Was there an apostasy or falling away of Christ’s Church

[Leroy]

Was there a falling away of Christ’s church, as believed by the Latter -Day Saints

The Bible:

Matthew 24:23-24 False prophets will arise and deceive

Acts 20:29-30 Men shall arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them

Galatians 1:6 After the death of Christ members of his church began to fall away

II Thess 2:1-4 Before the Lord comes again there will be a falling away

I Tim 4:1-3 In the latter day some will fall from the truth

II Tim 3:1-7 In the last days men would have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

II Tim 4:3-4 People would not endure sound doctrine

II Peter 2:1-3 False teachers will be among the people

II Peter 3:3-7 People would walk after there own lusts in the last days

Rev 2:1-5 The Church at Ephesus was in a fallen state.

Latter-day Scripture:

D & C 1:14-16 The day will come when people will not hear the voice of the Lord

I Nephi 13:24-29 The loss of parts of the bible will cause people to stumble

2 Nephi 28:12-14 All the people will have gone astray save it be a few.

Joseph Smith 2:19 All the churches have fallen away

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer to your question is "yes."

Does your church have "Apostles" and such? If no, then that's one of the consequences of the apostacy.

John Powell

[Leroy]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer to your question is "yes."

Does your church have "Apostles" and such? If no, then that's one of the consequences of the apostacy.

John Powell

Hi John Mormon,

thanks for your input.

My church does have people that represent the One sending them and has His authority to represent Him.

I would constitute that as having Apostles.

Do you see a restoration of the previously maintained orthodox position, that an apostacy would assume, reflected in the current LDS religion?

Leroy

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer to your question is "yes."

Does your church have "Apostles" and such? If no, then that's one of the consequences of the apostacy.

John Powell

How does John the beloved fit into the total apostacy doctrine? How about the three Nephites?

(D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28)

[John Powell]

POWELL:
This has responses to both LEROY and TROUTK13.

To LEROY:

JOHN MORMON:
The answer to your question is "yes."

Does your church have "Apostles" and such? If no, then that's one of the consequences of the apostacy.

John Powell

LEROY:
Hi John Mormon,

thanks for your input.

My church does have people that represent the One sending them and has His authority to represent Him.

I would constitute that as having Apostles.


JOHN MORMON:
Do THEY claim to be Apostles like Peter, James, and John were Apostles? Mormon Apostles claim that. If your Apostle's don't CLAIM it then you're in an awkward position to say they ARE it.

Do you have in your church those CLAIMING to be prophets like Moses, Isaiah, and Peter were prophets?

If you don't then these are consequences of the Apostacy.

LEROY:
Do you see a restoration of the previously maintained orthodox position, that an apostacy would assume, reflected in the current LDS religion?

Leroy


JOHN MORMON:
I believe that the original teachings of the Christian church, not necessarily what is considered to be "orthodox Christianity" today, was restored by Joseph Smith after a significant period of apostacy. Perhaps that answers your question.

To TROUTK13:

JOHN MORMON:
The answer to your question is "yes."

Does your church have "Apostles" and such? If no, then that's one of the consequences of the apostacy.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
How does John the beloved fit into the total apostacy doctrine? How about the three Nephites?

(D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28)


JOHN MORMON:
They don't count, Troutk13, any more than God or Jesus or the angels of heaven count. They are special. The apostacy refers to a GENERAL falling away from the truth and a loss to THE MEMBERS ON EARTH of the keys and gifts that existed in the original church like prophets, revelations, new scriptures, etc.

John Powell

[Trout]

To TROUTK13:



JOHN MORMON:
They don't count, Troutk13, any more than God or Jesus or the angels of heaven count. They are special. The apostacy refers to a GENERAL falling away from the truth and a loss to THE MEMBERS ON EARTH of the keys and gifts that existed in the original church like prophets, revelations, new scriptures, etc.

John Powell
But JM, the three Nephite disciples went about preaching, baptizing and making new disciples. John the beloved was an apostle, tell me what keys he would have been missing? And were there one Melchesidek priest left on the landscape, the apostacy couldn't have occured as taught by the church.

[Leroy]

POWELL:
This has responses to both LEROY and TROUTK13.

