Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Hammer]

Even the world called them the DARK AGES. But those who have eyes but will not see, and ears and will not hear, will continue to push truth aside.

[Bob Betts]

Betts,

Paul isn't exactly right as to all the LDS doctrine he promulgates. He sure means well, but his precision needs sharpening.

But, I prefer to discuss anything with those who are nice and respectful.

That being said, I wish your distractions would be mitigated some; I'd like an intelligent response to my post...minus the logical fallacies.

I didn't come to MADB to get hammered by hostile LDS. I can't stop you from being disrespectful, but I don't have to respond. Maybe I just got spoiled already, by the likes Zeta-Flux and Paul and a few others, but I'm not inclined to respond to those who would treat me disrespectfully.

[Paul Ray]

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

Okay. I'll accept that evidence. Let's see some more of it.

Got it.

Got it.

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

Now, Bob.

Is an exhaustive list of definitions really necessary for you to be able to understand what I was saying?

I was simply trying to help you see the distinction(s) between:

a living person called to be an apostle who hasn't died the natural death of our state

and

a living person called to be an apostle who hasn't died the natural death of our state because our Lord translated that person and that person now lives in a different state than do we,

and

a living person called to be an apostle who has died, and thus also lives in a different state of being than do we... either as a spirit without a body, or a resurrected person, or... whatever...

Do you see the distinction(s) now?

If you really needed that explanation, I hope enough has now been said for you to know what I meant.

There is a lot more I could say about being "mortal" and "immortal" but I don't think all of that is necessary for this discussion.

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

Please re-read the entire post again, to get the full benefit of my message.

I think I've said enough to help you understand our, or at least my own personal, LDS reasoning on the subject of this thread.

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

Just so you know, Bob, I feel the same way about PacMan.

A nice chap, when you get to know him, but still in need of a little more refinement.

[Bob Betts]

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.

But, I don't believe my statement was false, so I can't correct or retract it. Besides, even if you believe that those BoM verses prove a complete apostasy, it's only talking about the western hemisphere, not the rest of the world.

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

Well, I'd half to go back and try to find the posts by LDS at the CC Board to provide that reference. They told me so.

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.

I don't believe it's false. The Apostasy would have to be world wide, not just in the western hemisphere. The BoM certainly says nothing about a world wide apostasy.

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.

I don't believe it's false. The Apostasy would have to be world wide, not just in the western hemisphere. The BoM certainly says nothing about a world wide apostasy.

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

It wouldn't change the fact that an apostasy, isolated to the western hemisphere, does not make it universal.

As far as your accusation of diversion, I'll tell you what I told PacMan: I didn't come to MADB to get hammered by hostile LDS. I can't stop you from being disrespectful, but I don't have to respond. I'm not inclined to respond to those who would treat me disrespectfully. I'll leave it at that. But, if I choose not to respond you, it won't be due to some tactic to avoid answering. It will soley be due to being disrespected.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It wouldn't change the fact that an apostasy, isolated to the western hemisphere, does not make it universal.

Uh, Bob

It is clear you havent read Jacob 5. the vineyard in that chapter represents the world. Have a look.

[Bernard Gui]

But, I don't believe my statement was false, so I can't correct or retract it. Besides, even if you believe that those BoM verses prove a complete apostasy, it's only talking about the western hemisphere, not the rest of the world.

Well, I'd half to go back and try to find the posts by LDS at the CC Board to provide that reference. They told me so.

I don't believe it's false. The Apostasy would have to be world wide, not just in the western hemisphere. The BoM certainly says nothing about a world wide apostasy.

I don't believe it's false. The Apostasy would have to be world wide, not just in the western hemisphere. The BoM certainly says nothing about a world wide apostasy.

It wouldn't change the fact that an apostasy, isolated to the western hemisphere, does not make it universal.

