Great Apostasy Disproven by Amos and Jeremiah

[soren]

Amos 8:11-12 is widely cited by Mormon General Authorities and in official LDS literature in support of the Great Apostasy. The text, which prophesies of the Babylonian exile, reads:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

As with 99% of Great Apostasy proof-texts, the weakness of the argument from this verse is evident from the absence of any reference to a total apostasy. Clear indications in the text show that the apostasy mentioned here is not total. Amosâ?? message is directed specifically to Judah, not all of Israel, and even then some people of Judah remain faithful, since God destroys all the sinners yet spares some. (cf. Amos 9:8-10) Logic would dictate that some are not sinners, and therefore not all are apostate. Godâ??s condemnation applies to the nation of Judah extensively, but does not impute apostasy to the whole population individually. Moreover, the text makes no reference to the loss of priesthood authority during the time of exile â?? the defining component of LDS apostasy/restoration doctrine. Much to the contrary, the gift of prophecy continued during the exile, as in case of Daniel. In all points, Amos is describing a different circumstance from that claimed by the LDS Church in the Great Apostasy.

That Amos does not support the Great Apostasy is easy to see. What is less evident is that Amos, when read in relation to Acts, actually damages the Mormon case for a restoration in 1830. When read in the relation to Jeremiah, it is fatal to it. Amos gives only a few sentencesâ?? mention to the restoration, in the very last verses of his prophecy. He speaks not of restoring the gospel or priesthood, but with the end of the Babylonian exile and the return of the Israelites from exile:

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

In the last verse, God proclaims that the punishment described in Amos 8:11-12 will not be repeated against his people after the time of the restoration. And when is that restoration? The answer is found in Acts 15:13-18, when the Apostle James cites Amos 9:11-12 to show why Gentiles do not need to keep the Mosaic law:

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

What Jamesâ?? reference to Amos implies is that the time of restoration is accomplished in the Early Church. If that is the case, it follows that the promises made by God about the restoration are also in effect, and therefore the punishment for apostasy foretold by Amos will never be repeated. Otherwise, James would be talking nonsense and so would Amos. Not only then does Amos not support the Great Apostasy, but further, Acts 15 makes it impossible to apply Amosâ??s prophecy of divine punishment for apostasy to the whole Christian Church.

Amos, however, is not the only prophet to predict the restoration that follows the Babylonian exile. Another is Jeremiah, who begins his discussion of the restoration with a Messianic prophecy, in which â??the Branch of righteousness will grow up to David; and he shall execute righteousness in the land.â? (See Jer 33:7-16). Immediately following this prophecy, Jeremiah predicts a very happy and secure destiny for the Church:

For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.(Jer 33:17-26)

The salient point to be seen in this passage is that God is ensuring a continual presence of priests in the Kingdom of David that cannot, on the basis of a strongly worded divine covenant, be lost at any time. This refers to the same period of time as the restoration predicted by Amos, which we have seen is already in effect at the time of the early Church. To claim, therefore, that following the time of the Apostles God removed the priesthood from the earth imputes to God a violation of his own covenant with David and with the Levites. Since Christ himself is the heir of David, it would follow that God has violated his covenant with his own anointed Son. If you hold to the Great Apostasy, that is the conclusion you must embrace.

As a Catholic, I have no difficulty interpreting this passage. We have had an priesthood from the beginning, which, by participating in the priesthood of Christ contains in perfected form all the activity and power of the Levitical priesthood. In the Divine Liturgy, the Church continually makes acceptable offerings to God through participation in the Eucharist.

[Zakuska]

The probelm with your theory... is seen in your very first verse...

"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,"

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD and the Temple was "thrown Down" (ie fallen) When was it "Raised up" again?

[JLFuller]

The probelm with your theory... is seen in your very first verse...

"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,"

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD and the Temple was "thown Down" (ie fallen) When was it "Raised up" again?

Now ZAK, you just stop it. Soren had a perfectly well thought out notion here and you just poured cold water on it. That is a classic case of thoughtus interrruptus.

[smac97]

Amos 8:11-12 is widely cited by Mormon General Authorities and in official LDS literature in support of the Great Apostasy. The text, which prophesies of the Babylonian exile, reads:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

As with 99% of Great Apostasy proof-texts, the weakness of the argument from this verse is evident from the absence of any reference to a total apostasy.

