The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[pablope]

First of all, Kathleen never said that the only reason Mormons don’t ‘follow the same Christ’ is just because of their stance on martyrdom.

According to the classic definition of martyrdom, Joseph Smith’s death would never even qualify as martyrdom. That’s something that the LDS have labeled incorrectly as a martyrdom, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t true**. True martyrs die willingly at the hands of someone who wants them to deny their God in order to follow a different one. I’ve read many accounts of the true martyrs of the Church. They were heroes of the faith that refused to renounce their belief in Jesus, in order to save their own lives. **The real martyrs certainly didn’t die the way Joseph Smith did. That’s not even close to what we believe to be a true martyrdom.

** Those people were told to either deny Christ, or die.** They didn’t have any other choices. There was no chance of escape for them. They wouldn’t have even thought to try to escape. If someone gave you those same two choices, which one would you pick? I’d like to think that I could make the right choice, but God would certainly have to give me the courage to face it, because I’m a real coward at heart.

Rightly stated, Telstar. There was another thread previously regarding this where the supposed martyrdom of JS was briefly discussed.

I would add one thing: The true Christian martyrs willingly died, did not fight or try to run. And in imitation of Christ words on the cross…asking for the forgiveness of those who do not know what they were doing…also asked for the forgiveness of their persecutors.

 

[Telstar]

Your question about the New Testament resulted from my comment about “living for Christ” (which does indeed mean one lays up in store “treasures in heaven” by virtue of how they live their life, here and now, without thinking they have to be a martyr to “live for Christ”), and my other comment as follows:

My question was due to your misunderstanding of what Jesus really taught, as opposed to the LDS version that claims:

“repenting through the atonement of Christ” which means changing and becoming more loving disciples of Him every day of their lives, and on being strong on self-defense and on a unified group defense such as is shown by the group led by Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon.

That’s a complete contradiction of everything Jesus taught in the Gospels. The second part of that statement (in bold) is especially troubling to me as a Catholic, and as an American. Jesus never taught anything like that, anywhere in the Gospels. The Catholic Church never focused any effort whatsoever on any “self-defense” mechanisms, either as individuals or as a Church. It’s a religion of peace, based on the example given to us by Jesus. It’s not a military enterprise, in any way. It’s focus is on worshiping God in spirit and truth. The only part that might be seen as a type of ‘military force’ is the Swiss Guard, but their only ‘mission’ is to protect the Pope. They’re more like royal body guards than an actual military.

If Jesus wanted His Church to be any kind of military force, would He have stopped Peter when he cut off the soldier’s ear, and told him to put away his sword? The Jews didn’t recognize Him as the Messiah, partly because they expected Him to be an earthly ruler that would vanquish all of their enemies. They were wrong. He didn’t come to help us fight our physical battles. He came to fight the spiritual forces of evil in this world (aka the devil), and conquer them. He reopened the Gates of Heaven to us. He didn’t care about the politics of this world at all.

If any church that claims to follow Jesus is focused on building a quasi-military defense force into their ‘faith’, then they’re not even a church in the true sense. It would seem that its goal might be more towards establishing some kind a political entity, modeled on its own interpretation of the ‘kingdom of God’. That’s what worries me about your statement. Christ’s True Church is the Kingdom of God on earth, but it is ‘not of this world’. It’s a Heavenly Kingdom, not a worldly one. Jesus never intended for His Church to rule over this world, until He actually returns. Our Kingdom is in Heaven. We don’t necessarily worry about what the governments of this world do. We abide by the laws of the land that we live in and participate in doing our duty as citizens, but that’s about it. We’re certainly not obsessed with politics or ruling the world.

When Jesus comes back to judge the world at the end of it, He will make a whole ‘new Heaven and a new earth’. Then, and only then, will He establish His Kingdom on the earth, Himself, where He will reign as it’s King, forever. The entire earth will be completely renewed. All good souls, who have lived faithfully by the laws of God, will be reunited with their resurrected and glorified bodies. Those good people will live on the new earth, and the damned will burn in hell, forever. There will be no more evil in the world, and no need for any kind of ‘politics’.

So while it seems we probably agree about the importance of laying up “treasures in heaven”, it seems we don’t agree about being defensively prepared in view of the temporal world we live in where everyone isn’t loving and kind and some are in fact the opposite of that. The issue was whether a group or an individual becomes defensively prepared, or whether they just “let it happen” and perhaps become “a martyr” and thus, evidently, join Christ all the sooner. I don’t think the teachings of Christ lead one to believe they ought to just “let it happen” and become a martyr at the first opportunity an enemy has to inflict damage, particularly to one’s family.

