Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Bob Betts]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I do find it interesting because it gives me a window into the mind of an evangelical critic of the church. Semantics do matter to them. Semantics is all that is needed to turn what to Muslims and Jews are obviously three Gods into one God. But of course they are still three, while being one. I don't think it is invalidâ??God is three in one sense, and one in another.

So the trinity establishes that a proposition can be true in one sense but not necessarily in every sense.

I whole-heartedly and intellectually disagree with your assessment. Believing that God is triune, yet one, is not arrived at semantically, but biblically. But, this is not the thread for that debate.

So it is with the quoted statement about the apostasy. It is true in the sense that there was no assembly of believers being lead by one with all the priesthood keys, practicing the ordinances of Gospel within the geographic region that had access to the New Testament Dispensation after the death of the Apostles.

Were there individuals on earth with keys following this? Perhaps. So in that sense, maybe, the statement could be qualified.

"Perhaps"? "Maybe"? I see no "perhaps" or "maybe" in D&C 7:7, or in 3 Nephi 28:9.

Just like any beginning course, one does not learn every exception to a generally true proposition at once.

Beginning course? Is it your doctrine, or not, that a complete apostasy of authority and keys were taken from the earth? Yes. Do the D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28 passages demonstrate otherwise? Yes.

The rhetorical technique being used is invalid. It insists that the LDS adhere to a strange propositional absolutism would make it impossible to make any proposition without hiring a lawyer to outline all the loop-holes. It assumes that if a proposition is not true in every sense, it must not be true. So, according to this assumption, if God is not one in every sense, He must not be one at all. If he is not three in every sense, He must therefore not be three.

Best,

Jd1

Rhetorical technique? All I'm doing is reading what your manuals and scriptures say. Quite simply, they don't say the same thing. One stipulates that all authority and keys were taken from the earth with the deaths of the Apostles; the other says that four men had (and still have) the power and keys of Christ's ministry. That's a simple contradiction that I don't need a lawyer to see with my own eyes.

[Bob Betts]

Who had the keys and authority?

John and the three Nephites.

How do you know they had them?

Your scriptures say so, as I've pointed out numerous times.

How do you know they weren't taken from them and given to other people?

Because Christ promised that they would "bring souls unto Christ, while the world shall stand."

If they still have the keys, how did they transfer them to you?

I don't believe as the LDS regarding authority and keys, so they were not transferred to me.

How did you get our Lord's authority, and in what way... and to what extent... did you get it?

By inheritance, being an adopted child of the King (Jesus), by being born of the Spirit and the water. Also, Peter called believers priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9).

[Bob Betts]

I guess Mr. Betts does not want to address the point I made regarding the lack of a quorum.

Is it because I made the point, and I am beneath Mr. Betts' notice; or is it because it puts a stick of dynamite in his argument?

Bernard Gui made a similar point, and made it better, so I eagerly await Mr. Betts' response to Bernard's post.

That is, if he isn't too busy crying contradiction to answer it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Taking all posts in the order they were receive, I did not ignore you. But, after your last mean-spirited comment in this post, I should. I have been polite and respectful of all. Obviously, you don't find it necessary to do unto others as has been done unto you.

[Bob Betts]

I think you might need to study some more about how the priesthood in our church actually functions.

... with the understanding that we claim it functions the same way as it did in former days.

Would that change what your manuals say about a complete apostasy of authority and keys, contrary to D&C 7:7 and 3 Nephi 28:9?

The keys of the kingdom can only be exercised with the consent of the quorum who has the legal right to exercise them.

Or, apparently if Christ gives special permission to four men to not taste death, but to live on to bring souls to Christ while the world shall stand. with the power and keys of Christ's ministry.

If the President of the Church is living, the First Presidency is leading quorum, and he works in harmony with his counselors to govern the Church... if/when that is the will of our Lord.

When the President of the Church dies, as ours will soon, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles is the leading quorum, and they work in harmony with each other until they appoint another presiding quorum... if/when that is the will of our Lord.

So, considering our belief that the Church functioned the same way in former days as it does today:

What if:

Our Lord gave revelation to his first apostles letting them know there weren't any other people living then who were qualified to righteously exercise the keys of the kingdom so he was removing the keys from the Earth until later when the Lord would restore the keys of the kingdom?

That is a possibility, isn't it?

Only if He reneged on His promises of callings to the four. According to the BoM, that didn't happen.