As far as your accusation of diversion, I'll tell you what I told PacMan: I didn't come to MADB to get hammered by hostile LDS. I can't stop you from being disrespectful, but I don't have to respond. I'm not inclined to respond to those who would treat me disrespectfully. I'll leave it at that. But, if I choose not to respond you, it won't be due to some tactic to avoid answering. It will soley be due to being disrespected.

Bob...

What you perceive as disrespect is merely frustration on my part. No disrespect is intended.

However, I have to question your knowledge of the Book of Mormon in this particular regard.

You made the statement that there is no mention of an apostasy in the Book of Mormon.

QUOTE BOB BETTS POST #225

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.

In my repsonse to this statement, I asked if you were referring to the apostasy of the Nephite church

or to the apostasy of the Jerusalem church. You did not clarify.

The Nephite apostasy is documented in excruciating detail throughout the BoM. No documentation

is necessary. One purpose of the BoM is to restore to the Lehites the gospel that was lost to them

by their wickedness.

The Jerusalem church apostasy (the Gentile apostasy) is prophesied in 1 Nephi 13 and Jacob 5.

Another purpose of the Book of Mormon is to restore what was lost as a result of this apostasy.

Is it your position that 1 Nephi 13 is not about the Jerusalem church but about the Nephite

church? I gave you a list of the points of apostasy from this chapter.

But now it appears you claim this chapter is about the Nephite apostasy.

There is no way that list can be construed to mean the apostasy of the Nephite church.

For your convenience, I repeat the list of items mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

--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

The chapter heading and the text of the chapter cannot be interpreted any other way...

++the church of the devil set up among the Gentiles

++the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible

++the resultant state of gentile apostasy

++the restoration of the gospel

The World Wide Apostasy described in 1 Nephi:

Chapter 12...apostasy of the Nephite church (western hemisphere)

Chapter 13...apostasy of the Jerusalem church, (eastern hemisphere) and worldwide restoration

Do you still stand by your statement that the Book of Mormon does not mention the apostasy?

Bernard

[Paul Ray]

Uh, Bob

It is clear you havent read Jacob 5. the vineyard in that chapter represents the world. Have a look.

I think what Bob really needs is an understanding of what the "universal apostasy" was and how there could have been a "universal apostasy" while translated apostles were still living.

... if indeed there really were any apostles who were translated.

Bob doesn't seem to realize that translated beings live in another state (or dimension) than we do unless they appear to those of us in this state... kinda like how angels appear or can appear to us, when they do.

Bob seems to think that if there were still some apostles living somewhere... even in another state than our state... then there was no way for all the members of the church on Earth who haven't died yet to apostasize, generally, from the true teachings and examples of our Lord and his apostles.

... even if the only apostles on the Earth are the apostles who were translated or died.

Bob simply doesn't see things as we do.

[Bob Betts]

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

Zeta-Flux (are you male or female?),

Thank you for coming to my defense. Never having been LDS I'm still fine-tuning my understanding of your church organization (obviously). But, I just had a thought that created a couple of questions in my mind, which I hope you can and will answer for me. Now maybe you actually answered these questions in a round about way, with your two scenarios above, but I'd like clarification to be sure.

Question #1: Does the quorum of the 70 currently hold the priesthood authority and keys, as does the 12 and first presidency?

Question #2: To hitchhike on your above hypothetical, WHAT IF (God forbid) the presidency and the quorum of 12 all died in a plane crash, leaving just the quorum of 70. Can the quorum of 70 (if they hold the priesthood authority and keys), restore the quorum of 12 apostles, and the presidency from their quorum?

Unrelated to the previous two questions,

Question #3: Were the four Apostles (John, and three Nephites) qualified, as immortals, to pass on the priesthood authority and keys?

[Paul Ray]

Question #1: Does the quorum of the 70 currently hold the priesthood authority and keys, as does the 12 and first presidency?

I realize your questions were directed at Zeta-Flux, but I don't think I'm stepping on any toes here.

