LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[ParkerD]

Soren1,
I have read the three posts that I placed successively earlier today, and agree with much of what you wrote, but I think the major points of disagreement are–

1. Whether the prophecy in Jeremiah 33, given the context of the prophecies also of Hosea in the entire book of Hosea, can be considered to be completely fulfilled at the time of the apostles or even today. I don’t think they can be considered to be completely fulfilled. If so, many, many Jews would be believers in Christ and would have joined together with a recognized and known tribe of Ephraim into one united group with a leader to lead both covenant groups as one (that eventual leader will be Christ).
2. Whether the words of the following statement from you are correct (and which I disagree with):

Quote:
Part of the blessing that God covenants to the Levites is the perpetuity of their priesthood on earth forever (Num 18:8, Lev 7:34).

Numbers 18:8 talks about an “anointing” “by an ordinance forever.” The ordinance is what lasts forever–the anointing ordinance. The LDS would of course say that this is similar to the temple ordinance wherein there is an anointing that takes place, and that anointing begins a forever covenant. So for the Levites and Aaron and his sons to have such an anointing ordinance comes as no surprise at all to LDS.

Leviticus 7:34 is talking about the “wave breast” and the “heave shoulder” that come from animal sacrifices, and says that those offerings “have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron … and his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel.” That statute is stated in verse 36 to be “in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations.”

So as long as the children of Israel are offering sacrifices that include animal sacrifice, then that statute applies–yet even that must be done in righteousness, for you will recall that the sons of Eli were doing all sorts of wrong things with the animal sacrifices, and they lost all covenant blessings and were slain. (1 Samuel 2-4). That ought to give someone pause about whether the “covenant blessings” and the “covenant Levitical priesthood” are guaranteed or whether they are conditioned on righteousness.

Soren1,
This was my response to your thorough posts about the Levitical priesthood and what was the meaning of “perpetuity” or “an ordinance forever.” I moved this forward in case you happen back and would like to respond. (Perhaps you may have missed this in the meantime.)

 

[Returning_Home]

Jesus IS the only holder of that priesthood ( Heb.7:14-17 ). Can any LDS meet the same requirement? And what about Heb. 7:25-28? Only one priest of the order of Melchizedek is needed and that one is Jesus ( Heb.8 ). And no, we Catholics did not miss it. We acknowledge that only Jesus can be our “Melchizedec”.

You got it, brother. No LDS is anywhere near what the Biblical standard is in this case nor do their prophets perform any of the miracles that they are supposed to.

And regarding Mechizadek, he’s a precursor, a premonition of Christ. It seems as that he held a priesthood, but not necessarily the priesthood named after him because like with awards and scholarships, they aren’t normally given to the person whose name they bear.

 

[PaulDupre]

Since we have no idea who the descendants of Levi or Aaron are, your argument is thoroughly undermined. And since the bloodline of Aaron was corrupted, the priesthood was no longer needed; it had already fulfilled its purpose.

DNA tests can identify the Cohanim:

Y-chromosome research of the Jewish people began as an outgrowth of the study of Cohanim – the Jewish priestly family. These studies showed a very high genetic affinity among present-day Kohanim – indicating that they do have a common paternal ancestor, estimated to have lived some 3,000 years ago. (See: DNA Chain of Tradition – The Discovery of the “Cohen Gene”)

• see this website and this one, just as examples. Google search “DNA Cohen gene”.

If the Mormon church wants to find the sons of Levi in their ranks, they should be cheek-swabbing all their members and submitting them for DNA analysis. But then again the LDS have had bad luck with DNA.

 

[Returning_Home]

DNA tests can identify the Cohanim…If the Mormon church wants to find the sons of Levi in their ranks, they should be cheek-swabbing all their members and submitting them for DNA analysis. But then again the LDS have had bad luck with DNA.

Okay, fair enough, but then that leads to your next logical conclusion, which is finding out how many the church has alive and active. My guess is not many.

 

[Javl]

Unless the LDS can prove through DNA that they are heirs to the priesthood, via the Kohannim, their “Aaronic” priesthood is ilicit and invalid, as is their “Melchizidek” priesthood. ( The Melchizedek priesthood cannot be inherited or assigned. It belongs to Jesus alone. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Murdock]

Returning Home

I enjoyed your posts #85 and #91, and I wanted to be sure that your question in your post #85 was answered forthrightly.

