Did The Church Ever Cease To Exist?

[Ahab]

15 And the serpent casteth out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helpeth the woman, and the earth openeth her mouth, and swalloweth up the flood which the dragon casteth out of his mouth.

http://www.lds.org/s...rev/12?lang=eng

Anyone have any insights into what the water from the mouth of the serpent (or dragon) represents?

Seems like poison would be a much better translation, but I'm still in wonder about this.

[Gervin]

Thank you.

Of all the comments here, yours is the only one I see that really fits in with this.

http://www.lds.org/s...rev/12?lang=eng

cant get link to work

[inquiringmind]

cant get link to work

Try this.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12?lang=eng

[Gervin]

They couldn't. It is rather obvious that the Apostles were the central authorities and the all local authorities were subordinate to them. Therefore, no local authority could legitimately call or select his own replacement (nor could the congregation). Only an apostle could authorize the replacement of a local leader. It is apparent that the Apostles, as a group, did have the authority to call/select replacements for lost members of "the twelve". SO!!! Without Apostles all authority to operate "the Church" at the local level would have disappeared within one generation.

Is it fair to think of the Apostles as people who possibly put proclaiming the gospel of Christ, above providing clear instruction for running the church?

I imagine apostles compelled to take the message, literally, to the uttermost ends of the earth. I'd like to imagine that the message of Christ was one of love and not organization. I do imagine that the cultures, religions, and language of places like Alexandria, Spain, North Africa, Sicily - I mean, the whole east/north Mediterranean* - made it very difficult to convey a consistent or consistently understood organizational structure (most mission-minded churches of the Protestant variety know this first-hand).

edit* Gaza to Rome

Edited August 1, 2013 by Gervin

[Robert F. Smith]

Can the Church exist without priesthood authority?

And did it ever entirely cease to exist between the death of the Apostles and Joseph's first vision?

According to Pres. Wilford Woodruff, the Church of Christ did cease to exist. You will find his account in chapter 1 of Wilford Woodruff, Leaves from My Journal (1882), in which he describes a vision of Robert Mason, ca. 1800, online at http://archive.org/d...yjour00woodrich ,

Mason said:

"I then knelt upon the ground, and prayed unto the Lord, and asked Him, in the name of Jesus Christ, to show me the meaning of the vision. The Lord said unto me : 'This is the interpretation of the vision: the great trees of the forest represented the generation of men in which you live.

There is no church of Christ, or kingdom of God upon the earth in

your generation. There is no fruit of the church of Christ upon the earth. There is no man ordained of God to administer in any of the ordinances of the gospel of salvation upon the earth in this day and generation. But, in the next generation, I the Lord will set up my kingdom and my church upon the earth, and the fruits of the kingdom and church of Christ, such as have followed the prophets, apostles and saints in every dispensation, shall again be found in all their fullness upon the earth. You will live to see the day, and handle the fruit ; but will never partake of it in the flesh.’

When the old prophet had finished relating the vision and interpretation, he said to me, calling me by my Christian name: "I shall never partake of this fruit in the flesh ; but you will, and you will become a conspicuous actor in that kingdom." He then turned and left me. These were the last words he ever spoke to me upon the earth.

This was a very striking circumstance, as I had spent many hours and days, during twenty years, with this old Father Mason, and he had never named this vision to me before. But at the beginning of this last conversation, he told me that he felt impelled by the Spirit of the Lord to relate it to me. He had the vision about the year 1800, and he related it to me in 1830 the same spring that the Church was organized. This vision, with his other teachings to me, made a great impression upon my mind, and I prayed a great deal to the Lord to lead me by His Spirit, and prepare me for His church when it did come.

In 1832, I left Connecticut, and traveled with my eldest brother to Oswego County, New York ; and in the winter of 1833, I saw, for the first time in my life, an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He preached in a school-house near where I lived. I attended the meeting, and the Spirit of the Lord bore record to me that what I heard was true. I invited the Elder to my house, and next day I, with my eldest brother, went down into the water and was baptized. We were the first two baptized in Oswego County, New York.

When I was baptized I thought of what the old prophet had said to me.

