For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[Robert_in_SD]

I’ve heard LDS members say they believed in the Great Apostacy, and that “protestant” church communities must also have believed in such an event. This statement seems contradictory to me. Let me explain:

When Joseph Smith asked what faith community he should join, he was told none of them, for they had completely apostatized. My understanding was that the Great Apostacy (that necessitated the restoration) was complete and total. (Am I correct in this or am I mistaken)

If the Great Apostacy was a complete rejection of the Gospel, then why would the reformers not be considered just another form of apostacy? If they are not, then did God attempt (but fail to attain) a restoration in 1500s Europe? Was it a partial restoration? Was it just further descent into error?

And if the reformation was not at least an attempt at a restoration, then why does the LDS Church trace its scriptural roots to the King James Version of the bible?

These are my thoughts, but can we start the discussion with an LDS definition of what is meant by the term “Great Apostacy?” Is it a total rejection of all truth? Is it something less than total rejection?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ronald_g_w]

I’ve heard LDS members say they believed in the Great Apostacy, and that “protestant” church communities must also have believed in such an event. This statement seems contradictory to me. Let me explain:

When Joseph Smith asked what faith community he should join, he was told none of them, for they had completely apostatized. My understanding was that the Great Apostacy (that necessitated the restoration) was complete and total. (Am I correct in this or am I mistaken)

If the Great Apostacy was a complete rejection of the Gospel, then why would the reformers not be considered just another form of apostacy? If they are not, then did God attempt (but fail to attain) a restoration in 1500s Europe? Was it a partial restoration? Was it just further descent into error?

And if the reformation was not at least an attempt at a restoration, then why does the LDS Church trace its scriptural roots to the King James Version of the bible?

These are my thoughts, but can we start the discussion with an LDS definition of what is meant by the term “Great Apostacy?” Is it a total rejection of all truth? Is it something less than total rejection?

Peace,
-Robert

From Adam to the present, the whole history of the world has been one recurring instance of personal and group apostasy after another. apostacy consists in the abandoment and forsaking of these true principles, and all those who do not believe and conform to them are in a apostate condition, whether they are the ones who departed from the truth or whether they inherited their false concepts from their fathers.
the great apostacy which is of importance and concern to men in this day is the one which took place when men departed from the pure Christianity which was restored by the lord in the meridian of time this began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” it was known to and foretold by them.
Paul recorded that the second comming would not be until this great falling away took place
“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;”
With the loss of the gospel, the apostasy was universal

 

[SimonArizona]

From Adam to the present, the whole history of the world has been one recurring instance of personal and group apostasy after another. apostacy consists in the abandoment and forsaking of these true principles, and all those who do not believe and conform to them are in a apostate condition, whether they are the ones who departed from the truth or whether they inherited their false concepts from their fathers.
the great apostacy which is of importance and concern to men in this day is the one which took place when men departed from the pure Christianity which was restored by the lord in the meridian of time this began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” it was known to and foretold by them.
Paul recorded that the second comming would not be until this great falling away took place
“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;”
With the loss of the gospel, the apostasy was universal

Hmmm. I don’t think that applies to the RCC and I’ll tell you why. The great apostasy is to happen in the* latter* days according to Paul. And if Mormonism (The Church of the Latter Days) claims it happened in the 4th century, well then that isn’t quite the latter days.

Second, Nowhere does it speak of a universal or complete apostasy in the Scriptures. For ever since Jesus established His Church, Jesus promised to be with His Church “all days”, even “until the end”.

And the Holy Spirit will “lead” His Church into “all truth.” I cannot disbelieve what was the clear and manifest intention of Jesus who said even “hell will not prevail against His Church”

 

[ronald_g_w]

Hmmm. I don’t think that applies to the RCC and I’ll tell you why. The great apostasy is to happen in the* latter* days according to Paul. And if Mormonism (The Church of the Latter Days) claims it happened in the 4th century, well then that isn’t quite the latter days.