No, we do not have animal sacrifices in our secret temple “ceremonies” (ordinances). We do not have human sacrifices either. You see, the problem is that we do not yet have rooms in the temples which are suitable for such sacrifices. For example, the carpets are very expensive (we wear slippers in the temple) and the blood would quickly ruin them.

Keep your eye out for a burst of construction as all of the temples suddenly receive additions. Watch for truckloads of linoleum flooring delivered to the temple construction sites. When you see those things, you will know “that old time religion” is back.

Murdock

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home

I enjoyed your posts #85 and #91, and I wanted to be sure that your question in your post #85 was answered forthrightly.

No, we do not have animal sacrifices in our secret temple “ceremonies” (ordinances). We do not have human sacrifices either. You see, the problem is that we do not yet have rooms in the temples which are suitable for such sacrifices. For example, the carpets are very expensive (we wear slippers in the temple) and the blood would quickly ruin them.

Keep your eye out for a burst of construction as all of the temples suddenly receive additions. Watch for truckloads of linoleum flooring delivered to the temple construction sites. When you see those things, you will know “that old time religion” is back.

Murdock

Thanks. My personal favorite was #96; I made statements that have yet to be refuted by your or Parker. If I’m so far off the mark, it should be easy to poke holes in my assertions.

So, according to this last post, until that time, even you admit that the alleged ‘restoration’ hasn’t come to pass? Now that’s odd.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,
I have read the three posts that I placed successively earlier today, and agree with much of what you wrote, but I think the major points of disagreement are—

ParkerD,

Oh goodie! I like this kind of response.

1. Whether the prophecy in Jeremiah 33, given the context of the prophecies also of Hosea in the entire book of Hosea, can be considered to be completely fulfilled at the time of the apostles or even today. I don’t think they can be considered to be completely fulfilled. If so, many, many Jews would be believers in Christ and would have joined together with a recognized and known tribe of Ephraim into one united group with a leader to lead both covenant groups as one (that eventual leader will be Christ).

The question is not “Is the whole prophecy fulfilled as of Apostolic times?” The question is “Are the conditions of the prophecy that ensure the Levitical grant fulfilled in Apostolic times?”

No prophecy in Jer 33 needs to be fulfilled in its entirety for the Levitical grant to apply fully to the Christian Church, because the Levitical priesthood in itself is a perpetual covenant. Jeremiah summarizes the biblical doctrine of the Levites as it already stands. The covenants he is talking about are not dependent on the messianic prophecy, and are applied to Jeremiah’s time as well as to the future (33:24-25). Yet God declares the certainty of those preexisting covenants to show Israel why a confident messianic hope is warranted: because God has sworn it will happen.

And yet the most decisive prophesy about Christ that makes all of this come into view is one that is most definitely fulfilled: that he receives the covenantal inheritance of David as Priest-King over Zion. If that is granted, everything else follows as part and parcel of that inheritance, including, as Jeremiah says, “David shall never lack priests…” (33:18). That Christ comes into full inheritance of the Davidic promises is incontrovertible, being proclaimed throughout all of the gospels, all of Acts, all of the epistles. It is one of the core themes of the New Testament as a whole. I doubt you disagree, but I will point out just a few examples to make sure. Psalm 2:7, which pertains to David’s anointing as king is applied repeatedly to Christ in the NT: “You are my son this day have I begotten you.” Likewise, David’s priesthood at Ps 110:4: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: you are a priest forever after the manner of Mechizedek.” Further, Christ constitutes the Church as a kingdom on the basis of that same covenant. The KJV has a very inadequate translation of Luke 22:29: “And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my father hath appointed unto me.” The Greek word translated here as appoint is diatithemai, which means “to make a covenant.” A better translation would be, “I covenant to you, just as my father covenanted to me, a kingdom.” Not only does Christ possess the kingdom of David, he is able to bring others into that kingdom by the same means that he received it, covenantally."

 

[crazzeto]

On the new mormon.org, there is a timeline indicating the major dates in Church history, which puts the Great Apostasy right at the death of the Apostles around 70 a.d. While that has been the dominant opinion among Mormons for a long time, this is the first time I know of that a strictly Church-controlled media has been that specific. The text reads:

Because of intense persecution, the Apostles were all martyred except for John, who was taken away by the Lord. The churches were left without the leadership of the apostles and this authority to govern His church and conduct needed ordinances were lost. This “falling away” as prophesied by Paul to the Thessalonian saints (2 Thes 2:3) is called the Great Apostasy.