Zeta-Flux will probably answer this question with different words than I will, and his words may even make more sense to you than my words, but maybe the words of 2 or 3 other people will be of benefit.

My answer is: Yes

Question #2: To hitchhike on your above hypothetical, WHAT IF (God forbid) the presidency and the quorum of 12 all died in a plane crash, leaving just the quorum of 70. Can the quorum of 70 (if they hold the priesthood authority and keys), restore the quorum of 12 apostles, and the presidency from their quorum?

Yes, they could, and Lord willing, they would, but more to the point, that is what they would need to do for the church to continue as our Lord intended.

The church of Jesus Christ is organized with presiding priesthood officers, and/or apostles, as General Authorities over the whole church (wherever the church is) when it is organized as our Lord intended.

Any church without apostles... living and presiding among the other church members... isn't the true church of Jesus Christ organized as our Lord intended... and even with apostles they need to be HIS apostles.

Simply picking 12 people and referring to them as "apostles" wouldn't quite fit the bill, in God's eyes, unless he and/or his officially authorized servants did the picking.

Unrelated to the previous two questions,

Question #3: Were the four Apostles (John, and three Nephites) qualified, as immortals, to pass on the priesthood authority and keys?

Yes, Lord willing.

Please point to the Church where they are presiding priesthood authorities and feel free to join that one.

... and please let me know when you have found the true Church.

[Bob Betts]

Bob...

What you perceive as disrespect is merely frustration on my part. No disrespect is intended.

One of the fruit of the Spirit is self-control. If conversing with me is so frustrating, that you loose the Spirit and must lash out at me by impugning my character, then perhaps it's advisable that you not converse with me.

However, I have to question your knowledge of the Book of Mormon in this particular regard.

Maybe you're absolutely right. So I asked you some questions regarding the chapter you referred me to, and what did you tell me?

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.

You told me my question is irrelevant, and warned me about derailing my own thread and salvaging my credibility. But, I have reason to believe my question leads to a relevant point to our discussion. So, you could please let ME worry about derailment and my credibility. Here it is again, if you care to answer it this time. If not, then I'll move on to someone elses question/comments.

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?

Your answers will, in effect, tell ME something of YOUR knowledge of the BoM.

You made the statement that there is no mention of an apostasy in the Book of Mormon.

In my repsonse to this statement, I asked if you were referring to the apostasy of the Nephite church

or to the apostasy of the Jerusalem church. You did not clarify.

Okay, both.

The Nephite apostasy is documented in excruciating detail throughout the BoM. No documentation

is necessary. One purpose of the BoM is to restore to the Lehites the gospel that was lost to them

by their wickedness.

Which would be about an apostasy in the western hemisphere.

The Jerusalem church apostasy (the Gentile apostasy) is prophesied in 1 Nephi 13 and Jacob 5.

Another purpose of the Book of Mormon is to restore what was lost as a result of this apostasy.

And what I read in 1 Nephi 13:30-33 and 38-39 is, that there WAS a remnant of the house of Israel. I had asked you my next question regarding a remnant, and what did you tell me?

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

Well, it sounds like the discussion of a remnant IS relevant, in the very chapter you referenced. Here's the question again, in case you like to answer it this time. If not, then I'll move on to someone elses question/comments.

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."

Is it your position that 1 Nephi 13 is not about the Jerusalem church but about the Nephite

church?

What the chapter mostly refers to is the great and abominable church, other churches, the gentiles and the remnant of the house of Israel. But, you seem to think the other churches and the remnant of the house of Israel are irrelevant. On that basis, I don't know where to go with you in this discussion.

I gave you a list of the points of apostasy from this chapter.

But now it appears you claim this chapter is about the Nephite apostasy.

There is no way that list can be construed to mean the apostasy of the Nephite church.

For your convenience, I repeat the list of items mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

--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

The chapter heading and the text of the chapter cannot be interpreted any other way...