The keys of the kingdom have to be righteously exercised, otherwise they will be withdrawn.

Show me any indication in the BoM that the four didn't righteously exercise the keys. You're speculating.

[Bob Betts]

Pray tell exactly what sin is Mormonism. CFR

Belief in and following a false prophet, and a different gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

I don't recall what CFR means.

Isn't it bizarre that one must repent of not believing the correct extrabiblical dogma to be saved? I don't recall Jesus saying that anywhere.

I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at, John. Please clarify. Thank you.

Why do we need to repent of Mormonism? If I walked up to some pastor and asked him how to be saved and I did not tell him my current position, he would not mention me of having to leave Mormonism. He would tell me to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Bob, now where in your "final authority you call the Bible" does Jesus say I or any LDS has to repent of Mormonism to be saved. I have not found the passage yet.

Answered.

[Zakuska]

John and the three Nephites.

Our scriptures also speak of John having one foot in the spirit world and one foot in the Mortal world.

[consiglieri]

Taking all posts in the order they were receive, I did not ignore you. But, after your last mean-spirited comment in this post, I should. I have been polite and respectful of all. Obviously, you don't find it necessary to do unto others as has been done unto you.

Do you mean I should ban you from this message board like you banned me?

On the other hand, maybe you could just respond to my question rather than feigning offense as a dodge to avoid doing so.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bob Betts]

No.

1) You speak of REcontitution of the Church. But, if the apostasy never happened in light of the stories of the four, then the Church didn't need REconstituting.

Each time a leader of the Church dies the leadership needs to be reconstituted.

You mean the LDS church. There's no evidence of reconstituting Christ's Church in the NT. I guess I don't know what you mean by "reconsituting."

The church is the people. You understand that concept don't you?

Yes, I said the same thing several posts back, when someone called the church an organization. I rephrased it as a living organism of believers. The "body" of Christ. The temple of God.

The church has people who are appointed to be leaders.

Yes.

2) You must admit that, if the D&C and BoM stories about these four were true, they were unique and special grants from Christ, which no one else had received. Since, according to these stories, these were special requests, with special granting from the Head of the Church, then you could hardly hold Christ to a rule (which isn't biblical, anyway) that their had to be a quorum of 12. It's His Church.

They're our Lord's rules. He made them. Not just us.

Where's the rule of the Lord in the NT that there had to be no more or less than twelve?

Besides, as I pointed out a few posts earlier, there were several more than 12 Apostles in NT times, anyway.

The apostles were being killed, systematically.

Judas went and hung himself. Jesus died on the cross about the same time. After three days, he arose and was walking the earth for another 40 days. He did not pick a replacement for Judas, and Judas had been among his hand-picked leadership. The replacement was prayerfully picked after Christ's ascension. There is no indication from the NT, that there had to be twelve, or that every time one was martyred, another one had to be picked right away.

We believe that at some point there weren't enough apostles living to appoint righteous successors.

I'm glad you added the qualifier, "we believe." What you believe cannot be substantiated in the NT.

[Bob Betts]

No.

1) You speak of REcontitution of the Church. But, if the apostasy never happened in light of the stories of the four, then the Church didn't need REconstituting.

2) You must admit that, if the D&C and BoM stories about these four were true, they were unique and special grants from Christ, which no one else had received. Since, according to these stories, these were special requests, with special granting from the Head of the Church, then you could hardly hold Christ to a rule (which isn't biblical, anyway) that their had to be a quorum of 12. It's His Church. Besides, as I pointed out a few posts earlier, there were several more than 12 Apostles in NT times, anyway.

Thanks for noticing me, Bob.

I notice everyone in the order I receive their posts.

1) I think you are missing my point about the necessity of a quorum to reconstitute the Church.

2) I think you compound your error here in the following manner--you have said on your own board that you are interested only in quotes from official LDS sources. I gave you one from Wilford Woodruff. In fact, this whole thread stems from your pitting one LDS source against another LDS source, by which you think you have shown a contradiction.

Yes, I said that at CC. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize a contradiction or inconsistency when I see one, from LDS sources.

But here in your paragraph (2), you suddenly change the rules and fault my Wilford Woodruff quote by saying it "isn't biblical anyway."

I simply tried to bring the discussion back to the point-of-question in my OP. I'm trying to stay on topic as much as possible.

