Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

Thank you for calling me by my first name

Hope that helps. And sorry for waxing wordyâ?¦.Iâ??m trying to illustrate it clearly, at the cost of concision.

PacMan

No, no, I really appreciate it. This has been most helpful

P.S. Just saw your last post.

Okay, in light of THIS, since John had the keys, then logically, according to how Christ organized His Church, John should have used those keys to replenish the Church organization at every level. Thus, perpetuating the Church, and preventing the "Great Apostasy." Having power over death and not tasting it, he certainly had plenty of time. How would you explain John's seeming failure to obediently use the keys he received from Christ to perpetuate Christ's Church?

The problem is your strawman. YOUR logic non sequitur. While it may make sense to YOU, thereâ??s no scriptural basis that this was the case, nor was necessary to any degree.

I believe God is tremendously involved, in a very hands-off way. He letâ??s people mess up and err, but is smart enough to think of a way around it. Why let Satan in the garden? That seems like one of Godâ??s greatest blunders, right? Except, he already had a way planned to circumvent death and sin. Heâ??s very smart that way.

That being said, wicked men had John exiled. They had the other apostles martyred, and the apostasy among the early church is evident throughout Paulâ??s epistlesâ??they were falling away all the time and introducing pagan traditions, etc., and the apostles were trying desperately to make sure they would stay on track. The Apostles had a heck of a time keeping the doctrine pure. So from a pragmatic sense, by the time John got off of Patmosâ?¦the church was already lost. Without dramatic, divine intervention, it couldnâ??t be saved. People were so far in left field, it was unsalvageable. When this happened with Noah, what did the Lord do? He started anew. The Lord often doesnâ??t do the dramatic, but letâ??s things take itâ??s courseâ?¦but he does make a plan B. Today, things are much different. The stark conveniences of technology make the spread of the gospel and the appropriate administration of the church possible. Communication is such that if thereâ??s a problem, it can be squashed before things get out of hand. We donâ??t live in a world where the greatest powers are fighting each other for tyrant-supremacy, and where thereâ??s a freedom of religion where the Apostles arenâ??t running for their lives.

John didnâ??t disobeyâ??he OBEYED! He was one of the sons of thunder, and to sit back (relatively speaking) must have been terribly painful. But it was inevitableâ??John alone could not hold the church together. And had he tried? He would have been killed again, and again, never dying. Why do you think he was exiled? Because the vat of oil didnâ??t kill him, nor did the serpents, etc. The only way to get rid of him, was to exile him. After his exile, had he not disappeared, the kingdoms of the earth would have made sure he was locked up foreverâ?¦and then heâ??d have been relatively useless for anything. Sure, good could have been dramatic, but he doesnâ??t do things that way because theyâ??re damning. Anytime he makes a show, people are more accountable for the undeniable witness theyâ??ve seen. If theyâ??re not spiritually ready to follow then, they wonâ??t, and will be damned for it.

The Great Apostasy was not the only thing that makes sense, but the most merciful and loving thing the Lord could have done.

It now sounds like you're saying that God predestined, and was responsible for, the apostasy; that it was planned by the Lord out of His mercy and love. Is this the general belief of the CoJCoLDS, or is any of your opinion injected in this. CFR, if you have one. Thanks.

[William the Conqueror]

Easy.

Yes...it's universal. Why? Because, the priesthood was taken FROM the earth, not OFF the earth. It is a semantic differences that is erroneously read in, and erroneously perpetuated.

Cheers,

PacMan

PacMan,

What do you mean by contrasting FROM versus OFF? What exactly does the priesthood taken FROM the earth mean? Does that mean the apostle John and the three Nephites were ON the earth and yet were not ministering ON the earth?

[PacMan]

Bob (growing up with multiple siblings, people knew us by our last name...it was meant to be disrespectful),

It now sounds like you're saying that God predestined, and was responsible for, the apostasy; that it was planned by the Lord out of His mercy and love. Is this the general belief of the CoJCoLDS, or is any of your opinion injected in this. CFR, if you have one. Thanks.

Predestined? Certainly not! Omniscient? Certainly! Simply because I put my arms under a toddler because I see him learning and knowing he will fall, doesn't mean I make him fall. Did God predestine Adam and Eve to fall, for the populace of the world to be wicked so he could destroy them with a flood, and for the particular centurion to drive nails in Christ's arms? Certainly not...but he knew it'd happen. No agency was taken from these individuals and they alone are responsible for their actions. All the same, God's a quick one.

The notion of agency is KEY to the LDS, and the Lord doesn't EVER infringe on it. That'd make him unjust and a respecter of persons. His plan is central in maintaining that concept.

William,

What do you mean by contrasting FROM versus OFF? What exactly does the priesthood taken FROM the earth mean? Does that mean the apostle John and the three Nephites were ON the earth and yet were not ministering ON the earth?

As I explained to Bob, they (as the BOM says of the Nephites) were taken from the earth...not off of it. The earth has no need for being preached to. It is a body of mass. To take the gospel to all the earth is rather stupid, if "earth" didn't mean her inhabitants. This is the same...the Priesthood was taken from her inhabitants, and for all intents and purposes, lost. To take OFF would mean in no situation could it ever be found, for it is now non-existent. That was not, nor was ever the case. It was taken FROM the earth. The semantic oddity should be a notion that it was deliberate and intentional.

