Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[consiglieri]

Perhaps we should give Mr. Betts the coveted 666 post?

[captain-jack]

The closer we get the more anticipation builds.

[Bob Betts]

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.

What a peculiar way to look at it. People make the conscious decision to "infringe upon their own agency." And, that's how you support your convoluted claim that God cannot infringe on man's 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.

Huh? Examples of man exercizing his agency are throughout the Bible. Start in Eden, and work your way forward. And, examples of God usurping people's agency are also throughout the Bible. Start in Eden, and work your way forward.

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?¦

Why put it on ME to explain. It's YOUR belief. If YOU can't even explain it any better than to use contrived definitions, how am I supposed to explain FOR you, what most assuredly was fabricated by Joseph Smith to begin with.

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.

No, what I doubt is that the wicked would deliberately choose to be destroyed by God, as a consequence of their wickedness, because (as you said) God cannot infringe on their agency. Thus, YOUR brilliant deduction that, since they acted wickedly, and destruction was to be the consequence, they infringed upon their own agency. God's law, if there was one (none stated), was God's choice (agency) to infringe upon man's choice to be wicked.

Pro-abortion feminists have had an ongoing bumper-sticker mantra that goes, "Don't impose your laws on our bodies." Well, that's precisely what God did with the wicked generation of Noah's day. He imposed (infringed) His laws on their choice to act wickedly, by enacting the consequence of a flood, resulting in their total destruction. To suggest that God's flood and total destuction of the wicked, had nothing to do with HIS agency being imposed upon, and overruling THEIR agency, is ridiculous.

Back later.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The closer we get the more anticipation builds.

Only a few more replies and were are there.

[Lightbearer]

Just in case you overlooked post #614 (I realize that you have many questions that you are attempting to answer) I post it again for you:

Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message. There is nothing in the Bible about following prophets or anyone else, save the Prophet, Jesus Christ.

Actually the Bible says otherwise:

(Philippians 3:17) "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

And also this:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10) "For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any manâ??s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us."

And yet another:

(1 Corinthians 4:15-16) "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

So here are three quotes from the Apostle Paul that disputes what you said about following prophets. So I do not think you can deny the fact that at least Paul admonishes the Saints to follow him as he follows Christ. That is the duty of all true prophets, to be an example to those whom they are called to minister to. I also would like a CFR for a reference in the Bible that says that we are not to "follow the prophet and apostles" because that would contradict what Paul said in the above quotes. Thank you.

[consiglieri]

I am 656.

Do I get any credit for being 656?

Selek was 616.

An early manuscript of the Book of Revelation has the number of the beast at 616.

Does Selek get partial anti-Christ credit?

[captain-jack]

I am 656.

Do I get any credit for being 656?

Selek was 616.

An early manuscript of the Book of Revelation has the number of the beast at 616.

Does Selek get partial anti-Christ credit?

Selek is the anti-Christ, so it's OK, he has credit for that.

[selek]

Selek is the anti-Christ, so it's OK, he has credit for that.

It has to be partial credit- I can't do the "Linda Blair-exorcist-head-spin-thing" yet, I'm afraid.

Kinda like Bobby and a CFR- it just ain't happening.

[captain-jack]

It has to be partial credit- I can't do the "Linda Blair-exorcist-head-spin-thing" yet, I'm afraid.

Kinda like Bobby and a CFR- it just ain't happening.

There's the pirate attitude I admire.

[selek]

There's the pirate attitude I admire.

You need me to PM me with an e-mail address. I have some pirate stuff you should hear.

[Paul Ray]

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

I suppose it's all in how you want to look at it.

I see it as God giving us the power to make choices and then holding us accountable for the choices we make and/or made. I know God is also involved in giving us choices to choose from, but if we obey God it is because we have chosen to obey God rather than because God saying something like:

"You must choose to obey me, and you can't choose to disobey me, ever."

I believe God gives us the power to choose from our available choices.

Bob: 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.

... qualified to do what, exactly?

Give the priesthood keys of God to people who weren't worthy to receive them?

No, they couldn't choose to do that. They might have been able to go through the motions usually associated with giving the keys, such as placing their hands upon someone's head, but our Lord would not have allowed the keys to pass to people who weren't worthy to receive them... and if the apostles had tried, our Lord would have removed the keys he had given to them.

Our Lord has ALL authority, and he will never lose it, and that power includes the power to penalize people for the choices the make.

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

No, I'm saying that is one of the possible reasons why the keys weren't passed on to other people.