Second, Nowhere does it speak of a universal or complete apostasy in the Scriptures. For ever since Jesus established His Church, Jesus promised to be with His Church “all days”, even “until the end”.

And the Holy Spirit will “lead” His Church into “all truth.” I cannot disbelieve what was the clear and manifest intention of Jesus who said even “hell will not prevail against His Church”

Give me refrences to all of the above

 

[Robert_in_SD]

From Adam to the present, the whole history of the world has been one recurring instance of personal and group apostasy after another.“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;”

Certainly I agree that from the beginning of the Church there was heresy and apostacy of some form or another, either with inviduals or groups of individuals deciding to abandon the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles. But that really does not address the issue. Please define the term “Great Apostacy” as you understand it from your LDS studies.

How does the LDS define the Great Apostacy? I understand (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the GA was the entire Church corrupting the message of Christianity and instead teaching paganism.

If that is so, and the Gospel message was completely lost, why is it that your bible and my bible are so similar? How do you reconcile this point?

And how do you reconcile the Great Apostacy with bible passages that promise (and contemplate) the continuation of the Church through the ages? Isn’t Jesus like the wise man that built His Church on rock, as opposed to the foolish man who built on sand. Mt. 7:24-27.

And did Jesus not make it clear that He built His Church on “this Rock” (Cephas) …“and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mt. 16:13-18.

And does the bible not tell the disciples to take disputes to “the church” for resolution; so that one who does not hear the church is to be as a heathen and a publican. Mt 18:15-18. How was a man in the 17th century to take a dispute to the Church if it was nowhere, and not restored until the 1800s? And if it was completely apostatized, how would the man “hear” the Church at all?

And what about… “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Mt 28:20.

And of course, 1 Tim 3:15 “… the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

I would concede that there is some biblical support for a mass apostacy in the latter days before the Second Coming. (Mt 7:15; Acts 20:29; 2 Thess 2:3 and 2 Pet. 2:1). But these passages do not speak of the kind of early universal apostacy that the LDS Church proclaims and, indeed, depends upon to support its necessity. So, I guess, what I need is for someone who is a sincere LDS member to explain to me the distinction. Is the Great Apostacy, a “universal” apostacy (as you seem to be stating below) or just one of many mass apostacies. And if the latter, why the need for a Restoration? And should there not be some remnant of a 1st century Christian temple and record of unique LDS temple ceremonies, recommend cards, temple garments, baptismal records, etc? Where are the records showing that the proto-LDS christian church begin baptizing the early people of God like Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc. before it was wiped out due to the GA?
ronald g w:

With the loss of the gospel, the apostasy was universal

Could you tell me how, in your tradition, it is shown that the Gospel was completely lost? I see a different record.

Early christian writers from the time of the Apostles onward described Christian doctrine as being quite Catholic, with no mention of the rather unique LDS doctrines restored by Joseph Smith concerning baptism by proxy, temple work, plural marriage, etc.

Rather, we see St. Clement (Bishop of Rome) describing the mass as sacrifice (1, Jurgens, Faith of the Early Church Fathers, ## 21, 27 and 28a), St. Ignatius condemning those who reject the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist (2 Jurgens, Faith of the Early Church Fathers, # 64; 3 Jurgens, supra, # 54a); St. Justin martyr describing the mass (1 Jurgens, supra, ## 128-129), and St. Irenaeus warning that one must follow the Church in Rome to follow the Apostolic teaching. (1 Jurgens, supra, # 210 …it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.]) And each of these were contemporaries of the Apostles. How do you understand that they went so wrong even though they were taught by Christ’s own disciples? What’s the record of their apostacy?

If at all possible, could you (or any sincere LDS poster) provide perhaps a citation to the LDS scriptures and teaching documents that define this Great Apostacy. I’d like to get some clarification because, to me, it seems to be quite contrary to the Scriptures that we all agree upon, as well as being quite contrary to the historical record of Christianity.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[GemmaRose]

This should be good!

