Universal Apostasy Or Not?

Zemah · October 17, 2007

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.
Cheers,
PacMan

How does the term â??sainthoodâ? add confusion?

Sainthood means a body of saints; like priesthood means a body of priests.

The claim of the LDS Church is that we are the body of Saints organized by God and Christ, like the first body of Saints, into a church. And furthermore, His Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is the restoration of Israel.

"Bringing people to Christ" means bringing them to a faith in Christ, better still to a knowledge of God, better still unto repentance, better still into the waters of baptism, and better still converted to a life of obedience. Any teacher or preacher of the word of God can accomplish any of these things; so too can anyone who reads the Word and acts upon it. Salvation is not locked up in the keys of the priesthood; salvation is obtained through faith in the Atonement. Christ has guaranteed it.

But sainthood (admission into His Church) has been restored and is confirmed by His priests by the laying on of hands, after authority is given by the bishop acting as judge in Israel. This requires the apostolic priesthood, which the Catholic church lost, if it ever had it. And no other church can claim it. It was restored by an act of God, as recorded in the scriptures of the only church that has living revelation.

That is what I meant by my two claims in support of an apostasy:

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.

To argue that there was no apostasy of revelation and of the authority to commune sainthood to the living is folly when a simple review of the other churches exposesâ?¦

1). No volume of growing scripture (in fact scripture has official been decreed closed by most churches of men) and,

2). Only a convoluted method of attaining sainthood and only after death.

The Catholic church does not make Saints, except through some postmortem procedures and evidences written into their church law. Their route to sainthood is non-biblical. Also non-biblical is the notion of universal sainthood through faith as promoted by Protestants and evangelicals. A community of saints cannot stand when divided by concessions or compromises or agreements made as a result of the pride of men unable to relinquish their investment in doctrinal summations, traditions, and even nationalism.

The devil spawns division through pride; the churches of Christendom are divided.

Christ builds unity in love and obedience. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is united in faith, repentance, and baptism, in the blessing and partaking of the Sacrament, united in sainthood, and the ordinances of the priesthood.

We are united in the Israel Christ gathers in His Holy name.

Zemah

owl · October 17, 2007

Bob what is a CFR? I should have remembered, but I figured out from other posts that it was 'call for references'.

I think Pacman was right in saying that permitting the apostasy is the best thing God could have done given the situation.

We know God allows agency to all of us including to those who choose evil and try to persuade others to join them. I doubt if there is any scripture that would support this, but of all available choices that allow agency to parents and friends, God places us where we will have the maximum opportunity for our individual progress. I am confident that at he judgement bar, nobody will be able to say that if they had been born under different circumstances they would have been more righteous. We can't exercise agency unless we have alternatives. There must be good and evil, for us to choose.

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 dealt 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.

I'm sure you are right about this. The wicked in the time of Noah, had already done enough to prove their sinful nature. Any children who had not reached the age of accountability must have been so stalwart in the preexistence that they did not need to be subjected to mortal probation. The flood certainly made it easier for the rightous remnant for a short time at least.

Adam and Eve because of their choice were cast out of the Garden where they had been able to walk and talk with God, became subject physical death, and to additional temptation. Since they were subsequently righteous and since Adam learned about and accepted the atonement of Christ and in fact tried to teach his children, I don't think Adam and Eve are examples of unbelievers whose exercise of agency God cut 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?

As far as I can see no scripture says the Three Nephites had authority to perpetuate the Church as a whole. They did have authority to act on this continent and they may have been able to teach anywhere.

In Old Testament times in both the old world and the new there was no church organization. There were prophets and priesthood authority. The organization was basicly patriarchal. The priesthood was tranferred by revelation and by subsequent laying on of hands to ordain the new priest. If the same order had continued in New Testament times perhaps John could have perpetuated the authority of the priesthood.

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

God always permits agency and therefore sin during this life. I'm confident God, our Father, would always prefer his children be righteous, but He won't force righteousness upon us, even to avoid the deaths of the righteous.

I know the Church HAS perpetuated without stopping, because of the scriptures: 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 a replacement 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.

An interesting idea. I would have to agree that the Church still exists in Heaven, and even that when we reach the Judgement we will all including the apostles of the restoration be subject to the authority of the original 12 less Judas.

Do you think that current revelation, not even the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, was not needed to settle the disputes that arose after the deaths of the apostles? Perhaps in the last days when God will pour out of his Spirit upon all flesh and our sons and our daughters shall prophesy (Acts 2: 17) we will not need any one in authority to interpret scriptures and settle controversy.

As to the perpetuation of the group of apostles, you refer to only the calling of Mattias in Acts. Do you maintain that Paul was not an Apostle? He seems to have been accepted as such by his contemporaries.

why me · October 17, 2007

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.

There is a positive spin to all this. The lds church is not a cult with likeminded members engaged in monolithic thought. There is much diversity in lds opinions and that is not such a bad thing. I believe bob that much is left up to speculation. Perhaps there is no answer at the moment. I think that Pacman's one liner and my comment (from the street) were on target. Simple, but understandable.

Mark Beesley · October 17, 2007

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.

Who says we have to be on the same page about any of this? As why me points out, the fact that there is a diversity of opinion within the Church on various topics is a plus. And it's not as though all non-LDS Christians, or even all Evangelical Christians are on the same page with regard to every single topic touching on their faith. But it's easier for you to lob bombs at us if you can simply ignore the dissension in your own camp.

