A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[jrtrent]

JR…I am often confused but can figure most things out with time. Please state your agreement with the following. Which letter best reflects your opinion?

“There was a great apostasy in the early church”
a) High agree
b) Agree
c) Not sure
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree

If by the word “apostasy” one means that it has become an abomination to the Lord or, in Boettner’s words, a religious monstrosity, then no, I do not believe there was a great apostasy in the early church. However, I do believe that the early church often fell into error, which was the reason for some parts of the new testament to be written. I also believe, along with Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible” that Talmage quoted, that, “. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work.”

Taking a wide stance, the Smith Bible Dictionary said, “This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who gives credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor.” Romans 14 and 15 seem to allow for some differences in our expressions of the Christian faith. Some positions may be stronger and others weaker, but they are still done as an attempt to honor Christ and perform God’s will. I think we are supposed to support and encourage one another rather than pass judgment.

“Coffee is best made with a”
a) drip coffeemaker
b) french press

c) percolator

 

[TOmNossor]

I wanted to offer this, but I am in the middle of another thread:
Towards finding the apostasy, I recommend to Catholic and non-Catholic Robert Eno’s The Rise of the Papacy AND From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church by Father Francis Sullivan. If one is not allergic to reading non-Catholic books, Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops in the Early Church and Barker’s Apostasy of the Divine Church is a good companion to the two Catholic books above and presents many of the same facts with of course a different interpretation of their meaning.

Ultimately, either the Catholic authority developed from a seed (originating with Christ and Peter) guided by God’s authority and some form of divine guidance OR the Apostolic authority did not promulgate beyond the early 2nd century. It is the necessity to choose one of these two options (and a few other things that are clear in my warped mind) that leads me to believe that one cannot be a Protestant (at least not a remotely conservative Protestant) “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

I do not believe that Catholic Answers does well dealing with the evidence that Sullivan, Eno, Nibley, and Barker address in their books. This is one of the reasons that Protestants like James White beat on Catholics with Eno’s book. If Catholics would just embrace what Cardinal Newman demanded, some of these beatings could be avoided. Of course Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy were it the complete picture would make it harder for LDS to claim the authority of Peter was not passed to the Bishops of Rome. But, this is not IMO (nor it would seem in the opinion of Eno or Father Sullivan) a complete picture.
Charity, TOm

This is just from here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=278065&highlight=sullivan&page=4

When I said the above I should have been more specific.
I do not believe there was an apostasy where nobody followed God or sought God (or even found) God. True Christianity survived inside and outside the Catholic Church.

I like Catholics believe that sacraments require authority (we disagree on Baptism). I do not believe the Catholic or EO or Anglican or Lutheran sacraments were valid when the AUTHORITY was restored to Joseph Smith.
I believe the loss of Apostolic authority is the most clear place to see why this authority was not passed on. I do not make a judgment on the local authorities, just that the Apostolic authority needed to be restored. I do not believe the apostles intended for the Bishops to have their authority.
An interesting question, “Where in the ECF does it explain how the Bishop are the successors of the apostles in most respects, but that they cannot receive supernatural public revelation?” I do not know the answer.

This does not mean that God abandoned the human race EVERY. It is also true that if the restoration is what it claims all followers of God will have all ordinances performed for them so that they may choose to embrace this outward sign of an inward covenant.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

When I said the above I should have been more specific.
I do not believe there was an apostasy where nobody followed God or sought God (or even found) God. True Christianity survived inside and outside the Catholic Church.

I like Catholics believe that sacraments require authority (we disagree on Baptism). I do not believe the Catholic or EO or Anglican or Lutheran sacraments were valid when the AUTHORITY was restored to Joseph Smith.
I believe the loss of Apostolic authority is the most clear place to see why this authority was not passed on. I do not make a judgment on the local authorities, just that the Apostolic authority needed to be restored. I do not believe the apostles intended for the Bishops to have their authority.
An interesting question, “Where in the ECF does it explain how the Bishop are the successors of the apostles in most respects, but that they cannot receive supernatural public revelation?” I do not know the answer.

This does not mean that God abandoned the human race EVERY. It is also true that if the restoration is what it claims all followers of God will have all ordinances performed for them so that they may choose to embrace this outward sign of an inward covenant.
Charity, TOm

That is kind of an odd approach. Why would the Apostles teach and confirm were it not to pass on authority for a Church Jesus said would never perish when the Apostles knew THEY would perish and the Church needed to carry on. It was the plan. It was the way the Church would continue. Why teach if it is not to continue?

