MORMONS (LDS) what is this "great apostasy" that you claim to have happened?

[JeanneH]

Jeanne H,
It is the kind of knowledge Jesus spoke of to Peter in Matthew 15:16 and Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11 and 14. It also makes sense from Biblical sources and Biblical “wisdom” of the Old Testament and understanding what Christ’s mission was. There are oral traditions that corroborate Jesus’ visit to the Americas.

But I doubt that you would find the kind of “proof” that you seem to want.

You are right. I don’t think I will find that kind of proof because it doesn’t exist.
Whose oral traditions? The apostles or some one else’s? I would only be interested in the oral Traditions of the apostles.

 

[dianaiad]

What did I ever do to Mormons? I am agnostic, and I object to your caps, and your comments here.

Sorry, that was a general “you,” not a specific “you,” as could be seen by the plural use of ‘guys.’

That I consider you to be one of the ‘you guys’ is obvious, but that set of ‘you guys’ has nothing to do with whether you are an agnostic or not. It has to do with your placement in the 'folks who don’t like Mormons much" set.

I have no belief in God. I lack belief and faith in God. I wish I could believe and have faith.
I am here to learn about christian claims. So, yeah I am comparing what I think is a valid claim and a not so valid claim.
I also can’t stand someone stating they are correct about things with no reason for me to accept it other than their word.

I’m not asking you to believe it, and as far as I can tell, nobody else here is, either. Explaining what our beliefs are is not the same thing as demanding belief on your part. As I mentioned earlier, it is up to you to decide whether what we tell you has merit, and we do give people a way to figure that out for themselves–through study and prayer and direct (name removed by moderator)ut from the Holy Ghost.

So, It would only be the catholics you disparage then? Sounds like I was right to chose catholics to learn from then.

Where is there a disparagement of Catholics? There is a difference between stating the reasons we believe that the CoJCoLDS had to be restored, and attacking a group of people who have done remarkably well in the absence of the priesthood that was eventually restored to earth.

As to choosing to learn Catholicism from Catholics, you are absolutely right to do that. Don’t ask anybody else about Catholicism. For that matter, don’t learn about Mormonism from anybody but Mormons, or about Methodism from anybody but Methodists, or about the Society of Friends from anybody but Quakers, or about Islam from anybody but Muslims…you see where I’m going with this, I’m sure.

I am not an anti-God, I am a trying to understand if there is a basis to the christian believer’s claims about the Christian God type. So what am I anti?

I didn’t say that *you *were an anti, specifically. I said that it was a “question I ask anti’s all the time.” If you were a plumber and we were discussing the virtues of megadoses of vitamin C while you were fixing my sink, and I said “that’s a question I ask doctors all the time,” would you assume that I thought you were a physician?

What are these things you are talking about here?:hypno::blackeye:

These publications, the 'Maze of Mormonism" and “The Godmakers,” as well as websites like “Mormon Research Ministries” and “CARM,” are VERY typical anti-Mormon (and in the case of the websites, anti-just about everybody else including Catholics–and in the case of CARM especially Catholics) rhetoric. Most of them are officially published by the church they compare Mormonism to. Well, “The Godmakers” went a little too far and is now decried by almost everybody.

I’m not aware of the code languge you are using with any of this stuff you mention!

No code language at all. Those are titles of actual publications and websites that do what you have just accused Mormons of doing, titles of books, publications and websites that have no analogs in the LDS publishing world.

I just went into a “Christian” bookstore in Logan, Utah, that had a 'comparative religion" section waaaaay in the back of the store, behind some chairs (I was reminded of the way some video rental places have the naughty tapes in an inaccessible corner). In it are all those anti-Mormon (and anti-Catholic, anti-Jehovah’s Witness, anti-Jewish, anti-you name it ) books that the “Christian” bookstores down THIS way have next to the front door in the ‘cult’ section.