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.

The premises of your OP have been shown to be false.

PacMan · October 17, 2007

--BUMP--

Paul Ray · October 17, 2007

Paul,
I was very respectful to insinuate your good-faith error, but now you are being obstinante and irresponsibly beligerant.

I was being neither "obstinante" nor "irresponsibly beligerant".

Maybe it would have been good for you to continue being respectful?

You are WRONG! And since you have lacked citation, I will prove my point with scripture:
...

The support you cited for your argument didn't really address the point I was making.

There are other words from God and his authorized servants which state that the Quorum of Twelve Apostles has ALL the keys the First Presidency has, so words stating that only one person has all of the keys of the kingdom need to be interpreted in harmony with those other words.

Let me know if you need to see some other words which state what I am saying.

There is no difference, as far as keys go, between the quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. It's just that one quorum presides above the other quorum, with the First Presidency presiding above the Quorum of Twelve Apostles... except, of course, when the quorum of the First Presidency is dissolved upon the death of the President.

There are many keys within the priesthood, and they are not all shared by the Apostles.

That may be so, but I'm not talking about the keys of resurrection or the keys to create new planets.

I'm simply saying the Quorum of Twelve Apostles has the same keys as the President and/or First Presidency of the Church.

And btw, each member of the First Presidency is an apostle... meaning there are actually 15 apostles on the Earth now.

The Prophet gives them keys (a great many of them), and some to the 70â??s in others, etc., all the way down to the Deaconâ??s Quorum President.

The keys of the kingdom come from our Lord, Jesus Christ, not only from the President of his Church.

The President of our Lord's Church appoints and authorizes certain people to officiate in offices, and those who are called to officiate in those offices are authorized, by our Lord, to use the keys of their office.

That being said, there are keys that the Apostles and the First Presidency holds that the 70â??s donâ??t. Period.

That was the best sentence in your entire post.

I did a little research and look at what I found:

â?¦ Exactly what is the role of Area Authority Seventies? We need first to understand the role of the Seventy.
The Prophet Joseph Smith announced the establishment of the office of Seventy on 8 February 1835. On 28 February he organized the First Quorum of the Seventy (see History of the Church, 2:181, 201â??4). A month later the Lord by revelation gave further instructions through the Prophet Joseph regarding the calling and role of the Seventy. These instructions are recorded in what is now Doctrine and Covenants 107:
â??The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the worldâ??thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. â?¦
â??The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve â?¦ , in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews. â?¦
â??It is the duty of the [Twelve] to call upon the Seventy, when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching and administering the gospel, instead of any others. â?¦
â??And it is according to the vision showing the order of the Seventy, that they should have seven presidents to preside over them, chosen out of the number of the seventy;
â??And the seventh president of these presidents is to preside over the six;
â??And these seven presidents are to choose other seventy besides the first seventy to whom they belong, and are to preside over them;
â??And also other seventy, until seven times seventy, if the labor in the vineyard of necessity requires it.
â??And these seventy are to be traveling ministers, unto the Gentiles first and also unto the Jewsâ? (D&C 107:25, 34, 38, 93â??97).
The role of the Seventy, then, is to act under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in building up and regulating the affairs of the Church in all nations. The Twelve are to call upon the Seventy to help in preaching and administering the gospel.
Members of the Quorums of the Seventy do not hold priesthood keys as part of their calling as Seventies. But when they receive an assignment from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the keys they need to accomplish the task are delegated to them. As President Brigham Young (1801â??77) explained to the Seventy, â??When we send you to build up the kingdom, we will give you the keys, and power and authorityâ? (History of the Church, 7:308). When they are ordained, members of the Seventy do receive apostolic authority to bear witness that Jesus is the Christ and to go forth in all the world as the Twelve may send them. - Earl C. Tingey, of the Presidency of the Seventy, â??Area Authority Seventies: â??To Bear Record of My Name in All the Worldâ??,â? Liahona, Oct 2002, 26

You were actually right on that point. I stand corrected.

I like it when I learn something I didn't know. <_<

That being said, donâ??t posture your understanding as doctrineâ??particularly to those like Betts whom have some influence and will hold strongly to your explanation. Itâ??s dangerous, and fundamentally incorrect.

Just hold yourself to the same standard you expect from other people and in the end I think everything will work out.

Againâ?¦no opinions here.
Cheers,
PacMan

There are actually a lot of opinions being shared here, PacMan, and not all of them are correct.

... yours included. :unsure:

... and if we want the best answers, we should learn from God and his authorized servants.

And btw, I will also acknowledge that I accept your opinions concerning how the Church couldn't have been re-constituted without the consent of John, as one of our Lord's apostles, and how the apostasy was caused by people who turned away from God and his authorized servants to do things the way they thought they should be done.

... and I think we all need to be careful not to reject God's authorized servants, even now.

PacMan · October 17, 2007

Paul,

There are other words from God and his authorized servants which state that the Quorum of Twelve Apostles has ALL the keys the First Presidency has, so words stating that only one person has all of the keys of the kingdom need to be interpreted in harmony with those other words.

I gave you cite that disproves you. Concerning these mystery quotes, please, humor me with them.

There is no difference, as far as keys go, between the quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. It's just that one quorum presides above the other quorum, with the First Presidency presiding above the Quorum of Twelve Apostles... except, of course, when the quorum of the First Presidency is dissolved upon the death of the President.