Cheers,

PacMan

[William the Conqueror]

William,

As I explained to Bob, they (as the BOM says of the Nephites) were taken from the earth...not off of it. The earth has no need for being preached to. It is a body of mass. To take the gospel to all the earth is rather stupid, if "earth" didn't mean her inhabitants. This is the same...the Priesthood was taken from her inhabitants, and for all intents and purposes, lost. To take OFF would mean in no situation could it ever be found, for it is now non-existent. That was not, nor was ever the case. It was taken FROM the earth. The semantic oddity should be a notion that it was deliberate and intentional.

Cheers,

PacMan

Let's see if I understand you. The three Nephites always had the Priesthood, but after a time they were prohibited from using it to educate the unlearned masses. This prohibition was from God, Moroni, or some other power. Am I on target? Bob Betts probably understands better what you mean.

[Pahoran]

Let's see if I understand you. The three Nephites always had the Priesthood, but after a time they were prohibited from using it to educate the unlearned masses. This prohibition was from God, Moroni, or some other power. Am I on target? Bob Betts probably understands better what you mean.

I doubt that very much. This is not rocket science, and yet he has failed to grasp the point after just 23 pages.

John and the 3 had no authority to maintain the Church. They were to minister to righteous individuals only. Observe the record of the public ministry of the 3: first they ministered to the whole Church. Then, as it split into factions, they ministered only among the faithful remnant. Lastly, as even that remnant slipped into apostasy, they withdrew themselves altogether.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

I'm still scratching my head.

I thought Peter had the keys.

(Matt. 16:15-19)

Sorry if this was already brought up.

I can't devote half my life to reading the thread.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bob Betts]

It now sounds like you're saying that God predestined, and was responsible for, the apostasy; that it was planned by the Lord out of His mercy and love. Is this the general belief of the CoJCoLDS, or is any of your opinion injected in this. CFR, if you have one. Thanks.

Predestined? Certainly not! Omniscient? Certainly! Simply because I put my arms under a toddler because I see him learning and knowing he will fall, doesn't mean I make him fall. Did God predestine Adam and Eve to fall, for the populace of the world to be wicked so he could destroy them with a flood, and for the particular centurion to drive nails in Christ's arms? Certainly not...but he knew it'd happen. No agency was taken from these individuals and they alone are responsible for their actions. All the same, God's a quick one.

The notion of agency is KEY to the LDS, and the Lord doesn't EVER infringe on it. That'd make him unjust and a respecter of persons. His plan is central in maintaining that concept.

I failed to place a question mark above in my question. But, the question was, is this the general belief of the CoJCoLDS, or is any of your opinion injected in this? CFR, if you have one, regarding your statement, "The Great Apostasy was not the only thing that makes sense, but the most merciful and loving thing the Lord could have done." Elimiinating a few words, your statement is, "The Great Apostasy was...the most merciful and loving thing the Lord could have done." So, you believe the Lord did the apostasy, because it was the most merciful loving thing He could have done. Further breaking it down to the fewest words possible, you're saying the Lord did the apostasy? Do you want to rephrase that, or at least reference it? You got on Paul pretty good the other day for not documenting, and told him, no opinions. But, most of what you presented is undocumented. It's not that I don't believe you, but where might I read it for myself?

To summarize what I've been told, one person tells me the LDS church today is like the early church. I'm also told the church is self-perpetuating. That would lead me to believe that the early Church should have been self-perpetuating as well. I've been agreed with on that much. That being true, the early Church should have averted the apostasy. But, now I'm told that circumstances as they were, due to agency, perpetuation didn't work out. But, then, God didn't want the self-perpetuation of the Church as Christ organized it to be, but allowed the agency (wickedness) of men to prevent the Lord's Church from perpetuating, as Christ organized it to do. In fact, God Himself, demonstrated His love and mercy by doing the apostasy.

I'm sure I must have this all wrong, in your eyes, and I'm sure you'll set me straight, along with documentation.

[PacMan]

William,

Let's see if I understand you. The three Nephites always had the Priesthood, but after a time they were prohibited from using it to educate the unlearned masses. This prohibition was from God, Moroni, or some other power. Am I on target? Bob Betts probably understands better what you mean.

Educate? That they were prohibited from ministering is unnecessary. That they simply didnâ??t promulgate the church suffices. I think theyâ??ve done much educating, and much ministeringâ?¦but their role was not to organize the church, etc.

Easy, Pahoranâ?¦

As Apostles, they certainly had the authority to maintain the Church, but they may not have been authorized to. Kind of like baptizing under the eye of the Bishop.

Consig,

I'm still scratching my head.

I thought Peter had the keys.

(Matt. 16:15-19)

Sure, except in Matt 18 the disciples had received the power to seal, also promised to Peter in Matt 16. Now, whether they also received the keys as well is a matter to be discussed. I say yeaâ?¦just like today. It makes sense.

Bob,

I failed to place a question mark above in my question. But, the question was, is this the general belief of the CoJCoLDS, or is any of your opinion injected in this?

The church position is: the apostasy was not created by God. If thatâ??s not your question, Iâ??ll need you to line it up again.

Elimiinating a few words, your statement is, "The Great Apostasy was...the most merciful and loving thing the Lord could have done." So, you believe the Lord did the apostasy, because it was the most merciful loving thing He could have done.

