Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Zeta-Flux]

A well, thought through, response. Thank you.

You are welcome. I'm glad we are understanding each other.

Correct me if I'm not understanding you, but what I hear you saying is, the only problem with the PMG statement is that it's simply not stated clearly enough. But, if I read between the lines, and realize that the difficulty that I'm having with it may be no more than an understanding of whether the four were mortal or immortal, then my difficulty is minute at best. How'd I do at paraphrasing you?

That is a fair restatement.

But, even if I'm way off in putting what you said in other words, I would still respond thus: for me, it comes down to this. For the PMG statement to be true, neither an Apostle nor any other man on earth could be holding the authority/keys of the priesthood from about 100 A.D. until at least the time that Smith allegedly received that priesthood. If that was the case, then the PMG statement that the priesthood authority and keys were taken from the earth, is inarguable, even if not believed.

I can understand wanting things to be absolutely and unequivocally true, with no contradictions. Being a professional mathematician, that is my life's blood.

Let me give an analogy you may find useful to this conversation (even if you cannot follow all the particulars). I sometimes teach algebra to new college students. In doing so I might say something like "two plus two does not equal 1". Now, I think you would agree with me that this is an absolutely true statement. And it is, in the context of my classroom and students. However, in other contexts this is not a true statement! For example if I work with the set of remainders when dividing by 3, then the remainder of 2+2=4 when dividing by 3 is in fact 1 (so 2+2=1 when adding remainders). Mathematicians make this precise by clarifying which set they are working with, and what they mean by addition, and so forth.

So, when speaking to my class, the 'context' was standard addition on the integers. But I didn't make this explicit. From a strict interpretation, what I told my class was untrue, since two plus two can equal one. For me to have spoken the truth I should have said I was working in the integers.

Now, I don't tell my students this because it would only confuse them. They are not aware of this alternate context. Further, to truly and utterly give the entire context to the students is probably impossible anyway. On the other hand, I could (and probably would) make it explicit that we are working with the integers, if there is an extremely bright student who mentions that my statement is false for addition of remainders when dividing by 3.

Now, to bring this down back from math-land. You are a bright student of a class on Mormonism, who sees an explicit contradiction between the two statements: 1. all priesthood keys were taken from the earth, and 2. there were people who remainded on the earth holding priesthood keys. And, on the face of it, they are contradictory.

One possible solution is to look at the contexts of the statements. If there is hidden context for statement 1, so it is really saying something like "all priesthood keys were taken from mortals living on the earth" then it suddenly doesn't contradict statement 2 (once it is understood that those spoken of in statement 2 are not mortal).

I read you as saying you find our statements as contradictory, and that we should teach absolute truth with no contradictions. I agree, with a few caveats. One of which being that sometimes we simplify the context of statements so that they can be understood simply, but are open to clarifying if someone wants us to.

But, the fact that four men are CLEARLY shown, between D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28, to have held (and are still holding, "while the world shall stand") the "power and keys of Christ's ministry" until His return, and the fact that their mission time-frame is given (from 34 A.D. to the end of the world), along with what their mission would entail (bring souls to Christ), along with a description of what they did ("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" [verses 18 and 23]), along with the location of their ministry being worldwide ("unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people" [D&C 7:3; 3 Nephi 28:29), I cannot comprehend how the PMG statement is factual.

If I've missed your point entirely, I apologize.

No, I think you have understood me very well. And I think I understand your point, that on the face of it, these statements are contradictory. I agree with that.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

P.S. You mentioned the year 100 A.D. I don't know that we teach that was the exact date.

[Tsuzuki]

Bob, quit beating your horse into paste and reply to the Mormonism and the occult thread.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=28766

You remarked once that you were compiling a list of occult parallels in Mormonism, and I'm pretty sure I can help you with that.

[Bob Betts]

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.

Go back and read my OP. It includes several of the verses from D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28. "4 or 5 verses of scritpure" is a significant understatement.

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.

Because it has no relevance to the special circumstances surrounding the requests of the four men, granted by Christ. Christ obviously broke organizational protocol, by allowing four men to not die, but to use priesthood authority and keys of Christ's ministry to bring souls to Christ, unite them to the church, baptize them in water and the HG, to go unto unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, until Christ's return. This is all clearly stated in the numerous scriptures I quoted. Your "quorum of 12" protocol would not apply to these special circumstances, in the special arrangement between Christ and the four. The four received special callings, to do great and marvelous works, even among the Gentiles, until Christ's return. Therefore, the claim to a complete apostasy of authority, that the authority and keys were taken from the earth, clearly contradicts your scriptures. It's no more complicated than that.

