On the Restoration and the Double Apostasy

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The irony!!!

No irony, just facts. ALL the churches of the Restoration have errors in them, and I am 100% positive I will be shown where my beliefs are wrong. That is why I so anxiously await the building of New Jerusalem and the coming forth of additional scripture that the Lord has promised- then this mess of confusion and contending over "authority" will be over with.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Not deflection, just the facts....

So you think those within "Mormonism" has been things so terrible in degree and scope that come close to comparing, examples should be easy to list.

I'm even less interested in moral relativism. Like trying to comparing George Bush/American Military with being no different than Fanatical Islam.

I think ANY group of believers has its bad apples and its questionable teachings. To deflect attention off your errors by referring to how worse others are/were then you is folly wrapped in pride. (ie... "I may steal from work, but look how bad Kenneth Lay was. I'm a pretty good guy compared to him.")

[ElfLord]

Then is there no inerrant scripture? Then how is " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (Not proof -texting, just illustrating) If it is not infallible, then how is it useful for doctrine? It would seem that if you want a firm foundation in doctrine you would need something worthy of belief, and fallible source material would seem to not be very firm. And doctrine that is fallible is not worthy of trust. I guess you could respond that humans are fallible and we still trust them, but I am really looking for a trust that will not disappoint in my religion as I consider it a first principal.

This is a fundamental problem to me. If scripture is really "God Himself through the Holy Ghost....recorded in scripture." then how could it have errors. Is it the a defect in the word of God, The living prophets, or some intermediary? This is my principal question.

Prophets and intermediary, such as scribes, and translationists. God uses imperfect beings to record his words. But he does not posses them and pains takingly guard his words as some inerrantist beleive. (See Zakuskas sig line)

Heres some famous examples of Bible mistranslation that shows what Im saying to be true.

1) Moses (Michelangelo)

Because of a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate... Michelangelo carved a statue of Moses with "horns" on his head instead of "rays of light".

2) Codex Vaticanus

Then there is the Famous codex vaticanous with its Editors note in red ink in the margins chastizing the scribe for correcting a spelling error in the ancient manuscript.

On page 1512, next to Hebrews 1:3, the text contains an interesting marginal note, "Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not change it!"

[Lightbearer]

To start asking this question is the primary reason that I joined the board. I must admit that I am not a Mormon, but I would not consider myself hostile to the LDS. I am trying to understand your point of view. So without further delay my question;

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

I believe the answer was already given, but it seems you do not either understand it or agree with it... man's agency is ultimately why God restores His kingdom and allows man to reject it and Satan to overpower it. He will not force anyone to receive His Gospel against their will. That goes for those who are both inside and outside the Church. The same question could be asked why did God allow the serpent in Eden? Why was a choice given there? He reveals Himself to men and gives them the choice to "choose ye this day whom ye shall serve." It seems mankind has alternately accepted and rejected Him throughout time. The House of Israel was called and gathered many times and is also continued to called (for the last time in this dispensation) but some gather with the Saints and others reject it and follow the world.

This goes to my fundamental intellectual problem with the idea of the restoration and the book of Mormon. It seems improbable that Christ would establish the church on one continent only to know that it would degenerate into apostasy for a millennium and a half. But for him to establish the church on two continents knowing that both would be lost seems almost foolhardy. Now the likely response to this would be that he knew that the restoration would happen. But the restoration itself is problematic. I think it says two things. 1) That God would allow the world to be re-dominated by paganism for 1500 after giving the world the gospel, seems to indicate that there was a flaw in the original church. In that it could not sustain itself and fell into apostasy. 2) That God was unable to preserve the church from error in the face of human evil.

I do not know if I would be comfortable second guessing the Lord's wisdom. But I suppose when you look at from the perspective that all of His children are precious in His sight and He is willing to give them whatever light and knowledge they are willing and able to receive then it is not so foolhardy. I think He wants to save all that are willing to be saved, when others are in open rebellion against Him and wage a war of extermination against Him and His Gospel then it is not hard to see how the Gospel could have been lost from the generality of mankind.

Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?" It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt. But this would of course eliminate the need for Joseph Smith.

Not at all, the Gospel in it's fullness is the power of God unto salvation... as for the reason for Him coming at the time He did was because the Jews of that time were the only people who would kill their own God. The reason for Joseph was because God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ chose Joseph as the prophet that stands at the head of this last dispensation of the Gospel. It was restored so that the world would have the blessings and covenants necessary for their salvation and the leaven of past dispensations was necessary for the re-establishment of the fullness of His kingdom in these last days.

Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error. If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again. If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error. At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.

Not really troubling at all, for the reason for the Great apostasy was two fold, it not only was because of persecution from without but personal apostasy from within. The Saints rejected the teachings of the apostles and prophets and that is why John was taken from among them and of course the others were betrayed and killed. This was going on in the days of Paul and Peter who saw that this creeping apostasy was driving the spirit from the members of the Church and once they rejected the authorized servants, they would heap up unto themselves false teaches having "itching ears" who turned them away from the truth unto fables (philosophical speculations) I mean something happened to the message, it was transformed so much that it changed from the simple message of God a Father and His beloved Son to some sort of three in one and one in three personage that could not be seen or even comprehended. As for being free from error, the only man that ever accomplished this in this life was Jesus, but His Gospel as restored is the same one that Jesus established, and is directed by Him through revelation. It was restored by Jesus Himself, and if it is superior to what was established in the merdian of time it is because it is to stand until the Second Coming of Christ.

I look forward to the discussion. Please, serious and substantial answers only

Hope this was serious and substantial enough... if not....

[Ceeboo]

What a thread!

Tis indeed the MADB!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[lostprophet83]

Prophets and intermediary, such as scribes, and translationists. God uses imperfect beings to record his words. But he does not posses them and pains takingly guard his words as some inerrantist beleive. (See Zakuskas sig line)

Heres some famous examples of Bible mistranslation that shows what Im saying to be true.

1) Moses (Michelangelo)

Becuase of a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate... Michelangelo carved a statue of Moses with "horns" on his head instead of "rays of light".

2) Codex Vaticanus

Then there is the Famous codex vaticanous with its Editors note in red ink in the margins chastizing the scribe for correcting a spelling error in the ancient manuscript.

3) 1 Tim 3:13

Is more evidence of textual tampering, Even Sir Isaac Newton detec ted this textual tampering going on at his time.

It's just like Joseph Smith said...

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327).

And thus the 8th Article of Faith...

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God

Elflord, you and the the side discussion over inerrancy have been most helpful. I did not realize that this was a divide in Mormon thought.

I guess I would agree with "translated correctly" and I did know about Moses and the Codex Vaticanus, I would also add the Adultery bible which, because of a printing error says "Thou shalt commit adultery" which is why I think Henry VIII retained a copy.

However, I would disagree with you in that I believe that the bible can be and is in fact translated correctly. I may use untranslated copies (and my limited Greek) to help my understanding, but I think that having an inerrant church would help correct those errors, especially as they affect doctrine.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think that having an inerrant church would help correct those errors, especially as they affect doctrine.

You are living a pipe dream if you think an inerrant church will or can exsist in this fallen mortal world.

In fact the reason there will not be an inerrant church is because we are humans full of flaws.

[Vance]

Elflord, you and the the side discussion over inerrancy have been most helpful. I did not realize that this was a divide in Mormon thought.

I guess I would agree with "translated correctly" and I did know about Moses and the Codex Vaticanus, I would also add the Adultery bible which, because of a printing error says "Thou shalt commit adultery" which is why I think Henry VIII retained a copy.

However, I would disagree with you in that I believe that the bible can be and is in fact translated correctly. I may use untranslated copies (and my limited Greek) to help my understanding, but I think that having an inerrant church would help correct those errors, especially as they affect doctrine.

Keep in mind that the word translate has a broader meaning than most realize. From 1828 Websters.

Translate.

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

It isn't limited to just rendering from one language to another.

[lostprophet83]

Not to mention the popular mis-intrepretation of Matthew Chapter 16: 15-18

He's not saying that Peter is the rock, but that REVELATION is the rock.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (REVELATION) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (REVELATION).

I don't get this. The use of the word 'rock' is clearly a play on Peter's name Petros (meaning 'rock'). Where does revelation come into it. As I have said, in the Greek this is a separate thought from verse 17 as "And I say to you" which designates a new thought in a language without punctuation.

Reading (Revelation) into the text is worse than protestants who complain that the Greek words for 'rock' are different and therefore should be given different meaning. The play on words is obvious and it only becomes more obvious if you consider that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek. Aramaic has only one word for 'rock' ,Kefa, and it is the same form for the proper name (In english Peter) and the object (Stone).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't get this. The use of the word 'rock' is clearly a play on Peter's name Petros (meaning 'rock'). Where does revelation come into it. As I have said, in the Greek this is a separate thought from verse 17 as "And I say to you" which designates a new thought in a language without punctuation.