Excuse meâ?¦my typing got ahead of me (I donâ??t always have time to proof-read). I should have said that â??permittingâ?? the apostasy was the most merciful and loving thing He could have done. He certainly didnâ??t â??DOâ? the apostasy any more than he causes people to be wicked. Now, my analysis of what was most appropriate is my analysis. I find it logical and fluid, i.e. if God DID permit the apostasy, itâ??d reason that the decision was the appropriate and â??bestâ? alternative. So with that rationale, permitting the apostasy is, doctrinally, the best thing God could have done given the situation.

To summarize what I've been told, one person tells me the LDS church today is like the early church. [sure; see Ephesians 4; but youâ??re conflating â??likeâ? with â??as exactly wasâ?] I'm also told the church is self-perpetuating. [Through adding other apostles, yes. See Mathias] That would lead me to believe that the early Church should have been self-perpetuating as well [it wasâ?¦again, see Mathias] I've been agreed with on that much. That being true, the early Church should have averted the apostasy. [No. Not if the main â??perpetuatorsâ? were killed off. D&C 107 doesnâ??t say anyone can, but certain organizations like the 70]. But, now I'm told that circumstances as they were, due to agency, perpetuation didn't work out. [Worked out? John simply didnâ??t do it, and was obedient in doing so] But, then, God didn't want the self-perpetuation of the Church as Christ organized it to be, [â??God didnâ??t want?â?? Thatâ??s far from the truth. The apostasy has little to do with what â??God wanted,â?? but what He permittedâ?¦again, did he want the wicked of the earth to be drowned? (Youâ??ve yet answered that question)] but allowed the agency (wickedness) of men to prevent the Lord's Church from perpetuating, as Christ organized it to do [Like the idolatrous Hebrews?]. In fact, God Himself, demonstrated His love and mercy by doing the apostasy.

Youâ??re going to run into problems if you use reducio on me, even if itâ??s incidental.

Now, let us turn a tu quoque, using your reasoning. If Christ organized His church to have Apostles, and had the apostleship perpetuated with Mathias, Paul, and Barnabas, why did it stop? Wasnâ??t that disobedience to what God wanted?

Ciao,

PacMan

[owl]

Bob,

I am the one who, on the Bob Betts as Guest thread, suggested that we start new threads on specific doctrinal topics with rules designed to ensure that you are treated more like a guest and less like an enemy. I had read that entire thread before I posted. I was disappointed by some of the posts from fellow LDS members.

I am almost as disappointed in many of the LDS posts here as on the original thread. Some are uninformed, a lot put words in your mouth, frequently they are crude attempts at humor at your expense. Often they are redundant. Occasionally they are innocuous but not germane. You have answered with patience, in fact much more patience than you show on your own board.

When you answered my post you said you were willing to participate in the new threads I proposed, but that you had started your own thread on the apostacy. Since that time I have been trying to read this thread. I read about 12 pages and then decided to give up trying to catch up since there are almost as many left to read as there were when I started. I have read page 22 and 23 to try to see if any recent posts change my assessment of what is happening on the thread. I find you are more or less up to date in responding to posts directed to you. I commend you.

I am going to go ahead and post my summary of what I have observed so far.

[owl]

My assessment of the thread so far.

First to LDS posters. Correct me Bob if I am wrong. Bob stated at the start that he gave no credence to either the fact that there was an apostacy or to the idea that men such as John the Beloved or the three Nephites could continue to live on earth after mortals should have died. This skepticism is particularly true of the three Nephites since the only evidence they exist is from the LDS scriptures which Bob does not accept. Bob does not accept the apostacy since he does not believe authority, ordinances, or revelations (beyond the Bible) are necessary for salvation

His position all along has been that even if one of the ideas (apostacy or apostles/disciples remaining) were true, they could not both be.

A few of the LDS posts were very cogent. The one on Biblical errors and contradictions, posted by sometimesaint, while off topic, was informative. Several posts on the LDS concept of the apostacy were right on, and seemed to answer Bobâ??s objections to everyoneâ??s satisfaction except his. I particularly liked the NRA quotes of The Christian Apostasy David Stewart, Jr.(Part 1), Contemporary Witnesses of the Apostasy (Part 2), and From Priesthood to Priestcraft (Part 3), Apostasy Recognized By Reformationists (Part 4), and The Restoration (Part 5). Lachoneus quote of President Joseph Fielding Smithâ??s, â??Answers to Gospel Questionsâ? Was the Priesthood Ever Completely Taken from the Earth? was good, too. I think it was consiglieri who quoted President Taylor to the effect that it takes a majority of the Quorum of the 12 apostles to call and ordain a new President/Prophet. Consiglieri intended to imply this would be true in the early Church as well.

Note to LDS members and particularly thunderfire:

We certainly do not claim our General Authorities, prophets or even canonized scriptures are infallible. If there are errors they are errors of men applies to all of these sources. Even when we receive confirmation from the Holy Ghost that a particular passage or message contains spiritual truth it does not mean that it is error free.

In this regard, it is wise to remember that President Joseph Fielding Smith was not the Prophet at the time he was writing the column â??Answers to Gospel Questionsâ?? in the Era magazine, nor did he claim revelation in those answers. His scholarship was generally good, and I think that applies to the answer cited above, but some answers were just his opinion. Otherwise, he would never have written that man would never walk on the moon.

