Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Mark Beesley]

Fix your post Bob. It's as muddled as . . . . never mind. . . .

- - - - - - -

Edited to add, after the fix was made:

Thanks Bob. Looks much nicer now.

[Bob Betts]

Paul Ray: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.

Kinda like a flood, maybe?

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

That's abundantly and unmistakenly true. You do worship a different God than we.

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.

Like I said, I agree it's not God's fault, because the whole story is fabricated IMO. But, if it was true, and God could have caused the succession of Apostles to continue, but chose not to, resulting in the apostasy after the deaths of the Apostles, and the authority and keys being taken from the earth, then God would certainly, logically be responsible for that whole chain of events.

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.

Then correctly interpret for me, what I've allegedly incorrectly interpreted. Don't just tell me I did it wrong. Do it right and correct my faulty interpretations.

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.

But, I have no reason to believe the BoM is scripture. Nor do I have any faith in your founding prophet, nor any prophet since. Why would you think that I would suddenly trust your scriptures and prophets for a true version of post-apostolic, early Church history, when there's no evidence for the history of the BoM, and since Joseph Smith prophesied falsely (once by his own admission)?

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?

I don't know the answer to that. I would never point to any denomination as a whole as constituting a remnant. The remnant is always made up of all true and faithful believers. They wouldn't necesssarily call themselves anything, except Christians or followers of Christ.

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

Which priesthood? There was no Aaronic priesthood in Christ's day, since His Melchizedek made the Aaronic one obsolete, and Christ was the only one to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, other than Melchizedek himself in the OT. The only other priesthood mentioned, but not named, is in 1 Peter 2:5, 9.

Back later.

[Paul Ray]

That's abundantly and unmistakenly true. You do worship a different God than we.

If you're saying you worship a God who forces you to do things, while depriving you of your ability to make your own choices, then yes, I'll agree, that isn't the same God as my God.

if it was true, and God could have caused the succession of Apostles to continue, but chose not to, resulting in the apostasy after the deaths of the Apostles, and the authority and keys being taken from the earth, then God would certainly, logically be responsible for that whole chain of events.

For the whole chain of events, huh? You don't honestly believe that, do you?

In the above scenario, the reason God didn't continue to give his authority to other people is because those other people would not have used it in harmony with the will of God, thus, it was because of the evil nature and evil intent of other people that God did not continue his work.

If you want to blame God for that, go ahead, but I will once again tell you that I don't agree.

God is not responsible for the sins of other people, or their decision to do their own will instead of doing the will of God.

Then correctly interpret for me, what I've allegedly incorrectly interpreted. Don't just tell me I did it wrong. Do it right and correct my faulty interpretations.

I've been doing that all along, Bob, and all I get from you is something like:

That's your belief, and the belief of your Church, and I see no reason to agree with it.

That's pretty much the attitude of an apostate, Bob.

You do not accept the word of God and/or the words of his authorized representatives.

But, I have no reason to believe the BoM is scripture. Nor do I have any faith in your founding prophet, nor any prophet since. Why would you think that I would suddenly trust your scriptures and prophets for a true version of post-apostolic, early Church history, when there's no evidence for the history of the BoM, and since Joseph Smith prophesied falsely (once by his own admission)?

God would tell you, if you asked him with the sincere intent to accept whatever he told you.

But, no, you won't do that, because your personal opinion is against those ideas.

I don't know the answer to that. I would never point to any denomination as a whole as constituting a remnant. The remnant is always made up of all true and faithful believers. They wouldn't necesssarily call themselves anything, except Christians or followers of Christ.

... in your opinion. The Bible is silent on that matter. You are simply giving your personal opinion.

Which priesthood? There was no Aaronic priesthood in Christ's day, since His Melchizedek made the Aaronic one obsolete, and Christ was the only one to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, other than Melchizedek himself in the OT. The only other priesthood mentioned, but not named, is in 1 Peter 2:5, 9.

Again you are interpreting the scriptures based on your own personal interpretations and opinion.

