Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Paul Ray]

Okay. Here we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "Church." The Church is both universal (all true believers in Christ around the world), and local (Corinth, Galatia, Rome Ephesus, etc.). Not one central organization controlling everything. Christ's Apostles didn't ever have everything under control, as you see from reading the epistles.

I agree the Church was/is both universal (including all true believers in Christ around the world) and local, and I agree that our Lord's apostles never had everything under control, as I have seen from reading the scriptures. I believe that was their goal, though, in writing those letters and personally visiting them to try to correct them. The fact that they didn't keep them all under control (or unified) is known as apostasy. That is the reason there were/are so many divisions in all of Christendom.

Bob: Since the reformation, the Church gradually broke up into denominations and independent Churches.

It happened way before the Reformation. There were many groups that broke away from what was the early church going way back to the first part of the first century.

Bob: What you claim as Smith's dilemma over which Church was true, you view as a choice of which denomination was true.

Yes, pretty much. I agree with that.

Bob: Fact is, the Church landscape had radically changed in Smith's day, from the days of the early Church of the apostolic age.

There were more divisions in Joseph's day than there were when the first apostate group was formed, but it was basically the same thing that had happened earlier with other apostates from our Lord's church.

Bob: Knowing what I know NOW, if I had been living in Smith's day, I would have done then what I've done today: attend the local Church which I best see as adhereing to the NT doctrines as I best understand them, and the one which most closely tries to live it on a personal level and in the community.

Would you really lean on your own understanding, without asking God to direct your path, personally?

Without relying on God, everyone can come up with their own opinion(s) for how they think things once were and should be.

Bob: I won't go into why I think Smith chose to start his own.

Okay, but just try to realize that we (LDS) believe God told Joseph that God would restore his true church through Joseph.

Bob: So, to answer your question, I can't answer your question. Because, 1) I don't know what each denomination or independent Church was like in Smith's day, and 2) I don't believe that Churches need to be led by alleged living prophets and apostles, as in the early Church.

Okay, but just try to realize that we do because we believe God revealed that to Joseph.

Bob: The foundation was laid by the OT prophets and the early Church Apostles, and according to Paul in Ephesians, does not need to be relaid, with ongoing living Apostles or prophets.

That's not what Paul said, exactly.

I think you're interpreting the scriptures to suit your own personal beliefs.

... instead of allowing God to tell you how to interpret the scriptures.

Bob: I look at the authority stucture of any given local Protestant Church today, and if it serves Christ and the community with true believers who love God and their neighbor, understanding the biblical nature of God as triune and one, and that salvation is by grace through faith alone, as taught from our extremely well-preserved Biblical canon, then it is a successful body of Christ, being used of, and bringing glory to God.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions, but let me first make sure I understand what you're saying.

Are you saying you determine whether or not an organization is an organization of God by looking at who the organization is serving, and the beliefs of that organization?

If so, how do you determine who that organization is serving, and what the beliefs of that organization should be?

Based on what you keep saying, you seem to be relying on your interpretation of the Bible, and the Bible only.

Do you agree that is pretty much what you are doing?

We (LDS) are telling you that that isn't enough to know what God has told us, personally.

You're basically limiting yourself to what you believe God has revealed to other people in the past, without accepting anything additional from God, personally.

If that's all you want, fine, but we (LDS) have more.

Bob: Yes, well, I've read a photo-copy of Smith's 1832 diary account of that alleged event, and what's in IT is not at all like what you all consider the official version, in the PoGP.

I see many similarities.

Bob: So, I put no stock in Joseph Smith or anything he ever said. I do not believe he was sent by God.

That much is obvious to me, personally.

Bob: Nor did Christ's authority and priesthood ever leave the earth, since Christ was always ON the earth, in Spirit.

CFR for any scripture stating God was always on the Earth in Spirit without ever leaving, at least temporarily.

Bob: As I've already quoted Him saying to the disciples before His ascension, "Lo, and I will be with you always." I take Him at His word on that.

Without adding anything to what is written in the Bible, you can only honestly state that our Lord said that to the people who were with him when he ascended into heaven. You can't honestly state that he was speaking to you and/or other people who weren't there.

Bob: Since He was here, so was His authority, and His priesthood, and the keys, even though the Apostles were all dead.

The fact that our Lord may have been here with His authority and His priesthood and the keys, even though the apostles were all dead, wouldn't necessarily mean you or any other people had His authority and His priesthood and or the keys that He had/has.

Bob: I repeat the problem which you have with these comments of yours: there are dozens of other Joseph Smith-believing churches around, all claiming to be the one true Mormon church, and all believing YOURS is the apostate one, being the false church of the Brighamites. Even Joseph Smith's own widow, the first lady of the original Mormon church, disavowed Brigham Young AND polygamy and helped to start a new Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, called the Reorganized LDS, now CoC. Smith's own son, eventually became the prophet, and evidence in LDS archival history affirms that Smith named His son as his successor.

... and I repeat... so what?

What does what those other people believe have to do with what God has told me, personally?

We do agree on some points, but not everything.

Bob: I don't believe that setting up a Church with Apostles and prophets is conforming to the pattern of the Holy Bible.

It is if our Lord and his apostles were/are the ones who are doing the setting up !!!

But you don't have to believe that if you don't want to.

Bob: The pattern of the Holy Bible, is that as the Apostles each died, replacements were not always picked.