++the church of the devil set up among the Gentiles

++the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible

++the resultant state of gentile apostasy

++the restoration of the gospel

The World Wide Apostasy described in 1 Nephi:

Chapter 12...apostasy of the Nephite church (western hemisphere)

Chapter 13...apostasy of the Jerusalem church, (eastern hemisphere) and worldwide restoration

Do you still stand by your statement that the Book of Mormon does not mention the apostasy?

I have no choice, since you've disregarded my questions, and decided that my side of this part of our discussion is irrelevant.

[Bob Betts]

I realize your questions were directed at Zeta-Flux, but I don't think I'm stepping on any toes here.

Zeta-Flux will probably answer this question with different words than I will, and his words may even make more sense to you than my words, but maybe the words of 2 or 3 other people will be of benefit.

My answer is: Yes

Yes, they could, and Lord willing, they would, but more to the point, that is what they would need to do for the church to continue as our Lord intended.

The church of Jesus Christ is organized with presiding priesthood officers, and/or apostles, as General Authorities over the whole Church when it is organized as our Lord intended.

Any church without apostles... living and presiding among the other church members... isn't the true church of Jesus Christ organized as our Lord intended... and even with apostles they need to be HIS apostles.

Simply picking 12 people and referring to them as "apostles" wouldn't quite fit the bill, in God's eyes, unless he and/or his officially authorized servants did the picking.

Yes, Lord willing.

Please point to the Church where they are presiding priesthood authorities and feel free to join that one.

... and please let me know when you have found the true Church.

Thank you, Paul. The first two "yes" answers to the first two questions, were anticipated. I'll need to wait to hear from Zeta-Flux on the third "yes" since I expected a "no" to that one. Either you're wrong, or I'm still not understanding Zeta-Fluxes point of connection between the apostasy and the immortality of the four Apostles.

As a follow up to the first two questions, I assume that the CoJCoLDS believes that the first century church had a quorum of 70, who held the priesthood authority and keys, as does the present-day quorum of the 70. Is that correct?

[consiglieri]

One of the fruit of the Spirit is self-control.

A fruit of the Spirit you manifested when banning me for daring to disagree with you?

Spare me the sermons, Uncle Bob.

[Paul Ray]

Thank you, Paul. The first two "yes" answers to the first two questions, were anticipated. I'll need to wait to hear from Zeta-Flux on the third "yes" since I expected a "no" to that one. Either you're wrong, or I'm still not understanding Zeta-Fluxes point of connection between the apostasy and the immortality of the four Apostles.

That sounds like a fair strategy. I commend that approach.

It also might help if you thought about those questions/answers that I raised in my other posts that you seem to have skipped over for some reason.

... as well as these related questions/answers:

Do you see any need for our Lord's church to have living apostles, and/or presiding priesthood authorities as General Authorities?

If you knew our Lord's church should be organized with living apostles, would you then join a church that had them?

As a follow up to the first two questions, I assume that the CoJCoLDS believes that the first century church had a quorum of 70, who held the priesthood authority and keys, as does the present-day quorum of the 70. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

If you need any help finding scriptures in the Bible showing there was a quorum of 70, just let us know.

[Paul Ray]

I'll need to wait to hear from Zeta-Flux on the third "yes" since I expected a "no" to that one. Either you're wrong, or I'm still not understanding Zeta-Fluxes point of connection between the apostasy and the immortality of the four Apostles.

Btw, just for clarification, to try to make sure that you know what I meant:

Question 3 was:

Were the four Apostles (John, and three Nephites) qualified, as immortals, to pass on the priesthood authority and keys?

and my answer was:

Yes, Lord willing.

... meaning those 4 persons were authorized to pass on the priesthood authority and keys, if it was the will of the Lord that they do so.

You do seem to realize that one of those 4 was John, the apostle.

Do you realize it is the same John as in Peter, James and John?

John actually did pass those keys on to Joseph Smith, along with Peter and James, who had died.