Due to the special circumstances surrounding the four priesthood holders and their callings, how could the normal LDS rules that WW stated, apply to them?

I think this indicates you sense your argument slipping away from you at this point, as you seem to be changing the rules now, and have foresaken trying to show internal inconsistency between exclusively LDS sources; and are back to simply saying the Bible supports you.

The contradiction that I see between the LDS manual and the LDS scriptures, hasn't changed at all. The contradiction is still there. I have indulged peoples peripheral arguments, in their attempts to dissuade me. But, in light of everyone's presentations to me (which I've addressed in detail in most cases, using the same LDS scriptures in my OP), the simple fact of the contradiction remains.

I don't know if I have made this very clear, but it is the end of a long day.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'll take that into consideration.

[Bob Betts]

The question was answered 100 posts ago.

The "inconsistency" has been refuted by LDS who see no contradiction.

Bob refuses to concede his point.

Bob you would have a lot more credibility if you acknowledged that the contradiction has been answered according to LDS belief. To keep straining and repeating the same argument over and over only portrays you as someone who can't stand to be wrong or corrected in any of your arguments against the church.

If you are correct about my credibility, because I won't concede, what does it say about the credibility of the LDS who keep asking me questions, trying different angles, adding information to the discussion, waiting for me to get to their question or comment? You treat me unfairly, by suggesting that this ungoing debate is somehow MY fault and responsibility. Why do you not chastise your brethren for "beating a dead horse" with their ongoing posts about the topic?

You may not like the answers because they then deflate your argument but they are the answers. If your goal is to save Mormons from a false religion you will need to show them contradictions and errors that exist within their own theological framework. When you post a contradiction and a 100 church members say it's not a contradiction at all because of this this this and this then it's time to find a new argument.

If I don't find the answers to be reasonable against my OP, and if people are going to keep trying to make sense out of it, then it's the LDS who are not satisfied with my inability to understand their logic. Tell your brethren to stop asking me questions, if it bothers you so much. I'm not going to stop replying to those who want to reason with me.

As you probably know, there are plenty of "supposed" contradictions and problems in Mormonism that you could address and highlight instead of harping on defiantly about this innocuous little 3 nephite tidbit.

Yes, I'm well acquainted with those problems. But, Joseph Smith's reason for starting the Mormon religion, starts with the necessity of there being an apostasy. The PMG manuel states, at the top of page 36,

Investigators must understand that a universal apostasy occurred following the death of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. If there had been no apostasy, there would have been no need of a restoration.

And I would add, if there was no need for a restoration, there is no need for Joseph Smith. So, this "tidbit" is one of the most important tidbits of all.

Now, if there was nothing about the four priesthood holders, combined between 3 BoM 28 and D&C 7, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, because there are priesthood holders, using the "power and keys of Christ's ministry," "while the world shall stand," "until Christ's return," during the same time (34 A.D. to the present) that all priesthood authority and keys were supposed to have been "taken from the earth," then there's a contradiction that I cannot ignore. The LDS scriptural stories about the four priesthood holders, refute the manual claim to an apostasy.

I think most LDS realize the import of what I'm saying, it being fundamental to the core of Mormonism. That's why this has gone on, and why some have personally attacked me. This issue of an apostasy is crucial.

You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to debate with me. But, no one has said anything to change the facts I've presented in quoting LDS scripture, and reconcile the PMG manual with those scriptures. The contradiction isn't even mild or vague. It's a blatant contradiction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I said that at CC. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize a contradiction or inconsistency when I see one, from LDS sources.

Bob

If all we had were the verse of scripture that you open this whole thread up with. Meaning if all we had were those 4 or 5 verses of scritpure, one could conclude that you have a valid point and a contradiction. However we do have more that 4 verse of scripture on the point. I think this has been discussed at lenght here. So, I dont really know were to go. You have not been willing to reconize that a quorum of 12 is necessay for the full presiding priesthood authority, if the presiding priesthood authorty is taken away when the 12 are dead, how then can there be a condraticion.

[captain-jack]

Mormon 8

10 And there are none that do know the true God save it be the disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.

- Sounds like they were removed.

After a good search using online tools of the KJV of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price/Doctrine and Covenants, I'm not seeing anything where John was granted his immortality and preached among the people. Just that he wanted to. But I know I am but a young man and make mistakes, mind pointing it out to me where he did tarry among the world to this day?

