Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Tsuzuki]

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?

From your board:

I've never bothered to write out the list of parallels between Mormonism, and both gnosticism and the occult, but there are many. I encourage others to contribute known parallels. They help to expose the counterfeit nature of Mormonism.

I, of course, have a different agenda, but maybe we can help each other out.

[Paul Ray]

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.

I said pretty much the same thing in post #322, as follows:

Bob,

(and btw, I'm being as nice as I know how to be now)

John and the 3 Nephites were translated beings, or at least that is what we are claiming.

When we say they and their keys were taken from the Earth we mean they were taken from the Earth... in some way.

I don't believe John and the 3 Nephites have ever left this planet, Earth, to go to heaven.

We are told there are many spirits here on this Earth that we simply can't see now.

When and/or if John and the 3 Nephites appear, they will appear as messengers, aka angels.

... if they are truly translated beings.

... just like Moses and Elijah appeared and would appear, as translated beings.

I think it might help for you to ask us to clarify our beliefs to you instead of assuming you understand our beliefs.

When you die you will be taken away from all of us here but you will still be on this Earth with all of us.

... perhaps you just didn't "see" it then.

[Bernard Gui]

Bob: Before you leave this thread, you should correct an ongoing mistake....

QUOTE BobB

"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."

QUOTE BERNARD

"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."

QUOTE BoBB

"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."

Unfortunately, even by adding the word COMPLETE to apostasy, your statement is still false.

In order for you to make the correction, you need to retract it completely.

LDS universally know 1 Nephi 13 describes the Great Apostacy. Notice the chapter heading:

"...the resultant state of gentile apostasy; the restoration of the gospel..."

Also, you might want to consider verses 25-29 and 32:

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and aprecious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seestâ??because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of Godâ??because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

In addition, you may wish to peruse 1 Nephi 14.

Bernard

[consiglieri]

In addition, you may wish to peruse 1 Nephi 14.

Bernard

Not to mention Jacob 5.

[captain-jack]

Sorry it took so long to get an answer, don't have internet at home yet but should soon. Pahoran answered for me though,

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.

[Bob Betts]

Bob: Before you leave this thread, you should correct an ongoing mistake....

QUOTE BobB

"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."

QUOTE BERNARD

"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."

QUOTE BoBB

"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."

Unfortunately, even by adding the word COMPLETE to apostasy, your statement is still false.

In order for you to make the correction, you need to retract it completely.

LDS universally know 1 Nephi 13 describes the Great Apostacy. Notice the chapter heading:

"...the resultant state of gentile apostasy; the restoration of the gospel..."

Also, you might want to consider verses 25-29 and 32:

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and aprecious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seestâ??because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of Godâ??because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

In addition, you may wish to peruse 1 Nephi 14.

Bernard

NOW whose ?

1) I've always been told that the BoM chapter headings are not canon, so don't rely on them. I guess it just depends on WHO is relying on them. Besides, it doesn't sound like "gentile apostasy" means the same as "priesthood keys and authority were taken from the earth." But, whatever. I'm just trying to stop .

2) "thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches;" Which church do you think is the great and abominable church? Sounds like the Catholic church, from the description. And, what are the other churches, that the great and abominable church, is most abominable above? Any clues?

3) Do LDS believe that God provided a remnant, so that following the time of the Apostles, aside from the great and abominable church, there could have been a guiet remnant of priesthood-holding believers who were not part of the great and abominable church? Perhaps they were the "other churches."

[Bob Betts]

I said pretty much the same thing in post #322, as follows:

... perhaps you just didn't "see" it then.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't say, in my response to Zeta-Flux, that I no longer "see" the same contradiction I saw from the beginning. It's still there. It didn't go away with his/her explanation.

[PacMan]

Paul,

I think he's seen that one before.

Do you have any more talents up your sleeves?

Not only is it not funny, but it makes absolutely no sense. Go away.

Betts,

--BUMP--

PacMan

[Paul Ray]

We don't claim the apostasy was a total rejection of all gospel truths, Bob.

Apostasy simply means to turn away from.

Try to think of it as the opposite of repentance, when somebody turns to the Lord.

Apostasy is to simply turn the other way... away from God.

... and as I said, that doesn't mean they don't still have and hold on to at least a little truth.

[Bob Betts]

We don't claim the apostasy was a total rejection of all gospel truths, Bob.

Apostasy simply means to turn away from.

