No Unhallowed Hand Can Stop The Work From Progressing

[bluebell]

The point is that no satisfactory reasons have been presented.

My point is that you don't have enough knowledge on the subject to declare factually that no satisfactory reasons have been presented. Therefore, there's really no reason to attempt to have this discussion with you because you don't know what you don't know.

I'm not trying to be snarky and i'm not calling you stupid or anything of the sort. It's just that a certain level of information of the world and the ancient church has be attained to go where you want to go with this. Without that information, this discussion will only get more and more frustrating.

I'm not scholar on the subject either-not even close-it just seems like i've taken a few more classes on the subject (being a history major and a religious philosophies minor) than you have and so the discrepency between where i'm coming from, and where you're coming from, is too wide to bridge at the moment.

[KevinG]

...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.

The middle ages are relevant in the same way as the other nearly 2000 years prior to the establishment of a representative democracy with a constitution that expressly protects freedom of religion.

The conditions weren't ready for the restoration. More specific to your response, you conveniently forget the events between 100AD and 600AD in which early Christians were co-opted by state religions or killed.

You need to learn more about LDS beliefs before presuming to be able to debate them. You have provided no evidence you understand them despite your claims that you have studied them. Your last few statements clearly reveal your lack of knowledge in the face of your objections that you know our teachings.

Edited July 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[elguanteloko]

My point is that you don't have enough knowledge on the subject to declare factually that no satisfactory reasons have been presented. Therefore, there's really no reason to attempt to have this discussion with you because you don't know what you don't know.

I'm not trying to be snarky and i'm not calling you stupid or anything of the sort. It's just that a certain level of information of the world and the ancient church has be attained to go where you want to go with this. Without that information, this discussion will only get more and more frustrating.

I'm not scholar on the subject either-not even close-it just seems like i've taken a few more classes on the subject (being a history major and a religious philosophies minor) than you have and so the discrepency between where i'm coming from, and where you're coming from, is too wide to bridge at the moment.

once again, you mentioned a period of time SIX HUNDRED YEARS after Christ when the Great Apostasy is said to have started much before. How are the Middle Ages relevant in any way?

[KevinG]

once again, you mentioned a period of time SIX HUNDRED YEARS after Christ when the Great Apostasy is said to have started much before. How are the Middle Ages relevant in any way?

See my resopnse, and Bluebells point stands. You are arguing with a lack of subject matter knowledge. The discussion becomes fruitless if you don't do your part to learn what we really teach.

[Mark Beesley]

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.

Isn't that exactly what the Lord did? He waited a couple of days (according to His clock), and then commissioned a new Prophet (Joseph Smith) to form the True Church again in an age of the World where the Gospel could more readily be spread worldwide. I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is.

[bluebell]

...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.

Generally, classes in medieval and history in Europe start with a foundation of the history of the Christian church; that's been my experience anyway.

It's really a very interesting topic-one of my favorites.

[elguanteloko]

The middle ages are relevant in the same way as the other nearly 2000 years prior to the establishment of a representative democracy with a constitution that expressly protects freedom of religion.

Was there a representative democracy with Noah? With Abraham? With every other major biblical prophet except Adam and Joseph Smith (and those after him)? About freedom of religion... most prophets, I don't know if you knew this, had to be protected by God because they were constantly in danger and many of them finally got killed. So much for your freedom of religion excuse. Plus, that the early Christians were extremely persecuted is no secret but yet it survived and without the complete truth.

The conditions weren't ready for the restoration. More specific to your response, you conveniently forget the events between 100AD and 600AD in which early Christians were co-opted by state religions or killed.

and yet Christianity survived. But let's say that THE TRUE CHURCH had been continued until EVERYONE of those that believed in it were bitterly persecuted and killed. How does this change the fact that the Church would have continued by several centuries AFTER Christ and that NOW God would have had a good excuse to retreat his true gospel from them? Yet, there were MANY devout believers in Christ who quite likely could have easily converted to the true Church if God had continued it. To say that "God would have killed everyone" believing in the true Church is to ignore the fact that Christianity survived and survived to explode.

You need to learn more about LDS beliefs before presuming to be able to debate them. You have provided no evidence you understand them despite your claims that you have studied them. Your last few statements clearly reveal your lack of knowledge in the face of your objections that you know our teachings.

Show me that I'm wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. Your reasons don't work and I'm telling you why. Deal with them and stop attacking those that disagree with you.

[elguanteloko]

Isn't that exactly what the Lord did?

Once again, he did it FIFTEEN CENTURIES AFTER making the justification for the Great Apostasy you provided irrelevant. If God could have called a true prophet right after the last Peter just as he could have 18 centuries after, why, then, did the Great Apostasy happen? What is the justification for it?

Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[bluebell]

once again, you mentioned a period of time SIX HUNDRED YEARS after Christ when the Great Apostasy is said to have started much before. How are the Middle Ages relevant in any way?