It is also possible that the apostles couldn't get together in a sufficient number to act as a quorum in appointing successors... perhaps because they were prevented from traveling, for some reason.

And it is also possible that our Lord decided it was better to wait until a better time for his kingdom to be on the Earth, rather than allowing all of his righteous followers to be killed by those who weren't willing to grant religious freedom to other people.

We simply know that the Church did become apostate, for some reason or reasons, because God has told us that it did.

Bob: Well, Christ had them, and he was still here after the deaths of the Apostles, still bing the Cornerstone of the Church and the Head of the Church.

Yes, our Lord had them, but everybody else who had them was either killed or translated and it is obvious, at least to us, that they didn't pass them on to anybody to re-organize the Church after the first century A.D. in the East and after the fourth century in the West until they were given to Joseph Smith.

Bob: 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?

Yes, he could have. Our Lord could have done anything to accomplish his righteous purposes.

We are simply telling you what he has told us he did.

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

Bob: That would be Christ, if no one else.

Yesâ?¦ and not someone or some people who simply presumed to have our Lordâ??s authority.

Paul: 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.

Bob: Why, did Christ's Spirit leave?

No, but just because God is here among us doesnâ??t mean we can presume to act with Godâ??s authority.

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

Bob: This is a LDS principle, not a biblical one.

â?¦ in your opinion. Perhaps it would have been better to simply say that God wonâ??t.

Bob: 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.

Heh, youâ??re still trying to address that other issue in this thread, huh?

Iâ??m simply saying that God wonâ??t force anybody to do anythingâ?¦ he gives us the choice to do whatever we can do.

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

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

Right, not before then, and not even after then..

Nobody can claim to have the keys of the power of the God simply because they want them. God must actually give them to people, either personally or through authorized servants.

Paul: 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.

Bob: 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 receive 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.

You are qualified to receive Godâ??s blessings when God says you are qualified, either personally or through his authorized servants. But simply being qualified doesnâ??t automatically mean you will have them. God must actually give you his blessing(s)â?¦ and you shouldnâ??t presume you have them simply because you really, really want them.

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

Bob: 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.

In your perspective, it is God who is responsible for not allowing other people to receive the keys of the kingdom. And that is actually true, to a certain point. But it really isnâ??t so much a matter of God not allowing it, at least not necessarily, as much as the world they lived in not allowing it because the world would have either killed the succeeding apostles just like they killed the apostles and/or the followers would not have followed the true apostles the way the apostles were telling them to follow them simply because they thought they had a better way to do things, in their perspective.

â?¦. unless, of course, God simply struck down dead anyone who would dare to even consider killing an apostle or disregarding their teachings, thus continuing his kingdom at the cost of killing everyone else who was opposed God and his teachings and thus forcing everyone to do things Godâ??s way.

... but a God who forces people to do things isnâ??t the God that we (LDS) worship.

Paul: Assign the blame to the guilty parties, please.

Bob: 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.

He has told you pretty much the same thing I am telling youâ?¦ it isnâ??t Godâ??s fault.

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

Bob: 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.

I see that a lot of things that you see are based on your personal interpretation(s) of scripture, and not on what the scriptures actually tell us.

Paul: 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.

Bob: 1) History is only as good as the honesty and integrity of the authors. This side of heaven, we may NEVER understand or comprehend 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.

We (LDS) have other scriptures to tell us what God has told us through his true prophetsâ?¦ without having to rely on our personal interpretations.

Bob: 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.

Which group of people on Earth constituted that remnant, in your opinion, in the days of Joseph Smith?

IOW, which one had the priesthood and ALL the true teachings that were indicative of the early apostolic Church?

I know there were some Christians who had some truth and were trying to do the best that they could with what they had to work with, but the early church, in all itâ??s glory, was not among us at that timeâ?¦ until God restored it through Joseph Smith.

Paul: ... from the perspective 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?

Bob: 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.

Of course there isnâ??t total unity between the true LDS church and the apostates from our true LDS Church.

I told you before that those other â??Mormonâ? groups are apostates of the true Church, and the true church of Jesus Christ of LDS is still unified.

Again, you donâ??t seem to be listening.

Bob: Whose Church is it? Who's ultimately in charge of Christ's universal Church?

It is the church of Christ and his latter-day saints, and Christ is ultimately in charge of all of us.

Bob: Who am I to question Christ on why His Church is not how we'd LIKE to see it today?

Youâ??re a child of God, and all that matters is that his church is the way that God wants it.