Reading (Revelation) into the text is worse than protestants who complain that the Greek words for 'rock' are different and therefore should be given different meaning. The play on words is obvious and it only becomes more obvious if you consider that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek. Aramaic has only one word for 'rock' ,Kefa, and it is the same form for the proper name (In english Peter) and the object (Stone).

The church would not be built on Peter as that would make it Peter's church. THe fact that Jesus was talking about how Peter came to know that Jesus was the Christ through revelation is what the rock is about.

BTW Peter died, so that would mean by extention that Peter dying would mean that the gates of hell would preveal against the church. So if you want to own that interpretation be my guest.

[ElfLord]

Elflord, you and the the side discussion over inerrancy have been most helpful. I did not realize that this was a divide in Mormon thought.

I guess I would agree with "translated correctly" and I did know about Moses and the Codex Vaticanus, I would also add the Adultery bible which, because of a printing error says "Thou shalt commit adultery" which is why I think Henry VIII retained a copy.

However, I would disagree with you in that I believe that the bible can be and is in fact translated correctly. I may use untranslated copies (and my limited Greek) to help my understanding, but I think that having an inerrant church would help correct those errors, especially as they affect doctrine.

I don't think its as easy as you pretend. Take this as an example... Sections missing from our Bibles based off the Mesoretic texts, that are in the DSS and cooberated by secular historains. Some can't be cooberated because they are missing from the DSS.

There are also lots of writings from the early turn of the centuries that quote the various

texts. These tend to agree with the DSS over the Massoret. In the Massoret text, we have...

2 Sam 10:18

[lostprophet83]

You are living a pipe dream if you think an inerrant church will or can exsist in this fallen mortal world.

In fact the reason there will not be an inerrant church is because we are humans full of flaws.

True, humanity is flawed, but I do not think that the grace of God is flawed. The grace of inerrancy is imputed to the Church and to the Authors of Scripture. Like all graces it requires a gift of God and the cooperation of human will. Human's may have flaws, but the grace can in a limited context preserve writings and proclamations and Tradition (The capital is intentional that distinguishes it from habits or popular devotions). Human flaws abound, but truth must be kept from error or it is not worthy of putting your complete trust in as a first principal. Faith requires firm foundation, and I hold mine as the thing by which I know all other things. Everyone has a similar belief, namely something by which they judge all other things. For some its faith, some logic, some feminism, but everyone judges every other thing by some first principal which is unwaivering.

My first principal is Christ. To know Christ we must be able to know that his sayings are trustworthy and true. To know that what I know of him is true I must either 1) Encounter him personally in a method that cannot be misinterpreted by me, or 2) Someone must tell me what he has said, and that person must possess both the ability to not error when telling me what he said, AND must be able to correct me when I misunderstand what they have told me. Otherwise everything I learn about Christ would be subject to misinterpretation.

[ELF1024]

I don't get this. The use of the word 'rock' is clearly a play on Peter's name Petros (meaning 'rock'). Where does revelation come into it. As I have said, in the Greek this is a separate thought from verse 17 as "And I say to you" which designates a new thought in a language without punctuation.

Reading (Revelation) into the text is worse than protestants who complain that the Greek words for 'rock' are different and therefore should be given different meaning. The play on words is obvious and it only becomes more obvious if you consider that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek. Aramaic has only one word for 'rock' ,Kefa, and it is the same form for the proper name (In english Peter) and the object (Stone).

Did you not read the quote?

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Christ is saying quite plainly that no one told Peter that Christ was the Christ, the son of the living God, but that it had been REVEALED to him by his Father, who is in Heaven. It is not Peter, who is the rock that the Church is built upon, but HOW Peter came to know that Jesus was the Christ. Revelation.

You don't really think that Christ would build his Church on a fallible man do you? What sense does that make? If anyone was to ever build a house upon the sand, it would be to build a church based upon one fallible, human, man. The only way to make a foundation that is as true as the Lord himself would be to build it upon revelation from God himself, that each man is entitled to. (James 1:5)

[lostprophet83]

I don't think its as easy as you pretend. Take this as an example... Sections missing from our Bibles based off the Mesoretic texts, that are in the DSS and cooberated by secular historains. Some can't be cooberated because they are missing from the DSS.

http://www.poweronhi...ered%20Text.pdf

I use a bible that is based mostly on the LXX not the Mesoretic, but the section is interesting.

