Scriptural Defense: Those Who Say Mormons Aren'T Christian

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Acts 20:29

Edited May 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Saints Alive]

I don’t see that the teaching of Joseph Smith at the core as being Christian. It is not that he didn’t have some Christian doctrine. It’s that he also holds to teaching that is not Christian and undoes what he did have in some of his teaching (my view is that Joseph gives with one hand and takes away with the next).

CFR that Joseph Smith had teachings that weren't Christian. Name them.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

I had written:

"The issue is whether the church ceased to exist on the earth for over a millennium and needed to be restored in a new dispensation. The NT apostles never taught such an idea."

You claimed that they did teach this idea, so I issued a CFR in support of your claim. In response to my CFR, you wrote:

Rob Bowman:

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Acts 20:29

Neither of these texts says that the church would cease to exist on the earth, and neither of them says anything about a future restoration of the church.

[Vance]

thesometimesaint,

I had written:

"The issue is whether the church ceased to exist on the earth for over a millennium and needed to be restored in a new dispensation. The NT apostles never taught such an idea."

You claimed that they did teach this idea, so I issued a CFR in support of your claim. In response to my CFR, you wrote:

. . .

Neither of these texts says that the church would cease to exist on the earth, and neither of them says anything about a future restoration of the church.

Well, let's have a look and add some context.

1 Thes 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Act 20:

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

And I would have added.

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

I don't see how these verses could be more clear that the apostasy was complete or total. What part of "not sparing the flock" (clearly meaning the Church) is so difficult to understand or overcoming the saints. And with the apostasy being complete it is clear that in order to prepare the world for the second coming of Christ a restoration would be a necessity.

Of course, your position requires you to dismiss the plain and simple meaning of these verses, other wise your house of cards collapses.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Well, let's have a look and add some context.

Oh, good.

You wrote:

Of course, your position requires you to dismiss the plain and simple meaning of these verses, other wise your house of cards collapses.

I'm going to hold you to your own standard here, Vance. Your claim is that these passages state the LDS doctrines in question in "plain and simple" terms. Is that so? Let's see. You quoted 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 (not 1 Thess. 2:1-3):

1 Thes 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

You quoted the above verses but offered no comment or explanation for your claim that this passage clearly teaches a complete and total apostasy (i.e., that the church would cease to exist on the earth) followed by a restoration of the true church. The words you put in bold type don't make those claims in any obvious or clear way. It says that "a falling away" must happen "first," that is, prior to the day of the Lord. What is it in this passage that you think plainly and simply affirms that this "falling away" would be the complete and total disappearance of the true church from the earth? I don't see it. Assuming this is a falling away pertaining to the church, it could very well be a falling away of some people within the church and not a falling away of the church as a whole. Moreover, we have Paul's own word for it that the falling away he prophesied would be partial, not complete: "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1). So we have two statements from Paul using the expression "falling away"; in one he does not specify the extent of the falling away, in the other he specifies the extent as "some." So the plain and simple meaning of Paul's language would appear to be that some people, not the whole church, would fall away.

You wrote:

Act 20:

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

...

What part of "not sparing the flock" (clearly meaning the Church) is so difficult to understand....

I don't find these words at all difficult to understand. It means that the "wolves" (false teachers) would not exempt the "flock" (the church) from their spiritual attacks. These wolves in sheep's clothing, as Christ called them in the Sermon on the Mount, would attack the faith of people in the church. Paul warns that false teachers would arise and draw away disciples after them (v. 30). That language indicates that some members of the church would leave the church to follow after the false teachers. Once again, the picture is not of the total disappearance of the flock but of individual members (in whatever numbers) falling away from the church. If it were referring to a complete apostasy of the church, which I do not agree it was, in context it would be of the church in Ephesus, not of the church throughout the world. Note that Paul's statement is directed to the Ephesian elders in regard to their responsibility "to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers" (v. 28). The Ephesian elders were not overseers for the church throughout the world, but only for the local flock or congregation in Ephesus. Here again, then, the plain meaning of the passage is of a partial apostasy in the sense of some people in the church falling away, not a disappearance of true Christianity or the true church from the entire earth. This is consistent with Christ's warning to the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-7 that if it did not repent he would take its place away. Christianity persisted in Ephesus for at least another half century or so (as attested by Ignatius and Justin Martyr), after which persecution may have taken its toll. We do know the city was destroyed in the third century by the Goths and later rebuilt, becoming a major center of Christianity in later centuries. In any case, there is nothing in the passage to support a universal apostasy or total disappearance of the church from the earth.

