Scriptural Defense: Those Who Say Mormons Aren'T Christian

[Vance]

I asked for a reference that the first 3 centuries were among the darkest in the church's history. If it's an LDS source or just your personal opinion, fine. I simply asked for a reference.

Not sure what would you want here. The references you provided didn't prove the continuation of the true church, but only provide evidence of the spread of some (apostate) form of Christianity.

You seem to want to quibble over WHEN the apostasy occurred, which is fine by me, because it implicitly recognizes that the apostasy DID, in fact, occur.

It is apparent that all you are really trying to do is salvage the reputation of some of the post/non Biblical doctrines that crept into the "church" after the disappearance of the Apostles.

[Gervin]

More obfuscation still. The purpose of quoting Acts 20:28–31 was to demonstrate that the Apostasy was among the leadership of the Church—not whether it was complete or incomplete. As I said above, the completeness of it relates to the loss of the priesthood keys, not that every Christian on the planet apostatized.

I thought the Church taught that the apostasy was a result of the members of the Church, not the leaders.

[Gervin]

The references you provided didn't prove the continuation of the true church, but only provide evidence of the spread of some (apostate) form of Christianity.

I was showing that the Church not only continued but thrived during your so called darkest period. Whether or not it continued as a part of an apostasy would be your burden to prove which is why I asked the CFR about your claims. Put another way, what "evidence" in my quotes shows the spread of an apostate form of Christianity?

You seem to want to quibble over WHEN the apostasy occurred, which is fine by me, because it implicitly recognizes that the apostasy DID, in fact, occur.

I don't believe it occured according to LDS claims, so you are wrong.

It is apparent that all you are really trying to do is salvage the reputation of some of the post/non Biblical doctrines that crept into the "church" after the disappearance of the Apostles.

I was asking for a CFR. It is apparent you can't provide one ... unless you do.

[zerinus]

I thought the Church taught that the apostasy was a result of the members of the Church, not the leaders.

Leaders are also members; but it takes more ominous proportions when it starts among them.

[Gervin]

Leaders are also members; but it takes more ominous proportions when it starts among them.

President Eyring doesn't, like you, put the blame on the leaders:

God’s people have not always been worthy of the marvelous experience we have shared today. The Apostles, after the Ascension of

Christ

, continued to exercise the keys He left with them. But because of disobedience and loss of faith by the members, the Apostles died without the keys being passed on to successors. We call that tragic episode “the Apostasy.” Had the members of the Church in those days had the opportunity and the will to exercise faith as you have today, the Lord would not have taken the keys of the priesthood from the earth. So this is a day of historical significance and of eternal importance in the history of the world and to the children of our Heavenly Father.

Which is why, in part, the LDS claim of apostasy doesn't ring true - who caused it, when, and why - it all depends on who you ask, when, and why.

[zerinus]

President Eyring doesn't, like you, put the blame on the leaders:

God’s people have not always been worthy of the marvelous experience we have shared today. The Apostles, after the Ascension of

Christ

, continued to exercise the keys He left with them. But because of disobedience and loss of faith by the members, the Apostles died without the keys being passed on to successors. We call that tragic episode “the Apostasy.” Had the members of the Church in those days had the opportunity and the will to exercise faith as you have today, the Lord would not have taken the keys of the priesthood from the earth. So this is a day of historical significance and of eternal importance in the history of the world and to the children of our Heavenly Father.

Which is why, in part, the LDS claim of apostasy doesn't ring true - who caused it, when, and why - it all depends on who you ask, when, and why.

I just told you. Leaders are also members.

[Gervin]

I just told you. Leaders are also members.

But President Eyring made a clear distinction between Apostles and Church Members as it relates to the apostasy, puting the blame on the latter.

[cdowis]

But President Eyring made a clear distinction between Apostles and Church Members as it relates to the apostasy, puting the blame on the latter.

You are correct, Gervin.

They no longer had an interest in following the counsel and instruction from the authorized leaders of the church. Basically he is referring to

Hel 13: [26] Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil.

[27] But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth -- and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

[28] Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him.

[29] O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?

They decided to follow their blind guides and the Lord took away the prophets and the priesthood authority.

Edited June 1, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

I'm going to focus on the issue I have been pressing here concerning why God was supposedly unable to maintain or restore true Christianity on the earth for centuries. You wrote:

With the death odf the apostles and no new replacemets is *why* and *how* the authority was lost. *Why* God allowed this to happen was from rejection of His word.

The problem is that there is no evidence that the church as a whole rejected God's word. To the contrary, in large numbers they showed themselves willing to lay down their lives for God's word. Furthermore, you admit (see below) that there were many valiant Christians in the period following the death of the NT apostles. You can't have it both ways. Either everyone was unfaithful and rejected God's word or there remained some if not many who were faithful and did not reject God's word.

You wrote:

Absolutely Jesus is the head of His Church. But from prophets to apostles, He has *always* followed the pattern of delegating responsibilities to man.

This statement assumes what is supposed to be proved. Has God in fact always worked through living apostles or prophets on the earth? No, he has not. For about seventeen centuries (ca. AD 100-1830), even if we accept Mormonism's claims, God chose not to work through living apostles or prophets on the earth. The only escape from this conclusion for you is to assume that God could not find one man in all of that time with whom he could work, until Joseph Smith. Even setting aside questions about Joseph Smith, that assumption is on its face absurd.

You wrote:

I do not interpret a "complete apostasy" as "everything" in Christianity having gone astray.

Maybe you don't, but your view requires the conclusion that enough went astray that God could not find one man in seventeen centuries to function as prophet or apostle. Apparently all men everywhere were so far astray from God that even God could not do anything to restore the true church for all that time, until Joseph Smith came along. Again, that is an absurd claim.

You wrote:

The Apostles were mostly killed off and I think that alone stands as a witness that the world was not willing to accept them.

The apostles died or were killed one or two at a time over a period of several decades. It would have been easy enough to appoint successors to them as that happened. They made no attempt to do so. No one was appointed to take the place of the first martyred apostle, James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12). The apostles as they saw their lives coming to an end said nothing about a lack of apostles being a problem for the continuation of the church (see the final epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude in the NT).

You wrote:

I do not disparage *at all* the valiance of many of the early Christian faith. But by that time their gospel was not the gospel taught in the New Testament.

According to Mormonism, that was also the situation in the nineteenth century. Yet God supposedly was able to work with Joseph Smith and other men to restore the church at that time. Why could he not have kept the church going at the end of the first century or restored it in the second or third century, if there were many valiant Christians during that period? Again, you appear to be making inconsistent claims. On the one hand, you say you are not disparaging the character or faith of many Christians during those centuries. On the other hand, you say that God withdrew the priesthood and apostolic authority because they had rejected God's word. These two claims won't mesh with each other.

[zerinus]

I'm going to focus on the issue I have been pressing here concerning why God was supposedly unable to maintain or restore true Christianity on the earth for centuries.

God certainly was able to restore it; but he did so in a time, place, and manner of His own choosing, not ours.

[Storm Rider]

I'm going to focus on the issue I have been pressing here concerning why God was supposedly unable to maintain or restore true Christianity on the earth for centuries. You wrote:

This begins in the wrong place. If we use this logic then why did God not start out with Christianity in the first place? If God really wanted us to learn about Christ why did he wait so long to institute it. In fact, it seems God has a rather exclusive little club if his chosen people was this little band of Israelites in an insignificant country that played no role in world history outside of religion.

You see, when you start creating standards to judge others you must use the same standard for your own beliefs and understanding. What is evident that God chooses the time and place; his ways are not our ways. You may want to disagree with his methods and his way of doing things, but that is irrelevant. God is still God and he pretty much ignores our complaints in this regard.

If LDS are not Christian then use the Bible to disprove it; use the Bible to define what a disciple of Christ is. The definition that you create must be applicable to the disciples of Christ that followed him when on earth. If you create a definition that will exclude the earliest disciples then it is obvious that the definition does not really apply to being a Christian and will only apply to your particular beliefs about what you think a Christian is and not what God thinks a Christian is.

[CV75]

I'm going to focus on the issue I have been pressing here concerning why God was supposedly unable to maintain or restore true Christianity on the earth for centuries. You wrote:

I don’t see how the New Testament could possibly testify of the Apostasy after the Apostasy took place, since there would be no prophet to write the scripture about it.