To LEROY:



JOHN MORMON:
Do THEY claim to be Apostles like Peter, James, and John were Apostles? Mormon Apostles claim that. If your Apostle's don't CLAIM it then you're in an awkward position to say they ARE it.

Peter, James and John were Apostles that actually witnessed Christ, that is the only difference that I can see between these Apostles and my Apostles today. Does Mormonism claim Apostleship in that same manner?


Do you have in your church those CLAIMING to be prophets like Moses, Isaiah, and Peter were prophets?

We have prophets in accordance with 1 Cor 14:3 speaking to men to edify exhortation and comfort. That should be sufficient.




JOHN MORMON:
I believe that the original teachings of the Christian church, not necessarily what is considered to be "orthodox Christianity" today, was restored by Joseph Smith after a significant period of apostacy. Perhaps that answers your question.

What do you consider the "original teachings"


Leroy

[Solly]

Just as an aside, since I am not competant to speak on LDS matters, but the idea of the church gone into apostacy is not the monopoly of the LDS. If you look into the religious history of the English speaking world from the end of the 18th and into the 19th century, you will find a good number of "return to the NT" movements, all declaiming, to one extent or another, the apostasy of the church from its original moorings. This does not just involve the sects/cults such as what became the Disciples/Church of Christ, Christadelphians, JW's, SDAs, etc, but even the Anglo-Catholic movement, and the Plymouth Brethren; the latter spoke quite a lot about the "Ruin of the Church".

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
They don't count, Troutk13, any more than God or Jesus or the angels of heaven count. They are special. The apostacy refers to a GENERAL falling away from the truth and a loss to THE MEMBERS ON EARTH of the keys and gifts that existed in the original church like prophets, revelations, new scriptures, etc.

John Powell

TROUTK13:
But JM, the three Nephite disciples went about preaching, baptizing and making new disciples. John the beloved was an apostle, . . .


JOHN MORMON:
After a while they stopped doing those things. Where are there accounts of the three Nephites maintaining the church long after Moroni is dead? Where are there accounts of John doing the same thing in the Old world long after all the others were dead? They personally continued to have the truth, just like God in heaven did, but they did NOT continue the organization of the church.

The world at large was in the dark, spiritually speaking.

TROUTK13:
. . . tell me what keys he would have been missing?


JOHN MORMON:
He personally had some keys, maybe all of them, but he was not to use them to keep the church going.

TROUTK13:
And were there one Melchesidek priest left on the landscape, the apostacy couldn't have occured as taught by the church.


JOHN MORMON:
The phrase "on the landscape" should imply that priest is clearly visible to other people, doing the things that priests usually do like calling others to positions, holding weekly meetings, etc. John and the three Nephites didn't do these kinds of things after a while. They became rather invisible.

John Powell

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Do THEY claim to be Apostles like Peter, James, and John were Apostles? Mormon Apostles claim that. If your Apostle's don't CLAIM it then you're in an awkward position to say they ARE it.

LEROY:
Peter, James and John were Apostles that actually witnessed Christ, that is the only difference that I can see between these Apostles and my Apostles today.


JOHN MORMON:
You didn't answer my question, Leroy. I'm not asking whether YOU consider them to be apostles like Peter, James, and Paul were apostles, but whether THEY CONSIDER themselves to be that.

If they don't make that bold claim then they don't get to be called apostles like those greats were.

LEROY:
Does Mormonism claim Apostleship in that same manner?


JOHN MORMON:
Close enough. They are apostles like Saul who saw Jesus in a vision.

JOHN MORMON:
Do you have in your church those CLAIMING to be prophets like Moses, Isaiah, and Peter were prophets?

LEROY:
We have prophets in accordance with 1 Cor 14:3 speaking to men to edify exhortation and comfort. That should be sufficient.


JOHN MORMON:
Do they sometimes write NEW SCRIPTURES like the prophets of old did? Ours sometimes do.

JOHN MORMON:
I believe that the original teachings of the Christian church, not necessarily what is considered to be "orthodox Christianity" today, was restored by Joseph Smith after a significant period of apostacy. Perhaps that answers your question.