Come to think of it, the presence of anti-Catholic books in the ‘cult’ section of these stores always amuses me; it confirms my opinion of the general definition of the word “cult:” that is, “any belief that I think is weird.” Very subjective, that definition…and of course it’s a definition that puts everybody in a cult–and nobody.

Um, so far yes I think I am just fine where I am now thanks!

I wasn’t asking about the group you are IN. I was asking about the group you were addressing, i.e., Mormons. Are you sure you are asking the right group that question?

 

[dianaiad]

Good evening dianaiad! I hope you are doing well.

I just wanted to point out that I think you’ve misunderstood StrawberryJams affiliation and intention. He/She is an agnostic.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I wasn’t addressing Strawberry Jam’s religious affiliation, but rather the position s/he holds about what Mormons do.

 

[ParkerD]

Matthew Crossman,
Hey!
Since you’ve used your name, I might as well do the same–mine being Douglas Parker Reid. Glad to dialogue here from so far away. I have friends who have been to Australia, but I haven’t been outside North America myself so I need to travel someday.

Hey Parker,

No, I don’t think it means ‘‘another text of scripture’’. I mean in the broader sense of the word, as I believe the Bible does also.

I do also, and I think Paul was emphasizing the imortance of revelation and the Holy Spirit in that chapter and the next one in Galatians.

Whilst Mormonism uses Christian words and concepts there are some fundamental differences. Starting with the undeniable fact that the Jews have always believed in only one God, Jesus believed in only one God and all of mainstream Christianity, starting from the very time of the apostles, has believed in only one God.

I disagree that Jesus believed in only one God. He talked often about the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, and He didn’t say it was a mystery when His Father in Heaven spoke from heaven when He was baptized and when the sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost was given so we would understand that the Holy Ghost was also present.

When Stephen was martyred, he spoke of seeing two personages, and he was also described as being filled with the Holy Ghost at that moment.

The apostles spoke of Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost separately and distinctly each time they talked about any one of them. They were totally comfortable doing that, and didn’t say it was a mystery.

As mentioned, the other major concern I have is that Mormonism has from the outset claimed that every other branch of Christianity was in apostasy

I agree that the term “apostasy” sounds harsh and may be the wrong word if not explained in much greater detail than just the use of the word. I don’t like to use that word, because I think it is inadequate and has the wrong connotation usually. When I use it, it is because I am using a word that somebody else has already used in a conversation I may be having.

To me there is perhaps not a word to describe the condition being expressed, which is “loss of pure truth or departure from pure truth”. Pure truth can only come from God, not from human wisdom.

Mormonism in turn has lent on a new scripture, if you will, by way of proving this. This new scripture, as I also mentioned earlier, has no known historical basis or proof. The peoples and events described therein also have no known historical basis.

This is a fair point. I will say that as far as I’m concerned, Mormonism is like a graduate study program instead of say a college level study program, and the graduate program has to do with understanding revelation and understanding the kind of rule on a throne (being a joint heir) that is talked about by Christ and the apostle John. There is no way that such a “graduate study program” could fulfill its purposes if it relied on the kinds of proofs and signs that appeal to the general masses of people. That is why Christ spoke against seeking signs and wonders to foster belief. It is also why Paul wrote so frequently about the availability of hidden knowledge from the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. Their intent was not to confuse, but to convey that there is a kind of knowledge that can only be had by revelation.

Given Mormonism makes such a claim, that the church made a total desertion from its roots shortly after the time of the apostles, then the burden is on it to prove where this ‘apostasy’ occurred.

My point has been in these comments that there was not a total desertion from its roots, definitely not. There were minor changes that crept into the beliefs and practices. But the basic root of believing in Christ and believing in His teachings such as the Beatitudes have been absolutely wonderfully retained and wonderfully practiced by many, many people all over the world across many generations.

Why is it that the unique practices and beliefs of the Mormon church are found nowhere else in history, while those of mainstream Christianity indeed are…even in secular tomes?