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

Bob: 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?

What is newsworthy is that he asked God and God answered him, personally.

Paul: 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.

Bob: 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.

Paul actually referred to them as pillars, and yes, pillars are one type of foundation.

Bob: Now look at a lot of the ancient buildings from about 2,000 years ago or more. A lot 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.

First, I think itâ??s important to get you to realize that the church is made up of people. Weâ??re not talking about inanimate objects here. We are living beings.

If the apostles of Christ are still among us who are living, where are they?

Having words of earlier apostles isnâ??t the same as having apostles living among us to guide us as they once did in the early church of Christ, but even so, we (LDS) are saying that we have both words of former apostles and apostles living among us now to give us the word of God, daily.

Bob: 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.

Yes, I know, I agree that we still have a remnant of the early church, but I am also telling you that we have the early church fully restored in all itâ??s glory today.

Paul: 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.

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

Okay, fine, when components of the foundation of the church die or are removed from us mortal folk, what makes you think those components are still thereâ?¦ just as they were before they died or were removed from us mortals?

As I said, I know those components leave indications of their presence, such as some of the words they once shared, and maybe even their pictures, but what makes you think the foundation is still there as it once was in all of itâ??s glory and splendor?

Bob: 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 evangelism and doctrinal teachings, all focused 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.

What you are telling me now is a mixture of scripture mingled with your personal philosophies and ideas.

Iâ??ll stick with what God has told me both personally and through his authorized messengers.

Bob: 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 can see whatâ??s in the Bible, and much of what you are saying is simply not in it.

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

Bob: 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?

Me, and maybe you too. Would you like me to find you some scripture?

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

Bob: 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.

If you stuck with only what apostles actually said, you would be on pretty solid ground now, but you are adding your own personal ideas that I canâ??t find anywhere in the scriptures. I also have some personal ideas on some things that arenâ??t mentioned in the scriptures, but my faith is not built in those things.

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

Paul: 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.

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

I know he does. I value what we have in the scriptures, as well as what we have from modern apostles.

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

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

Bob: 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.

Keep working on it. I think ours will make more sense to you once you receive a few more of the pieces.

Paul: 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.

Bob: You're welcome to your opinion.

And you are welcome to yours. Iâ??d just like you to know mine and Godâ??s.

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.

Paul: 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.

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

Consider this as a challenge: See if the apostle Paul refers to any of the apostles as pillars in the Holy Bible.

And btw, what makes you think any or all of the apostles compare to a foundation made of concrete on which the building on top of it canâ??t move off of it?

Paul: 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.

Bob: 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.

Even if the foundation didnâ??t move, and never needed to be replaced, that wouldnâ??t mean the building they supported would never move off of it.

I believe the apostles are a very solid foundation, but the issue is if the church ever apostasized from them.

â?¦ and I see a lot of evidence that many are not built upon them.

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

Bob: I have. I hope you will do the same.

I have too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just in case you overlooked post #614 (I realize that you have many questions that you are attempting to answer) I post it again for you:Actually the Bible says otherwise:And also this:And yet another:So here are three quotes from the Apostle Paul that disputes what you said about following prophets. So I do not think you can deny the fact that at least Paul admonishes the Saints to follow him as he follows Christ. That is the duty of all true prophets, to be an example to those whom they are called to minister to. I also would like a CFR for a reference in the Bible that says that we are not to "follow the prophet and apostles" because that would contradict what Paul said in the above quotes. Thank you.

Well there goes the sidewalk. I m sure Bob will finagle his way out of this one.

I am 656.

Do I get any credit for being 656?

Selek was 616.

An early manuscript of the Book of Revelation has the number of the beast at 616.

Does Selek get partial anti-Christ credit?

Getting really close here

[selek]

Well there goes the sidewalk. I m sure Bob will finagle his way out of this one.

Getting really close here

Very close.

[Bob Betts]

Coveted, eh?

[PacMan]

One more...

[Bob Betts]

It's a sin to covet.

But, I'll take it.

[Paul Ray]

You deserve it, Bob.

Edited to add a wink, or two.

[consiglieri]

It's a sin to covet.

But, I'll take it.

The cup of irony is overflowing . . .

[Bob Betts]

You deserve it, Bob.

Edited to add a wink, or two.

Just havin' a little fun. Just wanted to see if I could pull it off.

Back to more serious matters.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's a sin to covet.

But, I'll take it.