You wrote:

And I would have added.

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

...

What part of "not sparing the flock" (clearly meaning the Church) is so difficult to understand or overcoming the saints.

Again, I have no difficulty understanding or accepting what the Book of Revelation says. The beast was allowed to make war against the saints and to overcome them. But what does this mean? Is it really "plain and simple" that it refers to a total apostasy of Christianity on the earth? Hardly. What is "the beast"? This is apocalyptic language, and even if one is confident about how to interpret it, the language is not quite "plain and simple." What is clear enough is that this overcoming applies to individuals ("the saints"), not to the church as an institution or corporate reality. One possible meaning is that the beast was allowed to physically attack and kill the saints, referring to Roman persecutions in which many Christians were martyred for their faith. Of course, this doesn't say, and it doesn't mean, that all of them were killed. Another possible meaning is that the beast (again, probably the Roman emperor or the Empire on his behalf) by his persecution of Christians induced many of them to renounce Christ and worship Caesar. Again, though, this would not say and could not mean that all Christians would renounce Christ out of fear of Caesar. We know this isn't so, because John goes on immediately to say that everyone on earth worshiped the beast except those whose names were written in the book of life (v. 8 ). Either way, the text neither plainly nor simply teaches that the church would cease to exist on the earth, and if anything is in conflict with that claim.

You wrote:

I don't see how these verses could be more clear that the apostasy was complete or total.

I can help you there. Instead of writing, "except there come a falling away first," Paul could have written "except there come the falling away of the whole church first." That would have been far more clear! Instead of saying "not sparing the flock," he could have said "and thus the flock would be wholly lost." That would also have been much clearer! And it would have helped if Paul had not made statements that plainly and simply affirmed that some people would fall away from the faith.

You wrote:

And with the apostasy being complete it is clear that in order to prepare the world for the second coming of Christ a restoration would be a necessity.

This statement presupposes not only that there was to be a total apostasy but that it would happen long before the second coming of Christ. What in any of these passages indicates that the apostasy would happen long before Christ's return? Why couldn't it happen just before his return? Again, the texts do not plainly or simply affirm what you claim they do. I remind you of your claim:

Of course, your position requires you to dismiss the plain and simple meaning of these verses, other wise your house of cards collapses.

To the contrary, your position is based on faulty, highly dubious inferences from these verses, and requires you to dismiss the plain and simple meaning of such verses as the following:

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1).

"And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20).

"...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3).

Edited May 29, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

Your claim is that these passages state the LDS doctrines in question in "plain and simple" terms. Is that so?

Taken together, yes they do. I made no specific claim about these when take individually.

You quoted the above verses but offered no comment or explanation for your claim that this passage clearly teaches a complete and total apostasy (i.e., that the church would cease to exist on the earth) followed by a restoration of the true church.

I made no such claim.

Once again, the picture is not of the total disappearance of the flock but of individual members (in whatever numbers) falling away from the church.

So, the flock really was spared? Humm, so the verse doesn't mean what it says?

If it were referring to a complete apostasy of the church, which I do not agree it was, in context it would be of the church in Ephesus, not of the church throughout the world.

Really? So, if Paul intended to mean a complete and total apostasy how would he have worded it differently?

Note that Paul's statement is directed to the Ephesian elders in regard to their responsibility "to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers" (v. 28).

And how does that preclude it from meaning the whole church?

Answer; It DOESN'T!

What part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult for you to understand. The flock (Church) is not spared. Are you throwing your uni-vocal model under the bus?

1 Pet. 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Was Peter ONLY referring to the congregation in Ephesus as well?

Again, I have no difficulty understanding or accepting what the Book of Revelation says. The beast was allowed to make war against the saints and to overcome them. But what does this mean?