That is a very important question. I keep writing about becoming a “joint heir” as a known promise in the New Testament, with very specific descriptions as to what that means to be a joint heir with Christ, though undeserving and meriting that inheritance only through Christ’s grace.

As to temple work practiced by the LDS church, the rites done in Solomon’s temple were kept sacred and guarded. Temple ordinances are absolutely to be kept sacred and not shared outside of the temple, so any time those have been on the earth, the same rules have applied and they are just not going to be written about historically.

Priesthood is certainly talked about in the Old and New Testaments, and the idea of a “kingdom of priests” being what God desires for His covenant people as He told Moses. The idea of covenants that are sacred promises to God is certainly conveyed in the Old and New Testaments. There are Biblical scriptural precedents for every one of the Mormon church’s “unique practices and beliefs.” Many would disagree with the LDS position on those passages of scripture, but that’s why revelation and knowledge that there exists two-way communication with God are so essentially important.

Take care, and God bless you always.

 

[ricko]

Matthew,

Not so. It is completely consistent with the Bible and with Bible prophecy, both.

It does take faith enough to read, ponder, and ask about the message of the Book of Mormon. These acts of faith are available to everyone, but even so you are OK with the religion you have.

It is not consistent with the bible:

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have sinful nature from birth: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). (This does not mean that those who die in infancy are lost.*)
2. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God “made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26, KJV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).
3. The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adam’s transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in the human heart and throughout God’s perfect world (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying God’s command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17).

 

[ricko]

Skinny Jay,
I think I understand your position, and I guess if you believe that and also have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in your own life to the extent that you want, then the Catholic church has made exactly the doctrinal changes that you would have made if you had been on those councils, and it therefore satisfies your criteria for the truths you want to live by. For you and others, that means there was no apostasy, no falling away from the pure doctrine Christ taught, and I would say you’re well enough off with that. Catholicism is satisfactory for many, many wonderful people who have exactly what they want within those beliefs.

Parker and others, the above statement has been made before as if there are two or more Holy Spirits going around teaching people different “truths”. The above paragraph can be summed up in one word…COP-OUT!

1. excuse for not taking action: a feebly transparent excuse or explanation for refusing to face up to something
2. evasion of responsibility: a feeble avoidance of a responsibility or commitment

 

[ParkerD]

Parker and others, the above statement has been made before as if there are two or more Holy Spirits going around teaching people different “truths”. The above paragraph can be summed up in one word…COP-OUT!

1. excuse for not taking action: a feebly transparent excuse or explanation for refusing to face up to something
2. evasion of responsibility: a feeble avoidance of a responsibility or commitment

Rick O,
I understand why you would say that. I should explain differently. If a person asks God, “should I love my neighbor, and if so should I help them out (in such and such a situation)?” then the Holy Spirit can and will certainly confirm the truth that they should do that. This would be true in countless situations. It would also be true if a person asks about whether Christ died for them and whether they should repent and try to follow Christ. God answers questions about truth with confirming truth, and the Holy Ghost is a witness of truth. But if a person doesn’t ask other questions, then the Holy Ghost will not “answer” the questions they didn’t ask.

So I don’t think it’s a cop-out at all to say that you can be following the Holy Spirit in your life in many instances that bring joy to you and help to others.

 

[ParkerD]

Rick O,
I respect your beliefs about the verses you cited, but I think there can be a different perspective on each of these items:

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have sinful nature from birth: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). (This does not mean that those who die in infancy are lost.*)

Moroni 8:8 says “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin.” It doesn’t say they do not have a sinful nature. The whole chapter is talking about the redemption of Christ, and that Christ has redeemed little children because of His mercy and because they are “not capable” (because they are not accountable yet for their decisions and actions especially as pertains to acts that might otherwise be considered sinful such as disobeying their parents) “of committing sin.”

The NIV translation is not consistent with the Hebrew. The KJV for Psalm 51:5 says “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” It says the parent was sinful, not that the baby David was sinful (although at this point he was feeling awfully guilty because of his sin with Bathsheba).