LEROY:
What do you consider the "original teachings"

Leroy


JOHN MORMON:
Let's just consider one important teaching: a spiritual pre-existence. Early Christians and Mormons believed that their spirits existed before they were born. Most modern Christians don't believe this. Most Christians of today believe God creates the spirit at conception or sometime thereafter.

Do you believe this or no?

John Powell

[John Powell]

Just as an aside, since I am not competant to speak on LDS matters, but the idea of the church gone into apostacy is not the monopoly of the LDS. If you look into the religious history of the English speaking world from the end of the 18th and into the 19th century, you will find a good number of "return to the NT" movements, all declaiming, to one extent or another, the apostasy of the church from its original moorings. This does not just involve the sects/cults such as what became the Disciples/Church of Christ, Christadelphians, JW's, SDAs, etc, but even the Anglo-Catholic movement, and the Plymouth Brethren; the latter spoke quite a lot about the "Ruin of the Church".

POWELL:
Sure, the Mormons didn't make this up. In fact, it started much earlier than you suggest. The protestant movement was a protest against the Catholics for changing the truth. Even earlier charges of heresy by the Catholics and others were charges of changing the truth to a falsehood.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
After a while they stopped doing those things. Where are there accounts of the three Nephites maintaining the church long after Moroni is dead? Where are there accounts of John doing the same thing in the Old world long after all the others were dead? They personally continued to have the truth, just like God in heaven did, but they did NOT continue the organization of the church.


But they could have continued, and therefore there wasn't a total apostacy as taught by the church. In addition to that, President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church said, "As long as one elder remains on earth today he would have the priesthood and could organize the church even though all of the apostles and first presidency, etc., were killed off" (Latter Day Prophets Speak by David H. Ludlow, p. 213).



JOHN MORMON:
He personally had some keys, maybe all of them, but he was not to use them to keep the church going.
But he could have kept the church going, therefore there wasn't an apostacy as the church teaches.



JOHN MORMON:
The phrase "on the landscape" should imply that priest is clearly visible to other people, doing the things that priests usually do like calling others to positions, holding weekly meetings, etc. John and the three Nephites didn't do these kinds of things after a while. They became rather invisible.

John Powell

The passage in third Nephi says that they would be hidden from the people, but nowhere does it say their ministry would cease. And they could have restored the fallen church.


[27] And behold they will be among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles shall know them not.

[28] They will also be among the Jews, and the Jews shall know them not.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
After a while they stopped doing those things. Where are there accounts of the three Nephites maintaining the church long after Moroni is dead? Where are there accounts of John doing the same thing in the Old world long after all the others were dead? They personally continued to have the truth, just like God in heaven did, but they did NOT continue the organization of the church.

TROUTK13:
But they could have continued, and therefore there wasn't a total apostacy as taught by the church.


JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant. God could have continued the church too and avoided the apostacy, but the fact that He COULD doesn't mean He DID.

TROUTK13:
In addition to that, President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church said, "As long as one elder remains on earth today he would have the priesthood and could organize the church even though all of the apostles and first presidency, etc., were killed off" (Latter Day Prophets Speak by David H. Ludlow, p. 213).


JOHN MORMON:
He was NOT referring to translated beings or resurrected beings or spiritual beings. He was referring to normal people.

JOHN MORMON:
He personally had some keys, maybe all of them, but he was not to use them to keep the church going.

TROUTK13:
But he could have kept the church going, therefore there wasn't an apostacy as the church teaches.


JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant. God has ALL THE KEYS, so God could have kept the church going too. The ABILITY does not equate to the ACTUALITY.

JOHN MORMON:
The phrase "on the landscape" should imply that priest is clearly visible to other people, doing the things that priests usually do like calling others to positions, holding weekly meetings, etc. John and the three Nephites didn't do these kinds of things after a while. They became rather invisible.

TROUTK13:
The passage in third Nephi says that they would be hidden from the people, but nowhere does it say their ministry would cease. And they could have restored the fallen church.

3 Nephi 28:27,28

[27] And behold they will be among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles shall know them not.

[28] They will also be among the Jews, and the Jews shall know them not.



JOHN MORMON:
Whoopie-doo. Angels sometimes visit the Earth incognito, but that does not mean there was not an apostacy.

