false and a bit unChristian though I will allow perhaps that is not how you intended it . . everything else must not be completely false to be apostate to God, nor do LDS suggest such . . a total apostacy is a total loss of authority as stated by God, not a total loss of truth . . and this has been pointed out several times in this thread alone.

LDS look to find truth wherever we may find it and offer what we have in the same vein . . that is a central tenet of our faith.

[rhinomelon]

For whatever reason, your statement is patently false and a bit unChristian though I will allow perhaps that is not how you intended it . . everything else must not be completely false to be apostate to God, nor do LDS suggest such .

Perhaps I wasn't too clear, but this whole thread is about churches, so that's what I was referring to. If the LDS church is "the one true church", all others are false. That's about as simple as one can make it. And I fail to see how such a clear statement (taken as it is from LDS teaching and self-identity) is "unChristian".

Mainstream Christianity teaches many things that I believe are true, that the LDS church rejects outright. If I were to accept the LDS system of things, then those truths must be rejected. After all, if there is a contradiction between LDS teaching and the teaching of another religion, who would be right (if you are LDS)? I would assume the LDS church is always right, in that case, and all others are wrong.

Hope that clears it up. Take care, everyone

[1dc]

Perhaps I wasn't too clear, but this whole thread is about churches, so that's what I was referring to. If the LDS church is "the one true church", all others are false. That's about as simple as one can make it.And I fail to see how such a clear statement (taken as it is from LDS teaching and self-identity) is "unChristian".

. . .

Hope that clears it up.

Not at all. The thread is about evidence for the Great Apostacy and therefore is only about a particular part of Christian beliefs . . Christ's full authority . . rather than all of each church's beliefs.

Even without full authority, LDS teach that members of churches which have not had a fair opportunity to seek the full gospel will be judged on what they had. That is a measure of truth in other belief systems which is respected by LDS as part of God's plan.

You said: "everything else is completely false". LDS don't teach that any Christian church or its beliefs are *completely* untrue and it is false witness *if* that is the impression one intends to leave. False witness is unChristian.

Mainstream Christianity teaches many things that I believe are true, that the LDS church rejects outright. If I were to accept the LDS system of things, then those truths must be rejected. After all, if there is a contradiction between LDS teaching and the teaching of another religion, who would be right (if you are LDS)? I would assume the LDS church is always right, in that case, and all others are wrong.

Not at all, again.

First because if an LDS difference is true then you did not have truth to reject, but rather philosophy of men.

Second, you make the mistake of assuming all LDS people accept all LDS teachings in order to be LDS. Some items are much more core for full faith measurement (e.g., Josephs Smith, Jr. was a prophet who restored God's full authority to the earth through the LDS priesthood which continues today) and others beliefs are much more open to an individually held opinion.

IMO even on the Trinity the differences may be in the eye of the beholder as the core components of the Godhead are shared. I personally believe the variance relates to philosophies added outside of the Bible and is not an absolute test even within traditional Christianity because there are variances in philosophical beliefs among the sects and members within them as well.

Finally, LDS belief includes the belief that we continue to search for truth and will adopt it as truth is made clearer. So it is entirely within the realm of possibility that some dearly held LDS philosophies and speculations will be found to be not 100% correct as more is revealed to us. We don't reject all beliefs automatically as you seem prone to believe and perhaps feel comfortable with.

[rhinomelon]

Thank you for the response, I'm bumping this so I can get to it a little later when I have free time. Take care

[rhinomelon]

Bump for later...I know, I'm behind...

[rhinomelon]

You said: "everything else is completely false". LDS don't teach that any Christian church or its beliefs are *completely* untrue and it is false witness *if* that is the impression one intends to leave. False witness is unChristian.

I can see your point, but you are switching concepts on me here. The LDS church believes that all other churches are apostate and corrupt. They may have some true doctrines scattered in there, but they are not "true" churches. That is my point. So if I accept the LDS view, then all other churches are apostate and corrupt, even if they do have some nuggets of truth.

Not at all, again.

First because if an LDS difference is true then you did not have truth to reject, but rather philosophy of men.

Exactly my point. I can't accept the LDS church as true, because it contradicts what I believe to be true. That would be a contradictory stance that wouldn't hold up. LDS believe that some of my deepest and most cherished beliefs are merely, as you put it, "philosophy of men". So I can't accept the LDS system as true. I was speaking more on a hypothetical situation here, like, "if I accepted the LDS church as true, then...". But there are many reasons for me not to go that route, one of which is the non-sensical doctrine of the Great Apostasy. There, I related this tangent back to the thread

Second, you make the mistake of assuming all LDS people accept all LDS teachings in order to be LDS. Some items are much more core for full faith measurement (e.g., Josephs Smith, Jr. was a prophet who restored God's full authority to the earth through the LDS priesthood which continues today) and others beliefs are much more open to an individually held opinion.