[Bob Betts]

Btw, just for clarification, to try to make sure that you know what I meant:

Question 3 was:

Were the four Apostles (John, and three Nephites) qualified, as immortals, to pass on the priesthood authority and keys?

and my answer was:

Yes, Lord willing.

... meaning those 4 persons were authorized to pass on the priesthood authority and keys, if it was the will of the Lord that they do so.

Can you think of a reason that the Lord would NOT will that the priesthood authority and keys be given to those men whom the four were bringing unto Christ while the earth shall stand?

You do seem to realize that one of those 4 was John, the apostle.

Absolutely.

Do you realize it is the same John as in Peter, James and John?

Yes.

He actually did pass those keys on to Joseph Smith, along with Peter and James, who had died.

I do undertand that that's how the story goes.

[Paul Ray]

Can you think of a reason that the Lord would NOT will that the priesthood authority and keys be given to those men whom the four were bringing unto Christ while the earth shall stand?

Huh?

Which men are you referring to?

IOW, which men do you think the 4 gave priesthood authority and keys to to bring them unto Christ while the earth shall stand?

I only know of Joseph Smith, who received them from John, with Peter and James.

Are you asking if I can think of any reason the Lord would NOT have willed that the 4, or any one of those 4, give the priesthood authority and keys to men like Joseph Smith?

No, honestly, I can't, considering the fact that I believe our Lord wants all of us to be brought unto him, in his way.

[Bob Betts]

A fruit of the Spirit you manifested when banning me for daring to disagree with you?

No, the banning was for the same disrespect you've displayed to me on THIS Board. The same reason a thread on this Board was locked, my second day here a couple of weeks ago, for which you admitted fault, and apologized to that thread's author.

[PacMan]

Betts,

I didn't come to MADB to get hammered by hostile LDS. I can't stop you from being disrespectful, but I don't have to respond. Maybe I just got spoiled already, by the likes Zeta-Flux and Paul and a few others, but I'm not inclined to respond to those who would treat me disrespectfully.

I’m interested in your definition of disrespect: I have not called you any names, but have asked you to be responsible in your analysis and objective in your understanding.

Moreover, for you to reject the LDS interpretation of what an LDS manual says is completely arbitrary. THAT, is disrespect. Even within the laws, congressional history is VERY important to see what the reasoning is behind the statute, particularly where the definition of a single word becomes an issue of question. Not only do you reject such a history entirely, but replace it with your own interpretation. Academically, it’s inexcusable.

You have argued outside the bound of colloquial definitions and purposefully confounded their meanings in a mix of paradigms that are completely diverse. You have used severe logical fallacies as support while promulgating disingenuous notions in order to incessantly excuse your proof-text from your OP.

didn't come to MADB to get hammered by hostile LDS

Well then, why did you come? The only hammering I'm doing is to get you to give germane, objective answers. If the answer falls tenably short, I point it out. You have plenty of room to explain, remit, or otherwise concede. I don't see how that' disrespectful.

I certainly hope for high level conversations. If I’m wrong or make a mistake, I’ll happily admit it. I have the confidence to admit when I overlook something. I don’t understand that such a reciprocated expectation is anything less that respectful. I assume you’re not an idiot…so I won’t treat you like one and call for responsibility. I’m sorry if that offends you.

THAT BEING SAID: Within the context of the 3 Nephites being hid “FROM” the earth, what rationale explanation can you offer that “from” and “off” are necessarily distinct in context of the manual? Or is it just YOUR opinion?

P.S. This is a good-will soft-ball.

PacMan

[Bernard Gui]

One of the fruit of the Spirit is self-control. If conversing with me is so frustrating, that you loose the Spirit and must lash out at me by impugning my character, then perhaps it's advisable that you not converse with me.

Frustration is not an emotion that drives away the Spirit.

Lash out? Your character is not in question. Your credibility is, and it is

on very thin ice when it comes to knowledge of the Book of Mormon.

Maybe you're absolutely right.

Leave out the maybe and you will be correct.

