Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[Yep]

We believe that the Gospel has been restored. This restoration required an apostacy to have occurred. In another thread 3DOP stated that he disagreed with our views that an apostacy had occurred. This thread is created to discuss the evidences of the apostacy.

The following are a few of the items that we believe are indicative of the apostacy:

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

[Glenn101]

Apostasies were forming during the early church. Paul recounts one such in his epistle to the Galatians:

Galatians 1:6

"6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any bother gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Glenn

[Ron Beron]

We believe that the Gospel has been restored. This restoration required an apostacy to have occurred. In another thread 3DOP stated that he disagreed with our views that an apostacy had occurred. This thread is created to discuss the evidences of the apostacy.

The following are a few of the items that we believe are indicative of the apostacy:

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

I would think that the above show variations in the basis beliefs of the early church and not necessarily indicative of the apostasy. Far greater is the actual perversion of the teachings of Jesus in favor of a gentile church as the marginalization of the Jewish Christians.:

• Jesus became less earthly and more cosmic
  
• The Mosaic Law was forced into decline
  
• The sacrament was instituted
  
• The absence of Parousia (Second Coming)
  

There are more, but these stand out.

[Franktalk]

I found something in second Peter which I thought was interesting.

2Pe 1:12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.

2Pe 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;

2Pe 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.

2Pe 1:15 Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

I started to view all of 2 Peter as a prophecy a while back. In these verses it appears that Peter is talking about a present truth. This implies that the truth, or what is accepted as truth will change. He also says that when he is dead he will endeavor to have these things in remembrance. It is not a stretch to see a gap between the present truth and when Peter would return after he died to bring back the present truth. Could this be the period of the apostasy? I think it is. But it gets even better. There is a time stamp in second Peter which sets the date of the last days.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This deals with geology. Some time back geology used the idea that what we see around us today can be projected back in time. This is called uniformitarianism. Using this view of the past they deny the flood. So Peter was describing science and how they will in the future deny the flood. So just when are these last days? As it turns out Charles Lyell published a book which made the concept of uniformitarianism popular. He published his book Jan 1829. One might say that this is the start of the last days. What is very interesting is the book of Mormon was published Jan 1829 as well. So could this prophecy be setting the date for the restored "present truth" as described by Peter? Looks that way to me. So if we read this as the present truth goes away after Peter's death then that starts the apostasy. At least the failure to maintain the present truth. Then in death Peter returns as promised to bring back the present truth. With this in mind then anything which is not part of the restored gospel should be suspect.

Anyway this is but a taste of the prophecy as I see it.

What is interesting is that Peter says he will after his death bring back the present truth. Does this mean that all those who claim a handed down authority from Peter are in error? I think it is clear from Peter that he will be involved in the restoration and anyone who came after him was responsible for the present truth being lost. So the claim of authority linked to Peter by others is actually from the writings of Peter a claim of the fall of the gospel.

[BCSpace]

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

I would start with this excellent primer on the subject:

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/bickmore-barry/restoring-the-ancient-church-joseph-smith-and-early-christianity

I actually bought the physical book though it's freely available online here complete.

And then I would delve into the works of the early Christian Fathers themselves:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Here, you can see that Bickmore, the author of the first link, is in context and there is much more.

Scripturally, there are many good verses on the eminent reality of the apostasy. However, I like to top them off with Revleation 13:7 because it actually shows the universiality of the apostasy. Other christians accept that there was an apostasy, but for them, it was not universal as it is for LDS.

[saemo]

...and I would answer with this primer,

The Continuity of the Catholic Church

ETA: Rev 13:7? huh? It says nothing of apostasy. It describes the state of Christians at the time, during the reign of Domitian.

Edited July 3, 2012 by saemo

[3DOP]

We believe that the Gospel has been restored. This restoration required an apostacy to have occurred. In another thread 3DOP stated that he disagreed with our views that an apostacy had occurred. This thread is created to discuss the evidences of the apostacy.