[lostprophet83]

Did you not read the quote?

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Christ is saying quite plainly that no one told Peter that Christ was the Christ, the son of the living God, but that it had been REVEALED to him by his Father, who is in Heaven. It is not Peter, who is the rock that the Church is built upon, but HOW Peter came to know that Jesus was the Christ. Revelation.

I think that is a tortured reading of the obvious text. I did read the quote. But I don't think that read my response. Verse 18 is separated from verse 17 because the text indicates it is a separate thought. Meaning that Jesus is not referring to revelation, but to Peter.

But you also ignored the bigger point.The text would literally read "Thou art ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build my church." The reference is not to revelation, it is about Peter himself. This is obvious from the word play in the verse. The prior verse clearly indicates that Peter would be able to receive revelation and interpret it. But as Christ is the fullness of revelation (Which is the revelation of verse 16) Peter would be interpreting revelation given in Christ.

A short aside on Revelation; Revelation is God's communication with man. Since Christ is God made man, in his very person the fullness of human-divine communication exists because both human and divine subsist within a person. Revelation isn't words, but rather a person. And this person is the summation of all that could be revealed about God. The purpose of the Church is not to create new revelation, which would now be impossible, but to apply revelation to specific situations. Instead of asking God to reveal the rightness of his path, we now just need to look to the person of Christ and we can know the way to walk.

[ELF1024]

I think that is a tortured reading of the obvious text. I did read the quote. But I don't think that read my response. Verse 18 is separated from verse 17 because the text indicates it is a separate thought. Meaning that Jesus is not referring to revelation, but to Peter.

But you also ignored the bigger point.The text would literally read "Thou art ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build my church." The reference is not to revelation, it is about Peter himself. This is obvious from the word play in the verse. The prior verse clearly indicates that Peter would be able to receive revelation and interpret it. But as Christ is the fullness of revelation (Which is the revelation of verse 16) Peter would be interpreting revelation given in Christ.

A short aside on Revelation; Revelation is God's communication with man. Since Christ is God made man, in his very person the fullness of human-divine communication exists because both human and divine subsist within a person. Revelation isn't words, but rather a person. And this person is the summation of all that could be revealed about God. The purpose of the Church is not to create new revelation, which would now be impossible, but to apply revelation to specific situations. Instead of asking God to reveal the rightness of his path, we now just need to look to the person of Christ and we can know the way to walk.

We will have to agree to disagree on which is the more tortured reading of the text.

[jadams_4242]

To start asking this question is the primary reason that I joined the board. I must admit that I am not a Mormon, but I would not consider myself hostile to the LDS. I am trying to understand your point of view. So without further delay my question;

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

This goes to my fundamental intellectual problem with the idea of the restoration and the book of Mormon. It seems improbable that Christ would establish the church on one continent only to know that it would degenerate into apostasy for a millennium and a half. But for him to establish the church on two continents knowing that both would be lost seems almost foolhardy. Now the likely response to this would be that he knew that the restoration would happen. But the restoration itself is problematic. I think it says two things. 1) That God would allow the world to be re-dominated by paganism for 1500 after giving the world the gospel, seems to indicate that there was a flaw in the original church. In that it could not sustain itself and fell into apostasy. 2) That God was unable to preserve the church from error in the face of human evil.

Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?" It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt. But this would of course eliminate the need for Joseph Smith.

Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error. If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again. If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error. At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.

I look forward to the discussion. Please, serious and substantial answers only.

Let me ask you one question? What is the purpose of the thousand years of peace on this earth before judgement day.. and then and only then did John see in vision "no temple therin"?

[lostprophet83]

We will have to agree to disagree on which is the more tortured reading of the text.

No I will disagree to disagree.

But if you will agree to disagree to disagree, then I might agree.

[lostprophet83]

Let me ask you one question? What is the purpose of the thousand years of peace on this earth before judgement day.. and then and only then did John see in vision "no temple therin"?

I have no idea what this question even means. Can you flesh it out for me?

[ELF1024]

No I will disagree to disagree.

But if you will agree to disagree to disagree, then I might agree.

I find your lack of faith disturbing....