[Bob Betts]

If John received the power and keys of Christ's ministry, . . ..

Define "Christ's ministry" as used here. The scripture says only "this ministry." " . . . I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come." (D&C 7:7) Which ministry is that? What is "this power" mentioned in the same verse?

Is there some "power and keys" in Mormonism, which are part of Christ's ministry, to overcome death and bring souls unto Christ, that would not require the LDS priesthood? I'sn't Christ's ministry all-inclusive, being Head of the Church?

. . . so that his desire to tarry and bring souls to Christ could be fulfilled, and the three had the same exact desire as John which Christ also granted, how would they be able to fulfill their exact same desire as John's, without Christ giving them the exact same power and keys of Christ's ministry which John received?

In other words, the scriptures never explicitly say that the Three Nephites were ever given any keys at all. This is just your interpretation, something you came up with on your own.

No, I didn't come up with it on my own. I came up with it based on 3 Nephi 28:6 and the fact that they were exercising such authority and keys, as stated in verses 18 and 23.

Now what was it that John desired? "AND the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? . . . 2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee." (D&C 7:1-2) Notice that nothing is said about John desiring keys.

True, but Christ gave them anyway. Therefore, they were never taken from the earth with the death of the Apostles. So, here's one living Apostle whom Christ gave them to, to use until Christ's return. Christ wouldn't give the power and keys of His ministry for no reason, would He?

Notice also that Peter and James were given the exact same keys that were given to John (v.7) and they did not share John's desire and did not share his extended mission. Therefore, the keys given to John were not given to him for the purpose of accomplishing his expressed desire.

The fact that Peter and James did not share John's desire, does not logically suppose that John could not have or did not use the power and keys of Christ's ministry to bring souls unto Christ, until His return. It DOES suppose that Peter and James didn't use the power and keys until Christ's return, since they were not given power over death.

Instead, the keys John received had other purposes, purposes he shared with Peter and James, not with the Three Nephites.

You can't claim that based on what's written. But, regardless, the priesthood authority and keys were never taken form the earth. That's my point.

Your argument just does not hold up.

I think it does. Peter and James are irrelevant to the issue of an apostasy. Whether John was given the power and keys of Christ's ministry in order to fulfill his desire to bring souls to Christ, is also irrelevant. What's relevant is that he possessed them. Thus, the claim that priesthood authority and keys were taken from the earth, cannot be true. However, that John and three others were bringing souls to Christ, "uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost," demonstrates the presence of priesthood authority, power and keys by LDS standards.

[captain-jack]

I know your busy Mr. Betts but please review my last post above yours and two above this one. Again, I don't see where John was told that he got to stay.

[Bob Betts]

Plus the fact that there is not one word of mention in the BoM about an apostasy, that started during the time the your church claims, or anytime thereafter.

1. Doesn't mention the Jerusalem church apostasy? So what is 1 Nephi 13 all about?

---Great and abominable church established

---Intentional corruption of the scriptures

---Slaughter of the saints

---Perversion of the right way of the Lord

---Restoration of the gospel

---Restoration of lost gospel knowledge by means of the Nephite writings

---Restoration of other lost records

Sounds like a Great Apostacy to me.

2. Doesn't mention the Nephite church apostasy? Yes, it does, and in excruciating detail.

Bernard

I will revise my statement, having left out an important word. "Plus the fact that there is not one word of mention in the BoM about a

COMPLETE

apostasy, that started during the time the your church claims, or anytime thereafter.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this correction.

[Paul Ray]

Me: "Each time a leader of the Church dies the leadership needs to be reconstituted.

You mean the LDS church. There's no evidence of reconstituting Christ's Church in the NT. I guess I don't know what you mean by "reconsituting."

Matthias replacing Judas is an example of the type of reconstitution I was referring to.

It is also possible that Paul was called into the office of an apostle to fill the vacancy left by the death of another apostle, such as James.

Yes, I said the same thing several posts back, when someone called the church an organization. I rephrased it as a living organism of believers. The "body" of Christ. The temple of God.

Okay. So do you agree that there are people who lead the Church (or people in the Church) under the direct leadership of our Lord, and that those people can appoint other people to help them in the ministry?

We believe the apostles in our LDS church are under the direct leadership of our Lord in the same way they were during and immediately after our Lord's mortal ministry, with our Lord's authority to appoint other people to help them.