The following are a few of the items that we believe are indicative of the apostacy:

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

Hey Yep. I am glad you were able to start the thread! I was thinking I needed to do so today and send an e-mail to you and I am saved that effort. Like you, I am not able to respond immediately so we can hopefully have a less frenetic pace than is sometimes the case. I am thinking that before I begin to address your specific misgivings, I might open with a general overview of why perhaps, even if Catholics were mistaken in their understanding of the doctrines or practices that you raise, I would be uncomfortable with a position that presumes such mistakes are conclusive evidence that priestly authority was completely taken away. I have to be off to work now.

Regards,

3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

My belief is that the Apostasy was complete no late4 than 150 CE. Two Centuries before Catholicism was formed.

[Spammer]

My belief is that the Apostasy was complete no late4 than 150 CE. Two Centuries before Catholicism was formed.

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Justin Martyr - all living, writing, and practicing their faith prior to 150 - were all Catholics. Catholicism was not formed in the 4th Century. If there was an Apostasy, it must have occurred prior to the time when their letters were written. Clement's was written in about 90 CE. Early Catholicism - recognizable in these letters and in the Didache in terms of emerging liturgy, doctrine, and organizational structure - began before Clement.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

Spammer:

No one is disputing that there weren't Christians.

Edited July 3, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Spammer]

Spammer:

No one is disputing that there weren't Christians.

I only sought to clarify that Catholicism was formed in the 1st Century. I should add that the very Catholic bishops Ignatius and Polycarp were both disciples of John the Beloved. If there was an Apostasy, then both men apostasized after their time with John.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Spammer

[Ron Beron]

...and I would answer with this primer,

The Continuity of the Catholic Church

ETA: Rev 13:7? huh? It says nothing of apostasy. It describes the state of Christians at the time, during the reign of Domitian.

Perhaps if you could highlight some of the highpoints of the webpage.

[Ron Beron]

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Justin Martyr - all living, writing, and practicing their faith prior to 150 - were all Catholics. Catholicism was not formed in the 4th Century. If there was an Apostasy, it must have occurred prior to the time when their letters were written. Clement's was written in about 90 CE. Early Catholicism - recognizable in these letters and in the Didache in terms of emerging liturgy, doctrine, and organizational structure - began before Clement.

The actual term and hierarchy didn't occur until the 4th century. There is a supposition among Catholics today that it began with Peter, but in reality James was the head of the early church.

[CASteinman]

We believe that the Gospel has been restored. This restoration required an apostacy to have occurred. In another thread 3DOP stated that he disagreed with our views that an apostacy had occurred. This thread is created to discuss the evidences of the apostacy.

Apostasy started very early, very quickly.

If you put the Epistles of the Apostles in the order that they are believed to have been written, you will see a progression of apostasy in the Church, starting with relatively mild errors in doctrine to finally open rebellion against apostolic authority. I am really busy these days but I will try to come up with some references.

[3DOP]

Do we have apostasy in the Old Testament? Total apostasy? Loss of priestly authority? Compared to infant baptism, prayers to Mary, changes in church government, and addressing priests as Father, what kinds of problems were overcome before priesthood authority was lost under a lesser covenant? Even if I thought that infant baptism, Marian devotion and other Catholic distinctives are wrong, I would be hard-pressed to conclude that God's Church HAD to be apostate because of those errors. The Old Testament gives me the impression that neither doctrinal error, nor blasphemy, nor immorality could extinguish the Levitical priesthood.

One of the reasons that the Church practices infant baptism for both genders goes back to the Old Testament where a ceremony was practised upon infants shortly after birth (at least the males). Gen 17:12-14 insists that males must be circumcised when they are eight days old or else they will be "destroyed out of my people". St. Paul draws a line directly from this practise to baptism in his letter to the Colossians:

In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead. And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences:

---2:11-13

Notice how they were dead in their sins, and "the uncircumcision of their flesh". According to the Catholic faith, Infant baptism was prefigured by infant circumcision. Now let's suppose we are wrong about that. A beneficial rite for infants was established under the Old Covenant. A ceremony for babies was for similar reasons performed from the times of Abraham down to Christ and the priesthood wasn't taken away. How can I say that everything is lost under the New Covenant because of the alleged evil implications of infant baptism when under the Old Covenant, the Scriptures themselves say that the baby who is uncircumcised will be "destroyed out of my people"?