That's interesting, because the same situation exists for mainstream Christianity. There are core beliefs that all Christians hold in common, and there are issues in which diversity is normal. Oddly enough, LDS point to that aspect of Christianity as a sure sign of the Great Apostasy, while the same situation exists in the LDS church as proof of the Restoration. Can you see why I believe that the doctrine of the Great Apostasy can only be held if one also holds to outrageous double standards?

Finally, LDS belief includes the belief that we continue to search for truth and will adopt it as truth is made clearer. So it is entirely within the realm of possibility that some dearly held LDS philosophies and speculations will be found to be not 100% correct as more is revealed to us. We don't reject all beliefs automatically as you seem prone to believe and perhaps feel comfortable with.

I find this fascinating. Is there anything solid that won't change as far as doctrine goes in the LDS church? I've often wondered this, because the lack of an unchanging foundation was one of the main reasons I didn't join years ago. Also, given the scenario described above, is it not possible that over time, LDS beliefs will keep changing until they arrive at something quite close to the teachings of mainstream Christianity?

Since your standard by which you judge truth seems to change and evolve, it seems that LDS cannot categorically reject any truth claim, as LDS don't know where it will all end up. Just another hypothetical.

Again, thanks for the response. I'm hoping juliann pops around here again, I was hoping she could direct me to some stuff in the ECF she was talking about. Fascinating stuff, and I am learning a great deal by hanging out with all you guys. Hopefully, given enough time, I'll absorb stuff from juliann. Learning by osmosis...

Take care, everyone

[USU78]

You said: "everything else is completely false". LDS don't teach that any Christian church or its beliefs are *completely* untrue and it is false witness *if* that is the impression one intends to leave. False witness is unChristian.

I can see your point, but you are switching concepts on me here. The LDS church believes that all other churches are apostate and corrupt.

Not quite. The message the Master gave JSJr about the Churches of that day was that their creeds were an abomination and their professors corrupt.

We don't know, and we must, therefore, exercise great care in talking about who today is corrupt and which creed is an abomination.

Don't overstate this.

[rhinomelon]

Not quite. The message the Master gave JSJr about the Churches of that day was that their creeds were an abomination and their professors corrupt.

Forgive me for being blunt, but to me that sounds like quite a dodge. I have never heard an LDS person take this interpretation of the First Vision. Also, can you tell me what is so different about the creeds and beliefs of today's mainstream Christian churches and those 180 years ago? The creeds certainly haven't changed, nor have the central doctrines of Christendom.

We don't know, and we must, therefore, exercise great care in talking about who today is corrupt and which creed is an abomination.

Don't overstate this.

So you don't know which churches are corrupt, or what makes them corrupt if they are? Please excuse my confusion, because I've never heard anything like this from any LDS person.

Rather than me overstating the issue (which may be the case, if most LDS think as you do), it almost seems to me as though you are understating it to the point of inconsequential. LDS can't know what churches are corrupt, or what makes them corrupt, their standards for truth haven't been completely revealed so they could end up much different then what they are now, etc. At least, that is what I'm hearing in the last few posts. How can LDS really say that they are the one true church, if they don't know why everyone else is wrong?

Take care, everyone

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

I am about 3/4 finished with a book you might find interesting.

"Early Christians in Disarray" Edited by Noel B. Reynolds. It gives a summation of LDS thought on the Apostacy.

[USU78]

Gordon B. Hinckley, 2002:

I believe with all my heart that the Latter-day Saints, generally speaking, are good people. If we live by the principles of the gospel, we must be good people, for we will be generous and kind, thoughtful and tolerant, helpful and outreaching to those in distress. We can either subdue the divine nature and hide it so that it finds no expression in our lives, or we can bring it to the front and let it shine through all that we do.

There is room for improvement in every life. Regardless of our occupations, regardless of our circumstances, we can improve ourselves and while so doing have an effect on the lives of those about us.

We do not need to wear our religion on our sleeves. We certainly do not need to be boastful about it or to be arrogant in any way. Such becomes a negation of the Spirit of the Christ whom we ought to try to emulate. That Spirit finds expression in the heart and the soul, in the quiet and unboastful manner of our lives.

All of us have seen those we almost envy because they have cultivated a manner that, without even mentioning it, speaks of the beauty of the gospel they have incorporated in their behavior.

