Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[owl]

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.

I think that LDS see 'Follow the Prophets' as a phrase which expanded would be, 'Follow the teachings and good example of the Mouthpiece of God'. Lets not quibble then about following the prophets.

The question is not whether we should follow the prophets meaning their teachings. The question is whether the Word of God as recorded in the Bible is sufficient to cover all the situations we face today with only our own understanding of the sometimes garbled words of the ancient prophets, or should the Lord grant us inspired leaders today.

[owl]

I disagree. I believe that God is the preserver the doctrines as we find them today in His written Word which he preserved.

Hmmm. How do you even trust ANY of the Bible, if you believe that the canonization and the resulting canon, were in the hands of the Great and Abominable Church throughout the 1,700-year apostasy?

I feel it was almost a miracle that we have as much of the early scriptures preserved in the Bible as we do. Of course we miss the parts that are corrupted or lost but we can see through a cloud darkly the glimmer of truth.

A completely false statement, and I have no time to get into all of it. Maybe over time.

I look forward to your exposition of the Biblical justification for the doctrines mentioned as introduced changes.

[PacMan]

Bob,

Thanks to Paul, I got it. Here's my response to your previous post:

PacMan: 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.

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

No, you stand corrected. I made a statement concerning God ‘making’ the apostasy. You asked for a CFR, and concerning my interpretation of ‘make,’ I made the statement.

PacMan: Not to mention it’d go strictly against the doctrine of agency (if you want a quote on that, I’ll dig something up…but I don’t want to waste time on the obvious).

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

Unlimited agency? I don’t know what that is, but I DO know that God will allow people to kick themselves to hell. If that’s not unlimited agency, then I don’t know what is…nor do I understand how it’s contra-biblical.

Bob: 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?

PacMan: That was a direct consequence of the miss-used agency of the earth (or its inhabitants). So no, God didn’t cut off their agency…they did

Bob: Hold on, PacMan. This makes no sense.

Oh…it makes great sense.

I'll bet you anything that those wicked people did NOT want their agency cut off.

Strawman. I said nothing about what the “want,” but what they did. You obfuscate the issue.

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.

Are you KIDDING?? They could have gotten on the ark, but they used their agency to NOT!! They rejected God…have you read the story of Noah?

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.

Besides it being a run-on sentence, God’s purpose wasn’t “showing who’s the boss.” This isn’t some B-rate soap-opera. They were wicked, rejected God, and received the natural consequence which God warned them of.

God effectively took away their agency, by effectively destroying their humanity.

He did not. Stop blaming God. If you shoot someone, you can’t blame the state for taking away your agency for locking you up. It’s your own darn fault.

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.

Use your agency to pick a path…but you can’t pick your consequences. Didn’t your mother ever teach you this….or are you a liberal democrat that believes in social-welfare overcoming personal responsibility?

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

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

Bob: So, then, how would YOU like to word this?

Easy…Matthias wasn’t the only one.

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.

That’s actually not that bad. The could together (recall Matthias) call a new apostle, but once they went about to preach and were martyred, it was impossible to get together. So yes…it worked for a bit, but was ultimately limited.

PacMan: There were certainly differences…all those offices delineated in Ephesians didn’t happen in a day. Moreover, I doubt new convert adult-males were automatically ordained Priests as they are today. Maybe, but no reason to believe they were.

Bob: 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.

PROOF-TEXT!!! He did NOT say that (whether true or not, he said nothing about ‘all’ believers0. Secondly, you’re mixing paradigms again! He was writing to those established organizations in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So while such held the priesthood, of COURSE they were believers! But there is NOTHING logical about submitting the notion that simply believing sufficed to hold the Priesthood. You’re affirming the consequent again, and committing academic suicide. Your logic is untenable.

PacMan: And no, Matthias, Paul, Barnabas…there are three examples and not just one.

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

Well, James was the first of them all to be martyred, but beyond that…the Bible’s silent. If that means anything to you, then you’re leveraging yet another logical fallacy: ignorantiam.

PacMan: Moreover, that there’s only a example is but ignoratium, and objectively useless.

Bob: 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.

Again…logically untenable. “Should have” is your unproven assertion that I am objectively forced to reject. The only “administrative” issue is that it had the authority to do so. Permit reducio to illustrate: Because God gave you the ability to eat and you currently are not, according to you, He didn’t ever intend for you to eat!

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.

Huh? Whether it’s improved and advance, I really don’t care. It’s the Lord’s church. He can make it better as He sees fit.

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?