You’re wrong. Period. If you’d like to otherwise juxtapose the scripture I referenced, then do. But please stop harping the broken-record.

And yes…I really like Elder Tingey. I’m glad you found it.

Also understand, there’s a difference between doctrine, opinion, and logical reasoning. Doctrine needs CFR…the other’s don’t. But I will insist reasoning that makes sense, and it’s a cop-out to insist on CFR that doesn’t exist because one can’t logically counter the argument. Also, I’ve tried to indicate positions that are strictly opinion (I don’t always do it, but do when I’m thinking about it). That being said, I’ll try to do better.

... and I think we all need to be careful not to reject God's authorized servants, even now.

Huh? What’s that supposed to mean?

PacMan

Paul Ray · October 17, 2007

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."

At least we acknowledge and are willing to learn from the authorized apostles of our Lord.

... which is a lot more than I can say for all of Christendom or Christianity in general.

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.

... as is YOUR opinion, and the opinion of all other Christians.

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.

Trying going to the official source(s), Bob.

Try learning from God and his authorized apostles.

But, I'm having to really work at it because of the different voices of opinion.

... and you always will need to work at it even if/when you are a member of our Lord's church.

At least you now seem to realize there is more than only your opinion in the whole world.

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 recommend that you find a better source of information than PacMan... or even myself.

Try learning from God and the very best of God authorized servants, aka known as apostles.

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.

I think you may be sincerely trying to understand, but are you willing to pay the price?

Are you willing to give up everything you have to truly follow Jesus Christ and his authorized servants?

If you truly are, the first step will be for you to find out who they truly are.

Paul Ray · October 17, 2007

Paul,
I gave you cite that disproves you.

No, what you gave me was a citation referring to the authority of the President of the Church.

Concerning these mystery quotes, please, humor me with them.

Try this one: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/124/128#128

If that's not clear enough, I can find some other references. :unsure:

Youâ??re wrong. Period. If youâ??d like to otherwise juxtapose the scripture I referenced, then do. But please stop harping the broken-record.

Try thinking of the distinction(s) between the authority of the President of the Church, the authority of the First Presidency of the Church, and the authority of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the Church.

Only one man, alone, has all the keys of the kingdom on the Earth, but those keys are also held by the quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles when each of those quorums is acting as a quorum.

OIOW, there are two quorums that are equal in authority to the President of the Church by himself.

And yesâ?¦I really like Elder Tingey. Iâ??m glad you found it.

A really big help you were. <_<

Also understand, thereâ??s a difference between doctrine, opinion, and logical reasoning. Doctrine needs CFRâ?¦the otherâ??s donâ??t.

I understand that, but we don't necessarily need to do each other's homework.

But I will insist reasoning that makes sense, and itâ??s a cop-out to insist on CFR that doesnâ??t exist because one canâ??t logically counter the argument.

Also understood. :angry:

Also, Iâ??ve tried to indicate positions that are strictly opinion (I donâ??t always do it, but do when Iâ??m thinking about it). That being said, Iâ??ll try to do better.

As will I. :blink:

... and to that end, just consider everything I say to be my own opinion from now on, even when my opinion is in agreement with the opinion of God and the opinion of other people who are members of God's Church.

Huh? Whatâ??s that supposed to mean?

Just what I said.

I think we all need to be very careful about rejecting people who are truly God's authorized servants.

... as some seem to do by simply saying something like:

That is only what you/they believe, and I don't agree.

PacMan · October 18, 2007

Whatever. It's not worth discussing it with you Paul. As long as you don't confuse the issues, I'll likely just let things go.

PacMan

Paul Ray · October 18, 2007

Whatever. It's not worth discussing it with you Paul.

If you don't think so, I suppose that is all that matters, to you.

As long as you don't confuse the issues, I'll likely just let things go.
PacMan

Ditto... and even then, I may still decide to just let things go without trying to correct you.

At this point, I think it would be interesting to see a summary of statements that all of the LDS here on this site have agreed upon regarding the general apostasy of the earlier Church, especially regarding the steps that could have been taken to prevent the earlier Church from turning away from the truth (or falling into apostasy) to begin with.

From what I have learned about the Quorum of Seventy in our day, and while believing the Church to have been organized the same way in former days, if indeed they had progressed to the point of having a Quorum of Seventy in those days, the only ones who could have passed on the keys of the kingdom were the apostles, and the apostles only, and even then only if they could have done so righteously.

The keys could not have been passed on to people who turned away from the apostle's teachings, including the teachings regarding how the church of Christ should be organized, who instead believed only what they wanted to believe.

I think it would be awesome if all of us, and all people everywhere, were in agreement with ALL of our Lord's apostles. But for that to happen, we need to first know who they are, and then know what they have taught, and then know what they will teach in the future.

The apostles hold the keys to our unity with our Lord and his kingdom, and without them we are and will continue to be divided.

Bob Betts · October 18, 2007

A response to PacMan:

Still no reference(s) after twice posting a CFR.
Common sense needs no references. God didnâ??t create the Apostasy.

Did I use the word create? I don't believe I did. That's YOUR word which you substituted for MY words. What I said was, "It now sounds like you're saying that God predestined, and was responsible for, the apostasy;" Common sense tells ME that if the Church COULD have self-perpetuated through John (who had the authority), but could NOT perpetuate through John because he didn't have the authorization from God, that makes God ultimately responsible. God could have averted the apostasy, by granting the authorization.