I see the Apostasy as the loss of priesthood authority as the “little flock” was scattered and killed. This is clearly the result of wickedness, some of which was provoked by the “wolves” within the “flock," not to say the wolves weren't active in many other anti-Christ venues. This is what the New Testament can speak to, inasmuch as relevant plain and precious teachings on the subject were not removed or lost.

Thus a church (flock) without its “little flock” or priesthood leadership and authority would co-opt and mislead the remaining faithful, and at best only imitating the lost priesthood authority. Because of its roots, it could understandably call itself “Christian.” However elect and valiant some members may have been, God did not restore the lost priesthood. I don’t think we can demand an accounting of this or God’s timing as our thoughts are not His thoughts. But I see His not restoring it immediately as a type of Christ’s death and resurrection. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 24:12).” The “little flock” died, and three of them returned and restored the priesthood to Joseph Smith.

So in its remaining prophecies of the Apostasy, the New Testament can only speak to the wolves and lack of faith, as the writers either did not know, chose not to, or were not at liberty to divulge the communication and transportation factors that contributed to a corruption of their teachings and a lack of accessibility to successors, the names of those who sought their lives, their own impending death and martyrdom, or the principle that restoration (resurrection) follows a falling away (death)--I mention that for those who may choose to discount 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as being applicable.

[Vance]

I was showing that the Church not only continued but thrived during your so called darkest period. Whether or not it continued as a part of an apostasy would be your burden to prove which is why I asked the CFR about your claims. Put another way, what "evidence" in my quotes shows the spread of an apostate form of Christianity?

I don't believe it occured according to LDS claims, so you are wrong.

I was asking for a CFR. It is apparent you can't provide one ... unless you do.

I provided ample references here,

and here,

[CV75]

I forgot to mention that, on a church-wide level, the faithful saints of the early church were like Peter walking on water. They had enough faith to go only so far (a number of years), but without the priesthood keys held by authorized living administrators (as Peter had Christ to cling to), they got swallowed up in apostasy.

[Darren10]

Darren,

I'm going to focus on the issue I have been pressing here concerning why God was supposedly unable to maintain or restore true Christianity on the earth for centurie.

The problem is that there is no evidence that the church as a whole rejected God's word. To the contrary, in large numbers they showed themselves willing to lay down their lives for God's word. Furthermore, you admit (see below) that there were many valiant Christians in the period following the death of the NT apostles. You can't have it both ways. Either everyone was unfaithful and rejected God's word or there remained some if not many who were faithful and did not reject God's word.

I never used the term "unable". God's able to do anything under His will so to me it's a question if Gd desired to maintain Christianity. As presented to you, man's readiness to kill his prophets and Apostles and their infusion of pagan philosophy into His doctrine, I think these are among the reasons God did not desire to keep His Church in tact on earth for a time. His children made their choice and prophecy regarding an apostasy came to pass. Vance and others here have presentedt you in no unclear terms that people rejected God's chosen servants and that the notion that Christianity was severely altered is hardly an exclusively Mormon thought.

Asking me why it took centuries for God to restorwe His Church, I don't now. That, to me, is asking, "but why the cross? Why was God unable to didn't God choose a more humane way to die? The answer is, i really don't know nor do I think anyone knows. All I do know is that God chose a young boy named Joseph Smith to be His prophet in our modern times and that through this young prophet the fullness of His gospel will be rerstored. to retore I'll let people smarter than I to debate if God was "unable" to "maintain or restore true Christianity".

Yes, many people joined Christianity and many were vlaiant. But what they were valiant in was living the faith according to the knowledge they had. They had to live a gospel without direct revelation from God and without God's proper authority to govern it. Essentially, they desired to live by the words of God's apostles without being able to have apostles among them. Nor ws there any one single book. While people joined Christianity, disputations among the Christians were abundant. Which books were authentically the word of God? (To this day there are still significant disagreements among Christians as to what should be considered canon or not). Does God have a body? Certain Christians, such as St. Augustine, did not want to join the Christians because f widespread teachings of God's corporeality. it was only after he found a group of Christians which rejected God Incorporeally existing. Why the reservations? St. Augustine was raised under the teachings of Hellenistic philosophy which declared God is existing outside of a body and of something entirely different. Other questions were, was Jesus truly God or truly human? Were there three gods or one? These disputations alone suffice me to view as the early Christians living in apostasy. Without revelation or the priesthood authority, Christians naturally fell into grave disaray. One greek Orthodox I'm aquainted wit in the blogoshpere, in an effort to confront my opposititon tothe Holy Trinity, described the pre-niciean era of being so severly split tha the physical integrity of the Christian Church was threatened. That the Council of Nicea was absolutely necessary to preserve Christianity's unity and without it the Christain Church today would be much different than it is. Ironically, I completely agreed with everything he said though for different end reasons.