The only element of the Great Apostasy that was "total" was the loss of priesthood authority. This is, of course, a profoundly important element of the Gospel, but not the sum total of it (hence he continuation among men of belief in Jesus Christ, the preservation of some ancient scriptural texts down through the ages, etc.).

Clear indications in the text show that the apostasy mentioned here is not total.

Since you seem to be using "total" in a way alien to LDS doctrine, I don't see that as a problem for us.

Moreover, the text makes no reference to the loss of priesthood authority during the time of exile â?? the defining component of LDS apostasy/restoration doctrine.

The text refers to a famine of "of hearing the words of the LORD." That could refer to a temporary cessation of revelation from God and/or a loss of the ability among men to receive revelation (loss of priesthood authority).

Much to the contrary, the gift of prophecy continued during the exile, as in case of Daniel.

Really? Prophecy and revelation continued unabated throughout the entirety of the exile?

How do you know that?

In all points, Amos is describing a different circumstance from that claimed by the LDS Church in the Great Apostasy.

Amos is describing an allegorical famine. I think you greatly overstate your case here.

That Amos does not support the Great Apostasy is easy to see.

With respect, I disagree.

I once had an experience in law school. I was participating in a moot court competition. I took my argument before a team of judges (practicing lawyers and law professors). The legal issue before us was carefully crafted so as to allow a student to develop solid arguments either for or against it (which was necessary because each student was arbitrarily assigned to argue for or against it).

During the competition I made a fundamental mistake. I started off my statement to the judges with comments to the effect that the issue before us was actually quite simple, and that the answer to it was quite clear. The middle judge (by trial advocacy professor) frowned as I said this. Afterward she took me aside and gave me advice I will never forget (I'm paraphrasing here): "Spencer, don't ever try to pull the wool over the eyes of either the trier of fact or the opposing party by arguing that complex issues are simple, and legal answers are clear, when the issues are complex and the answers aren't clear. This competition was painstakingly designed to provide both sides of the issue with plausible arguments. So you just insult our intelligence when you pretend complexities aren't there, that the answers are obvious, and that reasonable minds must agree with you and your interpretation of things."

Sage advice, I think.

What is less evident is that Amos, when read in relation to Acts, actually damages the Mormon case for a restoration in 1830. When read in the relation to Jeremiah, it is fatal to it. Amos gives only a few sentencesâ?? mention to the restoration, in the very last verses of his prophecy. He speaks not of restoring the gospel or priesthood, but with the end of the Babylonian exile and the return of the Israelites from exile:

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Well, I think reasonable minds can disagree here. I am not Amos was speaking exclusively of the Babylonian exile. Consider your exegesis in light of verses 8 9:

8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.

9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

Were the Israelites "sift[ed]...among all nations" during the Babylonian Exile? Or is that descriptor equally applicable to the diaspora of the Jews during and following the Roman Period?

I think there is plenty of room for such an interpretation.

In the last verse, God proclaims that the punishment described in Amos 8:11-12 will not be repeated against his people after the time of the restoration.

And yet the Jews were dispersed again after the Babylonian Exile.

And when is that restoration? The answer is found in Acts 15:13-18, when the Apostle James cites Amos 9:11-12 to show why Gentiles do not need to keep the Mosaic law:

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

I'm not sure I can agree with your interpretation. You previously said that Amos' reference to restoration as an exclusive reference to "the end of the Babylonian exile and the return of the Israelites from exile." But then Amos 9:14-15 speaks of Israel being brought from captivity and that they thereafter "shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God."

If I am reading you right, you are claiming this "restoration" was during the period in which Acts was written. In fact, you say it here:

What Jamesâ?? reference to Amos implies is that the time of restoration is accomplished in the Early Church.

The problem, though, is that God describes this restoration as being fairly final. Specifically, God describes it as a restoration during which the Jews "shall be no more pulled up out of their land." But the Jews were "pulled up out of their land" after the Book of Acts was written. They experienced a diaspora lasting almost 2,000 years, during which they were "out of their land."

So I don't think your statement "the time of restoration is accomplished in the Early Church" can be reconciled with Amos 9:15.

What are your thoughts?