Like I said, we’re not to be overly concerned about politics and all the junk that goes along with it. There will always be those that will kill people because they don’t hold the same beliefs as they do. Governments can worry about military defense, and the local police can worry about taking care of criminals that threaten private citizens. That’s their jobs. If someone breaks into our home, then we might have to worry about it when the time comes, but we certainly don’t need to stockpile an arsenal of weapons, ‘just in case’.

It also seems we don’t agree about having sufficient of this world’s goods to take care of one’s family, since if one takes every teaching of Christ literally, verbatim, they would sell all that they have, give to the poor, and thus have no goods at all and no home in which their family can live. I don’t think Christ was teaching that concept for our temporal world.

Your assumption on this point would also be somewhat wrong, not to mention, silly. Our family believes in being prepared for any emergencies by keeping enough food, etc., for those times when we might need them, like in the recent case of hurricane Irene. We, as Catholics, take all of the teachings of Jesus seriously, but we also depend on the Catholic Church to explain which teachings are to be taken literally, and which ones aren’t. They’re guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret all scripture for our benefit. We trust them to understand it better than we do, because Jesus gave them that authority when He established the Church. We don’t get caught up in trying to predict the Second Coming, or in trying to force it to happen the way we want it to be. God would never approve of that.

 

[Telstar]

Rightly stated, Telstar. There was another thread previously regarding this where the supposed martyrdom of JS was briefly discussed.

I would add one thing: The true Christian martyrs willingly died, did not fight or try to run. And in imitation of Christ words on the cross…asking for the forgiveness of those who do not know what they were doing…also asked for the forgiveness of their persecutors.

Thank you, pablope.

I’ve always had humble admiration for the great courage and love of true martyrs, since I first read about them as a kid. When I read about the way JS died, and the fact that he was considered by LDS to be a ‘martyr’, I was appalled. It diminishes what all true martyrs are in so many ways that it really makes me angry. I see it as an insult of the worst kind to all good people that believe in and love God enough to willingly give their own lives to defend His Holy Name, as true martyrs do.

 

[SteveVH]

Soren1,

If the Council was “called at the behest of Constantine”, then in what way was it "not supported by secular authorities? Are you saying Constantine was not a secular authority, or that he did not support the idea of there being a Council?

***“Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.” *** (Catholic Enyclopedia)

I think it is evident that Constantine’s concern was secular in nature. He just wanted peace and did not grasp the serious nature of the Arian heresy. So it was certainly supported by “secular authorities” from that standpoint. Other than opening the Council for the pupose of restoring peace, the secular authorities had nothing to do with the doctrinal issues at the heart of the matters being discussed and decided upon. Constantine left that up to the bishops of the Church to decide.

"After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope’s legates, Victor and Vincentius." (Catholic Enyclopedia)

Specific historical unbiased source for this statement as of 325 AD?

And what “unbiased” sources would you accept? The historical accounts of the Council of Nicaea are taken from the Catholic’s who attended the Council.

Are you saying Constantine immediately began persecuting the Council members after he had asked them to meet and make a unified decision? Or that others under his direction did that? Or that the Roman Empire was collapsing and he couldn’t control the outcome that people who “held political sway” were persecuting the Council members immediately after they had met?

I am fairly certain that Soren1 was referring to those who had suffered persecution prior to the Council, not during the reign of Constantine:

"Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. The assembly numbered among its most famous members St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra. Some had suffered during the last persecution…" (Catholic Enyclopedia)

 

[PJM]

=ChristIsTheWay;8268716]I found this on the LDS website: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=619439b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

According to this definition, the Great Apostasy resulted in the removal of the authority of the priesthood from the Earth, the loss of a living prophet to lead the body of believers, and thus the loss of the Church on Earth. Hence, the need for a restoration under the prophethood of Joseph Smith.

This article on the LDS website states that the Great Apostasy occurred around the end of the 1st century AD, when the last apostle passed away.

My question is, what does this mean for the church that the LDS scriptures teach that Jesus founded in the Americas and which lasted for a much longer time? How could the Great Apostasy have occurred if there was a prophet on the Earth and a church with the authority of the priesthood?

This Wikipedia article provides a timeline for the Book of Mormon events: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_chronology#Between_AD_36_and_321

Assuming the dates are correct, the Church in the Book of Mormon lands experienced a good deal of unity and peace until the very end of the second century and then only very gradually fell into apostasy. There was a prophet, priesthood, presumably a church, on Earth until the 400s AD.

How can the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy and its first century date fit with the LDS belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I do UNDERSTAND the calim, WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND is why there is a lack of evidence for them and they still “have traction”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[SteveVH]

Soren1,

I also don’t think Richard Anderson was saying whether the outcome of the letter and the visits sent by Clement succeeded in helping the Corinthian members place the rightful bishops and deacons back into place. His point was that if they didn’t, then there was a loss of authority.