Also, by "true Christianity" I hope we mean "complete Christianity". When God told Joseph Smith to join none of the curches for they were an abomination, that the drew near Him with their lips but their hearts remained far from Him, He qualified that by condemning he "creeds of man". I've no desire to run around and imply that non-LDS Christians are "false" Christians. I've no problem sharing with others that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's fully restored gospel on earth beause, well, it is. But I've no desire to pass jdgement on others as to who's a "true Christian" or not based upon their theology.

This statement assumes what is supposed to be proved. Has God in fact always worked through living apostles or prophets on the earth? No, he has not. For about seventeen centuries (ca. AD 100-1830), even if we accept Mormonism's claims, God chose not to work through living apostles or prophets on the earth.

My statement presupposed the existence of the Apostasy since we had already talked about it at length. What I meant is that up until New Testament Times God had always worked through apostels and/or prophets. But suddenly God decided not to use this form of governance? That makes no sense, especiallly with so much disagreement as to God's doctrines and God's moral standards, I think prophets/apostles are adamantly needed.

The only escape from this conclusion for you is to assume that God could not find one man in all of that time with whom he could work, until Joseph Smith

Like your previousy stating, "God was supposedly unable", sating here "God could not", you're humanizing God. This, coincidentally, is a very common method of criticism by others against mormonism. I make no judgement regarding your intent but I think that people do this intentionally to weaken the God of Mormonism. Truth be told is that under Mormon theology, the Father is El Elyon of "God Most High" and Jesus Christ is Jehovah or "LORD". These two beings are perfect and exalted above all. There is no other way to porperly present the Father and the Son under Mormon beliefs other than as perfect and exalted beings. That these two are one in unity and with the Holy Ghost make up the great and eternal Godhead. Humanizing God as "incapable" to do something He desired to do furtheres nothing in discussion.

With that said, I do not understand your concern as to why it may have taken so long for God to restore His truth? Why were the Hebrews enslaved for centuries before God chose a servant to go forth and lead them to freedom? Why was the Christian Church altered for centuries uti Martin Luther came along and lead a reformation movement? All things are done in God's ow timeframe which is much better and higher than our own. There are reasons but enumerating them would be speculative and may not be entirely doctrinal for I do not think the doctrines on these particulars have been made known to man.

that God could not find one man

(bold mine)

that assumption is on its face absurd

I agree, so stop using this assumption.

that God could not find one man

(Bold mine) :fool:

Apparently all men everywhere were so far astray from God that even God could not do anything to restore the true church for all that time, until Joseph Smith came along.

Were all Hebrews incapable of having their freedom until moses came along and God could finally trust someone (him) to lead them to freedom? Were the Jews of old not capable of receiving Jesus Christ until He [finally] came? Are the prophecies of John the Revelator to come only when "everyone" is capable of receiving their fulfillment? Your hypoerbolic delcarations of "nobody" is absurd. I see why you're confused. I *urgetly* stress your need to change your thinking ad get out of these exagerations. it'll do you good. I used to exagerate a lot. Then I turned twelve.

The apostles died or were killed one or two at a time over a period of several decades. It would have been easy enough to appoint successors to them as that happened. They made no attempt to do so. No one was appointed to take the place of the first martyred apostle, James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12). The apostles as they saw their lives coming to an end said nothing about a lack of apostles being a problem for the continuation of the church (see the final epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude in the NT).

True, they knew what they were up against. At least in part:

49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

(Luke 11)

They also knew the apostasy was coming and tha they would not be guided by that Holy Spirit to ordain new apostles. Your statemnt in and of itself does not nessesitate there being no more need for apostles. In fact, the restoration of apostles, as I view it, is part f the "restitution of all things". Not having apostles on earth made the gospel of Jesus Christ corrupt and terefore needed "restitution" by once again callng apostles on earth.