The Bible, iself, does not say what you are saying, and I have something better than your opinion.

Try talking with God about everything, with enough faith to believe God will answer you personally, and you will then know how to know what is true when God actually does answer you, personally.

[ohwell]

I just asked God and he answered me personally. He told me that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ. If some god told you differently then you have the wrong god.

Mormon logic is basically relativistic.

[Paul Ray]

I just asked God and he answered me personally. He told me that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ. If some god told you differently then you have the wrong god.

Mormon logic is basically relativistic.

I think you are missing the point as it applies to each person, individually.

The point is NOT to accept what someone else says that God says.

The point is to accept what God tells you, and/or me, personally, and individually.

God has told me The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored church of Jesus Christ in this day and age, and that it needed to be restored because the original Church became corrupt through the apostasy of individuals who later led the church in opposition to the will of God.

... and regardless of anything you tell me, that is what God has told me, personally.

[ohwell]

Paul,

God told me something different and he specifically said the Mormons were wrong. You see the problem. Feelings not faith rule in Mormonism. There is no room for objectivity. So I can say that you are being deceived and that it is Satan who is telling you these lies. Whereas the real God is speaking to me. Where does that leave us?

[Paul Ray]

Paul,

God told me something different and he specifically said the Mormons were wrong. You see the problem.

Yes, I see some problems, but I don't know if what I see is what you are referring to.

I think it's possible that at least one of us is deceived and at least one of us is right in some sense.

... and I also see a way for both of us to be right without necessarily disagreeing with each other.

God has also told me that Jesus Christ founded his church and that the church Jesus Christ founded became known as the Catholic church. Where I believe you are wrong, or deceived, is in thinking the Catholic church is still the true church of Jesus Christ. God has told me the leaders of the Catholic church became apostate very near the time of our Lord's first apostles.

Feelings not faith rule in Mormonism.

Faith is a feeling of assurance, and when faith comes from God it assures the person who receives it that God is answering their questions and concerns, as well as giving inspiration from God to let that person know what God is thinking when God answers that person, personally.

IOW, true faith is a substance of things that are hoped for, which are true.

My faith from God is substantial.

There is no room for objectivity.

My main goal is to find out what God thinks, not what other people think.

... the latter is good, and I also like to do that, but that is not my main goal in my life.

So I can say that you are being deceived and that it is Satan who is telling you these lies.

Sure, you can say that, and I can also say the same thing to you, if I want to.

Whereas the real God is speaking to me.

Perhaps he is and he just isn't telling you as much as he is telling me, personally.

I acknowledge the fact that you have some truth, but you apparently do not have all of the truth that God has told me. Perhaps that's because the truth you have is mixed with lies. That is a common teaching tactic of Satan.

Where does that leave us?

You have what you have, and I have what I have.

I'm willing to let the Judge settle this issue for both of us.

[T-Shirt]

Bob, I know you have been trying to respond to a lot of people, but I am wondering if you would be kind enough to answer my question from a few pages back?

You stated:

The scriptures tell us that those who believe, receive the HG who does more than come upon them, but dwells in them. But, in the case of the two disciples, the Spirit had not yet been sent, as pentecost was still in their future, when the HG would be given.

To which, I asked:

Then how do you explain the case of John the Baptist, Elisebeth, Zacharias and Simeon, all of whom were filled with the Holy Ghost, long before Pentecost?

What do you think?

T-Shirt

[owl]

[Edited for clarity.]Oh my heck! You people believe every time you sin you lose your salvation? Oh my. 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Where the heck did you get the idea that every sin costs you your salvation?

Not every time we sin, every time we sin without repenting. I interpret John to mean by confessing that we suffer remorse and forsake the sin in the future.

As I understand it, you believe Christ will inspire the believer to live a righteous life, but it will not be effortless.

You surely can't believe we can enter heaven unrepentant. I know "the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." is an LDS scripture, but it must surely be a Christian concept.