My medieval class (the one specific to Europe) started the discussion around the late 2nd century. You'll find that that there is a lot of leeway between scholars on when the middle ages exactly starts and stops, but besides that, as i said previously, because background information in the Christian church is necessary in understanding the middle ages, a lot of professors begin such classes a century or so before they might otherwise need to (at least, that's what my professors have claimed).

And, when is the apostasy said to have started? I'm not sure what info you're talking about there.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

The apostasy was well under way before the deaths of the Apostles. The Church as organized by Christ was gone no later than 150 CE.

Further those early Christians were under no guarantee that what they started would remain, in fact just the opposite. We as a Church OTOH have that guarantee.

[Mark Beesley]

Once again, he did it FIFTEEN CENTURIES AFTER making the justification for the Great Apostasy you provided irrelevant. If God could have called a true prophet right after the last Peter just as he could have 18 centuries after, why, then, did the Great Apostasy happen? What is the justification for it?

You want us to give you a justification for the apostasy? I'm not sure what you want? You want to tell God how to go about His business. Maybe you think the 15 Century delay was a big deal? I don't. It's a drop in the bucket, insignificant in the scheme of things, and there was no eternal downside. So, what's the problem? You just don't like the need for someone like Joseph Smith?

[KevinG]

Was there a representative democracy with Noah? With Abraham? With every other

major biblical prophet except Adam and Joseph Smith (and those after him)? About

freedom of religion... most prophets, I don't know if you knew this, had to be

protected by God because they were constantly in danger and many of them finally

got killed. So much for your freedom of religion excuse. Plus, that the early

Christians were extremely persecuted is no secret but yet it survived and

without the complete truth.

No representative democracy. But those dispensations didn't exactly end with the fullness of the Church in tact did they? I seem to remember floods, diasporas and golden calves being dropped into a crack in the earth. Persecution wasn't the sole reason for the Apostacy. Several posters mentioned the designs of scheming men who wanted power, etc. Don't argue from ignorance, especially when the answers to your questions were clearly given.

and yet Christianity survived. But let's say that THE TRUE CHURCH had been

continued until EVERYONE of those that believed in it were bitterly persecuted

and killed. How does this change the fact that the Church would have continued

by several centuries AFTER Christ and that NOW God would have had a good excuse

to retreat his true gospel from them? Yet, there were MANY devout believers in

Christ who quite likely could have easily converted to the true Church if God

had continued it. To say that "God would have killed everyone" believing in the

true Church is to ignore the fact that Christianity survived and survived to

explode.

Again you confuse Christian belief with the fullness of the Gospel and the Lord's earthly government. Don't argue from ignorance, especially when the answers to your questions were clearly given.

Show me that I'm wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. Your reasons don't work and I'm telling you why. Deal with them and stop attacking those that disagree with you.

You have been shown. You chose to ignore the facts given to you and continue to claim knowledge you don't have about LDS beliefs regarding the apostacy and restoration. You are also demonstrating ignorance of history. Don't argue from ignorance, especially when the answers to your questions were clearly given.

Also a few other techniques you may or may not be using on purpose but that aren't helping you communicate.

Answering questions with questions.

Selectively picking which points to address while ignoring others that have been answered.

Moving the goalposts on the discussion (when corrected on the conditions for the restoration you started asking why it took so long, etc.)

This isn't an attack. You will find your discussions are much more productive when you follow some common sense normative behaviors and avoid attacking yourself.

Let the moderators moderate and don't egg posters on no matter how bad they are behaving. You have also earned a timeout. - Ares

[elguanteloko]

My medieval class (the one specific to Europe) started the discussion around the late 2nd century.

LOL Which doesn't mean the middle ages started in the 2nd century. Good grief! In every history class they give have to start with some background. If you take a History of the United States class you will start with material of the time when there was NOT a United States of America.

You'll find that that there is a lot of leeway between scholars on when the middle ages exactly starts and stops, but besides that, as i said previously, because background information in the Christian church is necessary in understanding the middle ages, a lot of professors begin such classes a century or so before they might otherwise need to (at least, that's what my professors have claimed).

So, your professors start a Middle Ages class with the second century... HOW IS THAT OF ANY RELEVANCE HERE?!

And, when is the apostasy said to have started? I'm not sure what info you're talking about there.

From an article in lds.org called "Whither the Early Church?" by S. Kent Brown ( http://lds.org/ensign/1988/10/whither-the-early-church?lang=eng ) :

Immediately after the Savior’s resurrection, thousands of Jews and later tens of thousands of Gentiles converted to Christianity. The church that the Lord had established started strong and thereafter flourished. At the same time, however, a great many early Christian writers pointed to the fact that the Church would not survive.