The Authority was passed on from then till now. No break. No apostasy. Just God and His promise.

 

[TexanKnight]

and, I guess, more importantly, why would Jesus make a promise that He did not give a way for the promise to be completed?

That seems to indicate jesus did not put much forethought into His promise, doesn’t it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

When I said the above I should have been more specific.
I do not believe there was an apostasy where nobody followed God or sought God (or even found) God. True Christianity survived inside and outside the Catholic Church.

I like Catholics believe that sacraments require authority (we disagree on Baptism). I do not believe the Catholic or EO or Anglican or Lutheran sacraments were valid when the AUTHORITY was restored to Joseph Smith.
I believe the loss of Apostolic authority is the most clear place to see why this authority was not passed on. I do not make a judgment on the local authorities, just that the Apostolic authority needed to be restored. I do not believe the apostles intended for the Bishops to have their authority.
An interesting question, “Where in the ECF does it explain how the Bishop are the successors of the apostles in most respects, but that they cannot receive supernatural public revelation?” I do not know the answer.

This does not mean that God abandoned the human race EVERY. It is also true that if the restoration is what it claims all followers of God will have all ordinances performed for them so that they may choose to embrace this outward sign of an inward covenant.
Charity, TOm

“True Christianity survived inside and outside the Catholic Church.”

Of course it did! “Christianity is not a collection of truths to be believed, of laws to be obeyed, of prohibitions. Christianity is a person, one who loved us so much, one who calls for our love. Christianity is Christ.” -Óscar Romero

“True Christianity” is Christ, and such a truth doesn’t wax and wain based on the strengths and weaknesses of humans. Jesus is God, and God is not reliant on us.

" I do not believe the Catholic or EO or Anglican or Lutheran sacraments were valid when the AUTHORITY was restored to Joseph Smith."

Why? What is your evidence for a lost authority?

The evidence for authority being handed on by the Apostles, is strong. You have to ignore 2000 years of priesthood ordinations, that go directly back to Apostles, and therefore, Jesus. What more do you want or expect?

 

[TOmNossor]

That is kind of an odd approach. Why would the Apostles teach and confirm were it not to pass on authority for a Church Jesus said would never perish when the Apostles knew THEY would perish and the Church needed to carry on. It was the plan. It was the way the Church would continue. Why teach if it is not to continue?

The Authority was passed on from then till now. No break. No apostasy. Just God and His promise.

I can offer some thoughts on WHY, but I do not know for certain.
I will suggest that were you a Jew in 120AD, and you thought as you seem to think, you would reject Christianity. ALL Jews knew that God promised them a savior, the conquering king. Virtually no Jews expected the “suffering servant.” Why would God the King of the universe send a (insert descriptive words an irreverent Jew might use to describe my Lord that I do not want to produce) fellow. God would redeem His chosen people and rescue them from the oppression they experienced.
Let me suggest that the evidence makes the continuity of the Apostolic authority VERY suspect. Why would the Catholic Church teach that the Bishop of Rome is at the head of Christianity and this has always been the case when history suggests that the Church in Rome was lead by a group of men as late as the beginning of the second century? Which one was at the head of the church? Why would God rely on some form of organic DEVELOPMENT to establish His church when He could have explained clearly to the Apostles that the Bishops would succeed them and would have a lesser authority, but still be the head of the church? It does not make sense to me.

Perhaps the Jew needs to know that Christ was born, Christ was killed, Christ rose from the dead.
Perhaps the Catholic needs to know that the Bride of Christ was born at Pentecost, the Bride of Christ fled into the wilderness (apostasy - at least with respect to the authority to act in God’s name Catholics and LDS believe exists), and the Bride of Christ was resurrected (restored).
That makes sense to me!!!
Of course, I do not think God’s plans must align perfectly with what makes sense to me (or you). God’s ways are higher than our ways.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

and, I guess, more importantly, why would Jesus make a promise that He did not give a way for the promise to be completed?