No, according to the pattern of the Holy Bible, our Lord and his apostles appointed other apostles.

It is only where the Bible is silent that we see a cease to our Lord's apostles.

Bob: If the pattern of the Holy Bible was to keep the succession of Apostles going, Christ would certainly have arranged for that to happen. He didn't.

I think you're assuming our Lord would continue to call apostles even when nobody was worthy.

He won't force anyone to be worthy, for one thing.

... and maybe he thought it was better to wait until later.

Bob: You have your reasons why, and I have mine. And mine has nothing to do with an apostasy of priesthood authority and keys, since Christ was always here with His priesthood authority and keys.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I'd just like to see you acknowledge that we (LDS) have a Biblical foundation for our beliefs.

Bob: ...for me to even accept your church as a true church, I'd have to believe Smith was true. I don't.

... and if you did accept Joseph Smith, you would.

Bob: Then why did Christ allegedly tell SMITH that.

He didn't. Read again where I outlined what our Lord actually said to Joseph.

Bob: It appears as if you're back-pedaling from the very blunt, ALL-condemning statements which Smith claims Christ emphasized to him.

There weren't all condemning, at least not IMO.

I believe you're interpreting those words incorrectly.

Bob: Don't you believe what Christ allegedly told Smith?

Yes. I just don't believe your interpretation of what our Lord told Joseph.

Bob: If you do, then all our Churches must still be wrong, all our creeds must still be an abomination, and all our professors still corrupt.

The fact that they once were wouldn't necessarily mean they still were, but even so, I don't believe they are wrong about everything they believe, and I don't believe our Lord ever said that they were.

Bob: I doubt that you would view our Protestant Churches as having become less wrong, our creeds less abominable, and our professors less corrupt. At least not according to what I've heard on THIS site.

I believe many of them are making a lot of progress, actually.

Who knows, maybe someday they will accept everything we (LDS) believe.

Bob: I know you mean well and you're sincere. But, I don't believe your church or apostles have anything to offer this biblicist.

We are in agreement more than you seem to realize.

Bob: I've experienced your "church." It was not enjoyable.

Try it again.

Bob: You will be very disappointed. Last week, I completed 3 weeks of the most amiable discussions with some "elders." They put on the full press to get me to pray about Smith and the BoM. I did not succumb. They ended future discussions because I would not do so. We parted on the friendliest of terms.

I hope you will try it again, later, very soon.

Bob: I do not believe there was such an apostasy. I don't believe the priesthood authority of Christ ever left the earth, because He has always been here, as He promised the disciples. I believe the foundation of Christ's Church, built upon the OT prophets and Apostles and Christ as the Cornerstone, was permanently laid for all generations. I don't believe that every time an Apostle died, that part of the foundation went away also, and needed to be replaced by another living Apostle. If Christ, the Cornerstone and Head of the Church, who was always here according to His promise to the disciples, wanted an Apostolic succession of living Apostles, He would have made it so. He didn't.

I hope I've at least given you some optional ways to interpret the scriptures.

[consiglieri]

I do hope Mr. Betts will post haste on those references that have been called for.

I seem to remember Mr. Betts' threat to boot me from his board if I did not provide references within 24-hours.

I provided them.

He still booted me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Facsimile 3]

I have a song for this thread that feels very appropriate for Mr. Bob Betts.

I know so many people who think they can do it alone

They isolate their heads and stay in their saftey zones

Now what can you tell them

And what can you say that won't make them defensive

Hang on to your ego

Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight

They come on like their peaceful

But inside they're so uptight

They trip through the day

And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I say it

And how can I come on

When I know I'm guilty

Hang on to your ego

Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight

Now how can I say it

And how can I come on

When I know I'm guilty

So hang on to your ego

Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight

[Bob Betts]

People,

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.

I don't recall saying anything about "the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ exists in Heaven." You must have me mixed up with someone else. I've never said this.

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. If he believes no organization is necessary on earth, how could there have been a complete apostacy. The words Universal and Apostasy are not found in any of the scriptures. 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.

Correct. I do not see any apostasy of priesthood authority or keys being taken from the earth, since Christ has always been here as He promised He would be. I've also talked about a remnant of God's people, which is consistent throughout the OT, and no doubt God would have ensured one since the deaths of the Apostles. Christ was still here in Spirit, along with Bishops and Elders and Deacons, etc. The permanent and immovable foundation was laid, unaffected by the deaths of the Apostles, with Christ still here as the Head and Chief Cornerstone.

Now a couple questions that I think are related to the apostacy.

Bob

I'm not trying to trip you up, but what makes you sure you are alive in Christ? Don't try to convince me. Just tell me what convinces you.

Mostly the promises of God through Christ in the scriptures. But, also the conviction of Christ's Spirit in me. The fruit of the Spirit which I bear. The peace of God which surpasses human comprehension, which I experience. The testimony of a few miracles God has done in my life. The understanding of the Word of God, which requires the Spirit. The gifts that I've received for the building up of the Body of Christ, which I successfully use. These are a few reasons I know I'm alive in Christ.

To LDS it is when we feel the burning in our hearts as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

As I've examined that story, I've determined that their experience was not the same as what you (LDS) desribe. First, they weren't praying about anything, and never did in the story. Second, it could not have been the Spirit burning within them, since Christ had not ascended to His throne and sent the Spirit, yet. Third, they didn't even recognize Christ until later when he broke bread and gave it to them.