Since God will not remember sins that we repent of, it is only the ones we are unwilling to forsake we need to worry about. For these sins, we need to seek an extra measure of grace and plead to have the desire removed. Then as far as possible, we need to remove everything from our lives that reminds us of the sin. It will be God's grace that allows us to conquer the sin, but after we have done what we can and after we have persevered.

[Aquilifer]

Good grief, will this thread never die? I think it's been around since the 3 Nephites were in diapers.

[Dale]

I never thought in terms of losing a saved status before God. D.&C. 76:38-44 is clear enough that lots of beings outside the Celestial kingdom have a saved status before God. I only doubted i would make it to the Celestial kingdom. I also doubted i would ever get exaltation. I knew i had not qualified for exaltation. I am now RLDS and exaltation is not a part of my theology.

But Bob's comment made me think of D.&C. 82:7. It say's, "And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God."

As i see it the person was forgiven of lot's of sin's they did not have time to cease yet. In fact as long as we are human we will sin.(Romans 3:23) The Lord would make not sinning anymore mission impossible if he meant no more sin of any type at all. But it would be mission possible if he meant certain sin's within the power of the individual to not return to.

Certainly if we knew we were keeping all the commandments that would give as an assurance we were forgiven. And if we had no more desire to sin we would know we merited forgiveness. But who does the ideal in these areas? Nobody, but Jesus was ever said to have done it. Specer W. Kimball wrote some stuff that said that those things were the requirements for forgiveness. Have you done it? This is the question that follows the quotes from the man.

The "Try is weak" quote is another one that gets brought up.

Certain passages say you have to do it in this life. No labor for salvation can be performed in the next.

Critic's will hold the repentance process won't work. That's because you alway's have sin that you never got around to ceasing.

In Matthew 19 a rich young man was faced with a command he couldn't keep. Jesus makes his eye of the needle saying. In vs. 25 the disciples ask, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus in vs. 26 say's in response, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

In light of D.&C. 76 not being forgiven of sin under celestial law must not include not being forgiven under the lower kingdom's laws. If LDS leaders meant that then nobody could in the lower kingdom's get saved. But certainly until an LDS person is confident they are doing it they have no reason to be confident they are going to make it. Certainly D.&C. 82:7 would only have the person have a temporary confidence in Celestial salvation until they sinned the same sin twice.

The above contains the basic Evangelical objections to Celestial law. My copy of Mormonism 101 by Bill Mckeever and Eric Johnson have some dialogues in the book. They suggest using these points to undercut LDS beliefs in that regard.

[Paul Ray]

The Lord would make not sinning anymore mission impossible if he meant no more sin of any type at all. But it would be mission possible if he meant certain sin's within the power of the individual to not return to.

Certainly if we knew we were keeping all the commandments that would give as an assurance we were forgiven. And if we had no more desire to sin we would know we merited forgiveness. But who does the ideal in these areas? Nobody, but Jesus was ever said to have done it. Specer W. Kimball wrote some stuff that said that those things were the requirements for forgiveness. Have you done it? This is the question that follows the quotes from the man.

The "Try is weak" quote is another one that gets brought up.

Certain passages say you have to do it in this life. No labor for salvation can be performed in the next.

Critic's will hold the repentance process won't work. That's because you alway's have sin that you never got around to ceasing.

In Matthew 19 a rich young man was faced with a command he couldn't keep. Jesus makes his eye of the needle saying. In vs. 25 the disciples ask, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus in vs. 26 say's in response, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

In light of D.&C. 76 not being forgiven of sin under celestial law must not include not being forgiven under the lower kingdom's laws. If LDS leaders meant that then nobody could in the lower kingdom's get saved. But certainly until an LDS person is confident they are doing it they have no reason to be confident they are going to make it. Certainly D.&C. 82:7 would only have the person have a temporary confidence in Celestial salvation until they sinned the same sin twice.