If you have two identical cars, and you use one for storage (and never turn it on), you cannot therefore conclude that they run any different. Your notion is logically untenable.

Bob: 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."

Easy…your limited understanding can’t get over 2000 years means nothing to deity. The purpose of the church 2000 years ago (IMHO) was to 1) present witnesses of Christ’s atonement and record their testimonies, 2) save those souls that were possible to be saved, 3) establish His organization in preparation for His millennial reign. Again, the witness of the early saints is tremendously important…1 is obvious. 2, while at it, why not save a few souls? Sounds like the appropriate thing to do! And 3, God isn’t affected by the time between A and B. This notion that he is, is curious. Again, the Apostasy was as much a worry to God as were those summer nights when the Apostles were getting some shut-eye and not proselyting. God will take nature take its course…He’s smart and has it planned out. This issue of time is really, quite nominal.

[PacMan]

PacMan: 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.

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

Whatever. If you think Godâ??s a big freckled bully with a magnifying glass, fine. People chose their consequences through their actionsâ?¦THEY infringe upon their own agency. And while at itâ?¦why donâ??t you CFR agency. I donâ??t think the Bibleâ??s complete anyway (I got a CFR for that), so I donâ??t care whatâ??s not precisely spelled out or silent.

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

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

THEN YOU EXPLAIN HOW ELSE THE NEPHITES WERE TAKEN FROM THE EARTH WHILE STILL ROAMING IT. Brilliantâ?¦

PacMan: 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.

Bob: I have lots of doubt. "Scrounge" away.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that God DOES enjoy seeing His children kick themselves to hell? Because if you doubt what I just said, thatâ??s exactly what youâ??re saying.

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.

Bob: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?

NOW YOU GOT IT!!! CONGRATS! So he can make a promise to one generation, establish an organization, leadership, etc., and fulfill those purposes and promises in latter generations? Yes! Why? Because time doesnâ??t mean a thing to God. You have JUST answered your logical hang-up of the Apostasy!! Think long and hard, because this a riveting example!

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

Bob: 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.

THAT, Iâ??m ok with. Iâ??m not suggesting you have to believe me. You can disagree with meâ?¦but understand, any notion that you have logical or textual proof against the apostasy is faint optimism. We can disagree on the crux of it, but textuallyâ?¦sorry.

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.

Cool. I would love to talk to a witness of Christâ??s resurrection. If youâ??d give me his name, Iâ??d be interested in calling him.

They just don't go around saying, "I'm an apostle" or "I'm a Apostle George."

Of course not. Theyâ??d be embarrassed by it just like Paul and the sons of thunder as they sat in their closets, sucking on their thumbs and thinking of happy places.

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."

Then why did he call 12 Apostles, yet send forth many? If you donâ??t recognize the 12 as anything distinct from the 70, Bishops, etc., (although all sent forth), you aint reading the Bible. Your conflation of terms needs an objective disambiguation.

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

The foundation are the Apostlesâ?¦not simply Peter, James, and John. Youâ??re proof-texting again.

Bob: Quote me, PacMan. Where have I written anything remotely about the foundation being the original 12?

Oh goodâ?¦then you can understand why we consider the current 12 as part of the same foundation.

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

Tu quoque is going to work on me, Bob. First, the succession DIDNâ??T end. John was right there with the resurrected Peter and James when they gave Joseph the Priesthood. They complete an unbroken lineage.

Secondâ?¦where are all the Apostles if theyâ??re needed until weâ??re all unified? Thatâ??s what Paul said, so why donâ??t you believe it? Are you rejecting a scripture of the Bible?

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

Bob: No, and no.

THEN THE BIBLE SAYS WE NEED APOSTLES! Where are they, Bob?

PacMan: Scriptures in context are a bugger.

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

STRAWMAN!! Theyâ??re not movable at all! Whereâ??d you come up with ridiculous notion! Just as Paul, Matthias, etc. are part of that foundation, so are modern day apostles. Thereâ??s nothing to presume that the foundation was anything less than the aggregate.

Cheers,

PacMan

[owl]

After reading Paul Ray’s long post # 1208283432 I thought it worth mentioning a couple things

First that the Apostacy occurred at a time of persecution and difficulty of travel. It is easy to see how it might have been impossible for the apostles, who were traveling to farflung areas and who were having to hide from persecution, to meet together often enough to replentish their numbers.

In modern times travel is so easy and there is such relative religious freedom that it is hard to envision any reason for a disruption of continuity. Failing a terrorist attack on General Conference, there should be no reason to need further heavenly visitors to restore any keys or authority now extant.