If that is the case, it follows that the promises made by God about the restoration are also in effect, and therefore the punishment for apostasy foretold by Amos will never be repeated.

That's a pretty big "if," doncha think?

Moreover, why was Paul speaking of "a falling away" in the future if an apostasy was not in the offing?

Otherwise, James would be talking nonsense and so would Amos. Not only then does Amos not support the Great Apostasy, but further, Acts 15 makes it impossible to apply Amosâ??s prophecy of divine punishment for apostasy to the whole Christian Church.

With respect, I disagree.

I'm outta time for now. I'll try to return to this later. Over all an interesting discussion!

-Smac

[PacMan]

Argghh... looks like a great thread, but I doubt I'll be able to chime in. Soren, if the thread dies off in the next couple weeks with unsatisfying results, I think it'd be an interesting discussion to revive. My time is unfortunately over extended at the moment for thoughtful dialogue, so I'll read from the sidelines. Hopefully it won't die too quickly.

Best,

PacMan

[erichard]

The only element of the Great Apostasy that was "total" was the loss of priesthood authority. ....

Hi Smac,

I am not convinced that even Priesthood authority was lost. What was lost was the church being governed by true priesthood authority. I could argue my case if you are interested.

Richard

[Sevenbak]

Hi Smac,

I am not convinced that even Priesthood authority was lost. What was lost was the church being governed by true priesthood authority. I could argue my case if you are interested.

Richard

I agree. The priesthood was still here, having been conferred on John, who did tarry. But his mission was different, and the church continued without him.

[Brenda]

Hi Smac,

I am not convinced that even Priesthood authority was lost. What was lost was the church being governed by true priesthood authority. I could argue my case if you are interested.

Richard

I'm stepping gently into something that's a bit over my head. One cannot use one's priesthood without the authority to do so. For example deacons and priests cannot administer the sacrament without the authorization of the bishop. The Melchizedek P. cannot be confered w/o the presence or authorization of the Stk Pres. It's about keys. True priesthood authority comes from those holding the keys. Without those keys, it ceases.

Stepping gently out now.

[ERayR]

I'm stepping gently into something that's a bit over my head. One cannot use one's priesthood without the authority to do so. For example deacons and priests cannot administer the sacrament without the authorization of the bishop. The Melchizedek P. cannot be confered w/o the presence or authorization of the Stk Pres. It's about keys. True priesthood authority comes from those holding the keys. Without those keys, it ceases.

Stepping gently out now.

Depending on what you are doing. I am very much able and have authority to use my Priesthood authority to give blessings to and administer to anyone requesting such. However you are correct concerning organizational authority.

[Brenda]

Depending on what you are doing. I am very much able and have authority to use my Priesthood authority to give blessings to and administer to anyone requesting such. However you are correct concerning organizational authority.

Oh, of course. But without the authority to ordain, it eventually dies out.

[Connolly]

The probelm with your theory...

The other problem is that throughout the Babylonian captivity, Israel had a prophet among them.

[Anijen]

Hi Smac,

I am not convinced that even Priesthood authority was lost. What was lost was the church being governed by true priesthood authority. I could argue my case if you are interested.

Richard

Can you be a little more specific for example what is the difference between priesthood authority and true priesthood authority? I think I agree with you but it just needs to be more clear first.

thanks

Anijen

[erichard]

Can you be a little more specific for example what is the difference between priesthood authority and true priesthood authority? I think I agree with you but it just needs to be more clear first.

thanks

Anijen

Hi Anijen,

I used the word "true" because many claim priesthood authority. I meant "true priesthood authority" both times. I accept Joseph's claim that he was given the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood and not other claims.

I believe Priesthood authority can be given "by revelation alone", without ordination, when a man was "foreordained". Notice the word foreordained includes the word ordained. The revelation activates the Priesthood they were ordained to as a spirit-- thus foreordained.

I believe men were foreordained during the time of the apostasy, and by revelation they were given the right to fulfill the work they were foreordained to do. But they did it independent of any church. Remember that Joseph was given the Priesthood before the church was organized. I believe the church is a creation of the Priesthood, not the other way around.

I accept that "the apostacy was not total" as Soren claims. I can believe that good men in the Catholic and other faiths were also foreordained, but they held priesthood independent of the church. And they knew the church was in apostacy. And they usually died young as martyrs.