The above contains the basic Evangelical objections to Celestial law. My copy of Mormonism 101 by Bill Mckeever and Eric Johnson have some dialogues in the book. They suggest using these points to undercut LDS beliefs in that regard.

I believe we will be forgiven of all sins that we have repented from, but not those we have not repented from.

For example, persons assigned to the Telestial kingdom will include those who weren't honest but didn't repent from being dishonest as much as it was in their power to repent from being dishonest.

As an example of that tpe of person, consider a person who had been taught that God doesn't approve of dishonesty, accepted that teaching, at first, and then later forgot about it, and during the course of his life became a CFO who used his influence to take millions of dollars from his corporation's retirement fund that didn't belong to him, was later caught and served his time in jail, got out of jail, and then proceeded to live off of the money he stole from the corporation that he managed to keep hidden from corporate and government officials who tried to get it back. Such a person never fully repented of the sin he committed, even though he may think he did by serving his time in jail while vowing to never again steal anything else. The part he left out of his repentance process was restoring the money to it's rightful owner(s), which he could have done by simply returning the money to the corporation.

Or, for an example closer to home for some people:

Consider a person who had been taught that God doesn't approve of dishonesty, accepted that teaching, at first, and then later forgot about it, and during the course of his life took a pencil from the office supplies of a company he worked for that bought that pencil to be used while only at work, was never caught, and then proceeded to use that pencil for work other than company related work, never replacing the pencil he took while knowing who the pencil actually belonged to.

And btw, if either of the above persons didn't fully complete their repentance process simply because they didn't know how to restore what they took, or that they should restore what they took, or got to the point where they realized what they should do to fully repent long after the fact and there was no longer anything they could do about it, perhaps because they forgot from whom they stole what they stole, I believe such persons could then be forgiven because they would then be at the point where they no longer have the capacity to fully repent as much as they could have done right away, because I believe our Lord will only hold them accountable for doing all they could do to fully repent of their sins.

I believe repentance is a very interesting concept.

[Dale]

I have been taking some witnessing to Mormons training for my own benifit. I have been taking some witnessing to Community of Christ/RLDS training also. I find its useful in self defense if nothing else. But all the counter-cult talking points stick in my head.

Locally we have Mark Cares Pastor of Messiah Lutheran in Nampa, Idaho. I actually like the guy. He has always been nice to me when i have met with him. He is the author of Speaking The Truth in Love To Mormons. They have an outreach to Mormons website.

In one of his brochures it argues Matthew 5:48 means being perfect now. He see's no way you can become perfect in the afterlife. Based on James 2:10 he argues either you are perfect now, or LDS are on the way to outer darkness. So based on Hebrews 10:14 he argues he is perfect now, but LDS are no so are on the way to outer darkness. He has a DVD with his witnessing to LDS missionaries film. Plus it has an brief history of the LDS Church on it.

I had responded in depth to their witnessing approach. But because i would not agree with them they cut off contact with me. I feel bad none of them were open to the possibility they were wrong. One of their lade ex-LDS is descended from David Patten. Her brother who i know is an LDS Bishop. I think her name is Becky Detro. I hope i did not get her name wrong.

But on the video she testifies how she never felt peace as an LDS person. That she never felt she could live up to the repentance process. That every time she thought she would be able to do it she kept on failing. So after she saw the light of the truth of her new religion she felt peace. I feel her decieved, but honest in her story.

But Spencer W. Kimball wrote some things that don't work in reality. He say's some things on keeping the commandments that are hard to reconcile with how imperfect even the best LDS person is. So LDS critics like to cite him a lot.

[consiglieri]

You know, in its own ironic way, this thread is not only about the great apostasy, it seems to be an example of how the great apostasy occurred.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mark Beesley]

You know, in its own ironic way, this thread is not only about the great apostasy, it seems to be an example of how the great apostasy occurred.

One post at a time?

[Bob Betts]

Bob, I know you have been trying to respond to a lot of people, but I am wondering if you would be kind enough to answer my question from a few pages back?

You stated:

The scriptures tell us that those who believe, receive the HG who does more than come upon them, but dwells in them. But, in the case of the two disciples, the Spirit had not yet been sent, as pentecost was still in their future, when the HG would be given.

To which, I asked:

Then how do you explain the case of John the Baptist, Elisebeth, Zacharias and Simeon, all of whom were filled with the Holy Ghost, long before Pentecost?

What do you think?

T-Shirt

Thank you for your patience. Since this is short, I'll respond to it at this time.

First, I don't find where John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Second, what is stated about Simeon is that the Holy Ghost was upon him, not that he was filled with the Holy Ghost. If you think I'm splitting hairs, then I'm fine with you adding Simeon to my third point, with Elisabeth and Zacharias, as God revealed a message to Simeon like He did Elisabeth and Zacharias.

Third, yes, Elisabeth and Zacharias were indeed filled with the Holy Ghost. In both cases, a prophecy followed. These would be unique and special fillings, since Christ had not yet been born, and the Spirit would not be poured out until pentecost, as a fulfillment of Christ's promise that he would send the Spirit after He returned to the Father.

I see the point you're attempting to make with these exceptions, but they are nevertheless exceptions. The permanent indwelling of the Godhead in all believers (Romans 8:9, 11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 3:17; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 John 4:12-16) was definitely subsequent to pentecost (John 14:17 - "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you").

[consiglieri]

To which, I asked:

What do you think?

T-Shirt

First, I don't find where John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost.

That would be "from his mother's womb."

Did Luke 1:15 not make it into your Bible?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[structurecop]

That would be "from his mother's womb."

Did Luke 1:15 not make it into your Bible?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig, your wit is especially sharp today. This had me laughing out loud.

[consiglieri]

Consig, your wit is especially sharp today. This had me laughing out loud.

I am low on my medications.

[Mark Beesley]

That would be "from his mother's womb."

Did Luke 1:15 not make it into your Bible?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It's a shame Bob won't respond to you directly. You'll have to do like I do -- get one of the other posters who Bob is still on speaking terms with to ask the same question. For some reason that is a mystery to me, Bob will then respond, even though he knows that it is a question from you.

[Bob Betts]

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.

But, the Church was not the Church of the Apostles. It was, and is, the Church of Christ. Christ promised He would be with the disciples to the end of the world. The Churches still had the Apostle's letters, Christ remained the Head and Cornerstone of His universal Church and all believers were still, and all believers are still filled with the indwelling of the Godhead.

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

Are you suggesting that the remaining Godhead-filled believers stopped believing the truth for some reason? From where might you be getting such information?

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

The Church still had Christ, the truth written by the inspired Apostles, and the Godhead dwelling in each one them. The Church didn't crumble after the Apostles died. The foundation of the OT prophets and the Apostles continued in the inspired writings of the prophets and Apostles. And, of course, Christ was still here and all believers were filled with the Spirit of God/Christ.

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.

Where did you come up with the number "some"?

They had a lot more than writings and memories. All those which the Apostles discipled over the decades, didn't suddenly go brain-dead or spirit-dead due to the Apostles absence. They were all still filled with the Holy Spirit, and the living Christ was still here, since He promised to be with them until the end of the world.

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.

CFR. I know this is your best-guess scenario, because it fits into your firm belief that there was an apostasy. But, it's a guess at best, because you completely leave Christ out of the picture, and you leave the indwelling of the HG in believers out of the picture. You apparently assume that persecusion led to a great falling away. Yet, your church will claim that persecution has always strengthened your church and caused it to grow. Which is it, with persecution, according to your church? A great falling away? Or, a great time of strengthening and growth?

Do you recall that Constantine invited 1,800 Bishops to the Council of Nicea, in 345 AD? 1,800 Bishops. That means, at least 1,800 congregations, if there was only one Bishop per congregation. No one knows how many believers were in each of those congregations. Where did they all come from if there was so much falling away going on throughout that time period, from the death of the last Apostle, to the ending of persecution between 310-315 AD?