And if the scriptures or the General Authorities can err, it is no surprise that well intentioned members trying to answer an objection like that Bob has posed, particularly when they do so off the cuff and without reference to specific scriptures, quotes from general authorities or from the CHI.

[owl]

Now to Bob if you have not given up on us.

The LDS position on the Great Apostasy depends on our concept of the nature of Christ’s Church and indeed of his Gospel. The Church is not just a community of believers who read the scriptures and try to abide by their precepts. The Gospel requires a living faith in Christ coupled with repentance and obedience to his commandments. Two items he requires of those who come unto him are baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost. The church organization existed to preach his gospel and administer these ordinances. Proof from the scriptures of these and subsequent ideas in this post will await another thread of my suggested list.

The reason a formal Church organization was necessary to have these ordinances is that they had to be done by revelation to those having authority. This revelation came to the apostles and prophets and to the bishops whom they called to administer locally. They also, by revelation, corrected errors of doctrine.

The original New Testament prophets and apostles were called and ordained by Christ. They formed the foundation of the Church. After Christ’s death, they, by revelation, called others. The apostles as a group could call successors and an apostle as an individual could by revelation call a bishop. Bishops could by revelation call deacons, teachers and priests. A bishop could not call another bishop, and even an apostle acting alone could not call another apostle. Certainly if an apostle acting alone could not call another apostle, a bishop could not.

The several posts by NRA give the evidence that the early Church with apostles, revelation, and priesthood authority no longer exists on earth. This is our definition of apostasy. The apostasy occurred whether or not there were translated beings still on earth.

If there was an apostasy, there needed to be a restoration. If not Joseph Smith, where or when. No man taketh this honor unto himself. It is certainly not going to come to anyone who does not believe in revelation.

[owl]

Bob,

If I was right is my assessment of your position on this thread, and if you still hold that there was no apostasy, I think that, as someone said 12 pages back, we should agree to disagree.

You can continue here on this thread and perhaps get a better understanding of our position, but this is not the place to get an authoritative well reasoned exposition of the church position on any matter. If you are beginning to accept the idea of an apostasy and want to know more, I would invite you to go to other sites where the presentations are more uniformly well researched. Even the FAIR Wiki which is peer reviewed is not perfect but it is better than here. The Church web site is most correct but, even that is not perfect.

If you just want to poke holes in LDS beliefs in the hope of snaring some of us, please consider apologizing to anyone whose post you did not get to here and coming to discuss the need for ordinances and therefore for authority from God on a new thread I am going to start. I think if we could reach an agreement on those ideas, there would be some hope of convincing you that there really was an apostasy.

[PacMan]

owl,

As conversations do, it's evolved a bit. With where we are now concerning the OP, I'm not sure what you're trying to address. The question isn't a metaphysical theological one, but almost completely administrative.

That being said, a quick generalized brush of sweeping condemnation is a good way to loose credibility. Don't be so presumptuous to believe yourself judge, jury, and executioner of threads, whether you start them or not...you'll loose a listening audience pretty fast. Let your substantive input stand on its own merits.

Cheers,

PacMan

P.S.

If I was right is my assessment of your position on this thread, and if you still hold that there was no apostasy, I think that, as someone said 12 pages back, we should agree to disagree.

I fully disagree! There needs to be a reason, and I think it a disservice if 1) we part ways without understanding each other, and 2) don't drill to the core component that causes the disagreement. Seeing the fruits of disagreement isn't nearly as helpful as finding the roots of disagreement.

[owl]

Pacman, I am not tring to kill the thread. It is actually much more productive now than it was in the beginning. Please continue if you wish. However, we would have much more hope of convincing Bob of the loss of the Church organization being an apostacy if he believed authority and a Church organization were neccessary in the first place.

Regarding this thread, I'm glad you have corrected some of your posts. Bob will get a better idea of LDS thought. He is probably right though to ask that posters on his site quote the scriptures or official publications. So often posters are not experts.

I realize that there is not much official that relates the apostacy to the continued presence of translated church leaders. We should be careful in speculating. The posts about a quorum of lesser priesthood bearers being able to ordain and restore keys that they did not themselves have were farfetched.

[why me]

So, when Christ PROMISED the four that they would live on and bring souls to Christ until His return, what happened to that promise?

Souls are brought to christ every day. What does it mean to bring a soul to christ? It does not necessarily mean the priesthood. It just means bringing souls to christ that he is our savior and the son of god. This has always been done since the death of christ.

I think Bob that it should be quite simple. I don't believe that the 3 nephites and John were sitting dormant. I am sure that they were attempting to make a difference on this earth with the knowledge that they have, waiting for the priesthood to be restored.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

I failed to place a question mark above in my question. But, the question was, is this the general belief of the CoJCoLDS, or is any of your opinion injected in this?

The church position is: the apostasy was not created by God. If thatâ??s not your question, Iâ??ll need you to line it up again.

Still no reference(s) after twice posting a CFR.

Elimiinating a few words, your statement is, "The Great Apostasy was...the most merciful and loving thing the Lord could have done." So, you believe the Lord did the apostasy, because it was the most merciful loving thing He could have done.

Excuse meâ?¦my typing got ahead of me (I donâ??t always have time to proof-read). I should have said that â??permittingâ?? the apostasy was the most merciful and loving thing He could have done. He certainly didnâ??t â??DOâ? the apostasy any more than he causes people to be wicked. Now, my analysis of what was most appropriate is my analysis. I find it logical and fluid, i.e. if God DID permit the apostasy, itâ??d reason that the decision was the appropriate and â??bestâ? alternative. So with that rationale, permitting the apostasy is, doctrinally, the best thing God could have done given the situation.