[Paul Ray]

You are welcome. I'm glad we are understanding each other.

That is a fair restatement.

I can understand wanting things to be absolutely and unequivocally true, with no contradictions. Being a professional mathematician, that is my life's blood.

Let me give an analogy you may find useful to this conversation (even if you cannot follow all the particulars). I sometimes teach algebra to new college students. In doing so I might say something like "two plus two does not equal 1". Now, I think you would agree with me that this is an absolutely true statement. And it is, in the context of my classroom and students. However, in other contexts this is not a true statement! For example if I work with the set of remainders when dividing by 3, then the remainder of 2+2=4 when dividing by 3 is in fact 1 (so 2+2=1 when adding remainders). Mathematicians make this precise by clarifying which set they are working with, and what they mean by addition, and so forth.

So, when speaking to my class, the 'context' was standard addition on the integers. But I didn't make this explicit. From a strict interpretation, what I told my class was untrue, since two plus two can equal one. For me to have spoken the truth I should have said I was working in the integers.

Now, I don't tell my students this because it would only confuse them. They are not aware of this alternate context. Further, to truly and utterly give the entire context to the students is probably impossible anyway. On the other hand, I could (and probably would) make it explicit that we are working with the integers, if there is an extremely bright student who mentions that my statement is false for addition of remainders when dividing by 3.

Now, to bring this down back from math-land. You are a bright student of a class on Mormonism, who sees an explicit contradiction between the two statements: 1. all priesthood keys were taken from the earth, and 2. there were people who remainded on the earth holding priesthood keys. And, on the face of it, they are contradictory.

One possible solution is to look at the contexts of the statements. If there is hidden context for statement 1, so it is really saying something like "all priesthood keys were taken from mortals living on the earth" then it suddenly doesn't contradict statement 2 (once it is understood that those spoken of in statement 2 are not mortal).

I read you as saying you find our statements as contradictory, and that we should teach absolute truth with no contradictions. I agree, with a few caveats. One of which being that sometimes we simplify the context of statements so that they can be understood simply, but are open to clarifying if someone wants us to.

No, I think you have understood me very well. And I think I understand your point, that on the face of it, these statements are contradictory. I agree with that.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

P.S. You mentioned the year 100 A.D. I don't know that we teach that was the exact date.

You have a gift for teaching, Zeta-Flux. I will acknowledge that.

... regardless of what anyone else says, I acknowledge that.

I have become a man of few words, and I now prefer to leave it that way.

I hope we all come to God in unity of our faith, together.

... and you know, I think it would really be nice if we actually had some true apostles.

[PacMan]

Bob Betts,

Check this out everyone!

I don't accept your interpretation that the authority and keys were hidden. Since the four were using them, which would mean that people's live were obviously affected by them, where were they "hid"? The fact that the manuals refer to the authority an keys were "taken from the earth," I am not led to conclude by that wording, that the authority and keys were still on the earth, but hid. I'm not buying it. "Taken from the earth" means they were no longer on the earth. The word "hid" is nowhere implied in the terminology.

So Bob only accepts his creative interpretation to build a viable case about something completely unrelated to him. Convenient. That’s the quintessential definition of, “disingenuous.” Trust me pal, having been a member much longer than you, read the standard works, taught many a class, etc., etc., I can have full confidence that my linguistically based interpretation is much more fluent than your convenient, untenable one. Buy it or not, I don’t care. Jump up and down and scream like a banshee. Fundamentally, you are wrong. Both in the LDS interpretation (which is the only interpretation which matters when it comes to OUR manual), and colloquial linguistics.

Are you seriously that pompous to believe that you have some better notion of what we mean, than us?

Good. Then the authority and keys were never taken from the earth, since they were still here being used.

Wrong again. They were taken from the earth, but not off the earth.

Then you are left to believe that Christ gave them the power and "keys of His ministry, without the intention of their using them.

STRAWMAN! No one ever said they didn’t use them. What you have a problem with is grasping time as fluid paradigm. I guarantee John and the Nephites used all of their keys, before they became hid. I bet they used some since, and will yet use them. Your basis is logically untenable.