The apostacy does NOT mean that no one, not God, not angels, not translated beings HAD THE POWER to keep the church going. It means they DIDN'T do it. It means that normal people did not have the true church for an extended period of time. That's why there was a need for a restoration by someone like Joseph Smith.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant. God could have continued the church too and avoided the apostacy, but the fact that He COULD doesn't mean He DID.



JOHN MORMON:
He was NOT referring to translated beings or resurrected beings or spiritual beings. He was referring to normal people.



JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant. God has ALL THE KEYS, so God could have kept the church going too. The ABILITY does not equate to the ACTUALITY.



JOHN MORMON:
Whoopie-doo. Angels sometimes visit the Earth incognito, but that does not mean there was not an apostacy.

The apostacy does NOT mean that no one, not God, not angels, not translated beings HAD THE POWER to keep the church going. It means they DIDN'T do it. It means that normal people did not have the true church for an extended period of time. That's why there was a need for a restoration by someone like Joseph Smith.

John Powell


JM,

The teaching of the LDS church as I understand it is a total apostacy. I'ts obvious that there wasn't one, there were at least four Melchesidek priests on the earth, whether or not they were using their priestly authority is irrelevant, the fact that they were on the earth means that the apostacy didn't occur as the LDS church teaches it.

[John Powell]

TROUTK13:
JM,

The teaching of the LDS church as I understand it is a total apostacy. I'ts obvious that there wasn't one, there were at least four Melchesidek priests on the earth, whether or not they were using their priestly authority is irrelevant, the fact that they were on the earth means that the apostacy didn't occur as the LDS church teaches it.


JOHN MORMON:
Were they holding weekly Sabbath meetings? Were they baptizing members and adding the names to the church records? Were they ordaining others to priesthood positions? Were they calling others to serve in the auxiliary organizations? Were they building chapels and temples? Were they doing the kinds of things that are done by the true church? No. They were "incognito" to the world. They had a restricted mission. They weren't even normal mortals.

The apostacy means that the true church per se was not to be found on the Earth by normal mortals. John Smith could not go to city C and ask "Where is Christ's true church?" and be pointed to a person living in a home or a church building or something like that who had the authority to officiate in God's behalf.

Your ultra-strict interpretation of "total apostacy" fails. Even if those 4 special persons weren't on the Earth you could claim there was not a total apostacy because God "is everywhere" so God was on the Earth with authority to keep the church going.

John Powell

[Trout]

John Mormon,


3 Nephi 28:18 says, " they did go forth upon the face of the land, and did minister unto all the people, uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost.


The three Nephite disciples had all the tools necessary for the continuation of the church, whether or not they used them is irrelevant the fact of the matter is that there could not have been a total apostacy of the church.

The priesthood was completely gone from the earth according to the LDS doctrine of the apostacy, which cannot be true if four priests are still alive.

[John Powell]

TROUTK13:
John Mormon,

3 Nephi 28:18 says, " they did go forth upon the face of the land, and did minister unto all the people, uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost.


JOHN MORMON:
The apostacy in the Americas had not become "complete" at the time referred to in 3 Ne. The apostacy was not complete in the Americas until I guess Moroni died.

TROUTK13:
The three Nephite disciples had all the tools necessary for the continuation of the church, whether or not they used them is irrelevant the fact of the matter is that there could not have been a total apostacy of the church.


JOHN MORMON:
Again, Troutk13, GOD Himself had all the tools necessary for the continuation of the church, so does that mean there was not a total apostacy? What the church leaders mean is that NORMAL people did not have access to the gospel. Whether there were angels or translated beings walking around with the keys is IRRELEVANT. God Himself could have been walking around and that would not affect the meaning of "total apostacy" that NORMAL people did not have authorized priesthood holders they could ask to baptize them, bless them, etc. Weekly Sabbath meetings were not being held under the authority of someone with the priesthood.

TROUTK13:
The priesthood was completely gone from the earth according to the LDS doctrine of the apostacy, which cannot be true if four priests are still alive.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, God sometimes still visited the Earth and God has the priesthood, so they probably did NOT mean to include that. What they surely meant is that no NORMAL people had the priesthood. If angels or translated beings or Gods still had the priesthood that is irrelevant.

John Powell.

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
The apostacy in the Americas had not become "complete" at the time referred to in 3 Ne. The apostacy was not complete in the Americas until I guess Moroni died.


The apostacy could never have been complete.



JOHN MORMON:
Again, Troutk13, GOD Himself had all the tools necessary for the continuation of the church, so does that mean there was not a total apostacy? What the church leaders mean is that NORMAL people did not have access to the gospel. Whether there were angels or translated beings walking around with the keys is IRRELEVANT. God Himself could have been walking around and that would not affect the meaning of "total apostacy" that NORMAL people did not have authorized priesthood holders they could ask to baptize them, bless them, etc. Weekly Sabbath meetings were not being held under the authority of someone with the priesthood.


God indeed had all the tools, included in His tool box were four Melchesidek priests.



JOHN MORMON:
Well, gee, Troutk13, God sometimes still visited the Earth and God has the priesthood, so they probably did NOT mean to include that. What they surely meant is that no NORMAL people had the priesthood. If angels or translated beings or Gods still had the priesthood that is irrelevant.

John Powell.



God didn't have to visit the earth, He had four preaching, baptising, church developing priests.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
I don't seem to have much to add here at this time. You seem to think that because there were special persons like John the Revelator, the three Nephites and any number of angels or God Himself around on Earth that there could not have been an apostacy as Mormons claim.

If that's the case then there wasn't much reason for Protestantism since the Catholics had the truth and the authority.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
I don't seem to have much to add here at this time. You seem to think that because there were special persons like John the Revelator, the three Nephites and any number of angels or God Himself around on Earth that there could not have been an apostacy as Mormons claim.

If that's the case then there wasn't much reason for Protestantism since the Catholics had the truth and the authority.

John Powell

True, but I think the Reformation was necessary because the Catholic church had become a corrupt institution. There were however members of Christ's church remaining throughout history.

[Columba]

Hi there. Hope I'm not out of line. But I simply cannot resist this. I'm Eastern Orthodox. There has never been any apostacy in the Church Christ founded. It has not gone anywhere, and it has never been "removed from the Earth". Our Orthodox Churches trace their roots in objective history directly to the Apostles and the Seventy who were sent by them after 33AD when the Church was founded. Apostolic succession has continued directly from the Apostles through the laying on of hands, throughout our Priesthood. Every priest in the Orthodox Tradition cna trace his "spiritual lineage" (laying on of hands) directly back to the Apostles.

For more history about Orthodoxy, please read the following book, if you are interested: The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware.

[Trout]

Hi there. Hope I'm not out of line. But I simply cannot resist this. I'm Eastern Orthodox. There has never been any apostacy in the Church Christ founded. It has not gone anywhere, and it has never been "removed from the Earth". Our Orthodox Churches trace their roots in objective history directly to the Apostles and the Seventy who were sent by them after 33AD when the Church was founded. Apostolic succession has continued directly from the Apostles through the laying on of hands, throughout our Priesthood. Every priest in the Orthodox Tradition cna trace his "spiritual lineage" (laying on of hands) directly back to the Apostles.

For more history about Orthodoxy, please read the following book, if you are interested: The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware.

You aren't out of line at all.

Tell me, do you think that the Eastern Orthodox church is the only church with God's authority?

[Columba]

Thanks!
:)

The official position of the Orthodox Church is that it is the deposit of the fullness of Christianity. That in addition to its undisputed history is why the Church considers itself the Church which Christ founded. We do not speculate if God's "authority" resides elsewhere, if anywhere. We know that we are the original Christian church and that authority was given to the Apostles, our founders, and passed on through the laying on of hands. But we don't say or speculate where the Holy Spirit might be...
Saying in the Church: "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not."

[Columba]

I think I should add something here...it bothered me in the time since I posted above.

When we say that we don't speculate, this does not mean we don't clearly define what a "Believer" is and it does not allow for "ecumenism". Nor would we ever say that the LDS is legitimate as a whole. Clearly since the LDS do not as a whole, subscribe to the Nicean Creed as written and approved by the Orthodox Church, we would consider the LDS "Non-Christian". It is a different religion entirely. For us, if you profess the Nicene Creed, but are outside the Orthodox church (protestant, RCC, etc.) you would be considered a Non-Orthodox but basically Christian in belief.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Just as an aside, since I am not competant to speak on LDS matters, but the idea of the church gone into apostacy is not the monopoly of the LDS. If you look into the religious history of the English speaking world from the end of the 18th and into the 19th century, you will find a good number of "return to the NT" movements, all declaiming, to one extent or another, the apostasy of the church from its original moorings. This does not just involve the sects/cults such as what became the Disciples/Church of Christ, Christadelphians, JW's, SDAs, etc, but even the Anglo-Catholic movement, and the Plymouth Brethren; the latter spoke quite a lot about the "Ruin of the Church".

:thumb: Amen, Solly.

I had not noticed this thread before, but when I initially saw it I assumed it referred to the non-instrumental/accapella Churches of Christ as that is where I first heard this teaching of Christ's Church disappearing from the face of the earth. I find it equally interesting that alot of these aberrations of Orthodox Christianity find their roots in the 19th Century. Interesting times. JW's, Mormons, Christian Science, and the "Restoration Movement" all finding their inception during this time.

Jonathan :innocent:

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches realize that priesthood authority is important. That's something the protestants have been forced to downplay because if it IS important and they got their authority from the Catholic or the Orthodox churches then they're in trouble.

Mormons, however, don't claim authority through mortal hands alone. They claim that those with authority, such as Peter, James, and John the Beloved and John the Baptist returned as angels to lay their hands on the heads of Joseph Smith and others to give them the proper authority.

As to the apostacy, apparently Paul and Jesus think there was one, because Paul said:

2 Thessalonians 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


JOHN MORMON:
Until there is a "falling away" or apostacy Jesus won't return. Apparently, the apostacy was happening close to Paul's time.

Furthermore, when Joseph Smith asked which church was the true one in 1820, which he should join, Jesus told him none of them.

Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith History 1:18-19:
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."


JOHN MORMON:
The appearance of Jesus on the right hand of God to Joseph Smith like Steven saw Jesus on the right hand of God pretty much invalidates the Nicene "3-in-1" concept of God.

Acts 7:55-56
55. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.


JOHN MORMON:
Whether you believe the Word of God or Steven's testimony or think only the Bible is the Word of God is not my problem. Tell God He can't reveal more than the Bible. Tell Steven he didn't really see Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

When you die, tell Jesus sitting to the right of the Father that they are the same God.

Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


JOHN MORMON:
Then turn to the Father and tell Him He's the same God as His Son. Perhaps they'll be amused by your confusion.

John Powell

[Columba]

JOHN MORMON:
The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches realize that priesthood authority is important. That's something the protestants have been forced to downplay because if it IS important and they got their authority from the Catholic or the Orthodox churches then they're in trouble.

Mormons, however, don't claim authority through mortal hands alone. They claim that those with authority, such as Peter, James, and John the Beloved and John the Baptist returned as angels to lay their hands on the heads of Joseph Smith and others to give them the proper authority.

As to the apostacy, apparently Paul and Jesus think there was one, because Paul said:

2 Thessalonians 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


JOHN MORMON:
Until there is a "falling away" or apostacy Jesus won't return. Apparently, the apostacy was happening close to Paul's time.

Furthermore, when Joseph Smith asked which church was the true one in 1820, which he should join, Jesus told him none of them.

Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith History 1:18-19:
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."


JOHN MORMON:
The appearance of Jesus on the right hand of God to Joseph Smith like Steven saw Jesus on the right hand of God pretty much invalidates the Nicene "3-in-1" concept of God.

Acts 7:55-56
55. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.


JOHN MORMON:
Whether you believe the Word of God or Steven's testimony or think only the Bible is the Word of God is not my problem. Tell God He can't reveal more than the Bible. Tell Steven he didn't really see Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

When you die, tell Jesus sitting to the right of the Father that they are the same God.

Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


JOHN MORMON:
Then turn to the Father and tell Him He's the same God as His Son. Perhaps they'll be amused by your confusion.

John Powell
Well, thank good ness for the internal BS detector. I cannot believe this....are you telling me that my personal Church is apostate and that you don't know of any other Orhodox other than "Greek."???? You are full of it...

[John Powell]

COLUMBA:
Well, thank good ness for the internal BS detector. I cannot believe this....are you telling me that my personal Church is apostate and that you don't know of any other Orhodox [sic] other than "Greek."???? You are full of it...


JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
That's what Jesus told Joseph Smith. Complain to Jesus if you think He's wrong.

Where did I say or clearly imply that there was only one "Orhodox [sic]" church?

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now, an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[I'm LDS]

Wow, this is really heating up. I am new to the forum; in fact, I happened upon it by way of doing research on a school paper- turned thesis- and thought that I would join my LDS brethren in defense of our beliefs. I have read through quite a number of these threads and I see erroneous information flowing from the minds of what seem to be very confused people. LDS doctrine does not have to be so difficult to comprehend. John Mormon is doing a fine job with his explications- if you want to learn about the LDS Church, read his threads carefully and ponder a while. Perhaps you'll have an epiphany.

Trout, you are trying to apply logistics to events that occurred some 2 thousand years ago. If you are so certain as to the LDS definition of the apostasy you shouldn't have any questions. JM's explanations in his postings are more than sufficient to debase your argument. The three Nephites and John the Beloved can not be included with the general world population- they were blessed to never taste death. What more do you need to know? If you are looking for a reason to try and refute LDS doctrine, perhaps you should look else where. This is not an appopriate avenue.

[Trout]

Wow, this is really heating up. I am new to the forum; in fact, I happened upon it by way of doing research on a school paper- turned thesis- and thought that I would join my LDS brethren in defense of our beliefs. I have read through quite a number of these threads and I see erroneous information flowing from the minds of what seem to be very confused people. LDS doctrine does not have to be so difficult to comprehend. John Mormon is doing a fine job with his explications- if you want to learn about the LDS Church, read his threads carefully and ponder a while. Perhaps you'll have an epiphany.

Trout, you are trying to apply logistics to events that occurred some 2 thousand years ago. If you are so certain as to the LDS definition of the apostasy you shouldn't have any questions. JM's explanations in his postings are more than sufficient to debase your argument. The three Nephites and John the Beloved can not be included with the general world population- they were blessed to never taste death. What more do you need to know? If you are looking for a reason to try and refute LDS doctrine, perhaps you should look else where. This is not an appopriate avenue.


I'm LDS,

I'm of the understanding that in order for a total apostacy to occur, (according to LDS standards) the priesthood would have to be completely gone from the earth.

If John and the three Nephites remained on the earth, the apostacy couldn't have happened.

Trout

[John Powell]

Wow, this is really heating up. I am new to the forum; in fact, I happened upon it by way of doing research on a school paper- turned thesis- and thought that I would join my LDS brethren in defense of our beliefs. I have read through quite a number of these threads and I see erroneous information flowing from the minds of what seem to be very confused people. LDS doctrine does not have to be so difficult to comprehend. John Mormon is doing a fine job with his explications- if you want to learn about the LDS Church, read his threads carefully and ponder a while. Perhaps you'll have an epiphany.

Trout, you are trying to apply logistics to events that occurred some 2 thousand years ago. If you are so certain as to the LDS definition of the apostasy you shouldn't have any questions. JM's explanations in his postings are more than sufficient to debase your argument. The three Nephites and John the Beloved can not be included with the general world population- they were blessed to never taste death. What more do you need to know? If you are looking for a reason to try and refute LDS doctrine, perhaps you should look else where. This is not an appopriate avenue.

POWELL:
Welcome to TWEB, I'mLDS! :banana:

It would be nice if real LDS persons were to answer the questions here rather than an apostate such as myself. Maybe you are willing and able to do some of that. That way I could focus more attention on Apologetics 301.

John Powell

[I'm LDS]

Hi Everyone,

Sorry about the delay in answering the posts, I have been a little busy with school. To begin I thought I would thank John for offering me a friendly welcome to the forum. I don't normally have a lot of time to ponder the specifics of my existence, but I do afford some time to the finer things in life- like God.

Well, I think that if I am in any way going to alleviate the stress on John I should formally introduce myself and state why I became a member of the forum.