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.

Again, your argument here is based on putting a word in my mouth, which I never used.

Not to mention itâ??d go strictly against the doctrine of agency (if you want a quote on that, Iâ??ll dig something upâ?¦but I donâ??t want to waste time on the obvious).

I do not see any doctrine of unlimited agency on man's part, anywhere in the Bible, either by teaching or example.

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

Thatâ??s why I found it important to clarify. I didnâ??t think itâ??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.
Yesâ?¦and no. He caused the flood itself (just as he causes the flowers to grow and birds to chirp), but not the destruction.

God caused the flood, but not the destruction? What kind of logic is this? God deliberately caused the flood with the very specific intention of destroying the people who were steeped in their wickedness, by using their agency to BE wicked. How could God possibly intentionally cause the flood, without intentionally causing the destruction?

That was a direct consequence of the miss-used agency of the earth (or its inhabitants). So no, God didnâ??t cut off their agencyâ?¦they did.

Hold on, PacMan. This makes no sense. I'll bet you anything that those wicked people did NOT want their agency cut off. But, they had no choice in the matter. They had no power behind their agency to prevent God from destroying them. HIS agency trumped their's. God's deliberate action of causing a flood, with the express and deliberate purpose of destroying those wicked inhabitants, for the way they were using their agancy, was God's way of showing who's the boss of agency, in consequence of their wicked use of their agency. God effectively took away their agency, by effectively destroying their humanity. And, there was nothing they could do about it with their agency. God imposed HIS agency on them. Your earlier statement, "The notion of agency is KEY to the LDS, and the Lord doesn't EVER infringe on it," has no biblical support. There's no way that you can claim that God never infringes on man's agency. He's done it from the very beginning. When God set up a couple of angels with swords to guard the tree of life, God prevented Adam and Eve from using their agency to eat from that tree (Gen. 3:22). God is in complete control. He has and will infringe on man's agency whenever He darn well wants to.

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 wonâ??t have to identify your logical fallacies (remember, Iâ??m happy to clarify if I misspeak).

So, then, how would YOU like to word this? Was the early Church subject to limited perpetuation? Each Apostle who died, was replaced by another Apostle...for a few decades But, eventually the dead Apostles were not replaced (for whatever reason), resulting in the eventual cessation of perpetuation? Put it in your own words for me.

There were certainly differencesâ?¦all those offices delineated in Ephesians didnâ??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.

Based on what the Apostle Peter (the one holding the keys) told the believers in his letter, all believers are of a holy and royal priesthood, by virtue of their being believers (1 Peter 2:5-9). So, actually, yeah, all new converts WERE automatically ordained Priests as they are today.

The issue is, administrative changes are necessary for efficiency. That the administration at every level was the same is completely unnecessary.

Well, it certainly would have been necessary at an administration level for the perpetuation of the "authority" to remain in the world.

And no, Matthias, Paul, Barnabasâ?¦there are three examples and not just one.

Really? CFR for where you've found the names of the martyred Apostles who Paul and Barnabas replaced.

Moreover, that thereâ??s only a example is but ignoratium, and objectively useless.

Not IMHO. It goes to the consistency of whether or not your church today was actually administratively restored to that same early Church administration, as claimed by Joseph Smith. If perpetuation exists today according to Smith's restoring the true Church, logic says the early Church should have also perpetuated. Otherwise, your church isn't just talking about a restoration of the true early Church, but an improved and advanced version, with perpetuation virtually guaranteed, whereas the early Church failed to perpetuate past the deaths of the Apostles.

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?
??? Noâ?¦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. Paradigmsâ?¦

But, according to your belief, the Church did NOT run the way it does today, because the cessation of the succession of Apostles resulted in an apostasy of priesthood keys and authority, and that couldn't happen today (barring something catastrophic, as I understand).

So, "perfectly established," but "paradigms." How does that flesh out exactly?

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 youâ??re catching it. Thereâ??s actually 2 possibilities (as I see itâ?¦no references, sorry): 1) They were told NOT to,

Then, logically, the Apostles were told "not to" by God at some point in the first century, so that they would stop appointing replacement Apostles, so that the succession of Apostles would end. So, what you would have me believe is, Christ "perfectly established" His Church with all the offices and gifts for the building up of the Body, being the Head and Chief Cornerstone, saying the gates of Hades would never prevail against it, just so that within a few decades after Christ's ascension, God could tell the Apostles to stop appointing replacements, with the express purpose of allowing the Apostolic succession to come to a screeching halt, causing the alleged complete apostasy of authority and keys? Help me, if possible, make better sense out of this "possibility as you see it."

2) Understood and saw that they shouldnâ??t.

Understood what, and why?

The blessings of the gospel are predicated on righteousness. When people remove themselves from the Lord, he canâ??t bless themâ??thatâ??d violate the terms of agency.

At which time the Lord may infringe on their agency, which you said the Lord never does. CFR on the "terms of agency."

Theyâ??re left to their own flailings unless they repent. Now, I donâ??t know what the conversation was like between them and the Lord, but the ultimate answer wasâ?¦itâ??s time to let it go, for a time.

You believe that, within about 50 years (give or take a decade or two), God told the Apostles to stop appointing replacement Apostles, because of the unrighteousness of that generation, and the blessings of the gospel were pulled from the earth for 1,700 years? What a predicament God put the lay members of Christ's Church in, by being responsible for the authority and keys to be taken from the earth, so that the Church could no longer function, as organized by Christ, for the building up of the body. So, not only did God ultimately cause the organization to stop functioning, he hung the lay members out to dry, they no longer being part of a Church that would build up every member, as Christ organized it.

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?
Noâ?¦youâ??re backwards. He certainly was authorized to call new Apostles (that's what he did with Joseph Smith).

But, back around the time of the "complete apostasy" John WAS authorized? I'm getting confused about the chronology of when John was and was not authorized to call new Apostles. Just above you agreed with me that the four were NOT authorized. Which is it?

But because of the wickedness, they were taken (hidden) from the earth:

"Taken" or "taken from" and "hidden" are not synonyms. "Take" cannot be defined as "hide." Your definition appears contrived.

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) â??unauthorizedâ? to continue the church. Again, I think the reason makes a great deal of senseâ?¦but we can talk about that later.

You lost me. Verse 10 of where?

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, Iâ??m sure I can scrounge up a scripture.

I have lots of doubt. "Scrounge" away.

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….”

1) I'm not playing reductio games, I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about. 2) I fail to see how God was not responsible for the demise of the Church, if He organized His Church to self-perpetuate, but didn't "permit" the Church to perpetuate. If God picks times of unrighteousness to withdraw His gospel, then we would rarely, if ever, have the gospel on the earth. When was there any time of a lengthy, sustained righteousness in the world. Certainly not the time that Christ came to earth. Your reasoning sound flawed in light of mans consistent history of unrighteousness. Even the rare times that Israel was on a spiritual upswing, the rest of the world was mostly unrighteous. You think that after the deaths of the Apostles, was an especially unrighteous time period, due to persecution? Then, by that standard, you should view the fourth century, when Constantinople made Christianity the religion of his empire, ending persecution and bringing peace to the beleagered Christians, as a time of righteousness.

This is too little information. To which generation of idolatrous 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.

The pronmise was, nevertheless, fulfilled with the next generation entering that promised land. God did not withdraw His promise, but withheld it from the generation of Moses. Ultimately He wanted His people freed from slavery and to enter into the promised land. His people were freed from slavery, and His people entered the promised land. It just happened that, due to unrighteousness, the children of Moses generation were the ones to enter the promised land. How is this example supposed to be similar to the time of the deaths of the Apostles?

This idea that God would permit (yea, instruct) which is ultimately contrary to what He really wants is completely biblical.

True. But, I simply don't believe that the scenario which LDS believe regarding events following the deaths of the Apostles, is what actually happened. As you've presented it above, doesn't follow. Christ started His Church organization for the building up of the Body of believers, with all it's various parts (offices and gifts), just to decide in a few years that it wasn't having the desired affect in light of unrighteousness in the land, so He rendered it non-functional, removing the leadership, and leaving the non-leadership defenseless. I don't believe that's what happened at all.

Do you think He wanted to see His son crucified? Of course not! But he instructed it to be…and He had His reasons.

Well, it certainly wasn't an afterthought. It was definitely anticipated. In Rev. 13:8, Christ is referred to as the Lamb Who was slain from the foundation of the world.

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.

PacMan, surely you're not telling me that the foundation of Christ's Church has to do with whether the Apostles were physically alive or dead. The foundation of Christ's Church, being built on the OT prophets and NT Apostles had to do with their respective prophecies and teachings, God using the Apostles to build the Church into a self-sustaining organism of believers, no matter where they are scattered around the World. They had the authority to build the Church through the evangelizm and doctrinal teachings, all focussed around Jesus Christ, the Head and Cornerstone. When they died, that foundation of preaching and teaching remained, being written down on whatever they wrote on, and also written on the hearts of those who remained after their deaths. The OT prophets prophesying regarding Christ, and the Apostles preaching and teaching remain today, being believed and practiced to this day. God's Church never went completely down, because God's Spirit has always been here, dwelling in believers. A remnant.

I will even say that there have always been prophets and apostles on the earth, but without the formal titles, yet operating in those gifts. They just don't go around saying, "I'm an apostle" or "I'm a Apostle George." But, by Greek definition of the function of those gifts of the Spirit, they function as prophets or apostles. The Greek for "apostle" is "one sent forth." But, every time Christian Churches send forth missionaries into the world, we don't title them, "Apostles." I operate in MY gifts of the Spirit, but don't go around giving myself the title of my gifts. I'm recognized as a shepherd at my Church, by function. Nobody calls me Shepherd Bob. I have administrative gifting. It's obvious to all who know me. I don't get called Administrator Bob.

I've known Christians who preach like John the Baptist, by Greek definition they preach like a prophet, which is "one who speaks forth or openly." They function in the operation of their gift as prophets, without the title or recognition. We're simply not that formal.

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?

How do you kill of the foundation of a house. Once the foundation is laid, it's permanent, and everyone knows this. Your analogy has no basis in reality. Building foundations, are not removed and replaced. Foundations are permanent, as long as they are solid and not built on sand.

At the time of Ephesians, the foundation was alive and well (hence the remarkable present tense).

Foundations are permanent, thus they remain, and are not replaced (hence the remarkable present tense).

With their deaths, the house came tumbling down…for a time.

Nonsense. Their foundation was not their physical presense, but the gospel and their teachings and doctrines.

1 Cor. 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

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.

Quote me, PacMan. Where have I written anything remotely about the foundation being 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.

Only until the death of the last appointed Apostle. But, the foundation was laid, was permanent and remains without another Apostle being appointed.

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.

The most common sense "notion" is what the scriptures (specifically Paul) say about the foundation in 1 Cor. 3:10-11ff.

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!

Correct. It's an ongoing process on an individual level, which affects the Church as a whole. Yet, perfection will not be achieved in this life, nor in the universal Church in any given generation. (After 177 years the LDS church, being led by so-called prophets and apostles, isn't perfected, is it?)

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.”

Then why, according to your belief, did God allow the end of the succession of prophets and Apostles?

There’s NO other way to understand it, no matter how creative you want to get with Ephesians 2.

Well, YOU certainly got creative with how portions of a foundation can be repeatedly removed and replaced. Ephesians 2:20-22 tells us how the Church is built, upon the prophets and apostles. And it indicates nothing like what your trying to suggest about a foundation being removed and replaced, removed and replaced. The foundation is permanent. That's logical and practical, both literally and figuratively. Nobody builds a building on a removable and replacable foundation. Why do you think Paul was inspired to use such an analogy? Because everyone knows about buildings and foundations. You need to be a lot LESS creative, and conform your theology to what the NT actually says and means. The "foundation" laid by Christ and the OT prophets and NT apostles, was never meant to be temporary or adjustable, but solid and permanent. And verse 14 tells you why. It's all about true doctrine. It's not adjustable. In fact that very foundation that Paul refers to, being about sound doctrine, being solid and unmovable and all foundation are, was meant to protect the faithful from people like Joseph Smith, who brought "new winds of doctrine."

Now here’s my question for you: Are we all united? Have we all a knowledge of the Son of God?

No, and no. But, according to YOUR theology, God "permitted" the end of the succession of prophets and Apostles. So, from YOUR theological standpoint, God was responsible for Apostles not being around long enough to achieve unity and knowledge of the Son. From a biblical perspective, the Church never ended, nor did it's authority, but as was foretold, there would be tares among the wheat, and wolves among the sheep. The goal was not then nor is now accomplished. But, who's in charge? Who's the head? Who's the Chief Cornerstone. I don't second guess the Lord about the results. I trust Him implicitly that Hiw will is yet to be accomplish HIS way, and timing.

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.

Thank you for your opinion. Based on your nonsensical view of how a foundation functions, I'm not inclined to believe that you have your finger on the pulse of the truth.

Scriptures in context are a bugger.

Aren't they though? Along with definitions of terms? Would you like to point out an example of a removable foundation?

BCSpace · October 18, 2007

Even the Bible speaks of the universal apostasy such as in Revelation 13:7.

Early Christian History traces it too. For example, there is not even a hint of the trinity or triune god. The ECF believed in a physical anthropomorphic God, that there where more than one of them, and in subordinationism.

The later development of the trinity did not build on any previous doctrine, rather, the orignal doctrines were hidden, lost and destroyed.

Paul Ray · October 18, 2007

Common sense tells ME that if they COULD have self-perpetuated through John (who had the authority), but could NOT perpetuate through John because he didn't have the authorization from God, that makes God ultimately responsible. God could have averted the apostasy, by granting the authorization.

Think about what you are saying, some more, please.

How could God have prevented other people from turning away from God?

Apostasy refers to a turning away from God. Remember?

Do you think God would ever take away our agency (or our power to choose) to follow God?

If you think so, you are free to think again.

From a biblical perspective, the Church never ended, nor did it's authority, but as was foretold, there would be tares among the wheat, and wolves among the sheep.

From a biblical perspective, what makes you think the Church actually never ended?

Are you referring to the members of the Church who later died and/or were translated?

If so, what makes you think it continued on Earth among us mortals?

What sign(s) do you see of the Church continuing after the death of the apostles?

... based on a biblical perspective, or the words the apostles wrote in the Bible?

Why was there no more continuing revelation, if the Church never ceased to continue?

And btw, I'm asking for your answers based on a biblical perspective, not just some answers you can come up with from your own head.

The goal was not then nor is now accomplished. But, who's in charge? Who's the head? Who's the Chief Cornerstone.

Jesus Christ is the head, of course, but who (and where) are the people who follow him?

Where are the pillars?

Where are the people who can bring us all into unity, together?

I don't second guess the Lord about the results. I trust Him implicitly that His will is yet to be accomplish HIS way, and timing.

I have faith that you will eventually recognize our Lord's way, sometime soon.

Bob Betts · October 18, 2007

Even the Bible speaks of the universal apostasy such as in Revelation 13:7.
Early Christian History traces it too. For example, there is not even a hint of the trinity or triune god. The ECF believed in a physical anthropomorphic God, that there where more than one of them, and in subordinationism.
The later development of the trinity did not build on any previous doctrine, rather, the orignal doctrines were hidden, lost and destroyed.

I've gone over this already with someone else. If you read it in context, it can only be prophesying the last day (yet to come), not the time following the deaths of the early Church Apostles. You've taken it out of context.

Mola Ram Suda Ram · October 18, 2007

I've gone over this already with someone else. If you read it in context, it can only be prophesying the last day (yet to come), not the time following the deaths of the early Church Apostles. You've taken it out of context.

Please go into an in depth view of BC taking it out of context. So far you just have asserted it. Asserting it doesnt make it so.

Rev 13

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the bsea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his apower, and his seat, and great authority.

3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the abook of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is awisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Rev 14:1-9

1 And I looked, and, lo, a aLamb stood on the mount bSion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s cname written in their foreheads.

2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

3 And they sung as it were a new asong before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4 These are they which were not defiled with awomen; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were bredeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

5 And in their mouth was found no aguile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

6 And I saw another aangel fly in the midst of heaven, having the beverlasting cgospel to dpreach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, aFear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his bjudgment is come: and cworship dhim that made eheaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, aBabylon is bfallen, is fallen, that great ccity, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her dfornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

K Im not seeing any were were a date is mentioned. So uh. Help a brotha out. I see that the beast is given power over that saints for 42 months, witch some speculate is 1260 years. 42 x 30=1260. were a day = a year. We know that the beast is going to over come the saints and then an angel will have the everlasting gospel to preach on this earth. Do you have any reason to suppose that this apostacy has not yet happened? Please give us Bible refrences.

Also some specultate that the last date that the priesthood was on the earth was in 570a.d. so adding those 2 up puts it at 1830a.d. . 570+1260=1830 Kinda interesting. ***please note this is sepculation only*** Also This does not represent my view.

Bob Betts · October 18, 2007

Common sense tells ME that if they COULD have self-perpetuated through John (who had the authority), but could NOT perpetuate through John because he didn't have the authorization from God, that makes God ultimately responsible. God could have averted the apostasy, by granting the authorization.
Think about what you are saying, some more, please.
How could God have prevented other people from turning away from God?

I'me not saying that He would. I'm saying that (based on your LDS thology) God could have authorized John to appoint replacement Apostles, averting the complete apostasy which you believe to place.

Apostasy refers to a turning away from God. Remember?

Absolutely. But, PacMan has told me that John had the authority but not the authorization from God. For the reason of unrighteousness the land (again, according to PacMan), God didn't give John the authorization too call new Apostles, which could have averted the apostasy (to my thinking). And, my question becomes, when in the history of man, was there a time of righteousness in the world?

Do you think God would ever take away our agency (or our power to choose) to follow God?

Before that point in a persons life, when he/she is "saved," "born-again," given new life, given the light of Christ BY Christ the Savior, do they have the inherent agency to do good, even the good of choosing Christ? Hint: Eph. 2:1-10.

If you think so, you are free to think again.

After you read the Eph. passage, tell me what YOU think.

Paul Ray · October 18, 2007

I'm saying that (based on your LDS thology) God could have authorized John to appoint replacement Apostles, averting the complete apostasy which you believe to place.

Do you think it would be proper for me to state that our Lord could have appointed people who rejected (and would continue to reject) his teachings as his replacements for his authorized apostles?

Do you really think God could have done that?

... PacMan has told me that John had the authority but not the authorization from God. For the reason of unrighteousness the land (again, according to PacMan), God didn't give John the authorization too call new Apostles, which could have averted the apostasy (to my thinking). And, my question becomes, when in the history of man, was there a time of righteousness in the world?

Heh, are you suggesting there has always been an apostasy?

I suppose for some, that is right, but our Lord considers all who truly follow him (and his teachings) to be righteous... to the extent that they follow him.

Before that point in a persons life, when he/she is "saved," "born-again," given new life, given the light of Christ BY Christ the Savior, do they have the inherent agency to do good, even the good of choosing Christ? Hint: Eph. 2:1-10.

Yes.

If not, how could anyone ever choose to be "saved" or "born-again" or given new life or receive the light of Christ BY Christ the Savior to begin with?

After you read the Eph. passage, tell me what YOU think.

We are a product of our own choices and God will never force us, or anyone else, to do anything.

Hell, therefore, is the fruit of what we have chosen to accept, and reject.

BCSpace · October 18, 2007

I'me not saying that He would. I'm saying that (based on your LDS thology) God could have authorized John to appoint replacement Apostles, averting the complete apostasy which you believe to place.

I don't reject such a possibility, but the fact of the matter is that it didn't happen probably because the universal apostasy was already prophesied (Rev 13:7 etc.) and we indeed see that the early Christian Church changed the doctrines wholesale.

Do you think God would ever take away our agency (or our power to choose) to follow God?
Before that point in a persons life, when he/she is "saved," "born-again," given new life, given the light of Christ BY Christ the Savior, do they have the inherent agency to do good, even the good of choosing Christ? Hint: Eph. 2:1-10.

No one is saved in this life. Even Paul testified that he was not saved yet (Philippians 3:12-14). One certainly can have the promise of future salvation though. The Bible testifies that one is not saved until after it is determined that you have endured to the end (Matthew 24:13 etc.)

BCSpace · October 18, 2007

After you read the Eph. passage, tell me what YOU think.

I have read it, but I do not take it out of context as you do. No LDS person rejects the notion that it is the free gift of grace that is the operation that saves (faith and works being merely requirements).

Because grace is what God has done for us that we cannot do for oursleves, we do not boast of the Bible required works. Jesus himself proclaimed that good works are required for salvation (Matthew 25:31-46).

soren · October 18, 2007

I really don't care about Nephi's vision in this regard, and how much detail it does or does not include--that specific importance is a strawman and has very little bearing onâ?¦

I havenâ??t made a straw man argument. I have simply made an argument that you donâ??t care about. I canâ??t count the number of times I have encountered Mormons rebutting Biblical verses that teach the continuity of the Church through history by pointing out that those verses do not mention priesthood authority. The reply goes something like, â??We donâ??t say the light of Christ was totally taken from the earth; only that authority was lost.â? (Since the Moroni 7 defines the light of Christ as the ability to distinguish good from evil, given universally to men, we are not overwhelmed by this distinction.) Now I cannot recall if you have ever argued that way yourself, but the argument is so common among Mormons that I donâ??t hesitate to apply the same standard to LDS proof texts. You can dismiss this argument if you like, but if you do, you must either justify placing on defenders of the historic Church the burden of proving priesthood authority or else abandon that mode of argument. Otherwise it will not be a straw man on my part, but special pleading on yours. But be warned, if you dismiss rigor on the topic of priesthood authority, you unloose a tidal wave of Biblical evidence to confute a total apostasy.

In any case, I cannot be accused of straw man argumentation because that would involve some misrepresentation of the LDS position. Yet I have done no such thing. I have measured it by a standard directly warranted by the definition of Great Apostasy itself.

Soren,
You're missing two very important things...
1) You're promulgating argumentum ad ignorantium. What's your point?
2) Your argument fails the commons sense test. If the populace was KILLED OFF, I daresay that the singular event speaks volumes as to a loss o priesthood (not to mention, again, and again, that the righteous would be killed off if they fell and didn't repent....sound like apostasy to me).
PacMan

The populace was killed off as far as the Nephite Church, but a universal apostasy must include both churches, in the New World and the Old World. The BOM provides no evidence for a complete apostasy in the Old World but rather the contrary inasmuch as 1 Nephi 13 expressive a Luther-like doctrine os ecclesiastical captivity, which is not a total apostasy.

Paul Ray · October 18, 2007

I have read it, but I do not take it out of context as you do. No LDS person rejects the notion that it is the free gift of grace that is the operation that saves (faith and works being merely requirements).
Because grace is what God has done for us that we cannot do for oursleves, we do not boast of the Bible required works. Jesus himself proclaimed that good works are required for salvation (Matthew 25:31-46).

Some good thoughts, but I think it is basically LOVE that saves us.

LOVE from our Father, manifest through our Savior, and LOVE from us, which motivates us to do what our Father tells us to do... as our Lord did.

... including accepting our Lord and our Lord's authorized representatives, who will teach us.

I'm always ready to learn more about the things our Father has to teach us.

BCSpace · October 18, 2007

I have read it, but I do not take it out of context as you do. No LDS person rejects the notion that it is the free gift of grace that is the operation that saves (faith and works being merely requirements).
Because grace is what God has done for us that we cannot do for oursleves, we do not boast of the Bible required works. Jesus himself proclaimed that good works are required for salvation (Matthew 25:31-46).
Some good thoughts, but I think it is basically LOVE that saves us.
LOVE from our Father, manifest through our Savior, and LOVE from us, which motivates us to do what our Father tells us to do... as our Lord did.
... including accepting our Lord and our Lord's authorized representatives, who will teach us.
I'm always ready to learn more about the things our Father has to teach us.

Amen. For God so loved the world.....Love, Grace, same thing in my mind.

Bob Betts · October 18, 2007

Please go into an in depth view of BC taking it out of context. So far you just have asserted it. Asserting it doesnt make it so.

I said, "I've gone over this already with someone else." That means, I didn't just assert it and make it so. Thank you for paying attention to what I actually say from now on. Now, I'm not going to do a running commentary on half of chapters 13 and 14. But, a few questions and comments are below in red.

Rev 13

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the bsea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his apower, and his seat, and great authority.

3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? Who were the dragon and the beast that everyone worshipped after the deaths of the Apostles?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. How does "forty and two months" of the beast speaking "great things and blasphemies" fit into the LDS belief in an apostasy after the deaths of the Apostles?

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. Who is this beast who made war with the saints after the deaths of the Apostles, according to LDS belief, and what is the historical evidence for it?

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the abook of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So, who is this beast whom all the people worshipped, whose names are not written in the Lambs book of life? There are two people groups spoken of: those who worship the beast, and those who don't. After the deaths of the Apostels, was the whole world worshipping a beast? If so, who?

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. Here comes another beast, after the death of the Apostles. Who is THIS second beast, according to LDS belief?

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. So, the first beast had a deadly wound that was healed, and the second beast exercised the power of the first beast, to cause everyone to worship the first beast. How is any of this relevant to the alleged apostasy after the deaths of the Apostles. And, since the beast-worship was world-wide, why is there no mention of it in the BoM or D&C, since it certainly would have affected the ministries of John and the 3 Nephites.

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, Hmmm. Is there any record of some beast doing great wonders and making fire come down on the earth in the sight of men, sometime after the deaths of the Apostles?

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. Okay, where in recorded history, anytime following the deaths of the Apostles, did the miracle-working beast, tell the world's inhabitants to make an image to the beast who was wounded by a sword, and lived?

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. So, now the image of the beast, which the inhabitants of the world made, takes on a life of its own, and anyone who doesn't worship it, is killed. Any clues as to what this is talking about in the scheme of the time following the deaths of the Apostles?

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is awisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Need I go further? This is all last days stuff, which has yet to happen. There is nothing in any of the above verses which is remotely similar to recorded history following the deaths of the Apostles.

Rev 14:1-9

1 And I looked, and, lo, a aLamb stood on the mount bSion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Fatherâ??s cname written in their foreheads.