KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 I may not be part of the consensus because I believe He would certainly intervene in some fashion before the Restored Church ever were to become corrupted. He would not interfere with the agency of those who would corrupt it (whether intentionally or not), but He would interfere with those who would so interfere so that the corruption would not take place. Because of or in addition to this power, He also has the foreknowledge that it won't be corrupted.I would say that what was spread was some remnants of the Gospel, such as the Bible and some basic beliefs and teachings, an even corruptions of the Gospel, or whatever else was promulgated in various interpretations under the title or even under the guise of “Christianity.” It was preached in many forms, but most would recognize it as originating or being attributed to Christ.I tend to agree with that statement. My experience with God show that prophecies and predictions often depend on His knowing our character and not a matter of His interfering with our agency. This also expalins why sometimes things go south even when they were not prophecied to do so.
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) That is the heart of the disagreement between the Catholics, Reformers and Restorationists. Either Christianity with full institutional authority was preserved by the Catholics or it was reformed and brought back to alignment with God's plan by the reformers or it needed to be restored by God's prophet.Well, whatever. We are speaking of the LDS justification for such an apostasy. Whatever the Catholics and Reformers thought is of no importance here (unless it is to illustrate the LDS position).Which position do you take if you feel the LDS are in error with the idea of the restoration. In short why you you feel Apostacy (as taught by the LDS) is "strange"?....OK.. that's what I've been explaining throughout several posts. The reasons given why the Great Apostasy happened don't work. I explain why in the previous posts; read them carefully this time. Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 That might have worked if the Lord's Church were organized that way, i.e. a bottom to top type of hierarchy. However, that is not how the Lord works. Change in the Lord's Church comes from the top, not the bottom.Sure. So, call a prophet that preaches to the believers in Christ (of which there was no shortage) and form the True Church again. Case solved.
KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Sure. So, call a prophet that preaches to the believers in Christ (of which there was no shortage) and form the True Church again. Case solved.That's exactly what happened. Joseph Smith started his ministry in a hotbed of Christianity and moved out through the Christian world with the news of the restoration of God's Church. Many good Christians testified to the fact that Joseph brought them the news they were waiting for including many sects who were seeking the restoration but had not found it yet.As to your request to re-read your posts. I did. I found no evidence in your statements that was not already answered by another poster or myself.Please refrain from claiming no one answers your questions just because you disagree with their answers. Your lack of comprehension does not equal someone elses failure to communicate. This should be clear to you since you often claim others don't "get it" when you write. Edited July 1, 2011 by DaddyG 1
bluebell Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Sure. So, call a prophet that preaches to the believers in Christ (of which there was no shortage) and form the True Church again. Case solved.That's exactly what happened. 1
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 That's exactly what happened. ...about fifteen centuries later. Good job.
bluebell Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 ...about fifteen centuries later. Good job.irrelevant.
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) That's exactly what happened.Then there was no need for the Great Apostasy or the justification for it hasn't been presented. Joseph Smith started his ministry you forgot a small detail. This happened FIFTEEN CENTURIES AFTER! Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 irrelevant. Well, that is relevant because that means there is no reason why the Great Apostasy should have happened. If the conditions were OK for a prophet to preach to the believers in Christ just after the time of the original apostles' deaths, why wait 15 centuries to do it?
KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Then there was no need for the Great Apostasy or the justification for it hasn't been presented.you forgot a small detail. This happened FIFTEEN CENTURIES AFTER!That detail is not forgotten or unexplained. Please do some research into the restoration and the need for a government that would allow for freedom of religion. It is very well documented from passages in the Bible, Book of Mormon, LDS teaching aids and general conference talks.Learn something about it before you presume to teach the Saints on their own doctrine and history.
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 That detail is not forgotten or unexplained. Please do some research into the restoration and the need for a government that would allow for freedom of religion. It is very well documented from passages in the Bible, Book of Mormon, LDS teaching aids and general conference talks.Learn something about it before you presume to teach the Saints on their own doctrine and history.I've looked into the reasons and they clearly don't work. I'm waiting for you guys to present a better one than the ones you have been giving.
bluebell Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Well, that is relevant because that means there is no reason why the Great Apostasy should have happened. If the conditions were OK for a prophet to preach to the believers in Christ just after the time of the original apostles' deaths, why wait 15 centuries to do it?Who said the conditions were o.k. for a prophet to preach to the believers in Christ and attempt to re-estabilish his church at the time of the apostles' death?
KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 If the conditions were OK for a prophet to preach to the believers in Christ just after the time of the original apostles' deaths. Yeah, why not just reform the church in a way that would give the Romans more martyrs for the colluseum. Or perhaps we could have done it a few years later when the inquisition was happening? I know we could have done it during the reign of Henry VIII and put ourselves in between the most powerful monarchs in the world.Yeah. No.
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Yeah, why not just reform the church in a way that would give the Romans more martyrs for the colluseum. Or perhaps we could have done it a few years later when the inquisition was happening? I know we could have done it during the reign of Henry VIII and put ourselves in between the most powerful monarchs in the world.Yeah. No.Christianity without the complete truth survived. I see no reason why Christianity WITH the truth wouldn't have.
KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 I've looked into the reasons and they clearly don't work. I'm waiting for you guys to present a better one than the ones you have been giving.Your writings do a very poor job of demonstrating mastery of our reasons.
bluebell Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 I've looked into the reasons and they clearly don't work. I'm waiting for you guys to present a better one than the ones you have been giving.You've confused 'they clearly don't work' with 'in my opinion, they clearly don't work'.If you are trying to make us treat your opinion as a fact before you'll be satisfied with our arguments, then you going to be nothing but frustrated. 2
KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Christianity without the complete truth survived. I see no reason why Christianity WITH the truth wouldn't have.If you see no reason why Christianity WITH the truth wouldn't have then you have not really comrehended our reasons for the apostacy.You are however providing ample evidence for why I disengaged with you in an earlier conversation and probably will do so again.
bluebell Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Christianity without the complete truth survived. I see no reason why Christianity WITH the truth wouldn't have.Take a medieval history class. Christianity survived because it was in the best interest of some very powerful people that it do so. Edited July 1, 2011 by bluebell
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Who said the conditions were o.k. for a prophet to preach to the believers in Christ and attempt to re-estabilish his church at the time of the apostles' death?Christianity exploded throughout the world even being incomplete. There were a ton of believers in Christ. The institutions where being corrupted mostly unintentionally and most believers' beliefs got mistaken because of it (as some of you have said here).We have no reason to think it wouldn't have worked. Plus, it is quite a strange idea to think that people were more ready to accept the truth right after the original apostles' deaths than after 15 centuries of them.
KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Take a medieval history class. Christianity survived because it was in the best interest of some very powerful people that it do so.Not to mention celebrating Christmas on the winter solstace.
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Take a medieval history class. Medieval? You mean the times that started 400 years after Christ? Sounds like enough time to preach the truth for God. Plus, HE IS GOD. He could have protected believers like with Alma.Christianity survived because it was in the best interest of some very powerful people that it do so.So?That is not an answer. Give others the respect you demand for your own postings. - Ares
KevinG Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Christianity exploded throughout the world even being incomplete. There were a ton of believers in Christ. The institutions where being corrupted mostly unintentionally and most believers' beliefs got mistaken because of it (as some of you have said here).We have no reason to think it wouldn't have worked. Plus, it is quite a strange idea to think that people were more ready to accept the truth right after the original apostles' deaths than after 15 centuries of them.Your FAITH in your own OPINION is IRELLEVANT to the TRUTH.Elevate the discussion instead of lowering yourself to its level. I expect more from you. -Ares 1
bluebell Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Medieval? You mean the times that started 400 years after Christ? Sounds like enough time to preach the truth for God. Plus, HE IS GOD. He could have protected believers like with Alma.So?Like i said, take some classes on it, then you'll be in a better position to discuss this issue.
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 You've confused 'they clearly don't work' with 'in my opinion, they clearly don't work'.If you are trying to make us treat your opinion as a fact before you'll be satisfied with our arguments, then you going to be nothing but frustrated.Don't treat it as a fact because it may not be. "May"s or "May not be"s, however, are irrelevant. The point is that no satisfactory reasons have been presented. What you guys have explained clearly doesn't work. You people mentioned the Middle Ages but that was way after the ball started rolling.
elguanteloko Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Like i said, take some classes on it, then you'll be in a better position to discuss this issue....again, the Medieval Period started 600 years after Christ. How are the Middle Ages relevant? God didn't even have to wait that long to continue with his church and continue to call powerful prophets. Yet he didn't. Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko
Recommended Posts