I agree that they are different terms, of course. But, "taken from" does not imply "hid." I can take something from you without hiding it from you.

And this is a nice little logical fallacy that we call affirming the consequent. All dogs may be animals, but according to your logic, all animals need be dogs. Please step it up an academic notch.

1) I have accurately quoted the manual, and never diverted from the verbatim quote. You've falsely accuse me. 2) You're the one who wants me to believe that "taken from the earth" doesn't mean "OFF."

1) Liar. You proof-texted. Look it up in the dictionary.

2) Actually, you’re the one that wants EVERYONE to believe that “FROM” means “OFF.” If that’s what the manual writers wanted to say, why didn’t they say it?

That's YOUR belief. The Church is a living body of all true believers Jesus Christ, according to the NT. It is a living organism. It is Christ's "body." It is wherever two or three are gathered in His name. It is scattered over the whole earth.

It’s my belief that the church is an organization? Sorry pal…that’s the fact of the matter. Anything with hierarchy and multiple members is an organization. Again…check the dictionary. And there you go mixing paradigms again. You can’t intelligently articulate a judgment of our position using your paradigm. It’s illogical, irresponsible, and disingenuous. And your proof-text of the scriptures of 2 or 3 needn’t be fully illuminated. The fact was he was speaking to His Apostles, and the result wasn’t “the church,” but Him being with them. Nice try. But let’s get past the red herrings.

Which is why the idea of an apostasy is not viable. Christ didn't form His "body" just so that it would become useless in less than a century.

Says who? You? The great scriptural authority? Just like God created man and put him in the garden to fall? Just like creating a set of laws to have Moses break them and give Israel lesser laws? Sorry pal…God gives His children chances, but he doesn’t stop them from screwing up. He prepares plenty of plan Bs for when they repent, thank goodness.

The BoM text doesn't support this statement.

Another LOGICAL FALLACY!!! Argumentum ad ignoratium!! It’s not my burden to show how it does, but yours to show it DOES NOT! You can’t do it, pal.

The big deal is, the D&C and BoM texts tell us that they would use their power and keys of Christ's ministry while the world shall stand.

Close.

And, that they were not isolated to the Western Hemisphere. They were to go "unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, and shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls, that their desire may be fulfilled, and also because of the convincing power of God which is in them."

PROOF-TEXT!! They were NEVER commanded, but Mormon expressly states, were it the Lord’s will! It was narrative commentary! If you can’t see that, you have no business trying to preach something your completely unqualified to discuss!

The post got caught off? Yeah right. I think you’re running away because of the fact I SHOW you PROOF of our proper interpretation that the Nephites would be HID FROM the world.

PacMan

[Bob Betts]

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.

Are you considering what 3 Nephi 28:29 and D&C 7:3 say? "...unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people." So, the land of the Nephites was not their only mission field. The whole world was. Reasonably, they could move on to another part of the world, could they not? Moving AWAY from the wicked people spoken of here, does not preclude them from moving TO another part of the world, or to the 12 scattered tribes of Israel, right?

- Sounds like they were removed.

Yes, from the presence of THOSE wicked people. Not from the earth.

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?

Not at all. I've been young (I think I can remember that far back), and I've made way to many mistakes. So, been there, done that.

John's request: D&C 7:2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.

Christ's granting of John's request: 3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.

Any questions?

Thank you for your kind response.

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.

Just replied. Thank you for your patience.

[Paul Ray]

Bob Betts,

Check this out everyone!

I think he's seen that one before.

Do you have any more talents up your sleeves?

[captain-jack]

Are you considering what 3 Nephi 28:29 and D&C 7:3 say? "...unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people." So, the land of the Nephites was not their only mission field. The whole world was. Reasonably, they could move on to another part of the world, could they not? Moving AWAY from the wicked people spoken of here, does not preclude them from moving TO another part of the world, or to the 12 scattered tribes of Israel, right?

Yes, from the presence of THOSE wicked people. Not from the earth.

Mr. Betts, I'm confused on something. You state at first that the mission field was the whole world, but when they were removed it was only a certain part of the world removed from. Tell me how they can minister to the whole world, but when there is wickedness among the land (to which you would then have to apply "the whole world" to "land" because that is their mission field.) you say they were just moved? Either they ministered to the whole world and were removed from the whole world, or they didn't minister to the whole world and were just moved to a different area. But if they are as John, then it was the whole world.