That the saints (members of the church) were OVERCOME? That the beast would have power over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations?

Is it really "plain and simple" that it refers to a total apostasy of Christianity on the earth?

Yeah, that is what it is saying. What part of "power" "over ALL kindreds, and tongues, and nations" is so difficult to understand?

What is clear enough is that this overcoming applies to individuals ("the saints"), not to the church as an institution or corporate reality.

The church can only exist if there are saints. When the saints were overcome, the church as an institution no longer existed. Simple and plain.

Of course, this doesn't say, and it doesn't mean, that all of them were killed.

Because the beast, with power over ALL kindreds, and tongues and nations would have spared some of the saints and the church, because, after all, he isn't THAT bad, right?

DUH!!!

I can help you there. Instead of writing, "except there come a falling away first," Paul could have written "except there come the falling away of the whole church first."

Individual apostasy and even group apostasy was common. What good is a prophesy if it is simply going to mean events already in common occurrence? This prophesy ONLY has meaning if it is referring to a general and complete apostasy.

Instead of saying "not sparing the flock," he could have said "and thus the flock would be wholly lost."

Which means EXACTLY the same as "not sparing the flock".

And it would have helped if Paul had not made statements that plainly and simply affirmed that some people would fall away from the faith.

He did. But you HAVE to deny it, otherwise your house of cards collapses.

This statement presupposes not only that there was to be a total apostasy but that it would happen long before the second coming of Christ. What in any of these passages indicates that the apostasy would happen long before Christ's return? Why couldn't it happen just before his return?

Who would Christ return to, if the general apostasy only occurs "just before his return"?

That makes absolutely NO sense.

Again, the texts do not plainly or simply affirm what you claim they do. I remind you of your claim:

They do.

The flock is not spared. The saints overcome. The beast has power over ALL "kindreds, and tongues, and nations".

Plain and simple.

To the contrary, your position is based on faulty, highly dubious inferences from these verses, and requires you to dismiss the plain and simple meaning of such verses as the following:

Projection.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1).

What part of "all" excludes "some"? What part of "some" at one time excludes "all" at a later time?

"And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20).

When did he ever leave the "eleven desciples"?

16 ¶ Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, . . .

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, . . .

(20) and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So, who is Jesus SPECIFICALLY talking to?

"...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3).

"once for all" doesn't preclude it being handed down again. Especially since the translation isn't as cut and dried as you want us to believe.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you about our common life, it was necessary for me to write to you, as I am to persuade you to compete for the faith, which was once delivered to The Holy Ones.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was necessary for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

American King James Version

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write to you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Darby Bible Translation

Beloved, using all diligence to write to you of our common salvation, I have been obliged to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Webster's Bible Translation

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you concerning the common salvation, it was needful for me to write to you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered to the saints.

Young's Literal Translation

Beloved, all diligence using to write to you concerning the common salvation, I had necessity to write to you, exhorting to agonize for the faith once delivered to the saints,

Sorry, but "once" or even "once for all" do not equal "once and for all"

It was given "once" and it was given "for all" but it wasn't given "once and for all".

Edited May 29, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You had previously claimed that my position requires me "to dismiss the plain and simple meaning of these verses." In response to my critique of your argument, you now claim that these verses, "taken together," plainly state the LDS doctrines of apostasy and restoration:

Taken together, yes they do. I made no specific claim about these when take individually.

What you claimed was this:

I don't see how these verses could be more clear that the apostasy was complete or total.

Yet not one of these verses, in and of itself, clearly asserts that a complete or total apostasy was to take place. You have just implicitly admitted this by claiming that you find the doctrine in these verses only when "taken together." That means that the doctrine could have been stated more clearly than it is in these verses, if the doctrine was there at all. After all, it would be a great deal clearer if at least once the Bible were to say explicitly that there would be a total or complete apostasy of the church. It doesn't, as you have implicitly conceded.

The rest of your post adds very little to the discussion and merely insists that your inferences from the texts are obvious. For example, you wrote:

So, the flock really was spared? Humm, so the verse doesn't mean what it says? . . . What part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult for you to understand.