The burning in their hearts didn't tell them that Christ was true, or His preaching was true. There is no indication that their experience was under the same conditions as what LDS claim to receive such a burning. Also, I recently had a former LDS Bishop, who is now a high LDS priest, tell me he never got a burning in the bosom, and that it wasn't necessary. He said he felt peace, but not a burning.

Also, why do ministers marry for time only when Peter was given power to bind on earth and have it be bound in Heaven?

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus does tell Peter about His authority to bind and loose, but it never mention marriage for eternity. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus said it again in the specific context of dealing with someone who is unrepentant of their sin, not in context of marriage. Why do you assume marriage is supposed to be for eternity from these passages?

Adam and Eve were not married for time only since there was as yet no death when Eve became Adam's wife.

But, there is no evidence in scripture that we remain married in heaven. Not that we won't be with our spouses. But, why in the capacity of man and wife. There's a reason why Christ delt with this very question in response to the Saducees, "Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't recall saying anything about "the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ exists in Heaven." You must have me mixed up with someone else. I've never said this.

Correct. I do not see any apostasy of priesthood authority or keys being taken from the earth, since Christ has always been here as He promised He would be.

Well, Bob if you did see the apostacy and the need for priesthood authority Im sure you would be a Mormon. HA.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The burning in their hearts didn't tell them that Christ was true, or His preaching was true. There is no indication that their experience was under the same conditions as what LDS claim to receive such a burning. Also, I recently had a former LDS Bishop, who is now a high LDS priest, tell me he never got a burning in the bosom, and that it wasn't necessary. He said he felt peace, but not a burning.

Bob, this is an argument from silence. The scriputres tells us that the HG will come to us. It is not only conditional upon a prayer. Also you mentioned something about Christ not yet ascending to his throne, in regaurds to the men that he walked with on Emmaus road. I believe that is also an argument from silence. Please provide a refrence. Thanks

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus does tell Peter about His authority to bind and loose, but it never mention marriage for eternity. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus said it again in the specific context of dealing with someone who is unrepentant of their sin, not in context of marriage. Why do you assume marriage is supposed to be for eternity from these passages?

Again it says "what so ever you bind" it doesnt say what so every you bind, except marriage. THis is called proof texting. those words are not there Bob. THanks. Why do you assume it doesnt include marriage?

But, there is no evidence in scripture that we remain married in heaven. Not that we won't be with our spouses. But, why in the capacity of man and wife. There's a reason why Christ delt with this very question in response to the Saducees, "Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Lastly this scripture is specific to people who are dead and are being ressurected. If they arent yet married they niether marry nor are given in marriage. These terms are specific to the very act of marriage. If you are sealed with this authority that Peter was given than it is binding. It is to late for marriage with the authority that Peter was given at the ressurection. You will be as the angles of heaven. Im sure you will disagree wtih this but that is fine.

Speaking of this authority that Peter had or has, were did it go? How does one get it? It sound pretty nice to have. Im sure Christ would want the world to have dont you think? Do you Bob, claim to have this authority? Were then did you get it?

[Bob Betts]

Quote of BCSpace "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.)"

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. 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. 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.

Bob,

The difference in this area between LDS and Evangelicals seems very slight.

Then read some of my most recent posts. The differences are night and day.

We believe that Faith and repentance are both necessary, and that if a believer has completely repented, his life will become free of sin and filled with good works.

Wow, I never said THAT at all. John said, If we say we have no sin, then we are a liar and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:. I will never be free, this side of heaven, from the sinful nature which still lives in me. Read what Paul said regarding this in Rom. 7.

You apparently, if I understood correctly, believe that when one accepts Christ as his individual Savior a mighty change is wrought, and he has no more desire to do evil, but to do good continually.

Not at all: Gal. 5:17 "For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please." I have to die to my flesh, daily. I desire to do good continually, and wish I didn't desire to sin, but the desire has not left me, nor will it in this life. Read Rom. 7.

Therefore, his life becomes filled with good works.

"filled" would be an exaggeration.

Actually the concept I attributed to the evangelicals is very LDS, it is just that while we believe such a mighty change is a gift from God, the gift is only given after all we can do.

Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the gift must be earned, "only given after all we can do," then it's NOT a gift. Can you imagine a father telling his, "I have this free gift for you, of a brand new puppy. No charge. But, you have to work for it. Here's the list of requirements." What's free about the father's gift if it must be earned by a list of required works? Do LDS make their children earn their birthday and Christmas gifts?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bob,

Do LDS make their children earn their birthday and Christmas gifts?

Bob,

You should start a new thread on this. Dont derail it with works vs faith.

Opps. I forgot. you will read this post in order. However you should still start a new thread on faith vs works. Ill join you there.

[Dale]

David Bercot uses this story of a king's son who is sent to pick apple's in the royal orchard. The son comes back with his apple's, and the king gives half his kingdom to the son as a gift. Then he say's something like just because obedience to the king was essential it didn't make the gift any less of a gift. Certainly a basketful of apple's didn't mean he paid for the gift. But obedience to the king was essential to placing his son in the position to get the gift.