 

[SimonArizona]

Hmmm. I don’t think that applies to the RCC and I’ll tell you why. The great apostasy is to happen in the* latter* days according to Paul. And if Mormonism (The Church of the Latter Days) claims it happened in the 4th century, well then that isn’t quite the latter days.

**1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith

Mormons misconstrue the biblical passages which do refer to a “great apostasy” from the Christian Church. They read into the text a complete apostasy. Scripture mentions an apostasy in Matthew 24:4-12; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 21:7-8; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; and Jude 17-19. Most of these verses say “many” will fall away, and not one mentions a complete apostasy of the Church. Another complication for Mormons is that these verses say the apostasy will take place at the end times, the “latter days” as the King James version renders it. The second and third centuries were not the “latter days.” **

Second, Nowhere does it speak of a universal or complete apostasy in the Scriptures. For ever since Jesus established His Church, Jesus promised to be with His Church “all days”, even “until the end”. And the Holy Spirit will “lead” His Church into “all truth.” I cannot disbelieve what was the clear and manifest intention of Jesus who said even “hell will not prevail against His Church”

**Jesus’ promises regarding the doctrinal integrity and the temporal perpetuity of his Church: “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18); “Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20); “The Father . . . will give you another Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16); “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you” (John 14:26); “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13). **

**Consider another of Jesus’ promises: “I will ask the Father and he will send you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans” (John 14:16-18). If Mormons are right about a complete apostasy, Jesus did leave us orphans–for 1700 years! **

 

[mackbrislawn]

The idea of an apostasy certainly allows all sorts of new prophets to come in and fill the gap…Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the World Wide Church of God, the Way International, Protestants, Jim Jones…

Pandora’s Box is opened with the notion of an apostasy.

And you know what? The one thing all these groups do is turn to the holy book of the apostates! A contradiction?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Jesus said, “I will not leave you orphans…” But I guess He did after all.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The Great Apostasy was the force that fractured the Christian world, and continually seeks to divide it, while -]the Restoration/-]Ecumenical Movement is the force that seeks reunion.

“Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.”

- Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 498​

Fixed.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The ecumenical movement is one arm of the Restoration.

No. The restoration (as understood by Mormons) is just as divisive as any other new movement that springs up instructing people to LEAVE their current religious tradition for another.

If Joseph Smith wanted to “heal” Christianity, he would have never founded a separate church.

 

[mfbukowski]

I’ve heard LDS members say they believed in the Great Apostacy, and that “protestant” church communities must also have believed in such an event. This statement seems contradictory to me. Let me explain:

When Joseph Smith asked what faith community he should join, he was told none of them, for they had completely apostatized. My understanding was that the Great Apostacy (that necessitated the restoration) was complete and total. (Am I correct in this or am I mistaken)

If the Great Apostacy was a complete rejection of the Gospel, then why would the reformers not be considered just another form of apostacy? If they are not, then did God attempt (but fail to attain) a restoration in 1500s Europe? Was it a partial restoration? Was it just further descent into error?

And if the reformation was not at least an attempt at a restoration, then why does the LDS Church trace its scriptural roots to the King James Version of the bible?

These are my thoughts, but can we start the discussion with an LDS definition of what is meant by the term “Great Apostacy?” Is it a total rejection of all truth? Is it something less than total rejection?

Peace,
-Robert

Hey Robert, buddy
Straight up, I am kinda burned out on this topic having done a 900 post thread about 3 months ago that got totally deleted due to uncharitable comments. I may stick my nose in occasionally

The Apostasy was the loss of many plain and precious truths. What survived was the idea that Jesus is the Christ, and a few shards of orignal christianity here and there.

The gates of hell prophecy is misunderstood by the catholic church. It is really talking about Jesus going to hades to preach the gospel to the dead, as per the line in the apostles creed -“He descended into hell…”

The gates of hell did not prevail against the church and the savior preaching to the dead. This means the gates of hell did not prevent this work from going on.