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin WAS a sign of THE curse WHICH THE LAMANITES HAD BROUGHT UPON THEMSELVES BY REJECTING GOD, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God “made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26, KJV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).

I wish that you and others could understand the words of that and other verses. The “curse” is losing the Holy Spirit because of rejecting God, not getting darkened skin. The Lamanites at several points in the history of the Book of Mormon are the “good guys” and the Nephites are the “bad guys”, so your remark shows both a non-reading of the Book of Mormon and a non-understanding of that particular verse, besides which it was describing only a particular point in history and a particular place and a particular group of people. It was not a general statement at all, not in any sense.

I agree completely with the verses from the Bible you cited, and all the connotations of those verses.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adam’s transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in the human heart and throughout God’s perfect world (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying God’s command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17).

Your restatement of what you think the verses you cited in Genesis 3, Romans 5:12 and 8:20-21 mean to say, is your own version of what they say and is not what they say at all.

We don’t know whether Adam and Eve would have had children in the garden of Eden had they not partaken of the forbidden fruit. We can assume and conjecture, but we simply don’t know. The only Biblical support for either position is making an assumption one way or the other.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on these items. I appreciate the clarity of your remarks.

 

[StevieD]

Why do Mormons need to prove their denomination is correct by proving another’s to be wrong?

I don’t understand this way of thinking. If you believe you are right, why does what anyone else do or not do to your liking matter at all? Can’t you just stand on your position alone?

I like reading about the family aspects about Mormons, and they sound like really nice people. I just have a hard time with believers stating they are right because someone else is wrong. It shouldn’t be a basis for being correct IMHO.

LDS belief is totally based on the apostasy of the Church founded by Christ. If that were not (in their eyes) true, then the whole LDS case falls flat on its face. Joseph Smith claimed that he asked the Father and the Son (whom he claimed appeared to him) which Church was true he was told that they were all “abominations”. Which was how he said that he came to found the LDS. The fact that the contents of the BoM, “a HISTORY of God’s dealings with his people in the Americas”, is in now way supported by DNA, archaeology, linguistics, anthropology etc. Seems to have made little impression on many (certainly not all) LDS members, one of whom told me that God must have removed all the evidence to test their faith! See mormonproblems.blogspot.com/ for more interesting information on the cult.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening dianaiad! I hope you’ve had a good weekend.

I wasn’t addressing Strawberry Jam’s religious affiliation, but rather the position s/he holds about what Mormons do.

It just seems from your verbiage that you are clumping Strawberryjams with the “anti-Mormons”. I would like to suggest that perhaps you’ve mistaken her/his affiliation (as a person who doesn’t like Mormons) and intention (perhaps she simply has misunderstood the LDS position and is looking for clarification rather than a reprimand) in her/his post. That is all.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[zaffiroborant]

Rick O,
I understand why you would say that. I should explain differently. If a person asks God, “should I love my neighbor, and if so should I help them out (in such and such a situation)?” then the Holy Spirit can and will certainly confirm the truth that they should do that. This would be true in countless situations. It would also be true if a person asks about whether Christ died for them and whether they should repent and try to follow Christ. God answers questions about truth with confirming truth, and the Holy Ghost is a witness of truth. But if a person doesn’t ask other questions, then the Holy Ghost will not “answer” the questions they didn’t ask.

So I don’t think it’s a cop-out at all to say that you can be following the Holy Spirit in your life in many instances that bring joy to you and help to others.

I just don’t see the Holy Spirit like that, I see the HS constantly guiding and answering unasked questions, leading, calling us.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Why do Mormons need to prove their denomination is correct by proving another’s to be wrong?

I don’t understand this way of thinking. If you believe you are right, why does what anyone else do or not do to your liking matter at all? Can’t you just stand on your position alone?