But, "permitting" puts an entirely different spin on the God's will than "doing." Take the events surrounding Noah and the flood. Did God ordain the flood, making it happen, did he "permit" the flood? It was God's purposeful will and reaction to the wickedness of that generation. Obviously, God delt with the agency of those of that wicked generation, by judging them in their agency to not be worthy of continuing to live out and express their agency. God cut off their agency, by cutting off their human existence. In other OT times, in smaller, less catastrophic ways than world wide, God exercized HIS will/agency/sovereignty in judgment, trumping the agency of the people-group or individual He was judging. Adam and Eve are an example on the individual level; Sodom and Gomorrah on the group level.

To summarize what I've been told, one person tells me the LDS church today is like the early church. [sure; see Ephesians 4; but youâ??re conflating â??likeâ? with â??as exactly wasâ?] I'm also told the church is self-perpetuating. [Through adding other apostles, yes. See Mathias]

So, then, the early Church wasn't "exactly" self-perpetuating, with Matthias as the ONLY example throughout Acts?

That would lead me to believe that the early Church should have been self-perpetuating as well [it wasâ?¦again, see Mathias]

But, not "exactly," since the time came when the Church ceased to be self-perpetuating, with the death of the Apostles, though the Apostles weren't all really dead, according to your church?

I've been agreed with on that much. That being true, the early Church should have averted the apostasy. [No. Not if the main â??perpetuatorsâ? were killed off. D&C 107 doesnâ??t say anyone can, but certain organizations like the 70].

But, ALL the main perpetuators were NOT killed off. So, then we come back around to the LDS belief that, though they (the four) weren't all killed off, those who had the authority to perpetuate the Church, didn't have the authorization?

But, now I'm told that circumstances as they were, due to agency, perpetuation didn't work out. [Worked out? John simply didnâ??t do it, and was obedient in doing so]

So, John simply didn't perpetuate the Church because he was being obedient to Christ, Who didn't authorize John and the Nephites to perpetuate His Church, though Christ organized His Church to self-perpetuate?

But, then, God didn't want the self-perpetuation of the Church as Christ organized it to be, [â??God didnâ??t want?â?? Thatâ??s far from the truth. The apostasy has little to do with what â??God wanted,â?? but what He permittedâ?¦again, did he want the wicked of the earth to be drowned? (Youâ??ve yet answered that question)]

So, what I hear you saying is, that what God permitted was not what He wanted. So, although Christ organized His Church to self-perpetuate, God didn't permit the Church to self-perpetuate, even if that's what He wanted, but permitted the agency of the wickedness of men to trump what He wanted, and what He organized the Church to do (perpetuate)?

but allowed the agency (wickedness) of men to prevent the Lord's Church from perpetuating, as Christ organized it to do [Like the idolatrous Hebrews?]. In fact, God Himself, demonstrated His love and mercy by doing the apostasy.

This is too little information. To which generation of idolatroous Hebrews are you referring?

Youâ??re going to run into problems if you use reducio on me, even if itâ??s incidental.

Let me know.

Now, let us turn a tu quoque, using your reasoning. If Christ organized His church to have Apostles, and had the apostleship perpetuated with Mathias, Paul, and Barnabas, why did it stop? Wasnâ??t that disobedience to what God wanted?

I have never disagreed, that God allowed (permitted) the deaths of all the Apostles. I believe that John also died, contrary to Smith's "revelation." But, it is your churches contention that the Church stopped, not mine nor mainstream Christianity's. I know the Church HAS perpetuated without stopping, because of the scriptures:

Eph. 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The highlighted portion is present tense. Just as Christ does not need to be physically present in the world for the Church foundation to rest on Him as the Cornerstone, neither do the prophets and Apostles of old have to be present in the world for the Church to be built on them as the foundation. The Chruch was built upon them then, and once they died the Church was STILL built upon them. Nothing has changed with respect to the foundation, and the foundation has not needed additional prophets and Apostles to maintain that foundation. I can rely completely upon Christ and His Apostles of old, as the one true foundation. Their absense from the world, did not remove any part of that foundation. It's not like Christ laid an incomplete foundation for the Church to be built upon, to be filled in later by a succession of Apostles and prophets. It's also not like as each Apostle died, there was then a gap in the foundation of the Church which needed to be filled in by areplacement Apostle. The prophets of old and the Apostles of the first century Church were the one true foundation upon which the Church has been building ever since.

[Bob Betts]

Now to Bob if you have not given up on us.

The LDS position on the Great Apostasy depends on our concept of the nature of Christâ??s Church and indeed of his Gospel. The Church is not just a community of believers who read the scriptures and try to abide by their precepts.

Actually that's precisely what the Church is. Inherent in being a community of believers and reading the scriptures and abiding by the precepts therein, is what you say next: "The Gospel requires a living faith in Christ coupled with repentance and obedience to his commandments."

Two items he requires of those who come unto him are baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost.

I would put this in slightly different terms: He expects us to be water baptized, and He gives us His HG.

The church organization existed to preach his gospel and administer these ordinances. Proof from the scriptures of these and subsequent ideas in this post will await another thread of my suggested list.