These questions ignore the fact that what "not sparing the flock" means is not transparently obvious. You think it obviously means not allowing the flock to continue to exist. I don't think it means that at all; I think it means not holding back from attacking the flock, not showing the flock any pity or compassion. This understanding fits the context and is consistent with much of the way the verb pheidomai is used in the Bible. For example, when Paul says in Romans 11:21 that "God did not spare the natural branches," he does not mean that God removed all of the natural branches (the Jews) from the "olive tree" of God's people. Rather, it means that God did not show them any special favors or pity because they were Jews; being a "natural branch" did not exempt them from being removed from the "tree." Likewise, Paul's point in Acts 20:29 is that the wolves were not going to exempt the flock from their vicious attacks. It does not mean that they would completely destroy the flock.

You wrote:

The flock (Church) is not spared. Are you throwing your uni-vocal model under the bus?

1 Pet. 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Was Peter ONLY referring to the congregation in Ephesus as well?

If by "uni-vocal" you mean a view of the Bible that assumes that a word always has the same meaning and referent every time it appears in the Bible, I absolutely reject such a view. It is hermeneutically naive in the extreme.

Peter's instructions here are directed to elders in no specific area; the epistle is directed to Christians across a wide region (1 Peter 1:1), and in this context Peter speaks of "the flock" in general terms and of the elders as shepherds functioning in various local areas with responsibility to watch over the flock in those areas. His instruction is clearly intended to be generally applicable to all elders wherever they may be. Paul's words in Acts 20:29 are a prophetic warning and might be taken as specific to the Ephesian context, though I don't claim (of course) that false teachers were going to be a problem only in Ephesus. The two passages are quite different and your objection is hermeneutically oversimplistic. But in any case I don't think that Acts 20:29 is prophesying a total apostasy even of the Ephesian church. I was simply pointing out that Paul does not say anywhere in the speech that the church would cease to exist anywhere on earth.

If we read Acts 20:29 in the context of the whole speech that Paul gives in Acts 20:18-35, we can see that his point was not that universal apostasy of the church was impending and inevitable. Indeed, we can see this in the verse immediately preceding the one you are using. Paul urges the Ephesian elders to be on guard for the flock. Why, if it is inevitable that the flock was soon to be completely destroyed or removed from the earth? Clearly, Paul is urging the elders to do the work of shepherds (v. 28) and protect the flock from the wolves that are coming (v. 29). That is the reason for mentioning the wolves: the elders' job was to function as shepherds of the flock and protect the flock's members from the wolves. Immediately after his warning about the wolves that were to come, Paul continues, "So be on the alert" (v. 31). Paul knows that the wolves are coming after his departure, but he does not throw up his hands and conclude that there is nothing that can be done about it. Instead he urges the elders to be good shepherds who stay alert and protect the flock from the wolves. After this charge, Paul expresses confident hope in God's ability to keep his flock intact despite the wolves: "And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (v. 32). These are not the words of a man who expects the church to cease to exist. He expects rather that the church will be built up, that it will realize its heritage. After all, the flock is not the property of the elders; they are merely the shepherds that are set over it on behalf of the owner. The flock is God's flock, "the church of God which he purchased with his own blood" (v. 28b). Having redeemed the church at the expense of his own blood, God is going to build up the church through his word, the message of his grace (v. 32).

When we go to the end of the passage, we find something else interesting. The Ephesian elders were very upset by Paul's message, but not because he was predicting the complete demise of the Ephesian church, let alone the church worldwide. Instead, Luke tells us that what upset them was Paul's prediction that they would not see him again (v. 38). This report is consistent with the reading of the speech I have presented above.

This is the sort of exegesis of the texts in context that you need to present to show (not merely assert) that your view is correct. The texts do not plainly or simply affirm your doctrine, as you keep asserting. To the contrary, there are good reasons to question your understanding of these texts, as I have illustrated here with Acts 20.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

"Not sparing the flock" seems pretty inclusive to me

[CV75]

This discussion seems to have more to do with the removal of “plain and precious” “parts” and “things” that were “pure” and “easy to the understanding of all men” as opposed to understanding the plain and simple wording as we have it today.