They surely don’t mean 70 a.d. as a strict date, but they have clearly gone with the view that no successors followed the original Apostles. The persecutors of the early Church won.

They’re in real trouble if that’s a strict date, the Apostle John didn’t die until well after that.

 

[soren1]

Part of the blessing that God covenants to the Levites is the perpetuity of their priesthood on earth forever (Num 18:8, Lev 7:34).

Numbers 18:8 talks about an “anointing” “by an ordinance forever.” The ordinance is what lasts forever–the anointing ordinance. The LDS would of course say that this is similar to the temple ordinance wherein there is an anointing that takes place, and that anointing begins a forever covenant. So for the Levites and Aaron and his sons to have such an anointing ordinance comes as no surprise at all to LDS.

ParkerD,

There are very few instances in which the word “ordinance,” as it appears in the KJV refers to any type of temple ritual and none I know of in which it refers to an anointing, except insofar as it sometimes indicates the Law itself, which contains rules for anointing and temple worship. In this verse, “ordinance” translates a Hebrew word that means “portion due.” It refers not to the “ordinance” of anointing but to the receipt of tithes themselves. The perpetuity of the tithe due to the Levites in future generations entails the perpetual nature of the Levitical grant itself, as confirmed by Jeremiah 33:18.

This is not, by the way, an error in the KJV, but an anachronisitic understanding of the English word “ordinance” as the translators understood it, meaning simply “appointed thing.” Virtually any modern translation preempts this misunderstanding. For instance:

*Now behold, I Myself have given you charge of My offerings, even all the holy gifts of the sons of Israel I have given them to you as a portion and to your sons as a perpetual allotment. * (NAB)

And behold I have given you whatever is kept of the offerings made to me, all the consecrated things of the sons of Israel; I have given them to you as a portion, and to your sons as a perpetual dept. (RSVC)

I myself have put you in charge of the offerings presented to me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give to you and your sons as your portion and regular share. (NIV)

• And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings; even of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them for a consecrated portion, and to thy sons, as a due for ever.* (JPS Tanakh)

Leviticus 7:34 is talking about the “wave breast” and the “heave shoulder” that come from animal sacrifices, and says that those offerings “have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron … and his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel.” That statute is stated in verse 36 to be “in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations.”

In this verse, the anointing is actually distinguished from the statute, because the anointing is performed on the priests, but the statute - the command to pay tithes - is enjoined on the people. It should not be read as “anointed them … by a statute,” but rather, “which the Lord commanded … by a statute.”

This does show that the tithe statute came into effect when the Levites were anointed, which is just what one would expect, but it does not show that the perpetuity pertains to the anointing as such, but to the due portion owed to the generations of Levites from the rest of Israel. The KJV itself recognizes this fact by placing the phrase “in the day that he anointed them” within commas, which serve the same purpose as parentheses, indicating that what follows the commas should be understood in connection with what precedes the commas.

 

[soren1]

So as long as the children of Israel are offering sacrifices that include animal sacrifice, then that statute applies–yet even that must be done in righteousness, for you will recall that the sons of Eli were doing all sorts of wrong things with the animal sacrifices, and they lost all covenant blessings and were slain. (1 Samuel 2-4). That ought to give someone pause about whether the “covenant blessings” and the “covenant Levitical priesthood” are guaranteed or whether they are conditioned on righteousness.

ParkerD,

To the doom of Eli’s sons could be added that of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, who offer “strange fire” to God (Lev 10:1-2) and are slain for their impiety. Not a problem.

Your argument seems to assume that because I say the Levitical covenant is a grant that I must be saying that every individual Levite cannot lose his blessing. But the covenant is made with Levi, - it embraces the whole tribe. One man may fall, but the entire covenant community remains intact. Note what I said before in regards to the Church: “Freedom can account for why individuals fall away, but the entire body of the Church as a whole is established by divine covenant.” The same applies to the Levites, and so doom of Eli’s sons and others is entirely consistent with this.

In addition to misunderstanding my position, you are repeating the very same category error that I identified as the formal flaw in the whole LDS apostasy doctrine: you are treating a grant covenant like a treaty covenant, ascribing to it a mode of conditionality, which, by its very nature, it could not possibly have. Perhaps you have not yet grasped the difference between these kinds of covenants, and perhaps you do not suspect how vital the difference is in the Hebrew worldview and for the New Testament authors. Whole books could be and have been devoted to this concept, and more can still be written. I will give a few examples to throw a bit more light on that.