The Church organization is to be a body of believers with many gifts for the purpose of the spiritual building up of each member of the body. Members also preach the gospel.

The reason a formal Church organization was necessary to have these ordinances is that they had to be done by revelation to those having authority.

The early Church organization was not nearly as formal as yours. Peter told us that all believers are priests, that they are a holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Any believer has the authority to baptize, being one of the holy and royal priesthood. And, God gives the Holy Ghost to anyone who believes (Eph 1:13-14).

This revelation came to the apostles and prophets and to the bishops whom they called to administer locally. They also, by revelation, corrected errors of doctrine.

Close enough. Though "bishop" only appears in the NT a handful of times, while "elders" appears dozens of times, they being the main administrators in the Church.

The original New Testament prophets and apostles were called and ordained by Christ. They formed the foundation of the Church. After Christâ??s death, they, by revelation, called others. The apostles as a group could call successors and an apostle as an individual could by revelation call a bishop. Bishops could by revelation call deacons, teachers and priests. A bishop could not call another bishop, and even an apostle acting alone could not call another apostle. Certainly if an apostle acting alone could not call another apostle, a bishop could not.

Some of this is speculation on your part, based on what your church believes and practices today. You'd be hard pressed to biblically support some of what you're saying.

The several posts by NRA give the evidence that the early Church with apostles, revelation, and priesthood authority no longer exists on earth. This is our definition of apostasy. The apostasy occurred whether or not there were translated beings still on earth.

Maybe I'll go back and read it. I was too far behind and busy to read that tome at the time. But, knowing what the NT says, I'm not likely to change my position.

If there was an apostasy, there needed to be a restoration.

I simply don't believe it, based on how Christ and the Apostles refer to His Church.

If not Joseph Smith, where or when.

If there was an Apostasy, certainly not Joseph Smith.

No man taketh this honor unto himself.

I believe that's exactly what Joseph Smith did.

It is certainly not going to come to anyone who does not believe in revelation.

And, certainly not to someone who gets them wrong. After getting the "sell the copyright of the BoM in Canada" revelation wrong, the next revelation from the same seer stone, from which he got the failed prophecy, told him, "Some revelations are of God, some are of man and some of the Devil." I don't know if the failed prophecy came from Smith's imagination or from the Devil. But, since it didn't come from God, I'LL never trust him.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

If I was right is my assessment of your position on this thread, and if you still hold that there was no apostasy, I think that, as someone said 12 pages back, we should agree to disagree.

Well, you might have noticed that a week ago I was about to abandon this thread, but got talked back into staying for further Q&A.

You can continue here on this thread and perhaps get a better understanding of our position,

Which is what I've been doing.

but this is not the place to get an authoritative well reasoned exposition of the church position on any matter.

WHAT? NOW you tell me. I thought I WAS getting the authoritative and well-reasoned exposition.

If you are beginning to accept the idea of an apostasy

No, I'm not.

and want to know more, I would invite you to go to other sites where the presentations are more uniformly well researched. Even the FAIR Wiki which is peer reviewed is not perfect but it is better than here. The Church web site is most correct but, even that is not perfect.

Then what sites would you suggest, now that I've spent this much time listening to people you think are neither authoritative nor well-reasoned on this, or any other matter?

If you just want to poke holes in LDS beliefs in the hope of snaring some of us, please consider apologizing to anyone whose post you did not get to here and coming to discuss the need for ordinances and therefore for authority from God on a new thread I am going to start. I think if we could reach an agreement on those ideas, there would be some hope of convincing you that there really was an apostasy.

I'll take your suggestion into consideration, except for the part about apologizing, since my purpose in coming here, was not for the reasons you suggest. However, I'm in a dialogue with PacMan, which I'm not ready to abandon. So, I'll be here a little longer, at least.

[Bernard Gui]

Well, you might have noticed that a week ago I was about to abandon this thread, but got talked back into staying for further Q&A.

There is another issue still open...your false statement that the apostasy is not mentioned

in the Book of Mormon. I remind you of post #394.

Bernard

[Bob Betts]

Souls are brought to christ every day. What does it mean to bring a soul to christ? It does not necessarily mean the priesthood. It just means bringing souls to christ that he is our savior and the son of god. This has always been done since the death of christ.

I think Bob that it should be quite simple. I don't believe that the 3 nephites and John were sitting dormant. I am sure that they were attempting to make a difference on this earth with the knowledge that they have, waiting for the priesthood to be restored.

If it were so simple, there wouldn't be so many disagreements between the LDS I've been listening to, through the past several pages. You folks aren't exactly on the same page about something that is supposed to be quite simple. Owl just informed me that "this is not the place to get an authoritative well reasoned exposition of the church position on any matter."

So, while you give YOUR opinion, leaving out significant portions of the premise of my OP, YOUR opinion is just part of the mix of not so completely agreed upon opinions. I'm doing my best to wade though the several voices, here, to get to the truth of what you all DO believe regarding church organization. But, I'm having to really work at it because of the different voices of opinion.

PacMan has seemed to be the foremost source of information for me, but after getting on Paul giving unreferenced opinions, he's been doing the same thing more often than not, even though I CFR from him.

I hope I'm not perceived as whining about this. At the same time, I hope that I'm not perceived as not trying to understand, in light of the diversity of opinions I'm having to sift through.