Not to say that the wording isn't clearly about the whole flock (Church)...

[Vance]

Yet not one of these verses, in and of itself, clearly asserts that a complete or total apostasy was to take place.

Humm, looks like you attempting to move the goal posts. But it doesn't matter.

CLEARLY

1) The flock (church) is not spared.

2) The saints (members of the church) overcome.

3) The beast has power over ALL "kindreds, and tongues, and nations". (No resistance from the church, because the church doesn't exist.)

You have just implicitly admitted this by claiming that you find the doctrine in these verses only when "taken together."

So, now you have gone from talking about two separate doctrines (Apostasy, Restoration) to only one. These verses, taken alone, do declare the doctrine of Apostasy. Taken together, (two separate witness, Paul and John) does establish the doctrine, and solidly so.

After all, it would be a great deal clearer if at least once the Bible were to say explicitly that there would be a total or complete apostasy of the church. It doesn't, as you have implicitly conceded.

Sorry, but your moving the goal post trick won't work. The verses cited clearly and plainly describe a total apostasy. You will have to write a very contorted tome to explain it away to your own satisfaction.

These questions ignore the fact that what "not sparing the flock" means is not transparently obvious.

To the willfully blind like you, no. To the rest of us, yes, it is OBVIOUS.

You think it obviously means not allowing the flock to continue to exist.

Yes, it does rather preclude the sparing of the flock. OBVIOUSLY!

This understanding fits the context and is consistent with much of the way the verb pheidomai is used in the Bible.

A total apostasy fits the context and is consistent with other verses and other witnesses.

being a "natural branch" did not exempt them from being removed from the "tree."

Yup. BAM gone.

Likewise, Paul's point in Acts 20:29 is that the wolves were not going to exempt the flock from their vicious attacks. It does not mean that they would completely destroy the flock.

Again, what part of the flock (church) not being spared is so difficult to understand?

Paul's words in Acts 20:29 are a prophetic warning and might be taken as specific to the Ephesian context, though I don't claim (of course) that false teachers were going to be a problem only in Ephesus.

"might"?

If we read Acts 20:29 in the context of the whole speech that Paul gives in Acts 20:18-35,

Ok. So we have Paul mentioning his departure in verse 24 as,

24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

He is talking about his departing not just Ephesus but this world.

And who is he talking to?

25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, . . .

Much more than just the Ephesians.

(25). . . shall see my face no more.

Because he will be departing the whole church and this life.

The context is clear that it isn't just the Ephesians that are being referred to.

When we go to the end of the passage, we find something else interesting. The Ephesian elders were very upset by Paul's message, but not because he was predicting the complete demise of the Ephesian church, let alone the church worldwide. Instead, Luke tells us that what upset them was Paul's prediction that they would not see him again (v. 38).

This report is consistent with the fact that Paul is talking about his ultimate death, his departure from this life and the general church, not just his departure from Ephesus.

This is the sort of exegesis of the texts in context that you need to present to show (not merely assert) that your view is correct.

So it is consistent with the context to read verse 28 & 29 thusly,

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock/whole church, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing this life and the whole church shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock/whole church.

These verses clearly show the total apostasy of the ancient church, plain and simple.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Vance

[Darren10]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

Jesus is here referring to the fact that Jewish religious leaders were going to expel Christians from the synagogue because of their proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah. This is what Jesus means by "separate you from their company." In effect, the Jews were going to excommunicate Christians.

Critics of Mormonism cannot do anything like this to Mormons. You have separated yourselves from traditional Christianity by declaring it to be apostate and your religion the only true church on the earth today. Some opponents of Mormonism have behaved horribly toward Mormons, but their doing so is not in any way a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, because their opposition to Mormonism is not about Mormon belief in Jesus (the Son of Man).

Are not Jews who proclaim Jesus as the Messiah also essentially declaring Judaism in apostasy?

their opposition to Mormonism is not about Mormon belief in Jesus (the Son of Man).

Oh, I think their pposition to Mormonism hasa lot to do with the Mormon belief in Jesus.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Darren10

[Vance]

Not to say that the wording isn't clearly about the whole flock (Church)...

Interestingly enough, I find that the word "flock" is found 6 times in the New Testament.

Of those we have,

Matt 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Jesus is the Shepherd and the Church is the "flock"

Also, I don't find the plural "flocks" at all. So, no flock of Ephesus, and no flock of Corinth, etc. Just one flock of the whole church.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

You asked me:

Are not Jews who proclaim Jesus as the Messiah also essentially declaring Judaism in apostasy?

You could put it that way, yes. But what is your point here? It does no harm to Jews to assert that they have fallen away from the true faith. Of course, Jews and Christians disagree as to what the true faith is, just as Mormons and evangelical Christians disagree as to what the true Christian faith is. But again, the point I was making stands, which is that one should not confuse evangelicals who merely criticize Mormon religion with those people (almost entirely of the past) who physically threatened or attacked Mormons. On this point, you wrote:

Oh, I think their pposition to Mormonism hasa lot to do with the Mormon belief in Jesus.

Whose opposition? No one who physically attacked Mormons in Joseph Smith's day did so because the Mormons believed in Jesus, did they? Can you provide any evidence to support such an interpretation? Isn't it true that the violence had to do with other matters, such as Joseph's marrying other men's wives?

[Rob Bowman]

That Acts 20:29 refers to a total apostasy of the church has not always been evident even to Mormon leaders. Consider, for example, the comments of Harold B. Lee in general conference in 1972:

In the Acts of the Apostles, the apostle Paul gave these charges to the elders of Israel. He said:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God.…

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30.)

....

There are some as wolves among us. By that, I mean some who profess membership in this church who are not sparing the flock. And among our own membership, men are arising speaking perverse things. Now perverse means diverting from the right or correct, and being obstinate in the wrong, willfully, in order to draw the weak and unwary members of the Church away after them.

By Vance's reasoning concerning what he thinks is the plain and simple meaning of "not sparing the flock," we would have to conclude that Lee thought the LDS Church was going to be completely fallen away because of those people who professed membership but spoke perverse things. Clearly, Lee thought no such thing. So while we may debate the text's meaning, it appears that it is not as obvious as Vance would have us believe that the text must mean a total apostasy of the church.

[JAHS]

Here's some scriptural proof:

Acts 28: 26,28:

"26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whoM alsO I speak freely: foR I aM persuaded that nONe of theSe things ARE hidden from him;

28. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, almost thou persuadest me to be a CHRISTIAN."

[zerinus]

Vance,

You had previously claimed that my position requires me "to dismiss the plain and simple meaning of these verses." In response to my critique of your argument, you now claim that these verses, "taken together," plainly state the LDS doctrines of apostasy and restoration:

* * *

Before deciding whether an Apostasy happened or not, we need an accurate definition of what we mean by the Apostasy. But before we start, you need to be aware that the Mormons were not the first came up with the idea of the Apostasy. The Protestants recognized it first. But they had a very distorted and false picture of it. To them the Catholic Church was the Apostasy. They called the Pope the Antichrist, and said the Catholic Church had turned the "bride of Christ" into the "whore of Babylon"! That is Protestantism--of which you are a part! Our doctrine of the Apostasy is something very different. We define the Apostasy as the loss of the Apostolic and priesthood keys of the Church. Three things are obvious from the scriptures: (1) The council of the Twelve Apostles were meant to be perpetuated in the Church. We know this because whenever a member of the council died, someone else was ordained to succeed him. Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas, and Paul was most likely ordained to succeed James, who had been beheaded by Herod. (2) The Twelve Apostles formed the governing council of the Church. Again we know this from Church history. When a serious doctrinal or procedural issue arose in the Church, it was taken before that council to be resolved, as was the case with the circumcision issue for example. And (3) The council of the Twelve Apostles was not perpetuated. That is what we call the Apostasy. The priesthood keys of the Church were lost.

From here the discussion forks into two strands, depending on who we are talking to. A Catholic would argue that the Apostolic authority and priesthood keys were indeed necessary; and they were not lost, having been preserved in the bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope), whom they regard as the successor of Peter. That requires a different answer that would be applicable only to Catholics.