You have misgivings about Catholic devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It would be hard for me to be convinced that we have shown disrespect to Christ and our Father through excessive devotion to Mary and other saints. But even if I were convinced that it is wrong to ask for their intercession with God, I couldn't make the leap from that point to a conclusion that the Church was dead because of it.

Ezek. 8 discusses pagan abominations committed in secret, that were known to be contrary to the revealed will of God for Israel:

And he said to me: Son of man, dost thou see, thinkest thou, what these are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should depart far off from my sanctuary? and turn thee yet again and thou shalt see greater abominations. And he brought me in to the door of the court: and I saw, and behold a hole in the wall. And he said to me: Son of man, dig in the wall. And when I had digged in the wall, behold a door. And he said to me: Go in, and see the wicked abominations which they commit here. And I went in and saw, and behold every form of creeping things, and of living creatures, the abomination, and all the idols of the house of Israel, were painted on the wall all round about. And seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and Jezonias the son of Saaphan stood in the midst of them, that stood before the pictures: and every one had a censer in his hand: and a cloud of smoke went up from the incense. And he said to me: Surely thou seest, O son of man, what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every one in private in his chamber: for they say: The Lord seeth us not, the Lord hath forsaken the earth.

---vv. 7-12

These are the leaders of Israel worshipping "abominations" of every description secretly. They KNEW it was wrong. And they get to keep the priesthood? But suppose I say we are wrong. We aren't shamefully hiding like the seventy men of the ancients. We don't even think we're doing anything wrong and its capital punishment for us? The Church is taken away? Priests of Israel get to secretly worship pigs or bugs or whatever filth they wanted, in the Temple, and they don't lose the priesthood. Where did God's mercy go? I disagree with people who gripe about how God supposedly wasn't merciful in the Old Testament. Look at what He tolerated then! If "his mercy endureth forever" as the Psalmist says, how can I think that God is harsher in the New Testament? If a devotion to the Mother of God is wrong, I don't know why, but if it is, its trifling compared to the corruption that God permitted to be recorded in the Scriptures for our edification.

Well Yep...that's kind of the way I think I have to go in evaluating these problems. The Scriptures do not hide any of the dirt. Under the Old Covenant, apostasies came to kings and priests and prophets. Chastisement came and were followed by revivals of faith. But the one constant through it all was God's faithfulness in providing with a true priesthood. And now, under the New Covenant, founded upon better promises, when we have as the captain of our faith a High Priest who cannot be touched by sin, when the very Head of the Mystical Body of Christ is God, we lose the priesthood? Why? Because we have a custom of calling those good men who share in Christ's priestly mission, sacrificing the joys of marriage for God's glory and our salvation, father? I know you have accumulated a few more problems (to you), but if Catholics are wrong they seem like such innocent and trifling boo-boos compared to the overt blasphemies and villainies of the Old Testament. It would seem hard, real hard. The Church can change if need be. God just abandons us without a priest? Those Old Testament abominations dwarf any misgivings that I could come up with that apply to the Catholic Church. If there were apostasies and restorations in the Old Covenant I would approach it differently. Or If there were apostasies and reformations, it would be different. But the pattern was apostasies and revivals.

That is the picture that I have to consider, even before I could move on to evaluate your reasons for opposing some of our doctrines and practices. In 1985, I started the East County Baptist Church without wondering about whether I had been given the authority to do so. It looks to me that Mormons are a lot like I was. I know I dismissed Catholic claims for the very reasons you are raising. I failed to consider the implications of the durability of the Levitical priesthood and what it teaches us if we should find ourselves pondering the possibility that another church ever needs to be started. I don't want to make the same mistake twice.