...

Not at all. I've been young (I think I can remember that far back), and I've made way to many mistakes. So, been there, done that.

John's request: D&C 7:2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.

Christ's granting of John's request: 3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.

Any questions?

Thank you for your kind response.

Just replied. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you, I over looked this part and will have to get back to you with a better answer. I'm still at the office and don't have all my tools with me. But thank you again for responding.

[Zeta-Flux]

Paul Ray,

Thank you for your kind words.

By the way, did you catch President Packer's apostolic testimony of the Savior this last General Conference? That was probably the most moving part of the entire proceedings for me.

Best wishes,

Zeta-Flux

[Paul Ray]

Paul Ray,

Thank you for your kind words.

By the way, did you catch President Packer's apostolic testimony of the Savior this last General Conference? That was probably the most moving part of the entire proceedings for me.

Best wishes,

Zeta-Flux

Yes, I saw all of General Conference.

It was all the best of the best, to me.

[Bob Betts]

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.

But, to reconstitute means to reconstruct or reorganize. How does replacing one person with another in church leadership, constitute a reconstitution? Isn't it business as usual, except that different individuals are doing the same work of those they replaced? The organization remains the same.

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.

Well, not James, at least. My source shows that James died about 5 years after Paul's 3rd missionary trip. But, I get your point.

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?Sure.

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.

Sure.

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.

I just did a "GospeLink 2001" search and found LDS leaders referring to the three Nephites as Apostles. This trmendously bolsters the argument of my OP. It also refutes the LDS "12 apostles, no more and no less" position, since the Nephites were alive and well on this contnent, at the same time as the 12 were alive and well in Jerusalem. That's 15 on the earth at once, for certain (if the BoM were true). (If you'd like the quotes, I'll provide them. One was by George Q. Cannon, another by Bruce R. McConkie.)

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?

Becaue in MY Christian world view, the local churches are not led by Apostles and Prophets, except for a few fringe churches who call their pastors Apostles or Prophets. I see no Prophets and Apostles in the world today, except in the way some actually function in their gifting and calling, as lower-case apostles and prophets. But, this is another topic for a different thread.

Thank you for your kind response.

[consiglieri]

While waiting for Mr. Betts to do something other than dismiss my response as "irrelevant," I will merely observe that Mr. Betts' ability at interpreting uniquely LDS scripture does not imbue one with confidence in his ability to interpret the Bible.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bob Betts]

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.

Mostly what Peter told Christians:

1 Peter 2:1Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,

2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

And Peter wasn't stipulating men, either. All believers are priests. I'm a priest. Other scriptural evidences why we are so privilged are: being spiritually adopted into Christ's family; our inheritance as joint heirs with Christ; being individual temples of God/Christ/HS, as well as the collective temple of God/Christ/HS. If you request it, I'll look up and provide corresponding scriptures.

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.

As can I. But, not genealogically through men, but directly from Christ.

Do you recognize our (LDS) source of authority?

No.

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

If Joseph Smith was a false prophet, as I believe that he was, then you don't.

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

I regret to say, there isn't. Your church believes what IT believes about priesthood and authority (according to Joseph Smith), which is not even close to what mainstream Christians, as myself, believe.

[consiglieri]

Mr. Betts,

How is it you can call Joseph Smith a false prophet while in the same post claiming to receive your priesthood authority directly from Jesus Christ?

Seems a tad ironic.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bob Betts]

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.

Only if you believe what the PMG manual says about it. I don't. And, from my OP, I don't believe your scriptures do either.

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]

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?

I can't answer this question. I don't believe in the BoM or any LDS doctrine. I can't defend your doctrine or scripture. All I'm doing is presenting an obvious contradiction between an LDS manual statement of doctrine, and LDS scriptures. In order to do so, I have to support the wording of the D&C and BoM passages. But, I'm only supporting the wording, not the belief.

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

Ditto my previous answer.

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

Through Christ saving me, and from Christ granting priesthood authority to all believers, as my previous posts to you, explain.

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

1) I've never been LDS, so no. 2) I don't recognize your church as true, any more than you recognize mine as true.

[Paul Ray]

Only if you believe what the PMG manual says about it. I don't.

I know that you do not believe, but that doesn't tell me a whole lot.

... it only tells me that you do not believe.