Richard

[Zakuska]

The other problem is that throughout the Babylonian captivity, Israel had a prophet among them.

Not only that... the Nephites still had true prophets among them until ~400AD. So the only time true Prophets ceased among Israel and there was a "famon in the land of Revelation from God" was after 400AD when all the Nephite Prophets where Killed and before 1830AD. Israel being restored as a nation in 1944.

All indications point to a "Famon of Revelation from God in the land" as indicated by Amos between those Dates... Just as LDS beleive.

[smac97]

The probelm with your theory... is seen in your very first verse..."In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,"Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD and the Temple was "thrown Down" (ie fallen) When was it "Raised up" again?

I think Soren would say that this is a reference to Solomon's Temple being rebuilt (IOW, the Second Temple, or Zerubbabel's Temple).-Smac

Hi Smac,I am not convinced that even Priesthood authority was lost. What was lost was the church being governed by true priesthood authority. I could argue my case if you are interested.Richard

Sure. I'd like to hear what you have to say.-Smac

I agree. The priesthood was still here, having been conferred on John, who did tarry. But his mission was different, and the church continued without him.

John tarried on the earth, but he did not lead the Church. Nor was he mortal (he having been translated).Consequently, I think it's accurate to say that the priesthood was lost among men.-Smac

[Cold Steel]

Amos 8:11-12 is widely cited by Mormon General Authorities and in official LDS literature in support of the Great Apostasy. ... : Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

This quote also can reference the apostasy that existed between the last of the prophets and the appearance of Gabriel to the father of John the Baptist. Being the high priest, Zacharias was in the temple, performing an annual event. The Lord had been silent for some 400 years, but then Gabriel appears and gives Zacharias a message, and the first words out of Zacharias' mouth questioned the veracity of the angel's report! So he was struck dumb until the fulfillment.

In truth, the fulfillment has occurred twice. During the exile, however, we know that revelation continued through Daniel and others. Lehi and his family escaped, too, and took people with them.

The gist of the scripture is that no revelation equals a famine in the land. It doesn't matter when it occurs, or how. If you read Nibley's World and the Prophets, the people of the dark ages were so desperate to hear the word of the Lord, they wept for joy when letters purporting to be from God fell from the sky. Often these letters said nothing of import and were ridiculous in their own rite, but the important thing (to the people) was that it was from God. He was thinking of them and wanted to communicate.

Isaiah said, â??Darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people.â? (Isa. 60:2.) This also happens during periods of apostasy. Still, if you read the words of our apostles and prophets, you'll see that they aren't exclusively used for the apostasy. And you (and others) keep asking for "proof" of the apostasy. The proof is that there wasn't any revelation during that period. You want to see how the apostasy happened? Read Nibley's work cited above.

One of the chief criticisms of the Jews and religious historains against the apostles in Jesus' day was that they misused the scriptural references they employed to further Christianity. It's only natural, then, that the Lord's latter day apostles would face the same criticism.

Rev. Michael Bresciani, addressing this charge, wrote: "The truth is that it is often necessary to take a verse out of its context to convey its most basic meaning. To include the verse preceding or following some verses would tend to cloud their truest meaning in literally hundreds of instances. The scriptures for the most part are not written in a narrative form. This is especially true of the New Testament epistles. A few examples are as follows... In Proverbs 11: 28-30 are three verses that are totally unrelated. If we were to be emphasizing the necessity of keeping peace in the home verse twenty-nine would be a good verse to use."

He later writes:

Many times Jesus would say, "It is written" or "Have ye never read" and quote a single verse taken right out of its context. He made no apologies for not including the preceding or following verses and the effect of his single verse sayings often stopped the mouths of his enemies or illustrated a great principle to his followers. Sometimes the verses he quoted were taken from texts that originally had nothing to do with the subject he was dealing with. Such is the case where Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting the praise of the little children in the temple...

And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased... (Matthew 21:15)

Mary Kochan, Senior Editor of Catholic Exchange, writes: "Even during the Apostlesâ?? day scriptures were misused and misinterpreted. People could be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, even by people who were quoting Scripture, as St. Peter said of those who twisted the meaning of St. Paulâ??s letters (2 Pt 3:15,16). What was the protection against this? Not Scripture, but the apostolic Church."