In the spring of 1834, I went to Kirtland, saw the Prophet Joseph Smith, and went with him, and with more than two hundred others in Zion's Camp, up the Missouri. When I arrived at my journey's end, I took the first opportunity and wrote a long letter to Father Mason, and told him I had found the church of Christ that he had told me about. I told him about its organization and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ; that the Church had Prophets, Apostles, and all the gifts and blessings in it, and that the true fruit of the kingdom and church of Christ were manifest among the Saints as the Lord had shown him in the vision. He received my letter and read it over many times, and handled it as he had handled the fruit in the vision; but he was very aged, and soon died. He did not live to see any Elder to administer the ordinances of the gospel unto him.

The first opportunity I had, after the doctrine of baptism for the dead was revealed, I went forth and was baptized for him.

He was a good man and a true prophet

, for his prophecies have been fulfilled.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................

Apollos is an interesting character as a follower of Jesus and who had also been a follower of John. He is baptizing, Paul is baptizing. No one holds the priesthood here in the way that LDS assume is necessary.

You might want to take that claim up with our Roman Catholic brethren, who believe that they need and must have the Melchizedek priesthood in order to perform ordinances.

...............................................

I tend to go with the idea that had a 'church' been so important that Jesus would have left everything sown up in terms of structure and authority. He didn't. Infact there is every reason to assume that no-one thought, in the earliest communities, that there would be a need for a church, since the Parousia was going to manifest itself within the first generation of converts.

A not uncommon theory, but a bit unrealistic if we consider Jesus' charge to his followers to take the Gospel to all the world -- something that would presumably take much more than a generation. And, in any case, His word did spread rather widely in the next 2 thousand years, perhaps as preparation for the pièce de résistance.

The idea that Jesus would have sown everything "up in terms of structure and authority" is merely a species of infallibility, which is nonsense. Jesus works with humans, and he knows that they are fallible.

The term Church, as I understand it, comes from ekklesia which was a gathering, an assembly. It is a greek term.

Even though it is never so used in the NT, our word "church" comes etymologically from Greek kyriakos "belonging to the Lord" (as in I Cor 11:20, Rev 1:10), not from ekklesia. However, Greek ekklesia is used in the OT LXX and NT to refer to what is effectively the "gathering, assembly," of the congregation/church of the people of the Lord, be they Israelite or Christian. Greek synagogue "assembly, gathering," is used in the same way (of Christians at James 2:2), but later came to be used exclusively of Jews. Indeed, we can speak of the "church" of the OT equally as well as of the NT.

It only began to be used as it became apparent that the Parousia wouldn't be occurring soon. (I think Acts mentions that it was first used in Antioch - not Jerusalem).

You're thinking of the term "Christian," which is first used at Antioch (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16; Didache 12:4; Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96).

............................

In my opinion Jesus followers exist wherever attempts to love, to be good, to try to be better are held as priorities. That means that a Jesus follower transcends any religious denomination. It's a way of life, not an adherence to any human organisation, which will always be a less than perfect reflection of the Divine.

Anyone who loves the Lord and keeps his commandments is His follower, and that is a good thing. However, that must not be confused with the false either-or dilemma excluding His formal Kingdom on Earth. Only a very selective reading of the NT could possibly project that notion. And, of course, it must be a way of life. That is the whole point, even though we must be fully aware that God's Kingdom on Earth will always be a mere reflection of the Divine. That is why we are here: To learn and to serve Him as His people and as His Saints until He comes again.

[Calm]

Anyone have any insights into what the water from the mouth of the serpent (or dragon) represents?

Seems like poison would be a much better translation, but I'm still in wonder about this.

I have assumed it was much like the primordial waters of creation before the Spirit of God moved upon them...chaos if you will, the serpent/dragon being seen as an agent of chaos/unorganization in many myths.

[Gervin]

The idea that Jesus would have sown everything "up in terms of structure and authority" is merely a species of infallibility, which is nonsense. Jesus works with humans, and he knows that they are fallible.

I agree. Knowing they were fallible, and knowing the complexity of the world they were entering, I don't doubt that Christ knew that most of the guidance given regarding church authority was bound to be garbled, misunderstood, debated, and misapplied (all by the Apostles).

I read the NT apostles as focusing on the single most important message, to proclaim Christ. I frankly don't see a whole lot in the NT about correct organization - and nothing (?) about the church-conduit as the only way to receive full blessings.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Gervin

[inquiringmind]

So would you all agree that the Church (in some form) existed for one thousand two hundred and sixty years prior to the restoration?