Let me restate the definitions. A treaty covenant is a mutual life-oath sworn by a superior and an inferior party in which the superior party promises blessings or curses to the inferior party depending upon obedience to the terms of the oath. A grant covenant is an unconditional gift from one party to another, ratified by a life-oath, usually in return for outstanding loyalty, without any designation of curses.

A classic example of a treaty covenant is the Deuteronomic Law, which promises blessings for obedience, but ends with a long list of curses for disobedience. The quintessential grant covenant is God’s covenant with Abraham, to bless all nations through his seed. The good deed it rewards is Abraham’s faith in not withholding Isaac. Because the blessing for all nations through Israel is a part of God’s covenant with Abraham, it is inviolable, for the service that this covenant rewards has already been performed. The moment God swears to this covenant, he cannot forsake his own word by rejecting Israel: the covenant contains no provision for him to do so.

This principle is seen in action in the incident of the Golden Calf itself. After God gives Moses the Law on Sinai, establishing Israel as his firstborn son, Israel commits a gross abomination which, as far as God is concerned, entails a total rejection of the covenant, and warrants death for the whole population, except Moses (Exod 32:9). If the conditional Sinai treaty-covenant were the only covenant in play, Israel’s history would have ended right then, but Moses responds to Yahweh:

• Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it forever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.* (Exod 32:13-14)

God spares Israel, but he doesn’t let them off the hook; he limits their punishment and then repairs the damage by putting Israel through a program of covenant renewal, resulting in the extensive legislation of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. He does all this to spare an unworthy, stiff-necked people for the sake of a prior oath he had made to someone else and cannot deny. The dialogue of God and Moses, translated into modern nomenclature, goes like this:

LORD: This people has broken my treaty covenant with them and thereby incurred my curses. I should open the earth beneath their feet.
Moses: But LORD, you swore a grant covenant to Abraham and the Fathers to make a nation of these people.
LORD: Very well; I will exact limited vengeance and then make a renewed covenant with them.

It is because God binds himself by oath in this way that total apostasies don’t happen.

 

[soren1]

ParkerD,

I have yet to be informed of any place in the Book of Mormon where anyone reasons about covenants in the manner described above, but the Bible is replete with further examples. One of my favorites is John the Baptist’s rebuke to the Pharisees and Sadducees:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matt 3:9)

Read carelessly, this verse might seem like an objection to my argument: “Isn’t John saying that descent from Abraham isn’t a big deal, that it does not ensure salvation? Where is your grant covenant now?” I respond, John is not criticizing confidence in the Abrahamic promise, but the perverse view, which your argument about Eli seems to impute to me, that the covenant grant absolves people from responsibility. The assumptions that underlie this false confidence are these:

1. God’s oath to Abraham to bless his descendants is unconditional
2. I am descended from Abraham
Therefore, my blessings are unconditional.

The Baptist rebukes this arrogant worldview, but not by correcting the first premise. Instead he targets the presumptuous application of the second one, while presupposing that the first is true. He is saying this: “You think that the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant secures your justification, but God can make good on his promise to Abraham without you, even if it means doing something as extreme and metaphysically questionable as making stones into his descendants to take your place. God’s covenant does mean he must be faithful to Abraham, but he doesn’t need you personally to do that, so quit being self-righteous”

The standard LDS response, raised virtually any time that the word “unconditional” or “unearned” is used in relation to God’s saving acts, is something to the effect salvation isn’t a free ride, as if the doctrines of grace and covenant were a human attempt to shirk responsibility. This argument offers a cozy sense of moral high ground to the person who makes it, but it grossly misunderstands covenantal justice. Matt 3:9 shows that a correct understanding of grant covenants does not undermine human responsibility, because there is a harmony between human responsibility and divine guarantees. Yet the agency argument for the great apostasy presupposes a denial of that harmony. To treat it as a question of “whether the ‘covenant blessings’ and the ‘covenant Levitical priesthood’ are guaranteed or whether they are conditioned on righteousness” is to miss the whole point – not just the point of my argument, but the point of the whole Bible - for it presupposes an opposition between gift and responsibility, which, in the Biblical worldview, does not exist. It is a purely, exclusively philosophical assertion presumed at the expense of revelation. St. Paul denies this philosophical premise even more plainly the John, for even though he teaches the necessity of good works, he sees no contradiction in saying, “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every man be false.” (Rom 3:2-3)​

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

I have yet to be informed of any place in the Book of Mormon where anyone reasons about covenants in the manner described above, but the Bible is replete with further examples. One of my favorites is John the Baptist’s rebuke to the Pharisees and Sadducees:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matt 3:9)

Read carelessly, this verse might seem like an objection to my argument: “Isn’t John saying that descent from Abraham isn’t a big deal, that it does not ensure salvation? Where is your grant covenant now?” I respond, John is not criticizing confidence in the Abrahamic promise, but the perverse view, which your argument about Eli seems to impute to me, that the covenant grant absolves people from responsibility. The assumptions that underlie this false confidence are these:

1. God’s oath to Abraham to bless his descendants is unconditional
2. I am descended from Abraham
Therefore, my blessings are unconditional.

The Baptist rebukes this arrogant worldview, but not by correcting the first premise. Instead he targets the presumptuous application of the second one, while presupposing that the first is true. He is saying this: “You think that the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant secures your justification, but God can make good on his promise to Abraham without you, even if it means doing something as extreme and metaphysically questionable as making stones into his descendants to take your place. God’s covenant does mean he must be faithful to Abraham, but he doesn’t need you personally to do that, so quit being self-righteous”

The standard LDS response, raised virtually any time that the word “unconditional” or “unearned” is used in relation to God’s saving acts, is something to the effect salvation isn’t a free ride, as if the doctrines of grace and covenant were a human attempt to shirk responsibility. This argument offers a cozy sense of moral high ground to the person who makes it, but it grossly misunderstands covenantal justice. Matt 3:9 shows that a correct understanding of grant covenants does not undermine human responsibility, because there is a harmony between human responsibility and divine guarantees. Yet the agency argument for the great apostasy presupposes a denial of that harmony. To treat it as a question of “whether the ‘covenant blessings’ and the ‘covenant Levitical priesthood’ are guaranteed or whether they are conditioned on righteousness” is to miss the whole point – not just the point of my argument, but the point of the whole Bible - for it presupposes an opposition between gift and responsibility, which, in the Biblical worldview, does not exist. It is a purely, exclusively philosophical assertion presumed at the expense of revelation. St. Paul denies this philosophical premise even more plainly the John, for even though he teaches the necessity of good works, he sees no contradiction in saying, “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every man be false.” (Rom 3:2-3)
​

Soren1,
I doubt that we will come even close to a mutual understanding about the verses you cited. God could grant an “unconditional covenant” to Abraham, and did so not because of Abraham’s righteousness per se, but because God had foreknowledge of His plan of salvation which included knowing that Abraham’s seed would one day, even though scattered and peeled, become covenant believers once again and become the bearers of righteous priesthood to the ends of the earth.

God’s foreknowledge is what allowed Him to make a long-range promise to Abraham, that through him all the families of the earth would be blessed (both by means of the Savior, born as one of his descendants, and by means of others of his descendants).

As to the teachings of Paul in Romans 3, I think a good summary portion of his teachings there–a restatement that he makes in several different ways in Romans 1-3, are in the following verses:

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

So earlier he was saying that “every man is false” because “every man is a sinner.” Every man therefore needs grace, needs repentance, and comes short of the glory of God but can be justified through repentance and faith in Christ.

Have a good day. Probably no need to try other approaches to explain your idea about the Levitical priesthood being perpetually granted. Even the examples you cited show that use of the priesthood is always conditioned on the righteousness of the priesthood holders.​

 

[SirThomasMore]

Parker, you never answered…why would you want a jesus who is as weak, dishonest and cruel as you need him to be to justify your faith?

 

[twopekinguys]

Keep your eye out for a burst of construction as all of the temples suddenly receive additions. Watch for truckloads of linoleum flooring delivered to the temple construction sites. When you see those things, you will know “that old time religion” is back.

Murdock

Old, maybe.

Oldest (or right), not even close.

 

[Returning_Home]

They’re in real trouble if that’s a strict date, the Apostle John didn’t die until well after that.

Actually, D&C section 7 heading, 7:1, 3, and 7 all make it clear that he didn’t die at all. It can also be said that the church therefore hadn’t left the earth at all since he and the three Nephites were still hanging around.