Try to think of it as the opposite of repentance, when somebody turns to the Lord.

Apostasy is to simply turn the other way... away from God.

... and as I said, that doesn't mean they don't still have and hold on to at least a little truth.

Okay, then please apply that definition of apostasy to the PMG statement of what caused the apostasy, and explain it to me: "With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth."

(Deep down inside, you people don't REALLY want to stop , do you? I gave you an out and you didn't take it. )

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, then please apply that definition of apostasy to the PMG statement of what caused the apostasy, and explain it to me: "With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth."

(Deep down inside, you people don't REALLY want to stop , do you? I gave you an out and you didn't take it. )

Was the out this? I only respond when some one has directed something to me. In other words the people on thie very message board are the one that keep this thread alive, if we stop posting Bob will stop posting in this thread.

[Paul Ray]

Okay, then please apply that definition of apostasy to the PMG statement of what caused the apostasy, and explain it to me: "With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth."

Okay.

With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth by virtue of the fact that each apostle who died was a presiding priesthood authority who held the priesthood keys.

An apostle is a presiding priesthood authority who has the keys of the kingdom.

No more living (mortal) apostles thus equates to no more presiding priesthood authority and priesthood keys on the earth

... at least as far as living (mortal) apostles are concerned.

... if in fact there were no more living (mortal) apostles.

Apostles who were or may have been translated would be in a different category than living (mortal) apostles, as they would no longer be living as mortal beings... and apostles who died and went to paradise would also be in a different category than living (mortal) apostles.

If and while there were apostles still living, as mortals, they would still be presiding priesthood authorities and they would still have the keys of the kingdom, and they would be presiding over those who were members of the church, including other priesthood officers, while using the keys they were authorized to use in their service(s).

... and any member of the Church who did anything opposed to what the apostles did and taught would be turning away (or apostasizing) from the teachings and the examples of the apostles... including the teachings and examples of the apostles concerning the way the Church of Jesus Christ should be governed by those presiding.

For example, the change in the organization of the church that was once led by apostles to a church led by only bishops (with no apostles) is a sign of apostasy, considering the fact that there are no scriptures from apostles teaching that God had authorized that change.

(Deep down inside, you people don't REALLY want to stop , do you? I gave you an out and you didn't take it. )

I don't want you to stop discussing this issue with us, if you don't want to stop.

I'd just like to see more evidence that you are sincerely paying attention to what we are saying.

You don't have to agree. I'd just like to know that you do understand our reasoning.

If you don't, feel free to ask more questions.

[Bob Betts]

Was the out this? I only respond when some one has directed something to me. In other words the people on thie very message board are the one that keep this thread alive, if we stop posting Bob will stop posting in this thread.

No.

[Bob Betts]

Allow me to start with your last comments first.

I don't want you to stop discussing this issue with us, if you don't want to stop.

I'd just like to see more evidence that you are sincerely paying attention to what we are saying.

I think my last response to Zeta-Flux was sufficient evidence for my sincerity and paying attention.

You don't have to agree. I'd just like to know that you do understand our reasoning.

That goes both ways, don't ya think ? And, guess who was the ONLY one who said he/she understood what I was saying.

If you don't, feel free to ask more questions.

Alright, I will. Horse, come forth.

Okay.

With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth by virtue of the fact that each apostle who died was a presiding priesthood authority who held the priesthood keys.

Got it.

An apostle is a presiding priesthood authority who has the keys of the kingdom.

Got it.

No more living (mortal) apostles thus equates to no more presiding priesthood authority and priesthood keys on the earth

Stop. Give me the LDS definitions of mortal and immortal.

I'm deleting the rest of your post in THIS post, until I get this definition straight. Then I'll resume your post.

[PacMan]

Betts,

Paul isn't exactly right as to all the LDS doctrine he promulgates. He sure means well, but his precision needs sharpening. That being said, I wish your distractions would be mitigated some; I'd like an intelligent response to my post...minus the logical fallacies.

Thanks,

PacMan

[Bernard Gui]

NOW whose ?

This is not a dead horse issue. This is about false stament you have made that you should

correct if you expect to maintain any kind of credibility here.

1) I've always been told that the BoM chapter headings are not canon, so don't rely on them. I guess it just depends on WHO is relying on them. Besides, it doesn't sound like "gentile apostasy" means the same as "priesthood keys and authority were taken from the earth." But, whatever. I'm just trying to stop .

CFR, "I've always been told.....so don't rely on them."