[Abulafia]

In response to my point about Apollos and Paul ‘not’ holding the priesthood in the way LDS consider important Robert said:

“You might want to take that claim up with our Roman Catholic brethren, who believe that they need and must have the Melchizedek priesthood in order to perform ordinances.”

Robert, could you provide references for that?

I wrote:

I tend to go with the idea that had a 'church' been so important that Jesus would have left everything sown up in terms of structure and authority. He didn't. In fact there is every reason to assume that no-one thought, in the earliest communities, that there would be a need for a church, since the Parousia was going to manifest itself within the first generation of converts.

To which Robert replied:

A not uncommon theory, but a bit unrealistic if we consider Jesus' charge to his followers to take the Gospel to all the world -- something that would presumably take much more than a generation. And, in any case, His word did spread rather widely in the next 2 thousand years, perhaps as preparation for the pièce de résistance.

The idea that Jesus would have sown everything "up in terms of structure and authority" is merely a species of infallibility, which is nonsense. Jesus works with humans, and he knows that they are fallible.

Okay, I see a few problems here Robert. The Mark ending (after 16: 8 is not attested in the earliest manuscripts. That still leaves Matthew 24:14

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.”

Yet, there is a contradiction here with the behaviour of the ‘Pillars’ as shown in Acts and the earliest genuine letters of Paul. Paul is the one who wants to take the gospel to a gentile audience and thus to the whole ‘world’ (at least the World then known), the Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus have to be persuaded. It’s an interesting contradiction and needs to be accounted for I think.

As to your second point about a ‘species of infallibility’. I agree, but if ‘authority’ as LDS present it, was SO important, one would think that Jesus would have left a clearer message about what he wanted done in terms of organisation, structure and authority. That he didn’t is perhaps an important message in and of itself that is worth considering!

You don’t mention how you would deal with Mark 9:38. Here Jesus attitude to authority is presented as being liberal. Very unlike Ignatius’s later view of the threefold ministry of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, in which the presence of a Bishop is essential to the running of a ‘church’, indeed the church, in his view doesn’t exist without the Bishop.

Robert said:

Even though it is never so used in the NT, our word "church" comes etymologically from Greek kyriakos "belonging to the Lord" (as in I Cor 11:20, Rev 1:10), not from ekklesia. However, Greek ekklesia is used in the OT LXX and NT to refer to what is effectively the "gathering, assembly," of the congregation/church of the people of the Lord, be they Israelite or Christian. Greek synagogue "assembly, gathering," is used in the same way (of Christians at James 2:2), but later came to be used exclusively of Jews. Indeed, we can speak of the "church" of the OT equally as well as of the NT.

Agreed.

I said:

It only began to be used as it became apparent that the Parousia wouldn't be occurring soon. (I think Acts mentions that it was first used in Antioch - not Jerusalem).

to which Robert replied:

You're thinking of the term "Christian," which is first used at Antioch (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16; Didache 12:4; Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96).

Absolutely! Thanks for correcting me. Writing at 1.30am last night.

Robert said:

However, that must not be confused with the false either-or dilemma excluding His formal Kingdom on Earth. Only a very selective reading of the NT could possibly project that notion.

Ah, there’s the rub. The use of the term ‘formal’, and thus we are back to the beginning! Perhaps you could reference why you feel only a ‘selective’ reading of the NT could project that notion?

Edited August 1, 2013 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Gervin said:

I read the NT apostles as focusing on the single most important message, to proclaim Christ. I frankly don't see a whole lot in the NT about correct organization - and nothing (?) about the church-conduit as the only way to receive full blessings.

I agree in part, but I also think the earliest Jesus followers were more intent on proclaiming his message than proclaiming 'him'. It came to be about 'him' as the early followers attempted to define 'who' he was. Messiah, Divine Man and so forth. But his basic messages (insofar as we can tell what they are given the texts we have) were simple and profound and I think it should be remembered that he focused in on the 'organised religion' of his time, and the hypocrisy of missing the mark. He was a radical Jew.

[LordUther]

While we know at least 4 people were alive on the earth during the apostasy (John & the 3 Nephites) that continued to hold the priesthood authority The Church as an organisation did cease to exist, and no church that existed during that time had the power & authority to bring souls unto Christ & exalt them. While there were many men during that time who were inspired by the Holy Ghost and may have been baptised into a church, it was not a church that had the authority to perform that baptism in the name of God, so was unacceptable towards Him as a saving ordinance. So yes the woman did flee into the wilderness (unable to be found) and was brought forth from the wilderness during the restoration.