So I asked you some questions regarding the chapter you referred me to, and what did you tell me? You told me my question is irrelevant, and warned me about derailing my own thread and salvaging my credibility. But, I have reason to believe my question leads to a relevant point to our discussion. So, you could please let ME worry about derailment and my credibility.

Unfortunately, credibility is not something one assigns to oneself. It is something that one earns through observed behavior. You indeed may

derail your own thread.

Here it is again, if you care to answer it this time. If not, then I'll move on to someone elses question/comments.

Your answers will, in effect, tell ME something of YOUR knowledge of the BoM.

In the interest of satisfying your curiosity about my knowledge of the

BoM, I will answer. But, it truly is irrelevant to your false statement.

And what I read in 1 Nephi 13:30-33 and 38-39 is, that there WAS a remnant of the house of Israel. I had asked you my next question regarding a remnant, and what did you tell me? Well, it sounds like the discussion of a remnant IS relevant, in the very chapter you referenced. .

The answer is in verse 34, the 4th through 6th lines from the top of page 26, and in the second sentence of the BoM title page [edit]...

the one with TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun. at the bottom.

The answer is, "The Lamanites." One would be hard pressed to make a claim that the church or the priesthood and its keys were preserved by this remnant. This idea is amplified in Jacob 5. You may wish to read Mormon's instructions to this remnant in Mormon 7. Moroni notes that the Lamanites

had killed every Nephite that would not deny the Christ (Moroni 1:2).

The description of the degenerate state of both Nephites and Lamanites

in Moroni 9 shows that their apostasy was thorough and complete.

Nephi saw the complete Nephite apostasy in 1 Nephi 12, where an angel told him, "these shall dwindle in unbelief."

What the chapter mostly refers to is the great and abominable church, other churches, the gentiles and the remnant of the house of Israel. But, you seem to think the other churches and the remnant of the house of Israel are irrelevant. On that basis, I don't know where to go with you in this discussion.

Yes, it does speak mostly of those things. In the LDS church, that is

known as the Great Apostasy. There is just no way around that. It says

so in the chapter heading. A debate about what is the Great and Abominable church would better be done in another thread. Perhaps you can explain how it is relevant to your statement that the BoM does not mention the apostasy. In another post I gave an excellent source for information about this issue.

Let's go this way again. Is it your position that the chapter heading for 1 Nephi 13 is in error, that the chapter does not describe the apostasy of the Jerusalem church, and that the restoration of the gospel it foretells is not in response to that apostasy?

If you want further evidence that the apostasy is surely mentioned in the

BoM, you may wish to look over 2 Nephi 28, especially verses 3-5, 11-14 and 27-29...

"They have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted. Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up...in many instances they do err because they are taught

by the precepts of men."

Then you can look at Mormon 8:29...

"It [the coming forth of the BoM] shall come in a day when the power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and be lifted up in the pride of their hearts; yea, even in a day when leaders of churches and teachers shall rise in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches...it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins...why have ye built up churches unto yourselves to get gain? Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that you may bring damnation upon your souls?"

Do you still stand by your statement that the apostasy is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Bernard

ps...also, consider the following:

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, under the topic Apostasy:

"In addition, in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 11- 14; 2 Ne. 28; cf. Morm. 8 ), the prophet Nephi 1 had a vision of the early Christian church and its twelve apostles, against whom the 'multitudes of the earth' and the house of Israel fought (1 Ne. 11:34-35). He foresaw a 'great and abominable church' that persecuted true Christians and the poor, and whose members were motivated by such things as pride, clothing themselves in precious raiment, and indulging in sexual immorality (see Great and Abominable Church). It altered the simplicity of the gospel insidiously, did away with covenants, excised important scriptures, and denied the existence of miracles. This apostasy can be linked, in the allegory of Zenos, with the scattering of Israel when all the trees in the Lord's vineyard had become corrupt (Jacob 5:39-48), and it was paralleled by the calamitous apostasy of the Nephites in the New World (1 Ne. 12:15-19; 4 Ne. 1:24-46)."