Again, you appear to be making inconsistent claims. On the one hand, you say you are not disparaging the character or faith of many Christians during those centuries. On the other hand, you say that God withdrew the priesthood and apostolic authority because they had rejected God's word. These two claims won't mesh with each other.

I already addressed this above. There is no need to disparage post biblical Christians for their efforts to defend the Christian Church. They were valiant with what they had. Likewise, there is no reason to disparage Cathlics for valiantly defending their faith, is there? You disagree with Catholicism on a most fundamental matter: their underlying authority to be God's true Church. Yet, if a Catholc were slain for being Catholci and for defending Catholicism, I hardly think you'd be a person to do anything except praise the person's valiance. Or am I wrong? Not disparaging people for defending, sometimes to the death, for their particular Christian beliefs is not incompatible with beliving that these people do not hold a "correct" view of Christianity.

Here's what Storm Rider just posted to you.

You see, when you start creating standards to judge others you must use the same standard for your own beliefs and understanding.

Amen!!!

Edited June 1, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

One thing that just came to mind regarding the timeframe of the restoration. These are entirely my thoughts though I see no reason to conclude they are incompatible with official LDS doctrines.

I think one reason God waited so long to restore His gospel is to make preparations for His children to receive it. They needed to rethink essential things and the gospel needed to be spread throughout all the world. To accomplish all this God created a country capaable of becoming rich to provide the wealth nedded for the retored gospel and powerful to provide essential protection for the practice of the gospel. To understand the nature of the founding of this country I think it important to take a look into history.

Throughout the Middle Ages we see much evidence of what I call a "theological monopoly'. That is, one church controlled the nature of God's word and its interpretation. under this momopoly, we saw much persecution of dissenters and of things such as "indulgences". A reformation was needed and a big one came in the 16th century under Martin Luther. If anything, this broke the theological monopoly and placed the word of God more directly into the hands of common folks. Another movement which was significant was the formation of the Anglican Church. Protected by geography and a deterined king, the Anglican Church agai created a direct defiance to Europe's theological monopoly. From the Anglican split many more groups split. With each split came the stronger sense of religious freedom. Akong came the English Enlightenment which recognized individual freedom and individual "rights". these splinter groups sailed off to a new found land across the world with the basic belief in the freedom to practice their religion and in individual rights. Thus forged a crucial foundational premesis for a new cuntery which became known as the United States of America. About 30 years after its founding the gospel Joseph Smith was called of God and restored God's churhc as it once was in times of old. From the United States this gospel was to, and is, spreading throughout the world.

Thank you for your attention.

The End.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Clement of Rome, who died ca. A.D. 90, wrote to the Corinthians of

"that shameful and detestable sedition" by which the: “worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in his faith, neither walks in the ordinances of his appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts.”^[7]

In the same epistle, he declared, "It is right and holy therefore, men and brethren, rather to obey God than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation." ^[8] The term "emulation" suggests that these false leaders taught an imitation form of Christianity.

http://en.fairmormon...tic_evidence_of

Looks like Vance has been to that site as well.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Darren10

[CV75]

Since my last post, I happened to read Elder Christofferson’s April General Conference talk. In the footnotes, I found the following:

Neal A. Maxwell, “From the Beginning,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 18–19: “James decried ‘wars and fightings among’ the Church (James 4:1). Paul lamented ‘divisions’ in the Church and how ‘grievous wolves’ would not spare ‘the flock’ (1 Cor. 11:18; Acts 20:29–31). He knew an apostasy was coming and wrote to the Thessalonians that Jesus’ second coming would not occur ‘except there come a falling away first’; further advising that ‘iniquity doth already work’ (2 Thes. 2:3, 7). “Near the end, Paul acknowledged how very extensive the falling away was: ‘All they which are in Asia be turned away from me’ (2 Tim. 1:15). … “Widespread fornication and idolatry brought apostolic alarm (see 1 Cor. 5:9; Eph. 5:3; Jude 1:7). John and Paul both bemoaned the rise of false Apostles (see 2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2). The Church was clearly under siege. Some not only fell away but then openly opposed. In one circumstance, Paul stood alone and lamented that ‘all men forsook me’ (2 Tim. 4:16). He also decried those who ‘subvert[ed] whole houses’ (Titus 1:11). “Some local leaders rebelled, as when one, who loved his preeminence, refused to receive the brethren (see 3 Jn. 1:9–10). “No wonder President Brigham Young observed: ‘It is said the Priesthood was taken from the Church, but it is not so, the Church went from the Priesthood’ (in Journal of Discourses, 12:69).” In the course of time, as Elder Maxwell expressed it, “reason, the Greek philosophical tradition, dominated, then supplanted, reliance on revelation, an outcome probably hastened by well-intentioned Christians wishing to bring their beliefs into the mainstream of contemporary culture. … “… Let us [too] be wary about accommodating revealed theology to conventional wisdom” (Ensign, Nov. 1993, 19–20).

