The Possibility Of A 2Nd Apostasy

[mfbukowski]

You can also know whether or not what someone else says is a revelation from God based on how that compares with what God has told you. If it's in agreement, then it's all from God, but if there is a contradiction it isn't.

That is the whole point. But guess what? Others will disagree with you that YOURS is "from God" and theirs is not. That is my whole point. We can only "know" for ourselves what we think God has told us.

[Ahab]

This is a good question, not directed to me, but to which my own answer would be: No, we don't have any objective way to know for sure. We can only know subjectively. If there were some sure way to measure and quantify religious truth, then all would be compelled to to believe on the basis of reason alone. For all we know, we're wrong. But we don't feel wrong.

The fact that we can know things subjectively doesn't mean we can't know. We learn about all things we know by learning subjectively, and we can eventually know all things by learning everything there is in reality. And for all that I know, I am right.

However, assuming there was an apostasy in the face of the fact that apostates certainly didn't consider themselves apostate, nor believe that there could be a general apostasy because of some assurances allegedly made by the Lord Himself, I suppose that those who now do not believe themselves in a state of apostasy, nor that their Church could ever be in apostasy on account of some similar assurances, could in fact be apostates at this time and not know it. There's a precedent for it, thus apostasy could happen again by reason of induction.

The test for being able to tell if someone is in an apostate condition is to know what God has taught or is teaching, himself. The ignorant can't be apostates, since they didn't know in the first place, but when someone knows and then goes contrary to what God has taught or is teaching then they are in an apostate condition.

Take, for example, what our Lord has taught and still teaches regarding baptism, including who should do it and how it should be done. Anything contrary to his teachings is an apostate idea on the issue of baptism, regardless of how well intentioned. The key is to know what he has said, and how it applies.

I presume the Lord would not deny free will to his chosen leaders in order so satisfy assurances. Perhaps an authorized Church might exist that teaches false doctrines, in which case we might question the Lord's competency.

No need to question the Lord's competency on any issue. All we need to know and believe is what he tells and has told us.

I also note that those who have historically claimed that the Lord would remove them from power rather than allow them to lead astray are today no longer in power. What are we to make of that?

What makes you think they're no longer in power? Many people of the past still hold all the keys they once held.

[Ahab]

I mostly agree with Valentius. I think there are some serious, perhaps fatal, historical problems with the notion of a single, original Christianity. I get my opinion from assessing the evidences presented by Dr. Ehrman in his lectures on early Christian authentication. If he is correct, and if his evidence is legitimate, then original Christianity is a difficult proposition. He may be wrong, but he is certainly plausible.

As I told you earlier, the single, original Christianity started with Jesus, himself. He was "it", and then from him "it" spread.

The fact that some people hit or missed on some of the "it" doesn't mean the "it" wasn't there to be found. Anyone who finds him finds "it" to whatever degree they find him, and the more of him they find they more they have or are in agreement with "it".

Thus, to trace "it" to the source, go to him, because he is "it". All true Christianity is centered and connected to him, because he is the whole of all of "it".

[Ahab]

That is the whole point. But guess what? Others will disagree with you that YOURS is "from God" and theirs is not. That is my whole point. We can only "know" for ourselves what we think God has told us.

No, not really, because all that he says and has said is transmitted in such a way that more than one person has it. We can look at scriptures, for example, to see what he said, as well as how to understand what he said. We have lots and lots of scripture, you know, and we're continually getting a lot more of it, so all anyone has to do is look at what he said in scripture and then see how what he says compares with what others say.

[Thunderfire]

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

Since I'm not a member I cannot speak from an LDS perspective. But I would offer my opinion regarding any and all "churches" falling into apostasy. First, when I speak of "church" I am not speaking of the institution, rather the people. The church cannot fall into apostasy, people can. From this perspective, ANYONE can fall at any time. For me, the church is the body of Christ, or simply the people who claim to follow Jesus.

For that matter, even the Book of Mormon speaks of the "covenant people" falling into iniquity due to unbelief. Is this a form of apostasy? Of course it is because when Jesus says this he is referring to his covenant people falling away from the finer points of doctrine due to our sins. But then, he also says this is "the sign" for us to seek in order to know when the great day of gathering has commenced.