3DOP

PS: I need to retract something. For sake of accuracy, I should report that I did wonder about whether I needed to be ordained or anything before I started a church. Shortly before I began the work, I voiced this concern to a couple of fellow pastors who were supportive of a ministry in the area I had targeted. They did not see any reason to be concerned about whether I lacked any authority to start a church. I suppose that wondering was an actual grace from God that bore fruit later, much later. I wasn't really satisfied that the two pastors understood my concern. But I was a 29 year old with a head of steam so I went off half-cocked anyway, and no ordination to save the world. I meant well I am sure, but what a knucklehead.

Edited July 4, 2012 by 3DOP

[CASteinman]

I only sought to clarify that Catholicism was formed in the 1st Century. I should add that the very Catholic bishops Ignatius and Polycarp were both disciples of John the Beloved. If there was an Apostasy, then both men apostasized after their time with John.

The notion that Catholicism was formed in the 1st Century is a matter of belief, not a matter of evidence. Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp were Catholics. They did believe there was a catholic Church --- but not a Catholic Church.

[CASteinman]

Do we have apostasy in the Old Testament? Total apostasy? Loss of priestly authority?

From what we can tell, yes, it was pretty much total. John the Baptist, who had the right to the Priesthood by birth and was born to a good father, nevertheless had to be ordained by an Angel. Apparently the earthly Priesthood was gone.

Edited July 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[Flyonthewall]

I appreciate your comments and can respect them.

I do have a couple of thoughts though, and hopefully, they may even come across as coherent...

Do we have apostasy in the Old Testament? Total apostasy? Loss of priestly authority? Compared to infant baptism, prayers to Mary, changes in church government, and addressing priests as Father, what kinds of problems were overcome before priesthood authority was lost under a lesser covenant? Even if I thought that infant baptism, Marian devotion and other Catholic distinctives are wrong, I would be hard-pressed to conclude that God's Church HAD to be apostate because of those errors. The Old Testament gives me the impression that neither doctrinal error, nor blasphemy, nor immorality could extinguish the Levitical priesthood.

We don't beleive it is the Levitical priesthood that was going to lead the church. It may have some supporting responsibilities, but it would not be at the head of the church.

Hebrews 7 says that perfection was not by the Levitical priesthood, and with the new law came a new priesthood. It is that new priesthood that would lead the church.

Be that as it may, we never state that the Levitical priesthood was extinguished, but it was subordinated to the Melchesidek priesthood, which was withdrawn.

Ezek. 8 discusses pagan abominations committed in secret, that were known to be contrary to the revealed will of God for Israel:

---vv. 7-12

These are the leaders of Israel worshipping "abominations" of every description secretly. They KNEW it was wrong. And they get to keep the priesthood? But suppose I say we are wrong. We aren't shamefully hiding like the seventy men of the ancients. We don't even think we're doing anything wrong and its capital punishment for us? The Church is taken away? Priests of Israel get to secretly worship pigs or bugs or whatever filth they wanted, in the Temple, and they don't lose the priesthood. Where did God's mercy go? I disagree with people who gripe about how God supposedly wasn't merciful in the Old Testament. Look at what He tolerated then! If "his mercy endureth forever" as the Psalmist says, how can I think that God is harsher in the New Testament? If a devotion to the Mother of God is wrong, I don't know why, but if it is, its trifling compared to the corruption that God permitted to be recorded in the Scriptures for our edification.

When Jesus brought the new law, he made it clear that it was more stringent than the old law(Matthew 5:27-28). We would be held to a higher standard.