Of course. The apostolic church had the benefits of revelation. This wasn't necessarily a guarantee that scriptures would be used out of context, but it did show that scriptures given in times past to others were applicable to the situations here and now.

The way we prove the apostasy is to prove the Book of Mormon and latter day revelation. If they are true then the apostasy is true. We have physical and spiritual witnesses who attest to it.

As with 99% of Great Apostasy proof-texts, the weakness of the argument from this verse is evident from the absence of any reference to a total apostasy.

Okay, though there are passages in the Old Testament that presage Christ, show me the scripture to prove 100 percent that He would be resurrected from the dead after three days. Or show to me that he would be crucified. Although it's alluded to in the Old Testament, only the Book of Mormon specifically mentions that He'll be crucified and resurrected. What's wrong with the Old Testament that it doesn't tell us specifically, with totality, that these things would be. If you expect there to be a verse or two to prove a total apostasy, certainly there should be verses that prove the totality of Christ's mission.

----------------------

[jwhitlock]

One of the chief criticisms of the Jews and religious historains against the apostles in Jesus' day was that they misused the scriptural references they employed to further Christianity. It's only natural, then, that the Lord's latter day apostles would face the same criticism.

Rev. Michael Bresciani, addressing this charge, wrote: "The truth is that it is often necessary to take a verse out of its context to convey its most basic meaning. To include the verse preceding or following some verses would tend to cloud their truest meaning in literally hundreds of instances. The scriptures for the most part are not written in a narrative form. This is especially true of the New Testament epistles. A few examples are as follows... In Proverbs 11: 28-30 are three verses that are totally unrelated. If we were to be emphasizing the necessity of keeping peace in the home verse twenty-nine would be a good verse to use."

He later writes:

Many times Jesus would say, "It is written" or "Have ye never read" and quote a single verse taken right out of its context. He made no apologies for not including the preceding or following verses and the effect of his single verse sayings often stopped the mouths of his enemies or illustrated a great principle to his followers. Sometimes the verses he quoted were taken from texts that originally had nothing to do with the subject he was dealing with. Such is the case where Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for accepting the praise of the little children in the temple...

And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased... (Matthew 21:15)

Excellent point, and worth repeating.

[Anijen]

Hi Anijen,

I used the word "true" because many claim priesthood authority. I meant "true priesthood authority" both times. I accept Joseph's claim that he was given the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood and not other claims.

I believe Priesthood authority can be given "by revelation alone", without ordination, when a man was "foreordained". Notice the word foreordained includes the word ordained. The revelation activates the Priesthood they were ordained to as a spirit-- thus foreordained.

I believe men were foreordained during the time of the apostasy, and by revelation they were given the right to fulfill the work they were foreordained to do. But they did it independent of any church. Remember that Joseph was given the Priesthood before the church was organized. I believe the church is a creation of the Priesthood, not the other way around.

I accept that "the apostacy was not total" as Soren claims. I can believe that good men in the Catholic and other faiths were also foreordained, but they held priesthood independent of the church. And they knew the church was in apostacy. And they usually died young as martyrs.

Richard

very good then yes I agree. Thanks.

[Programmer]

Excellent post Soren!!

My first thought, was that of course LDS theology doesn't start nor end with Amos 8:11. Actually Mormons use Amos 3:7 way more often:

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

This scripture, (a pure gem) points to a prophetic leadership as being absolutely necessary for any church to claim divine authority.

As for apostacy's, they come and they go. And then they repeat themselves.

There definitely was an apostasy after Amos, and yes they were restored during the time of Acts 15.

There definitely was an apostasy after the death of the Apostles, and yes they were restored during the time of Joseph Smith.

(I'm using the word 'they' a little loosely above btw)

I was reading your post, and thought, this guy can't be a protestant, since they don't have a leg to stand on in this regard. So I was slightly pleased to find you are of the Roman Catholic tradition.

However, now that a more perfect way has been restored, If I were a Catholic I would be grateful that someone was claiming re-newed revelation from God. It's about time! If I were a Catholic I would be running (not walking) down the isles of the church to head on over to the LDS church to see what they have to say.

Eventually the LDS faith will be truly universal, as it contains restored priesthood authority to perform the ordinances of salvation.

Of all Faith's other than mine, I admire the Roman Catholic faith the most.