 

[Returning_Home]

So earlier he was saying that “every man is false” because “every man is a sinner.” Every man therefore needs grace, needs repentance, and comes short of the glory of God but can be justified through repentance and faith in Christ.

I like the Christian perspective you’re putting forth here, Parker, even if you don’t actually hold that view as it’s presented. The problem here is again that pesky redefinition of the role of Jesus by Mormonism, which is to allow us to become gods, not to save us from sin.

I find the following in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (COJCOLDS, SLC, UT, 2007, p 206): “And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying…For behold, this is my work and my glory–to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” I noticed that the Mormon jesus forgot to mention sin as if it’s not important.

 

[Javl]

Parker, you never answered…why would you want a jesus who is as weak, dishonest and cruel as you need him to be to justify your faith?

Don’t hold your breath. This is typical of LDS. I still have unanswered questions from waaaay back. I know that I will not get any since they cannot answer them. Anyway, good luck.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[system]

As someone belonging to the Mormon Church I would like to respond here. I would ask though to have my beliefs treated with respect as I will try to treat yours with respect. I would like to preface my statement by saying that I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the World, and the Author and Finisher of my salvation. I would like to respond to any and all questions you all may have but to start I will give a blanket answer and summary of the questions raised by this post.
As far as the Apostasy is concerned:
We do believe that the most important thing lost was the priesthood authority. That authority along with the keys was given to the ancient apostles. They, as we know, were persecuted and killed. We have no final record of what happened to them and why there weren’t any more. We know from the scriptures that they called another after Judas died (Matthias). Why did they stop calling them? If the Catholic Church is a continuation of the ancient church, where are the Apostles? If I’m not mistaken the “mantle” of the leader of the Church was passed from Peter to Linus, but where was this in the Bible? Linus was the Bishop of Rome. There is no record of transferal of priesthood authority. We know that the Apostles were the head of the Church, so where was John when all this happened? John who was promised to live until the Second Coming was still alive. Where is his approval of the transferal of authority, him being at that point the senior apostle. Also, why was the Bishop of Rome “chosen?” Where is the doctrinal basis for this? As Mormons we believe that the authority was lost from the Earth with the death of the Apostles.
Now as far as the condition of the people of the Earth during the Apostasy, Mormons maintain that God can inspire any man to bless the lives of His children. Throughout those ages people of all faiths had inspired men. Not prophets, however, and no priesthood authority. This was not restored until Joseph Smith was called as prophet and restored the Church with 12 Apostles and other callings mentioned in the Bible.

For those interested, here are 2 articles published by LDS authors, including 1 LIVING apostle.
library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20august%201976.htm/clement%20ignatius%20and%20polycarp%20three%20bishops%20between%20the%20apostles%20and%20apostasy%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Living Aposte’s:
lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-30,00.html

I just want to reiterate a couple of things.

1. I respect all Christians and ALL of their beliefs, even those different than my own.
2. I think as Christians we should spend more time uniting ourselves and less time debating doctrine, especially when the morals of the world around us are failing.
3. Just because one Mormon, or Catholic for that matter says something, it doesn’t make it the belief of the whole church. Always check with the source from official websites and publications.
4. The Mormon Church has 4 canonic works, The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. This is our main source of doctrine.

Thanks for reading.

 

[darrelljpark]

They also tend to believe that the Angel Moroni restored the church through ordaining Joseph Smith a prophet.

Be careful with your “facts” that you present. I’m impressed with the discussion so far, but the angel Moroni did not ordain Joseph Smith a prophet, nor did he ordain him to any level of the priesthood for that matter. The Mormon church today is set up just as the church in the time of Christ. The 12 Apostles today hold authority and keys to direct the church that are not given to Bishops and other local leaders of the church. Bishops still hold the Priesthood and have the keys to administer to the local congregation, but, if all the Apostles and the Prophet were on a plane today and it went down and they all died, the authority to run the church would no longer be on the earth. It’s the level of Priesthood authority and keys that are important here. It’s organization. If in the Catholic church for example, every Priest and Cardinal had the same authority the run the Catholic church as the Pope, it would be a disaster, with congregations splitting off here and there. That is what Mormons point out happened after the last Apostle in Christ’s time died, until mostly well meaning men tried to hold it together, reorganize it and start again. Unfortuanately, the necessary authority wasn’t there.
Respectfully,
your brother,
Darrell