So in as far as the world was concerned there was no priesthood on the earth, there were those that wandered it that still held it, though no-one knew them.

[Vance]

Is it fair to think of the Apostles as people who possibly put proclaiming the gospel of Christ, above providing clear instruction for running the church?

Even if we assume that we have most of what the Apostles wrote, we have very very little of what they actually taught, and NONE of what Jesus taught them during that 40 days. So, I don't think it is "fair" to ASSUME anything of the sort.

[Abulafia]

While we know at least 4 people were alive on the earth during the apostasy (John & the 3 Nephites) that continued to hold the priesthood authority The Church as an organisation did cease to exist, and no church that existed during that time had the power & authority to bring souls unto Christ & exalt them. While there were many men during that time who were inspired by the Holy Ghost and may have been baptised into a church, it was not a church that had the authority to perform that baptism in the name of God, so was unacceptable towards Him as a saving ordinance. So yes the woman did flee into the wilderness (unable to be found) and was brought forth from the wilderness during the restoration.

So in as far as the world was concerned there was no priesthood on the earth, there were those that wandered it that still held it, though no-one knew them.

I like your flag! You make it sound so tied up and easy. Judaism was a diverse ethnic/religious body, that diversity goes right through to the origins of Christianity. Christianity was never one distinct, ideal 'church'. Echoes of this are in the problems of the Corinthian Church and continue right through the canonical and non-canonical works.

So, the main issue becomes 'Who was Jesus of Nazareth and what did he teach?' ...and that is no easy issue to tackle given what has survived.

[Abulafia]

Vance said:

Even if we assume that we have most of what the Apostles wrote, we have very very little of what they actually taught, and NONE of what Jesus taught them during that 40 days. So, I don't think it is "fair" to ASSUME anything of the sort.

We 'do' have evidence of Paul's attitude to the Apostles from his genuine letters. What comes across is that James and Peter were Jews committed to Jewish Law and still loyal to the temple. They were not Levites. Hebrews is a later document.

The Didache is just so interesting for seeing quite an archaic form of the Jesus Movement(s) and looks and feels very, very early.

http://www.earlychri......<br /><br />

Since Jesus is silent on the matter, I think it is very fair to take the position Gervin is taking. As fair as your position.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Abulafia

[Ahab]

According to Pres. Wilford Woodruff, the Church of Christ did cease to exist. You will find his account in chapter 1 of Wilford Woodruff, Leaves from My Journal (1882), in which he describes a vision of Robert Mason, ca. 1800, online at http://archive.org/d...yjour00woodrich ,

Mason said:

"I then knelt upon the ground, and prayed unto the Lord, and asked Him, in the name of Jesus Christ, to show me the meaning of the vision. The Lord said unto me : 'This is the interpretation of the vision: the great trees of the forest represented the generation of men in which you live.

There is no church of Christ, or kingdom of God upon the earth in

your generation. There is no fruit of the church of Christ upon the earth. There is no man ordained of God to administer in any of the ordinances of the gospel of salvation upon the earth in this day and generation. But, in the next generation, I the Lord will set up my kingdom and my church upon the earth, and the fruits of the kingdom and church of Christ, such as have followed the prophets, apostles and saints in every dispensation, shall again be found in all their fullness upon the earth. You will live to see the day, and handle the fruit ; but will never partake of it in the flesh.’

When the old prophet had finished relating the vision and interpretation, he said to me, calling me by my Christian name: "I shall never partake of this fruit in the flesh ; but you will, and you will become a conspicuous actor in that kingdom." He then turned and left me. These were the last words he ever spoke to me upon the earth.

This was a very striking circumstance, as I had spent many hours and days, during twenty years, with this old Father Mason, and he had never named this vision to me before. But at the beginning of this last conversation, he told me that he felt impelled by the Spirit of the Lord to relate it to me. He had the vision about the year 1800, and he related it to me in 1830 the same spring that the Church was organized. This vision, with his other teachings to me, made a great impression upon my mind, and I prayed a great deal to the Lord to lead me by His Spirit, and prepare me for His church when it did come.

In 1832, I left Connecticut, and traveled with my eldest brother to Oswego County, New York ; and in the winter of 1833, I saw, for the first time in my life, an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He preached in a school-house near where I lived. I attended the meeting, and the Spirit of the Lord bore record to me that what I heard was true. I invited the Elder to my house, and next day I, with my eldest brother, went down into the water and was baptized. We were the first two baptized in Oswego County, New York.

When I was baptized I thought of what the old prophet had said to me.

In the spring of 1834, I went to Kirtland, saw the Prophet Joseph Smith, and went with him, and with more than two hundred others in Zion's Camp, up the Missouri. When I arrived at my journey's end, I took the first opportunity and wrote a long letter to Father Mason, and told him I had found the church of Christ that he had told me about. I told him about its organization and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ; that the Church had Prophets, Apostles, and all the gifts and blessings in it, and that the true fruit of the kingdom and church of Christ were manifest among the Saints as the Lord had shown him in the vision. He received my letter and read it over many times, and handled it as he had handled the fruit in the vision; but he was very aged, and soon died. He did not live to see any Elder to administer the ordinances of the gospel unto him.

The first opportunity I had, after the doctrine of baptism for the dead was revealed, I went forth and was baptized for him.

He was a good man and a true prophet

, for his prophecies have been fulfilled.

Nowhere did he say the Church ceased to exist. On this Earth, yes, but the Church (the members of it) were and are not limited to this Earth.

[LordUther]

I like your flag! You make it sound so tied up and easy. Judaism was a diverse ethnic/religious body, that diversity goes right through to the origins of Christianity. Christianity was never one distinct, ideal 'church'. Echoes of this are in the problems of the Corinthian Church and continue right through the canonical and non-canonical works.

So, the main issue becomes 'Who was Jesus of Nazareth and what did he teach?' ...and that is no easy issue to tackle given what has survived.

Cheers fella! :-)

Yes my answer was simplistic, but a) I work nights and haven't been up that long b) it was a simple answer to a simple question. I personally don't believe that the apostasy occurred the moment the apostles died/were cut off. I believe that it was gradual process. Men who had the priesthood ordained others who continued to hold the priesthood, but that as the church gradually brought in new/false teaching they slowly turned away from the light and over many years those who were worthy to hold the priesthood died out until as far as the world was concerned it was no longer to be found. In the same way is if there was some hypothetical worldwide disaster in which I and a few other members of the human race survived, with me being the only LDS amongst them. I would still hold my priesthood even though all the GA's had been killed. I would still be able to bless the sick, and administer the sacrament, but I wouldn't hold the keys for all that I could do & so when I died my priesthood would die with me. Probably a bad example but you get my point.

My belief is that these pockets continued to exist but slowly died out over time.

[Vance]

You don’t mention how you would deal with Mark 9:38. Here Jesus attitude to authority is presented as being liberal.

How, exactly do you reconcile this,

Mark 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

With this,

Matt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

?????????????

[Vance]

We 'do' have evidence of Paul's attitude to the Apostles from his genuine letters.

So, given that Jesus specifically gave Peter (and the rest of "the Twelve") total sanction (see Matt 16:19), who should we give more credence to? Peter or the (johnny come lately) Paul???

What comes across is that James and Peter were Jews committed to Jewish Law and still loyal to the temple.

Ok, so?

They were not Levites.

And this is relevant how?

Hebrews is a later document.

So?

[Abulafia]

Vance, am off out. 30 degrees here. Will respond later.

[Vance]

Vance, am off out. 30 degrees here. Will respond later.

Have a good day (or night as the case maybe).

[mfbukowski]

I know someone isn't in agreement with God when what they say and mean isn't in agreement with what God has told me.

As has been pointed out innumberable times, there is no "deadlock". It's just that people either agree with God or they do not.

We forgot you were the Prophet, sorry.

I await your usual self-righteous reply with bated breath.

[mfbukowski]

poof

Edited August 1, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So, the main issue becomes 'Who was Jesus of Nazareth and what did he teach?' ...and that is no easy issue to tackle given what has survived.

Then why would God make that the main issue? Is he trying to catch us in a mistake?

[Vance]

We forgot you were the Prophet, sorry.

I await your usual self-righteous reply with bated breath.

I think you mean "abated breath".

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. (I wanted to add the sad faced, teary eyed emoticon, but the system I am using today won't let me do that one)

Edited August 1, 2013 by Vance