Answering a Protestant (e.g. you) takes a different form (and becomes much easier) by virtue of the fact that you don't recognize the need for an Apostolic authority or priesthood keys at all--contrary to what is revealed in the scriptures. The Protestants have rejected the need for any kind of priesthood keys or Apostolic authority altogether--or the need for the sacraments for that matter. So all one has to do is to prove from the scriptures that baptism and all the other sacraments are necessary (by one having authority from God), and the priesthood keys and Apostolic authority that underpins it, to demonstrate that an Apostasy has occurred. In reality Protestantism (which includes Evangelicalism) demonstrates and exemplifies the Apostasy far more clearly than any other phenomenon in Christian history.

Apostasy does not mean that every Christian on earth lost his faith, became wicked, and stopped being Christian. It means that the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church was lost.

Edited May 30, 2012 by zerinus

[ncfarmerjoe]

Zerinus, thanks for bringing that point out? as i have wondered why the Protestants on one hand claim no "apostasy", but then on the other there are how many different Protestant denominations today? so to me it seems if they believed no apostasy ever took place, they would still be practicing Catholic's today, right?

seems anytime one or a group became upset with someone or something in their Church, they went out and started a new one.......many times the reasons for leaving where not flattering to the previous Church?

[Darren10]

You are confusing the issue or changing the subject. People who have attacked Mormons physically or in other ways engaged in abusive or other violent behavior toward Mormons have not done so because they disagreed with Mormon theology, but for other reasons (e.g., polygamy). That was my point. People like me, who publicly express theological criticisms of LDS doctrine, are not doing anything abusive or evil toward Mormons. Please keep these two issues distinct.

At one point in time Joseph Smith was drug out from his bedroom where he was resting with a sick infant son, hauled to the street, stripped and beaten and at one point an assailant scratched Smith's bare flesh saying that that is was what the Holy Spirit felt like. There has always been a clear connection to persecution of the Saints and their christology. If the Mormons did not have unique beliefs, their persecutions woud not have been so grevious.

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/n/1832_tar.phtml

[Darren10]

I think a "complete apostasy" does not mean every single thing of the gospel of Jesus Christ was altered, lost, or removed. Of course the historic Christian Church has many os the essential things of the gosepel of Jesus Christ. As far as the polticial structure of churches, the Roman Catholic Church has one quite similar to that of the LDS leadership and even lays claim to the priesthood. As for Protestant churches, their efforts to learn of biblical doctrines and to personalize them is definitely part of the gospel Jesus Christ set up. But a complete apostasy did occurre, not because everything was lost but because the most important or essential things were lost. And this goes right to the main thrust of this thread: the nature of the Father and the Son were so drastically altered as to renber the character of these two beings as something entirely foreign to that of first century Christians. The creeds regarding the Holy Trinity, especially that of the Athanasius Creed removed the Godhead from its biblical doctrines and placed them in the world of Hellenistic philosophical mumble-jumble. Not three gods but one? Same substance? When did first century Christians ever teach that? Even as late as the third century Origen is noted to siding with Bishop Heracleides in saying that there are "two Gods". And that's a big no-no according to the trinitarian formula.

With Joseph Smith and the restoration ofthe gospel, essential aspects have been placed bakc in order. God the Father and God the Son are two Gods yet one in purpose thus making LDS worship arguably monotheistic for we worship the Father the Son, and the holy Ghost as "One Eternal God" and all glory goes to the Father (monos) who in turn has exalted the Son above all and by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit we may be graced with exaltation ourselves. The priesthoos line of authority has been restored thus authorizing the practice of the saving ordnances, and doctrines such as baptism of the dead have been givne its due clarity thus openening eternal salvation for all God's children.

[Vance]

That Acts 20:29 refers to a total apostasy of the church has not always been evident even to Mormon leaders. Consider, for example, the comments of Harold B. Lee in general conference in 1972:

By Vance's reasoning concerning what he thinks is the plain and simple meaning of "not sparing the flock," we would have to conclude that Lee thought the LDS Church was going to be completely fallen away because of those people who professed membership but spoke perverse things. Clearly, Lee thought no such thing. So while we may debate the text's meaning, it appears that it is not as obvious as Vance would have us believe that the text must mean a total apostasy of the church.