In Ephesian's 2:8-9 the person who has the gift is created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Does the person if they choose not to be so created effected their ability to get the gift? Were those work's optional, or works something that if the person refused to do them be damned? Jame's 2:10 say's God can hold an unbeliever guilty for just 1 item of God's law he isn't breaking. The person could be doing 99% of all God's other commandments and still be guilty.

It seem's to me if not being baptized can get you guilty that justification is by faith and works. I heard Martin Luther once said faith is pregnant with good works. If your faith is pregnant with disobedience that's not saving faith. Would a damned person just need grace, or would they have to be obedient in the area that got them guilty? If they would need to be obedient then justification is by grace and works not just grace alone.

______________

I see the reformation as being the preserved Church of Christ that didn't need restoring if grace alone was a true concept. The doctrine was was one of the essential's they think the true church would need. If they are the some who never went in apostasy their was no universal apostasy. I don't think we can discuss partial vs. total apostasy without taking a close look at the doctrine's of the reformation. If those doctrine's be true then the church did not need restoring in 1830. I don't think discussing the merits of grace alone to be an off track discussion myself.

[Paul Ray]

FYI, for those who don't know:

Bob is now about 100 posts behind, and I think it is his personal goal to try to answer every post we have written... at least those of substance that pertain to the issue of this thread and/or other issues he is personally interested in discussing.

I would be feeling kinda overwhelmed about being so far behind now, if I were him.

But I'm not him, I'm me. Yippee! I'm not behind.

Just playing, Bob.

I'm glad you will be here with us a while.

[Dale]

LDS theology has a couple of contradictory point's on repentance. Nobody ceases all sin so, repentance in this life is impossible. You have to cease all sin not to be guilty not just some ceasing. (James 2:10)

Plus in LDS theology repentance under Celestial law isn't the same as Terrestrial, or Telestial law. Unlike Jame's if you break Celesial law doeasn't teach you arn't guilty of all. You can still be brought forth via the atonement, and resurrection of Jesus to a lower kingdom. Celestial law and Jame's law are two different law's. If you break Celestial law you only break Celestial law. Unless of course God hold's you a son, or daughter of perdition, and places you in outer darkness.

In order to pass the judgement our original debt with God must be paid for forever by Jesus sacrifice. I can't remember which LDS leader taught a debtor creditor parable. But the idea was one could avoid spirit prison via repentance. But Evangelical's might read it and thing he was saying such a punished person was condemned to hell. But LDS belief is softer in that person's can eventually be released from hell, but go to the Telestial kingdom. Such a belief make's such person's suffering slightly like the Catholic idea of pergatory. Those still unsaveable will go to outer darkness which is considered to be a replacement place for hell.

But things a faithful LDS person has to do for salvation in the CK isn't required for person's who end up saved in the terrestrial, or telestial kingdom's. Ephesian's 2:8-10 would be a total gift for those who got saved by grace alone from outer darkness. Salvation by grace alone isn't mere resurrection, but include's salvation from outer darkness.

I don't buy into the idea saved person's can be termed damned. I don't accept the wider definition of damnation. Eternal life and exaltation arn't the same doctrine to me. Anybody saved from hell has eternal life.

[consiglieri]

Correct. I do not see any apostasy of priesthood authority or keys being taken from the earth, since Christ has always been here as He promised He would be.

And just where has Jesus been for the past two-thousand years, precisely?

I put this one up there with the JW belief that Jesus didn't really come back to earth in 1914, but took up a stationary orbit around planet earth.

Where do you come up with this stuff, Bob?

Do you see any irony in posting this belief in a thread aimed at dealing a death-blow to LDS belief in three transfigured Nephites and a John that wouldn't die?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. You can start responding to me directly now. You already broke your promise about that. Breaking it again won't make much difference.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

Here are a few bits of information you may find to be useful:

God never takes away our agency. He simply expects us to face the consequences of our own choices.

I agree. I never said we have NO agency. But I did rebutt PacMan on his claim that God never infringes on our agency.

For example, if someone doesn't choose to meet the qualifications for receiving the keys of the kingdom that can be given by God, that person isn't receiving them because he has chosen not to qualify for receiving them. And even if the whole church falls into apostasy as a result of that person not receiving the keys of the kingdom so that he can then pass them on to other people, it isn't God's fault if the Church falls into apostasy. It is the fault of the person who doesn't qualify to receive the keys and then pass them on to other people.

I realize you're trying to help me understand your church. But, according to D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28, John and the three Nephites DID receive the priesthood authority and keys of Christ's ministry. So, they must have been qualified.

Pretty close.

People need to continue to receive the keys of the kingdom from people who have them and are authorized to give them to other people, otherwise there will be an end to the succession of the people who have the keys of the kingdom.

Are you telling me, then, that no one must have been qualified to recieve the keys of the Kingdom from the Apostles before the Apostles were eventually all martyred, halting the succession of Apostles?

... and just because people may know of people who had them and what they did when they had them doesn't mean they also have them to work with.

Well, Christ had them, and he was still here after the deaths of the Apostles, stil bing the Cornerstone of the Church and the Head of the Church. Plus there were plenty of Bishops around. Are you saying that Christ couldn't have passed on His Kingdom keys to the Bishops? If not, why not?

They must be given to people by the people who have them and are authorized to give them to other people.

That would be Christ, if no one else.

So, it could still conceivably happen today if nobody qualified to receive the keys of the kingdom OR the apostles were no longer authorized to pass them on to other people.

Why, did Christ's Spirit leave?