[PacMan]

And because you ask:

Question #1: Does the quorum of the 70 currently hold the priesthood authority and keys, as does the 12 and first presidency?

Paulâ??s off a bit (I only read his first answer). The answer is, yes and no. They have the priesthood authority, but not the keys. If the 12 and first presidency were instantly killed off, however, the 70 with the Melchisedek Priesthood could reorganize the Quorum of the 12. Simply because one has the authority does not mean he can pass it on, or for that matterâ??exercise it. Through the reorganization of the 12, those keys would be instituted.

Any baptism I do, for example, needs approval from the Bishop because he holds the keys for that ward. He doesnâ??t give my authority, because I have it. In other words, he authorizes me to use it.

Of course, this possibility is ratherâ?¦moot.

Question #2: To hitchhike on your above hypothetical, WHAT IF (God forbid) the presidency and the quorum of 12 all died in a plane crash, leaving just the quorum of 70. Can the quorum of 70 (if they hold the priesthood authority and keys), restore the quorum of 12 apostles, and the presidency from their quorum?

Oops. Just answered that.

Unrelated to the previous two questions,

Question #3: Were the four Apostles (John, and three Nephites) qualified, as immortals, to pass on the priesthood authority and keys?

As Apostles, yes. And John did, with Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith. John still has the priesthood authority, but he doesnâ??t hold those keys. Itâ??s kind of like the Chief Justice giving up his position to be an Associate Justice (although it doesnâ??t happen). Certain duties are relieved, but the meat of authority is untouched.

PacMan

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta-Flux (are you male or female?),

Male. For more information, I refer you to my website: http://www.math.uiowa.edu/~ppnielse/aboutme.html

Thank you for coming to my defense. Never having been LDS I'm still fine-tuning my understanding of your church organization (obviously). But, I just had a thought that created a couple of questions in my mind, which I hope you can and will answer for me. Now maybe you actually answered these questions in a round about way, with your two scenarios above, but I'd like clarification to be sure.

I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.

Question #1: Does the quorum of the 70 currently hold the priesthood authority and keys, as does the 12 and first presidency?

I am unsure, now that you bring this to my attention. Our scriptures, in D&C 107:26, say that the seventy form a quorum equal in authority to the first presidency and quorum of the 12. But it doesn't mention keys, specifically. I would actually wager that they do not hold the keys. We could find out if someone knows the wording given when an apostle ordains a seventy.

By the way, the ins and outs of this are not always straightforward. For example, it is my understanding that all of the 12 apostles hold all the keys, but they are not active until said apostle becomes President of the church. President Joseph F. Smith said "In their fullness, these keys are held by only one person at a time, the prophet and President of the Church." He also said, "They have been given to each man who has been set apart as a member of the Council of the Twelve. But since they are the right of presidency, they can only be exercised in full by the senior apostle of God on earth, who is the president of the Church."

Question #2: To hitchhike on your above hypothetical, WHAT IF (God forbid) the presidency and the quorum of 12 all died in a plane crash, leaving just the quorum of 70. Can the quorum of 70 (if they hold the priesthood authority and keys), restore the quorum of 12 apostles, and the presidency from their quorum?

If they held the keys, then I would say yes (as a quorum). If not, it might take angelic ministration to restore the keys. Unlike PacMan, I am uncertain that the 70 have the keys to restore the quorum of the 12, now that I think about it.

Unrelated to the previous two questions,

Question #3: Were the four Apostles (John, and three Nephites) qualified, as immortals, to pass on the priesthood authority and keys?

First, I do not believe that the 3 Nephites were in the quorum of the 12 (even if they had the calling and ordination as apostles), so I do not know if they held all the keys (but believe that they did not).

Second, I believe John (with Peter and James, forming a quorum) definitely did qualify to pass on the priesthood keys. I am uncertain if John, by himself, was qualified.

