Saturday, December 31, 2022

Textus Receptus - a comprehensive and extraordinary website

Earlier this week, I discovered a website concerning the Textus Receptus that is nothing short of extraordinary:

Textus Receptus Bibles

This site includes a history of the Textus Receptus and a comprehensive Interlinear that displays at the same time six complete versions of the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type with fourteen English translations based on the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type, that is fully searchable.

It also has the complete Masoretic text of 1524 (also fully searchable), and an extensive library of books related to the Textus Receptus.

The site is easy to use, and the visual display of the web pages is exceptional.

I am sure that I will be spending many hours in the upcoming days exploring this marvelous site, and I suspect it will be one of my main resources for Bible study in the future.

Sincerely hope that folk who read this post will take the time to explore the site too.


Grace and peace,

David

Saturday, December 24, 2022

Some insightful thoughts on the Word of God

The following quotation is from an address delivered by Benedict XVI back on October 6, 2008 that I found to be quite insightful and inspiring:

At the beginning of our Synod the Liturgy of the Hours presents a passage from Psalm 118 on the Word of God: a praise of his Word, an expression of the joy of Israel in learning it and, in it, to recognize his will and his Face. I would like to meditate on some verses of this Psalm with you.

It begins like this: "In aeternum, Domine, verbum tuum constitutum est in caelo... firmasti terram, et permanet". This refers to the solidity of the Word. It is solid, it is the true reality on which one must base one's life. Let us remember the words of Jesus who continues the words of this Psalm: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away". Humanly speaking, the word, my human word, is almost nothing in reality, a breath. As soon as it is pronounced it disappears. It seems to be nothing. But already the human word has incredible power. Words create history, words form thoughts, the thoughts that create the word. It is the word that forms history, reality.

Furthermore, the Word of God is the foundation of everything, it is the true reality. And to be realistic, we must rely upon this reality. We must change our idea that matter, solid things, things we can touch, are the more solid, the more certain reality. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount the Lord speaks to us about the two possible foundations for building the house of one's life: sand and rock. The one who builds on sand builds only on visible and tangible things, on success, on career, on money. Apparently these are the true realities. But all this one day will pass away. We can see this now with the fall of large banks: this money disappears, it is nothing. And thus all things, which seem to be the true realities we can count on, are only realities of a secondary order. The one who builds his life on these realities, on matter, on success, on appearances, builds upon sand. Only the Word of God is the foundation of all reality, it is as stable as the heavens and more than the heavens, it is reality. Therefore, we must change our concept of realism. The realist is the one who recognizes the Word of God, in this apparently weak reality, as the foundation of all things. Realist is the one who builds his life on this foundation, which is permanent. Thus the first verses of the Psalm invite us to discover what reality is and how to find the foundation of our life, how to build life.

The following verse says: "Omnia serviunt tibi". All things come from the Word, they are products of the Word. "In the beginning was the Word". In the beginning the heavens spoke. And thus reality was born of the Word, it is "creatura Verbi". All is created from the Word and all is called to serve the Word. This means that all of creation, in the end, is conceived of to create the place of encounter between God and his creature, a place where the history of love between God and his creature can develop. "Omnia serviunt tibi". The history of salvation is not a small event, on a poor planet, in the immensity of the universe. It is not a minimal thing which happens by chance on a lost planet. It is the motive for everything, the motive for creation. Everything is created so that this story can exist, the encounter between God and his creature. In this sense, salvation history, the Covenant, precedes creation. During the Hellenistic period, Judaism developed the idea that the Torah would have preceded the creation of the material world. This material world seems to have been created solely to make room for the Torah, for this Word of God that creates the answer and becomes the history of love. The mystery of Christ already is mysteriously revealed here. This is what we are told in the Letter to the Ephesians and to the Colossians: Christ is the protòtypos, the first-born of creation, the idea for which the universe was conceived. He welcomes all. We enter in the movement of the universe by uniting with Christ. One can say that, while material creation is the condition for the history of salvation, the history of the Covenant is the true cause of the cosmos. We reach the roots of being by reaching the mystery of Christ, his living word that is the aim of all creation.

"Omnia serviunt tibi". In serving the Lord we achieve the purpose of being, the purpose of our own existence. Let us take a leap forward: "Mandata tua exquisivi". We are always searching for the Word of God. It is not merely present in us. Just reading it does not mean necessarily that we have truly understood the Word of God. The danger is that we only see the human words and do not find the true actor within, the Holy Spirit. We do not find the Word in the words. [Bold emphasis mine - entire address HERE]

 

Grace and peace,

David

Tuesday, November 15, 2022

The apostles of the Bible: how many were martyred?

In the previous AF thread [link], I mentioned a thread that I started over at the Mormon dialogue & discussion board to share some of my thoughts on Grant McHardy's new book, 8 Myths of the Great Apostasy [link]. I first became aware of McHardy’s book via another thread at MDDB that was started on October 25, 2022 [link]. I purchased the book online, received it 11-04-22, and read it the next day.

After reading McHardy’s contribution, I ordered a few more germane books, one of which I obtained today—Sean McDowell’s, The Fate of the Apostles - Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus [Google Books]. I ordered this book due to one of the perceived “myths” that McHardy discusses in his book—MYTH 1 – TWELVE APOSTLES WERE ALL MARTYRED (pp. 1-32). Note the following:

It is commonly thought among Christians of all denominations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that, except for John, all of Jesus’ original apostles were killed. (Page 1)

I seriously doubt that any Christian denomination portrays Judas Iscariot as a martyr; he was not killed, but rather, committed suicide. So, “of Jesus’ original apostles”, most Christians believe that ten were killed/martyred—a belief that McHardy has classified as a “myth”. McHardy ends up discussing the fate of Jesus’ original twelve apostles, plus the apostle Paul. Relying heavily on St. Hippolytus’ third century work, On the Twelve Apostles* [link], McHardy questions whether at least three of these original apostles—e.g. Matthew, Simon the Zealot, Thaddeus—were martyred (I did not include John because I am not aware of anyone who believes he was martyred).

Sean McDowell, in his book, counters McHardy’s assessment/s with some extensive research into the extant historical narratives pertaining to the martyrdoms of eleven of Jesus’ original twelve apostles—rightly excluding Judas Iscariot—as well Matthias, Paul and James the brother of Jesus. Note McDowell’s following summary of the apostolic martyrdoms:

In sum, there are three apostles in the category of the highest possible probability, one that is very probably true, one that is more probable than not, one that is more plausible than not, seven that are as plausible as not, and one that is improbable. Thus, of the 14 apostles, six are at least more plausible than not, seven are as plausible as not, and only one, John, is lower than plausible. (Page 264) [The improbable one being the apostle John.]

McDowell’s book is a tour de force of scholarship at a high level. Interestingly enough, it is not mentioned at all by McHardy; and, of course, is not included in the bibliography. I sincerely wonder if MTYH 1 would have been in his book if he had read McDowell’s contribution.

In ending, I would like to mention that McDowell’s book was heavily based on his 2014 doctoral dissertation, “A Historical Evaluation of the Evidence for the Death of the Apostles as Martyrs for Their Faith” [LINK]. In an upcoming post, I hope to compare the dissertation with the book.


Grace and peace,

David

*Note: There is some controversy concerning this work as to whether it was actually written by Hippolytus or is pseudepigraphal. 


Wednesday, November 9, 2022

An old ZLMB thread on the Great Apostasy

I started a thread over at the Mormon dialogue & discussion board to share some of my thoughts on Grant McHardy's new book, 8 Myths of the Great Apostasy (LINK). Comments in the thread brought up Barry Bickmore's book, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (1999). [I wrote a review of the book that was published in FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (2000).]

Also mentioned in the thread was Barry's participation at the ZLMB message board. I have a few ZLMB threads on my hard-drive and was able to locate the following threads wherein I included some thoughts from Barry. Talk about nostalgia...



David Waltz
Registered User
Posts: 1
(9/19/00 5:21 pm)
152.163.207.182
Reply | Edit | Del All

The Great Apostasy


I would like to begin my first post to this new message board by asking the following, “Are non-Mormons who embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior truly Christians; are they members of Christ’s Church?”.

Christian in the N.T. sense:

1.) A member of the body of Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 27; Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18, 24)

2.) One of Christ’s sheep. (John 10:26-27; John 21:16-17).

3.) They are wheat and not tares. (Matt. 13:24-30, 38)

4.) Are children/sons of God. ( John 1:12; Rom. 8:12-16; Gal. 3:26-29; 1 John 3:1, 2; 3:7-10; 5:10-13).

5.) They are “saved”. (John 10:9; Acts 2:37-41; 47b; Acts 16:30-31; Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 1:18 )

6.) They are “in Christ”. (Rom. 8:1-2, 38-39; Rom. 12:4-5; Rom. 16:3, 7, 9; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Cor. 3:1; 1 Cor. 15: 18-19; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 1:22; 3:26-28; 5:6; Eph. 1:1; 2:1-8; Phil 1:1; Phil. 3:3; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 4:16)

Before answering, keep in mind the following:

1 Nephi 14:10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

D&C 1:30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually–

Grace and peace,

David

Marc Schindler
Registered User
Posts: 8
(9/19/00 6:13 pm)
24.64.127.12
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: The Great Apostasy


Good way to start off a discussion. Deep question!

Rather than leap in with a response, I'll let this develop a bit first. Here's another potato to add to the stew, so to speak:

(from The Church News, 01/01/00, quoting from Larry King's Christmas Eve broadcast from Temple Square inter alia):

Mr. King asked President Hinckley if "all religions, despite [their] differences, can come
together."

President Hinckley responded: "We have our differences, of course we do, but there's a
greater spirit of tolerance, I think a greater spirit of acceptance of other religions. . . . We're
all of one great family, the family of God. And we must learn to get along, one with another,
respect one another."

"[It] hasn't always worked out that way, though," Mr. King countered.

"No, it hasn't always worked out, but Christianity hasn't failed," President Hinckley said.
"It's the greatest success story in the world. When all is said and done, it has succeeded in
doing so very, very many things. And the fact that we still have problems that we've not
overcome in human relationships does not mean that it has not succeeded."

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

Kevin Winters
Registered User
Posts: 1
(9/20/00 2:10 pm)
140.198.255.254
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: The Great Apostasy


If I may add my two cents (if it's even worth that much):

I don't really believe that we, as "Mormons" have ever sought to deny the term "Christian" to anyone wishing to have that title (and maybe with a select few exceptions that I might not be aware of). The only real distinction that we may make (as with the topic of this thread) is the term "apostate" or "corrupted". For us it seems that the term applies to anyone who professes and, to a degree, show their sinscerity by then acting on their word. This can very easily be seen by Pres. Hinkley's remarks given by Marc:

"Christianity hasn't failed. It's the greatest success story in the world."

Perhaps it might be good to look through our conferences and see if any of the brethren (past or present) has said anything on the issue.

Budding Scholar,
Kevin Winters

Robert
Unregistered User
(9/21/00 3:42 am)
206.159.112.232
Reply | Edit | Del

The Great Apostasy


Actually I believe that there is a spiritual & physical category of the Church. True non-LDS Christians are accepted by God as his spiritual Church to the degree they are able to follow Jesus as Lord. This does not mean the physical Church they are members of may not be influenced by the Church of the Devil.

1 Nephi 14:10 does not deny my statement on the existence of Sheep being gathered during the apostasy.

D&C 1:30 is about the restoration of the physical institution of the church.

Sincerely,

Robert

David Waltz
Registered User
Posts: 2
(9/21/00 9:34 am)
64.12.104.157
Reply | Edit | Del

The Great Apostasy


Robert posted:


Quote:


Actually I believe that there is a spiritual & physical category of the Church. True non-LDS Christians are accepted by God as his spiritual Church to the degree they are able to follow Jesus as Lord. This does not mean the physical Church they are members of may not be influenced by the Church of the Devil.




Robert,

Very interesting concept! You certainly seemed to have reconciled the existence of sheep/wheat/Christians during the era termed "The Apostasy".

Now, can you provide references for this concept from LDS literature?

Thanks!!!

David


Pacumeni9
ezOP
Posts: 17
(9/21/00 11:01 am)
216.161.86.208
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: The Great Apostasy


Hello David and Robert,


I don't mean to speak out of turn, here, since the question David asked was directed at Robert. I certainly don't mean to steal anyone's thunder. But if y'all wouldn't mind, I'd like to throw in my two cents.

David said:


> Very interesting concept! You certainly seemed to have
> reconciled the existence of sheep/wheat/Christians during
> the era termed "The Apostasy".

> Now, can you provide references for this concept from LDS
> literature?


Absolutely.

First, read Doctrine and Covenants 123:12. It says:


"...there are many yet on the earth [this implies some continuity with the first Christians, i.e., that they have been on the earth all along] among all sects, parties, and denominations...who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it."


Were they the elect? ABSOLUTELY! Go read Ezekiel 34 -- the whole chapter -- and you will find that during the described period of apostasy, when the shepherds were not true representatives, but PRETENDED to be, the sheep were still hanging around. And we know that they were "true sheep," because later the Lord comes and claims them. [I believe that this passage refers to the great apostasy, but for the purpose of mere demonstration of a general principle, it is irrelevant what time period Ezekiel is referring to].

Now, with those two passages in hand, I know of a passage that definitely supports Robert's view. Turn to Doctrine and Covenants 1:30. The restored Church there described does not appear out of non-existence. She appears out of obscurity and darkness. In other words, she was there all along, but her foundation of apostles had been taken away. When that foundation was restored, the fulness of the Church was in place, and therefore the fulness of the gospel could be proclaimed with authority.

Of course, all of this makes perfect sense from the LDS vantage point, because the doctrine of teaching to the departed souls in the spirit world and of performing vicarious ordinances for these who have died presupposes that there were elect Christians during that era. But, just as Ezekiel said, they could not find the Lord's appointed shepherds. Those shepherds, you see, were the apostles, and no apostles equals no foundation for the Church. She slips into "obscurity." Hence, in the Lord's infinite wisdom, he has set up a plan for rescuing these as well.

One other comment on the issue of the two church dichotomy in First Nephi that was referred to earlier. That reference actually supports all of this as well, since, if we view the passage in the context of other, related passages, it clearly places the sheep of the apostate era into the Church of the Lamb. For instance, see Doctrine and Covenants 18:20;

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."

This passage demands that in an important sense, there are more than only "two churches." Yet Nephi adamantly insists that there ARE only two churches. Is this a contradiction?

No, it is not.

Just as I have stated elsewhere, terms often have more than one sense, and Nephi was using a sense for "Church of the Lamb" that these other churches of D&C 18:20 would have to be included in. In other words, the Church of the Lamb represents all of the elect throughout the world, regardless of their current affiliations. As D&C 123:12 clearly says, they are merely lost through no fault of their own, and will, if they do not dispair, inevitably be guided into the restored fulness of God's church.

Thus, it is scripturally accurate for Latter-day Saints to refer to non-LDS as "Christians." The REAL question that must be asked is, have these Christians entered into covenants with Jesus Christ by the hands of his duly authorized servants? If not, then it is high time that we as Latter-day Saints proselytize them. The elect yearn for the blessings that the true Church of Jesus Christ holds in store.


Pacumeni









-- The Tanners' mantra for 30 years has been that the Church censors its own teachings and history. Yet, as soon as they put up a message board and Latter-day Saints show up to show where they are wrong, the Tanners engage in suppression themselves.

Edited by: Pacumeni9 at: 9/21/00 11:12:08 am

Robert
Unregistered User
(9/22/00 4:13 pm)
206.159.113.132
Reply | Edit | Del

The Great apostasy


My favorite scriptue in support of my above view is 1 Nephi 14:12. But the entire chapter illustrates the principle. It refers to two churches that of the Lamb & of the Devil.

In my view Matthew 16:18 requires us to believe the Church continued to make spiritual members during the apostasy. These spiritual members are a part of the church & it is the spiritual church that will never perish. This does not mean I believe God accepted the physical manifestations of the church. It just means the Lord's people apostasy, or erroneous ideas not-withstanding were accepted by Jesus as His Church.

I really don't find the term "total apostasy" us LDS use to be quite accurate. I feel the institutional Church sufffered a "total apostasy." But the spiritually accepted members of Jesus Church were not in "total apostasy." The may have been members of false institutions. But that does not mean they fall under the same category.

Beninjax
Registered User
Posts: 1
(9/25/00 12:16 pm)
216.199.27.34
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: The Great apostasy


If you consider the word "apostasy" to mean "to defect or depart" (which is what I think the greek root suggests), then you are talking about an active decision to reject the gospel in exchange for a man-made substitute. The question arises as to whom the term "apostasy" applies -- are we talking about a universal set of individual decisions to reject Christ's gospel in its simplicity, or are we talking about an intentional co-opting of the religious structure by a few?

If the latter, then we would have the vast majority never "apostasizing," but instead remaining adherents to a religious structure that itself had departed from the doctrine. In that case, you would have a "total apostasy", meaning that the original structure/authority/doctrine was no longer to be found on the earth.

Which means that the obvious difficulties with the former decision can be acknowledged without getting rid of the term "total apostasy." Individuals can (and IMO were) spiritually attempting to adhere to the truth, however they could find it; however, organizationally, the structure and teachings had changed, and the authority to receive revelations and put the organization on track was not available.

As a result, some wonderfully righteous individuals did their best with what they had, and should not be referred to as "apostates", which requires three things: a knowledge of the truth, an adherence to that position, and a subsequent defection from it. Which would mean that the term "apostate" can only refer to a very few people throughout the history of the world, although it still can be accurately used to described a structure that once was, then intentionally wasn't.

Robert
Unregistered User
(9/26/00 4:55 pm)
206.159.113.120
Reply | Edit | Del

Total Apostasy


Beninjax,

I just feel the term "total apostasy" can sometimes confuse people. It can sometimes lead them to think I don't believe there were true Christians on the earth during the apostasy. To them being a Christian is the same as being a member of Christ's Church. And I agree with them on this idea. But I also believe one can be members of an apostate church & Christ's spiritual church at the same time without knowing the difference. It wasn't until the Restoration that one could become a member of Christ's True physical & spiritual churches.

One anti-LDS objection is to LDS claiming only the LDS Church is true. But to me they only regard their churches as being the true church. So I have a hard time following some of the emotional logic on this.

Sincerely,

Robert

Rory McKenzie
Registered User
Posts: 1
(9/26/00 6:20 pm)
198.145.224.30
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Total Apostasy


I am also puzzled, as Robert seemed to say, at why people can use the fact that Mormons think that their Church is the true one, as an argument against their church. I hear it all of the time too, and I am Catholic.

I tend to counter with questions like, "What church do you recommend in place of mine? Do you recommend a church which teaches that it does not have any authority from God to lovingly command my obedience?" With new "churches" springing up all the time in Protestantism, I think those of us who attend churches that we believe to be the true one have to wonder upon what basis these churches are being "started", if they are not the "true church" with authority to proclaim the gospel in its purity, to administer the discipline of the sacraments, and to which every believer within its vicinity should adhere, and obey. But alas, I think Evangelicals have begun to look upon the dozens of different choices among churches, as being an extension of the American economy which is based on competition. We have different choices as to what brand of peanut butter we will buy, and we are glad for it.

It hasn't always been this way among Reformed Christians. One of their first leaders, John Calvin could not have been clearer in regard to the need for identifying the one true visible church saying, "But as it is now necessary to discourse of the VISIBLE church, let us learn from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels." Protestants like Catholics and Mormons are unwilling to say that their brand of peanut butter, say Skippy, is the one true peanut butter. We can agree that we have a right to shop for the brand of peanut butter that we "prefer". But we disagree that we are allowed to extend this mentality into the area of the visible church.

For the reasons expressed above, I am never offended by those who question my Christianity on the basis of my church membership. Catholics hold that non-Catholics may be "Christian" in some sense, but certainly not in the fullest sense of the word. If Mormons do likewise, and consider their own church to be the one true church on earth, I would not find it offensive, but rather refreshing, in comparison to the shopper mentality of most modern day Protestants.

Regards,

Rory

Edited by: Rory McKenzie at: 9/26/00 6:25:38 pm

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 3
(9/27/00 12:25 am)
64.12.104.179
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Total Apostasy


Rory,

As always I truly enjoyed your post. I have but one question...it seems to me that the arguments put forth by the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have equal merits; but they both have one thing in common...they both believe that true Christians exist outside of their Churches. So how can a true seeker decide between the two cogent options? If a definitive choice cannot be made between the Catholic Church and the LDS Church, why not remain Protestant?

Grace and peace,

David

Robert
Unregistered User
(9/27/00 4:08 am)
206.159.112.140
Reply | Edit | Del

Total Apostasy


David,

I wasn't for example agreeing with my Baptist friends claim's to be the true institutional church. They certainly don't accept the LDS churches claim's. We don't accept eachothers claim's. But they have never admitted to the presence of True Mormon Christians. So it seems to me one can believe in institutional apostasy without believing Christ rejects all Christians as that of the Devils Church.

Sincerely,

Robert

JTvedtnes
Registered User
Posts: 5
(9/27/00 9:12 am)
128.187.81.14
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: The Great Apostasy


David,

Perhaps the following passages from the Doctrine and Covenants should also be considered in a discussion of the question you pose.

The first is from D&C 10:52-55, a revelation received in 1829, PRIOR TO the establishment of the LDS Church:

"And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up. And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them. Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church; Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven."

This verbiage seems to suggest that the Lord acknowledged the Christianity of the churches that existed prior to the restoration in 1830. What think ye, friends?

Then we have the following:

"Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." (D&C 49:8)

I suspect that the "holy men that ye know not of" comprised at least the apostle John and the three Nephites, but perhaps others as well. Again, what are your thoughts?

I hasten to add that these are NOT intended to be "trick questions" and that I do not pretend to know precisely what they imply. I'm interested in the thoughts of others.


[Pacumeni edited this message to remove emoticons]

Edited by: Pacumeni9 at: 9/27/00 10:20:10 am

Rory McKenzie
Registered User
Posts: 2
(9/27/00 3:44 pm)
198.145.224.54
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Total Apostasy


David wrote on 9/27:

"...it seems to me that the arguments put forth by the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have equal merits; but they both have one thing in common...they both believe that true Christians exist outside of their Churches. So how can a true seeker decide between the two cogent options? If a definitive choice cannot be made between the Catholic Church and the LDS Church, why not remain Protestant?"

Catholics hold to the ancient formula, Nulla Salas Extra Ecclesiam, No Salvation Outside the Church. Even those who are not visibly joined to the Church Christ founded, must be joined to Her in some other manner if they are to have any hope for salvation. There is a lot of speculation about how much hope we ought to have for those who are "separated Christians". After all, Catholics are warned not to take their own salvation for granted. How much less should we take for granted the salvation of those who are not Catholic. Thus, Catholics have a mandate to make as clear as possible to people of all persuasions the choices which will likely have eternal consequences for ourselves and our offspring.

Even so, I would never urge anyone to become Catholic until they were fully persuaded of the claims that She makes. The last thing anyone needs is Isaiah Bennett in reverse. For those of you who do not know, Bennett is a former Catholic priest who joined the LDS Church, and subsequently returned to Rome, writing a couple of anti-Mormon books. He must have been insufficently persuaded of the authority of the Mormon Church when he joined. One of his reasons for leaving was that he disagreed with the LDS position on abortion. If I ever become Mormon, be assured that I will have become certain that I am in no position to question the Apostles of Jesus Christ on abortion, polygamy, dark skin, or Adam-God(!).

My point here is that Isaiah Bennett had joined the LDS Church, but he wasn't much of a Mormon. Likewise one is not Protestant because he tarries a while weighing the evidence, while being persuaded that both Rome and Salt Lake seem to have claims of relatively equal merit.

In summary, I would just say that one can't convert while having doubts, but neither should one think that it is a matter of little urgency upon the basis of a doctrine that teaches the possibility of salvation outside the true church. One who is wavering between two non-Protestant churches, is not Protestant, until he gives up searching on the ill-founded presumption that he can be saved as easily in one church as in another. The person who cannot see the scales tipping in one direction or other then, must wait; but if ever impatience is called for, this would be the proper time for it.

With prayers,

Rory

Rory McKenzie
Registered User
Posts: 3
(9/27/00 6:55 pm)
198.145.224.35
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Total Apostasy


In my last post, I did not intend to be disparaging of Isaiah Bennett. It appears that it was under advisement from others that he undertook to write about his experiences and his opinions. Being Catholic, I naturally am pleased he has returned, and hope that he will not be writing any more books about future personal conversion experiences.

What tips the scales for me? Why am I Catholic and not Mormon?

First, if it were a stalemate, I would not become Mormon. If I understand correctly, the LDS Church encourages inquirers to pray to God for wisdom, in much the same way that Joseph Smith did in reference to James 1:5, and God will reply positively with the burning bosom. Having done this, and indeed repeated again very recently, I remain unpersuaded. If my bosom burned, and I am not being sarcastic, I would be concerned about deception. But when nothing happens, how can I accept this approach to finding the true Church. Perhaps I have received this testimony but don't recognize it? The still small voice is hard to hear? Aside from this experience of the burning bosom, I don't think I should become Mormon. Would anyone think otherwise?

In regard to more objective matters, the arguments for an apostasy are not conclusive. I think Mormon biblical exegesis is outstanding on this issue. But for all that, the LDS interpretations of apostasy are only compatible with Scripture. So are other ways of looking at the issue. It becomes merely another illustration of how Scripture alone is inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy.

Historically, the LDS researchers have done a marvelous job of culling the ancient documents and finding what they need to support their ideas, but not enough to show an apostasy. I see heretics and I see heroes in the early Church. I see patterns which are not so different from those which occurred around the death and succession of Joseph Smith.

As far as I can see, Mormon apostles don't behave so much differently than Catholic bishops. I have seen recently in Mormon dialogues confusion about when and what is official church teaching. That sounds real familiar to me. But why should I trade Catholic dogma which is admittedly developed, in exchange for Mormon dogma which seems to be developed but claims to be coming via revelation. The one time I can see that a post-Joseph Smith prophet really acted like a prophet, the result was Adam-God! I grant that this is not official church teaching and never was, but it still troubles me a bit that an Apostle would even think it let alone say it.

Finally, and this is natural, and not from any mean spiritedness, I think Mormons have so much zeal to evangelize that they have failed to appreciate or even get their facts straight about the Catholic Church. This is easy to do. There is a lot of misinformation out there. The latest booboo that I have seen comes from a book by Barry Bickmore, with whom I have dialogued, and for whom I have great respect. In Restoring the Ancient Church, p.52, he writes concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and miraculous works, "Few Christians today, besides some Pentecostals and charismatic Evangelicals, as well as the Mormons, claim to have all the gifts of the Spirit." And on p.54 he cites some Protestants (who deny continuation of miracles), "The Fathers, while they refer to extraordinary agency going on in their own day, also with one consent represent miracles as having ceased since the Apostolic era." This doesn't make any sense. What do they mean by extraordinary agency. They don't want to say miracles because they know that they don't have any in their 19th Century Protestant Church. In any event, Catholics hold that the gifts of the Spirit remain to today and more.
One of the qualifications for canonization of saints are miracles.

I am not about to leave the Church which documents for me raising of the dead, blind receiving their sight, ongoing prophecy, and mystical knowledge. Like Elijah, Moses, and our Lord before them who had fasts from food and water for incredible periods, many saints have survived miraculously for years at a time receiving no nourishment except the Eucharist. The Church carefully and even skeptically documents these miracles that leaves one almost incredulous. And not merely medieval legends either. It continues into our own day. In the day of photography we have the photographs of the young lady with pupilless eyes who had her sight restored by Padre Pio, who was only canonized last year, and who died in 1968. Doctors could not explain how she could see. We have the miracle of the sun at Fatima and the related prophecies of Sr. Lucia who still lives, beheld by over 80,000 witnesses including many many skeptics from antagonistic secular newspapers who testifed that after a driving drenching rainstorm, following the miracle which occurred at the precise hour Lucia predicted that their clothes were miraculously dry and clean and free of mud. I could go on and on. Catholics believe in the gifts of the Spirit and continuing miracles of an apostolic nature. If Mormons are raising the dead, hanging in the sky, commanding nature, prophesying, receiving the wounds of Christ in their bodies, and noting fragrant odors proceeding from the incorruptible bodies of dead saints, well, all I can say is stalemate. But we were here first. If we do all that you do, and you do all that we do, how is it that we are apostate?

Rory

PS: Hellenism Schmellenism. There is a philosophy that is antagonistic to the faith, and which understands the preaching of the cross to be foolishness. One can also attain to truth apart from supernatural revelation like the poets St Paul talks about on Mars Hill. No need to be shy about using Greek words and terms to define concepts that are beyond the language of the fishermen of the Bible. We embrace truth whether it comes from Athens or Jerusalem. Oh wait. Not all the fishermen..."In the beginning was the Logos", said St John. I wonder if that has any philosophical overtones. Anyway, enough for one night. Bedtime for Bonzo.

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 6
(9/29/00 10:40 am)
64.12.104.186
Reply | Edit | Del

More On the Apostasy...


Scott Pierson started an apostasy thread on Mormonism Web Ministries message board which turned out to be a pretty good collection of posts. The board's owner, Peter Elias, banned Scott from posting to his board and deleted Scott's posts. I feel that many of the MWM posts in the Apostasy thread are worthy enough to be reposted to this new board. I invite Scott (if he saved his posts) to jump in and re-post any material he feels is pertinent.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First group of posts from MWM:


David Waltz wrote on 8/31/2000

Hi guys,

I thought that it would be a good time to bring up an important issue which concerns the very fabric of the apostasy...ISLAM.

If a grand apostasy did occur shortly after the death of the apostles (except John), would not Islam be a likely candidate for a restoration?

Barry Bickmore in another thread argued that "Jewish Christianity" was the most legitimate form of early Christianity. The Quran's Christology is very close to that of "Jewish Christianity".

So, to make a long story short, why not Islam instead of Mormonism?

As always,
David


Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/1/2000

Hi David!

Doesn't Islam deny the divinity of Christ? I have heard that they appeal to some of what is known about aberrant Jewish Christian groups like the Ebionites to establish their view of history, but I never said that I viewed all Jewish Christian groups as more legitimate than early Gentile Christian groups. Rather, I believe the thought-forms of the Palestinian milieu were more conducive to retaining a more primitive form of Christian theology. The different Jewish Christian groups had their own problems, such as insistence on the requirement to keep the Law of Moses. They also went off track, I believe, in carrying over some Jewish apocalyptic traditions (of which there were dozens of conflicting examples floating around). The Ebionites were Adoptionists, but then, so were some Gentile Christians. Some Jewish Christians held to the deity of Christ, as did some Gentile Christians.

I don't think we can historically pinpoint which one of these strains of thought was the most "pure", but at least modern traditions can go back and say, "See, there were traditions much like ours." At least, SOME modern traditions can do this! ;-) It seems to me that the cardinal issue here is whether Christ is really divine, and really the Son of God.

So what do you think? Is there enough evidence for the divinity of Christ for you to put aside Islam? My suggestion would be to prayerfully read Alma 42, and see if the Spirit testifies to the divinity of Christ and the necessity of the Atonement.

As an aside related to our former conversation, last night I heard some of the following passage on Chuck Swindoll's radio program. I thought it was relevant to our conversation about loss of priesthood authority.

Hosea Ch. 4

1 Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because [there is] no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.

2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people [are] as they that strive with the priest.

5 Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother.

6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: [therefore] will I change their glory into shame.

8 They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.

9 And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings.10 For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the LORD.

11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.

12 My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused [them] to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God.

13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof [is] good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.

14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people [that] doth not understand shall fall.

15 Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, [yet] let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor swear, The LORD liveth.

16 For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now the LORD will feed them as a lamb in a large place.

17 Ephraim [is] joined to idols: let him alone.

18 Their drink is sour: they have committed whoredom continually: her rulers [with] shame do love, Give ye.

19 The wind hath bound her up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices.
Notice that God says they will no longer be priests, and the prophets will fall with them, because they rejected knowledge! As I pointed out earlier, Jesus said that greater knowledge brings greater condemnation to those who rebel.

Talk to you later!
Barry


David Waltz wrote on 9/1/2000

Hi Barry,

Good to see you posting again!

You posted: “Doesn't Islam deny the divinity of Christ?”
Certainly most do...but not all. In the Quran Jesus is called the Word of Allah. Some Shiite sects believe that the Word is the Son God. This Word is the very light of God, and is God. The Word manifested himself in the terrestrial plane in the person of Jesus; and again in the person of Ali(some say Muhammad). In a Shiite hadith (inspired tradtion), Ali maintained that he and Christ were one. Jabir al-Jufi reports that Ali in a sermon proclaimed: “I am al-Masih (the Christ), who heals the blind and the leaper, who created the birds and dispersed the stormclouds. I am he and he is I...Isa Ibn Maryam (Jesus the Son of Mary) is part of me, and I am part of him. He is the supreme Word of God. He is the witness to the mysteries, and I am that to which he testifies.” (From “Extremist Shiites” by Matti Moosa p. 41) The Sufi al-Hallaj attributes full divinity to the Logos——the Logos is “infinite Light”. For al-Hallaj the Logos became incarnate in Jesus, and then again in Muhammad.

You then posted the following: “It seems to me that the cardinal issue here is whether Christ is really divine, and really the Son of God.

So what do you think? Is there enough evidence for the divinity of Christ for you to put aside Islam? My suggestion would be to prayerfully read Alma 42, and see if the Spirit testifies to the divinity of Christ and the necessity of the Atonement.”

Barry, I certainly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus possesses all of God the Father’s attributes save one, the Son owes his existence and divinity to the Father. I also believe in the necessity of the Atonement. Once again, it is true that most Muslims deny the atonement, but not all. (The Quran neither affirms nor denies the atonement, it is silent on this issue).

Now, I have raised the question of Islam in this thread due to the fact some of the important claims made by Joseph Smith and Mormonism, were made by Muhammad and Islam 1,200 years earlier!

1.) The apostasy.
2.) The need for further revelation.
3.) Prophethood.
4.) Re-establishment of polygamy.
5.) Visited by an angel of God.
6.) Chosen by God to give mankind new scripture.
7.) Christian scriptures and doctrine had been corrupted.

And, to make matters even more complex, a new tradition has recently arisen out of Islam that makes many the above claims too——I am of course talking about the Bahai’s.
So, if a Christian truth-seeker comes to the belief that a grand apostasy did occur early on in the history of the Christian Church, and that the Catholic Church no longer is Christ’s true Church, then it would seem to me that this seeker would have to examine the claims made by Muhammad, Baha-u-llah, and Joseph Smith. All three have “fruits” that must be examined.

Barry, I recently asked Rory if one could determine exactly what Jesus meant when he said “by their fruits you shall know them” (i.e. what are the fruits?). One of the fruits discussed was the “signs of the apostles” which Paul mentioned in 2 Cor. 12:12. (And let us not forget Paul’s stern warning in 2 Cor. 11:13-14 about “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel light).

Time to be blunt. John Paul II, Muhammad, Baha-u-llah, and Joseph Smith cannot all be true messengers of God——the doctrines are just too diverse for that. So...how does one determine the true teacher/prophet/apostle/representative of God from the false ones? If we cannot come up with a list of “fruits” whereby one can separate the true from the false, maybe it boils down to the work of the Holy Spirit. (Although I believe in the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit in determining truth, I am not comfortable in rejecting objective evidence in the search for truth). And hey, here is one for Paul Hadik, if it does boil down to the work of the Holy Spirit on the individual, why not just pick up the scriptures and let the Spirit do His work——who needs teachers when one has the Holy Spirit as his teacher.

I sincerely hope that I am not frustrating you with what I have said...it is just that I see the merits in the claims advanced by Catholics, Muslims, Bahais, and Mormons (and at times Protestants). So, how does a honest truth seeker make a choice? Must one wait for an angel from heaven to appear and hit one over the head with a 2x4?

You see Barry, I do not want to “think” that I have the truth, I want to “know” that I have the truth. And with all this said, please keep in mind that I currently “know” that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ is his divine Son, and that the Bible is His word. But, beyond this it seems that I “know” little.

Thank’’s for you patience...your brother in Christ,
David


David Waltz wrote on 9/1/2000

Hi Barry,

It is that pest David again...During the last two weeks have been doing some intense research into “Jewish Christianity”. I have now read Martin Hengel’’s “Judaism and Hellenism”; Jean Danielou’’s “The Theology of Jewish Christianity”; James Dunn’’s “Unity and Diversity In The New Testament”; Richard Longenecker’s “The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity”; and the Psuedo-Clementines for a second time. Because of some earlier posts on Jewish Christianity, I wanted to share the following with you.

Most scholars believe that both the Homilies and the Recognitions are Ebionite works. Note what Danielou wrote: “Epiphanius also included among the sacred books of the Ebionites the Periodoi Petpou, or Journeys of Peter, said to have written by Clement; and it is interesting that his quotations from the Ebionite Gospel have been shown to accord with the text of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, which describe Peter’’s journeys in the course of his missionary work. From this and many other indications it is possible to establish a relationship between the Clementines and Ebionism, a fact which opens up v very important source of information on the sect, and on in entire agreement with the description of it given by Epiphanius. With some variation in detail, all scholars now recognise it.” (“The Theology of Jewish Christianity” p. 59) Longenecker: “As to the many New Testament apocryphal books in addition to the tractates from Nag Hammadi, the second century Gospels, Acts, Preachings, and Apocalypses associated with the names of Peter, James, John, Thomas, the Hebrews and the Nazarenes...are prima facie Jewish Christian, and may be taken to represent at least one segment of Jewish Christianity as it continued into the patristic period. Probably from the same circles, though evidencing a greater degree of heterodoxy and featuring anti-Paul polemic, are the Psuedo-Clemetines writings.” (“The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity” p. 15) Trevijano wrote: “The common theory is that the Clementines go back to a basic source, and some maintain that this in turn is based on two other works: Kerygmata Peter and Praxeis Peter, the first of which is clearly Ebionite and anti-Pauline...The Hom. Clem. would have remained forgotten if they had not been appropriated by the Ebionites, who made interpolations and added 1 clem., the Ep. Pet., and the Diamartyria, making the whole work expound secret tradition, Petrine and anti-Pauline. This heretical falsification of the Homilies may have provoked the composition of the Clementine Recognitions...The author seeks in every way to free them from whatever is contrary to the dogma of the Great Church, leaving intact the prominence of Peter and James of Ebionite origin.” (“Encyclopedia of the Early Church” vol.1, p. 179) [See also Dunn “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament” pp.239-245].

Well, thanks in part to you Barry, my studies into “Jewish Christianity” have been quite rewarding. I now have a theory as to what happened to “orthodox” Jewish Christianity (the branch that accepted Jesus as the divine Messiah, the virgin birth, and did not require gentile converts to keep the Mosaic Law). If you get a chance give me a call and we will talk about it :)

David


Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/1/2000

Hi David!

Thanks for filling me in on Islam. I haven't studied it in depth - mostly just what I learned in Roger Keller's "World Religions" class at BYU. What is the Bahai position on the divinity of Christ? Also, what do the Muslims who believe in Jesus' divinity think about the Apostles? Did the Apostles take a wrong turn, or did later Christians? And do they believe Jesus atoned for the sins of the world? What do these Muslims and the Bahai think about "continuing revelation"? I.e. Joseph Smith envisioned setting up a kingdom of prophets to usher in the Millennial reign of Christ. Do any of them claim to have a "chain" of prophetic leadership?

I'll definitely call you to hear what you think about the Jewish Christianity thing. It sounds like you've read as much or more than I have about it! The reason I started into it was simply that I kept finding that I could trace most LDS doctrines that I found in the ANF back to Jewish Christian sources. However, the sources on Jewish Christianity are so sparse, and the movement was just as heterogeneous as the other branches of Christianity, so it is hard to pin down any particular group as the most "legitimate".

Got to go, I'll continue my post later.
Barry

<edited at the request of the author to fix cosmetic glitches resulting from copying and pasting>

Edited by: Pacumeni9 at: 9/29/00 1:17:33 pm

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 7
(9/29/00 2:47 pm)
64.12.104.174
Reply | Edit | Del

More On the Apostasy


paul hadik wrote on 9/3/2000

David:

Noticed your aside to me the other day: "Paul Hadik, if it does boil down to the work of the Holy Spirit on the individual why not just pick up the Scriptures and let the Spirit do His work-who needs teachers when one has the Holy Spirit as his teacher"

I am not sure you understand the total ramifications of your question on the ideas of the apostasy and restoration etc.

I do take that approach which was the reason for my continual harping on an "established True Church" on the other thread and my questions regarding this "mystic authority" of the priesthood or apostles in other churches.

Can I as a single human being find God's truth all by my lonesome? Or must I have a teacher or church to direct me to that truth.

I suppose a better question to ask would be "why can't the Holy Spirit lead me into all truth?" In both John chapters 15 and 16 we see that the Holy Spirit will be testifying of Christ and leading into truth. Why can't that apply to you and me?

Is His work limited to only apostolic leaders and the authority of either the RCC church or the LDS church? What does J. Smith or any Pope or The Bab or Mohammed or Ellen G. White or Charles Taze Russell etc have that the rest of us don't have?

For a total apostasy to take place the following would have had to have happened.

1) The Holy Spirit must be absent from the earth. If one contends that there was a remnant then one must also hold the belief that the work of the Spirit was either partial or deceitful. Why would the Spirit lead an individual into only a partial understanding of The Way, that would still necessitate vicarious work on the parts of others more enlightened by that same Spirit? Also in light of Christ's teaching that the Spirit would lead into all truth then either Christ was wrong, lying or the Spirit was dishonest in His later dealings with men. For that reason a total apostasy must mean an absence of the Spirit.2) There can be no remnant which existed during the Apostasy. Following the above, with no Spirit present how can any man attain any level of truth? If the LDS is true in saying there was no true church for 1800 years then I have a hard time with their position of a remnant which existed with some form of the truth as again this is an attack on the work of the Spirit as either incomplete or dishonest.
3) Finally, the apostasy must be so total that there was never at any time "2 or 3 people gathered in my name" (Mt. 18:20) for such a meeting guaranteed the presence of Christ. To say that there was a remnant, and that Christ Himself kept His promise of being in their midst, yet they were lacking in truth so much that they were denied any hope of the Celestial Kingdom until vicarious works could be done much later is stretching the bounds of credibility. It seems to me that Christ's stamp of approval ought to be enough to guarantee the "truth" of a certain gathering of believers.

The apostasy and the belief of a "mystic authority" are linked. If there is no "mystic authority" and if anyone placing his trust in the work of Christ can be a part of a 'priesthood of believers' then proving both the apostasy and the restoration under Smith becomes a much harder task. For then one must logically admit that soon after the work of Christ was done the world was thrown into a total spiritual darkness for almost 18 centuries.

I must still have it proved to me that the church must have this "apostolic authority" handed down from on high to be legitimate.

Let me ask an absurd question…… not meaning to be the least bit disrespectful (possibly D. Peterson can answer this for me) if a plane carrying the prophet, the 12 and the quorum, crashed into a plane carrying the Pope and the college of cardinals wiping everyone out, would the church (either RCC or LDS) temporarily be thrust into apostasy?

Is it the presence of the Spirit or the presence of an authorized person that counts?

What did Jesus mean when the disciples came to him complaining of others casting out demons and Jesus said, "for he that is not against us is for our part"?
So to answer (in a very roundabout way) David your question. To me the Spirit is enough. I keep in mind that on judgement day, when a word from the Father will send me somewhere for eternity that neither J. Smith nor Pope John Paul II nor the Bab will be by my side. I will be alone before God.

With that in mind I am more than content to place my trust in the Spirit to lead me into a saving knowledge of My Lord so that I may spend eternity with the Father.

I John 5:13 "that ye may KNOW ye have eternal life……"

Sincerely,

Paul Hadik

Rory McKenzie wrote on 9/4/2000

Hi All,

If all of the Catholic, Orthodox, and other communions which still have valid orders, were to have every bishop die at the same time, I think it would be the end of the Catholic Church. I would be looking for another church at that point. It is a doctrine that only bishops can ordain bishops and priests, if I am not mistaken.

Cardinals on the other hand are the current electors of the pope. This is only canon law and subject to the legislation of the bishops. If there were none, the Catholics of Rome, could theoretically vote for a new pope as used to happen. In any event, the bishops would merely pass new legislation regarding how to appoint a new pope when all of the canonical electors suddenly die, whether the dead electors be the citizens of Rome or the College of Cardinals.
I am skeptical that the Holy Spirit leads in doctrinal matters without human teachers (In no way do I deny the necessity of individual communion with the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures for personal and private matters. That is altogether different); first, because of my own personal experience of which I have already testified elsewhere. I told you about when a professor at my Bible college asked me about how I learned the false doctrine of predestination. He held that one could not learn false teaching just from Bible reading; that the Spirit will not lead into error that way. I cannot remember that anyone taught me anything. I was a new Christian. If he had accused me of following Calvin, I might have been surprised that President Coolidge had also been leader of an heretical cult.

My subsequent studies of the Scripture have confirmed my opinion that one is unwise who trusts that the Holy Spirit prevents individuals from doctrinal error in Bible reading. The Ethiopian eunuch is a clear example in Acts 8 of how we need human teachers.
God's grace has worked in many hearts to have a longing to be able to discern truth from error in matters of Christian doctrine. The Ethiopian's yearning extends across two millenia, holding out hope to mankind that some man should guide. Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit should guide us into all truth extends across two millenia, holding out hope to mankind that God will guide. We must have both. Not one or the other. The doctrine of the Holy Gospel is not broadcast and taught apart from man, or guaranteed and sustained apart from God.

This is the fatal weakness of having Scripture alone (private interpretation)as an authority. It denies that God has delegated men ordained to the purpose of preserving the faith. And worse than that, it makes good men have false confidence that they are certainly right, and naturally stubborn since they are just as capable of being led by the Spirit as the next guy, because they have seen the promises which God has given in regard to the leading of the Spirit. The problem is that these promises are not intended for individual members of the body of Christ to be able to discern doctrine separately from the rest of Christ's Body. It is a community function. It is absurd and ironic that the young professor who was so certain that a 22 year old kid would never be led astray by reading the Bible alone, could not have accepted how the Church as a whole is indeed protected by the Holy Spirit, as Her members corporately examine or receive God's revelation.

"Which church would that be?" someone might ask. Well, not most Protestant communities or gatherings. Upon their principles they do not usually teach that the Spirit leads their churches corporately in matters of doctrine. If a Church does not claim to be the one true Church, it seems to me a pretty good bet, that they are right about that.

Since becoming Catholic, what I hear from people, is complaints about the prominence of the teaching office of the Catholic Church. "That's just a religion of men." "What's so great about the Pope?" "How'd that guy get to be Top Dog?" Because Protestants are prone to go to the Church that they like, very often because of a minister with whom they are impressed, they assume that Catholics and Mormons are the same way. They think we submit our judgment on doctrinal matters because we are somehow persuaded that our leaders must be extraordinary people. They know that their minister, who is a wonderful and godly man does not claim to teach infallibly. They know that they themselves who read the Bible daily and pray for the Spirit's guidance do not claim to know doctrine infallibly. The Catholic Church, and presumably the Mormon Church, which also believes in a visible, human leadership may be accused of being arrogant because we actually claim to be the one true Church. Such an accusation is understandable. But it seems unfair to me on the whole. To hold that the Holy Spirit would prevent a Church founded by Christ from doctrinal error does not presuppose any moral superiority on the part of individual members as perhaps it might in an individualist Protestant milieu.

Perhaps an example of how the pope himself views his own "authority" might be helpful at this point. He has none beyond the limits of the teaching of the Church as a whole through the ages. People who moan and groan about papal infallibility seldom stop to realize that there has probably only been one "ex cathedra" definition in which this charism is claimed to have been exercised in each of the last two centuries. And even then, at the behest of the rest of the bishops and laity of the Catholic Church. Only recently, when Protestant denominations are being besieged by demands to open up the leadership of the churches to women, the Catholic church is questioned about women's ordination as well. Pope John Paul did not merely put a silence to the issue by decreeing through virtue of his papal authority that only men may be priests. Instructively, he put an end to the issue by reminding us of the Church's lack of authority to contradict past teaching. "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 22 May, 1994) Popes are subject to the Church as much as are the rest of the faithful, and we are subject willingly, out of a desire to unite ourselves with those who went before us preserving what we hope are the true interpretations of the Holy Gospel of Christ. God's plan obviously calls for a dependence upon the Holy Spirit as well as a dependence upon guidance from men led of the Spirit. But this takes place in such a community fashion as to avoid the temptations to pride to which a Protestant minister might be subject because of his charismatic gifts and individual doctrinal insights. Far from being arrogant, to be a Catholic pope, priest, bishop is to forego learning doctrine alone, and to submit to those you believe the Holy Spirit has appointed, unless you are a "Catholic" like the monk named Luther.

But not to be too harsh on the reformers, it might be helpful to be reminded of how the early Protestants understood the visible church. Before they could become disillusioned with the fruits of their work they also held to views of the Church which emphasize the need for unity, and submission to a visible authority. It is understandable, but they were a little naive, like that professor mentioned above, thinking that everyone would agree about the meaning of the Bible if only they could escape heretical teachers. It is only as time has worn on, and the followers of Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther have splintered into thousands of sects which those men did not imagine, that the theory of an exclusively invisible church without a visible leadership has been advanced. I think it is a safe guess that if there was one Presbyterian, one Baptist (individual bodies believing the same and cooperating in discipline together), and one Lutheran church, that they would be as vociferous today about claiming to be the one true church as are Catholics and Mormons. Here is what was being said before they split up into 25,000 disunited quarreling and competing bodies: "But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the VISIBLE church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 4:1:4)
It is not arrogance that makes Christ's Church (whatever one it might be) call out to man, certain that She has the true interpretations of the Gospel of Christ. And it would not be humility for that Church to deny it. But to go to a church that doesn't even claim to know for sure? A church that hands me the same Scriptures that the Ethiopian had and says, "Read it yourself"? A church that says the Bible alone is sufficient, clear, and plain enough to resolve doctrinal controversy among men of good will? I don't believe in that anymore.

There seem to be a few men of good will here among us. We agree about most of the words of eternal life, it is the interpretation of those same words that divides us. I not only long to know the truth for myself. I long to embrace my brothers in search of the truth, all men of good will. For this, we must search for the right Church, the true Church. I doubt that Protestant principles can ever lead to the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. How many more centuries of division and ecclesiatical strife do we need to determine that men are necessary, as the reformers originally believed, and the Scriptures teach? The path taken by most modern day Protestants denies our only hope: a corporate, visible ecclesiatical organization composed of men that God has authorized and ordained for the preservation of the Gospel, a Spirit filled Church like at Pentecost. Most Protestant church bodies nowadays admit their own lack of authority from God to speak infallibly on matters of doctrine. I propose that any churches who in their "humility" admit that they are not the one true church, that they are subject to error in matters doctrinal, can be taken at their word. That knocks out about 25,000 of them. There's only a handful left.

It is a sad phenomenon from my perspective. Protestant principles make the church into an unseemly, timid creature afraid to proclaim her beliefs with authority, while allowing the temptation for individual members to become puffed up at the knowledge that they are as individually capable of biblical interpretation as the next fellow.

Rory

PS: I am aware that my defense against the accusation of arrogance may be unnecessary with the participants here. But it is a common enough accusation which can be profitably examined in light of the contrasting "humility" of those who don't claim to be the true church.

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 8
(9/29/00 3:05 pm)
64.12.104.174
Reply | Edit | Del

More on the Apostasy


David Waltz wrote on 9/4/2000

Hi guys,

Paul asked a question that I had asked myself a few years back, "What if the prophet, the 12 and the quorum crashed into a plane carrying the Pope and the college of cardinals wiping everyone out..."

(Actually the question I had asked myself was, "What if a terrorist bombed General Conference wiping out ALL the general authorites?").

Scott answered Paul with, "I could be wrong here, but it is my opinion that if the foundation were to be wholly removed, it would have to be restored through revelation once again. Lacking the foundation of a living apostle, there is no divine Body of Christ."

Note what former President Joseph F. Smith had to say on this very issue:


Quote:


There is no office growing out of this Priesthood that is or can be greater than the Priesthood itself. It is from the Priesthood that the office derives its authority and power. No office gives authority to the Priesthood. No office adds to the power of the Priesthood. But all offices in the Church derive their power, their virtue, their authority, from the Priesthood. If our brethren would get this principle thoroughly established in their minds, there would be less misunderstanding in relation to the functions of government in the Church than there is. Today the question is, which is the greater——the high priest or the seventy——the seventy or the high priest? I tell you that neither of them is the greater, and neither of them is the lesser. Their callings lie in different directions, but they are from the same Priesthood. If it were necessary, the seventy, holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, as he does, I say if it were necessary, he could ordain a high priest; and if it were necessary for a high priest to ordain a seventy, he could do that? Why? Because both of them hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. Then again, if it were necessary, though I do not expect the necessity will ever arise, and there was no man left on earth holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, except an elder——that elder, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God and by the direction of the Almighty, could proceed and should proceed, to organize the Church of Jesus Christ in all its perfection, because he holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. But the house of God is a house of order, and while the other officers remain in the Church, we must observe the order of the priesthood, and we must perform ordinances and ordinations strictly in accordance with that order, as it has been established in the Church through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors.——Oct. C. R., 1903, p. 87. (See also Gospel Doctrine - Sermons and Writings of President Joseph F. Smith p. 148 ).

If the Presidency were to be killed off, then the Council of the Twelve Apostles would stand in their place and preside until the Presidency should be restored; and if they and the First Presidency were all killed off, then the seventies would come forward and they would establish the order of Zion and renew the order of the priesthood upon the earth; and if all the seventies were killed off, and yet there was one elder possessing the Melchizedek Priesthood, he would have authority to organize the Church, under the command of God and guidance of His Holy Spirit, as Joseph did in the beginning; that it should be re-established in its perfect form. So you can see that this organization is well-nigh undestructible. (Liahona 4:45-46, Sept. 7, 1895 quoted in Latter-day Prophets Speak by Daniel Ludlow, p. 213)




Now these are indeed interesting quotes when one considers the issue of apostasy. If Joseph F. Smith's principals would work for today's Church, why not throughout the whole of the Church's history? I cannot believe that every single elder in the early Church was killed off.

There is also the question of the four apostles that did not die; that have existed since the founding of the Church in the first century; I am of course talking about the "three Nephites" and the apostle John. The Book of Mormon does not call the twelve of the new world Church apostles, but rather disciples. The Book of Mormon does however equate the twelve disciples of the new world with the twelve of the old. (See Mormon 3:19) And in the "History of the Church" Joseph Smith calls the new world twelve apostles:
This book also tells us that our Savior made His appearance upon this continent after His resurrection; that He planted the Gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, and Evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings, as were enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence of their transgressions, that the last of their prophets who existed among them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies, history,&c, and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should come forth and be united with the Bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days. (H.C. 4.458)

And James Talmage in his book The Great Apostasy also calls the twelve Nephite disciples "apostles" (page 12).

From the above we can safely say that for at least a few years there were at least twenty four apostles; and that four apostles have remained on earth in a "translated" state. Scott and I have had some discussion in the past on how this could be called a total apostasy. I will leave it up to him to once again explain this.

I would now like to touch once again on the Mosaic dispensation. Rory and I in another thread demonstrated that despite terrible periods of apostasy, the priesthood was never totally lost before the Christian dispensation. Barry acknowledged that the Mosaic priesthood was still functioning during the ministry of Jesus. Rory and I had come up with a few verses which demonstrated just how low the Israelites had sunk. Since then I have come upon a few more verses concerning apostasy in the Mosaic dispensation. Indulge me as I post my findings with some of the previous verses Rory and I had already posted:

1 Kings 19:10, 14, 18 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away...And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away...Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.(See also Rom. 11:1-5)

2 Kings 16:2-4 Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father.But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places and on the hills and under every green tree.(See also verses 10-18 for Urijah's, the high priest, complicity with Ahaz's idolatry).

2 Chronicles 28:22-25 And in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the LORD: this is that king Ahaz. For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel. And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of the LORD, and he made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem. And in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger the LORD God of his fathers.

2 Kings 21:1-16 (The idolatrous reign of Manasseh).

2 Chronicles 15:3 Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.

Isaiah 1:2-9; Jer. 2:8, 11, 13, 26

Jeremiah 6:13 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.

Jeremiah 7:28 But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.

Ezekiel 5:1-2; 7:23-27; 8:5-18; 22:25-30 (v. 30 And I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one.)

Malachi 2:8, 9, 11 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law...Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

1 Maccabees 10:18-20; 15:1, 2; 2 Maccabees 4:7, 8, 18-20, 23-26. Josephus JW 1.31-35.

OK...I will stop...but I think all get the point...there was terrible periods of apostasy during the Mosaic dispensation, yet it was never total...even though at times it could be said that none could be found who had not fallen into apostasy.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Catholic Church did become apostate...does this mean that every single priesthood holder vanished from the earth? Does not LDS theology maintain that any elder can baptize? Let us not forget Joseph F. Smith's words, and the fact that in LDS theology four apostles have always been on the earth from the first century forward.

Maybe it is just me, but the concept of a TOTAL apostasy seems difficult to maintain. Have I missed something?

Lastly, (only for now of course), I cannot explain the coming forth of the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith was not a prophet. There seems to be to much there for a farm boy to come up with on his own. But then as I have said before, I cannot explain the Quran, the writings of Bahaullah, or for that matter Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventists. (Oh, and as Rory has pointed out the miracles by Catholic saints throughout the centuries).

So maybe Paul Hadik is right, maybe all we need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit...maybe.

In Christ,

David

Edited by: David Waltz at: 9/30/00 2:00:26 pm

Dan DeMura
Unregistered User
(9/30/00 9:19 am)
216.67.118.206
Reply | Edit | Del

Apostasy and Standard of truth.


In regards to this thread I'm surprised to see so much discussion on the fact that the "great apostasy" could NOT have taken place.

************
David Waltz said:

Maybe it is just me, but the concept of a TOTAL apostasy seems difficult to maintain. Have I missed something?

Lastly, (only for now of course), I cannot explain the coming forth of the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith was not a prophet. There seems to be to much there for a farm boy to come up with on his own. But then as I have said before, I cannot explain the Quran, the writings of Bahaullah, or for that matter Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventists. (Oh, and as Rory has pointed out the miracles by Catholic saints throughout the centuries).

So maybe Paul Hadik is right, maybe all we need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit...maybe
************

This is surprising because the foundation of the LDS church is dependent upon TOTAL APOSTASY.

LDS Apostle B. H. Roberts wrote, "Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place" (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41).

I feel it is impossible for the LDS church to ever acknowledge that there was not a complete apostasy. To do so would destroy the foundation of the church. The Mormon church definitely teaches that all other churches are in a state of apostasy. More than fifty pages of the introduction to the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are devoted to proving that all churches except the Mormon church are in apostasy. This is a quote from that introduction... "Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

So if there has been such intelligent discussion that proves nearly impossible to have a complete apostasy how can the Mormon church be true?

But if it's not true then why not go with Islam? or Ellen G. White etc.

I think Paul Hadik hit on the fact that the BIBLE is the only standard we have to test truth. And one thing ALL These various teachings have in common is that they contradict the Bible. Even if these books seem so great and seemingly impossible to have been produced by normal man... is it really any wonder that the enemy could give false "signs" and "miracles"? Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Signs and wonders are not proof enough. A false prophet is still a false prophet even if he does wonderous things.

What does it take for a false gospel to do it's job?
As it says in Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, `You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

And in reference to our enemy... Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

There is only ONE TRUTH but the ememy would blind us with so many variations and perversions to choose from... and all he has to do is get us to pick any other one besides the truth.. he really doesn't care , he wins as long as we choose another gospel.

Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

The thing is you must PICK ONE... you can't have it both ways... either there was a great apostasy or there was not... either the Mormon church is true or it's not. And in all things... the Bible must be the judge.

Joshua 24:14-16 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;

If you wish to converse privately you can do so at ... dansmbox@hotmail.com


Kevinchill
Registered User
Posts: 9
(9/30/00 10:41 am)
24.95.206.218
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Apostasy and Standard of truth.


Dan,

Two quick comments because I have to run right now. My wife is after me to clean the storage shed :-).

First, I have always understood the apostasy to be a loss of priesthood authority and of of revelation by apostles and prophets. Clearly there has been some truth held since Christ's time. In fact some may have had a lot of it.

Second you said:

"And in all things... the Bible must be the judge."

But the Bible does not make that provision about itself. In my understanding this is a result of the recent development of the concept of inerrancy. Perhaps this is a topic for another post but if you care to I would like to see this claim substantiated from the Bible itself. Thanks and God Bless.

Kevin C. Hill

Pacumeni9
Title: Webdictator II
Posts: 33
(9/30/00 10:54 am)
216.161.84.162
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Apostasy and Standard of truth.


Dan DeMura said on 9/30/00:



> In regards to this thread I'm surprised to see so much
> discussion on the fact that the "great apostasy" could
> NOT have taken place.


Perhaps the reason such a discussion is taking place is because non-LDS, such as David Waltz, are free to express themselves here on virtually any aspect of the validity of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Just as Mr. Demura is. By George, they are even free to provide various links supporting their views!

Will novelties never cease?


> ************

> David Waltz said:

> Maybe it is just me, but the concept of a TOTAL apostasy
> seems difficult to maintain. Have I missed something?

> Lastly, (only for now of course), I cannot explain the
> coming forth of the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith was
> not a prophet. There seems to be to much there for a farm
> boy to come up with on his own. But then as I have said
> before, I cannot explain the Quran, the writings of
> Bahaullah, or for that matter Ellen G. White and the
> Seventh-day Adventists. (Oh, and as Rory has pointed out
> the miracles by Catholic saints throughout the centuries).

> So maybe Paul Hadik is right, maybe all we need is the
> Bible and the Holy Spirit...maybe


<END QUOTE OF DAVID and back to Dan...>


> This is surprising because the foundation of the LDS
> church is dependent upon TOTAL APOSTASY.


Well, yes, but we must remember what is meant by that. When Latter-day Saints speak of total apostasy, they are referring to priesthood authority. The authority to act in God's name was removed from the possession of humanity. The institutional Church went into the wilderness.

Yet much truth remained, though within shades of corrupted contexts. For instance, the idea that Jesus died for the sins of the world and was the Son of God remained upon the earth. But hanging from that simple truth were such man-made concepts as the hypostatic union.


> LDS Apostle B. H. Roberts wrote, "Saddening as the
> thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of
> Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the
> Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its
> laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of
> man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the
> darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a
> universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the
> Christian Church took place" (D.H.C., Vol. I,
> Introduction, pp. 39 and 41).


I absolutely agree with Elder Talmage.


> I feel it is impossible for the LDS church to ever
> acknowledge that there was not a complete apostasy. To do
> so would destroy the foundation of the church.


Nonsense.



The Mormon
> church definitely teaches that all other churches are in
> a state of apostasy.


This is true.


More than fifty pages of the
> introduction to the History of the Church of Jesus Christ
> of Latter-Day Saints are devoted to proving that all
> churches except the Mormon church are in apostasy. This
> is a quote from that introduction... "Nothing less than a
> complete apostasy from the Christian religion would
> warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ
> of Latter-day Saints."


Agreed.



> So if there has been such intelligent discussion that
> proves nearly impossible to have a complete apostasy how
> can the Mormon church be true?


See above. Methinks you missed the important qualifications that have been presented in this thread.


> But if it's not true then why not go with Islam? or Ellen
> G. White etc.

> I think Paul Hadik hit on the fact that the BIBLE is the
> only standard we have to test truth.


I agree that the Bible is *a* standard. But since the believers who lived during Bible times would never have limited testing the truth to the Bible only, why should I feel so obligated?


And one thing ALL
> These various teachings have in common is that they
> contradict the Bible.


Which teachings did you have in mind? And don't you mean, at least in a very relevant sense, that contradict the Bible *as you interpret it?*


Even if these books seem so great
> and seemingly impossible to have been produced by normal > man... is it really any wonder that the enemy could give > false "signs" and "miracles"? Rev 19:20 And the beast was
> taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought
> miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had
> received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped
> his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire
> burning with brimstone.


An interesting point. Yes, I agree with you, Dan. The only rational way to explain the Latter-day Saint doctrine is to appeal to the supernatural. It either came from God, or the devil.


> Signs and wonders are not proof enough. A false prophet
> is still a false prophet even if he does wonderous things.


I agree. That is why we need the asurance of the Holy Spirit. See, for instance, Moroni 10:3-5


> What does it take for a false gospel to do it's job?

> As it says in Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty
> than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He
> said to the woman, "Did God really say, `You must not eat
> from any tree in the garden'?"

> And in reference to our enemy... Ephesians 6:12 For we
> wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
> principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
> darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
> high places.

> There is only ONE TRUTH but the ememy would blind us with
> so many variations and perversions to choose from... and
> all he has to do is get us to pick any other one besides
> the truth.. he really doesn't care , he wins as long as
> we choose another gospel.


So how can one know, Dan? How is one to know which is the correct way? Now, although I have my own opinion on this, I am not trying to catch you. I really am interested in your view on this.


> Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from
> him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another
> gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that
> trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But
> though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
> gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
> you, let him be accursed.


And I agree with Saint Paul. As he said elsewhere, the pillar and ground of the truth is found in the CHURCH, the divine body of Christ. Prophets, just as Paul clearly taught, are fallible men.

So why do the critics constantly cite the private opinions of the leaders of the Church, when, as Paul has said, and as we have agreed, prophets are fallible men, but it is only the Church itself that is our ground?

Enquiring minds want to know!


> The thing is you must PICK ONE... you can't have it both
> ways... either there was a great apostasy or there was
> not...


There was a total loss of authority. There was a corruption of truth. The Church went into the wilderness, having lost its foundation of apostles and prophets.

This all required a restoration of authority, a new dispensing of pure truth, a reestablishment of the visible Church upon a modern foundation of apostles and prophets.


> either the Mormon church is true or it's not.


It is true, Dan. I encourage you to read or reread the Book of Mormon, and the modern scriptures along with the Bible, and to pray. Put it to the test again.

And
> in all things... the Bible must be the judge.


Translation: "And in all things, my interpretation of the Bible must be the judge...which is just a polite way of saying that *I* will be the judge."


Pacumeni

-- The Tanners' mantra for 30 years has been that the Church censors its own teachings and history. Yet, as soon as they put up a message board and Latter-day Saints show up to show where they are wrong, the Tanners engage in suppression themselves.

 

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 16
(10/2/00 2:59 pm)
64.12.104.48
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/5/2000

Hi guys! I have a few comments to throw in here, as well.
Paul said:

> So to answer (in a very roundabout way) David your question. To me the
> Spirit is enough. I keep in mind that on judgement day, when a word from the
> Father will send me somewhere for eternity that neither J. Smith nor Pope
> John Paul II nor the Bab will be by my side. I will be alone before God.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Paul. Consider this:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:28)

And this:

"And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?" (Moroni 10:27)
I don't expect you to believe the prophet Moroni at this point, but Jesus' words ought to give you pause. Jesus appoints men - mere men, fallible men - to do his work. He gives them power to bind and loose in heaven. He places them as judges over those they have been charged to lead. In a word, Jesus requires us to SUBMIT to the spiritual authorities He places over us, even though they are fallible humans.

For that matter, Jesus requires that wives submit to their husbands, and that Christians submit to political authorities, whom God has put in their place. I am certainly not saying that God may not instruct men to go against political authorities in some instances, or that He may not tell a woman to refuse to submit to her husband when he is leading into evil. But in this I see a pattern.
That is, we are ultimately responsible to make sure we are heading toward salvation. God gives us His Spirit, which is the guarantee of salvation (not because the Bible tells me so, as I have heard many a Protestant say), and He expects us to follow where the Spirit leads. But in order to follow the Spirit, we must learn to submit. But then, sometimes (I'm speaking from personal experience) it is ever so easy to tell ourselves that we are submitting to God, when in fact there are corners of our souls where we hang onto our pride and wickedness. It's all too easy to rationalize that we are "following God", because, barring an angelic appearance or something, it's usually pretty easy to hear only what we want to hear from God. But God just isn't that easy to get rid of. As C.S. Lewis said, when we go to God and ask Him to help us change, God is not going to stop until the job is done. We may be satisfied when we have kicked our more obvious faults, but God isn't.

This brings me to the subject of spiritual authority. If it's easy to ignore the voice of God when God says things we don't like, it's powerfully hard to ignore your local minister, bishop, or Pope. A Protestant, when confronted by such a thing, will often get mad and go "church hopping". A Catholic might go liberal and find excuses not to believe in the infallibility of Papal decrees on faith and morals. A Mormon might go liberal and hold on to the fact that we have no infallibility dogma, and use that as an excuse to "pick and choose". A Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon might then go into some "nobody's perfect" routine to excuse his wickedness. Or he could submit to the spiritual authorities. In doing so he willingly exposes himself to God's "work crew" that comes in and knocks out walls, sweeps out the cobwebby corners, adds on to the building, and makes his shabby cottage into a palace.

To me, this is a BIG problem with modern Protestantism. It's just too easy to adopt some private interpretation that caters to our secret pride and lust. There are degrees in this, and when we compare ourselves to the world in general, bent on hedonism, it is easy for us to think that we really are submitting to God. To me, it seems like Catholics and Mormons see God as the "in your face" God He is. We see that the spiritual authorities God has placed over us are there to force us into a clear choice between our own wills and the will of God.

So, when people like Rory and I see a fellow Christian like yourself who is trying to submit himself to God, we naturally rejoice and say, "Come with us, brother, and let's give God the chance to finish the job in us."
One final note. I'm not talking about "blind obedience". I believe that God will tell us directly, if we seek earnestly, where His appointed authority lies. Once this is done, we have a good reason to submit.

Barry


Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/5/2000

Hi David -

I've heard the argument about the 3 Nephite apostles and John before, but I think you should take the following information into account. Latter-day Saints believe that these men were "translated," i.e. their bodies were changed to a higher state, preliminary to the resurrection, and now "they are as the angels of God." (3 Nephi 28:30) If, as Joseph Smith said, translated beings are "held in reserve to be ministering angels," (TPJS 170) how could the fact that God left priesthood-holding angels on the earth (who did not transmit their priesthood to others) have any bearing on the question of whether the apostasy was "total"? Rather, this illustrates the LDS belief in God's loving concern for His children even during periods of apostasy.

And as for your question about whether any stray elder could have rebuilt the Church on the authority of the priesthood he held, that is completely true. However, you will notice the provision that this must have been done by revelation. That is, God would have had to have commanded him to ordain new apostles, etc.

Now think of Hermas. He says God revealed to him that all the Christians had one last chance to repent, and then the Church would be completed. Anyone left outside would be relegated to some inferior institution. In light of this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose that God told anyone with valid priesthood orders that the earthly Church was in shut-down mode, and told them NOT to rebuild.
So, the question seems to me not to be whether someone *could have* passed on valid priesthood orders if God wanted him to, because clearly that's the case. The question is whether God told anyone to do that.

Finally, you say that you can't explain the Book of Mormon, but you also can't explain the Quran, Science and Theology, the writings of Bahaullah. What is it, exactly, about these books that you have trouble explaining?

Is it just that they seem too complex for a normal person to have written, or that there seems to be some striking empirical evidence for their claims? You know as well as I do that there is some pretty striking empirical evidence for the proposition that the Book of Mormon is REAL HISTORY. Certainly this proposition is not proven, but there are a number of things - outside of the mere fact of the book's existence - that would be EXTREMELY odd if the book were a fraud. E.g. what are the odds that Joseph Smith could have come up with a route for Lehi's troupe that would hit a real place named NHM, turn east, and hit a "bountiful" place on the Arabian coast that has iron ore, cliffs, etc., etc.? What are the odds that Joseph Smith would come up with the proper names that he did, many of which have been verified as real, extrabiblical, Near Eastern names?

Anywho, I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to make a list of "inexplicable" things having to do with each of the books you mentioned. I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that would be an extremely interesting thing to see, coming from someone like yourself.

Barry

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 18
(10/2/00 3:08 pm)
64.12.104.48
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


paul hadik wrote on 9/5/2000

Hey Guys:

With the arrival of Barry it is good to see everyone together again...Scott break out a bag of chips and let's have at it.

Barry and Rory: I would like to say as strongly as possible that I do not reject the importance of tradition nor the importance of spiritual teachers. (I don't want to get thrust into an extremist corner)
I would no sooner turn a new convert loose on himself then I would throw a calculus book at my 8 year old son and hope for the best.
I think you guys know that already but just want to reiterate myself.

Where I do draw the line is when I hear that a church can not function in all truth without this 'succession'.

I raise the following points:

1)Do apostles guarantee unity? No. Paul, the greatest mind of the NT and Barnabas the "son of Comfort" had such a falling out that they stopped working together! If those two couldn't get along what does that say of the odds of a unified church with our fallen nature?

2)Does being an Apostle guarantee freedom from error? No. Why was it necessary for Paul to publicly rebuke Peter for his behaviour? And not only rebuke him but consider his error so serious that he made the rebuke public knowledge to other churches (causing one to assume that Peter's error was well known)

3) the apostles demanded that they be kept pure against Scripture and not the other way around. Paul congratulated the Bereans for comparing him to what Scripture they had. He didn't lay into them for doubting an Apostle. Why the warning in Galatians 1 if it were impossible for Paul to teach error?

4)Does Apostolic authority guarantee a unified church teaching?Again no. We have liberal Catholic churches which emphasize a social gospel and conservative RCC churches with emphasize salvation first; we have liberal LDS thinkers like Metcalfe and more conservative thinkers like Peterson.Barry, what happens if I am baptized into the LDS church by someone like Metcalfe or someone else who (as we have all heard example of in all faiths) "has lost the faith" and is merely going through the motions. Is it my heart's condition that counts or is it a combination of my heart and the one doing the baptizing? As I brought up on the other thread, what happened to those baptized by Judas? did their baptism count? When an authority figure gets high up but no longer believes, yet hides his true feelings what happens to his authority? I dunno.

If the LDS church could show that historically they have never experienced apostasy (since 1830) and that there has never been a schism in the church (like the RLDS or Church of Christ or the Rigdonites, and if the RCC could show that in all their churches across the world the same message was being emphasized and always had been then I would begin to agree with what y'all keep saying.

As it is, as long as we live in a fallen world the possibility of a True Visible Church remains impossible to my thinking. That being the case, their can never have been an apostasy of the LDS type.

The visible church, so to speak, filled with humans will never be perfect. I am speaking for my own camps as well, protestant of any type.

So again, I don't reject your ideas out of hand but I do draw a line.

Anyway,for what its worth, it is a thin line which separates us but a Big Thin line it is.

Paul

Rory McKenzie wrote on 9/5/2000

"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation." Hebrews 13:7
Even if there is not a single one true Church as I have postulated, it seems necessary that every believer must associate himself with a Christian community to which he owes obedience.

We are told by St James that teachers are susceptible to greater condemnation because of their office (James 3:1). But there isn't even a hint that people should start forming other churches on account of such a teacher.
Even if I did not believe that there was one true church, it would be my task to "know them which labour among you, and are OVER YOU in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake."
(I Thess. 5:12 )

Barry's comments relating to obedience in non-church settings really cements the idea for me that all of us must be in obedience to some church authority. If children must obey parents, and wives obey husbands, and we must "submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors..." (I Peter 2:13 ), it seems unlikely that the passages from I Thessalonians and Hebrews ought to be thought of as a suggestion that we listen closely to what the preacher says, and obey if we agree. God is honoured and pleased when a child obeys and honours an unworthy parent. God appears honoured and pleased when the Christians of the Roman Empire submitted to and honour Caesar. The unworthy priedtly leaders during Christ's time were still recommended by Christ to lepers who had been healed. And it seems instructive that the high priest spoke prophecy, when he opined that "one man should die for the nation". We see that even hypocrites with bad motives can both prophecy (give us insights without meaning to ) and be worthy of our submission, if they are lawful authority.
How can it be a matter of small magnitude that we decide which church officers will have the rule over us? How can we leave a church because we have been offended, or dislike the music, or even disapprove of some controversy in theology? It seems half @#%$ed to me that Christians know who their parents are, and of what citizen they are a nation, but then join fellowship with one church, and then another. Christians don't nearly so lighty revolt against the state, or "divorce" their parents!

It is not of God, that a man start a church without trembling and quaking at the ramifications of his actions. Any church minister is competing for the role of being the one who should lawfully receive the submission and obedience spoken of in Hebrews and Thessalonians, just as surely as parents and government expect submission. Shouldn't he hope for the whole community to obey him? What is a guy pastoring for, if he doesn't think that God is calling him to shepherd the whole flock in a given area? And why is he competing with other pastors if he thinks that another shepherd has a commission from God to receive obedience from the sheep of the same community? The implications of being a minister needs to be more fully examined before new churches are started.

>sigh<

Rory

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 19
(10/2/00 3:21 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


David Waltz wrote on 9/11/2000

Hi Barry,

Sorry that I have not gotten back to you sooner, but my wife has been giving me to many chores of late!

You posted:

>Finally, you say that you can't explain the Book of Mormon, but you also can't explain the Quran, Science and Theology, the writings of Bahaullah. What is it, exactly, about these books that you have trouble explaining?...Anywho, I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to make a list of "inexplicable" things having to do with each of the books you mentioned. I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that would be an extremely interesting thing to see, coming from someone like yourself. > (Barry, I do not know what you meant by "Science and Theology").

To start the ball rolling, I will first deal with the Quran and the Islamic dispensation.

In the book An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quraan the Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi lists 10 miraculous categories concerning the Quran. I will list the ones that are the most significant.

1.) The eloquence of the Quran above that of any human speech. I am told that this aspect of the Quran comes out only in the Arabic. I have read from many sources that the Arabic of the Quran is superior to any other Arabic writings. Though Muhammad was not illiterate as some have held, he was certainly not a learned man. Just as you find it impossible that Joseph Smith could have produced the BoM without the aid of God——Muslims feel the same about Muhammad and the Quran.

2.) Unlike the Bible and the BoM, the Quran makes the claim that it contains only the words of God (Allah); and this means (for the Muslim), that the Quran is fully infallible.

3.) Transmission of the Quran. Unlike the Bible which has thousands of textual variants; the Quran has come down to our time via one official text. The official text was codified shortly after the death of Muhammad by Uthman. (On the transmission of the Quran, oral and written, see chapter 8 in Qadhi's book). Muslims see the unique preservation of the Quran as a miracle of God.

4.) The Prophecies of the Quran.

a.) The purity of the Quran will be protected by God. "We have without doubt, sent down the Message; And We will assuredly guard it from corruption." (Surah 15:9)
b.) The unique dual prophecy of a future battle of the Romans with the Persians, and the battle of Badr.. "The Roman Empire has been defeated——In a land close by: but they, after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious——Within a few years (Arabic: bibi' sineen, means between 3 and 9 years). With Allah is the Decision. In the Past and in the Future: On that Day shall The Believers rejoice." (Surah 30:2-4)

On this verse Qadhi writes: "Exactly seven years after the revelation of these verses, the Romans attacked the Persians again, and this time were victorious, and managed to regain their territory. This battle occurred on the same day as the Battle of Badr, when the Muslims were themselves 'rejoicing' because of their victory over the Quraysh. Thus, this verse predicted two events: the victory o the Romans, and the victory of the Muslims." (p. 273)

Surah 54: 42-45 also predicts victory in the Battle of Badr. Numerous hadith predict victory, a victory which in and of itself seemed miraculous——a mere 305 Muslims defeated 1,000 heavily armed Quraysh.

c.) Mecca and the Kabah to be taken by the Muslims. (Surah 48:27)

d.) Islam to succeed, and become the established authority in Arabia. (Surah 24:55)

e.) Jews to be driven from Medina. (Surah 33:60)

f.) Muhammad will be praised and glorified. (Surah 17:79)

5.) [This is not in Qadhi’’s book] The Bible predicts the advent of Muhammad and Islam.

Isaiah 63:1-6 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth. {Note: Muhammad was a descendent of the Edomites, and he been to Bozrah many times as a merchant, starting in his early youth. Muhammad and Islam came with a sword (i.e. vengence)].

Isaiah 19:18,23-25 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. [Note: When did Egypt begin to speak the language of Canaan? (Arabic is a Canaanite language); When did Egypt, Assyria and the land of Israel all worship the LORD? They both occurred during the Islamic dispensation].

Isaiah 21:11-14 (NAS) The oracle concerning Edom. One keeps calling to me from Seir, " Watchman, how far gone is the night? Watchman, how far gone is the night? " The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the night: if ye will inquire, inquire ye: turn ye, come. The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye caravans of Dedanites. Unto him that was thirsty they brought water; the inhabitants of the land of Tema did meet the fugitives with their bread. For they fled away from the swords, from the drawn sword, andfrom the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war. [Notes: Night equals apostasy, morning to come from Seir (Jesus); another night comes after the morning, but morning will "come back again"(Muhammad); Dedanites where a town and a tribe in Arabia during the time of Muhammad].

Deuteronomy 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

The Muslim interpretation of this verse is an interesting one. The LORD first comes from Sinai (Moses dispensation); then from Seir (Jesus' dispensation); and then from mount Paran (Muhammad's dispensation. [Notes: Paran is in Arabia, and Muhammad was said to have 10,000 Companions].
Lastly, I must mention the fruits of Islam itself. Historians acknowledge that during the time of the "Dark Ages" of Europe, higher learning, mathematics and the sciences were all flourishing in Islam. Many of the lands that became Muslim were rank pagans before, and came to worship the one true God. Historians also acknowledge that the Arabs of Muhammad's day were a barbaric, pagan lot. Islam (like early Christianity), eradicated many of the barbaric and paganistic practices of the lands that came under its influence.

So Barry, what say thee, was Muhammad a true prophet of God? Is the Quran scripture? Is Islam a religion from God? How far will God allow Satan to go in his attempts at deception? How much truth will God allow Satan to mix with error? What must one do to be saved? What is the bare minimum? How much truth must one have to be saved?
Now, related to the above is the question of the visible church——at what point in time was the Catholic Church teaching to much error to no longer be considered a "true" Church? And from a Protestant view point (this is for Paul), at what time should one leave a visible community of Christian believers to start another Church? This question is made even more difficult in that NO church is free from ALL error.

Guess I have said enough for now.

In Christ,

David

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 20
(10/2/00 3:28 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Elijah wrote on 9/20/2000

David,

Thank you for your informative post on Islam. I knew a Mormon Bishop who spent time in Saudi Arabia with Muslims, and he verily believes that Muhammed was a true prophet of God. There is actually well-documented proof of men tampering with the Koran shortly after Muhoammed's death. This opens the door that some of its statements that contradict the Bible may have been post-Muhammed additions/corruptions, i.e., "Allah neither begets nor is begotten", "Allah has no Son, tell the infidel if Allah had a Son, I would be the first to worship him", etc. . . It does seem beyond controversy, though, that Muhammed rejected the Trinity as polytheism, and insisted that Jesus is not the Only True God, "cease saying Allah is three, or that Jesus is Allah, when Jesus the messenger of Allah said, I ascend to my God and your God".

That being said, I personally believe Muhammed was a true prophet of God (and the Book of Mormon says God grants to all nations, in their own tongue, a portion of his word, according to their faith), but that there was a Muslim Apostasy shortly after his death which perverted and corrupted the Koran and many of his teachings. If this is true, then it is not necessary to go "either/or" with Islam and Mormonism, since its possible to believe Islam also went into Apostasy as Chrsitianity did before it, so Joseph Smith was needed to restore what both of these religions have corrupted.

As far as what Mormons mean when we speak of a Universal or Great Apostasy is that the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" were given to Christ's 1st century Apostles by Christ, Moses, and Elijah (Ma 16:19; 18:17,18; 17:2), but the Jews and then the Gentiles rejected those "keys" believing they could get along just fine without them (1 Pt 4:7 w/ Acts 3:21), necessitating a future restoration of those keys through Angelic visitation (Ma 17:11; 16:28; Jo 21:21-23; Eph 1:10; Rev 14:6,7; etc.). These Angelic visitors were Peter, James, and John, who came down from heaven, layed their hands on Joseph Smith Jr., and ordained him as their Apostolic successors with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". Without these keys the ordinances and commandments of God cannot be bound on earth or in heaven, so such man-made Churches have no authority to administer the Gospel laws and ordinances for the salvation of man.

Christ and his Apostles were violently rejected by both Jew and Gentile over the course of the 1st century, so the Apostles appointed no public successors to their authority. The Church went "into the wilderness" (Rev 12), where man could no longer publically see her, i.e., translated beings secretly roamed the earth, perhaps saving some, but never publically appearing to man. Thus, when Mormons speak of a Great Apostasy, or even a Total Apostasy, we are technically speaking of a Total Apostasy of all public Churches on the earth, not disparate secret traditions that may have continued outside public scrutiny. Protestants claim a "secret tradition", as it were, but since they've never claimed the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" through Angelic visitation, it is clear that their "secret tradition" is not Apostolic nor having the true priesthood keys.

Now lets get to the crux of the Apostasy issue. Did Christ and his Apostles predict an imminent Great Apostasy?
"The end of all things is AT HAND" (1 Pt 4:7; the "all things" pertain to the Gospel power: 2 Pt 1:4; and the "all things" would be restored before Christ's 2nd Coming . . .), "Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things" (Ma 17:11), "the heavens must receive Jesus Christ until the time of the restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10; Rev 14:6,7).

If the end of "all things" was not the Gospel, and the restoration of "all things" was not the Gospel, then what was it? The "end" spoken of by Peter could not have been Christ's 2nd Coming, since that wasn't "at hand" at all (2 Ths 2:2,3; 2 Pt 3:8,9), so clearely Peter was speaking of the end of the public Gospel on the earth with Apostles and Prophets with the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

When was the anti-Christ and Apostasy prophesied of in 2 Ths 2:1-4 supposed to happen?
"The myster of iniquity doth ALREADY work" (2 Ths 2:7; 2 Tim 4:2-5).
"Little children, IT IS THE LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, EVEN NOW are there many antichrists; whereby we know that IT IS THE LAST TIME" (1 Jo 2:18).
"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repen" (Rev 2:5).
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that AFTER MY DEPARTING shall grievous wolves enter in among you, NOT SPARING THE FLOCK. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears" (Acts 20:17,28-31).
"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia BE TURNED AWAY FROM ME" (2 Tim 1:15).
This is a small sampling of verses that show the anti-Christ was coming immediately, not just in some distant far-off epoch. The Church of Ephesus (Acts 20:17,29; Rev 2:1,5) and the Church of the Romans (Ro 11:21-23) and the Church of Galatians (Gal 1:6-9; 3:1,2) and the Church of the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:3,4,13-15) all obviously had no immunity from having their "candlestick removed" (their Church removed from the earth Rev 2:5), so why would any of the other Churches have any such immunity? If Christ could purchase the flock of Ephesus with his own blood (Acts 20:28), only to have his blood-purchased flock totally killed off being "not spared" from death and massive Apostasy (Acts 20:29; Rev 2:1,5; 2 Pt 2:1,19; Heb 10:26-29), what would give the rest of his flock immunity from such martyrdom and wholesale Apostasy?

Thousands of more prooftexts could be advanced, but these few prooftexts should give anyone pause before claiming the coming of anti-Christ with all deceivableness and lying wonders hasn't happened yet (1 Jo 2:18; 2 Ths 2:4,7-9) or that the Great Apostasy wasn't already "at hand" in the days of Christ's Apostles (1 Pt 4:7; 1 Jo 2:18; Acts 20:29; Rev 2:5; 2 Tim 4:2-5; 2:12-15).

The priesthood succession issue is very important. A "believer's priesthood" is wholly absent from both the Old and New Testament, since both Testaments show that priesthood ordination as well as belief were qualifications for the priesthood. It is true that the Levitical priesthood seemed to continue into the days of Christ, but this assumption seems unwarranted. For instance, we must realize that Christ and his 1st century followers were excommunicated by the leaders of the Levitical priesthood from "Phariseeical Judaism" (Jo 9:22; Ma 10:32,33; etc.). So, if their priesthood was legitimate, then their excommunication of Christ was legitimate, which, of course, is absurd. So clearly the Levitical priesthood had become corrupted to the point of illegitimacy by the time of Christ.

What about Zecharias? He had the priesthood by birthright, and he lived worthy of his priesthood, so God called him and his son John the Baptist through revelation and Angelic visitation to prepare the way for the Messiah. Just because Zecharias, John, and perhaps a few other Levites legitimately held the priesthood does not prove the rest of them did too. The rest of them may have had the priesthood birthright, but they lived unworthy of their priesthood, so I don't believe their priesthood was legitimate. After Malachi, the last legitimate Old Testament prophet in regular succession from Moses, died (400 b.c.), the Levitical priesthood degraded to the point of utter corruption, so I don't believe they, in general, held a legitimate priesthood, since they ceased having the gifts of prophecy and Angelic visitations until the time of Zacharias and John (who schismated a separate branch of Judaism, which was excommunicated by the Sanhedrin).
Jesus told his followers to obey the Pharisees and Saducees who sat in "Moses' seat" (Ma 23:2,3), but I believe he was speaking of Moses' political seat (i.e., the Sanhedrin was a political as well as religious body) not Moses' spiritual seat. If Jesus was speaking of spiritual matters, then how could Jesus ask his followers to accept excommunication for believing in and confessing Jesus (Jo 9:22; Ma 10:32,33)? This strains credulity. Jesus Christ founded a Church upon revelation through Peter and the other Apostles (Ma 16:18,19), which had a completely seperate ecclesiastical structure from Levitical, Phariseeical, Judaism, so it isn't plausible to accept both priesthoods as legitimate. If so, do Jews still hold a legitimate Levitical priesthood by birthright?

I know my thesis will be controversial to both Mormon and non-Mormon alike, but I believe I can back it up. If my thesis is correct, then Evangelicals who claim a believer's prriesthood, and Catholics who claim a non-prophetic priesthood, have no real Biblical precedent for their priesthood claims. The Bible priesthood, when exercised legitimately, was always accompanied by Prophets with the gift of prophecy, while modern priesthoods have a "form of godliness, but deny the power thereof" (2 Tim 3:5), i.e., the gift of prophecy. I don't know if anyone in Islam or Bahaiism have legitimate priesthood claims, but I doubt it. This leaves us with the claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who claim regular prophetic and Apostolic priesthood succession through Joseph Smith Jr. from Peter, James, and John. This type of priesthood succession through ordination, prophecy, and the Holy Spirit, is clearly Biblical, while the others clearly aren't.

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 22
(10/2/00 3:38 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


David Waltz wrote on 9/21/2000

Elijah,

I would like to begin by saying that I really enjoyed your post. You have certainly given me much to ponder.
You said, "There is actually well-documented proof of men tampering with the Koran shortly after Muhoammed's [sic] death."

I have studied the arguments of both sides of this issue (three sides if you count the Shi'a vs. Sunni). As you know the text that has come down to our day is the Uthmanic recension. The purity of the Uthmanic text is acknowledged by all. As to the pre-Uthmanic codices noted Islamic scholars Bell and Watt had this to say, "The variant readings in the codices of both these men (Ibn-Mas'ud and Ubayy Ibn-Kab; collectors of pre-Uthmanic codices) chiefly affect the vowels and punctuation, but occasionally there is a different consonantal text." And again, "Thus on the whole the information which has reached us about the pre-Uthmanic codices suggests that there was no great variation in the actual contents of the Quran in the period immediately after the Prophet's death. The order of the suras was apparently not fixed, and there were many slight variations in reading; but of other differences there is no evidence." ( Introduction To The Quran, 1970 revised edition pp. 46, 46)

With this in mind, I cannot accept the idea that the denial of Jesus’’ sonship in the Quran was due to textual "post-Muhammad additions/corruptions". First, there is no textual evidence for it. Second, the passages in the Quran which deny Jesus' sonship are just too numerous. (See surahs 2.116; 4.171; 5.17, 72, 73, 75, 116-117; 6.100-102; 9.30-31; 10.68; 17.111; 18.4-5; 19.35, 88-92; 23.91; 25.2; 39.4; 43.81; 72.3; 112.1-4).

You accept that Muhammad rejected the Trinity and that Jesus was true God——on this issue it is important to note that the passages in the Quran which reject the above are significantly fewer than those which reject his sonship.
Now, that Muhammad was "inspired" I have no doubt. But I would argue that the Buddha, Plato, Zoraster, and others were also "inspired". However, that Muhammad and the others are true prophets called by God, this I must currently reject.

You said:


Quote:


Christ and his Apostles were violently rejected by both Jew and Gentile over the course of the 1st century, so the Apostles appointed no public successors to their authority. The Church went "into the wilderness" (Rev 12), where man could no longer publically see her, i.e., translated beings secretly roamed the earth, perhaps saving some, but never publically appearing to man. Thus, when Mormons speak of a Great Apostasy, or even a Total Apostasy, we are technically speaking of a Total Apostasy of all public Churches on the earth, not disparate secret traditions that may have continued outside public scrutiny. Protestants claim a "secret tradition", as it were, but since they've never claimed the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" through Angelic visitation, it is clear that their "secret tradition" is not Apostolic nor having the true priesthood keys.




The above is one the best presentations of the apostasy from an LDS perspective I have read to date. I have never been comfortable with some LDS commentators view that the wilderness of Rev. 12 was actually in heaven. Your view makes much more sense to me.

Moving on "the end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7), once again I find your presenation a good one. (Are you aware that Barry Bickmore uses a similar presentation in his book Restoring The Ancient Church 1999...)? Your argument that 1 Peter 4:7 refers to the apostasy rather than Christ's second coming, though solid, is not totally conclusive. Examine the following verses and let me know what you think:

Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

1 Corinthians 7:29-31 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not; and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

1 John 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Your final two paragraphs on the priesthood are excellent!!! Your view about the state of the Jewish priesthood after Malachi makes more sense than any other I have read/heard from an LDS perspective. You have really got me thinking...

Looking forward to your response,

David

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 23
(10/2/00 3:47 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


paul hadik wrote on 9/22/2000

Elijah:

Very interesting post on your part. Glad you admitted it might be controversial and I hope you don't mind a few questions and comments. Some of these questions are of the "So are you saying?" variety as I want to make sure I completely understand your thesis.

1) So are you saying that Islam in its original state was an attempt at a Restoration on the part of God? That soon after the death of the Prophet we experienced another Grand Apostasy? (this would seem to make God 0-2 not counting Noah's Ark)

2) If your argument is that the Apostasy came due to the rejection of Christ and the Apostles and later the corruption of the teachings of Islam, why reject the possibility that the LDS church is also in a state of Apostasy now? Begun in 1830, it was rent with infighting and apostasy in just a few years. The Prophet was definitely rejected by his fellow countrymen and murdered. They were then kicked out to the far corners of the country, basically declared war on by the US government with things getting so bad that God had to sanction a mini-apostasy with the removal of the law of plural marriage. Possibly the Church of Christ branch is the legitimate branch with the emphasis on historical early church teachings of Mormonism and the Utah branch is a more Reformation type branch? Why is God showing more patience with the LDS then he did with a: the whole earth in Noah's time; b: his own people the Jews in His Son's time and c: the followers of Islam?

3) I have some problems with your usage of Scripture. In I Peter 4:7, and Acts 3:21 couldn't Peter be talking about the destruction of Israel (close at hand) with the restoration then being a national promise and not a doctrinal promise? Please note the limiting phrase in Acts "the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began". From Abraham to Malachi the prophecies emphasized the Kingdom of Israel so heavily that the coming of Christ was heralded by his followers as a fulfillment of these prophecies, causing them to overlook his main purpose as the Deliverer.

4) Where do you find any Scripture to back up that Moses and Elijah gave any keys to the disciples?

5) I didn't quite understand your comment on secret traditions which may have existed during the Apostasy if you could clear that up for me. I do ask though as I have asked before, in light of Christ's promise that "where ever two or three are gathered in my name there I will be also" are you saying that the presence of Christ in these secret gatherings was not sufficient to lead into all truth?

6) In regards to the Apostasy. Hypothetical situation. I am a 1st century Christian. Many of my family have been persecuted and killed for our belief in Christ. We meet in deep catacombs. We have lost all. But we have the joy of knowing Christ. One Sunday we have a great ‘‘service’’ of rejoicing and praise. The following Tuesday, St. John, the last living Apostle is (according to LDS teaching) translated. The following Sunday am I now attending an Apostate church?

7) If this Grand Apostasy and the coming of the Anti-Christ are to combined in the 1st century and Paul taught this in II Thess 2. What was he thinking when he ended the chapter by stating "...even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us EVERLASTING consolation and hope through grace, Comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work." Comfort us with what? Shouldn't he be telling us that a decision has been made somewhere to remove all Apostolic leadership, not replace it on a successful basis for 1800 years and that maybe we should start stocking up on tin foods?

8)In light of Christ's promise that "the way is narrow and few there be that find it" should we then not accept that apostasy (defined as a purposeful rejection and attack on God's plan) has existed since the Fall of Lucifer, through the Garden, the time of Noah, about 25 minutes after the people of Israel in Ex. 19 said "WE will do ALL that you command us" down through history? When has there ever been a time when apostasy has not been rampant? Can the LDS church honestly claim that there has never been a time in their history wherein apostasy has reared its head? Did all 11 witnesses remain true to the church the rest of their lives? Can the Latter Day movement claim that they have remained a single unified church since the time of Joseph Smith?

9) Let's talk about the priesthood for a minute. To begin with the Levitical priesthood did not exist until after the Law. Its purpose was one of mercy. God in His graciousness knew that His people had been rash in their promises of Exodus 19 and gave them a way unto forgiveness. Hence the Levitical Priesthood. The death of Christ as the supreme Lamb of God, the Final Sacrifice coupled with the miraculous tearing of the veil sheltering the Holy of Holies signified the end of the need for a Priesthood. If during his life Christ felt the priesthood no longer legitimate why then did he require the lepers in Luke 17 to show themselves to the priests in accordance with Mosaic Law?

10) If Matthew 23:2,3 is talking about "Moses' political seat" as you suggest, how do you handle the rest of the chapter to verse 12 with his obvious references to religious interpretations under the law?

11) Finally, if you reject the "priesthood of the believers" how do you interpret Hebrews 4:16 giving me the power to personally approach the "throne of grace" the exact function of the Levitical Priest.

Anyway, hope I didn't overload ya'. Look forward to hearing from you.

Paul Hadik

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 24
(10/2/00 4:18 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Elijah wrote on 9/23/2000

Holy cow!

David and Paul's responses overwhelmed me! David, have you written any books? How do you keep so up to speed on so many scholarly sources? Paul, I can see you've been studying your scriptures voraciously. I hope I can be concise since its not possible to give a detailed response to all of your questions. Let me start with David.

DAVID
As to the pre-Uthmanic codices noted Islamic scholars Bell and Watt had this to say, "Thus on the whole the information which has reached us about the pre-Uthmanic codices suggests that there was no great variation in the actual contents of the Quran in the period immediately after the Prophet's death. The order of the suras was apparently not fixed, and there were many slight variations in reading; but of other differences there is no evidence." ( Introduction To The Quran, 1970 revised edition pp. 46, 46).

ME
"Accordingly Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus can boast of having collected and destroyed in his diocese more than two hundred copies of the diatessaron New Testament.50 The Arabs, raised up in the same tradition, upon fixing the final text of the Koran, so carefully destroyed all other texts that for 1200 years it was possible to maintain that the accepted text was the very one dictated by the Prophet, though today we know that it was nothing of the sort.52 In this wholesale destruction of texts to control the past, it is precisely the religious who are least troubled by qualms of conscience,'for how' asks Eusebius, 'could a man who writes against the Christians do anything but lie?'53" ( Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity, Vol.4, Ch.6, p.226 - p.227;
50. Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (London Oxford Press, British Academy, 1947); cf. 2nd ed., enlarged (1959), pg. 211.
52. Ibid., 29; cf. 192-97.
53. Eusebius, HE VI, 19, 9, in PG 20:561-72.).

"5. The fact that there was only one version of the book ever published (with minor changes in each printing). This is most significant. It is now known that the Koran, the only book claiming an equal amount of divine inspiration and accuracy, was completely re-edited at least three times during the lifetime of Mohammed" ( Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.8, Ch.3, p.71).

"Where will you find another work remotely approaching the Book of Mormon in scope and daring? It appears suddenly out of nothing--not an accumulation of twenty-five years like the Koran, but a single staggering performance, bursting on a shocked and scandalized world like an explosion, the full-blown history of an ancient people" ( Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.7, Ch.6, p.138).

Is not Paul E. Kahle an acknowledged scholar on the Koran? Muslims have claimed for centuries that the Koran, unlike the Bible, is completely pure in its text. In fact, Muslims officially believe Jesus was a true prophet of God, and that the New Testament was inspired by God, but that the NT text was later corrupted. That is how they explain away the doctrines of Jesus' divine Sonship, vicarious atonment, and many other non-Mulsim doctrines in the Bible. The hypocrisy is evident when we realize the Koran, like the Bible, is not infallibly pure at all.

DAVID
With this in mind, I cannot accept the idea that the denial of Jesus’’ sonship in the Quran was due to textual "post-Muhammad additions/corruptions". First, there is no textual evidence for it. Second, the passages in the Quran which deny Jesus’’ sonship are just too numerous. (See surahs 2.116; 4.171; 5.17, 72, 73, 75, 116-117; 6.100-102; 9.30-31; 10.68; 17.111; 18.4-5; 19.35, 88-92; 23.91; 25.2; 39.4; 43.81; 72.3; 112.1-4).
You accept that Muhammad rejected the Trinity and that Jesus was true God——on this issue it is important to note that the passages in the Quran which reject the above are significantly fewer than those which reject his sonship.

ME
Really this is one of the major sticking points between Islam and Christianity. Both sides agree to a Virgin birth, but Christianity further argues that Jesus himself is the divine Son of God in the flesh, which, of course, is considered blasphemy by Islam.
If I was speaking to a Muslim I would simply point out that the Bible has just as many, if not more, pointed references to Jesus' unique divine Sonship as the Koran has against his divine Sonship; so if the Bible could be so corrupted to add the concept why not the Koran to delete the concept?
If Muhammed did argue that Jesus being the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh is blasphemy, he would be no different than the Jews in Christ's day (John 18:31; 19:7; 10:36,29,30; Mk 14:61-64; Acts 7:55-59; 13:33,45), nor different than anti-Mormons who consider the idea that God the Father begat an only begotten Son with Mary sheer pagan blasphemy. Perhaps Muhammed denied Jesus being the "eternally begotten Son of God" (there was never a time when Jesus "was not" before he was born but he was "eternally born" whatever that means), and this was later misconstrued as a total denial of Jesus' divine Sonship.
I know this is the weakest part of my argument. Yet how else do you explain how an admittedly intelligent man like Muhammed can claim the Bible was originally written by God, but yet deny Jesus' uniquely divine Sonship which is so explicitly contained therein? And isn't it strange to hear Muslims admit the Bible is of Allah but Allah casually allowed it to be corrupted, but when it comes to the Koran Allah reversed himself and didn't allow it to be corrupted? When I read the Koran myself I got the distinct impression that more than one man (Muhammed) wrote it, so perhaps others "added" to the text.

DAVID
However, that Muhammad and the others are true prophets called by God, this I must currently reject.

ME
Most LDS would probably agree with you concerning Muhammed, but something, I think the Spirit, whispers to me that Muhammed's writings were corrupted (i.e., or why else would 7,8th century scribes burn all variant manuscripts?), so I believe its possible Muhammed was a prophet. Perhaps a Christian protagonist in the 7th or 8th century "took over" the Isalmic religion in order to create a propoganda war against Christianity, so he added a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship into the Koran to make Christians appear as "blasphemous infidels" and thus worthy of death. Or perhaps a "well-intentioned" Muslim in the 7th or 8th century couldn't find anything in the Koran that spoke about Jesus' divine sonship, so he added a denial of it because he thought that is what the ever-rational Muhammed "would have said" if he had had a chance to comment on it.

DAVID
The above is one the best presentations of the apostasy from an LDS perspective I have read to date.

ME
I can't believe translated beings were kept alive with the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the "sole purpose" of giving Joseph Smith their keys 1800 years later, so I believe they were also preserved alive to serve as ministering Angels to save those in the Dark Ages who were worthy of it, like Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch who had mysterious visitors pop out of nowhere to give them glad tidings (Acts 8,10).

DAVID
(Are you aware that Barry Bickmore uses a similar presentation in his book Restoring The Ancient Church 1999...)?

ME
I first found this argument in Hugh Nibley ( Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.4, Ch.4, p.111,136,149), 1948, over 50 years before Barry.

DAVID
Your argument that 1 Peter 4:7 refers to the apostasy rather than Christ's second coming, though solid, is not totally conclusive.
[you cite some verses I comment on below]

ME
"The coming of the Lord is AT HAND" (Ja 5:8 NKJV)
"Exhorting, and so much the more as ye see the day COMING NIGH" (Heb 10:25 YLT).
These two verses appear to specifically speak of Christ's Second Coming, and use the same Greek word (SW1448) as 1 Pt 4:7. So you have a very good objection to my "solid" interpretation of 1 Pt 4:7.
The "present distress" (1 Cor 7:27) is the "short time" (1 Cor 7:29) the Corinthians had to prepare for their missionary calls when they would pray and fast without sexual intercourse (1 Cor 7:5,17,24). Such a condition means they must forsake all their wordly possessions including their families and homes, so Paul adds "for the fashion of this world passeth away" (1 Cor 7:31) to show them why it is better to seek for treasures in heaven than treasures on earth.
"The night is far spent, the day is at hand" (Ro 13:12) . "The night" seems to refer to their "past man of sin" lifestyle, contrasted with the "new man of righteousness" lifetstyle which is patterned after Christ. The closer they come to walking like Christ, the closer they come to walking in the light as Christ is in the light, the "nearer" and "nearer" (Ro 13:11) they get to salvation in the fullest sense, becoming One with Christ, putting on Christ (Ro 13:14; 1 Jo 1:7; 2:6; Jo 3:21). So "the day" (Ro 13:12) spoken of appears to be "the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2), not Christ's 2nd Coming.
Rev 1:3 & 22:10 say, "seal not the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand". The time for what? The time for the fulfillment of the prophecy, "I will shew thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev 4:1). Thus, what was "at hand" was the fulfilment of the first parts of John's prophecy, not necessarily the last parts of his prophecy which speak of the end of the whole world and Christ's Millenial reign.

I'm surprised you forgot to mention these seemingly inexplicable scriptures:

"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, TILL the Son of man be come" (Ma 10:23).
"Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Ma 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32).
"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that WE WHICH ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD shall not prevent them which are asleep" (1 Ths 4:15-17).
"Yet A LITTLE WHILE, and he that shall come WILL COME, and will not tarry" (Heb 10:37,25).
Ma 10:23 is either a false prophecy or we need two comings of Christ. In the same vein as Paul Hadik, the New Jerusalem Bible has this footnote for Ma 10:23, "the coming which is here foretold is not concerned with the world at large but with Israel: it took place at the moment when God 'visited' his now faithless people and brought the O.T. era to an end by the destruction of Jerusalem and of its Temple in 71 A.D., cf. Ma 24:1". I think these translators have the right idea.
"And if he may come in the second watch, AND in the third watch he may come, and may find it so, happy are those servants" (Lk 12:38 YLT; Rev 3:3; 16:15).
This scripture here opens the door for multiple "comings". His last and great "coming" will grantedly be a literal millenial reign on earth (Ma 24:27,30; Rev 20:4). But could he have other "comings" in a different sense? Lk 12:38 refers to a a "second watch" and a "third watch", which goes well with James 5:7,8:
"BE PATIENT therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath LONG PATIENCE for it, UNTIL HE RECEIVE THE EARLY AND LATTER RAIN. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH" (Ja 5:7,8).
Christ's coming in the "second watch" is the "early rain" (which was "at hand" in the 1st century), his "third watch" coming is the "latter rain" (which is what God was extremely "patient" for: 2 Pt 3:4,8,9). The early rain is the early day saints and the revelations they received, and the latter rain is the latter day saints and the revelations they received, which give water and life (water=spirit=Christ's living words, i.e., Jo 6:63; 7:37-39; Ma 4:4) to the world. This brings us to the book of Revelation which speaks directly of a previous "coming" of Christ:
"SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Amen. Even so, COME, LORD JESUS" (Rev 22:20,7,12).

Why would Jesus "come quickly" in the 1st century? What is to usher in his Millenial reign or for Judgment on his Church?

"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, AND WILL REMOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF HIS PLACE, EXCEPT THOU REPENT. REPENT; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, AND WILL FIGHT AGAINST THEM WITH THE SWORD OF MY MOUTH" (Rev 2:5,16; 2:25; 3:10,11).

Clearly, Jesus was "coming quickly" to Judge his Church (1 Pt 4:7,17), not to usher in his millenial reign, and to "remove the Churches" that wouldn't repent. Of course, Mormons believe none of the earthly Churches repented, so they were all removed, i.e., Ephesus (Acts 20:28-31; Rev 2:1,5; Eph 5:8), Romans (Ro 11:21-23), Galatians (Gal 1:6-9), Corinthians (1 Cor 1:11-13; 2 Cor 11:3,4,13-15), etc. First Jesus' own people, the Jews, rejected him (Jo 1:11; Acts 13:46), then the Gentiles rejected him (Lk 17:24,25 w/ 2 Ths 2:2,3,7; Ro 11:21-23; Rev 2:1,5; Acts 20:28-31; 2 Pt 2:1,2,4; Acts 19:26 w/ 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5). Peter clearly manifests this understanding by claiming that God's Judgment on his fallen people was at hand (1 Pt 4:7,17; 2 Pt 2:1,2,4,19; 1 Jo 2:18,19; Rev 2:1,5), but Christ's 2nd Coming probably wouldn't be for at least a thousand years (2 Pt 3:8,9). Paul shows a clear understanding of the fact that a Great Apostasy would happen before Christ's 2nd Coming, "BE NOT TROULBED AS THAT THE DAY OF CHRIST IS AT HAND, let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY [Greek "Apostasia"] FIRST . . . the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Ths 2:2,3; Acts 1:6,7 w/ Ma 24:3-5; Lk 17:24,25; Ma 17:11,12; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5). Clearly, Paul and Peter did not believe Christ's 2nd Coming was at hand, but they did believe Christ was "coming" to Judge his people for a Great Apostasy.

I hope this is enough to chew on for now. I'll get to Paul Hadik's questions soon. I agree with Paul that 1 Pt 4:7 pertains to "the end" of the Jewish nation, but I believe this spelled the Apostasy of God's people, Gentile as well as Jew. More on this later.


Elijah wrote on 9/25/2000

PAUL
1) So are you saying that Islam in its original state was an attempt at a Restoration on the part of God? That soon after the death of the Prophet we experienced another Grand apostasy? (this would seem to make God 0-2 not counting Noah's Ark)

ME
God planned out his dispensations (restorations/apostasies) from before the foundation of the world. Those who didn't hear the Gospel in Noah's day will surely have a chance to hear the Gospel in the spirit world (1 Pt 3:19,20), just as those who lived during a time of Apostasy will have a chance to hear the Gospel from an Apostolic Church in the spirit world (1 Pt 4:6,7; Jo 5:28,29). So clearly God doesn't "fail" when he allows men the free will to Apostatize, he just works on a different timetable than man, according to his own foreorained and eternal plan. If the Angels could sin and fall (2 Pt 1:4; Jd 6), why couldn't the members of the earthly Church apostatize and fall (the chosen ones being martyred)?

PAUL
2) If your argument is that the Apostasy came due to the rejection of Christ and the Apostles and later the corruption of the teachings of Islam, why reject the possibility that the LDS church is also in a state of Apostasy now? Begun in 1830, it was rent with infighting and apostasy in just a few years. The Prophet was definitely rejected by his fellow countrymen and murdered. They were then kicked out to the far corners of the country, basically declared war on by the US government with things getting so bad that God had to sanction a mini-apostasy with the removal of the law of plural marriage. Possibly the Church of Christ branch is the legitimate branch with the emphasis on historical early church teachings of Mormonism and the Utah branch is a more Reformation type branch? Why is God showing more patience with the LDS then he did with a: the whole earth in Noah's time; b: his own people the Jews in His Son’’s time and c: the followers of Islam?

ME
1) The LDS branch is the most legitimate branch of Mormonism because 9 out of the 12 Apostles ordained by Joseph Smith followed Brigham Young who was President of the Twelve Apostles at the time of Joseph's death, and Sidney Rigdon, the only surviving member of the 1st Presidency, never claimed to be Joseph's successor; Brigham's succession was according to scripture and revelation, while all other pretenders were not.
2) Plural marriage was always an optional "law" of God meant for special circumstances, so its hardly apostasy for the LDS to obey the law of the land, and abandon the principle through new revelation from God (Jacob 2:30, Manifesto), i.e., LDS ascribe to new revelation so we aren't bound by the same static restrictions as Catholics or Evangelicals.
3) Why is God showing more patience? He isn't, he foreordained the coming forth of many wise spirits who were foreordained to become Apostles and Prophets in this dispensation, thus ensuring Apostolic succession and continuation of priesthood keys. This was all part of his plan from the beginning. Other generations rejected the prophets, and even claimed they could get along just fine without them, so God granted their wishes.

PAUL
3) I have some problems with your usage of Scripture. In I Peter 4:7, and Acts 3:21 couldn't Peter be talking about the destruction of Israel (close at hand) with the restoration then being a national promise and not a doctrinal promise? Please note the limiting phrase in Acts "the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began". From Abraham to Malachi the prophecies emphasized the Kingdom of Israel so heavily that the coming of Christ was heralded by his followers as a fulfillment of these prophecies, causing them to overlook his main purpose as the Deliverer.

ME
I believe the promises to ancient Israel and their descendants were both physical and spiritual. Since "salvation is of the Jews" (Jo 4:22), "to whom pertaineth the adoption and the giving of covenants" (Ro 9:4; 3:1,2), and "the root beareth thee not thee the root" (Ro 11:16-18), when the Roman Gentiles and others boasted themselves against their Jewish roots becoming basically anti-Semtic (Ro 11:21-23), this spelled disaster and a Great Apostasy. None of the Early Church Fathers were Jewish, so they founded a purely Gentile institution cut off from its Jewish roots. When the Jews apostatized and Jerusalem was destroyed, this spelled the end of true prophetic Judaism, and because "salvation is of the Jews" (Jo 4:22), this spelled the end of true prophetic Christianity also. I think I agree with your exegesis of Acts 3:21 and 1 Pt 4:7 (at least in part), but I would further argue that there is no salvation without prophets of literal Israeli descent. The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and their Prophets, are literal descendants of Joseph the son of Jacob, thus having the birthright to promises of restoration.

PAUL
4) Where do you find any Scripture to back up that Moses and Elijah gave any keys to the disciples?

ME
This is strong inference, not explicit. Jesus promises Peter he "will" (future tense) give him "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Ma 16:19), and after the Mount of Transfiguration incident Jesus speaks to the Apostles as if they already have these keys (Ma 18:18), so what happened in the interim on the Mount of Transfiguration for Peter and his fellow Apostles to obtain the keys?
"And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and ELISHA the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah YOU SHALL ANOINT AS PROPHET IN YOUR PLACE" (1 Ki 19:16 NASB; Lev 16:32; 6:22).
"Let the LORD set a man over the congregation, which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd. And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, AND LAY THINE HAND UPON HIM; And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight" (Nu 27:16-19,23; ).
"And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; FOR MOSES HAD LAID HIS HANDS UPON HIM: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses" (Dt 34:9; Moses was translated: Dt 34:9 w/ Jd 9).
"LAY THINE HANDS SUDDENLY ON NO MAN" (1 Tim 5:18,22; Acts 14:33; etc.).
Thus, in both the Old and New Testaments, authority is transferred through the Holy Ghost and officially/visibly/publically through the laying on of hands, unless, of course, translated beings are the givers of authority and authority is transferred in secret, but revealed openly. Jesus publically chose Peter as his successor (Ma 16:19; Jo 21:15-17). The Jewish way, in both Old and New Testaments, of transferring this authority is laying on of hands. A new dispensation was being formed so it was appropriate that the head of the old dispensation (Moses), and the restorer (Elijah), should be there to restore the keys of their dispensation (i.e., from Moses to Joshua, from Joshau to Elijah, from Elijah to Elisha, from Elisha to Malachi, there was, according to Jewish tradition, an unbroken succession of prophets; Malachi appointed no successor, so Moses was translated centuries beforehand to make up the gap with Peter, James, and John).
Why were Moses and Elijah translated to appear to Jesus, Peter, James, and John, on the Mount? Obviously, for an authority transfer through physical bodies, hence, Jesus promises Peter keys (Ma 16:19), he gives them keys with the translated Moses and Elijah (Ma 17:2,3), and he speaks of them having those keys when they come down from the Mount (Ma 18:18). Ma 17:11 specifically speaks of Elijah in the context of restoration, and Ma 17:10 shows the Apostles believed Elijah just restored something to them (but they were surprised at the time of Elijah's coming since he was supposed to come before the public showing of the Messiah not afterward as he then appeared to them on the Mount). Why did the Apostles believe Elijah just restored something? And what was it that Elijah just restored? The context of Ma 17 is sandwiched between the all important topic of keys of authority (Ma 16:19 & 18:18), and a discussion of translated beings (Ma 16:28; 17:2,3), and a discussion of Restoration and Apostasy (Ma 17:11,12; Lk 17:24,25).
God revealed to Joseph Smith specifically what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the Bible fully supports, although doesn't specificaly prove, his position. Or else how do you explain the discussion of keys of authority, restoration, apostasy, physical translation of Jewish prophets, all within the context of the Mount of Transfiguration? That is the bottom line.

PAUL
5) I didn't quite understand your comment on secret traditions which may have existed during the Apostasy if you could clear that up for me. I do ask though as I have asked before, in light of Christ's promise that "where ever two or three are gathered in my name there I will be also" are you saying that the presence of Christ in these secret gatherings was not sufficient to lead into all truth?

ME
Ma 18:20 is in the context of a Church possessing the keys of the kingdom of heaven through ordination and Apostolic succession (Ma 16:19; 17:2,10; 18:18). Modern non-LDS Churches do not have these keys of binding and losing, so Christ in Ma 18:20 wasn't speaking of these Churches. You might just as well think Jesus was speaking of JWs, Muslims, or Hari Krishna, because many of them preach belief in Jesus, so why doesn't Christ lead them into all truth? Because they don't have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and they don't have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Same goes for Evangelicals.
In the days of Christ, two leading schools existed in Phariseeical Judaism (which later became codified in the Talmud): 1) Shammei, 2) Hillel. Shammei was very strict in his Torah interpretation, HIllel rather loose. So the proverb came, "what Shammei hath bound Hillel hath loosed". Yet strangely each school acknowledged the legitimacy of the other school, although each school taught contradictory things to the other schools. Each Rabbi came in the name of another Rabbi, but none were prophets who came in the name of the Lord (Jo 5:43,44; 7:16,17). Jesus founded a Church with one doctrine, with one law of commandments, that given through his Apostles to whom he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven so "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed inheaven" (Ma 16:19; 18:18), unlike the schools of Judaism who clearly couldn't lose or bind anything in heaven or even on earth, since they would merely allow another school to contradict their commandments and ordinances without denouncing their competitors as false.

The same situation now exists in professing "Christianity", although each denonmination contradicts each other on many often essential points, no one has any authority to say who is right and who is wrong, which is true and which is false.
That generation rejected living Apostles, believing old scripture (OT) is good enough without needing "men" to reveal new scripture (NT); and this generation does the same thing to living Apostles, saying, "I have no need of thee" (1 Cor 12:21-24,28; Eph 4:11-14; 2:19-21; etc. . .).

PAUL
6) In regards to the Apostasy. Hypothetical situation. I am a 1st century Christian. Many of my family have been persecuted and killed for our belief in Christ. We meet in deep catacombs. We have lost all. But we have the joy of knowing Christ. One Sunday we have a great 'service' of rejoicing and praise. The following Tuesday, St. John, the last living Apostle is (according to LDS teaching) translated. The following Sunday am I now attending an Apostate church?

ME
The successor of a King is a King, so the successor of an Apostle is what? Another Apostle of course. Bishops and non-Apostolic Elders are not successors to Apostles by any means, but were contemporary members of Christ's body placed beneath the Apostles in Church hierarchy (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11; etc.). When all the Apostles were finally killed off, or left the scene, the true members of the Church were left to themselves, either to face martyrdom for Jesus, or to apostatize and found their own Churches, usurping the position of Apostles for themselves, thus indeed usurping the position of the living Christ who alone should lead his Church Body through living revelation to living Apostles. Many Church members knew God was "shutting things down", "removing Churches" from the earth (Rev 2:1,5; Ac 20:29-31; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5), so these individuals "in the know" carried on a true priesthood after the death of the Apostles, but didn't pretend to be successors to the Apostles or their teaching authority.

PAUL
7) If this Grand Apostasy and the coming of the Anti-Christ are to combined in the 1st century and Paul taught this in II Thess 2. What was he thinking when he ended the chapter by stating "...even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us EVERLASTING consolation and hope through grace, Comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work." Comfort us with what? Shouldn't he be telling us that a decision has been made somewhere to remove all Apostolic leadership, not replace it on a successful basis for 1800 years and that maybe we should start stocking up on tin foods?

ME
I could go on into great detail about 2 Thessalonians, but I don't think it would be fruitful. Paul says "the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Ths 2:7), and plainly says let no man deceive you as that the day of Christ is "at hand" (2 Ths 2:2), but there must come an "Apostasia" (falling away) FIRST. Will this deception be powerful or wimpy? The anti-Christ, the Devil, will come "with all deceivableness and lying wonders" (2 Ths 2:8-10). The "everlasting consolation" is to the very electt who have been diligent to make their calling and electure sure, who despite massive Apostasy (2 Tim 4:3,4), held out faithful in matrydom and preaching the true Gospel to the end of their lives (2 Tim 4:2,5,7,8). This is the "consolation" prize. The New Testament gives Early Church members two options: 1) martyrdom, 2) apostasy. Paul and the Apostles chose option 1, never speaking in glowing terms of the near future of Christ's earthly Church, but always speaking in very negative terms like "that day shall not come except there come an Apostasy first" (2 Ths 2:3,4).

PAUL
8) In light of Christ's promise that "the way is narrow and few there be that find it" should we then not accept that apostasy (defined as a purposeful rejection and attack on God's plan) has existed since the Fall of Lucifer, through the Garden, the time of Noah, about 25 minutes after the people of Israel in Ex. 19 said "WE will do ALL that you command us" down through history? When has there ever been a time when apostasy has not been rampant? Can the LDS church honestly claim that there has never been a time in their history wherein apostasy has reared its head? Did all 11 witnesses remain true to the church the rest of their lives? Can the Latter Day movement claim that they have remained a single unified church since the time of Joseph Smith?

ME
See Questions 1 & 2. The Apostle Judas apostatized, some Galatians apostatized (Gal 1:6-9), some Ephesians apostatized (Rev 2:1,5; Ac 20:29-31), all Asia apostatized (2 Tim 1:15), the Jews rejected and killed their Messiah (Jo 1:9); but despite all that, Paul still speaks of a great future Apostasy "already at work" (2 Ths 2:7), saying, "that day shall not come except there come an Apostasia first" (2 Ths 2:2,3; 2 Tim 4:3,4). I could quote the many other scriptures, which speak pointedly of a Massive and Great Apostasy in the near future, which I cited before, but you'll probably just ignore them again.

PAUL
9) Let's talk about the priesthood for a minute. To begin with the Levitical priesthood did not exist until after the Law. Its purpose was one of mercy. God in His graciousness knew that His people had been rash in their promises of Exodus 19 and gave them a way unto forgiveness. Hence the Levitical Priesthood. The death of Christ as the supreme Lamb of God, the Final Sacrifice coupled with the miraculous tearing of the veil sheltering the Holy of Holies signified the end of the need for a Priesthood.

ME
So you don't believe in even a "believer's priesthood'? If you claim all priesthood was destroyed, how do you explain the dozens of references in the NT to a "priesthood"? Paul says the priesthood was "changed" (Heb 7), not obliterated, and that the "order of Aaron" was replaced with the "order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7), not that no priesthood order existed anymore. Was Aaron's "order" consisting of just one or two persons? So Melchizedek's "order" didn't either.

PAUL
10) If during his life Christ felt the priesthood no longer legitimate why then did he require the lepers in Luke 17 to show themselves to the priests in accordance with Mosaic Law? If Matthew 23:2,3 is talking about "Moses' political seat" as you suggest, how do you handle the rest of the chapter to verse 12 with his obvious references to religious interpretations under the law?

ME
Jewish goverment in Christ's time was a limited theocracy under Roman rule. The Sanhedrin had authority to impose any sentence short of capital punishment. The High Priest was an appointee of the King of Judae, who was an appointee of Caesar. Church and State was totally blurred, so the Levites served both a spiritual and political function, and lepers, by law of the land and by the law of Moses, were supposed to report to the priests, and the High Priest was also supposed to be obeyed by law of the land and by the law of Moses. Jesus obeyed both the law of the land and the law of Moses. But when the Sanhedring excommunicated and put to death Jesus' followers, do you think Jesus wanted his followers to accept such sentences as "of God"? I doubt it.

PAUL
11) Finally, if you reject the "priesthood of the believers" how do you interpret Hebrews 4:16 giving me the power to personally approach the "throne of grace" the exact function of the Levitical Priest.

ME
Citation that this was the "exact function of the Levitical Priest"? Heb 5:4-6 says high priests must (present tense) must be called of God as was Aaron, i.e., prophecy and ordination. Heb 7 says the priesthood was "changed" from "order to Aaron" to "oder of Melchizedek", not obliterated.

Jesus, the High Priest, himself is the Mediator between the One God and man (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:25; Jo 14:6). Thus Jesus fulfils the function of a High Priest in the highest sense, serving as High Priest to all men in all dispensations of the world, not just individual generations of men. Do you think Jesus didn't fulfil this Mediatorial role in the OT? Do you believe men in the OT couldn't "approach the throne of grace"? Jesus was Mediator to David in the OT, and David also approached the "throne of grace" in the OT; so all this shows nothing to advance the Evangelical concept of a believer's priesthood which has no hierarchial "order".
Many these days don't like "organized religion", but the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is full of it: "OBEY THEM THAT HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, AND SUBMIT YOURSELVES: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Heb 13:17). Who appointed these Bishops (Shepherds/Pastors)? They were ordained by the Apostles themselves, "firstly Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, eatc." (1 Cor 12:28).

Kevin Larson
Registered User
Posts: 6
(10/26/00 9:01 am)
128.206.233.42
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Wow, some excellent discussion going on, but I do have a question:

When we the LDS believe in an apostasy, we look to Revelation and the 1260 years as a sign the Church would return from the wilderness. This puts the "straw that broke the camel's back" (so to speak) of the apostasy at appr. 570 AD. Does this come too late a time? Shouldn't have there been a totality in the 2-3rd centuries? Just a thought, wondering if anyone else has wondered this.

Kevin

Rory McKenzie
Registered User
Posts: 24
(10/26/00 5:44 pm)
198.145.226.201
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Kevin L,

I had never heard that one before. Actually, 570 AD would seem to be far too late. I think most LDS observers place the Apostasy at the latest in the middle of the second century. I would be more comfortable if they placed it even sooner. St Ignatius who writes around 110 AD shows that the churches had already fallen prey to the Catholic doctrine regarding the literalness of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. But if you go much earlier than that, you start bumping into the activities of the Apostle John. So I think the window is really narrow. It has to be after John and before Ignatius for me. But hey, I am Catholic and don't believe in it anyway!

Do you think that this view about the 1260 years is popularly held among LDS church members? I would be curious where you learned it. Of course being Catholic, I would love to find evidence that your Church has sometimes taught that the Apostasy could not have been complete before 570!

Not holding my breath,

Rory :)

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 36
(10/26/00 8:21 pm)
64.12.104.36
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Kevin and Rory,

I have four LDS commentaries on the Book of Revelation in my library. Here is what they have to say about Rev. 12:6, 14.

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary Volume III Colossians - Revelation: "He prevails; the Church is taken from the earth - for a specified period, for the age of spiritual darkness and universal apostasy". (p.519)

Mick Smith, The Book of Revelation - Plain, Pure, and Simple: "The dragon persecutes the woman and she is given two wings of a great eagle to fly into the wilderness for a set period of time...The set period of time in known by God, who is the only one who knows when the day will come that the kingdom of God in heaven and the kingdom of God on earth will be joined together once again." (pp.127-128)

Richard D. Draper, Opening the Sevens Seals - The Visions of John The Revelator:


Quote:


(Verse 5 of the JST changes the "days" to "years", probably to suggest that the stay in the wilderness would be of long duration). This number, as has been shown earlier, represents a period of tremendous trial. The trial comes becuase it is the period of Satanic rule. Since three and one-half, half of seven, which is the symbolic number for perfection, represents the fullness of imperfection, it describes the period of Satan's rule. (p. 138)




Jay A. Perry and Donald W. Parry, Understanding The Book Of Revelation:


Quote:


a thousand two hundred and threescore [years]. The clarification of years in the Joseph Smith Translation rather than the King James Version days is an important one, for the number suggests the length of time the Church will be gone from the earth during the Great Apostasy--1,260 years. If we consider that the Apostasy ended in 1820 (when the silence of the heavens was broken during Joseph Smith's First Vision) or in 1830 (when the Church was formally organized, then the 1,260 year period began in A.D. 570 or 560. But we know that the world had plunged deep into apostasy centuries before that time. (p. 154)




The two Parry's go on to suggest 1451 (Gutenberg's invention of the printing press) or 1517 (beginning of the Reformation) as two possible ending dates for the Great Apostasy. They then say, "We could likely find other dates from which to measure the end of John's 1,260 years, but all such efforts are no more than speculation." (p. 155)

Hope that the above stimulates some further dialogue on the "Great Apostasy".

Grace and peace,

David

Pacumeni9
Title: Webdictator II
Posts: 105
(10/27/00 12:53 am)
207.225.88.73
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Let us not forget that the true church survived in the New World into the fifth century -- possibly WELL into the fifth century. Moroni indicates that true believers, undoubtedly priesthood holders, were round about hiding from the Lamanites.

Let us also not forget that in LDS doctrine, Christ went to other as yet undisclosed parts of the earth visiting lost fragments of the house of Israel -- and we have no idea how long those Churches he undoubtedly established were able to push ahead.

Basically, because there is a scripturally explicit unknown factor here, this really cannot be anything more than an interesting puzzle from the LDS vantage point. It certainly is not a difficulty.

So as far as the "window" that Rory mentions, insofar as we are using that window to measure the 1260 years, it would seem to be quite plausible that somewhere on the earth, a branch of the true Church continued on into the seventh century.

I wonder if there is any evidence of such?


Pacumeni

-- The Tanners' mantra for 30 years has been that the Church censors its own teachings and history. Yet, as soon as they put up a message board and Latter-day Saints show up to show where they are wrong, the Tanners engage in suppression themselves.

Edited by: Pacumeni9 at: 10/27/00 12:58:40 am

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 38
(10/27/00 9:13 am)
64.12.104.42
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


Pacumeni9 posted:


Quote:


Let us not forget that the true church survived in the New World into the fifth century -- possibly WELL into the fifth century. Moroni indicates that true believers, undoubtedly priesthood holders, were round about hiding from the Lamanites.

Let us also not forget that in LDS doctrine, Christ went to other as yet undisclosed parts of the earth visiting lost fragments of the house of Israel -- and we have no idea how long those Churches he undoubtedly established were able to push ahead.




Pac,

If you look closely at Rev. 12:17 wouldn't the "woman" of Rev. 12 be limited to the "Old world" church from an LDS perspective, and the "remnant of her seed" to the "New world" church (and any other "churches" apart from the "woman")?

Some non-LDS commentators see the "woman" of Revelation 12 as the Jewish/Palestinian Christian Church; and the "remnant of her seed" as the Gentile Christian Church. In my opinion, reflecting on recorded of the early Church, that seems like a very good fit.

Grace and peace,

David


Rory McKenzie
Registered User
Posts: 25
(10/27/00 9:00 pm)
198.145.226.87
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: More on the Apostasy


This is becoming interesting. If I understand correctly, the LDS Church has received a corruption free translation of the book of Revelation which changes days to years in Rev 12:6. Perhaps this will prove problematic in the long run. Here is why:

1260 days is exactly 360 x 3, plus 180. A year was calculated at 360 days and this certainly would have been thought to correspond to the three and one-half years expressed as time, times, and half a time elsewhere (12:14). When the number 1260 referred to days, we could see exactly why. It did not mean a lot of days. It meant three and one-half years, also referred to as 42 months in Rev 11:2, as being the time that the Gentiles trod down the holy city. There is historical data from Josephus which confirms the activities of the Romans in the destruction of Jerusalem as having taken this much time. The number three and a half is also referenced by Daniel in 12:7, which would certainly be thought to have had a connection with all of these other threes and a half.

Now David quoted at least one LDS commentary which urges that this number of 1260 years might merely refer to a long time. I understand this kind of approach when one is using the number one thousand. The cattle on a thousand hills, mean a lot of hills, indeed all of them. Promises unto a thousand generations mean a long time. Ruling and reigning for a thousand years might mean a long time. We have this number 1260, which has roots from Daniel and Revelation in places where it had made a lot of sense translated as days, to mean a specific period.

My problem here goes something like this: A student is asked how much longer until he graduates. He replies, "One-thousand two-hundred sixty days." I would get the impression that he is counting the days to graduation, rather than referring to it as a long time. The Scriptures do not abandon common linguistic and grammatical forms in its communication to man. I do not see that the number 1260 in Scripture is used to indicate length except in a specific way.

It seems that the reason 1260 years needs to mean "a lot of years", is because 1260 years don't match any historical events which could make it match with the reestablishment of the Restored Gospel. David has already pointed out why this 1260 "years" in the wilderness might need to refer to the Old World church.

This subject was introduced by an LDS observer who interpreted this passage in its natural sense to conclude that the Apostasy ought to have been complete by 570 AD (1260 years to Joseph Smith). This is the natural way to approach the passage, and I think the only reason it might not be used that way very frequently is that LDS apologists do not relish the idea of defending the invention of the printing press as the beginning of the Restored Gospel. It might be worse to admit that the Old World Church was still Mormon until 570 AD.

Is this translation "official"? I mean, would it be allowed to say that this Joseph Smith translation might have errors of its own?

Rory

Edited by: Rory McKenzie at: 10/28/00 12:14:56 am

Cloud
Unregistered User
(10/29/00 6:25 pm)
128.187.99.9
Reply | Edit | Del

The Church in the Wilderness


I can see some of you are discussing revelation 12 when it speaks of the woman fleeing into the wilderness for 1260 days/years. You seem to keep getting to around 570, but you have to remember that this is years on a LUNAR calendar. we are on a Solar calendar. To get an Accurate date we have to convert lunar years into solar years. From what I understand that would please it around 623AD. I know this might be harder to understand for some since you think 570 is a late date. But it was in 623 (if I have the date right) that was the year that the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire made a decree that the head of the Church was in Rome, that any that didn't acknowledge Rome's Authority would be killed. I don't remember what the proclamation was called. sorry I'm writing this mostly on memory. But logically There could have been a group of believers that constituted the Church until the decree that all those that Didn't recognize Rome would be killed. I know this is pretty fuzzy information but I don't have the sources necessary to explain everything. Sorry. But it is important to remember that we need to convert the Lunar and Solar calendar.

Kevin Winters
Registered User
Posts: 57
(10/29/00 8:46 pm)
216.126.204.25
Reply | Edit | Del

Something to think about...


Rory,

As I see it Revelation 12:6 can be a rather obscure statement either way. In my limited study of apocalypic literature I have learned never to take everything at face value. Thus, as with all apocalyptic literature, numbers could very well be symbolic rather than literal. Likewise, the change of days to years could very well have relations to religious rites or cycles (which is extant in the ancient world, including early Christianity, to a degree that most cannot fathom and which apocalyptic literature is often a prime example). I presonally do not have an answer here though it is something that I would not mind following up on, but we must remember always when we are talking about apocalyptic literature it need not always be literal (or fully literal). Just something to think about.

Budding Scholar,
Kevin Winters

Kevin Barney
Unregistered User
(10/30/00 1:58 pm)
204.48.31.178
Reply | Edit | Del

1260 days


Pacumeni pointed this thread out to me. I'm not much of one for message boards, but I do browse some of them once in awhile, and I did have a thought to contribute to this discussion.

The premise of some of these questions is that the JST
is somehow "corruption free"; the question has been
raised whether it is "official" and free from error.
In my view, the JST is by no means "corruption free,"
nor is it "official" (by which I suppose we mean
canonical, with of course the exception of Moses and
the JS-M) or free from error.

I believe it is often best to look at the issue the
JST has identified and is trying to resolve, rather
than focus overmuch on the tentative and provisional
solution to that problem suggested by the JST. Looked
at in this light, the JST is indeed an impressive
accomplishment for a NY backwoodsman writing in the
1830's. Joseph tries to resolve problems
prophetically which in many cases scholars only much
later began to realize were problems. While scholars
apply different tools to try to resolve those
problems, I personally am very impressed by the JST.

The Anchor Bible reports that Rev. 12:6 (the verse
with the 1260 days business) is suspect because of the
sudden changes in tense. The woman fled into the
wilderness (aorist) where she has (present) a place
prepared; and then a new subject seems to be
introduced, "that they might feed her" (*trephOsin*,
3rd person plural present subjunctive). In view of
this, the AB suggests that the logical course is to
omit v. 6 altogether, going directly from v. 5 to v.
14. Vv. 7-13 appear to derive from a separate source,
and should either be tacked onto the end of the
chapter as an appendix or, like v. 6, be deleted.

Note that the JST changes the sequence of some verses
in this chapter as well (as the LDS KJV footnote
mentions at 12:1a). I haven't compared the two; the
JST certainly doesn't delete any verses, and its
proposed changes are less radical than those proposed
by the AB. I cannot help but wonder, however, whether
JS didn't sense something about the verse order in
this chapter.

Part of the problem some have with the section vv.
7-13 is that appears to have originated from a
non-Christian source. Note that it is Michael who
overcomes the dragon; the Messiah is not mentioned.
JS senses this issue as well; the JST at 12:7 reads
"And the dragon prevailed not against Michael,
*neither the child, nor the woman*" [emphasis added].
Joseph's solution is not to toss the verses, but to
salvage them with a little Christianizing gloss.
Ka-ching! Most impressive.

Now, to the change from days to years. I believe that
the motivation for the change is tied up with a
concern common to all of Christianity, not just
Mormonism: namely, the delay of the Parousia. The NT
seems to anticipate that Christ's return will come
quickly, but it has not. In another generation or so
it will be 2000 years from his ascension into heaven.

In v. 5, the woman brought forth a man child (Christ)
who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, and
her child was caught up to God, and to his throne.
Ok, so Christ has ascended to heaven.

V. 6 can be read as saying that the reign of the
anti-Christ shall be only 3-1/2 years, when Christ
shall return again to defeat him (only in v. 7 it is
Michael that does the honors, not the child, as
mentioned above).

In my view, JS changed "days" to "years" to alleviate
this perceived problem. True, 1260 years doesn't
fully solve the problem, because even in Joseph's day
the period elapsed was longer than that. But you have
to realize that Joseph's changes were often very
*conservative*; by that I mean that he often made the
least change possible to alleviate the problem.
Changing "days" to "years" is a very small change, but
it makes a big difference in the elapsed time between
the ascension and the second coming of Christ. It
doesn't fully resolve the problem, but it helps.

Now, with that intro, consider the following text from
the Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary, available at

<bible.crosswalk.com>

Note that this non-LDS commentary contemplates the
very edit that JS made: changing days to years. So
while I would agree that it is not a perfect change,
JS had a sound basis for what he was trying to do, and
I continue to be very impressed by his effort.

[text of commentary follows]:

thousand two hundred and threescore days--anticipatory
of Revelation 12:14, where the persecution which
caused her to flee is mentioned in its place:
Revelation 13:11-18 gives the details of the
persecution. It is most unlikely that the transition
should be made from the birth of Christ to the last
Antichrist, without notice of the long intervening
Church-historical period. Probably the 1260 days, or
periods, representing this long interval, are
RECAPITULATED on a shorter scale analogically during
the last Antichrist's short reign. They are equivalent
to three and a half years, which, as half of the
divine number seven, symbolize the seeming victory of
the world over the Church. As they include the whole
Gentile times of Jerusalem's being trodden of the
Gentiles, they must be much longer than 1260 years;
for, above several centuries more than 1260 years have
elapsed since Jerusalem fell.




=====
Kevin L. Barney
Hoffman Estates, Illinois
klbarney@yahoo.com

David Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 66
(11/27/00 11:24 pm)
64.12.104.174
Reply | Edit | Del

Jerusalem and Apostasy


One of the most conclusive signs that God's favor had left Israel was the fall of Jerusalem. After 70 AD she was no longer a Jewish city.

But, did Jerusalem lose it's importance? Is not Jerusalem God's city!?

We know from Eusebius that Jerusalem retained importance as an apostolic see. Eusebuis records an unbroken succession of bishops from the apostle James to Hermon, the active bishop at the end of of Eusebuis' Church History (See 7.32.29)

Jerusalem in 638AD was conquered by Islam--could this have been a sign that the Christian Church had lost its favor with God?

Grace and peace,

David

Edited by: David Waltz at: 8/3/02 1:02:29 pm

Rory McKenzie
Registered User
Posts: 55
(11/28/00 2:11 pm)
198.145.228.9
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Jerusalem and Apostasy


As Daniel pondered the plight of the people of God during the Babylonian captivity he was led to pray collectively for the sins of God's people, and observed that the geo-political upheavals were, in repeated and certain terms, the result of the sins and failures of Israel: "...confusion of faces...through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass against thee...confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee." Dan 9:7-9. There is much more on the same note through verse 16.

If political turmoil signified the sins of God's people in the Old Testament, perhaps in the New Testament also. But one problem with the idea of keeping an eye on Jerusalem as suggested, is that from the time of Christ, it has been Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Christian, Muslim, Jewish. There have been at least that many changes of hand. It could be difficult to determine the true religion on the basis of that pattern.

However, you bring up a very interesting idea that I have been toying with. I certainly hold that God's people, (whoever they might be!), may sometimes incur God's displeasure without his casting them aside for another spouse. While there may certainly be an element of his divine judgments upon the Church present in the geo-political sphere, it may also be manifested in the spiritual sphere in the form of schisms or heresies, and especially when we see spiritual judgments spilling over into the politcal world. Obviously, any interpretations would be determined by who you think, if any, represent Christ's Church at a given time.

I have sometimes expressed dismay at the cavalier fashion with which ignorant commentators on the Catholic Church will make some generalized observation about those horrible Crusades. Which one? All of them? We shouldn't have crusaded against the Mongols in Eastern Europe? Genghis Khan was the good guy? What about Spain? Should we have been for the Muslim invaders to have swept over the Pyrenees into France?
If someone is ever informed enough to pick the right Crusade, I will say yes, there you have blame and fault to be levelled against the people of God. And I think I could show how God has punished us for it in the ongoing tragedy of the division with the East, when we need each other and are so alike, that Pope John Paul could say of the Eastern and Western Churches, that we are operating with one lung apiece, instead of both together.

In our day a prophet like Daniel has risen up to declare repentance for the sins of our fathers, without accepting the knuckleheaded notions of those who would lump every Crusade into one, or every inquisitorial office into one. We confess the sins of our fathers, and our children will someday confess our sins. As in the days of Daniel, this is an indication of life and hope and renewal. If you can show me the Church that is exempt from needing a Daniel to pray for it, let me know which one it is.

I didn't intend to write all of that stuff. It just came out. Anyway, I think I'll let it go.

God bless,

R

John Ferrer
ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 2
(6/18/02 10:23 am)
204.116.15.165
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Jerusalem and Apostasy


Forgive me for being new to the forum and new to some of the lines of discussion. But I must ask,

With the belief in Christian apostasy does that include all the people who attempted reform and scriptural roots movements prior to Joseph Smith, like William Tyndale, John Wycliffe and Zwingly and others?

RoryMcKenzie56
ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 144
(6/18/02 8:45 pm)
65.58.154.213
Reply | Edit | Del

Re: Jerusalem and Apostasy


Welcome John,

Let me try to fairly summarize the various views found on this thread, while admitting my own bias as a Catholic.


Quote:


Forgive me for being new to the forum and new to some of the lines of discussion. But I must ask,

With the belief in Christian apostasy does that include all the people who attempted reform and scriptural roots movements prior to Joseph Smith, like William Tyndale, John Wycliffe and Zwingly and others?




I don't believe in any Christian apostasy myself. But that is the theory upon which the foundation of the LDS Church stands. Reform and "scriptural roots movements" must always be a part of Christ's Church. The problem with the so-called Reformation is that when the leaders failed to prove that their interpretations of Scripture were those held by the Church for ages past, and it was clear they would be ignored, they left off with reform, and proceeded to start their own churches.

I am Catholic, but let me play the Mormon for a minute. I am not saying that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or others were wrong. But they couldn't all be right. They differed with each other as much as they did with Rome. In any event, it is apparent that if any of those three were right, that the Catholic Church rejected their truths, and proved itself to be irreformable. What is it to be irreformable, but apostate? On what authority, and for what reason, the Latter Day Saint asks, did they found new churches?

Limiting the discussion to the direct descendants of the "big three" I named, the Latter Day Saint asks to know in what sense, the modern day Lutheran, Baptist, or Presbyterian may be thought to have "reformed" the Church? It seems more to the Mormon, like a restoration was in order. When they look at history, that is what they see. Protestants who claim to be reforming, but seem instead to be starting over again from scratch. Enter Joseph Smith, who agrees with the Protestants about Rome, but cannot understand how any one of them has a mandate from heaven to start over afresh.

Back to myself again, I have no sympathy with LDS teachings and worldview, but I cannot argue with their approach to history. It troubled me enough as a historically minded Protestant, to make me take a closer look at the Catholic Church. The Reformers did not imagine that the Church was an invisible collection of all the believers only. It is that to be sure, but they like Catholics, also believed the Church of Christ to have visible and duly appointed officers. The only refuge for the determined Protestant, seems to be to deny any one true visible Church. Obviously, I was not a "determined Protestant".

I hope this helps bring you up to speed.

Regards,

Rory

 

 

dathorpe
Non-registered Visitor
(8/3/02 10:53 am)
208.187.59.195
Reply | Edit | Del

Apostasy: What needed to be restored


Rory & others,

In my on going studies of historic Christianity, there are many aspects that show up in later centuries that shows that Christendom had fallen away from, some of these are:

1. Christ post-crucifixion mission to the spirit world. What has Christedom done with this important doctrine? Many branches, such as the Catholics, have preserved many basic elements of this doctrine, in the writings of the church Fathers, and creeds that mention Christ's descent into hell. The Catholics have also preserved it in thousands of art works that span through the centuries. The Easter Church preserved it to, to a certain extent, in thousands of icons, illumination manuscripts, etc., and in translations of the Bible. Oh sure, there are areas of Christendom that legendized the doctrine, where hell is personified, but, even the later legends contain many aspects of the original concepts.

2. Baptism for the dead:
In earlier centuries, baptism for the dead, and baptism were considered ritualistic descents into the spirit prison to free the captive spirits held there, and their resurrection (1 Peter 3:15-22; 4:5-6; Ephesians 4:7-10; Isaiah 42:5-7, 1 Corithians 15). Why this rite needed to be restored is because of how it was eventually replaced with rituals that reflect a later retrogression away from the original form. Rituals, that even though they basically serve the same basic need, still have fragmented into something different from what it must have been. For example, the later prayer formulas said when one hears the screachings of fairy-bird like creatures near lakes, streams, or rivers. For these mythical creatures were later believed to be the spirits of unbaptized babies that could be "baptized" by expressing certain "prayer formulas" for them in order to release them from haunting the wooded and watery areas. In other areas of Christendom, elements of salvation for the dead through baptism for the dead, had been changed into prayers & masses for the dead; and eventually indulgent-money that many believed paid for souls release from purgatory. These later developments, though the still retained to a certain extent, the basic concept, that of giving the spirits of the dead a chance to be released from the spirit prison; still, by the later centuries the liturgical rites & masses had become fraternalized into different versions that were far away from what the original temple rituals were like.

Temple rituals:

We have to give the Catholics, and Orthoxy credit for preserving, to a certain extent, many basic elements of the original temple endowment in their later masses and liturgical rites for the dead. We see these aspects in the many illustrations that show what was believed was happening in the after life realms, while the masses or liturgical rites for the dead are being performed by the priests. For while these are being performed, angels are depicted freeing souls out of limbo, hades, purgatory by grasping the arms, hands & wrists of the souls that are being set free. We also see elements of the garment & robes in how that these naked souls are then invested or robed in garments or robes as they ascend into paradise or heaven with their hand or wrist grasping angelic guides. We also see some elements of anointing rituals being passed down and preserved, to a certain extent, in the coronation ceremonies of Christian Kings, saints, and bishops. Hand & wrist clasping ceremonies and rites of passage through different after-life realms, are still seen Christendom's art works to the point that Christendom could be also charged, like the LDS, with having "masonic" symbols; and in fact, some anti-Christian writers have made these charges. We see these temple type elements in the many art works that show ascensions into heaven, or when Christ, saints & prophets go in & out of different after life realms. However, even though many basic elements and later traditions & ceremonies still retain many elements to the original, they needed to be "refreshed," and restored in order to bring them back. Garments traditions, for example, are an interesting aspect of the temple endowment to trace through the centuries to see what happened to this aspect. What we find is how that Christendom traditionalized the wearing of white garments to giving each other new shirts and pants, etc., (or dresses, in the case with females), during Easter.

Marriage:
We have to give Christendom for preserving, to a certain extent, many aspects of temple type marriage ceremonies, for even later Christian marriage ceremonies include veils, & different types of hand & wrist grips, and marriage vows too.

Godhood, Deification, theosis, perfection, exaltation:
We can now trace through the centuries how the Nicene Creed effected the later developments of different versions of deification, theosis, perfection. Plus, how that many later reject the very notion of becoming "a god" as being "satanic" and "a mission impossible." However, we have to give Christendom credit for preserving many basic elements of this doctrine in their writings, art works of Mary's assumption and heavenly coronation ceremonies, and in later mandorla symbols and ascension into heaven up the ladder towards "moral Christian perfection."

The Pre-existence:
The doctrine that the human family lived in a pre-mortal existence in a family in heaven with God; this basic doctrine was eventually legendized, and even discarded, such as during the council of Constaninople in A.D. 553, when Origen's version of it was rejected. However, we have to give Christendom credit for preserving many elements of the doctrine in later Bible text illustrated letters, and art works. We have also seen how that the Church Fathers polemically argued and discarded the doctrine as the centuries aged Christendom. Despite this, however, numerous basic elements to the doctrine filtered down through the centuries as by way of art works that continued to depict the council in heaven, Satan and his angels fall; & the war in heaven between St. Michael and his angels against Lucifer and his angels.

Christ's post-resurrection world wide mission:
We have to give Christendom credit for preserving, to a certain extent, many basic elements of this doctrine, that Christ went to other nations after his descent into the spirit world & resurrection, and appeared to many. However, though we see many art works that depict Christ's wanderings throughout the world, we also can see how this doctrine was eventually legendized in the much later mythical stories about the wandering Christ-child, that eventually became the wandering Christkindl of the German speaking countries, that in turn eventually was Americanized into Kriss Kringle & eventually Santa Claus' annual world treks during Christmas Eves. Consequently, this doctrine needed to be restored too. The Book of Mormon is a witness that records Christ's visits to the ancient Americas, and that he went to other nations too.

Priesthood power, spiritual gifts & Prophets & Apostles:

Even many of the early Church fathers, though they hoped that what had happened to the Jews, when they lost the spiritual gifts, wouldn't also happen to them too. However, many of them even began to note how that the spiritual gifts were passing out of the churches. Tertullian, thinking that the Montanists had the gift of revelation, left the Catholics, to join with them. Other church Fathers polemically argued and reasoned their way through polemical issues as best as they could with their schooling & training in the dialetical arts derived from the Greeks. This is what one church father noted was going on when the Nicene Creed was being formed. He complained that truth was not something to be polemicaly hashed over through debates and clever arguments, but rather through the spiritual gifts & through personal testimony. Hence, as the spiritual gifts fell out of use, "doctrines" were polemically debated over until they were put into creeds that contained elements that were even outside of scripture. For this was one of the things they argued about in the case with some elements of the creed, some church council members complained that the creed contained elements that weren't found in the scriptures. Hence, with the prophets & apostles no longer around to settle dogmatical issues, Christendom did the best that they could through different councils in debate mode. The apostles and Prophets & other leaders inspired with the spiritual gifts, had been originally given in the first place, for the perfecting of the saints, and to try to keep unity and sound doctrines from being corrupted by "false teachers," that entered into the different areas of the church . Hence when this important aspect of the church was discarded and regarded as no longer being needed, by some, it was no wonder that Christendom began to be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:3-25). Paul, in speaking metaphorically of the church likened unto a body, says that the foot shouldn't say to the head, we have no need of thee, etc., etc. In other words, inasmuch as he brought into his metaphorical example the spiritual gifts and the different callings & foundational church leaders; he was saying that a bishop should not say to a prophet, we have no need of you, or visa versa. However, many in Christendom say this very thing, saying: 'We don't need any more prophets & apostles and the spiritual gifts of new revelation (1 Corinthians 12). Hence, these are all the more reasons why such things as apostles and prophets needed to be restored back into the Church, along with the priesthood powers too.

Sources:
www.restorationhistory.com/homepage.html
www.restorationhistory.co...-list.html
Pre-existence: www.restorationhistory.co...st2002.htm

Christ's descent & baptism for the dead: www.restorationhistory.co...nt2002.htm

Temple work:
Anointing: www.restorationhistory.co...nt2002.htm
Garments: www.restorationhistory.co...ts2001.htm
www.restorationhistory.com/skins.html
For other aspects of the Temple in historic Christianity see:
www.restorationhistory.co...-list.html
www.restorationhistory.co...ences.html
www.restorationhistory.co...DENCE.html
www.restorationhistory.com/Wed2002.htm

Christ's post-resurrection world wide mission: www.restorationhistory.co...derer.html

Deification, theosis, perfection, Godhood: www.restorationhistory.com/Deif2002.htm
www.restorationhistory.com/Godsheads.htm
www.restorationhistory.co...rences.htm

Time lines on the Apostasy:
www.restorationhistory.co...ncils.html
www.restorationhistory.co...gifts.html
www.restorationhistory.co...stian.html
www.restorationhistory.com/apostasy.html

Other threads & links to art works:
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=557.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=579.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=546.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=578.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=580.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=571.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=559.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=171.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=523.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=556.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=537.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=202.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=520.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...21&stop=36
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=532.topic

Other threads on Apostasy issues:
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=322.topic
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...21&stop=24
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=193.topic


Grace and peace,

David