God can't force anybody to choose to receive his blessings which are predicated upon principles of righteousness.

This is a LDS principle, not a biblical one. What about the blessing of receiving the free gift of salvation by faith. THAT'S not predicated on one's own righteousness. Everyone that Christ saves by His grace, is an undeserved blessing, not predicated on righteousness.

The keys of the power of God will never be given to wicked and/or apostate people.

Not before He grants them salvation, that's true.

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."

Imagine this: It could have continued if the members of the church had simply followed all of the apostles's teachings. It didn't because, perhaps, they didn't OR God chose to wait until a better time for the world to receive them.

You're guessing, when you use the adverb, "perhaps." I cannot determine truth based on "perhaps," "maybe" or "possibly."

People actually have to do something to qualify to be worthy to receive God's blessings, because God won't give His power to people who would misuse it and/or use it unrighteously.

But, God knows ahead of time, who will and who won't, doesn't He?

This continuous statement from you about qualifying to be worthy to receive God's blessings: when am I ever worthy of God's blessings. If God waited for me to be worthy, I'd recieve NO blessings. Blessings from God are based on His grace, just like the here-and-now blessing of salvation, granted to all believers. It's undeserved. I have no righteousness in myself. Christ is my imputed righteousness.

There you go blaming God again for the fact that other people chose to NOT follow God.

No. I'm saying that it's the logical conclusion of what PacMan has been telling me, about how God could have told John to appoint additional Apostles, after each was martyred, but He didn't. So, logically, who is responsible for the end of the succession of Apostles? John who was not allowed by God to do so? Or, God for not allowing John to do so.

Assign the blame to the guilty parties, please.

You missed the point of my discussion with PacMan. I'm not assigning blame to anyone. I'm trying to make sense out of what PacMan told me.

What makes you think the Christianity of Constantine's empire was the true form of Christianity?

I don't pretend to know WHAT Christianity was like then. I only know what Christ said and promised, and about how Christ formed His Church, according to the Bible. I don't see what LDS see about an apostasy. I see a remnant of God's people. I see the priesthood authority still on the earth, because Christ promised He would be with us always, and He's the one who hands out authority. I see the Apostles all dying off, while Christ is the Head and Cornerstone of HIS Church. Whatever happened after that, Christ's Church was still on the earth, Christ's Spirit was still on the earth, and Christ's authority was still on the earth.

Try reading some more books about that period of history while asking God to enlighten you.

Look at what a mess with only deceased apostles guiding the Church.

1) History is only as good as the honesty and integrity of the authors. This side of heaven, we may NEVER understand or conprehend what really happened. It's sketchy, at best. The only Church history I fully trust is the NT. After that, it's a lot of speculation. 2) While you focus on man, I focus on Christ. You look at "a mess," I look at Christ as the Head and Cornerstone, with the priesthood authority. Despite the growing mess, I don't believe Christ ever gave up control of the Headship of His Church. The foundation remained solid, regardless of the corruption which infiltrated the world. Christ had a remnant. God always has.

... from the perspecive of people who don't realize there are apostles now living among us as mortals who are guiding the church of Christ as in former days.

If the words of deceased apostles are enough to unify those of us who are still on this Earth, why isn't there unity in all of Christendom right now?

Why isn't there unity in all of Mormondom right now. There are dozens of Mormon denominations. Is there any unity between them? No. I can certainly see a great deal more unity among the Protestant Churches today, than among the Mormon denominations today, since there isn't any between the Mormon denominations.

Whose Church is it? Who's ultimately in charge of Christ's universal Church? Who am I to question Christ on why His Church is not how we'd LIKE to see it today?

Even a 14 year old boy was capable of noticing all of the confusion.

A 14 year old boy who's confused. That's not very newsworthy. I was confused about a lot of things at 14, myself. That's not very newsworthy either. How many 14 year old boys do you know who have life figured out?

Try thinking of the apostles as the pillars of the church of Christ, and the church of Christ as a living building (and/or organization) of people who follow Christ while living on this Earth as mortal people.

This is not a biblical analogy of the part the Apostles played in Christ's Church. Why don't you just use the words of Paul, who describe the Apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church. Now look at a lot of the ancient buildings from about 2,000 years ago or more. Alot of the pillars have fallen down. But, the foundations are still there. Foundations are permanent, solid, immovable. THAT'S how you should look at the Apostles of Christ. Now, as you say, the people who follow Christ are the living building on the earth. Which is precisely how I view the remnant of followers of Christ, after the deaths of the Apostles. Their foundation, that is their teachings and doctrines, remains as solid as ever, on which the remnant of God's people have built themselves up in each generation for 2,000 years.

When an apostle dies, or is removed, what makes you think the pillar is still supporting the building?

... the organization of those of us who are now mortals who are now living on this Earth?

I know the pillars usually last a while, and I know they leave remains or indications of what they once stood for, but they eventually need to be replaced by other pillars just as Matthias replaced the pillar of Judas Iscariot and Paul was needed to guide the churches he wrote to and visited.

While you talk of pillars, I talk Paul's talk about a foundation.

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.

That's your opinion. Why should I think you speak for God?

DON'T think I speak for God. Read the Bible and see for yourself about remnants and Christ being the Head, and the foundation of His Church (not pillars) being the Apostles and prophets of old. I'm not making this stuff up. It's right in the Bible.

