Z
zerinus
Guest
OK, a little more comment on the Roger Keller article at the FAIR site you linked us to (above) and which I am finally reading. I have already made the comment earlier that Mr. Keller appears to be rather furiously backpedaling from typical Mormon understanding of the apostasy. When I say “typical” I am referring to the understandings of Mormons at street level, as well as the Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie.
As we can see from these three paragraphs, Mr. Keller has assumed the tack of the kinder, gentler Mormon church since around 1900, which has made a determined effort to appear mainstream, rather than bizarre, as it did prior to 1900.
He appears to be admitting that there was no UNIVERSAL apostasy, as Bruce McConkie said there was, and as Mormons I’ve met have said there was/is. If there was no UNIVERSAL apostasy, then the Mormon claims that there was, are false, which we all knew. This puts a mighty rickety foundation under Mormonism, which is all about Restoration. If there is no need for a Restoration, there is no need for Mormonism, or any of the other Protestant-derived cults which claim an apostasy and a restoration.
You are beating a dead horse Allweather. I have repeatedly answered all of the above for you in other discussions elsewhere, but you turn a deaf ear. I don’t know why you bother.Continuing on with comment on the Keller article provided by chasjohn:
So, it was the “authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel” that vanished, but not all of the “knowledge” of the gospel. Well, then, how were the Christians brought to Christ? How were they spiritually fed? Through knowledge? I don’t see how the Catholic Church could have expanded the way it obviously did if there were no Apostolic authority present within it. How could it have survived, intact, for 2k years and going, without the divine protection of God? Maybe Mr. Keller will reveal this later in the article, but so far, I am not finding any evidence of an apostasy, but just some double-talk.
zerinus