This is a cute response, but it does not address the issue. It really doesn't matter what it doesn't

sound like, you may consult any LDS commentary on the BoM and you will find that 1 Nephi 13

is about the Great Apostasy. Your false statement is not a dead horse. It's a false statement that

you should correct if you expect to have any credibility here.

2) "thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches;" Which church do you think is the great and abominable church? Sounds like the Catholic church, from the description. And, what are the other churches, that the great and abominable church, is most abominable above? Any clues?

That would be the topic for another thread, unless you wish to continue to derail your own thread. It's also

irrelevant to the issue that you have made a false statement which needs to be corrected to

salvage any credibility you might have here.

3) Do LDS believe that God provided a remnant, so that following the time of the Apostles, aside from the great and abominable church, there could have been a guiet remnant of priesthood-holding believers who were not part of the great and abominable church? Perhaps they were the "other churches."

Again, irrelevant to the issue of your false statement, and gist for another thread.

I understand your desire to divert attention from your false statement. You should do the manly thing

and admit you made a mistake and retract the statement without further distraction. It would go

a long way to improve your credibility here.

Bernard

ps...as Consiglieri noted, you should also take a look at Jacob 5.

[soren]

It really doesn't matter what it doesn't sound like, you may consult any LDS commentary on the BoM and you will find that 1 Nephi 13 is about the Great Apostasy.

True, but is there actually any warrant in the text of 1 Nephi 13 to justify the doctrine of Great Apostasy? Where does 1 Nephi (or any part of the Book of Mormon) refer to a loss of priesthood authority? Where does it refer to a total loss of the Church? Commentators may claim whatever they like, but I find no warrant for it in the text. 1 Nephi 13 speaks of the Church being placed into a state of captivity under the Great and Abominable Church, a classic Protestant thesis that does not involve belief in a total loss of the Church. In fact, the argument of a "captive" church is a specific claim of Martin Luther originating in his accurately titled "Babylonian Captivity of the Church," which presents a theory of apostasy quite consistent with most of 1 Nephi 13 both in theory and in language, yet without advocating a total apostasy.

The only substantive difference between Luther and 1 Nephi 13 is that the Great and Abominable Church in 1 Nephi successfully removes certain texts of scripture. Yet even this does not amount to the LDS apostasy doctrine, which is predicated on priesthood authority, a topic 1 Nephi is silent about.

[PacMan]

True, but is there actually any warrant in the text of 1 Nephi 13 to justify the doctrine of Great Apostasy? Where does 1 Nephi (or any part of the Book of Mormon) refer to a loss of priesthood authority? Where does it refer to a total loss of the Church? Commentators may claim whatever they like, but I find no warrant for it in the text. 1 Nephi 13 speaks of the Church being placed into a state of captivity under the Great and Abominable Church, a classic Protestant thesis that does not involve belief in a total loss of the Church. In fact, the argument of a "captive" church is a specific claim of Martin Luther originating in his accurately titled "Babylonian Captivity of the Church," which presents a theory of apostasy quite consistent with most of 1 Nephi 13 both in theory and in language, yet without advocating a total apostasy.

The only substantive difference between Luther and 1 Nephi 13 is that the Great and Abominable Church in 1 Nephi successfully removes certain texts of scripture. Yet even this does not amount to the LDS apostasy doctrine, which is predicated on priesthood authority, a topic 1 Nephi is silent about.

Soren,

You're missing two very important things...

1) You're promulgating argumentum ad ignorantium. What's your point?

2) Your argument fails the commons sense test. If the populace was KILLED OFF, I daresay that the singular event speaks volumes as to a loss o priesthood (not to mention, again, and again, that the righteous would be killed off if they fell and didn't repent....sound like apostasy to me).

PacMan

[soren]

Soren,

You're missing two very important things...

1) You're promulgating argumentum ad ignorantium. What's your point?

That the text does not warrant the great apostasy doctrine, since captivity, not obliteration, is the fate of the Church in 1 Nephi 13. One could suppose that a total apostasy occurred pursuant to the events in Nephi's vision, but one cannot find such a thing actually contained in it.

2) Your argument fails the commons sense test. If the populace was KILLED OFF, I daresay that the singular event speaks volumes as to a loss o priesthood (not to mention, again, and again, that the righteous would be killed off if they fell and didn't repent....sound like apostasy to me).

PacMan

Which verses do you have in mind to support this?