So there was a great deal said in the New Testament about a Great Apostasy and the cause of it.

[CV75]

One thing that just came to mind ... The End.

I too think this is consistent with what I have heard throughout my tenure in the Church. And note the title of Elder Maxwell's 1993 Ensign article inlcuded in teh footnotes of Elder Christofferson's April GC talk!

[Darren10]

I too think this is consistent with what I have heard throughout my tenure in the Church. And note the title of Elder Maxwell's 1993 Ensign article inlcuded in teh footnotes of Elder Christofferson's April GC talk!

Thanks. When the apostles agree with me, you know they are right.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

This is a good quote:

Ignatius

Ignatius (A.D. 30-107) a student of St. John the Apostle, said in his epistle to the Ephesians, that he was “the last of the faithful that are there (Antioch)."^[11] It must be remembered that Antioch had one of the highest population of Christians at that time. If he was the “last” faithful member in a largely Christian city, what about the rest of the world, that also didn’t have apostles and prophets to correct and lead them?

Ignatius mentioned "the false prophets and the false apostles" who had already come before his time.^[12] He goes on to say that “the last times are come upon us.”^[13]

(Same as my #92 link)

[Darren10]

“Widespread fornication and idolatry brought apostolic alarm (see 1 Cor. 5:9; Eph. 5:3; Jude 1:7).

1 Corinthans 5:9

9 I wrote unto you in an ^aepistle not to ^bcompany with ^cfornicators:

Ephisians 5:3

But ^afornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh ^bsaints;

Jude 1:7

7 Even as ^aSodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to ^bfornication, and going after ^cstrange flesh, are set forth for an ^dexample, suffering the ^evengeance of eternal fire.

Lots of activity to warn against it seems.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

God certainly was able to restore it; but he did so in a time, place, and manner of His own choosing, not ours.

Any port in a storm, and any answer in a quandary. First the claim is made that the wolves destroyed the church. Then this claim is qualified that the wolves attacked the church so badly that God withdrew the authority for the church to exist, because there were no faithful Christians prepared to serve with that authority. Yet other Mormons affirmed that there were always wonderful Christians around. Now your claim is that God could have restored the church at any time but simply chose to wait seventeen centuries. Meanwhile, you and others here continue to make such statements as that God "always" works through apostles and prophets.

Y'all should come out with a cookbook called Fun with Jell-O and Walls.

[Darren10]

zerinus,

...Yet other Mormons affirmed that there were always wonderful Christians around. Now your claim is that God could have restored the church at any time but simply chose to wait seventeen centuries.

That's right. As in my #96 post, Ignatius remained faithful in Antioch.

Meanwhile, you and others here continue to make such statements as that God "always" works through apostles and prophets.

That's a fo a bit warped presentation. I know for meat least, this is qualified as God always having worked through prophets and/or apostles until the Apostasy. That's the understanding of pretty much all Mormons. At least the ones who don't waste time in Sunday School throwing Jell-O against walls.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Darren10

[zerinus]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Any port in a storm, and any answer in a quandary. First the claim is made that the wolves destroyed the church. Then this claim is qualified that the wolves attacked the church so badly that God withdrew the authority for the church to exist, because there were no faithful Christians prepared to serve with that authority. Yet other Mormons affirmed that there were always wonderful Christians around. Now your claim is that God could have restored the church at any time but simply chose to wait seventeen centuries. Meanwhile, you and others here continue to make such statements as that God "always" works through apostles and prophets.

Y'all should come out with a cookbook called Fun with Jell-O and Walls.

To me the greatest evidence of the Apostasy is the Restoration. The Book of Mormon is the greatest evidence of the Apostasy, because I have the witness of the Holy Spirit that it is true. I can only pity you if you don't.