Ha. Thats great. Oh well. At least we can all have some fun in the midst of all of this. Bob, you should take a screen shot just for kicks.

[Paul Ray]

Bob,

Here is a summary of steps involving, and involved in, apostasy. I'll give you the short version.

Our Lord founded his church with apostles in key positions and himself as the chief corner stone.

Our Lord taught his apostles and they taught other people what our Lord had taught them, personally.

The apostles taught by personally visiting the local church(es) and by sending letters to the church(es).

The apostles had the authority to establish... and correct... local church(es) throughout the whole world.

The local leaders had the authority to put the apostles teachings into practice in their local church(es).

Many members of local churches didn't follow the apostles, in everything, instead believing whatever else they chose to believe.

The apostles continued to teach the church(es) by personal visits, as well as by letters to the church(es).

While all of this was going on the Church was being persecuted, and many leaders and members were killed.

At some point there were no more apostles guiding the Church as a whole.

The remaining members continued believing whatever else they chose and were choosing to believe.

Without any living apostles the Church no longer had the (general) authorities that would bring the Church into unity as a whole.

There were still some members of the Church who put all the apostle's teachings into practice, as far as they could, at least for a while, but they no longer had the living apostles to guide them and bring them into unity.

They only had the writings from letters the apostles had written previously, and their memories of what they had said when they visited.

The apostasy was the result of members of the Church choosing to believe whatever they chose to believe, from whatever source other than the teachings of our Lord and his apostles.

The writings from the apostles in their day weren't even available to everybody, personally.

The local members of the Church basically relied on what their local leaders were teaching, and not all that they taught was correct.

The apostle Paul warned about wolves that would arise from among them (the local churches) with their own beliefs and agendas.

Without apostles it got nasty. You can see for yourself in recorded history.

In a very short period of time factions arose...

... such as the Nicolaitans and Gnostics mentioned in the Bible.

... and other groups not mentioned in the Bible.

... and then there was the Roman Catholics church(es)

... and the Greek Orthodox Catholic church(es).

... and the Anglican church(es)

... and the Church of England church(es)

... and the Lutheran church(es)

... etc, etc, etc...

... and then later in history, something wonderful happened.

I'll leave you to fill in the remainder of the story, for yourself.

[Bob Betts]

PacMan: 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!

Yes! The parallels are quite similar, I agree.

Why? Because time doesnâ??t mean a thing to God.

No, I don't think that time meaning nothing to God has anything to do with it. The parellels would have to do with His perfect will; His plan to accomplish His ultimate goals. It was one of God's ultimate goals to get to Get His people out of Egypt, and out of slavery, and to the land of promise. That is similarly why Christ was sent to save His people, and set up a universal, living organizm of people (the Church) with gifts and offices, to bring them through the home stretch of history to the millenial reign of Christ, and eventually heaven.

You have JUST answered your logical hang-up of the Apostasy!! Think long and hard, because this a riveting example!

No, I haven't, and you're about to see that it's not so riveting an example. You have missed one of the obvious parallels. It was because of God's determination to get the Israelites to the promised land, that He ordained an organization which would continue and be maintained as Joshua would finally take the Israelites to their new home. The LDS doctrine of an apostasy of authority, ceasing the function of the Church organization for 1,700 years, does NOT parallel that OT story. The organization which God ordained under Moses never ceased. LDS doctrine teaches that the Church organization DID cease...for a very long time. Your parallel of the two stories just fell apart. Even WITH a certain amount of apostasy within the camp of Israel, the organization of God never stopped functioning. Think about it.

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.

Textually, there is no basis for an apostasy of priesthood authority and the organization of the Church to cease. Why you (LDS) believe that Christ organized His Church with the knowledge that it would cease to function in just a few decades, is beyond my comprehension. And, certainly is unprecedented in God's history of the world.

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.

Sorry, but they don't go around wearing their titles on name tags.

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?

NOTE: Christ called 12 disciples, He chose 11. One was the prophesied son of perdition.

If you donâ??t recognize the 12 as anything distinct from the 70, Bishops, etc., (although all sent forth), you aint reading the Bible.

I won't pick at those numbers. There was significance to the them. Thouhg much more significance to your church then mine. All the more reason to question, in my mind, why your church would believe that as each of them was martyred, God didn't allow John to appoint replacements, and allowed the organization to become ineffectual for 1,700 years. Your doctrine defies both the Moses/Exodus model of an ongoing organization, and the LDS belief in maintaining a quorum of 12. You (LDS) make it hard to believe your church is true. Lack of consistency.