And, from my OP, I don't believe your scriptures do either.

I think it would be considered accurate to consider you to be a non believer.

Try asking me to tell you what it is I believe.

... while paying attention as I explain my beliefs to you.

I'm really not interested in what you do not believe.

I want to know what is true and believe that.

[Bob Betts]

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".

I have documented everything I've been saying, from my OP to the present, in virtually every reply I've posted. And, everyone who has politely requested documentation, I have not refused. The repetition of answers is due to the repetition of questions.

Perhaps you could show me a post where I have not documented, and I will be glad to do so. It's possible I overlooked one or two. Thank you.

Respectfully

[consiglieri]

Perhaps you could show me a post where I have not documented, and I will be glad to do so. It's possible I overlooked one or two. Thank you.

Respectfully

At least it can be said that you have documented those responses you did not simply discount as "irrelevant."

Partial credit.

--Consiglieri

[Bob Betts]

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.

I must have missed it, can you show where this fact is mentioned?

Sure. For "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," see 3 Nephi 28:18, 23. For the fact that the three Nephites were allowed to keep doing this while the earth shall stand, see verses 6-9.

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.

Can you please point out where it is stated that these disciples continued to baptize and bring people to the Church, even after the Church was no longer on the earth?

No, because it is my contention that the PMG manual is contradictory to 3 Nephi 28 and D&C 7, and the church never left the earth.

By LDS standards, could they do these things without the power and keys of the priesthood?

You continue to make assumptions that are no where written in our scriptures. The baptizing that these men performed were done during a period of time, as clearly explained by Moroni, from the coming of Christ, until the people became too wicked.

My assumption is drawn from the verses which clearly state that their callings were "while the world shall stand (verse 9)," and that their mission field was not limited to this continent, but "unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people."

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.

No one is arguing that these men did not hold the priesthood or priesthood keys. You, however claim to know precisely what these men were doing with those keys for 2000 years, even though those details are not given.

I've only quoted what they were called to do and were doing, from your scriptures. But, my main point has always been that since they did have the priesthood authority and keys, as you acknowledge, then the PMG manual claim that they "were taken from the earth," is incorrect. Because the preisthood authority and keys were, in fact, held by four Apostles.

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.

Frankly, I am surprised that this thread is still going. You know very well that this is easily reconciled, but you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

1) It keeps going because people, like you, keep asking me questions. 2) I "know" no such thing. I stand by my OP.

I have no problem admitting that, if taken in the most literal, dogmatic way, Preach My Gospel is not worded in a way that is completely accurate. But, by the same token, for all intents and purposes, it is accurate. The message that it attempts to teach, is that there was an apostasy and that the Church of Christ was no longer found upon the earth and that no mortal man held proper priesthood authority to officiate in the Church.

There is no evidence in the BoM, from 3 Nephi forward, that their was a complete apostasy of priesthood authority and keys, when four Apostles were using them then, and were granted by Christ to use them until His return. Neither is there any evidence in the BoM, from 3 Nephi forward, that the Church of Christ was no longer found upon the earth. The four Apostles had priesthood keys, and there is no evidence in the BoM that they had no authority to officiate in the Church that they were uniting those to, who believed their preaching, and got baptized in water and the HG.

The fact that John and the three Nephites were still on the earth during the apostasy has no impact on and does not change this teaching. For the purpose of governing the Church of Jesus Christ, the priesthood was not on the earth.

I disagree with you 100% based on the scriptures I've quoted from 3 Nephi 28 and D&C 7, both in my OP, and/or above in this post.

This is the message, and for this purpose, Preach My Gospel is sufficiently accurate. As has been stated repeatedly, you continue to strain at a gnat.

Thank you for your opinion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I disagree with you 100% based on the scriptures I've quoted from 3 Nephi 28 and D&C 7, both in my OP, and/or above in this post.

Thank you for your opinion.

And I disagree 100% with you on this point

And

Thank you for your opinion.

[Paul Ray]

And I disagree 100% with you on this point

And

Thank you for your opinion.

Perhaps Bob doesn't realize that he'll always be able to cling to the reasons he believes what he believes as long as he chooses to cling to those reasons... even if there are other possibilities.

[Bob Betts]

You are welcome. I'm glad we are understanding each other.

That is a fair restatement.

I can understand wanting things to be absolutely and unequivocally true, with no contradictions. Being a professional mathematician, that is my life's blood.