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

CFR. How could you possibly know this?

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

CFR. Where are you getting this from. I've not heard so much detailed information about the daily lives of the Christians in the immediate post-Apostolic age.

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

So did Jesus. What does that have to do with what happened after the Apostles died? Did all the Spirit-filled Christians get stupid and decide to follow the other teachings and doctrines of the false teachers of their day? Did everyone just take the opportunity to switch doctrinal sides when the last Apostle died?

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

CFR. It makes no sense, what you're proposing. Christ was here. Spirit-filled Christians were here. Lots of those Spirit-filled Christians were disciples of the Apostles, and leaders in the Churches. They had the letters of the Apostles. They had their memories of the Apostles teachings. That the end result of all that was that most fell away from the true faith, is senseless. How could the end result of persecution be a great falling away, in light of your own church's claim to be bigger and stronger for all the persecution it's suffered? It's contradictory.

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

Factions, false doctrines, false teachings, etc. have always been around, before, during and after Christ.

... 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...

All of which is perfectly, adequately covered by the teachings and writings of the Apostles, the presence of Christ until the end of the world, and the remnant of Spirit-filled Christians from then until now.

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

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

Something wonderful continued to happen . . . continuing from the time that Christ established His Church. Christ remained on earth. The authority and keys were never taken from it. The truth prevailed, despite many claims by many false prophets, apostles, presidents, seers, teachers, popes and doctines. The Word of God has prevailed. The Church of Christ never died. God preserved a remnant. Belief and faith in Christ for immediate reception of eternal life was true then, and has survived to today, despite so many voices in the world, to the contrary; despite so many attempts to destroy God's Word, and dilute it and reduce it to meaninglessness; despite so many attempts to supercede it with other so-called scriptures, doctrines and gospels. The Truth lives on the earth today, still holding the authority and keys on earth today, and is still the Head and Cornerstone of His Church, still solidly built on the foundation of the OT prophets and early Church Apostles.

That's what I believe, based on the Bible.

[T-Shirt]

T-Shirt

Thank you for your patience. Since this is short, I'll respond to it at this time.

First, I don't find where John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost.

According to Luke 1:15:

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Second, what is stated about Simeon is that the Holy Ghost was upon him, not that he was filled with the Holy Ghost. If you think I'm splitting hairs, then I'm fine with you adding Simeon to my third point, with Elisabeth and Zacharias, as God revealed a message to Simeon like He did Elisabeth and Zacharias.

Do you think that there were no others to have had messages revealed to them by the Holy Ghost, before Pentecost? Do you think the Holy Ghost was involved at all when Peter had the divinity of Christ revealed to him?

Third, yes, Elisabeth and Zacharias were indeed filled with the Holy Ghost. In both cases, a prophecy followed. These would be unique and special fillings, since Christ had not yet been born, and the Spirit would not be poured out until pentecost, as a fulfillment of Christ's promise that he would send the Spirit after He returned to the Father.

So you would agree that there were at least four occasions when the Holy Ghost interacted with humans before Pentecost? When taken in context, the LDS understanding that there is a difference between being influenced by the Holy Ghost and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, becomes evident throughout the New Testament.

I see the point you're attempting to make with these exceptions, but they are nevertheless exceptions. The permanent indwelling of the Godhead in all believers (Romans 8:9, 11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 3:17; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 John 4:12-16) was definitely subsequent to pentecost (John 14:17 - "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you").

The difference between us, here, is that for us there is no need to explain this away by calling it an exception.

My best,

T-Shirt

[Paul Ray]

Bob,

One quick note.

By the phrase "great apostasy" I am referring to a great falling away of members of the one true church of Jesus Christ led by Jesus Christ through his apostles to a division of that unity into different factions with each faction thinking they are still part of the same organization that was/is led by Jesus Christ through his apostles.