So then we can see how God is always moving among his covenant people, restoring them to the higher ideals of his kingdom on earth. Anyway, the Book of Mormon says it will happen. Whether we call the process of his covenant people coming back "another restoration" or not is up to the individual.

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

For me, even in apostasy God will always continue to reach out to his covenant people. Actually, when we look at the Old Testament, this is where God sent even more prophets to remind the people of his doctrine and calling them to repentance. So in a time of apostasy we should expect revelation to increase.

Continuing revelation DOES NOT mean the abandoning of prior revelation in favor a new lines of thoughts. If it is from God then it must build on what was previously given. Then too, when John wrote that Jesus did and said many other things which were not recorded (and if they were the whole world could not contain all the books), this is also seen as continuing revelation when the prophet reveals these teachings in our day.

Of course, we also have the counsel that certain "mysteries of the kingdom" have not yet been revealed to mankind. But seriously, if someone KNEW they were in apostasy they would also know the day they stepped into it. It is much easier pointing out the flaws in another than looking at yourself. But for me, I keep this easy: If you operate in the realm of signs and wonders and if the powers of heaven are flowing through you, then you have nothing to worry about. If not, that is the sign you should seek that proves something is amiss!

Edited October 17, 2012 by Thunderfire

[mfbukowski]

I mostly agree with Valentius. I think there are some serious, perhaps fatal, historical problems with the notion of a single, original Christianity. I get my opinion from assessing the evidences presented by Dr. Ehrman in his lectures on early Christian authentication. If he is correct, and if his evidence is legitimate, then original Christianity is a difficult proposition. He may be wrong, but he is certainly plausible.

For me, this is still trying to base a belief in Christianity on scientific, objective "facts" which is impossible. There is no evidence of that kind which can possibly prove that the historical person Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world who took the sins upon himself and is therefore the savior of mankind.

Either you have your own personal spiritual evidence of that or you don't. There is no possible data which could prove it either way.

So inevitably, each individual's understanding of that is going to be different. What unifies people is their testimonies of these beliefs, not some convoluted details of dogma about infant baptism or the nature of the Eucharist (Sacrament) or what exactly Paul or Augustine or Joseph or Brigham, for that matter, meant by whatever. There is no evidence for any of it nor can there be. Either you have a testimony or you don't. For me it is that simple.

Edited October 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

... if someone KNEW they were in apostasy they would also know the day they stepped into it.

In a sense, maybe, but they probably wouldn't associate it with the idea of being in apostasy.

Take baptism, for example. Suppose someone saw or heard what Jesus said regarding baptism and then thought an exception could be made in some cases while considering that exception to be okay. After all, it's the principle that counts, right? Isn't that right? Can't I think it is right if it sounds good to me even if Jesus never said anything about an exception? Yeah, sure, I'll go with that idea thinking Jesus will correct me if I'm wrong by making it very clear to me that I'm wrong. Until then, since this make sense to me and I'm sure the principle is all that really matters, I'm going with the exception, in this case, and then in any other case like this case.

And then later another issue comes up where maybe there should be another exception. As long as I follow the principle, as I understand it, that would be okay, too, wouldn't it? I'm not being an apostate by thinking this way, am I? Heh, nah, not me. I still believe Jesus is the Christ and I still feel like I'm being guided by the Holy Spirit as he teaches me in the way I know he teaches me. He does teach that way, right? As long as I'm following the scriptures to the best of my ability, using my reasoning to understand what is written, I'm being the best kind of Christian I can be. There really isn't a better way to be a Christian, is there?

[Ahab]

Either you have a testimony or you don't. For me it is that simple.

A testimony of what? What the Lord said? Where is it written?

If it's just in your head, and nobody with keys of the kingdom has ever wriitten it so you can see that it's written, then you might want to consider why you believe what you believe.

[CV75]

I like this thinking. This is a good example of how we can find great integrity in the claims of Mormonism. I don't think it's necessarily right thinking, but it's certainly good thinking.