From the early chapters of Acts, we learn much about the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem. On the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles had been filled with the Holy Ghost, Peter preached to the assembled Judaeans, and about three thousand were baptized. (See Acts 2:4, 14, 41.) The success from proselyting Jews was astounding; Luke later wrote that “believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” (Acts 5:14.)

Even the persecution that arose, scattering the disciples throughout Judaea and Samaria (see Acts 8:1) seemed to increase success. For instance, when Philip went to the city of Samaria, “the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake.” (Acts 8:5–6.) Acts, chapters 8, 9, and 11, record the phenomenal growth of the Church among Jews in the Middle East.

Then the book gradually shifts its focus to the history of gentile Christians in the area. Cornelius was the most notable of the gentile converts (see Acts 10), but he was probably not the first. Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven who was chosen to manage the temporal affairs of Christians in Jerusalem, may have been the first. (See Acts 6:2–6.) In Acts 6:5, he is called “a proselyte,” meaning that he had been a gentile convert to Judaism before he became a Christian.

and

The first serious governmental persecution of the Christians occurred in Rome in A.D. 64. Though attacks on the Christians were limited to that city, its effects were felt throughout the entire Church.

The outbreak of torture and murder under Nero stemmed from a fire that broke out in some shops in the southern part of the city. The fire burned out of control for six days and seven nights, sweeping generally northward, then broke out afresh on the estate of Tigellinus, Nero’s close friend. Because of this suspicious new fire and because Nero was reportedly delighted over the conflagration, Tacitus and Suetonius, two later Roman historians, accused Nero of starting the fire so that he could rebuild the crowded city according to a grander, more organized scheme. Nero himself placed the blame for the fire on the city’s Christians, a hated and misunderstood sect whom many considered to be apostate Jews.

Tacitus condemned Nero for this injustice. He, along with the Christian writer Clement of Rome, described what they had learned of the Christians’ horrible suffering. Clement, writing some thirty years after Nero’s death, attributes the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to Nero’s persecution. (1 Clement 5–6.)

From the scriptures, we know relatively little about the unfortunate Christian community at Rome. The first mention occurs in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, written about A.D. 58 or 59. By that time, there was a substantial group of Christians in the city. Although we possess no account of the first missionaries who preached there, we can infer from the way Paul arranges his greetings that at least five separate congregations or branches met in the homes of various members of the Church. (See Rom. 16:3–5, 10–11, 14–15.) Since no Christian meetinghouses were built until long after the first century, it would have been natural for branches to meet in private homes for worship.

It seemed like they were growing quite strongly, though, and it would have been much more likely that God would have defended his people instead of just taking the truth away and leaving thousands of Christian believers at the mercy of false doctrines.

anyways, to the point of when the GA started:

The information in Revelation 2 and 3 was addressed about A.D. 90 to specific congregations in cities near the west coast of Asia Minor. The Lord even accused some of the branches of the Church of having fallen headlong into apostasy. Of the seven that John addressed, five had serious problems with dissension and apostasy. (See Rev. 2:4–5, 14–16, 20; Rev. 3:1–2, 15–16.)

During the first several centuries of apostasy, the major doctrinal disputes centered on the Savior’s resurrection and the exact nature of his mission—the very points on which the Apostles were charged to testify.

So, it seems that about the year 100 the "apostasy" had already started. You might want to check more of those articles, though. You don't want an apostate like myself knowing more about your church than yourself.

[elguanteloko]

You want us to give you a justification for the apostasy? I'm not sure what you want? You want to tell God how to go about His business. Maybe you think the 15 Century delay was a big deal? I don't. It's a drop in the bucket, insignificant in the scheme of things, and there was no eternal downside. So, what's the problem? You just don't like the need for someone like Joseph Smith?

LOL No, that's fine! At least you seem to admit you guys have no reason for the Apostasy other than "God said it should be like that" though you don't know why (or at least no reasonable justification has been presented).

Since you are the smartest and most polite person commenting in this thread, I guess there's not much more to do here (until someone as interesting posts in the thread). Have a nice day!

Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

The apostasy was well under way before the deaths of the Apostles. The Church as organized by Christ was gone no later than 150 CE.

Agreed, thanks for this one.

Further those early Christians were under no guarantee that what they started would remain, in fact just the opposite. We as a Church OTOH have that guarantee.

Well, yes, but "no guarantee" doesn't justify the Great Apostasy when there were thousands of Christian believers any more than saying "There were no mormons in 1800 but a ton of Christians" would have justified God not having sent a prophet with the truth in his hands.

Edited July 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Ares]

Since you are the smartest and most polite person commenting in this thread, I guess there's not much more to do here (until someone as interesting posts in the thread). Have a nice day!

And this final elbow throw is shutting down this thread and earning you a 24 hour timeout. Before you post again please learn to give others the same amount of courtesy they give you. You cannot continue to claim others don't answer your questions while ignoring their posts or the references they give you. This is very bad form.

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Pot shots and bad behavior

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff