The gospel a generation away from extinction?

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Plural marriage is a separate ordinance from marriage.  But I'm not going to debate that.  It's evident enough to me from the history of the practice and the wording of the sealing ceremony.  I am certain you would disagree.

You seen no conflict in saying a law cannot change and then simultaneously acknowledging that it was changed previously?  That is an argument being used frequently.

The Word of Wisdom has never changed.  Church policy changed but D&C 89 still remains unaltered.

See, I don't.  Because I believe God DOESN'T change his eternal laws and ordinances.  And no continuing revelation will ever do so.  Except the false ones.

JL, how's the seatbelt doing, or the vitamins? Not very well I take it.   Ahab mentioned that you aren't in the church anymore, did you read that? Thought you may need to straighten that out. His quote below..

Ahab: "Which is why he's not in it anymore, I suppose.  Why would he be in it if he thought it was wrong?  What would the "point" of that be??

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

JL, how's the seatbelt doing, or the vitamins? Not very well I take it.   Ahab mentioned that you aren't in the church anymore, did you read that? Thought you may need to straighten that out. His quote below..

Ahab: "Which is why he's not in it anymore, I suppose.  Why would he be in it if he thought it was wrong?  What would the "point" of that be??

He was speaking of Stemelbow. Not me.  I am just fine and still in the Church.

I  think...maybe he was speaking of me.  Convoluted quoting.  But if he was he's wrong.

Edited September 25, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He was speaking of Stemelbow. Not me.  I am just fine and still in the Church.

Okay, thanks. I wasn't trying to throw Ahab under the bus, just thought he needed straightening out on the matter. But apparently I read it wrong. 

[california boy]

On 9/23/2019 at 7:22 PM, Ahab said:

If you are essentially saying there will always be at least one person in each generation who will be ordained to the office of high priest and receive the keys of that priesthood and proclaim the true gospel, thereby guaranteeing that the true gospel will continue to be preached, then I am afraid that I have no choice because of who I am and the kind of person I am to agree with you.

All it takes is one, right?

How do you reconcile the whole 3 Nephites who always held the priesthood keys for almost 2000 years when the gospel was in apostasy?  Where are those guys anyway?  We used to hear stories all the time with them appearing in the nick of time to help and disappearing just as quickly.  Are there still those kinds of stories being told in the Church today?  Or has it fallen into folklore.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How do you reconcile the whole 3 Nephites who always held the priesthood keys for almost 2000 years when the gospel was in apostasy?  Where are those guys anyway?  We used to hear stories all the time with them appearing in the nick of time to help and disappearing just as quickly.  Are there still those kinds of stories being told in the Church today?  Or has it fallen into folklore.

Well, I was under the impression the three Nephites operated on the American continent so that explains the lack of record for the first thousand years.  Now John the Revelator who is in the same situation operating in the old world probably would have popped up occasionally during that time.

I consider a lot of the stories as folklore.  But the three Nephites and John the Revelator I believe to be very real, and keeping Apostolic authority on the earth during the loss of the gospel.

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, Ahab said:

Journal of Discourses 11: 269; ” It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained…The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy.”

In that discourse Brigham said something about being polygamists at least in our faith, and by that I understand that he meant that we should at least be able to acknowledge that God is okay with a man having more than one wife, and if we can then we are polygamists at least in our faith, even if we personally do not have more than one wife.  And it seems to me that it doesn't take much mental effort at all to realize that God is okay with a man having more than one wife because Abraham had more than one wife and God was okay with Abraham having more than one wife, otherwise our Lord and many of his authorized messengers would not have mentioned him so prominently as the father of our faith.

Meh, okay.  People say lots of things.  Not sure how much difference it makes what people say about this.

Heh heh.  Yeah, well, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.  Blessed be the name of our Lord.

I'll go even further than that and agree with what Brigham said when saying that we are all polygamists if we believe God is okay with a man having more than one wife. To enter into polygamy all we have to do is accept polygamy at least in our faith.

Great.  And do you accept modern day polygamists (I mean people who actually are actually married to more than one person at the same time) as members in good standing?  

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then juxtaposing the Church's observance and non-observance of the practice of polygamy does not make sense.

What about implementing polygamy?  Was that "good?"

I'm fairly ambivalent about the Priesthood Ban.  I lean toward it lacking a revelatory provenance.  Nevertheless, I agree that rescinding it was "good."

I don't understand what this means.  It sounds like a tautology.

That is why it's funny you continue on your point, at least to me.  In the case of polygamy, it's without question, as I see it, that a practicing polygamist is considered what might be termed a heretic in our day.  It used to be that a practicing polygamist was regarded as high level church royalty, in some cases (ok I have Brigham Young in mind).  For some reason you have been arguing against such a thing, but not directly.  You have continued on your style of deflection in order to throw shade at, it seems to me, the point made by JLHPROF and myself.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  What does this mean?  What does it demonstrate?

Or . . . not.  "Such a Mormon" would be operating in ignorance of 150 years of history.  And you are suggesting that such a person's assessment would be valuable or meaningful . . . how, exactly?

It was an illustration to make the point, using polygamy as an example.  Yes, 150 years ago, the church practiced polygamy and often praised it as God's preferred order of marriage.  Today a polygamist is cast out fo the Church as the practice is rejected and opposed to the laws of God.  You say, well the spirit says that polygamy was supposed to be practiced back then and yet that same spirit says it is not to be practiced today essentially.  Fine believe what you must.  But it hardly addresses the point.  The point is that the practice of polygamy, as it was practiced at one time, is not acceptable today.  Thus, a polygamist of 150 years ago is treated as today's heretic (yes, and you can deflected and complain that the church doesn't use the term heretic.  Fine...again, deflection and nothing more)  in the Church.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Any hypothetical involving time travel isn't worth much.

Apparently not.

I still don't understand your "point."

I see that, you keep adding ideas and notions to my thoughts to make them seem as though they are something else.  I think if you took a step back and reconsidered what's being said you'd get it.  It's pretty simple.  And yes, polygamy acts as one example.  I'm sure there are plenty.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not if the Church is what it claims to be.

An insrutable point.  So what's the point of discussing anything here?

And still not clear on what the "point" is.

And in other news, circles are round and water is wet.

I thought you were trying to make some sort of point with the whole today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.  I guess not.  It was just a turn of phrase, with no particular meaning or accuracy when applied to the Church.

As you like.

-Smac

The point is made.  Oddly, I think in your attempted deflections, you actually supported the point in a way.  You simply can't accept it directly.  And since that appears obvious to me at this point, I'm feeling eager to see what you might say next.  

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, cinepro said:

On my mission, we had a saying:

"Trust in God, but always lock your bike."

 

I think it would be prudent for the current leadership to adapt it with this approach:

"Trust the Church will never go away, but lead it as if it could."

 

As for the Church changing its views on the historicity of The Book of Mormon or the ability of God to tolerate homosexual sex, I hope it never changes.  I hope 100 years from now, LDS leaders are just as firm in their insistence on these topics as they are today.  Even if it turns the Church into a tiny group of historically delusional, homophobic managers of a massive investment portfolio*, I hope they never waver.

 

*Paraphrase of how the world might see them one day, not my own personal views.

 

I don't think you'll have to wait 100 years, but I'm thinking you'll be disappointed.  The wavering has already begun.  you will find many members in the Church, members in good standing in fact, who question the historicity of the BOM.  You'll also find many members in good standing who tolerate homosexual sex.  I imagine members in both categories are only going to grow as a group and percentage of the Church, in time.  I don't think the brethren are going to do much more about it than perhaps get a little huffy and act like someone simply can't take that position.  As the generations pass, though, it'll be interesting to see the evolutions the Church takes.  I'm sure we'll still have a Scott or Smac claiming things like the Church hasn't really changed because all the changes God has made happen; therefore those beloved members in 2019 can't possibly be 2101's heretics of the Church, even though they simply saw things and did things differently.  

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/23/2019 at 9:45 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Yesterday, I was reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I pondered that and came up with an adaptation to be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ: “The gospel in its purity is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

 

The gospel is eternal.  Christ Atonement is fixed and can't be changed.  People can remove themselves from the gospel but it is more enduring than a black hole or neutron star. 

[carbon dioxide]

If the kids are right, they will have two choices going forward.  Either they come to gospel or they go extinct through climate change.  Either way, looks like Babylon is going to have a hard time enduring in the future.  The chaos is coming.

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

How do you reconcile the whole 3 Nephites who always held the priesthood keys for almost 2000 years when the gospel was in apostasy?  Where are those guys anyway?  We used to hear stories all the time with them appearing in the nick of time to help and disappearing just as quickly.  Are there still those kinds of stories being told in the Church today?  Or has it fallen into folklore.

I believe our Lord allowed those 3 Nephites, and the apostle John too (might as well mention him while I am at it) to stay here to minister (as angels do) but rather than remaining mortal.they were translated or something like that. I mean, can you imagine 4 2000 year old men walking around like us mortals do?  Their skin would be falling off if their bodies hadn't undergone some kind of physical change. And I believe the reason we don't usually see them is pretty much for the same reason that we usually don't see people who died but are still among us on this planet.  You are aware that we have been told that  the spirits of people who die remain here on this planet with us, at least usually, I presume.  So  just as Peter and James and 9 other apostles were still here among us on this planet after they died, even though we didn't usually see see them after they died, those 3 Nephites and John the apostle were still here too and they ministered to people, occasionally, even though most of the living didn't usually see them or hear much about them, generally.

So, they're still here.  We'll all still be here after we die, or if we are translated.  Right here on this planet where most of us will stay until we are resurrected, and then I presume those who are not worthy to remain here will be shipped off or otherwise sent to some other planet.

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Great.  And do you accept modern day polygamists (I mean people who actually are actually married to more than one person at the same time) as members in good standing?  

If they are following the rules we are expected to follow, you betcha!  These days that means men are supposed to have only one wife unless she dies and then they may marry again to get another wife.  Rather than marrying a bunch of living women all at the same time.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think you'll have to wait 100 years, but I'm thinking you'll be disappointed. 

And I think you will be disappointed.

Quote

The wavering has already begun. 

With respect, I disagree.

Quote

You will find many members in the Church, members in good standing in fact, who question the historicity of the BOM.

Yes.  And?

Quote

You'll also find many members in good standing who tolerate homosexual sex. 

Again, yes.  Again, and?

I think pretty much all members of the Church "tolerate homosexual sex."  We also "tolerate" fornication and adultery.  We are able to get along in society just fine.

The question is whether such behaviors are compatible with remaining in full fellowship in the Church.  The answer, pretty clearly, is "no."  Not by a long shot.

Quote

I imagine members in both categories are only going to grow as a group and percentage of the Church, in time.

I question that.  We'll see, I suppose.

In any event, I don't see the Brethren "wavering" on these issues.  At all.  

Quote

I don't think the brethren are going to do much more about it than perhaps get a little huffy and act like someone simply can't take that position. 

In the main, I think the Brethren are working hard to accommodate viewpoints like those above.  I am glad of that.  Attitudes on these issues are not set it stone.  A person may struggle with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but over time such views can and do change.  Same goes for perspectives on the Law of Chastity.  The question is whether our brothers and sisters would be better off inside our outside of the Church while working out these things.  I think the answer to that is rather clear.

Quote

As the generations pass, though, it'll be interesting to see the evolutions the Church takes. 

Indeed.  We are already half a century into the Church's "evolution" vis-à-vis the Sexual Revolution and Drug Culture.  Has the Church become ambivalent about these things?  Has the Church disregarded the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom?  Is fornication ignored?  Is adultery winked at?  Is drug use allowed?  No (to all five questions).

Now, has the Church altered its approach to these issues?  Yes.  Less fiery rhetoric, more nuance and compassion and encouragement.  But the substantive positions of the Church on these commandments remains the same.

I think the Church's track record for the last 50 years is a pretty good indicator of how things will proceed for the next 50.

I also think that people who are yearning for an "evolution" that takes the Church toward accepting homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are engaged in wishful thinking.  They are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2019 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The gospel is eternal.  Christ Atonement is fixed and can't be changed.  People can remove themselves from the gospel but it is more enduring than a black hole or neutron star. 

True, but the gospel in its purity and power can be removed from the earth at the Lord’s discretion due to general wickedness and unbelief, as has been shown. As I said, I don’t expect that will happen in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The gospel is eternal.  Christ Atonement is fixed and can't be changed.  People can remove themselves from the gospel but it is more enduring than a black hole or neutron star. 

True.  We just can't seem to agree even as members on what constitutes the "eternal gospel".
But we are getting very good at adding to the exclusions.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True, but the gospel in its purity and power can be removed from the earth at the Lord’s discretion due to general wickedness and unbelief, as has been shown. As I said, I don’t expect that will happen in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. 

I agree with you on all of this.  But do you think it can happen in part?  Or do you exclude things the Lord has removed temporarily as not being part of the purity and power?
 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with you on all of this.  But do you think it can happen in part?  Or do you exclude things the Lord has removed temporarily as not being part of the purity and power?
 

I believe the essentials are present and will remain. These include accurate teaching about the Resurrection and the Atonement of Christ, the authorized administration of salvific ordinances and covenants to the living and in behalf of the dead, and fulfillment of the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True, but the gospel in its purity and power can be removed from the earth at the Lord’s discretion due to general wickedness and unbelief, as has been shown. As I said, I don’t expect that will happen in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. 

I don't hold to the idea that our Lord or God has ever removed the gospel from this planet.  I think it has always been here and that people have always been able to find it, if they have wanted to find it.  It's still in the Bible, even.  Some people just didn't interpret or understand it correctly, even though it was right there in black and white for them to read, if they knew how to read.   Remember, the gospel is a very simple message.  A lot of the things we associate with the gospel are just appendages to it.  More details, I mean.  But the basic message is very simple and it is pure and simple to understand.

In our Study Helps Dictionary under "Gospels" we can see this very simple and complete testimony of what the gospel actually is.  

The word gospel means “good news.” The good news is that Jesus Christ has made a perfect atonement for mankind that will redeem all mankind from the grave and reward each individual according to his or her works.

That's it, pure and simple.

For a little more understanding of that simple concept we have this in our Study Helps Topical Guide under "Gospel":

The gospel is our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The central doctrine of the gospel is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith 1:4).

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment (see 3 Nephi 27:16).

The fulness of the gospel has been preached in all ages when God’s children have been prepared to receive it. In the latter days, or the dispensation of the fulness of times, the gospel has been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Basically, all Joseph did to restore the gospel was to restore the correct understanding of the gospel that was recorded in the Holy Bible, which most people in all religions of his day had misunderstood through their own interpretations of what the Bible was saying.  He also translated another witness of God's dealings with other people which we know as the Book of Mormon, but restoring the gospel was simply a matter of correctly teaching what the Bible teaches.  

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

If they are following the rules we are expected to follow, you betcha!  These days that means men are supposed to have only one wife unless she dies and then they may marry again to get another wife.  Rather than marrying a bunch of living women all at the same time.

So are you opposed to the church's position of not accepting polygamists as faithful card carrying members?  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So are you opposed to the church's position of not accepting polygamists as faithful card carrying members?  

Uh, no.  Where did you get that idea?  I'm just opposed when a mortal man has more than one living wife at a time.  Only one is supposed to be alive and any other woman the mortal man has married is supposed to be dead.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I think you will be disappointed.

Why would I be? 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.

Yes.  And?

Again, yes.  Again, and?

I think pretty much all members of the Church "tolerate homosexual sex."  We also "tolerate" fornication and adultery.  We are able to get along in society just fine.

Well then get after Cinepro for his comment. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The question is whether such behaviors are compatible with remaining in full fellowship in the Church.  The answer, pretty clearly, is "no."  Not by a long shot.

I didnt' see that as the question.  I was responding to the comment of no wavering.  I think many members thinking differently than the leaders is a sign of wavering within the church.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I question that.  We'll see, I suppose.

In any event, I don't see the Brethren "wavering" on these issues.  At all.  

In the main, I think the Brethren are working hard to accommodate viewpoints like those above.  I am glad of that.  Attitudes on these issues are not set it stone.  A person may struggle with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but over time such views can and do change.  Same goes for perspectives on the Law of Chastity.  The question is whether our brothers and sisters would be better off inside our outside of the Church while working out these things.  I think the answer to that is rather clear.

Indeed.  We are already half a century into the Church's "evolution" vis-à-vis the Sexual Revolution and Drug Culture.  Has the Church become ambivalent about these things?  Has the Church disregarded the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom?  Is fornication ignored?  Is adultery winked at?  Is drug use allowed?  No (to all five questions).

Now, has the Church altered its approach to these issues?  Yes.  Less fiery rhetoric, more nuance and compassion and encouragement.  But the substantive positions of the Church on these commandments remains the same.

I think the Church's track record for the last 50 years is a pretty good indicator of how things will proceed for the next 50.

I also think that people who are yearning for an "evolution" that takes the Church toward accepting homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are engaged in wishful thinking.  They are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think I"d be disappointed if the church doesn't change, per se.  I do think if the Church doesn't it'll become less and less relevant in the world...its reach will die.  I mean to say it may not altogether disappear but it'd be much smaller than it is today.  I'm reminded of the race issue.  If the Church maintained to follow BY"s revelation and the ban was in place until all of God's children received the priesthood before anyone who is black could receive it, I'd bet the church would be far less today than it would be, and probably even less than it was in 1978 when they rescinded the discrimination.  Or if the polygamy issue.  If the Church refused to stop polygamy until today, it'd have a small reach and influence, much smaller than it does now, and probably smaller than it did even in 1904.

[2BizE]

Yes, I think this could be possible. Here are some reasons:

Recently, in New Zealand the census data shows that those with No Religion are the largest group.  Couldn’t find the link, but saw it this week.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ginarushton/no-religion-is-now-australias-number-one-religion?bffbozpol&utm_term=.ybg4eNDDz#.rkgJmNeey

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/13/us/no-religion-largest-group-first-time-usa-trnd/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fexmormon%2Fcomments%2Fbcpz5q%2Fsurvey_as_many_americans_claim_no_religion_as%2F

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/

 

 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think I"d be disappointed if the church doesn't change, per se.  I do think if the Church doesn't it'll become less and less relevant in the world...its reach will die.  I mean to say it may not altogether disappear but it'd be much smaller than it is today.  I'm reminded of the race issue.  If the Church maintained to follow BY"s revelation and the ban was in place until all of God's children received the priesthood before anyone who is black could receive it, I'd bet the church would be far less today than it would be, and probably even less than it was in 1978 when they rescinded the discrimination.  Or if the polygamy issue.  If the Church refused to stop polygamy until today, it'd have a small reach and influence, much smaller than it does now, and probably smaller than it did even in 1904.

That is what some prophecies state.
I personally expect the Church to shrink due to the prophesied falling away.  Once we see that start we will know the end times have really begun.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I don't hold to the idea that our Lord or God has ever removed the gospel from this planet.  I think it has always been here and that people have always been able to find it, if they have wanted to find it.  It's still in the Bible, even.  Some people just didn't interpret or understand it correctly, even though it was right there in black and white for them to read, if they knew how to read.   Remember, the gospel is a very simple message.  A lot of the things we associate with the gospel are just appendages to it.  More details, I mean.  But the basic message is very simple and it is pure and simple to understand.

In our Study Helps Dictionary under "Gospels" we can see this very simple and complete testimony of what the gospel actually is.  

The word gospel means “good news.” The good news is that Jesus Christ has made a perfect atonement for mankind that will redeem all mankind from the grave and reward each individual according to his or her works.

That's it, pure and simple.

For a little more understanding of that simple concept we have this in our Study Helps Topical Guide under "Gospel":

The gospel is our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The central doctrine of the gospel is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith 1:4).

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment (see 3 Nephi 27:16).

The fulness of the gospel has been preached in all ages when God’s children have been prepared to receive it. In the latter days, or the dispensation of the fulness of times, the gospel has been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Basically, all Joseph did to restore the gospel was to restore the correct understanding of the gospel that was recorded in the Holy Bible, which most people in all religions of his day had misunderstood through their own interpretations of what the Bible was saying.  He also translated another witness of God's dealings with other people which we know as the Book of Mormon, but restoring the gospel was simply a matter of correctly teaching what the Bible teaches.  

You are entitled to your personal beliefs and theories. But the Church clearly teaches of a “restoration,” one of its fundamental doctrines. And for there to be a restoration, there has to have been a loss or removal, or as the scriptures put it, a “falling away.”

From the “Apostasy” entry in “Gospel Topics” on the Church’s website:

”When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel.
“Latter-day Saints believe that, through the priesthood conferred to Joseph Smith by the ministering of angels, the authority to act in God’s name was brought back to the earth. This is ‘restored,’”not ‘reformed,’ Christianity. Their belief in a restored Christianity helps explain why most Latter-day Saint converts, from the 1830s to the present, converted from other Christian denominations. None of these converts thought they were leaving Christianity; they are simply grateful to learn about, and become part of, the restored Church of Jesus Christ, which they believe offers a more complete and rich Christian Church spiritually, organizationally, and doctrinally.
During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances.
“We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).”

Edited September 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That is what some prophecies state.
I personally expect the Church to shrink due to the prophesied falling away.  Once we see that start we will know the end times have really begun.

The falling away has already occurred. That’s why the Restoration was necessary. 

From the “Apostasy” entry in “Gospel Topics”:

“We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).”