[Bob Betts]

There is another issue still open...your false statement that the apostasy is not mentioned

in the Book of Mormon. I remind you of post #394.

Bernard

I had ammended my statement to add the word "complete" apostasy. Having read the the BoM passages you suggested, the presense of a remnant, is clearly spoken of in 1 Nephi 13. With a remnant present, there cannot be a complete apostasy. In that light, I don't believe my amended statement is false.

in my past dialogue with you about this, I brought this fact up, and you said it's irrelevant. I don't think a repeatedly stated remnant in that chapter is irrelevant. As far as I'M concerned, YOU are the one who has an issue that's still open...and false. The stated remnant in that chapter MUST be relevant IMO, and I have nothing to retract.

[Zemah]

I do not have time to read all that was said. In the first two pages there is sufficient presentation to rebuke Bobâ??s argument against a total apostasy. And perhaps what I am going to say has already been stated, so I will ask for your patience and understanding.

I see the apostasy as being complete in two areas:

1). Revelation at the Church level was stopped due to wickedness.

2). Man was denied the privilege of administering, under priesthood authority, the ordinances of the Gospel unto sainthood.

Zemah

[PacMan]

Owl,

I realize that there is not much official that relates the apostacy to the continued presence of translated church leaders. We should be careful in speculating. The posts about a quorum of lesser priesthood bearers being able to ordain and restore keys that they did not themselves have were farfetched.

First, stop building strawmen. Second, as much as I’m flattered that you may think this is an original idea of mine, it is not. Moreover, I would invite another interpretation of 107 that gives any reasonable notion, per what it says. I’m afraid the only thing farfetched is your accusation.

Bob,

Still no reference(s) after twice posting a CFR.

Common sense needs no references. God didn’t create the Apostasy. To do so would assume He creates wickedness and causes people to purposefully sin. While He permits it, to create it would be awfully stupid. Not to mention it’d go strictly against the doctrine of agency (if you want a quote on that, I’ll dig something up…but I don’t want to waste time on the obvious).

But, "permitting" puts an entirely different spin on the God's will than "doing."

That’s why I found it important to clarify. I didn’t think it’d be an issue.

Did God ordain the flood, making it happen, did he "permit" the flood? It was God's purposeful will and reaction to the wickedness of that generation. Obviously, God delt with the agency of those of that wicked generation, by judging them in their agency to not be worthy of continuing to live out and express their agency. God cut off their agency, by cutting off their human existence.

Yes…and no. He caused the flood itself (just as he causes the flowers to grow and birds to chirp), but not the destruction. That was a direct consequence of the miss-used agency of the earth (or its inhabitants). So no, God didn’t cut off their agency…they did.

So, then, the early Church wasn't "exactly" self-perpetuating, with Matthias as the ONLY example throughout Acts?

Did I say that? Nope. Stick with what I say, and I won’t have to identify your logical fallacies (remember, I’m happy to clarify if I misspeak).

There were certainly differences…all those offices delineated in Ephesians didn’t happen in a day. Moreover, I doubt new convert adult-males were automatically ordained Priests as they are today. Maybe, but no reason to believe they were. The issue is, administrative changes are necessary for efficiency. That the administration at every level was the same is completely unnecessary. And no, Matthias, Paul, Barnabas…there are three examples and not just one. Moreover, that there’s only a example is but ignoratium, and objectively useless.

But, not "exactly," since the time came when the Church ceased to be self-perpetuating, with the death of the Apostles, though the Apostles weren't all really dead, according to your church?

??? No…I have no doubt it was perfectly established. Remember, in the mind of an omniscient being that transcends time, it makes as much sense that he organized the church then, so that it would run the way it does today. Paradigms…

But, ALL the main perpetuators were NOT killed off. So, then we come back around to the LDS belief that, though they (the four) weren't all killed off, those who had the authority to perpetuate the Church, didn't have the authorization?

Now it looks like you’re catching it. There’s actually 2 possibilities (as I see it…no references, sorry): 1) They were told NOT to, 2) Understood and saw that they shouldn’t.

The blessings of the gospel are predicated on righteousness. When people remove themselves from the Lord, he can’t bless them—that’d violate the terms of agency. They’re left to their own flailings unless they repent. Now, I don’t know what the conversation was like between them and the Lord, but the ultimate answer was…it’s time to let it go, for a time.

So, John simply didn't perpetuate the Church because he was being obedient to Christ, Who didn't authorize John and the Nephites to perpetuate His Church, though Christ organized His Church to self-perpetuate?

No…you’re backwards. He certainly was authorized to call new Apostles (that's what he did with Joseph Smith). But because of the wickedness, they were taken (hidden) from the earth:

10 And there are none that do know the true God save it be the adisciples 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 bremain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.

At THAT point, yes, they were (apparently) “unauthorized” to continue the church. Again, I think the reason makes a great deal of sense…but we can talk about that later.

So, what I hear you saying is, that what God permitted was not what He wanted.

Absolutely. If you have any doubt that he doesn't enjoy seeing His children kick themselves to hell, I’m sure I can scrounge up a scripture.

So, although Christ organized His Church to self-perpetuate, God didn't permit the Church to self-perpetuate, even if that's what He wanted, but permitted the agency of the wickedness of men to trump what He wanted, and what He organized the Church to do (perpetuate)?