I like reading about the family aspects about Mormons, and they sound like really nice people. I just have a hard time with believers stating they are right because someone else is wrong. It shouldn’t be a basis for being correct IMHO.

Completely AGREE!

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Hey Douglas Parker Reid, I hope you are having a good day.

Matthew Crossman,
Hey!
Since you’ve used your name, I might as well do the same–mine being Douglas Parker Reid. Glad to dialogue here from so far away. I have friends who have been to Australia, but I haven’t been outside North America myself so I need to travel someday.

I disagree that Jesus believed in only one God. He talked often about the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, and He didn’t say it was a mystery when His Father in Heaven spoke from heaven when He was baptized and when the sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost was given so we would understand that the Holy Ghost was also present.

When Stephen was martyred, he spoke of seeing two personages, and he was also described as being filled with the Holy Ghost at that moment.

The apostles spoke of Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost separately and distinctly each time they talked about any one of them. They were totally comfortable doing that, and didn’t say it was a mystery.

This would hold some water…if you were merely talking about the apostles perhaps being non-trinitarian. But I think it is quite a jump from talking about that to saying they may have believed in three separate gods…or more.

As I said, Jews always have and still do believe in only one God. All Christians have and do the same, though not all are trinitarian.

By way of scripture, consider:

’‘For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.’’ (Isaiah 46:9)

and…

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, “…Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10)

Also, in relation to the core doctrine of Mormonism, which is that the universal church became corrupted/lost its way…however you wish to look at it…there is this:

Matthew 16:19-20: '‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’'

And also this:

Matthew 28:19-20: ''Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

These verses clearly teach God has and always will protect the church from such an apostasy which Mormons claim occurred some time in the early years (and as discussed, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such).

In love,

MC

 

[ParkerD]

Matthew Crossman,
Hey again! Thanks for the warm wishes, and thankfully I am having a good day and feel very blessed. I hope you are also.

Hey Douglas Parker Reid, I hope you are having a good day.

This would hold some water…if you were merely talking about the apostles perhaps being non-trinitarian. But I think it is quite a jump from talking about that to saying they may have believed in three separate gods…or more.

As I said, Jews always have and still do believe in only one God. All Christians have and do the same, though not all are trinitarian.

By way of scripture, consider:

’'For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.’’ (Isaiah 46:9)

and…

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "…Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10)

The God of the Old Testament was Jehovah, the Great I Am (see John 8:58), the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, who was the Creator (John 1:1-3) and was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Savior is indeed uniquely qualified to be the Savior. There absolutely is none like Him.

He is also the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega. Compare Isaiah 43:10 with Isaiah 43:11 and Isaiah 43:14,15; also Isaiah 44:6. Jehovah taught through the words of Isaiah that He is the Redeemer and Savior, and beside Him there is none else–none to Redeem, none to Save, none to Help. He was the Firstborn of the Father, thus He is the First. He will be the triumphant King who will gather His followers and triumph over Satan, thus He is the Last. He it is in whom we should trust, and Him we should follow with all of our hearts.

I’ll answer the other items as I get time this morning. Thanks for the kindly dialogue.

 

[josie_L]

So how exactly did the catholic church “loose” the keys to the kingdom due to a “great apostasy”?

My question to Mormons: if it was so “great” how did everyone else miss it?

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Matthew Crossman,
Hey again! Thanks for the warm wishes, and thankfully I am having a good day and feel very blessed. I hope you are also.

**The God of the Old Testament was Jehovah, the Great I Am (see John 8:58), the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, who was the Creator (John 1:1-3) and was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Savior is indeed uniquely qualified to be the Savior. There absolutely is none like Him. **

He is also the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega. Compare Isaiah 43:10 with Isaiah 43:11 and Isaiah 43:14,15; also Isaiah 44:6. Jehovah taught through the words of Isaiah that He is the Redeemer and Savior, and beside Him there is none else–none to Redeem, none to Save, none to Help. He was the Firstborn of the Father, thus He is the First. He will be the triumphant King who will gather His followers and triumph over Satan, thus He is the Last. He it is in whom we should trust, and Him we should follow with all of our hearts.