Gates of hell do not get up and attack the church, and the church withstand the onslaught of the gates. That makes no sense. Gates are passive things that sit there and either keep you out or don’t. So that passage is about the gates of hell bursting open because the savior had the keys to open them up.

Just wanted to get this off quickly – it’s late and I don’t know if I am making much sense!! But that is my quick take on the issue.

 

[mfbukowski]

I would concede that there is some biblical support for a mass apostacy in the latter days before the Second Coming. (Mt 7:15; Acts 20:29; 2 Thess 2:3 and 2 Pet. 2:1). But these passages do not speak of the kind of early universal apostacy that the LDS Church proclaims and, indeed, depends upon to support its necessity. So, I guess, what I need is for someone who is a sincere LDS member to explain to me the distinction. Is the Great Apostacy, a “universal” apostacy (as you seem to be stating below) or just one of many mass apostacies. And if the latter, why the need for a Restoration? And should there not be some remnant of a 1st century Christian temple and record of unique LDS temple ceremonies, recommend cards, temple garments, baptismal records, etc? Where are the records showing that the proto-LDS christian church begin baptizing the early people of God like Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc. before it was wiped out due to the GA?

Could you tell me how, in your tradition, it is shown that the Gospel was completely lost? I see a different record.

Early christian writers from the time of the Apostles onward described Christian doctrine as being quite Catholic, with no mention of the rather unique LDS doctrines restored by Joseph Smith concerning baptism by proxy, temple work, plural marriage, etc.

Peace,
-Robert

1 Cor 15:29 for starters.
And read about the Arian Heresy. A lot of what was condemned is very close to LDS doctrine. Most of those earliest heresies are very close.

 

[RebeccaJ]

1 Cor 15:29 for starters.
And read about the Arian Heresy. A lot of what was condemned is very close to LDS doctrine. Most of those earliest heresies are very close.

So, yeah, Mormonism adheres to heresy. Good discovery.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hey Robert, buddy
Straight up, I am kinda burned out on this topic having done a 900 post thread about 3 months ago that got totally deleted due to uncharitable comments. I may stick my nose in occasionally

You’re welcome to stick in whatever you want (charitably of course).

mfbukowski:

The Apostasy was the loss of many plain and precious truths. What survived was the idea that Jesus is the Christ, and a few shards of orignal christianity here and there.

Where in the historical record is there evidence of these “plain and precious” truths being attacked by an apostate Christianity? Where is there a record of plural marriage being defended by Peter and Paul? Where is there a record of “eternal progression” being defended by the dying proto-LDS Church? Where is there evidence of the proto-LDS bishops imploring the faithfull to put on the temple garb and baptize their ancestors at a proto-LDS temple? I’m sorry, but unless I see real evidence of distinct LDS doctrine being attacked by a rising “apostate” Church, I’m not going to be eager to accept your belief on the matter.

mfbukowski:

The gates of hell prophecy is misunderstood by the catholic church. It is really talking about Jesus going to hades to preach the gospel to the dead, as per the line in the apostles creed -“He descended into hell…”

I’m not sure where your exegesis comes from. It seems to me that Jesus was telling Simon (whom he had just literally re-named as “Rock”) that it was “upon this rock” that Jesus was going to build His Church, and the gates of Hades would not prevail against “it” - i.e. the Church. It says nothing about the gates of Hades not prevailing against Jesus, although I would concede that they could not prevail against the Second Person of the Trinity.

mfbukowski:

The gates of hell did not prevail against the church and the savior preaching to the dead. This means the gates of hell did not prevent this work from going on.