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.

You made the point that the foundation had to be on living Apostles, did you not? You used that point to make the next point that when an Apostles died, it was imperative that another living Apostle be appointed. this creates a picture in MY mind of a building foundation made up of 12 flat stones (with Christ as the Cornerstone, of course), on which to build the building. In any normal building foundation, they're never replaced. In Mormonism, they are. Because the organization of the of 12 Apostles must be living Apostle. The dead ones won't due. The problem with your belief is, the foundation of the Apostles of the early Church was their doctrines and teachings, so that the Church could remain strong after the last breath of the last Apostle. I see nothing insufficient about the teachings and doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles, requiring a succession of additional living Apostles to take their place. It wasn't their mortal existence which had anything to do with the foundation of the early Church. If the early Church could not grow and mature on the foundation they built, then Paul was wrong about the Church being built upon the "present tense" foundation of the apostles and prophets.

I gotta tell ya, I choose the teachings of Paul over Joseph, without blinking.

[Bob Betts]

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.

Yes. Which is why I CAN'T understand the LDS belief that the quorum ended because God wouldn't authorize John to appoint replacements, effectively halting the organization. Which is unparalleled when compared to the sustained organization under Moses. So, YOUR church believes that the quorum of 12 is of the highest importance in the church organization, but God apparently didn't care that much to ensure perpetuation.

The more we keep talking about this, the less sense it makes.

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.

But, the all-important quorum did end. And, without the quorum the Church organization of of non-effect. Earlier in our discussion, the quorum of 12 meant something. Is that now insignificant.

John was right there with the resurrected Peter and James when they gave Joseph the Priesthood. They complete an unbroken lineage.

But, no quorum. No quorum, no organization. No organization, no authority. What good is the unbroken lineage for 1,700 years, without any authority to sustain the organization?

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?

Wow. A LDS taking something in the Bible literally. Is this progress, or what?

I DO believe it. 1) When Paul said that, did he mean that the unity had to be accomplished in his generation, or just eventually? 2) When Paul said that, did he mean unity between true churches and false churches, or unity amonst ourselves? If he meant unity amonst ourselves, did he mean we had to agree on everthing, or just on the important doctrines? If Paul meant the important doctrines amongst ourselves, did he mean there was no room for discussion on the minutist of details, or did he mean despite any discussion on the minutist of details? If he meant the latter of each of these points, we're pretty much already there.

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?

They're in the field as missionaries, reaching unreached people groups, bringing souls to Christ, starting indigenous Churches. Unity is ongoing until Christ's return. When did Christ or Paul put a time limit on achieving unity. We're doing remarkably well, considering all the opposition from within and without (tares and wolves).

How's the unity coming along amongst all the Mormon denominations?

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!

From YOU of course. But, I didn't say movable, I said REmovable.

If dead Apostles must be replaced by living ones, and the replacement causes a reconstitution of the organization (as I've been told), then that part of the foundation is apparently removable. Remove the deceased Apostle from the foundation, replace him with a mortal one. One comes out, another goes in. The foundation of the early Church apostles and prophets is, in effect, removable.

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.

Paul said the foundation was laid. There is absolutely no reason, due to the present tense he uses, to believe that the foundation of those early Church Apostles, was only "part of that foundation," needing latter-day apostles to complete it.

[consiglieri]

Paul said the foundation was laid. There is absolutely no reason, due to the present tense he uses, to believe that the foundation of those early Church Apostles, was only "part of that foundation," needing latter-day apostles to complete it.

You realize, of course, that Paul thought he would live to see Christ return.

Sort of changes the whole picture, don't you think?

All the Best!

--Cognoscente

[Paul Ray]

If dead Apostles must be replaced by living ones, and the replacement causes a reconstitution of the organization (as I've been told), then that part of the foundation is apparently removable. Remove the deceased Apostle from the foundation, replace him with a mortal one. One comes out, another goes in. The foundation of the early Church apostles and prophets is, in effect, removable.

Lookie there!

You've just provided your own example of a removable foundation like the one mentioned in the Bible.

Congratulations!

Paul said the foundation was laid. There is absolutely no reason, due to the present tense he uses, to believe that the foundation of those early Church Apostles, was only "part of that foundation," needing latter-day apostles to complete it.

Latter-day apostles... in whose perspective?

Matthias was a replacement for one of the original 12 apostles.

... and Paul was also added as an apostle later.

Maybe you are not listening because you are tired? Do you need a nap?