Where's the rule of the Lord in the NT that there had to be no more or less than twelve?

We can see from the scriptures that our Lord appointed 12 apostles, no more and no less.

We can also see from the scriptures that our Lord's apostles appointed another apostle to fill the vacancy left by Judas, and then later appointed a quorum of 70 to help them.

Our Lord's apostles are the pillars of our Church in the same way they were in those former days.

What makes you think the church of Christ can justifiably be lead in any other way?

[captain-jack]

Once again, please review my answer Mr. Betts.

[Bob Betts]

And, where does your church say some one like ME will spend eternity, even though I love God and my neighbor? Not with Heavenly Father?

With Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is also God.

But, in Mormonism the highest goal is to be with Heavenly Father. And, you all think that you're the only ones worthy of that honor, even though I obey Christ's first and second commandments, to love God and my neighbor.

That's reserved for those baptized into YOUR church, who have jumped through all the LDS commandment and ordinance hoops (and I say that meaning no disrespect).

One can take this to mean disrespect.

Sure, you can take it any way you like with your agency. Or, you can take me at my word, that I meant no disrespect.

I may love God and my neighbor as I should, but your religion would deny me a place with Heavely Father, because I'm not worthy without being baptized by the "proper authority." I'm sorry, Silver Girl, but that's not the gospel I read about in the NT. Your gospel is quite different. And, according to the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:6-9), a different gospel is a false gospel.

Then you expect God to recognize baptisms performed by improper authority? Or no authority at all?

All believers are priests, according to Peter. Therefore, I've been baptised by someone with authority. That your church doesn't recognize that authority, is neither here nor there to me.

[Paul Ray]

I've been baptised by someone with authority. That your church doesn't recognize that authority, is neither here nor there to me.

The fact that I may not recognize the fact that you were baptized by someone with authority doesn't mean, necessarily, that you haven't been. It simply means that I don't recognize that authority.

Can you do or say anything to help me recognize how that person received his/her authority?

I'd sincerely like to know how he/she got it from our Lord.

I can trace my authority back to Jesus Christ, personally, through people he authorized to authorize other people, and those people can also trace their authority back to Jesus Christ, personally.

Do you recognize our (LDS) source of authority?

If you don't, that also doesn't mean we don't have it.

It seems to me that there should be some way for us to be in agreement.

[Paul Ray]

Btw, here's a quick thought.

Our Lord's church was lead by apostles both during and after our Lord's mortal ministry.

The fact that it later wasn't is an indication of the General Apostasy.

To get around that argument some people say there was no longer a need for any apostles.

... but God never said anything like that through revelation.

Some people will make up their own reasons to believe anything they want to believe.

[Bob Betts]

Hello Bob Betts,

Don't really know who you are, but I'll take a shot at replying to your concerns. Here is where I think you go wrong. This is how you present the portion of PMG in your opening post.

From Preach My Gospel

"After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost."

You have essentially extracted one sentence in an entire paragraph, ignoring the explanation that is given in the text you chose to present. Here is what it would have looked like had you chosen to include the correlation between the Apostles death and the impact of such on the church.

"After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost."

As I see it, the above relates to the organization and functioning of the early church and the changes that occured when those who maintained the stewardship of the church had died. That the organization deteriorated, doctrines corrupted, priesthood (and everything that implies) taken from the earth does in no way inhibit the ministering to souls.

You want me to focus on the results or effect of the Apostle's deaths (which are stated after the sentence I highlighted), rather than on the catalyst or cause of the apostasy, which was the deaths of the Apostles. As it states, "WITH the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth." What initiated the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority being taken from the earth? The deaths of the Apostles. Was the Apostle John dead? No. Were three others with the same desire and authority as John, to "bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand," dead? No. What did they start doing almost immediately, according to the testimony of Nephi? "uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost." Could they do that without any priesthood power or keys?

How could you possibly make that assumption?

By relying on what your scriptures say

D&C 7:7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.

3 Nephi 28:6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.

7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the cpowers of heaven.

8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.

9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.

I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm saying it DOESN'T make sense because of the blatant contradiction. Four guys are going to use priesthood power and keys, during the same time when priesthood keys and authority were supposed to have been taken from the earth?

If say, the Southern Baptist Convention ceases to exist, does that imply to you that souls cannot be ministered to and drawn to God? Does the lack of "conferring of the gift of the Holy Ghost" by SBC Deacons disable the Holy Ghost from moving in the lives of people?