That seems to indicate jesus did not put much forethought into His promise, doesn’t it?
I hardly think Christ didn’t know the trajectory of the church.
I believe the time in history when God’s people would kill Him, intersected perfectly with the time in history when the Roman Empire would allow for the teaching and protecting of God’s witness, intersected perfectly with the time in which the fullness of the gospel could not be preserved. Part of this IMO is the sacred (and secret) rites of the Temple.
So, I think Christ was with the church that lacked apostolic authority and with Christians in and out of the church. I think Christ was with the Reformers though they claimed no authority. I think the fullness of Christ’s church was then restored.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“I do not believe the Catholic or EO or Anglican or Lutheran sacraments were valid when the AUTHORITY was restored to Joseph Smith.”

Why? What is your evidence for a lost authority?

The evidence for authority being handed on by the Apostles, is strong. You have to ignore 2000 years of priesthood ordinations, that go directly back to Apostles, and therefore, Jesus. What more do you want or expect?
Rebecca,
What evidence do you have that this authority was handed down?
The collection of books I offered above written by Catholics and non-Catholics do not align with the simplistic apologetics presented by Hahn, Akins, Keating, and Madrid. They just do not. Without 10x the DEVELOPMENT acknowledged by these men (who do not speak of development at all unless pressed - so maybe the critics are right and Newman’s development theory is really the last vestige of his Protestantism) you do not get apostolic succession.
The Bishop of Rome was not even first among equals for a long time. My recollection from Eno’s book is that you begin to see the Bishop or Rome claim his authority well over a century after the death of Peter. His authority is not accepted as valid in any way for much longer than this. EOs still reject his primacy.
Have you read 1st Clement? Is it from the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church? Does it claim that the Bishop of Rome has the same authority as Moses who was the head of God’s church on earth during his day? There are many other reasons that MOST scholars do not see an exercise of Papal Authority until centuries after the death of Peter.
Does Rome claim primacy because Peter was the head of the apostles, or because Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome?
There are huge holes in the theory of apostolic succession I see offered on Catholic Answers.
Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Perhaps the Catholic needs to know that the Bride of Christ was born at Pentecost, the Bride of Christ fled into the wilderness (apostasy - at least with respect to the authority to act in God’s name Catholics and LDS believe exists), and the Bride of Christ was resurrected (restored).
That makes sense to me!!!

I have noted that if one finds a few parallels between Mormonism and the writings of a preceding writer, one will find more. In another book, other than View of the Hebrews, Ethan Smith wrote something very similar to what you just wrote. And there are parallels with Ethan Smith’s writings also in the Pratt brothers’ speeches in the JoD.

We believe that those passages in Revelation refer to Mary. Sorry.

 

[kimg901]

Written by Tom; So, I think Christ was with the church that lacked apostolic authority and with Christians in and out of the church. I think Christ was with the Reformers though they claimed no authority. I think the fullness of Christ’s church was then restored.

So you think Christ was with the church? Uh, Christ is the Authority so how can it lack? Christ has always been with His Church so there is no need for a restoration. You sure think alot but you dont know. What part of Christ saying 'He would never leave His Church" dont you understand? Hence, Christ is a liar or He just didnt know what He was doing. This is what you lds folk are saying but yet you call yourself christian. Dont make no sense guy.

 

[TexanKnight]

I can offer some thoughts on WHY, but I do not know for certain.
I will suggest that were you a Jew in 120AD, and you thought as you seem to think, you would reject Christianity. ALL Jews knew that God promised them a savior, the conquering king. Virtually no Jews expected the “suffering servant.” Why would God the King of the universe send a (insert descriptive words an irreverent Jew might use to describe my Lord that I do not want to produce) fellow. God would redeem His chosen people and rescue them from the oppression they experienced.
Let me suggest that the evidence makes the continuity of the Apostolic authority VERY suspect. Why would the Catholic Church teach that the Bishop of Rome is at the head of Christianity and this has always been the case when history suggests that the Church in Rome was lead by a group of men as late as the beginning of the second century? Which one was at the head of the church? Why would God rely on some form of organic DEVELOPMENT to establish His church when He could have explained clearly to the Apostles that the Bishops would succeed them and would have a lesser authority, but still be the head of the church? It does not make sense to me.