Again…if you want to play reducio game, we can. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’d caveat that he “organized His Church to be able to self-perpetuate” and “God didn’t permit the Church to self-perpetuate then….”

This is too little information. To which generation of idolatroous Hebrews are you referring?

A perfect example of tu quoque is the Hebrews, shortly after leaving Egypt. Recall, their whole purpose was to enter the promise land under the direction of Moses. The Lord TOLD them to, but because they got scarred, he told them NOT to, even though they were SUPPOSED to. Then Moses hit the blasted rock, and the Lord told him NOT to enter the promised land, even though He wanted him to before.

This idea that God would permit (yea, instruct) which is ultimately contrary to what He really wants is completely biblical. Do you think He wanted to see His son crucified? Of course not! But he instructed it to be…and He had His reasons.

Your take on Eph 2:19 are skewed…terribly.

Just as Christ does not need to be physically present in the world for the Church foundation to rest on Him as the Cornerstone, neither do the prophets and Apostles of old have to be present in the world for the Church to be built on them as the foundation.

Again, you’re mixing paradigms. There is ONE Jesus Christ. There are many apostles and prophets. The foundation of the Church is STILL the living apostles and prophets, just as the foundation is STILL the living Christ.

The Chruch was built upon them then, and once they died the Church was STILL built upon them.

I reject that notion. What happens when you kill off the foundation of a house? At the time of Ephesians, the foundation was alive and well (hence the remarkable present tense). With their deaths, the house came tumbling down…for a time. Now, we can talk the semantics of this until we’re blue in the face…but you have very little ground to convince me otherwise. For your logic to be complete, you’re going to have to explain how Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas were NOT part of that foundation…that it was complete with the original 12. That’s not the case, as we all know very well. The only thing we can conclude, is that the foundation doesn’t lie upon the original twelve but also those called in a succession for which there is precedence. That’s not the common sense notion of how helpful it’d be to have representatives and special witnesses of Christ, leading us to the “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” rather than let us flounder to find whether it’s with EV’s, Catholics, Jehova’s Witnesses, LDS, etc., etc.

But the part that you have most unfortunately skipped is Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

So He established apostles, right? Why? For the perfecting of the saints, work of the ministry, and edifying of the body of Christ. Is that done? No! And it’s evident that the apostles were meant to stick around for a long time….check out 13, “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of a knowledge of the Son of God.” There’s NO other way to understand it, no matter how creative you want to get with Ephesians 2. Now here’s my question for you: Are we all united? Have we all a knowledge of the Son of God? If you think the answers yes, live in China as I have and you’ll have an awakening to reality that unfortunately, the answer is no. And why are they so important? Check out 14.

Apostles and prophets are meant to be around until we are unified, and we are not. Any other interpretation is wholly nonsensical.

Scriptures in context are a bugger.

PacMan

[PacMan]

I do not have time to read all that was said. In the first two pages there is sufficient presentation to rebuke Bobâ??s argument against a total apostasy. And perhaps what I am going to say has already been stated, so I will ask for your patience and understanding.

I see the apostasy as being complete in two areas:

1). Revelation at the Church level was stopped due to wickedness.

2). Man was denied the privilege of administering, under priesthood authority, the ordinances of the Gospel unto sainthood.

Zemah

Sainthood? Are you purposefully confusing the issue? Sure, for those LDS of us, we know you mean "bringing people to Christ," but we never use the terminology 'sainthood.' It sounds Catholic, and thus confusing.

Bob,

Owl just informed me that "this is not the place to get an authoritative well reasoned exposition of the church position on any matter."

Then why the heck is he here? Moreover, I find it interesting that he has 1/3 the posts that you have, Bob...for a newby, even in terms of another newby, I find owls opinion suspiciously inflated considering an overt lack of experience on the board.

Oh...FYI, the difference between Paul and I is I challenged Paul's interpretation as being incorrect. That was my impetus for CFRing Paul. That, and I've provided references.

Cheers,

PacMan

[Bernard Gui]

I had ammended my statement to add the word "complete" apostasy. Having read the the BoM passages you suggested, the presense of a remnant, is clearly spoken of in 1 Nephi 13. With a remnant present, there cannot be a complete apostasy. In that light, I don't believe my amended statement is false.

in my past dialogue with you about this, I brought this fact up, and you said it's irrelevant. I don't think a repeatedly stated remnant in that chapter is irrelevant. As far as I'M concerned, YOU are the one who has an issue that's still open...and false. The stated remnant in that chapter MUST be relevant IMO, and I have nothing to retract.

Ammending your statement by adding the word "complete" only makes matters worse for you.

If you think the "remnant" in 1 Nephi 13 means that there was somehow a surviving church on the American continent, you sadly reveal a basic misunderstanding of the Book of Mormon. The group called the "remnant" is the Lamanites after the destruction of the Nephites. The Lamanites were an apostate group if there ever was one. One purpose of the BoM was to restore the true gospel to this remnant, the Lamanites. I refer you to the

title page.

In my post #394 I gave you two other BoM references about the "complete" apostasy that cannot possibly be misunderstood as you have 1 Nephi 13, and a citation from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. For your convenience, I will repeat them here.

2 Nephi 28, especially verses 3-5, 11-14 and 27-29, speaking of false churches in the latter days:

"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."

Mormon 8:29, speaking of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon...

"It 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?"

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)."

You cannot honestly maintain that the Great or Complete Apostasy is not

mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Bernard