[Bernard Gui]

The only substantive difference between Luther and 1 Nephi 13 is that the Great and Abominable Church in 1 Nephi successfully removes certain texts of scripture. Yet even this does not amount to the LDS apostasy doctrine, which is predicated on priesthood authority, a topic 1 Nephi is silent about.

While it is silent about priesthood authority and keys (although the reference to loss of covenants may

certainly be construed as evidence of the loss of the priesthood and keys), 1 Nephi 13 clearly refers to the destruction of

the primitive church and its restoration with the appearance of the Nephite scriptures. Nothing could

be more plain. The GandA church did so much more than remove certain texts of scripture.

In addition unauthorized changes of the scriptures, we have:

--the formation of a great church among the many kingdoms of the gentiles whose founder is the devil

--slaying, torturing binding, yoking, and bringing into captivity the saints

--taking away the covenants

--perverting the right ways of the Lord

--blinding the eyes and hardening the hearts of the children of men

--causing many to stumble

--giving Satan great power over the gentiles

--plain and precious truths kept from people by the GandA church

--coming forth of the BoM and other books through which the full gospel will be known to the world

--restoration fo the plain and precious truths by the revelation of Nephite record

--the great pit dug for the destruction of the gentiles by the GandA church will be filled by those who digged it

--only two churches: the GaA church and the church of the Lamb of God (the LDS church)

--the church of the Lamb of God is triumphant

--the Father will then fulfill all the covenants he made with the house of Israel

This is clearly a description of the results of the complete apostasy of the Jerusalem church.

An excellent discussion of this can be found in Stephen Robinson's "Early Christianity and 1 Nephi 13-14," in "The Book of Mormon: First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation," Monte S. Nymand and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., BYU Religious Studies Center, 1988.

Bernard

[Dale]

If the church only went partially into apostasy which some remained faithful?

[Mark Beesley]

I refuse to wade through the 19 pages of this thread before commenting on the opening post. If I repeat something here that someone else has already pointed out, I apologize.

Bob's opening post is typical of his tactics, i.e. taking things out of context and reading meaning into the text that can only be accomplished by the exercise of crass eisegesis, an interpretive method abhorred but regularly practiced by Bob.

Based on Doctrine and Covenants 7:1-8, Bob claims of John the Beloved, â??So, this is one Apostle that never died, carrying priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority, with permission to NEVER taste death, with power OVER death, and the ability to bring souls to Christ, and prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people, until Christ returns.â?

Yet, the verses on which Bob relies do not support his conclusions. For example, verse 2 says that John requested that the Lord grant him power over death. The succeeding verses do not say that that specific request was granted, only that John would not taste of death. There is no mention that John was granted power over death. There is also no mention that John would have the ability to bring souls to Christ, only that he desired to do so. Indeed, verse 6 explicitly limits Johnâ??s ability to minister to â??those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.â? It does not speak to a general ministry. And while the Lord did tell John that he would prophecy before nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples, no time frame is set for that particular activity. In other words, the phrase in verse 3 that John would tarry until the Lord returns in glory is a separate statement from phrase that he would prophecy.

Furthermore, Bob suggests that verse 7 supports a conclusion that John held the all the priesthood keys necessary for the administration of the Church, when in fact, verse 7 says quite the opposite. Verse 7 says that the Lord gave Peter, James and John the keys. It does not say that that the keys were given to them individually; it is clear that the verse is saying that those three held the keys collectively, which is consistent with what happened when the keys were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith â?? all three of them appeared to confer the keys, not just one of them.

This is a simple example of how Bob misconstrues the scriptures and reads into them his own misconceptions. His response (or lack thereof) to what has been pointed out will be a nice example of his arrogance that I have previously alluded to.

[captain-jack]

I refuse to wade through the 19 pages of this thread before commenting on the opening post. If I repeat something here that someone else has already pointed out, I apologize.

Bob's opening post is typical of his tactics, i.e. taking things out of context and reading meaning into the text that can only be accomplished by the exercise of crass eisegesis, an interpretive method abhorred but regularly practiced by Bob.

Based on Doctrine and Covenants 7:1-8, Bob claims of John the Beloved, â??So, this is one Apostle that never died, carrying priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority, with permission to NEVER taste death, with power OVER death, and the ability to bring souls to Christ, and prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people, until Christ returns.â?