No, and no. But, did you miss the fact that three Nephites WERE "uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost." And, did you miss the fact that the three Nephites were allowed to keep doing this while the earth shall stand. We're not talking about a passive moving of the HG on people's lives. Numbers of people were being added to the church. They were being baptized in water and the HG, at the hands of the three Nephites. By LDS standards, could they do these things without the power and keys of the priesthood?

Do you see? You are attempting to make a connection between the organization and functioning of a church and it's doctrines...and ministering to and healing of souls.

No, I don't see, because that's not what I'm attempting to connect. But, what I hear YOU attempting to DISconnect, is the priesthood authority and keys from those four men, who clearly were operating with power and authority and keys, as defined by your church.

What the people on this thread are telling you is that you are making faulty connections and I'd have to say, that they are correct in that regard.

Again, from reading your scriptures, the faulty connection that I'm seeing is, four priesthood holders using their power and authority and keys, to do what your church claims didn't happen for 1,700 years, because that priesthood power and authority and keys were taken from the earth.

It makes no more sense to me now, then it did a week ago when I started this thread. There is no way to reconcile that "priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth," when four priesthood holders have been exercising power, authority and keys since 34 A.D. to the present.

[Paul Ray]

There is no way to reconcile that "priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth," when four priesthood holders have been exercising power, authority and keys since 34 A.D. to the present.

Okay, try looking at it this way.

Consider, for a moment, the idea that the 3 Nephites and John still have the keys of the kingdom, including the authority to bring people into the true church of Christ as members of the same Church they were and still are members of.

Are you one of those people brought into the Church through their ministry?

Can you trace your membership or your line of authority through one of those people?

If not, how did you become a member of the true Church and from whom did you get your authority, if you have it?

If I search and keep searching the official records of our Church will I see you listed as a member?

[Orpheus]

Two things, I don't want to see another thread with Bob Bett's name on it. We don't allow personal threads here.

Also Mr. Betts we have rules on this board to prevent what is happening here. If you are asked for documentation you must give it or give up. I am seeing pages of lecturing and little else. Start doing something besides saying the same thing over and over and "you are wrong".

[Bob Betts]

K this is simple. It takes 12 apostles and a prophet at the head to make the church.

There were more than 12 Apostles at a time in the NT. Starting with the 11 Apostles, Matthias took Judas' place (Acts 1:24); other Apostles were Barnabas & Paul (Acts 14:4, 14), Adronicus & Junia (Rom. 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), Timothy & Silas (1 Thess. 2:6).

You cannot make this claim, because the apostolic record is incomplete and does not document the

deaths or ministries of many of the original 12. Citing this as evidence actually gives strength to the

LDS position that the apostleship should be perpetuated in order for the church to function. If not,

there was no need to call Barnabas et al.

The practical and logical reason was the incredibly rapid growth of the Church. The church would grow by thousands at a time with the preaching of the Apostles. If you want some idea how Christianity had grown by 325 A.D., Constantine invited 1,800 bishops from around his empire to the first council at Nicea.

The Apostles didn't all die at once. Are you telling me that as the Apostles were martyred, and when the number of them got down to eleven or less, then their priesthood authority could no longer be exercized?

Well, that would be the definition of the Great Apostasy, wouldn't it?

No. And, you didn't answer my question. When the number of Apostles gets down to eleven or less, then is the priesthood authority of the remaining taken away?

Eventually the quorum dwindled down to 0, unless, of course, you believe John remained in some form.

Unless I believe? Don't YOU believe D&C 7?

Do you?

No. There's no indication that Christ allowed John to tarry.

Or perhaps you believe the Roman church retains the apostolic authority?

No.

Seems like you lose either way.

No, the contradiction still exists, regardless of anything stated in this post. Nothing in this post affects the contradiction exposed in my OP.

[Bob Betts]

About as off topic as Joseph Smith's Jupiter talisman. I would just be showing people how to make their own.

Many in the Evangelical community (which would be yours, I think) like to play up the Mormon/Mason/occult connections as if they somehow discredit Mormonism. Personally, I see it as a positive thing that actually adds to its credibility, and if I were post at your board that's what I would focus on.

So, what do you say? Can I teach your people how to practice black magic?

How to? No. But, you're certainly free to try to convince us that black magic glorifies and pleases God. THAT I'd like to see.