I think you're trying to put the puzzle together without having all of the pieces.

You're the one making an analogy of the Apostles being like pillars, rather than using the Pauline description of the Church being built upon the foundation of the Apostles, instead. Who's using the correct analogy from the Bible? You or me?

... and I believe God is capable of helping me put it together, without you.

Go for it. Make up your own analogies to fit your LDS beliefs. I'll stick with the analogies which Christ and His Apostles used. I personally think I'm on a much more solid foundation, that way.

The OT prophets prophesying regarding Christ, and the Apostles preaching and teaching remain today, being believed and practiced to this day.

Consider how far off the mark the church (or people of God) were at the time of our Lord's mortal ministry.

They still had the writings of many past prophets, and they still had some form of organizational structure, but they were way off the mark on quite a few issues.

Many of them didn't even know who was God when he was right there in front of them doing miracles.

Yet, somehow it survived. Maybe Christ really knows what he's doing in the midst of chaos, afterall.

God's Church never went completely down, because God's Spirit has always been here, dwelling in believers. A remnant.

Yes, a remnant. Try putting the whole puzzle together with only a remnant.

IMHO, your LDS puzzle has a great big gaping hole in it. I'm supposed to believe that after the deaths of the Apostles, Christ's authority was gone from the earth for 1,700 years. Even though Christ told the disciples, "I will be with you always." Even though He was still here, with His authority and keys. Even though He was the Head and the Chief Cornerstone of His Church. Despite all that, I'm supposed to believe that there was nothing for 1,700 years, while the gates of Hades prevailed. Sorry, the pieces to my NT puzzle fit much more logically and biblically to me, than yours.

Now try to do it, again, a little differently, without knowing how they should be put together.

That's where you are, right now, I believe.

Try again.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Bob: 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.

Try thinking of the foundation as a set of pillars that eventually give out over time and which then need to be replaced by new pillars... at least in regards to the church that is now among mortals on this Earth.

No. A foundation is a foundation, and pillars aren't. Your analogy is unbiblical.

The church of Christ is a living, building, organization of people, and the components of the living building eventually wear out or simply go somewhere else.

It's not that simple as you would like to imagine, with Christ as the Head, and Chief Cornerstone, and with the Apostles and prophets as the permanent, solid, immovable foundation.

I think that's enough for now. I hope you will seriously consider everything I have told you.

I have. I hope you will do the same.

[Ron Beron]

Bob Betts writes,

Are you telling me, then, that no one must have been qualified to recieve the keys of the Kingdom from the Apostles before the Apostles were eventually all martyred, halting the succession of Apostles?

What succession? Any succession that would have existed would have been abrogated by the influx of ideas from various sophic sources in order to validate the divinity of Jesus.

THAT'S not predicated on one's own righteousness. Everyone that Christ saves by His grace, is an undeserved blessing, not predicated on righteousness.

Then you completely neglect the warning given in Revelation 20:12, "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened â?? the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds."

Whatever happened after that, Christ's Church was still on the earth, Christ's Spirit was still on the earth, and Christ's authority was still on the earth.

Given the fact that you admit little of the early centuries of the Christian Church then it is obvious you make the argument in ignorance. While it would nice to assume that Christ's spirit remained with the church the opposite is more likely. As in all things the church as well evolved and with it the "plain and simple things" departed from the doctrine of the church. As H. Nibley has aptly stated, the lights went out and no one was left holding the flashlight.

The only Church history I fully trust is the NT.

It is NOT history, but a document of faith.

No. I can certainly see a great deal more unity among the Protestant Churches today, than among the Mormon denominations today, since there isn't any between the Mormon denominations.

Do you mean like the great links between Pentecostalism and the SBC?

I'm supposed to believe that there was nothing for 1,700 years, while the gates of Hades prevailed. Sorry, the pieces to my NT puzzle fit much more logically and biblically to me, than yours.

The scriptural reading for hell is actually "hades", the Greek term for hell and not Sheol which is Jewish. An interesting term which probably means death. In Greek myth hades was a place none can return from. Therefore, Jesus is telling his disciples that death or martyrdom will not keep them from His promises, his resurrection.

[Anijen]

Wow this post is the post that never ends. Bob give it up you are TKO'd.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

You misinterpret our LDS definition of Grace. Grace can never be earned, and it is a free gift. We believe all men are unprofitable servants, and that when we do anything good, God imediately blesses us, so we can never build an account with Him to earn Grace.

Part of the definition of grace, from scripture.lds.org is, "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). How can you say that this definition means that grace cannot be earned and is free, when it so obviously states that "grace canNOT suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient," and takes affect "after all you can do"?

Do you believe that a sinful man can just listen to the word of God, and say in his heart , "Jesus save me," and his life will turn around with no further effort on his part?

Yes, if a man say in His heart, "Jesus save me," He will. THEN comes the life of service to God, through Christ in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Eph. 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

What did Jesus and His Apostles say about being saved?

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him [Christ] whom he hath sent.

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Luke 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he [Christ] is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him [Christ], seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

So, did the Savior complicate salvation? Did he demand or require anything but belief?

[Bob Betts]

I agree with you, Bob. Grace cannot be earned.

Well said, sorry I hadn't read further before I stuck in my oar.

But, the LDS dictionary definition of grace does not agree with "Grace cannot be earned."