Let me give an analogy you may find useful to this conversation (even if you cannot follow all the particulars). I sometimes teach algebra to new college students. In doing so I might say something like "two plus two does not equal 1". Now, I think you would agree with me that this is an absolutely true statement. And it is, in the context of my classroom and students. However, in other contexts this is not a true statement! For example if I work with the set of remainders when dividing by 3, then the remainder of 2+2=4 when dividing by 3 is in fact 1 (so 2+2=1 when adding remainders). Mathematicians make this precise by clarifying which set they are working with, and what they mean by addition, and so forth.

So, when speaking to my class, the 'context' was standard addition on the integers. But I didn't make this explicit. From a strict interpretation, what I told my class was untrue, since two plus two can equal one. For me to have spoken the truth I should have said I was working in the integers.

Now, I don't tell my students this because it would only confuse them. They are not aware of this alternate context. Further, to truly and utterly give the entire context to the students is probably impossible anyway. On the other hand, I could (and probably would) make it explicit that we are working with the integers, if there is an extremely bright student who mentions that my statement is false for addition of remainders when dividing by 3.

Now, to bring this down back from math-land. You are a bright student of a class on Mormonism, who sees an explicit contradiction between the two statements: 1. all priesthood keys were taken from the earth, and 2. there were people who remainded on the earth holding priesthood keys. And, on the face of it, they are contradictory.

One possible solution is to look at the contexts of the statements. If there is hidden context for statement 1, so it is really saying something like "all priesthood keys were taken from mortals living on the earth" then it suddenly doesn't contradict statement 2 (once it is understood that those spoken of in statement 2 are not mortal).

I read you as saying you find our statements as contradictory, and that we should teach absolute truth with no contradictions. I agree, with a few caveats. One of which being that sometimes we simplify the context of statements so that they can be understood simply, but are open to clarifying if someone wants us to.

No, I think you have understood me very well. And I think I understand your point, that on the face of it, these statements are contradictory. I agree with that.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

P.S. You mentioned the year 100 A.D. I don't know that we teach that was the exact date.

Nicely done, Zeta-Flux. I'm with you. Not that I'm 100% certain that there's NO contradiction, even when the below-the-surface, more complex LDS beliefs are understood. But, if I could accept any explanation as well reasoned, explained and viable, it's certainly yours. It has been refreshing to discuss this with someone both knowledgeable AND nice.

P.S. I DO know that your church doesn't teach that date. I actually picked that as a round number because it is believed that John the beloved died around then, give or take 20 years. All other Apostles were dead before 100 A.D.

[Bob Betts]

Bob, quit beating your horse into paste and reply to the Mormonism and the occult thread.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=28766

You remarked once that you were compiling a list of occult parallels in Mormonism, and I'm pretty sure I can help you with that.

Yes, I am prepared to abandon this thread. But, I know nothing about compiling a list of occult parallels in Mormonism. What exactly did I say?

[Pahoran]

Oh, I know about your agency. But, what are you saying? Is there something you disagree with?

P.S. Give me a post number, please. I don't know which of your posts I skipped. I have skipped a few that only made comments (mostly derogatory), without asking me a question or for my opinion.

My post no. 258 addresses your arguments.

Yes, I didn't ask your opinion. I already know what it is.

Now, to further show what is wrong with your polemic, I draw your attention to the following passages. First:

4 Nephi 1:

37 Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites.

Note that this is a period (the third century) where Nephite society is starting to disintegrate into factions; the tarrying disciples are only ministering among the faithful. Second:

Mormon 1:

13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.

This marks the end of their public ministry.

The end of John's public ministry in the old world is not recorded in scripture, but it seems to have ended even earlier, if anything.

So yes, they survived. But the Lord withdrew them from their public ministry. The Nephite three appeared to Mormon, but he did not receive authority from them, but from the rather mortal Ammoron.

Thus, the priesthood they held was withdrawn from among men. Their respective ministries continued, but only in secret. The Churches of which they were first-generation members broke up and ceased to operate.

Doesn't this seem like a complete enough apostasy to you?

And do you really imagine that it is up to you to tell us what our scriptures mean? Don't you know that every sacred text has no meaning beyond the meaning(s) assigned to it by the interpretive community that accepts it as sacred and authoritative?

And don't you think this thread has run its course?

Regards,

Pahoran