I am originally from Salt Lake City, Utah, born and raised, and come from a family of nine- I am, in fact, the youngest. I served an LDS mission in Mexico City from 1999-2001, shortly afterwards, I married my long-time sweetheart and we moved to Virginia, where I am now finishing school. I am, and have always been, an active member of the Church, however, it was during my mission that I truly began to understand the implications of my doctrinal beliefs. In essence, I become 100% converted to the LDS faith during that time. Now that my history is finished, on to theology.

I feel it necessary to state that I will not argue with anyone about doctrinal disparaties, seemingly incongruous tenets, or putative contradictions within any given religion. There is a right answer, but it is mere speculation as to who is right; thus, any arguing will be ineffective and possibly detrimental to a persons character, and I am unwilling to participate in any such matter. As for sincere doctrinal concerns, questions, or inquiries, I am more than obliged to attempt an explanation or clarification. This means that if someone wants to pick a fight with me, have fun talking to yourself because contention is of the devil, nothing beneficial can be extracted from it, and I won't participate. I am a firm believer in the LDS Church's Thirteenth Article of Faith that states "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report o praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

If there is something constructive that can be said, then please, by all means, say it so we all can learn from eachother. If not, then don't bothered when I don't respond.

[John Powell]

I'mLDS:
Hi Everyone,

Sorry about the delay in answering the posts, I have been a little busy with school. To begin I thought I would thank John for offering me a friendly welcome to the forum. I don't normally have a lot of time to ponder the specifics of my existence, but I do afford some time to the finer things in life- like God.


POWELL:
Do not feel obligated to post, I'mLDS. We all have other things to do in our lives. Post if you feel like it. Don't post if you don't feel like it.

I'mLDS:
Well, I think that if I am in any way going to alleviate the stress on John I should formally introduce myself and state why I became a member of the forum.

I am originally from Salt Lake City, Utah, born and raised, and come from a family of nine- I am, in fact, the youngest. I served an LDS mission in Mexico City from 1999-2001, shortly afterwards, I married my long-time sweetheart and we moved to Virginia, where I am now finishing school. I am, and have always been, an active member of the Church, however, it was during my mission that I truly began to understand the implications of my doctrinal beliefs. In essence, I become 100% converted to the LDS faith during that time. Now that my history is finished, on to theology.


POWELL:
I understand where you're coming from. I felt my devotion to the church was strongest while I was on my mission to Argentina.

I'mLDS:
I feel it necessary to state that I will not argue with anyone about doctrinal disparaties, seemingly incongruous tenets, or putative contradictions within any given religion. There is a right answer, but it is mere speculation as to who is right; thus, any arguing will be ineffective and possibly detrimental to a persons character, and I am unwilling to participate in any such matter. As for sincere doctrinal concerns, questions, or inquiries, I am more than obliged to attempt an explanation or clarification. This means that if someone wants to pick a fight with me, have fun talking to yourself because contention is of the devil, nothing beneficial can be extracted from it, and I won't participate. I am a firm believer in the LDS Church's Thirteenth Article of Faith that states "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report o praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

If there is something constructive that can be said, then please, by all means, say it so we all can learn from eachother. If not, then don't bothered when I don't respond.


POWELL:
I'm sorry to hear that. Your kind of participation is acceptable at TWEB, but this Mormonism forum is intended for debate. You're permitted to drop out of any discussion for which you feel "the spirit" has left. As an alternative, you could mention that you will answer questions in the Theology 101 section, which is strictly question and answer. That seems to be more the kind of involvement you'll be comfortable with than with someone claiming the Book of Mormon is contradictory because of X and Y and then you try to defend the Book of Mormon.

Your view that "contention is of the devil" is one I was taught as well, but let me say that science has progressed quite nicely despite sometimes contentious debates. To survive in the "marketplace of ideas," apologists should stand up to defend their views and take the heat, not run for cover. If Mormons won't defend their faith against an informed opposition because Mormons feel contentious debate is contrary to the will of God then I fear that Mormonism won't survive long. Mormons can't isolate themselves from the world to the extent they could when Utah was merely a territory.

Besides, according to Mormonism the premortal debate concerning the two plans got pretty hot, did it not?

John Powell