[Bob Betts]

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.

I'm not quibbling. You (LDS) do a whole lot more than listen to your prophets as mouthpieces. This isn't some silly semantics game I'm playing.

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.

1) You may have trouble understanding the OT prophets, but that doesn't mean their messages are garbled. 2) The Lord DID grant us inspired leaders for today. The foundation of the Church was laid by them, AND those prophets. Gospel and dontrine wise, the Bible IS sufficient. The teachings of Smith and the BoM only contradict the Bible. The BoM cannot be another testament of Jesus Christ, when it contradicts Jesus and His Apostles regarding salvation.

There is no comparison between:

"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)."

Moroni 10:32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

And, Eph. 2:5, 8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

2 Tim. 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

There is no comparison between:

2 Ne. 10:24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

And, 2 Cor. 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Rom. 5: 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

As you can see, in the BoM, salvation and reconciliation are dependent on the efforts of man. In the Bible they're dependent on God's unmerited favor toward us, and the effort of God, through Christ, for us.

Big difference.

[Bob Betts]

PacMan: 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).

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 donâ??t know what that is, but I DO know that God will allow people to kick themselves to hell. If thatâ??s not unlimited agency, then I donâ??t know what isâ?¦nor do I understand how itâ??s contra-biblical.

You told me that God will never infringe on man's agency. That implies that man has full agency, complete agency, agency which cannot be limited, interrupted, or prevented by God. That's not true, and that makes it unbiblical.

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 didnâ??t cut off their agencyâ?¦they did.

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

Ohâ?¦it makes great sense.

I thought agency had to do with people being able to make their own choices. And, where is the law of God in the first five chapters of Genesis, which says that if you miss-use your agency, there will be the consequence of being destroyed? Aren't you saying, in effect, that God's choice to destroy the wicked, as a consequence of their wickedness, means that God was using His agency, to end theirs? They chose to be wicked, God chose to end their choice.

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

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

No, I'M the one who talked about what they "wanted." About their choice to be wicked, which was ended by God's choice to end their choice to be wicked. Didn't God infringe on their agency? Absolutely.

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 Godâ?¦have you read the story of Noah?

Are YOU KIDDING? Haven't you read chapters four, five, and the beginning of chapter six? Don't you realize how many people were on the planet by then? The genealogy is quite lengthy. Not to mention that people lived for hundreds of years. There could very well have been hundreds of thousands of people already. But, let's just say there was only one thousand people on the earth. Do you think there was room on the Ark for them and their years worth of food? 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, Godâ??s purpose wasnâ??t â??showing whoâ??s the boss.â? This isnâ??t some B-rate soap-opera. They were wicked, rejected God, and received the natural consequence which God warned them of.

Really? CFR. Where's the warning? Where's the call to repentence? Where did Noah preach to any of the wicked? Where were any of them invited to get on the Ark, if they would only repent? You've read the story. Where are these verses?

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

He did not. Stop blaming God.

I'm not blaming God in the slightest. He is God and can end people's lives at will.

If you shoot someone, you canâ??t blame the state for taking away your agency for locking you up. Itâ??s your own darn fault.

No doubt. The prison analogy cuts both ways. Use your agency to break the law, and as the consequence, the law enforcers will take away your agency by means of incarceration. THEN try to freely exercize your agency, and make your own choices, when your agency has been drastically limited.

But, you're assuming the wicked people of Noah's day, broke the law. Then simply point out the laws against their wickedness, somewhere in the first five chapters of Genesis. There's no mention of any laws. There's nothing stated that they were even warned that they would be destroyed for their wickedness. Noah didn't preach to them.

Nevertheles, how did God not trump their choice to be wicked, by exercizing His choice to end their choice to be wicked? Without any apparant laws or warnings, didn't God infringe on their agency? Even if there HAD been laws and warnings which they didn't heed, then wasn't the consequence the fact that God took away their agency to continue to choose to act wickedly?

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 pathâ?¦but you canâ??t pick your consequences.

Exactly. So, God CAN infringe on man's agency, by picking the consequences they'll have to submit to.

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

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

Easyâ?¦Matthias wasnâ??t the only one.

Then you're not going to tell me how you'd 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.

Thatâ??s actually not that bad. They 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 yesâ?¦it worked for a bit, but was ultimately limited.

Huh. God's foresight failed Him again. You'd think He woulda seen this problem coming. But, you already lit into me for blaming God. So, I guess the mystery of what went wrong with God's intended, self-perpetuating Church, will just have to go into the cold-case file.

PacMan: 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.

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 â??allâ?? believers).

[captain-jack]

Part of the definition of grace, from scripture.lds.org is, "However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25: 23). How can you say that this definition means that grace cannot be earned and is free, when it so obviously states that "grace canNOT suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient," and takes affect "after all you can do"?

Yes, if a man say in His heart, "Jesus save me," He will. THEN comes the life of service to God, through Christ in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

...

Bob, you just said the same thing there. Grace will take over and work, the free gift of Grace, but only if we work towards living a perfect life. Please tell me how saying Grace cannot work if we believe we must earn it (to which I will say you keep saying that we must earn it though NO WHERE in the scriptures does it say it must be earned, you are the one implying that), then saying not but two sentences later, that accepting Christ and turning over a new leaf to become a better person are not the same thing?

Grace will work if we live a life of charity as Christ did, but will not if we don't.