Thank you. I was going to hold off, but maybe this can tie it together a bit better:

Jesus holds the keys of the kingdom, whose influence will ultimately fill the whole earth, which ties Daniel 2:35 to Ephesians 4:10. This is opposition to the universal apostasy, where for a time there was no exercise of these keys anywhere, which ties Daniel 2:35 ad Ephesians 4:10 to John 12:24. The stone was cut, or separated from the mountain (killed) just as Christ was cut off the face of the earth with His death and His keys were removed from the earth with the deaths of the apostles.

[mfbukowski]

A testimony of what? What the Lord said? Where is it written?

If it's just in your head, and nobody with keys of the kingdom has ever wriitten it so you can see that it's written, then you might want to consider why you believe what you believe.

But here is the deal- why would you believe anything anyone has written if it disagrees with your testimony of what is right?

How do you know they are right? You don't. You can find virtually anything "written" by anybody. Catholics have things "written", Evangelicals, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Satanists- you name it.

How do you know who has "keys of the kingdom" without a testimony? I think I will start the religion of mfb. I say I have the keys. I have written stuff. So what??

[mfbukowski]

Thank you. I was going to hold off, but maybe this can tie it together a bit better:

Jesus holds the keys of the kingdom, whose influence will ultimately fill the whole earth, which ties Daniel 2:35 to Ephesians 4:10. This is opposition to the universal apostasy, where for a time there was no exercise of these keys anywhere, which ties Daniel 2:35 ad Ephesians 4:10 to John 12:24. The stone was cut, or separated from the mountain (killed) just as Christ was cut off the face of the earth with His death and His keys were removed from the earth with the deaths of the apostles.

I agree with you, of course. But how would we even know any of this Bible stuff is more true than Buddhist scripture or the Zoroastrian Avesta without a testimony?

That has to be a basis for all of it.

[mfbukowski]

No, not really, because all that he says and has said is transmitted in such a way that more than one person has it. We can look at scriptures, for example, to see what he said, as well as how to understand what he said. We have lots and lots of scripture, you know, and we're continually getting a lot more of it, so all anyone has to do is look at what he said in scripture and then see how what he says compares with what others say.

Which scripture? The Buddhists or the Zoroastrians? How about Hindu Scripture? How do you know that's "not" right?

Because many people write it and agree with it - that makes it right?

All we have is testimony. Period. The rest, as the song says, is "just somebody talkin'".

Are you a convert?

Edited October 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

But here is the deal- why would you believe anything anyone has written if it disagrees with your testimony of what is right?

I wouldn't, because that would lead me into apostasy, but that isn't the question to ask here.

The better question to ask is: Why aren't others who have a testimony from God receiving more of what God has revealed which we can see written in scripture?

How do you know they are right? You don't.

I know who is right by knowing if what they say is in agreement with what God has told me.

You can find virtually anything "written" by anybody. Catholics have things "written", Evangelicals, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Satanists- you name it.

Yep, and by seeing that what they say doesn't agree with what God says I can see who is right and who isn't.

How do you know who has "keys of the kingdom" without a testimony?

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have a testimony, from God on what God has told us. I'm suggesting that is the measure by which we can measure anything else anybody has to say.

I think I will start the religion of mfb. I say I have the keys. I have written stuff. So what??

If your religion boils down to following Jesus based on what he actually tells you then I'm already in that one with you.

[mfbukowski]

I know who is right by knowing if what they say is in agreement with what God has told me.

Yes exactly. And you know which scripture is his scripture by what he has told you. (and me)

That is my whole point so quit arguing with me! Cheesh!

[Ahab]

Yes exactly. And you know which scripture is his scripture by what he has told you. (and me)

That is my whole point so quit arguing with me! Cheesh!

Okay, enough with the arguing.

Now just answer my better question with the right answer and you'll be contributing an idea to make this thread even better.

[mfbukowski]

Okay, enough with the arguing.

Now just answer my better question with the right answer and you'll be contributing an idea to make this thread even better.

What question?

[mfbukowski]

The better question to ask is: Why aren't others who have a testimony from God receiving more of what God has revealed which we can see written in scripture?

Oh that one.

They're not seeing it because they choose not to, and don't know that they can actually ask God for him to reveal it to them.

They are busy believing that "Magesteria" and their ministers actually have something to teach them instead of asking God himself.