Well Yep...that's kind of the way I think I have to go in evaluating these problems. The Scriptures do not hide any of the dirt. Under the Old Covenant, apostasies came to kings and priests and prophets. Chastisement came and were followed by revivals of faith. But the one constant through it all was God's faithfulness in providing with a true priesthood. And now, under the New Covenant, founded upon better promises, when we have as the captain of our faith a High Priest who cannot be touched by sin, when the very Head of the Mystical Body of Christ is God, we lose the priesthood? Why? Because we have a custom of calling those good men who share in Christ's priestly mission, sacrificing the joys of marriage for God's glory and our salvation, father? I know you have accumulated a few more problems (to you), but if Catholics are wrong they seem like such innocent and trifling boo-boos compared to the overt blasphemies and villainies of the Old Testament. It would seem hard, real hard. The Church can change if need be. God just abandons us without a priest? Those Old Testament abominations dwarf any misgivings that I could come up with that apply to the Catholic Church. If there were apostasies and restorations in the Old Covenant I would approach it differently. Or If there were apostasies and reformations, it would be different. But the pattern was apostasies and revivals.

I know you make a difference between a "restoration" and a "revival", but I don't really see what it is. When Israel went astray, a Prophet was called to bring them back, to restore the things of God. If "revivals" are what you expect, then shouldn't we be Jewish?

It could be argued that Judaism was in apostasy when Jesus Came, and Jesus restored the truth and authority. Notice He did not work through the Jewish leaders of the time, but selected 12 new leaders. It was to these 12 new leaders that He gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven - not to the current leadership.

That is the picture that I have to consider, even before I could move on to evaluate your reasons for opposing some of our doctrines and practices. In 1985, I started the East County Baptist Church without wondering about whether I had been given the authority to do so. It looks to me that Mormons are a lot like I was. I know I dismissed Catholic claims for the very reasons you are raising. I failed to consider the implications of the durability of the Levitical priesthood and what it teaches us if we should find ourselves pondering the possibility that another church ever needs to be started. I don't want to make the same mistake twice.

3DOP

It is always good to want to be sure of what you believe in. Always seek truth and follow it wherevery it may lead.

[Mudcat]

We believe that the Gospel has been restored. This restoration required an apostacy to have occurred. In another thread 3DOP stated that he disagreed with our views that an apostacy had occurred. This thread is created to discuss the evidences of the apostacy.

I think you will likely find that is an argument for "what is acceptable evidence" rather than an argument of actual evidence.

The following are a few of the items that we believe are indicative of the apostacy:

I am an EV, rather than Catholic but felt the need to respond. On what basis is your belief that these claims of yours are indicative of the entire Church going into apostasy?

[3DOP]

From what we can tell, yes, it was pretty much total. John the Baptist, who had the right to the Priesthood by birth and was born to a good father, nevertheless had to be ordained by an Angel. Apparently the earthly Priesthood was gone.

John the Baptist ordained by an angel? Is that Latter-day revelation? Anyway..."pretty much total" [apostasy]. I thought some LDS might say that. Anyone eIse want to opine? I think Steinman, I can offer some evidence against that which you would find difficult to refute. Fly's on the Wall "more stringent" is certainly coherent and probably the way I would go if I was committed to a Restoration. I'll sleep on this. Thanks for your replies. See you all later.

3DOP

PS: Cal. Hey Help me. Should it be Fly on the Wall's? This seems like mothers-in-law. Remember the TV show with Kaye Ballard and Eve Arden, The Mothers-In-Law? That is where I first leaned how to use the plural correctly. If something belongs to my mother-in-law it wouldn't be my mother-in-law's would it? I never got good grades in this stuff. Is there a different rule for possessive and plural? There is a guy on ESPN Radio, Colin Cowherd, who hosts this sports talk show to which I listen. His parents were English even though he grew up in my native state of Washington, USA. Well spoken most of the time. He makes me crazy when he talks about Hall of Fames. No NO! Halls of Fame. One of these years I'll send him an e-mail that he will appreciate. I vote for Fly's on the Wall but await your opinion on this momentous question.

[Palerider]

We believe that the Gospel has been restored. This restoration required an apostacy to have occurred. In another thread 3DOP stated that he disagreed with our views that an apostacy had occurred. This thread is created to discuss the evidences of the apostacy.