So, in other words, other than the single statement of Harold B. Lee, WHOM YOU REJECT, you can't refute my argument.

Got it!

[CV75]

Intersting discussion. Here’s my take:

Luke 12: 31, 32 and Matthew 16: 18-20:

“But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

“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. 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. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”

[“Little flock” seems to refer to those (on earth) who have the keys of the kingdom of heaven (on earth), or those who have been given priesthood authority over the Church. God honors what they do in His name and so binds and loosens their ministerial actions in the kingdom of heaven that is in heaven, according to His good will and pleasure. This allows the gates of hell to not ever prevail against the heavenly kingdom, and yet on earth (notable the Great Apostasy) prior to the Second Coming.]

Acts 20: 28-29

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”

[The overseers of the flock feed the church. “Flock” and “church” seem to be used synonymously with an eye to the comparison between shepherds and wolves.]

Looking at these scriptures together, “little flock” seems to refer to the small contingent (The Twelve) who possess the keys of the kingdom on earth and exercise them in behalf of the rest of the church; “flock” seems to refer to a church in the sense of a congregation (“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”); “flock” or “church” also refers to the whole Church as in the “kingdom of heaven (on earth).”]

So I agree it is easy to understand that apostasy was seen as occurring on individual, congregational and earth-wide levels, but not in heaven.

[CV75]

Clearly, Lee thought no such thing.

I take Elder Lee's comment as an application of the underlying scriptural principle to an alternative scope to support a particular message, knowing that apostacy can ocurr on both local and global levels.

[Darren10]

Darren,

You could put it that way, yes. But what is your point here? It does no harm to Jews to assert that they have fallen away from the true faith. Of course, Jews and Christians disagree as to what the true faith is, just as Mormons and evangelical Christians disagree as to what the true Christian faith is. But again, the point I was making stands, which is that one should not confuse evangelicals who merely criticize Mormon religion with those people (almost entirely of the past) who physically threatened or attacked Mormons. On this point, you wrote:

First off, I answered a specific assertion you made (bold mine):

Jesus is here referring to the fact that Jewish religious leaders were going to expel Christians from the synagogue because of their proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah. This is what Jesus means by "separate you from their company." In effect, the Jews were going to excommunicate Christians.

Critics of Mormonism cannot do anything like this to Mormons. You have separated yourselves from traditional Christianity by declaring it to be apostate and your religion the only true church on the earth today.

I merely pointed out that this is what the first century Jews did by confessing Jesus to be the Messiah. Likewise, it does no harm to traditional christians to say that they have fallen away. from that point you made distinction between mormon theology and the physical attacks on Mormons. As I just posted, the uniquiness of Mormonism fueled hatred towards the Mormons. While I cannot think of an instance where anti-Mormon mobs beat up Mormons just for what they believed, Mormon theology most definitely was used to antagonize others against the Mormons.

I have not read in detail every post regarding a restoration but here are some from me:

20 And he shall send ^aJesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:^b

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of ^arestitution of all things, which God hath ^bspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

(Acts 3)

If a "restitution in all things" were needed tha means that something that once was went corrupt along the way.

11 ¶Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a ^afamine of bread, nor a ^bthirst for water, but of hearing the ^cwords of the Lord:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall ^arun to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

(Amos 8 )

We both know that the word of the Lord has always been among men but at one point people shall seek and not find it no matter where they travelled. I understand that some say that this applies strictly to the land of Isreal but the biblical text itself gives no such restrictions. Combine these scritures with the fact that traditional Christianity does not recognize living revelation (though I'd argue that they live by it in their own way) and thus deny the power of God.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

name='JAHS' timestamp='1338405622' post='1209127396']

Here's some scriptural proof:

Acts 28: 26,28:

"26. For the king knoweth of these things, before whoM alsO I speak freely: foR I aM persuaded that nONe of theSe things ARE hidden from him;

28. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, almost thou persuadest me to be a CHRISTIAN."

LOL! You get lots of points for cleverness.