[LeSellers]

In earlier messages, I wrote an answer to this question:

The subject of the respective sentences in Greek in Matt 16:18 is rock. I do not understand how revelation is mentioned. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (rock), and (conjunctive) upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Revelation is mentioned in the previous verse, when Christ refers to Peter as Simon bar Johna. But 16:18 is a new sentence (not just a new verse because of the numbering) in Greek as Jesus prefaces the statement "And I say to you." The clear subject of the verse is Peter, as he is reference by name and the comparison of stone. I know that you will likely have a different take on this.

Try this:

You have brought up a good passage [Matthew 16:13~19], but I am afraid that you misunderstand it. Before we start, please look at the entire passage, because it is important to know the context before we discuss the portion you refer to:

(AV) Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Greek (with word-for-word translation):

13. ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ??????????? ???? ????????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????????

(coming And Jesus into the parts of Caesarea of Philip he questioned the followers of him, saying, Whom me do say men to be, the Son of Man?)

14. ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ??????????, ????? ??? ???????, ?????? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ???? ?????????.

(they And said, Some {say}, John the Immerser. others {say} And Elijah. others {say} And Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.)

15. ?????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????

(He says to them, you But, whom me do you say to be?)

16. ???????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???????.

(answering And Simon Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of God the living!)

17. ???? ???????????? ?? ???????? ????? ???????? ????????? ??, ?????? ????????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???????????? ???, ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????????.

(And answering Jesus said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah because flesh and blood not did reveal {this} to you, but the Father of me in the heavens.)

18. ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???????, ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????????? ??? ???? ???????????, ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????????? ???????.

(I also And to you say, - You are Peter, and upon this bedrock I will build of me the assembly and {the} gates of Hades not will be strong against her.)

19. ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????????? ???? ?????????, ???? ? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ????, ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??????????, ???? ? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ????, ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??????????.

(I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth will be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth will be, having been loosed in the heavens.)

We must look at who said what and why he said it. Peter responded to Christ

[TAO]

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

Good question. There are several reasons I think.

First of all, I think one of the reasons was for the people themselves. Jerusalem was about to be taken captive, and the Lord, caring for his faithful servants, decided to lead them off to another place where they might be safe. Even if it would lead to naught, it would be safe for the people at the time (and he cares as much for the people of yesterday, as he does the people of today).

The second reason, I think, be to give us access to the Book of Mormon - which though unwritten at the time, God knew would come to past, and change the hearts of many people. Would there have been a restoration without the Book of Mormon? No, there would not have been; it was the source. So God went through with bringing Lehi and Family to the Americas, knowing that eventually, their seed would rebel against him. And the gospel would be removed from the Earth. But as he told Nephi, a day would come when his brethren's seed would have a chance to know the gospel.

This goes to my fundamental intellectual problem with the idea of the restoration and the book of Mormon. It seems improbable that Christ would establish the church on one continent only to know that it would degenerate into apostasy for a millennium and a half. But for him to establish the church on two continents knowing that both would be lost seems almost foolhardy. Now the likely response to this would be that he knew that the restoration would happen. But the restoration itself is problematic. I think it says two things. 1) That God would allow the world to be re-dominated by paganism for 1500 after giving the world the gospel, seems to indicate that there was a flaw in the original church. In that it could not sustain itself and fell into apostasy. 2) That God was unable to preserve the church from error in the face of human evil.

If they had stayed in Jerusalem, there would have been no Book of Mormon, and also apostasy. In this case, there was apostasy in both places, but there was also the Book of Mormon; a key source of truth.

Why, you ask, does he let the world fall into apostasy, you might ask? It's because, he has no choice in it; when people harden their hearts, nothing will change them save a physical witness, which God will not give except in rare circumstances. He had already promised not to flood the world again; and that was his last solution to apostasy. So rather, he kept the truth in a metal box, buried in a hill. That was his method this time.

Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?" It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt. But this would of course eliminate the need for Joseph Smith.

No, there was not something lacking in the gospel given by Christ, rather, there was something lacking in people. One thing I have learned about God, is that, if he is to do something about the apostasy of the people, it means either A) destruction or B) waiting for a restoration. Why only these two options? Because these are the only options which are just to God for those who harden their hearts. He could have used A, but he decided to use B instead this time.

Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error. If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again. If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error. At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.

This is the case with the gospel at all times, although, we already know through prophecy that it will not happen (at least completely). This is the last dispensation - the one which will exist when Christ comes again. When that is, I do not know, but it does mean the Church will never apostatize to the degree that it happened during the Great Apostasy.