The following are a few of the items that we believe are indicative of the apostacy:

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

I understand the "Apostacy" somewhat differently now than the way the lds faith represents it. I think there isn't one true organization that represents Heavenly Father's will here upon the earth, but that if an individual is willing to seek and knock there is sufficient knowledge in the Scriptures and through the Holy Spirit available for salvation (exaltation as you would term it).

The best evidence for a doctrinal adulteration of the truth (I think) is contained in Matt. 13: 24-30. And yet as the scripture shows, the wheat and tares are allowed to grow together until the end when the harvest is accomplished.

The most interesting aspect of this parable is that the Lord curtails any attempt to "restore" the field to it's initial purity. An attempt at "restoration" is expressly against His will.

As I understand it anything added later is just a continuation of the addition of the false doctrines of men. There are numerous heretical teachings in all churches today that make them an amalgamation of truth and the traditions of men. Take the introduction of thinly disguised masonic rites as giving one the keys to pass by the angels for example.....

[Calm]

Remember the TV show with Kaye Ballard and Eve Arden, The Mothers-In-Law?

Oh, that was mean. I had purged it from my conscious self.

http://grammar.ccc.c...possessives.htm

http://grammar.ccc.c...r/compounds.htm

Singular "s" is added to the end of the name for possession (think where you would put the possessive for an entire name including given name and surname...you put it at the end on the surname, "s" when it is pluralizing is added to the noun itself, not the whole name. At least that is how I remember. If you write "Fly's On the Wall" I am thinking that Fly owns something called "On the Wall", not that it is part of his name. (Capitalized to make it more obvious, removed the brackets around "O" to make it less confusing even though I altered the quotation....)

The most often discussion I hear about this is how to grammarize Book of Mormon, Books of Mormon or Book of Mormons?

My pet problem is multiple punctuation at the end of sentences, where does that dang period or comma go? Inside or outside of quotation marks or parentheses? It just doesn't make sense to me to put them inside if the inside bit is not the whole sentence because then it should only apply to the quotation or phrase...but no! that's wrong....so I just ignore the rule when I want and construct the sentence however I feel like at the time. (My sister is an English professor or was, don't tell her please.)

****I just found out likely why that bugs me so much, like some of my spellings, it seems I prefer the English English form, not the American English:

In the United Kingdom, Canada, and islands under the influence of British education, punctuation around quotation marks is more apt to follow logic. In American style, then, you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's "Design." But in England you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's "Design".

Now I can do it without the least moment of guilt! I am a true believer! http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm

Talk about an apostasy...Americans have fallen away from the true English language.

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

John the Baptist ordained by an angel? Is that Latter-day revelation?

Yes, as I recall, it is.

Anyway..."pretty much total" [apostasy]. I thought some LDS might say that. Anyone eIse want to opine? I think Steinman, I can offer some evidence against that which you would find difficult to refute.

I would look forward to that. I don't really see how you could do it because this is so very far in antiquity. For example, genealogies from that time are typically considered legendary rather than factual -- although perhaps some might be factual, it would be hard to prove.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Yes, as I recall, it is.

I would look forward to that. I don't really see how you could do it because this is so very far in antiquity. For example, genealogies from that time are typically considered legendary rather than factual -- although perhaps some might be factual, it would be hard to prove.

Hey hold on here.........I was lambasted by yourself on another topic and thread (as was Ron Beron) for depending on scholars who are not guided by LDS revelation, and now you propound the scholars views and not LDS leaders?

Edited July 4, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[CASteinman]

Hey hold on here.........I was lambasted by yourself on another topic and thread (as was Ron Beron) for depending on scholars who are not guided by LDS revelation, and now you propound the scholars views and not LDS leaders?

No, I did not propound scholars views. I propounded the view of the Church. However, please note: This is not a case of opposing perspectives. The two are in agreement.

You may recall that I made a point in the last discussion of highlighting the fact that there were two opposing positions. At which time there was a choice to be made.

No such choice is in evidence here.