<ducking for "incoming">

[Ahab]

Oh that one.

They're not seeing it because they choose not to, and don't know that they can actually ask God for him to reveal it to them.

They are busy believing that "Magesteria" and their ministers actually have something to teach them instead of asking God himself.

<ducking for "incoming">

Yes, or as I would say, they're in an apostate condition and they don't realize they're in an apostate condition because they don't check in with the source of Christianity... or as the Lord has said, they don't come unto him.

<looks around for "incoming">

[mfbukowski]

Yes, or as I would say, they're in an apostate condition and they don't realize they're in an apostate condition because they don't check in with the source of Christianity... or as the Lord has said, they don't come unto him.

<looks around for "incoming">

Shhhhh. We are supposed to be good missionaries here and not offend people.

[Ahab]

Shhhhh. We are supposed to be good missionaries here and not offend people.

I don't actually try to offend people, but sometimes sharing the truth is just considered offensive to some people.

It sure would be nice if people would just say 'Thank you!' while accepting the truth instead of getting offended.

Shhhh. Don't tell anybody, but that's what I secretly hope I will hear from at least one more person, someday.

[CV75]

I agree with you, of course. But how would we even know any of this Bible stuff is more true than Buddhist scripture or the Zoroastrian Avesta without a testimony?

That has to be a basis for all of it.

As you've pointed out, "we" don't know that "we" know, but "I" know that I do! One of the valuable things about covenants is that people agree to act as a "we" and affirm what others say they know.

Personally, I think the Bible as we have it is more true than other religious scripture (except the Triple Combination) on certain spiritual/religious points, but perhaps not on others, and in many insatnces bearing the same truth on the same point.

[Alan]

I'm joining this thread late; but in answer to the opening question - yes the LDS Church could fall into apostacy. How would we know it had happened? We wouldn't; just as millions of Catholics and other Christians are not aware of the first apostacy. This is not their fault and neither would it be ours.

Would there need to be another restoration? Yes, of course.

Is a complete apostacy likely? No, but I think it will be a close thing.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Alan

[Ahab]

Personally, I think the Bible as we have it is more true than other religious scripture (except the Triple Combination) on certain spiritual/religious points, but perhaps not on others, and in many insatnces bearing the same truth on the same point.

I can see that is true, on some points, but on the issue of apostasy I think it's more to do with people adding or taking away things from what is in the scriptures... to wrongly attribute a teaching to Christ or to diminish a true teaching of Christ.

If people just stuck with what is in the scriptures, without wrongly adding to or diminishing the true teachings, the world as a whole would be a lot closer to Christianity than it is now.

You know, we do assert the Holy Bible contains the fulness of the gospel. We just need to correctly understand what is written in the Bible.

[Ahab]

I'm joining this thread late; but in answer to the opening question - yes the LDS Church could fall into apostacy.

Okay, I'll play along. How could it? What would it take for it to happen? You do realize the Church would continue as long as there were enough people with the keys to continue the kingdom, don't you? The President all by himself would be enough for the Church to continue.

How would we know it had happened? We wouldn't; just as millions of Catholics and other Christians are not aware of the first apostacy. This is not their fault and neither would it be ours.

Yes, it would be our fault if it happened to us, just as it is the fault of those who first started the first apostate Church.

Nobody falls into apostasy in ignorance. To become an apostate you have to first be a true and faithful member, and then fall.

Would there need to be another restoration? Yes, of course.

If the Church fell, sure there would, if the Church were ever to come again and continue on Earth, but you're just presupposing that it could happen again. I'd like to see you make a case for how it could happen.

Is a complete apostacy likely? No, but I think it will be a close thing.

As I said, all it would take for the Church to continue on Earth would be for the President of the Church to continue to hold the keys of the kingdom. Even if he didn't baptize someone else into the Church, he would still be a faithful member of the Church, and he by himself would be all that was left of the Church on this Earth.... well, at least in the mortal realm, not counting all the faithful spirits around us we can't see.

[mfbukowski]

I don't actually try to offend people, but sometimes sharing the truth is just considered offensive to some people.

Only when it is delivered with an arrogant attitude.