One thing about the prophets and apostles; they are not free from error. However, they are much closer to being right than we are; and it's not up to us to say when they are wrong. It's up to God to.

And this last dispensation is not any superior than the other dispensations, merely, it is the one that will exist at the Second Coming.

I look forward to the discussion. Please, serious and substantial answers only.

Hope I helped.

[lostprophet83]

In earlier messages, I wrote an answer to this question:

Try this:

You have brought up a good passage [Matthew 16:13~19], but I am afraid that you misunderstand it. Before we start, please look at the entire passage, because it is important to know the context before we discuss the portion you refer to:

(AV) Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Greek (with word-for-word translation):

13. ?????? ?? ? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?????????? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????

[Vance]

The grace of inerrancy is imputed to the Church and to the Authors of Scripture.

Imputed by whom?

Like all graces it requires a gift of God and the cooperation of human will.

And this overcomes the limitations and imperfections of humans and their language?

I think not.

Human's may have flaws, but the grace can in a limited context preserve writings and proclamations and Tradition

Nice assertion, but it quite BALD!!

Human flaws abound, but truth must be kept from error or it is not worthy of putting your complete trust in as a first principal.

Well, since Jesus taught that the most reliable source of truth was the Holy Ghost (not scriptures), I will agree with this statement.

Faith requires firm foundation, . . .

True. Revelation is bedrock.

My first principal is Christ.

But He isn't here right now, but His Spirit can be.

To know Christ we must be able to know that his sayings are trustworthy and true.

The only way to "know" is by the Spirit.

To know that what I know of him is true I must either 1) Encounter him personally in a method that cannot be misinterpreted by me, or 2) Someone must tell me what he has said, and that person must possess both the ability to not error when telling me what he said, AND must be able to correct me when I misunderstand what they have told me. Otherwise everything I learn about Christ would be subject to misinterpretation.

D&C 50:19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

[lostprophet83]

Imputed by whom?

It would be imputed by God. As God is the author of scripture if scripture contains errors, then those errors are at least partially God's. As He chose the instrument of His inspiration and the manner of inspiration, and He foreknew the consequences of acting in a the particular way, and could correct the errors by choosing a different method. Since God chose to communicate in this way if there are errors in his communication, as it is written, they are his.

You either serve a fallible God or He is not the author of scripture. Also the contrary position to inerrantcy has the troubling implication that if there are errors in the text then there is NO correct interpretation of some passages. If these passages are important then that scripture would be rendered useless.

And this overcomes the limitations and imperfections of humans and their language?

I think not.

I believe that the power of God constantly overcomes human limitations and imperfections, e.g. salvation. I don't believe that God's power is dependent on our ability. My main question is why don't you believe this?

Nice assertion, but it quite BALD!!

Yes it is bald. But I wasn't trying to flesh it out. I can if you would like, but I do not know what you would considered authoritative support for my position.

Well, since Jesus taught that the most reliable source of truth was the Holy Ghost (not scriptures), I will agree with this statement.

How do you know that statement of Christ is true except by scripture? If true than your first principal is the validity of scripture, because it lead to your belief in the Holy Ghost as a source of truth.

True. Revelation is bedrock.

I don't know how revelation can be bedrock without an assurance of an inerrant message. But we may be defining the word differently.

But He isn't here right now, but His Spirit can be.

As a trinitarian I would say that Christ is here right now. But that is a moot point.

And of course I would ask how you know that except from scripture.

The only way to "know" is by the Spirit.

D&C 50:19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Interesting, but the method seems unclear to me. Why can God not overcome the flaws in one errant human and proclaim a inerrant message, but He can overcome the flaws in two humans to produce knowledge that would seem to assurance of truth?

I come at it from a hearsay standpoint. In law there is a principal that a statement made out of court is unlikely to be true unless the circumstances surrounding each level of its repetition suggest that it is true. D&C 50 seems to implicate triple hearsay as the the basis for truth. The progression goes God->Man (Gospel) -> Preacher -> Listener. Now you might respond that the Spirit assures the accuracy of message, but if humans can foul-up the message with their flaws and weakness then how does the Spirit do this? If the Spirit can override human flaws in regards to the listener receiving the message, then why can't he do this in regards to the message contained in the gospel itself?

Also I would say that you are still basing your belief on a revealed statement (D&C) that is subject to errancy under your standards.