Second, that, the era of religious peace ushered in by Constantine was a period of lack of religious freedom. Heretics, often those holding out for the truth, were imprisoned or killed.

The restitution of all things had to await a time when the Bible was available to be read by anyone, and when there was a country with religious freedom. It could not happen when anyone who mentioned an error in the extant church would be burned at the stake.

[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.

No, my above testimony perfectly fits John 6:44. You just used a different word to say the same thing I did. God enticed me. He wooed me. He made Himself appealing to me so that I would choose Him. He didn't force me. He did override my choices, but not by force. Prior to wooing or enticing me, I chose to be an agnostic in by beliefs, while researching the atheistic beliefs. By enticing me, by making Himself appealing to me, He helped me change my perspective of Him, AND subsequently my choices.

Good! Then we are in agreement. There is no predestination.

True that God can override our choices forcefully,

This is what I've been saying. But you just contradicted PacMan who earlier told me that God cannot infringe on our agency.

Pacman is right and there was no contradiction. Overriding our choices does not remove our original choice by agency by extension.

but that does not change the fact that we still chose to do it in the first place.

If God did not choose to lovingly entice me, making Himself appealing to me in ways I would accept, then I would not have chosen Him "in the first place." He chose ME in the first place, evident by the wooing and appealing. John 15:16 (Jesus said) "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

He chose you, but you also had to accept. God will not and cannot override your agency. Instead, He entices and draws and foreordains.

[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.

In the book of the Revelation, there will be a point in the future (last days) when God will remove His Spirit from the earth. THEN there will be a complete apostasy.

You have no basis for your point in time. However, from the pov of the Book of Revelation and Early Christian teaching, they were already in the last days.

But nowhere have you shown that this must not take place soon after the deaths of the original apostles. Your church is the one making the claim. I believe the burden of proof is on you, if you're going to use Rev. 13-14, to demonstrate that that revelation is specifically about the post-apostolic age. The extensive details contained in those chapters, should fit nicely in the history right after the deaths of the Apostles.

The burden of proof as been met. How long did the Apostles continue to refresh their number as required by Ephesians 4:11-14? Not very long after. When did the doctrines of the Christian Church begin to change wholesale? Not very long after.

On the other hand it is easily shown that the early Christians knew of and taught the impending universal apostasy. Shall I show you?

Are you telling me that after the Apostles all died, there was enough authority and knowledge for the remaining Christians to know the truth and teach it?

No, I'm saying that the closer you get to NT times, the more LDS the Orthodox Christian church looks in doctrine. The conundrum for you is that if there was enough authority and knowledge for the remaining Christians to know the truth and teach it (as is your belief) is how come they taught the impending universal apostasy (among many other LDS things)?

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.

Over-generalization. You can't just take such specific and extensive details of the Revelation which you think is about the post-apostolic apostasy, and just throw a generalization on them.

Then you cannot claim the universal apostasy spoken of here must necessarily occur after this very point in time in which we two exist. Thus all the rest of your arguement here becomes non sequitur.

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.

The gnostic writings? Of what time are you speaking? What Christians? Good luck proving THIS to me. Why don't you stick with the Bible for now, since you're currently struggling with connecting the details of Revelation 13 to the alleged post-apostolic apostasy.

NonLDS Christian scholars are way ahead of you......These writings were considered canon by most Orthodox Christians for centuries after they were written, Davies, The Early Christian Church, 81; Ferguson, ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 421

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

Uh-huh. Okay.

Indeed. The link was self-evident.

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).

No, now you're telling a different story, telling me that the four apostles continued the early Church, when others have told me they didn't.

Typical EV strawman. Feel free to highlight the portion of my statement that implies this.

Notice that the Church on this continent also fell away not long after (at best) the Church in the East.

Or, so the story goes.

But, you have now entirely strayed from connecting the details of Revelation 13 to the alleged post-apostolic apostasy (not that you HAVE been addressing the details). Until you demonstrate the details fit your apostasy story, instead of just generalizing a connection, there's no logical connection between the two.

Feel free to point out how I may have strayed whenever you like. Until you can point to a specific area proving your claims, they are simply ex nihilo.

[BCSpace]

But that means that some church has preserved the original doctrines over the last 2000 years.

I disagree. I believe that God is the preserver the doctrines as we find them today in His written Word which he preserved.

Then how come nonLDS christian doctrine significantly contradicts it? (see the list below)

There is no such Church and thus the need for the Bible predicted restitution of all things.

Hmmm. How do you even trust ANY of the Bible, if you believe that the canonization and the resulting canon, were in the hands of the Great and Abominable Church throughout the 1,700-year apostasy?

The BoM tells what the GAC did. They removed portions of it (somehting which the ECF often complained about). Therefore, we LDS have no problem with what's already there.

Only the LDS Church meets the doctrinal requirements as we are the only Christian Church whose doctrine the Bible does not conflict with.

Indeed!

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.

A completely false statement, and I have no time to get into all of it. Maybe over time.

Pick one. You will end up contradicting the Bible every time in your attempt to prove any of these or any other modern christian heresies.

[BCSpace]

Up to the sentence, "What we don't have is apostles." This seems to be saying just what I would think Bob can agree with, but the rest I would think Bob would just say is unnecessary since we have the words of the apostles in the Bible.

Ephesians 4:11-14 says the Church must have all these offices till we all come in unity of the faith. Therefore living prophets and apostles are required in the earthly Church.

[BCSpace]

Bob is right that the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ exists in Heaven. The original 12, less Judas, are there, and they still have their authority, so the Church does exist in Heaven.

No LDS would disagree. There is however the fact of the matter that in the Bible there is no promise of the continuance of the earthly Church and there is the prophecy of the universal apostasy.

Furthermore, at the risk of putting words in his mouth, there is no hope of convincing him of a Great Apostacy between the time of Christ and the present as long as Bob believes that apostles, authority, a church organization, and revelation are not needed on earth.

That's not the purpose of debating with him.

If he believes no organization is necessary on earth, how could there have been a complete apostacy.

That is indeed, his contraBiblical logic.

The words Universal and Apostasy are not found in any of the scriptures.

Neither is the word 'trinity'. But that is not the criteria for a concept to be Biblical.

Bob admits there have been wolves among the flock and a falling away, but thoughout this time, we have had the Scriptures, imperfect as they may be, and there have always been believers, misguided as some of them may have been. There has been continuous access to whatever truth can be found in the Bible, limited as access may have been before printing and before common people could read.

Bob has also admitted that there is a universal apostasy mentioned in the Bible. He simply puts it farther into the future. But his timeline has no basis whereas the LDS one is proven sscripturally (lack of the necessary offices) and historically (the ECF believed in the impending apostasy and over a few short centuries, their doctrine changed wholesale).

[Bernard Gui]

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.

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

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

by the precepts of men."

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

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

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, under the topic Apostasy:

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

One cannot maintain that the Great or Complete Apostasy is not

mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Bernard

[captain-jack]

You have no basis for your point in time. However, from the pov of the Book of Revelation and Early Christian teaching, they were already in the last days.

I'd say ~1600 years could constitute as the beginning of the last days and ~2000 years as the last days.

[consiglieri]

The burning question on my mind is whether Bob Betts will end up writing post #666.

[captain-jack]

I think Selek should have it.

[consiglieri]

Oh, great!

I can see another mad scramble coming our way and cdowis inadvertently stumbling upon the prize. Or was it Morning Star? You know, it's getting so it is hard to tell one anti-Christ from another.

[captain-jack]

Oh, great!

I can see another mad scramble coming our way and cdowis inadvertently stumbling upon the prize. Or was it Morning Star? You know, it's getting so it is hard to tell one anti-Christ from another.

I hope I stand out to you.

[consiglieri]

You know, it would be funny if we just quipped back and forth a hundred times before everybody else gets out of bed and by the time they have a chance to compete, the race is over.

[captain-jack]

You know, it would be funny if we just quipped back and forth a hundred times before everybody else gets out of bed and by the time they have a chance to compete, the race is over.

Bet you I get there first. Open the flood gates, sorry for the hijack of the thread. I believe the apostasy did happen!

[Zemah]

Bet you I get there first. Open the flood gates, sorry for the hijack of the thread. I believe the apostasy did happen!

Do you also believe the Restoration happened at the hand of God through Joseph Smith?

[consiglieri]

Of course I believe that.

All good anti-Christs do, you know.

[captain-jack]

Do you also believe the Restoration happened at the hand of God through Joseph Smith?

Yes I certainly do.

[consiglieri]

Yes I certainly do.

See what I mean?

[captain-jack]

See what I mean?

I know, and I'm a pirate to boot.

[consiglieri]

I know, and I'm a pirate to boot.

And I'm a lawyer.

[captain-jack]

And I'm a lawyer.

My hats' off to you.