But you (and the LDS Church) say that the gates of Hell did prevail for a time against the Church - from the Great Apostacy to the Restoration by Joseph Smith. This would seem to make Jesus a liar in Mt. 16:18.

mfbukowski:

Gates of hell do not get up and attack the church, and the church withstand the onslaught of the gates. That makes no sense. Gates are passive things that sit there and either keep you out or don’t. So that passage is about the gates of hell bursting open because the savior had the keys to open them up.

You are misunderstanding the idiom. “The gates of hell” refers to the power of Hell. The phrase was particular not just to the time period of the author of Matthew, but is still understood as such today. Just like today, if I were to tell you it was “raining cats and dogs” you would understand that I meant it was raining very hard - not that cats and dogs were literally falling out of the sky. Similarly, if I were to say (somewhat dramatically) that the Fighting Irish are storming the gates of USC, you would understand what I meant… Notre Dame was beating USC at some sort of contest (probably football given the time of year). So, in this context your reading of Mt. is overtly literalistic.

mfbukowski:

Just wanted to get this off quickly – it’s late and I don’t know if I am making much sense!! But that is my quick take on the issue.

Much appreciated. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

1 Cor 15:29 for starters.

This passage reads:

[27] “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
[28] When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.
[29] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Is it your contention that this refers to some sort of baptism of the dead by proxy? If so, then I think you are misreading the passage. It is somewhat ambiguos I agree, but it could also mean that people are being baptised because of their desire to be with the christians who have predeceased them - or they are being baptised on account of their desire to be raised together with them. Also, I think this passage has to be read in context with the rest of scripture, which is absolutely silent about the very distinct practice of baptism by proxy. Jesus never calls people to administer baptism by proxy. And certainly he never calls for the baptism of the dead, nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the NT that I am aware of. So, really, I don’t think this passage supports proxy baptism for the deceased.

mfbukowski:

And read about the Arian Heresy. A lot of what was condemned is very close to LDS doctrine. Most of those earliest heresies are very close.

I’ve read of the Arian heresy. It’s primary heretical belief was the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. You are not saying that the LDS deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, right?

Also, it is a matter of history that Arianism was an error that did not come from the Apostolic Tradition, but arose as a result of philosphical speculation concerning the nature of the relationship between Father and Son. It is nowhere said to be taught by the Apostles, but arived on the scene as the result of theological speculation concerning the nature of Christ’s deity.

More to the point, Arians were simply not Mormons. As far as I can tell from my study, they did not conduct temple ceremonies. They did not baptize their ancestors by proxy. They did not wear special garments with compass and square. They did not teach eternal progression. They did not build restricted temples. They did not pass on secret grips and secret signs by temple work or liturgy. As far as I could read, they were essentially Catholic, but with a heretical and non-Apostolic understanding of the relationship between Father and Son that, in some respects, foreshadows a part of the error of the LDS faith on the issue of the Trinity.

If you have a more specific example of how the Arians were a proto-Mormons, then I’m willing to consider the issue further.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ronald_g_w]

Certainly I agree that from the beginning of the Church there was heresy and apostacy of some form or another, either with inviduals or groups of individuals deciding to abandon the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles. But that really does not address the issue. Please define the term “Great Apostacy” as you understand it from your LDS studies.

How does the LDS define the Great Apostacy? I understand (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the GA was the entire Church corrupting the message of Christianity and instead teaching paganism.

If that is so, and the Gospel message was completely lost, why is it that your bible and my bible are so similar? How do you reconcile this point?

And how do you reconcile the Great Apostacy with bible passages that promise (and contemplate) the continuation of the Church through the ages? Isn’t Jesus like the wise man that built His Church on rock, as opposed to the foolish man who built on sand. Mt. 7:24-27.

And did Jesus not make it clear that He built His Church on “this Rock” (Cephas) …“and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mt. 16:13-18.

And does the bible not tell the disciples to take disputes to “the church” for resolution; so that one who does not hear the church is to be as a heathen and a publican. Mt 18:15-18. How was a man in the 17th century to take a dispute to the Church if it was nowhere, and not restored until the 1800s? And if it was completely apostatized, how would the man “hear” the Church at all?