Perhaps the Jew needs to know that Christ was born, Christ was killed, Christ rose from the dead.
Perhaps the Catholic needs to know that the Bride of Christ was born at Pentecost, the Bride of Christ fled into the wilderness (apostasy - at least with respect to the authority to act in God’s name Catholics and LDS believe exists), and the Bride of Christ was resurrected (restored).
That makes sense to me!!!
Of course, I do not think God’s plans must align perfectly with what makes sense to me (or you). God’s ways are higher than our ways.
Charity, TOm

So you are making excuses for Jesus to lie? I cannot accept that

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
What evidence do you have that this authority was handed down?
The collection of books I offered above written by Catholics and non-Catholics do not align with the simplistic apologetics presented by Hahn, Akins, Keating, and Madrid. They just do not. Without 10x the DEVELOPMENT acknowledged by these men (who do not speak of development at all unless pressed - so maybe the critics are right and Newman’s development theory is really the last vestige of his Protestantism) you do not get apostolic succession.
The Bishop of Rome was not even first among equals for a long time. My recollection from Eno’s book is that you begin to see the Bishop or Rome claim his authority well over a century after the death of Peter. His authority is not accepted as valid in any way for much longer than this. EOs still reject his primacy.
Have you read 1st Clement? Is it from the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church? Does it claim that the Bishop of Rome has the same authority as Moses who was the head of God’s church on earth during his day? There are many other reasons that MOST scholars do not see an exercise of Papal Authority until centuries after the death of Peter.
Does Rome claim primacy because Peter was the head of the apostles, or because Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome?
There are huge holes in the theory of apostolic succession I see offered on Catholic Answers.
Charity, TOm

Roman Catholics hold no belief, and do not teach that the authority of the Church rests in the Pope. The authority of the Church rests in Jesus Christ, who is also the head of the Church. We, the baptized, are the Body of Christ, including the laity our bishops, priest and deacons.

Whether or not you believe Peter was the head, or that going forward any one Bishop held primacy above the others, really does not address the handing on of priesthood authority, as this authority is not, and never has been, held by a single person. There were Twelve ordained at the beginning, and they in turn ordained more, by the layng on of hands, and those did the same, all the way to today. Why deny historical fact?

In other words, there is no such thing as an ordained Pope. The Pope is an ordained bishop, just like all our bishops, the Papacy is his office. There being many offices in the Catholic churches, ordination to the priesthood being a requirement of installment.

At any rate, Jesus did not hand over a handbook of instructions on how His Church should be run. He appointed Apostles, who led by the Holy Spirit, led Christ’s Church. This same guidance is given to our bishops today.

You still have not said what you expect to see.

 

[TexanKnight]

I hardly think Christ didn’t know the trajectory of the church.

Then you must agree that, if Jesus made a promise…and he KNEW his apostles would die, wouldn’t there be a plan for his promise to come true? Doesn’t it seem to be a cruel Jesus would send his best friend and Apostles to die horrible deaths for a thing that would die with them after He made a promise it would never die?

 

[jrtrent]

What part of Christ saying 'He would never leave His Church" dont you understand?

This point has been brought up a few times in the thread, but I don’t recall seeing specifics about this promise. I’m curious if some or all references to such a promise are intended for all future history of the church, or if they refer specifically to a shorter time period, such as that period of tribulation that was to be fulfilled before the “this generation” He was speaking to had passed. Perhaps the promises were not to a corporate entity called the church but to specific people He was addressing at the time. Knowing which scriptures are being referred to as containing the promises would help.

Obviously, people can interpret scripture differently. For example, the footnote to Matthew 28:20 in my Douay-Rheims Bible says verses 19 and 20 “clearly demonstrate the infallibility and indefectibility of the one, holy, Catholic Church, which all are commanded to hear and obey.” Jeff Lindsay, whom I referenced before, a Mormon writer (though writing as a member of the church, not speaking for the church) said of that same passage, “In Matthew 28:20, the Greek has Jesus saying that he will be with the church until the end of the “aion” – which means “eon,” “epoch,” “age,” or “period.” We believe that Jesus was with His Church until the end of that dispensation. Then came the apostasy. But for those who follow Him in any age, He is always there.” Maybe the other “promise” passages are also capable of more than one interpretation.

 

[Porknpie]

This point has been brought up a few times in the thread, but I don’t recall seeing specifics about this promise. I’m curious if some or all references to such a promise are intended for all future history of the church, or if they refer specifically to a shorter time period, such as that period of tribulation that was to be fulfilled before the “this generation” He was speaking to had passed. Perhaps the promises were not to a corporate entity called the church but to specific people He was addressing at the time. Knowing which scriptures are being referred to as containing the promises would help.