Grace will not work if we just say once "Jesus save me" and do nothing else.

Your words above say the same thing as 2 Nephi, you just don't want to see that.

I amend my post:

You say that anyone can say "Jesus save me" and Christ will come into that person's life and they will follow Christ. Where's the agency? We have to choose to be like Christ every step of the way, that is the works we speak of. Christ will not walk this life for us, but He'll sure show us where to walk. Work is required otherwise agency cannot exist. Just saying that phrase doesn't mean you will no longer fall in sin, it will always happen, the point is to try your best not to do them and get picked up by Christ when you fall. Keep treading the muddy waters looking for the rod mate.

[consiglieri]

I have a good mind to do 20-posts in quick succession and claim for myself the coveted mark of 666.

Maybe twenty calls for references to Bob would make him take note?

[captain-jack]

I have a good mind to do 20-posts in quick succession and claim for myself the coveted mark of 666.

Maybe twenty calls for references to Bob would make him take note?

The mangy Mormon-Pirate will take that prize. And if you claim I stole it, just remember one thing...

<--

[consiglieri]

Good to see that a little correction has improved your spelling, you mangy dog.

[captain-jack]

When I have the counseling of a crime syndicate leader such as yourself, I can't go wrong anymore.

[Bob Betts]

So much for cutting a post in half and reposting it to fix the bracket problem.

PacMan: 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).

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 donâ??t know what that is, but I DO know that God will allow people to kick themselves to hell. If thatâ??s not unlimited agency, then I donâ??t know what isâ?¦nor do I understand how itâ??s contra-biblical.

You told me that God will never infringe on man's agency. That implies that man has full agency, complete agency, agency which cannot be limited, interrupted, or prevented by God. That's not true, and that makes it unbiblical.

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 didnâ??t cut off their agencyâ?¦they did.

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

Ohâ?¦it makes great sense.

I thought agency had to do with people being able to make their own choices. And, where is the law of God in the first five chapters of Genesis, which says that if you miss-use your agency, there will be the consequence of being destroyed? Aren't you saying, in effect, that God's choice to destroy the wicked, as a consequence of their wickedness, means that God was using His agency, to end theirs? They chose to be wicked, God chose to end their choice.

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

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

No, I'M the one who talked about what they "wanted." About their choice to be wicked, which was ended by God's choice to end their choice to be wicked. Didn't God infringe on their agency? Absolutely.

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 Godâ?¦have you read the story of Noah?

Are YOU KIDDING? Haven't you read chapters four, five, and the beginning of chapter six? Don't you realize how many people were on the planet by then? The genealogy is quite lengthy. Not to mention that people lived for hundreds of years. There could very well have been hundreds of thousands of people already. But, let's just say there was only one thousand people on the earth. Do you think there was room on the Ark for them and their years worth of food? 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, Godâ??s purpose wasnâ??t â??showing whoâ??s the boss.â? This isnâ??t some B-rate soap-opera. They were wicked, rejected God, and received the natural consequence which God warned them of.

Really? CFR. Where's the warning? Where's the call to repentence? Where did Noah preach to any of the wicked? Where were any of them invited to get on the Ark, if they would only repent? You've read the story. Where are these verses?

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

He did not. Stop blaming God.

I'm not blaming God in the slightest. He is God and can end people's lives at will.

If you shoot someone, you canâ??t blame the state for taking away your agency for locking you up. Itâ??s your own darn fault.

No doubt. The prison analogy cuts both ways. Use your agency to break the law, and as the consequence, the law enforcers will take away your agency by means of incarceration. THEN try to freely exercize your agency, and make your own choices, when your agency has been drastically limited.

But, you're assuming the wicked people of Noah's day, broke the law. Then simply point out the laws against their wickedness, somewhere in the first five chapters of Genesis. There's no mention of any laws. There's nothing stated that they were even warned that they would be destroyed for their wickedness. Noah didn't preach to them.

Nevertheles, how did God not trump their choice to be wicked, by exercizing His choice to end their choice to be wicked? Without any apparant laws or warnings, didn't God infringe on their agency? Even if there HAD been laws and warnings which they didn't heed, then wasn't the consequence the fact that God took away their agency to continue to choose to act wickedly?

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 pathâ?¦but you canâ??t pick your consequences.

Exactly. So, God CAN infringe on man's agency, by picking the consequences they'll have to submit to.

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

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

Easyâ?¦Matthias wasnâ??t the only one.

Then you're not going to tell me how you'd 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.

Thatâ??s actually not that bad. They 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 yesâ?¦it worked for a bit, but was ultimately limited.

Huh. God's foresight failed Him again. You'd think He woulda seen this problem coming. But, you already lit into me for blaming God. So, I guess the mystery of what went wrong with God's intended, self-perpetuating Church, will just have to go into the cold-case file.

PacMan: 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.

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 â??allâ?? believers).

1 Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

Secondly, youâ??re mixing paradigms again! He was writing to those established organizations in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

I posted the two verses you alluded to, above. Not that they say anything about established organizations, whatsoever. Did you read the verse? "To the strangers, scattered..." There was much persecution going on. They were "scattered." Besides, if the Apostles were being martyred, then the organization, from your LDS perspective, would have already been showing signs of being less organized. Afterall, the Church had to start crumbling from the decreasing number of presiding priesthood authorities and keys, according to your church.