We can lower our voices a few decibels. We can return good for evil. We can smile when anger might be so much easier. We can exercise self-control and self-discipline and dismiss any affront levied against us.

Gordon B. Hinckley, 1998:

I say this to other people: you develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward any other church. We do not oppose other churches. We never speak negatively of other churches. We say to people: you bring all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it.

Brigham Young:

A good man, is a good man, whether in this church, or out of it.

Brigham Young:

Don't try to tear down other people's religion about their ears, Build up your own perfect structure of truth, and invite your listeners to enter in and enjoy it's glories.

I think you may not have been talking to the right people.

[rhinomelon]

So what you are saying is that the church I attend could also be a true church of Jesus Christ, but you can't say for sure either way?

Whew!

But I think the quotes you posted refer to certain individuals, not to their churches. I don't believe that the First Vision account was trying to say that all people besides LDS were corrupt and apostate, but that their churches and creeds were.

rhinomelon:

I am about 3/4 finished with a book you might find interesting.

"Early Christians in Disarray" Edited by Noel B. Reynolds. It gives a summation of LDS thought on the Apostacy.

That would be interesting, thanks for the tip. When was it published?

Take care, everyone

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

2005. I believe it can be found or ordered through your local LDS book store. I got my copy through FARMS.

[rhinomelon]

Oh, so it's a new one! I've been reading Talmage's work in snippets whenever I find myself at the SLC library, but this one sounds much newer. Thanks for the tip! And thank goodness for interlibrary loan...

[USU78]

So what you are saying is that the church I attend could also be a true church of Jesus Christ, but you can't say for sure either way?

Whew!

But I think the quotes you posted refer to certain individuals, not to their churches. I don't believe that the First Vision account was trying to say that all people besides LDS were corrupt and apostate, but that their churches and creeds were.

Agreed, but so what? Getting to a 100% uniformity of thought on any group of 2 or more people is tough enough: Hell, I'm not sure I've got 100% uniformity of thought with myself {yes I do! No I don't}.

It is one person at a time that accepts/rejects the Master's Gospel.

It is one person at a time that does the Master's works.

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Would more could accept this 1 truth: as much as we would dearly love that every one join with us, accept the responsibility of priesthood authority, and all that that entails, it is far better that everyone be our friend and do His works than be alienated and be our enemy.

[rhinomelon]

Thanks for the clarifications, USU78. But I am still confused. Where does the Great Apostasy apply? If all that matters is that people are following Christ, then where does the Apostasy fit in? Are you saying that the church I attend could be a true church of Christ, provided that we are following after Christ to the best of our ability?

It is still not sounding like anything I've heard from LDS before, at least with regard to churches. Individuals, perhaps.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. They're interesting! Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

USU said:

Would more could accept this 1 truth: as much as we would dearly love that every one join with us, accept the responsibility of priesthood authority, and all that that entails, it is far better that everyone be our friend and do His works than be alienated and be our enemy.

This reminds me of the Parable of the unjust stewards:

Luke 16

1 AND he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

5 So he called every one of his lord

[1dc]

Thanks for the clarifications, USU78. But I am still confused.

USU and I seem to be on the same page. Let's see if we can clarify.

Where does the Great Apostasy apply?

IMO, the Great Apostacy was about whether the Bishops left behind overstepped their authority. From an LDS perspective, a Bishop generally has authority only for a particular part of the Church . . . they can't take over or speak for another part. Much later we see Pope's excommunicating each other. Did Christ give them the authority over each other, or not? Improper use of authority is apostacy just as if one were to leave the Church simply because it is improper.

If all that matters is that people are following Christ, then where does the Apostasy fit in?

Who said that was *all* that matters? It's all that some people have . . but we don't believe it is all the is available from God. The Bible tells us so.

Are you saying that the church I attend could be a true church of Christ, provided that we are following after Christ to the best of our ability?

Is the Church you attend true in what respect? Does it teach truth? Probably a lot of it straight from the Bible that we would agree on. Is it led by a leader who follows from an unabused chain of apostles and prophets given the power that Peter was given? I'd think not, even assuming a righteous person, but please make the case.

It is still not sounding like anything I've heard from LDS before, at least with regard to churches. Individuals, perhaps.

Aren't churches taught by individuals? Why would anyone think that just because a corrupt leader existed that all who followed were similarly corrupt? Is this a peculiar traditional Christian thought? Like Adam's original sin where all men's natures are evil (heard that on an evangelical radio program tonight)?

LDS believe every person is accountable for their own search to know God.