Obviously, people can interpret scripture differently. For example, the footnote to Matthew 28:20 in my Douay-Rheims Bible says verses 19 and 20 “clearly demonstrate the infallibility and indefectibility of the one, holy, Catholic Church, which all are commanded to hear and obey.” **Jeff Lindsay, whom I referenced before, a Mormon writer (**though writing as a member of the church, not speaking for the church) said of that same passage, “In Matthew 28:20, the Greek has Jesus saying that he will be with the church until the end of the “aion” – which means “eon,” “epoch,” “age,” or “period.” We believe that Jesus was with His Church until the end of that dispensation. Then came the apostasy. But for those who follow Him in any age, He is always there.” Maybe the other “promise” passages are also capable of more than one interpretation.

JR, you are implying that Jesus lied when he said in Galatians:

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

you = the Church
truth = the Truth…not a contradicting gospel that St Paul warns not to follow - he says so twice for emphasis - even from an angel (Moroni). You want to believe in a man with his head in a hat who’s writings have proven to be grossly in error?

“And the gates of hell shall not prevail” … shall… not…shall… never…ever…prevail.

If you can not trust this Church on faith and morals…a church that you claim immediately went into apostasy, then you can not trust that it canonized the right books in the bible that you are reading (out of several hundred writings that were available).

No apostasy…“the Church numbers grew greatly, guided by the Holy Spirit”…All the way to 1.2B today…up to 1.5B including the Orthodox…as promised, the visible “light of the world” set upon the mountain top.

Christ’s promise is literal. He shall be with his Church on earth until the end of time…no gaps in time does he leave it…guiding and protecting it in Truth.

 

[TOmNossor]

Written by Tom; So, I think Christ was with the church that lacked apostolic authority and with Christians in and out of the church. I think Christ was with the Reformers though they claimed no authority. I think the fullness of Christ’s church was then restored.

So you think Christ was with the church? Uh, Christ is the Authority so how can it lack? Christ has always been with His Church so there is no need for a restoration. You sure think alot but you dont know. What part of Christ saying 'He would never leave His Church" dont you understand? Hence, Christ is a liar or He just didnt know what He was doing. This is what you lds folk are saying but yet you call yourself christian. Dont make no sense guy.
Do you not think Christ is with Protestant churches? Do you not think Christ is with the CoJCoLDS. I just do not believe Christ is as absent as you believe He is. And still I do not believe there is valid Priesthood authority in Catholicism or Protestantism.

Also, earlier I said,

TOmNossor:
(insert descriptive words an irreverent Jew might use to describe my Lord that I do not want to produce)
This is because I respect Jesus Christ in a way that I do not believe is evident the mocking way you, kimg901, and TexasKnight talk.

I understand your purpose is to disrespect my view of Christ and to taunt me, and you have succeeded at saying something I find offensive. I do not want to speak as you do. The closest I could come was above.

I doubt that you lack a love for your (and my) Savior, but your words IMO are problematic.

Charity, TOm

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Rebecca,
What evidence do you have that this authority was handed down?
The collection of books I offered above written by Catholics and non-Catholics do not align with the simplistic apologetics presented by Hahn, Akins, Keating, and Madrid. They just do not. Without 10x the DEVELOPMENT acknowledged by these men (who do not speak of development at all unless pressed - so maybe the critics are right and Newman’s development theory is really the last vestige of his Protestantism) you do not get apostolic succession.
The Bishop of Rome was not even first among equals for a long time. My recollection from Eno’s book is that you begin to see the Bishop or Rome claim his authority well over a century after the death of Peter. His authority is not accepted as valid in any way for much longer than this. EOs still reject his primacy.
Have you read 1st Clement? Is it from the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church? Does it claim that the Bishop of Rome has the same authority as Moses who was the head of God’s church on earth during his day? There are many other reasons that MOST scholars do not see an exercise of Papal Authority until centuries after the death of Peter.
Does Rome claim primacy because Peter was the head of the apostles, or because Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome?
There are huge holes in the theory of apostolic succession I see offered on Catholic Answers.
Charity, TOm

How early do you consider “early enough” for the Roman pontiffs’ claims to be the successors of Peter should be in order to be valid?

Because, historically speaking, if it occurred within one, two, or even three centuries after Christ’s death, it’s still a very small amount of time. There are indications by the Early Church Fathers that seem to suggest that there is something authoritative about the See of Rome.

Irenaeus in 180 AD spoke of Rome’s “preeminent authority” and that “every church should agree with this church” because of its careful preservation of apostolic tradition.

Cyprian in 246 AD speaks of the unity and primacy of Peter’s chair, and the necessity of all the Church to unite itself around it.

Historically, this is an insignificant amount of time. And already we see evidence beginning to mount that there is something special about the See of Rome.

Sure, the Orthodox will reject it, and they will only claim it to be a primacy of honor, but the fact remains that the early Church did recognize something special about the Church in Rome.

 

[jrtrent]

JR, you are implying that Jesus lied when he said in Galatians:

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

you = the Church
truth = the Truth

I think you’re referring to John 16:13. That passage comes from Jesus’s speaking with his disciples in the upper room and is referring to the soon-coming of the Holy Spirit. And no, I don’t think Jesus lied about that at all. The New Geneva Study Bible offers this note, “He will guide you into all truth. This refers to the truth about God, not temporal knowledge of every kind. This Spirit guided the New Testament writers who prepared the new written revelation that would take its place beside the Old Testament Scriptures. The Spirit will remind the writers of the past (14:26; the Gospels), interpret the gospel for the present (14:26; 15:26; Acts and the Epistles), and reveal things to come (Rev. 1:19).”

…not a contradicting gospel that St Paul warns not to follow - he says so twice for emphasis - even from an angel (Moroni). You want to believe in a man with his head in a hat who’s writings have proven to be grossly in error?

No, I have serious doubts about Joseph Smith, and his successors, being a prophet, seer, and revelator. That’s one of the reasons I’m no longer a Mormon. But the passage you seem to be referring to here is Galatians 1:6-9, which is about not adding requirements for salvation that are in addition to faith in Christ; specifically, he was warning against the insistence by some, probably Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, that certain Old Covenant ceremonies and standards were prerequisites to salvation. I don’t know what this passage has to say about the existence or not of a “great apostasy” other than to point out that error had crept into the church at a very early stage.

“And the gates of hell shall not prevail” … shall… not…shall… never…ever…prevail.

If you can not trust this Church on faith and morals…a church that you claim immediately went into apostasy, then you can not trust that it canonized the right books in the bible that you are reading (out of several hundred writings that were available).

Matthew 16:18 says that the gates of Hades shall not prevail. My study Bibles indicate that this means that “even death, the ultimate weapon of Satan (cf. Heb. 2:14,15), has no power to stop the church.” Some people believe that the deaths of martyrs actually increased both the size and spiritual power of the church. I don’t know what that says about a time frame or the possibility or impossibility of a later apostasy, but on that issue, I make no claim that the church went immediately into apostasy. I believe I said in post #120 that, while I don’t think any one church has everything right, I don’t believe in so thorough a denial of the truth as is implied in phrases like “great apostasy,” but I don’t have scriptural grounds for saying someone else is wrong who does believe in an apostasy.

 

[jrtrent]

Do you not think Christ is with Protestant churches? Do you not think Christ is with the CoJCoLDS. I just do not believe Christ is as absent as you believe He is. And still I do not believe there is valid Priesthood authority in Catholicism or Protestantism

That’s an interesting question. I, too, believe Christ to be more present in more different church organizations than some tend to believe (yes, even the Mormon church, though I am no longer a member). I’m curious as to the extent you think Christ might be present in different faiths, though, because I had thought that the passage below from Joseph Smith’s first vision kind of ruled out much in the way of adherence to Christ among the churches available to Joseph Smith.

“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.’”

 

[TexanKnight]

Do you not think Christ is with Protestant churches? Do you not think Christ is with the CoJCoLDS. I just do not believe Christ is as absent as you believe He is. And still I do not believe there is valid Priesthood authority in Catholicism or Protestantism.

Also, earlier I said,

This is because I respect Jesus Christ in a way that I do not believe is evident the mocking way you, kimg901, and TexasKnight talk.

I have mocked no one. I simply will not tolerate any notion that paints Jesus to be a liar, weak, or cruel, as the notion of an apostasy does.

I understand your purpose is to disrespect my view of Christ and to taunt me, and you have succeeded at saying something I find offensive. I do not want to speak as you do. The closest I could come was above.

I have disrespected no one. I have disrespected a teachings that paints Jesus to be a liar, weak, or cruel.