I’ll answer the other items as I get time this morning. Thanks for the kindly dialogue.

No problems friend, I appreciate your kindly dialogue also.

To your post…I don’t believe what you wrote changes the fact that God clearly said he was the only God…no others before or after. And again, that has always been the strict belief of Judaism and Christianity (and Islam also…but that’s a whole other thread).

I will be offline for a while…it’s just gone 2am here…but I look forward to your response and more discussion.

God bless all.

 

[MatthewCrossman]

My question to Mormons: if it was so “great” how did everyone else miss it?

:yup:

 

[ParkerD]

Hey Douglas Parker Reid, I hope you are having a good day.

Also, in relation to the core doctrine of Mormonism, which is that the universal church became IMPURE/lost SOME PURITY…however you wish to look at it…there is this:

Matthew 16:19-20: ''And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’’

And also this:

Matthew 28:19-20: ''Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

These verses clearly teach God has and always will protect the church from such an apostasy which Mormons claim occurred some time in the early years (and as discussed, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such).

In love,
MC

Hey again Matthew,
“Upon this rock” could be understood to mean “upon Peter the rock” or it could be understood to mean “upon the foundation stone of Jesus Christ and the witness from Father in Heaven that He lives and that He is the promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer, the stone of Israel, the foundation stone, the rock of offence for those who would be offended or the chief corner stone which the builders rejected and is become the head of the corner.” (See Peter’s teachings in 1 Peter 2:6-8) Peter did not refer to himself as the rock, or the foundation of the church. He referred to Christ as having that role. The word “it” at the very end of Matthew 16 verse 18 could mean “my church” or it could mean “this rock”. I think that that word “it” refers back to “this rock” and that “this rock” refers back to verses 16 and 17 where Peter said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Peter knew that Christ fulfilled the scriptural promises of being the true Messiah as promised to the world, and so Peter said thou are THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. Christ is the rock, the chief corner stone.

When Christ commissioned the apostles to go forth into all the world, He said clearly that they were to teach specific doctrine, namely “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The words “and lo” can be understood to mean “and therefore if you do this”, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

Christ certainly is also with the whole world always, because He lives and He rules and His atonement applies to every person who has ever lived. He is with those who “knock, and it shall be opened,” wherever and whenever they live in this wide and wonderful world.

Have a splendid day or evening, as the case may be, Matthew. Kind regards always.

 

[ParkerD]

My question to Mormons: if it was so “great” how did everyone else miss it?

Jose L,
I think the word “great” is used because the word is supposed to have the connotation of “worldwide”. Just as most of the Jews missed understanding that Jesus Christ was their promised Messiah, most of the world misses the implications in the Bible that there would be a worldwide period of “loss of the pure doctrines of the fullness of the gospel”, but that was prophesied many times in both the Old and the New Testaments.

 

[josie_L]

Jose L,
I think the word “great” is used because the word is supposed to have the connotation of “worldwide”. Just as most of the Jews missed understanding that Jesus Christ was their promised Messiah, most of the world misses the implications in the Bible that there would be a worldwide period of “loss of the pure doctrines of the fullness of the gospel”, but that was prophesied many times in both the Old and the New Testaments.

When did this “great” apostasy occur? Why hasn’t anyone realized this (even after a century has passed since this revelation)? Where in the Bible does it state a great apostasy of the kind that you refer to? And why do you refer to Smith as a “prophet” when the Bible expresses there would be no other prophets to come? Furthermore, it makes no sense that Jesus would come at the time that he did knowing that another prophet would come to reveal further revelations. Why didn’t Jesus reveal what he had to then instead of through Joseph Smith? Are you stating Jesus got things wrong (knowing full well he would have omniscient power to see into the future)?

P.S. Where is the evidence that the Church apostasized?