Third, I do not believe John was authorized (even if qualified) to bestow said keys, unless God authorized it, as an immortal or mortal.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[Mark Beesley]

Zeta-Flux (are you male or female?),

Thank you for coming to my defense.

Yes, Zeta-Flux, thanks for coming to Bob's defense since he cannot defend himself for his misrepresentations and crass exercise in eisegesis. However, as far as your "defense" went, it was no defense at all. It did not address the misrepresentation about what the Lord promised John, or the keys that were given to Peter, James and John. You merely raised an entirely speculative hypothetical about some imaginary catastrophe that results in the death of the vast majority of the leadership in of the Church, a scenario that we used to mull over in seminary some 35 years ago when we were teenagers and didn't know any better. But the bottom line is that the Lord has promised that this is the LAST dispensation of the priesthood. The keys will not be lost again, so whatever tragedy you have imagined up in your mind about how the Church might function if multiple apostles were to be killed, we don't have to worry about it. The Lord keeps His promises, and the Church will survive to present to the bridegroom a bride fitting for the Supreme Creator.

Anyway, Zeta-Flux, your charity towards Bob is commendable. I am imperfect, so my capacity for charity towards Bob has been severely hampered because of what I have witnessed at Concerned Christians over the past 2+ years. However, I can say honestly that there is still a spark of charity that burns in my bosom for Bob (though sometimes I'd like to take him out behind the woodshed and give him a good whipping). Yikes!!!

Something I have noticed when folks talk about the apostacy is that they often talk about it in a vacuum, i.e., the priesthood was taken so there was an apostacy. Nevertheless, many have tried to explain to Bob, to no avail, that the apostacy was a turning away. The apostacy was not simply the loss of priesthood authority. It was the departure of the congregations of the Church from the established rituals and ordinances, and a subsequent corruption of the doctrines of Christianity, culminating in the Nicene Council.

Finally, it would be well to understand that discussing the concept of an apostacy with someone with Bob's current mindset is doomed to failure, particularly when the discussion centers around "priesthood authority" as Bob tried to cast the argument. This is because Bob does not believe in "priesthood authority" in the same way we do or the Bible teaches. So, before you try to come to terms with Bob about whether or not there was an apostacy, you need to pin him down on what "priesthood authority" is. Good luck.

[Bernard Gui]

Finally, it would be well to understand that discussing the concept of an apostacy with someone with Bob's current mindset is doomed to failure, particularly when the discussion centers around "priesthood authority" as Bob tried to cast the argument. This is because Bob does not believe in "priesthood authority" in the same way we do or the Bible teaches. So, before you try to come to terms with Bob about whether or not there was an apostacy, you need to pin him down on what "priesthood authority" is. Good luck.

That would be found in his usurpation of Paul's words to the Hebrews.

Bernard

[Zeta-Flux]

mbeesley,

Thank you for your reply. By the way, you said: "The keys will not be lost again, so whatever tragedy you have imagined up in your mind about how the Church might function if multiple apostles were to be killed, we don't have to worry about it."

My point wasn't that we have to worry about such a scenario. Rather, my point was that such a scenario is similar to what happened with the original 12 apostles, and in such a case it isn't immediately clear how the keys are handled.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[consiglieri]

No, the banning was for the same disrespect you've displayed to me on THIS Board. The same reason a thread on this Board was locked, my second day here a couple of weeks ago, for which you admitted fault, and apologized to that thread's author.

Okay, Bob, I am throwing down the gauntlet.

I challenge you to to start a new thread on this board that includes the exchanges between you and me on your message board that were so disrespectful as to get me banned.

No editing. No emending. No interlineating. Just the facts.

That would allow people on this board to see how grievous my offenses were against you, and how you responded, and how fruitful in the Spirit you are.

I dare you.

I double-dog dare you.

But I know you won't. You will find some excuse not to.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri