Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Paul Ray]

Bob,

Just in case you are interested, there is a very good book on the Great Apostasy.

It's called the Great Apostasy, and it was written by James E. Talmage, an apostle.

... and you can order a paperback for only $14.95, by clicking on this.

I think it covers more true doctrine than you will get in this thread, from all of us here, no matter how long this thread continues and keeps continuing.

And btw, since some people reading this thread still don't seem to get it, the Great Apostasy is simply a term that refers to the great "turning away" of people from the true teachings of the gospel that were taught by our Lord and his apostles... and does not refer, as some seem to think, as an event where ALL people turned away from ALL truth, even gospel truth, that has ever been taught on this Earth.

... except in the sense that if people turn away from ALL the truth they once had, they no longer have ALL of it.

[BCSpace]

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.

By your own logic, then there has to be a universal apostasy at some time. But nowhere have you shown that this must not take place soon after the deaths of the original apostles. On the other hand it is easily shown that the early Christians knew of and taught the impending universal apostasy. Shall I show you?

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?

Obfuscation. This takes place before the overcomming of the saints.

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?

More obfuscation. The saints were completely overcome.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book 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?

No, all you can get from that verse is that none of the names of all who were left on the earth were written in the book of life. This matches quite well what was written in the Pastor of Hermas (considered scripture by Christians of the time) that the last chance to become part of the Church was nigh at hand, that the church to come would be inferior regarding salvation, until it was restored in the latter days.

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.

The Apostasy of the early Christian Church is indeed mentioned in our other scriptures.

As for John and the Three, there is no constraint upon them to continue the earthly Church (especially since it was Bible predicted to fall). Notice that the Church on this continent also fell away no long after (at best) the Church in the East.

[PacMan]

Bob,

If you’d be so kind and edit your #487 so that the quotes line up, I’d appreciate it. Make sure that the quotes begin with [(open bracket) quote (closed bracket)]; and end [(open bracket) /quote (closed bracket)]....(I know you're not an idiot, but sometimes I am. I posted it without the bracket references, and it made a quote of it all....hence the needless specificity.)

With the long posts, it’s really hard to keep track of who said what, and what point you’re trying to make. Not to mention, it’s a bit rough on the eyes. Thanks.

Soren,

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.

As to your special pleading, I’ll ask for demurrer on that one unless you don’t go with the code…for which I’ll motion FRCP 12(b_)(6) because your threat doesn’t make any sense and is based on anything but fact. Not only that, but your huffy, over-emphatic-ness does little to quiver me boots. But keep trying brute intimidation via a posting board….I’m sure it’ll work someday.

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.

Again. A strawman. What does this "contrary" apparently implicate? There is nothing that expressly or implicitly suggests that there was no complete apostasy in the new world. So let’s back up. What verse suggests that the church survived, after it’s members were destroyed via mass genocide? Unless I’m completely misunderstanding your position (which I am most hopeful is the case), I find your theory perplexingly moot.

Cheers,

PacMan

[BCSpace]

I don't mind the notion of an 'ecclesiastical captivity'. The Church itself is never destroyed, but for a period of time the earthly manifestation of that Church is withdrawn. Notice that some Catholic scholars don't see Matthew 16:18 as evidence for the permenance of the earthly Church, but rather an eventual victory over sin and death (Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, 17)

[Bob Betts]

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?

No, why would I think it proper for you to say THAT?

Do you really think God could have done that?

No, and I'm thoroughly confused by the question.

... 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.

By definition of the word, "apostasy," yes. There have always been people who have fallen away from faith. Just not ever a complete apostasy of faith. There's an apostasy going on from your church as well, and has been from the beginning. And, that's why there are several dozen Mormon denominations. I've calculated it out, and by the time your church is 2,000 years old, you'll have as many denominations then, as we have now.

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?

What do verses 4 and 5 say? "Quicken" means "to make alive."

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.

This may be what your church teaches, but it's not supported in the Bible. Not that God will force us to do anything, but that we are simply products of our own choices. It was not the choice of the people in Noah's day, or of Lot's day, that they be destroyed from the earth because of their unrighteousness. But, they were anyway. It was not Adam' and Eve's choice to be prevented from eating of the tree of life in Eden, but God prevented them from it anyway. God's will and agency trumps man's whenever He chooses. God's the boss of our agency. When Christ wooed me to Himself and saved me, I wasn't on a deliberate or serious hunt, seeking for Christ.

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

Before Christ saves anyone, they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). Therefore, what good can someone do who is spiritually dead? The only fruit that spiritually dead people can produce is dead fruit. Until we are made alive in Christ, and the HG indwells us, we cannot produce good, living fruit. Spiritually dead people don't do works that are pleasing to God. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Spiritually dead people don't have faith, and can only sin. That's their only agency...to sin...until they're made alive in Christ.

[BCSpace]

By definition of the word, "apostasy," yes. There have always been people who have fallen away from faith. Just not ever a complete apostasy of faith. There's an apostasy going on from your church as well, and has been from the beginning. And, that's why there are several dozen Mormon denominations. I've calculated it out, and by the time your church is 2,000 years old, you'll have as many denominations then, as we have now.

But that means that some church has preserved the original doctrines over the last 2000 years. There is no such Church and thus the need for the Bible predicted restitution of all things. Only the LDS Church meets the doctrinal reuqirements as we are the only Christian Church whose doctrine the Bible does not conflict with.

The heresies of the trinity, creation ex nihilo, traducianism (aka original sin) sola fide, sola scirptura, OSAS, etc. etc. were not extant in the early Christian church and certainly not the Bible and yet these are the doctrines which nonLDS Christianity has created and preserved.

[BCSpace]

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

This may be what your church teaches, but it's not supported in the Bible. Not that God will force us to do anything, but that we are simply products of our own choices. It was not the choice of the people in Noah's day, or of Lot's day, that they be destroyed from the earth because of their unrighteousness.

Actually, it WAS because of their own choices. Notice the princple found in Jeremiah 18:1-10. God actually responds to the choices we make therefore we are indeed the products of our own choices as the Bible says.

[BCSpace]

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

Before Christ saves anyone, they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). Therefore, what good can someone do who is spiritually dead? The only fruit that spiritually dead people can produce is dead fruit. Until we are made alive in Christ, and the HG indwells us, we cannot produce good, living fruit. Spiritually dead people don't do works that are pleasing to God. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Spiritually dead people don't have faith, and can only sin. That's their only agency...to sin...until they're made alive in Christ.

I don't think any LDS person would disagree here (except for the EV concept of indwelling). But how does this not make hell the fruit of our actions? Such fruit certainly seems dead to me!

[BCSpace]

God's will and agency trumps man's whenever He chooses. God's the boss of our agency. When Christ wooed me to Himself and saved me, I wasn't on a deliberate or serious hunt, seeking for Christ.

This would seem to violate John 6:44. God entices us, He does not force us. True that God can override our choices forcefully, but that does not change the fact that we still chose to do it in the first place.

[Paul Ray]

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?

No, why would I think it proper for you to say THAT?

No, and I'm thoroughly confused by the question.

Okay, then what is it that leads you to believe God bears the responsibility for the apostasy of other people who do not follow God?

Our Lord says "Follow me" and when people don't choose to follow him, they choose to apostasize.

I say it isn't God's fault that people do not choose to follow God, or turn away from him.

You seem to be saying it was God who caused the apostasy of other people.

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.

By definition of the word, "apostasy," yes. There have always been people who have fallen away from faith. Just not ever a complete apostasy of faith.

I thought we cleared that up already.

There was never a "complete" apostasy, in the sense I think you mean it.

We still have words of the apostles that were written in the Holy Bible.

We still have all the writings that we have in the Old Testament.

What we don't have are apostles... or at least we didn't until the priesthood of God was restored.

Without apostles there can be no unity, because it is the work of the apostles to bring us into unity.

... they are the general authorities with the authority to establish... and correct... local leaders.

The Great Apostasy was directly related to people turning away from the teachings of our Lord through his true apostles.

Without leadership over the whole church, the church became divided over matters of doctrine in which they were not in agreement.... they were not united.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you really haven't been listening, Bob.

There's an apostasy going on from your church as well, and has been from the beginning.

People are apostasizing, individually, but the church as a whole is still united.

Every local church in the true church of Jesus Christ all over the world sustains and follows the apostles as general authorities over the whole church of Christ, generally.

Why don't you and/or your church sustain and follow the true apostles of our Lord, Bob?

And, that's why there are several dozen Mormon denominations. I've calculated it out, and by the time your church is 2,000 years old, you'll have as many denominations then, as we have now.

I assume you must be counting the apostate groups as being among the true church of Christ.

I don't count them as being among us, or among the true church of Jesus Christ, Bob.

This may be what your church teaches, but it's not supported in the Bible. Not that God will force us to do anything, but that we are simply products of our own choices.

Think again. And please think as much as you want to think.

It was not the choice of the people in Noah's day, or of Lot's day, that they be destroyed from the earth because of their unrighteousness.

You said it yourself, Bob. They were destroyed because of their unrighteousness.

... and who made them unrighteous, or who made them make unrighteous choices?

Hint: It wasn't God.

God's the boss of our agency. When Christ wooed me to Himself and saved me, I wasn't on a deliberate or serious hunt, seeking for Christ.

But you were the one who did choose to follow Christ, weren't you?

... or did someone else force you to follow him... without your consent?

Before Christ saves anyone, they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).

Yes, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to be saved by our Savior.

It is their choice to be saved, if they want to be.

Therefore, what good can someone do who is spiritually dead?

They can be made alive, by accepting and following our Savior.

The only fruit that spiritually dead people can produce is dead fruit.

Yes, but they can choose to be made alive and then produce some good fruit.

Until we are made alive in Christ, and the HG indwells us, we cannot produce good, living fruit.

Right, and who is responsible for our decision to be saved, or made alive?

If a person doesn't choose to be saved can they then blame God for not doing his part to save them?

Spiritually dead people don't do works that are pleasing to God.

You are being very repititious.

You keep saying the same thing again and over again with different words.

I hope you now understand that you are responsible for the choices you made and are making.

Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Spiritually dead people don't have faith, and can only sin. That's their only agency...to sin...until they're made alive in Christ.

So anyone with any faith in Jesus Christ is made alive in Jesus Christ, and anyone who doesn't have any faith in him is spiritually dead.

Do you know how to get faith if you don't have any, Bob?

If so, then I suppose you know what to tell other people so they can obtain faith.

So what would you tell someone who didn't have any faith in Jesus Christ?

What could you say or do to help them know how to be saved?

I recommend that people pray and/or ask God about anything they want to know with faith that God will eventually answer, and then with that faith will come a sweet assurance that God has actually answered their prayer(s).

Any person with that kind of faith can ask God anything and get an answer from God, personally.

... even on matters involving who is who isn't an authorized servant of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

[Bob Betts]

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.)

Not so, as I've delt with today.

and we indeed see that the early Christian Church changed the doctrines wholesale.

I don't see that.

No one is saved in this life. Even Paul testified that he was not saved yet (Philippians 3:12-14).

That's not what Paul said at all. He didn't say, "I'm not saved yet. You've misinterpreted Paul and taken him out of context. Why would he then speak with absolute confidence about his commonwealth in heaven (20-21)? Why would he talk about salvation in the past tense in Eph 2, saying, "by grace you have been saved" (vs. 5 and 8}? And, in Eph. 1, why would he talk in the past tense about being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, after believing in Christ (vs. 13-14)? You obviously don't understand that salvation in today, now.

2 Cor. 6: 2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a atime accepted, and in the bday of csalvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

[Bob Betts]

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).

We must be reading different Bibles. Eph. 2:9 in my Bible says, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And, BTW, here's your LDS definition of "grace" taken from lds.scripture.org:

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of manâ??s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, â??It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can doâ? (2 Ne. 25: 23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible. This principle is expressed in Jesusâ?? parable of the vine and the branches (John 15: 1-11). See also John 1: 12-17; Eph. 2: 8-9; Philip. 4: 13; D&C 93: 11-14

So, in Mormonism, grace is not the unmerited or undeserved favor from God as in the Greek definition, but it must be earned.

[Bob Betts]

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).

Oh, I missed Matt. 25:31-46.

No, Jesus did NOT proclaim that good works are required for salvation. He recognized the good works of those He had already saved...unless you're going to continue to cherry-pick passages of scripture out of context with all other salvation-related scriptures.

[BCSpace]

Test quote

Apologies. Quotes seem not to be working for you or me at the moment.

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.)

Not so, as I've delt with today.

You answered no questions. You did prove that there must a universal apostasy sometime after the orignal Apostles. And you obfuscated.

and we indeed see that the early Christian Church changed the doctrines wholesale.

I don't see that

Then we'll give you a primer.....

Where are the doctrines of degrees of salvation and the preaching of the gospel and salvation of those who are dead (passed on to the next life) in modern nonLDS Christianity? They were extant in ECF doctrine. What happened?

No one is saved in this life. Even Paul testified that he was not saved yet (Philippians 3:12-14).

That's not what Paul said at all. He didn't say, "I'm not saved yet. You've misinterpreted Paul and taken him out of context.

How so? Here is the verse set.....

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 3:12-14

There is something else besides the resurrection of the dead that he is trying to apprehend. What is it? What is this high calling that is the prize he presses to?

Why would he then speak with absolute confidence about his commonwealth in heaven (20-21)? Why would he talk about salvation in the past tense in Eph 2, saying, "by grace you have been saved" (vs. 5 and 8}? And, in Eph. 1, why would he talk in the past tense about being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, after believing in Christ (vs. 13-14)? You obviously don't understand that salvation in today, now.

2 Cor. 6: 2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a atime accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

Why would Jesus say that you must endure to the end first? Matthew 24:13. Why does Paul say that to be made partakers of Christ we must hold our confidence steadfast until the end? Hebrews 3:14. Why would Paul ask us to take care of (fear) our belief lest we fall short of the promise of entering into God's rest? Hebrews 4:1?

And why would a Greek Lexicon (Strongs and Thayers in this case) show 'salvation' in many (if not all) of the verses to gave to actually be a promise of future reward depending on conditions met?

Even the BoM mimics the Bible in stating: Alma 34:31 Yea, I would that ye would come forth and aharden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the bday of your csalvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and dharden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.

Incorrect as the context in the next verse states that now is the time for the Zoramites to prepare to meet God (having been preached to, they have their chance before them). These people are soon to go to war and many will shortly meet their maker.

Of course your own logic has set up conflicts between the Bible verses we have mentioned above.

A verse not to be taken out of context with all other salvation-related scriptures, as if this is the only verse on the subject. If you exclude all other salvation-related scriptures, sure you'll assume that salvation isn't assured until such a determination of enduring to the end.

Indeed. But our doctrine has incorporated all verses on the subject and even the original meanings whereas yours has not and is merely selective.

But, if you include this verse with all other salvation-related scriptures, and in context, then enduring to the end is one of several expectations on those who already have been saved, along with loving God, loving your neighbor, doing the will of the Father, etc.

It is presented as a command/requirement. Certainly that is what expectations are anyway. I'm glad you agree.....

These things all demonstrate that one really HAS been saved, not that they won't be saved until they do those things. Salvation is secured to those who have been saved, unless they prove they weren't really saved by NOT fulfilling the expectations of the Christian life. This is precisely what James was talking about in his letter, chapter 2:14ff. Faith without works is dead faith. A faith that IS alive in Christ WILL be a saved life of good works, of loving God and neighbor, and enduring to the end.

Ah! The typical EV out. He wasn't really saved. The OSAS heresy. Peter has some words for you....

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 2 Peter 2:20

Here, according to EV logic, are the truly saved becomming unsaved. Even the angels of God are not spared (vs 4).

[Bob Betts]

Ok. It looks like you have more question than answers.

By laying out the questions, as Christ frequently did with people, I've demonstrated that the details of chapter 13 don't fit anything that happened in the immediate post-apostolic era.

unfortuantly most of what is in revelations i just that.

This is an incomplete phrase which i cannot address.

As for me bringing up the speculative parts I guess I shouldnt have.

You have offered no "context" to these verses.

I'm not a verse-by-verse expert commentator on the book of the Revelation. So, I can't add context, but I can demonstrate from the context that the text doesn't speak of a complete apostasy of priesthood keys and authority, following the deaths of the Apostles.

We know that some time during this earth that the beast who = satan or Satans minions will make war with the saints who = the Church of Christ. The beast will win for a time wich is 42 months. Then after that time an angel will have the everlasting gospel to preach to them on earth. It sounds Like a great apostacy to me. Do you have bible verses that show that the apostacy should happen latter.

Not at my finger tips, but we know it's in the last days, so the time is near.

I think the bible by its self is silent on the matter as to when this is going to happen.

No man knoweth the day or the hour, that's correct. But, the signs we were given as to the times,... we're close.

Thankfully for us we have latter day prohpets, you do not.

You're wrong. I DO have a latter-day Prophet, and I follow Him...daily...hourly...moment by moment. He is my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

You cannot confirm your speculation that the apostacy wich is spoken of here hasnt taken place yet. It simply is to vague.

That's your opinion. The sign which Christ and His Apostles gave were not vague. Some of them are happening in this generation, as we speak.

Remeber Amos 3:7

Are you claiming to be a prophet who can clear this matter up?

No. I'm claiming that the Prophet, Jesus Christ and His Apostles made it clear enough in the Word of God.

BTW, Amos 3:7 does not tell us to follow human prophets. It doesn't even insinuate to follow the prophets. The only One Who was ever followed as a Prophet, and should be still, is Jesus Christ.

Bob, when I have more time I will respond more in depth on your red questions. ok?

Sure.

[BCSpace]

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).

Oh, I missed Matt. 25:31-46.

Yes you did. And you;re still missing it as all you have is a denial and you have not really even addressed it.

No, Jesus did NOT proclaim that good works are required for salvation. He recognized the good works of those He had already saved...unless you're going to continue to cherry-pick passages of scripture out of context with all other salvation-related scriptures.

No, he said nothing about anyone already being saved (as if there were such a thing). He simply gathered the sheep who had done the works on his right and the goats who had not done the works on his left and sent the ones on the left to hell because they had not done the works and sent the ones on the right to heaven because they had done the works.

Therefore, Jesus said works are required for salvation.

[Zemah]

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.

On the first point: No church since the first church of apostles has produced scripture except for the LDS Church. This is the evidence that the Holy Ghost did not speak to any other Church except for the LDS Church in restoration of what was lost. Hence, there was an apostasy of receiving the Holy Ghost (the Word of God) at a church organizational level.

What first existed has been restored in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On the second point: The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that can lay claim to being the continuation of the first church of saints under the authority of apostles. Yet they do not have an apostolic order in their church structure and they do not produce saints except after death. No apostolic order (of the Melchizedek priesthood) equals a lose of the power to confer sainthood upon the living through the laying on of hands in receipt of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is (in part) the right and privilege to receive revelation for one's self and family.

Hence, there was an apostasy of the apostolic priesthood. This too has been restored in the LDS Church.

What first existed has been restored in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On a new point: No other church can claim themselves as a continuation of the first church. All other churches (organized religions) which branch out of the Roman Catholic Church, are absent of revelation and the apostolic order of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Zemah

[consiglieri]

We must be reading different Bibles. Eph. 2:9 in my Bible says, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And, BTW, here's your LDS definition of "grace" taken from lds.scripture.org: So, in Mormonism, grace is not the unmerited or undeserved favor from God as in the Greek definition, but it must be earned.

Here, I agree with you, Bob. Grace cannot be earned. If grace is "earned," it is no longer grace, but reward, as Paul aptly notes in Romans.

God commended his grace toward us in that he sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us, while we were yet in our sins.

And I think you might be surprised at the number of Mormons on this board who agree with this.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

BTW, Amos 3:7 does not tell us to follow human prophets. It doesn't even insinuate to follow the prophets. The only One Who was ever followed as a Prophet, and should be still, is Jesus Christ.

Sure.

On this one, we will have to disagree.

It seems obvious that the children of Israel followed Moses out of bondage in Egypt.

Moses was a prophet.

Hence, the children of Israel followed a prophet out of bondage in Egypt.

If they had waited to follow Jesus, they would have been in bondage a lot longer, it seems to me.

I think that you the reason you are forced into defending this untenable position is that you claim to have no living prophet.

The biblical fact of the matter is that, whenever God had a people on the earth he called his own, there was a prophet at the head to guide them.

The fact that you do not even claim to have a living prophet means that you are out of step with every page of the Bible.

This causes cognitive dissonance in one who proclaims to believe the Bible to be inerrant.

The way you are trying to resolve this cognitive dissonance is by saying that nobody in the Bible ever followed any prophet but Jesus.

I hope this works for you. It wouldn't for me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

Just in case you are interested, there is a very good book on the Great Apostasy.

It's called the Great Apostasy, and it was written by James E. Talmage, an apostle.

... and you can order a paperback for only $14.95, by clicking on this.

Thank you. I'll look in our CC LDS library and see if we have a copy.

I think it covers more true doctrine than you will get in this thread, from all of us here, no matter how long this thread continues and keeps continuing.

And btw, since some people reading this thread still don't seem to get it, the Great Apostasy is simply a term that refers to the great "turning away" of people from the true teachings of the gospel that were taught by our Lord and his apostles... and does not refer, as some seem to think, as an event where ALL people turned away from ALL truth, even gospel truth, that has ever been taught on this Earth.

... except in the sense that if people turn away from ALL the truth they once had, they no longer have ALL of it.

Paul, you are defining the "Great Apostasy" differently than the PMG manual I quoted from in my OP. You seem to be watering down what the manual says.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

BTW, Amos 3:7 does not tell us to follow human prophets. It doesn't even insinuate to follow the prophets. The only One Who was ever followed as a Prophet, and should be still, is Jesus Christ.

Hmmm. Why then does God call prophets. Are they not men on earth that speak the will of the Lord? Why have them then if we arent going to follow them. What is the point. What does Amos 3:7 mean, and how do you come to the conclusion that you do. Did not the children of Israel "follow" Moses? How about Jerimiah. I seem to remember the children of Israel being undercondemnation for not following the prophets. Do not prophets speak the words of Chirst? (I know I asked this already) Im really confused. Witch isnt the 1st time that has happened.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

If youâ??d be so kind and edit your #487 so that the quotes line up, Iâ??d appreciate it. Make sure that the quotes begin with [(open bracket) quote (closed bracket)]; and end [(open bracket) /quote (closed bracket)]....(I know you're not an idiot, but sometimes I am. I posted it without the bracket references, and it made a quote of it all....hence the needless specificity.)

With the long posts, itâ??s really hard to keep track of who said what, and what point youâ??re trying to make. Not to mention, itâ??s a bit rough on the eyes. Thanks.

Cheers,

PacMan

I tried, PacMan, I really did. I read it and reread it and messed with it at least a dozen times trying to fix it, until I finally gave up. I've been able to fix any other post I've done which was like that, but I can't find the problem in 487. If you or anyone else finds the bracket error, let me know. I'll be more than happy to fix it.

[PacMan]

Bob,

So, in Mormonism, grace is not the unmerited or undeserved favor from God as in the Greek definition, but it must be earned.

Strawman! Your summary of our position is logically untenable, and confuses the issue. I'm not really sure whether you are really so far in left-field that you don't realize you're perjurying your own objectivity, are doing so complelety in ignorance, or are simply disingeneous. Your ability to synthesize information and draw conveniently lame conclusion from them is disheartening...and you do it too often. Permit me to demonstrate:

Grace IS completely unmerited and undeserved. The fact that Christ permits us to come unto him and be baptized unto remitting our sins is completely due to His grace--and undeserved. Baptism hasn't been some self-existing, metaphysical product from the becomings of the universe for which we can solely take hold of for our own purposes... It is completely available because of His atonement (and thus grace). The fact is, we're in a hole called sin, and he's past a rope down to us. He will not force us to take hold of his grace...that is our work. But once we do and do it with all our might, His grace IS sufficient to pull us out.

How could His grace be "insufficient" you ask? To say it is completely sufficient to save all men with complete disrespect to their own actions insinuates that God babies the lazy, which is antithetical to both justice and mercy. If He didn't put even minimalistic demands on the efficacy of His grace, there'd be no reason for any movement of Christianity to exist, for we'd all be saved regardless of what we believed! That minimalistic demands that He HAS placed on us, are what Paul refers to as "works," which in their entireties are extensions of His grace.

I am stunned that you obfuscate such a simple notion.

P.S. Will you fix the quotes on your last response to me, please?

PacMan

[PacMan]

BB,

On the problematic post, try this: Take out the original quote with the date, etc. Then break it up into two posts. That's worked for me. I wonder if the system just gets confused.

Appreciate the effort,

PacMan

[Bob Betts]

BTW, Amos 3:7 does not tell us to follow human prophets. It doesn't even insinuate to follow the prophets. The only One Who was ever followed as a Prophet, and should be still, is Jesus Christ.

Hmmm. Why then does God call prophets. Are they not men on earth that speak the will of the Lord?

By definition of the Hebrew word, nabi, they're mouthpieces of God.

Why have them then if we arent going to follow them. What is the point.

We're to listen to them, assuming they're true prophets/mouthpieces of God.

What does Amos 3:7 mean, and how do you come to the conclusion that you do.

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

God revealed His messages to the "mouthpieces of God," to be delivered to whomever. The "mouthpieces of God" delivered the messages. Then, in due time, God acted on His messages, which His mouthpieces delivered for Him. Nowhere in this verse, nor anywhere else, does God instruct His people to follow any "mouthpieces."

Did not the children of Israel "follow" Moses?

No, they (and Moses) followed the Lord through the desert:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: 22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

How about Jerimiah.

You'll have to be specific.

I seem to remember the children of Israel being undercondemnation for not following the prophets.

I don't know what you're trying to remember. So, I will assume that what they were condemned for was not obeying the message, which were delivered by His mouthpieces.

Do not prophets speak the words of Chirst?

Yes, as "mouthpieces of God," not as humans to be followed. Throughout the Bible, the Lord is the only one we are ever to follow, not humans. However God uses us as humans, we are not to be followed. We are always supposed to cause people to look to and follow the Lord, only. Following prophets was not a biblical concept or practice. Adhering to the messages of God, delivered by His mouthpieces, WAS a biblical concept and practice.

BTW, the Bible speaks of no OT-like prophets, since Christ:

Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Note also, that God spoke to the fathers in the past by the mouthpieces of God. It says nothing about anyone following them.

(I know I asked this already) Im really confused. Witch isnt the 1st time that has happened.

I hope I've helped clear this up for you.

BB,

On the problematic post, try this: Take out the original quote with the date, etc. Then break it up into two posts. That's worked for me. I wonder if the system just gets confused.

Appreciate the effort,

PacMan

Thank you for the suggestion. I will address it at my earliest convenience. I must log out for now.