From your perspective, when you see a group of people leave or fall away from one organization to form a different organization, such as some members of a "Baptist" church leaving or falling out and away from the "Baptist" church to form a different organization such as a "Methodist" church, TO YOU, it's still one big happy family that is still a part of the same one true church of Jesus Christ, BUT TO ME (and most LDS, IMO) the members of the Baptist church who fell away from the Baptist church to form a different organization (such as a Methodist church, for example) are APOSTATES of the Baptist church.

I hope you now know what I mean when I refer to the apostasy.

The one true church of Jesus Christ became divided into different factions which were not a part of the one true church that Jesus Christ had formed with apostles to lead and guide them, instead becoming what you now see in all of Christendom which we (LDS) see and refer to a result of apostasy.

And I know, I know, you think all of that is fine and dandy. Just understand that we (LDS) do not.

And btw, if the one true church that Jesus Christ founded with apostles appointed to lead and guide the Church had still been on the Earth during the days of Joseph Smith, perfectly organized as it was meant to be with apostles (senior officers in the Church) to lead and guide the Church, still teaching the same doctrine that was taught and still performing the same ordinances that were performed by the Church with our Lord's authority, then the Restoration would not have been necessary in the day of Joseph Smith and the Lord would have simply told Joseph to join whichever one organization it was... and not something like:

Well, Joseph, it doesn't really matter, since all are right. You pick.

... at least IMO.

[Bob Betts]

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!

In case there was a misunderstanding, what I stated above was my rendition of what I hear you LDS saying. I, myself, do not believe that.

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?

Yours. Don't you believe the early Church was without foundation after the deaths of the Apostles, needing to be replaced by your Latter-day apostles?

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?

Maybe.

If I understand what you all believe, the fact that Paul said the foundation of the Church was built upon the prophets and Apostles, and (according to you) every time an Apostle died he needed to be replaced by a living one, and since all the prophets and Apostles all eventually died, then there was no more foundation. . . except for Christ as the Chief Cornerstone, of course. But, everyone knows that the foundation of a building needs more than just a cornerstone. So, don't you all believe that the foundation of the Church was completely eliminated, by way of the deaths of all the prophets and Apostles? So, the fact that there were a few replacements along the way in Acts, is really superfluous, since what's really important to your complete apostasy theory is what allegedly occurred when all Apostles, including the replacements, were dead. Right?

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

One quick note.

By the phrase "great apostasy" I am referring to a great falling away of members of the one true church of Jesus Christ led by Jesus Christ through his apostles to a division of that unity into different factions with each faction thinking they are still part of the same organization that was/is led by Jesus Christ through his apostles.

From your perspective, when you see a group of people leave or fall away from one organization to form a different organization, such as some members of a "Baptist" church leaving or falling out and away from the "Baptist" church to form a different organization such as a "Methodist" church, TO YOU, it's still one big happy family that is still a part of the same one true church of Jesus Christ, BUT TO ME (and most LDS, IMO) the members of the Baptist church who fell away from the Baptist church to form a different organization (such as a Methodist church, for example) are APOSTATES of the Baptist church.

I hope you now know what I mean when I refer to the apostasy.

The one true church of Jesus Christ became divided into different factions which were not a part of the one true church that Jesus Christ had formed with apostles to lead and guide them, instead becoming what you now see in all of Christendom which we (LDS) see and refer to a result of apostasy.

And I know, I know, you think all of that is fine and dandy. Just understand that we (LDS) do not.

And btw, if the one true church that Jesus Christ founded with apostles appointed to lead and guide the Church had still been on the Earth during the days of Joseph Smith, perfectly organized as it was meant to be with apostles (senior officers in the Church) to lead and guide the Church, still teaching the same doctrine that was taught and still performing the same ordinances that were performed by the Church with our Lord's authority, then the Restoration would not have been necessary in the day of Joseph Smith and the Lord would have simply told Joseph to join whichever one organization it was... and not something like:

Well, Joseph, it doesn't really matter, since all are right. You pick.

... at least IMO.

Noted, thank you. I'll respond at a later date.