And what about… “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Mt 28:20.

And of course, 1 Tim 3:15 “… the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

I would concede that there is some biblical support for a mass apostacy in the latter days before the Second Coming. (Mt 7:15; Acts 20:29; 2 Thess 2:3 and 2 Pet. 2:1). But these passages do not speak of the kind of early universal apostacy that the LDS Church proclaims and, indeed, depends upon to support its necessity. So, I guess, what I need is for someone who is a sincere LDS member to explain to me the distinction. Is the Great Apostacy, a “universal” apostacy (as you seem to be stating below) or just one of many mass apostacies. And if the latter, why the need for a Restoration? And should there not be some remnant of a 1st century Christian temple and record of unique LDS temple ceremonies, recommend cards, temple garments, baptismal records, etc? Where are the records showing that the proto-LDS christian church begin baptizing the early people of God like Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc. before it was wiped out due to the GA?

Could you tell me how, in your tradition, it is shown that the Gospel was completely lost? I see a different record.

Early christian writers from the time of the Apostles onward described Christian doctrine as being quite Catholic, with no mention of the rather unique LDS doctrines restored by Joseph Smith concerning baptism by proxy, temple work, plural marriage, etc.

Rather, we see St. Clement (Bishop of Rome) describing the mass as sacrifice (1, Jurgens, Faith of the Early Church Fathers, ## 21, 27 and 28a), St. Ignatius condemning those who reject the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist (2 Jurgens, Faith of the Early Church Fathers, # 64; 3 Jurgens, supra, # 54a); St. Justin martyr describing the mass (1 Jurgens, supra, ## 128-129), and St. Irenaeus warning that one must follow the Church in Rome to follow the Apostolic teaching. (1 Jurgens, supra, # 210 …it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.]) And each of these were contemporaries of the Apostles. How do you understand that they went so wrong even though they were taught by Christ’s own disciples? What’s the record of their apostacy?

If at all possible, could you (or any sincere LDS poster) provide perhaps a citation to the LDS scriptures and teaching documents that define this Great Apostacy. I’d like to get some clarification because, to me, it seems to be quite contrary to the Scriptures that we all agree upon, as well as being quite contrary to the historical record of Christianity.

Peace,
-Robert

1. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 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; And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

1. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 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; And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

I do not dispute the fact that individuals, perhaps many individuals, would fall prey to false prophets and apostatize. But this passage does not say that the Church would fall prey to some yet to be defined universal apostacy.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ronald_g_w]

Is it your contention that this refers to some sort of baptism of the dead by proxy? If so, then I think you are misreading the passage. It is somewhat ambiguos I agree, but it could also mean that people are being baptised because of their desire to be with the christians who have predeceased them - or they are being baptised on account of their desire to be raised together with them. Also, I think this passage has to be read in context with the rest of scripture, which is absolutely silent about the very distinct practice of baptism by proxy. Jesus never calls people to administer baptism by proxy. And certainly he never calls for the baptism of the dead, nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the NT that I am aware of. So, really, I don’t think this passage supports proxy baptism for the deceased.

-Robert

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Is this a quote from the LDS version of the KJV? It seems somewhat inconsistent with the actual translation from the original texts. My quoatation to the passage from 1 Cor. above is from the Revised Standard Version that looks to the original greek texts. I think the translation that follows the original texts is more consistent with the traditional Christian tradition, which does not support the proxy baptism practice generated by the LDS faith.

In the future, when you quote extensively from a passage of the bible or another work you are relying on for your argument, could you please provide a citation or a link so that others reading your post can verify its accuracy. Thanks.

Also, I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and analysis on the issue, rather than simple quotes, even if its just a line or two from which I can understand how you place this passage in context. I have read the passage in the RSV and find that there is no support for the LDS doctrine concerning the LDS ordinances for deceased persons by proxy.

Peace,
-Robert