Yet, the verses on which Bob relies do not support his conclusions. For example, verse 2 says that John requested that the Lord grant him power over death. The succeeding verses do not say that that specific request was granted, only that John would not taste of death. There is no mention that John was granted power over death. There is also no mention that John would have the ability to bring souls to Christ, only that he desired to do so. Indeed, verse 6 explicitly limits Johnâ??s ability to minister to â??those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.â? It does not speak to a general ministry. And while the Lord did tell John that he would prophecy before nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples, no time frame is set for that particular activity. In other words, the phrase in verse 3 that John would tarry until the Lord returns in glory is a separate statement from phrase that he would prophecy.

Furthermore, Bob suggests that verse 7 supports a conclusion that John held the all the priesthood keys necessary for the administration of the Church, when in fact, verse 7 says quite the opposite. Verse 7 says that the Lord gave Peter, James and John the keys. It does not say that that the keys were given to them individually; it is clear that the verse is saying that those three held the keys collectively, which is consistent with what happened when the keys were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith â?? all three of them appeared to confer the keys, not just one of them.

This is a simple example of how Bob misconstrues the scriptures and reads into them his own misconceptions. His response (or lack thereof) to what has been pointed out will be a nice example of his arrogance that I have previously alluded to.

And to help you, Mormon 1:13 and Mormon 8:10.

[PacMan]

Soren,

That the text does not warrant the great apostasy doctrine, since captivity, not obliteration, is the fate of the Church in 1 Nephi 13. One could suppose that a total apostasy occurred pursuant to the events in Nephi's vision, but one cannot find such a thing actually contained in it.

Which verses do you have in mind to support this?

The text doesn't? What do you think happened 400 A.D.? If you've only read as far as 1 Nephi 13, then I can see your utter confusion. Finish the book through Moroni, and you will be much illuminated. Whether or not it was specifically stated, it's fairly obvious given the recorded genocide that the righteous were killed off. I really don't care about Nephi's vision in this regard, and how much detail it does or does not include--that specific importance is a strawman and has very little bearing on the stark obviousness that the righteous were killed off (for becoming unrighteous). If you want to say it was due to apostasy or genocide, it doesn't really matter. Either way, the priesthood would HAVE to be lost.

And as far as the prophecies that the Nephites would be destroyed if they became unrighteous and didn't repent, Nephi, Enos, and others received the same promises. It's such a common and continuing theme in the BoM, that I'm not going to go look up the references, but here's a clue: The Book of Enos is really, REALLY short. Read through it, and you'll find it (and the reading will do you some good to boot; in fact, the whole issue of what if the Nephites are destroyed is the major issue of the book).

Cheers,

PacMan

[Zeta-Flux]

mbeesley,

I'm not sure it is quite that simple.

Suppose for a moment that all of the apostles died except, say, Elder Eyring. It is my understanding that the First Presidency would dissolve, and Elder Eyring would return to being a member of the Quorum of the 12. Now, it gets a little interesting. There are two possibliities:

Option 1. Elder Eyring would be sustained as President of the quorum of the 12, and as a prophet seer and revelator. He would then reconstruct the quorum of the 12, and then would reconstruct the First Presidency with the aid of the newly called apostles.

Option 2. Elder Eyring couldn't reconstruct the quorum of the 12, not having a majority of the quorum left over to ratify his choices. So, the seventy (if they are still around) would (as a quorum) have the keys.

Although I am not entirely sure, I think option 1 is the way it would happen (but I may be wrong). I think that Elder Eyring would (as the only person in the quorum) be the majority, so would constiture a quorum by himself.

----

Now, you are right to claim that the apostles, as a quorum, held the keys. However, just because some of the quorum members are killed doesn't mean that the keys are de facto lost. While Bob Betts may have been incorrect in saying that John the apostle held the keys as an individual (if that is what he said), I don't think his point was incorrect. Namely, that the quorum of the 12 was not dissolved, since John was still living, so the keys were still on the earth.

So, to sum up, I think you could be a little more charitable in interpreting Bob's posts. He might not say everything quite right regarding holding keys (I probably haven't either!, I'm sure I've said President Hinckley holds the keys) but the issue isn't so much who holds the keys, but whether we believe God kept John (and the 3 Nephites) in their mortal state so that the church remainded *among mortals*. The fact that Peter, James, and John gave the keys to Joseph Smith suggests to me that John would continue in his non-mortal but still apostolic ministry, while the keys among *mortals* were restored.

Hope that helps.

Best,

Zeta-Flux