This statement puzzles me. First of all, if it could be proven that the rightful bishops and deacons were put back into place in Corinth, would that prove to a Mormon that there was not a loss of authority? My real puzzlement, however, surrounds the fact that even if all authority was lost in the Church at Corinth, how would this prove that authority had been lost in the Church at large? I just see no problem at all in the fact that there would be strife concerning the office of bishop among some members of the Church. Corinth was a problem for Paul as well. It was basically the “Las Vegas” of that part of the world. Clement’s letter only proves that the Church sought to remedy the situation in Corinth, not that authority was lost from the Church.

I don’t see why one wouldn’t view the rejection that the Corinthian members had evidently done of some leaders, deposing them and replacing them, does not “fulfill prophecy” if the statement about “perfect foreknowledge” of the apostles is considered true. That was Richard Anderson’s point–that Clement was showing that this “unjustly deposing” of called leaders was fulfilling what the apostles had warned against.

Lets read it again:

***“Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”

---

Yes, it was fulfilling what had been revealed to the Apostles by Jesus Christ. Would we expect anything different? It also shows that provision was made to take care of the problem which is why Christ revealed it to the Apostles in the first place.

 

[pablope]

Soren1,

I also don’t think Richard Anderson was saying whether the outcome of the letter and the visits sent by Clement succeeded

 

[mtolympus]

Yes but I am interested in how Mormons would reconcile this teaching of their church that the apostasy occurred in the 1st century AD, resulted in the loss of the priesthood authority, yet Christ, according to their Book of Mormon, founded a church in the Americas that persisted until the 400s. Has no Mormon taken note of this?

I don’t know of any LDS doctrine that tells us exactly when the apostasy was complete. When the apostles were killed the Church was left without the central authority and revelation which Jesus established to keep the Church united. However, the apostles were killed because of the wickedness of the people. In my opinion, there were many righteous Bishops and other members in the Church who held the priesthood and continued to do the best they could to carry on what they had been taught. False doctrine began to come in and by 312 AD the different branches of the Church were not united in doctrine. However, I believe there were many Bishops and members that knew that Jesus was the divine Son of God and therefore the true authority may have continued with some Bishops until they were required to sign the Nicene Creed.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker…have you even read Clement’s epistle?

Pablope,

Yes, indeed I did read it.

40:1 Since, therefore, these things have been made manifest before unto us, and since we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do everything in order, whatsoever the Lord hath commanded us to do at the appointed seasons, and to perform the offerings and liturgies.

Showing in this verse that they were still trying to keep parts of the law of Moses, which the epistles of Paul showed was a struggle for the converts who had come from the background of Judaism, as Clement evidently did come from that background.

40:2 These he hath not commanded to be done at random or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons.

There is no description of such “commandment” in the New Testament.

In Chapter 47, he tells the Corinthians what they had done as disobedience:

47:6 Disgraceful, brethren, yea, very disgraceful is it, and unworthy of the conduct which is in Christ, that it should be reported that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians hath, on account of one or two persons, made sedition against its presbyters.

If the Apostles had the foreknowledge, why would you think they would not prepare their successors to be prepared?

The apostles were aware that there was going to be a “falling away”, but yet they urged the members to be faithful and urged the leaders to do so also–so the “falling away” was a question of “when”, not a question of “if” or a question of “we can prevent it after we have departed by how we structure the church”. The church wasn’t theirs to structure, it was the church of Christ, and they knew that.

Chap 44 makes it clear the Apostles had prepared their successors:

44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

44:3 Those who were thus appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church, who have blamelessly ministered to the flock of Christ with humility, quietly, and without illiberality, and who for a long time have obtained a good report from all, these, we think, have been unjustly deposed from the ministry.

Clement again shows evidence of a beginning of straying from the New Testament church, by describing a “rule of succession” that wasn’t shown in the New Testament writings. He also shows that there was a struggle about leadership in Corinth, and his letter also says the Gentiles had been impacted by that struggle and that was one of the reasons he was writing.

Do you think the twisting pointed out by Soren is honorable?

If you’re talking about Richard Anderson having quoted sentences in a different order, I explained that it doesn’t matter the order–the message is the same, and the order of those sentences doesn’t matter. Soren made a big deal out of something that wasn’t a big deal, if one reads the entire letter and realizes its message.

"48:1 Let us, therefore, remove this thing as quickly as possible, and let us fall before the feet of the Master, and beseech him with tears, that he will have mercy and be reconciled unto us, and restore us again to the grave and pure conversation of brotherly love.

48:2 For this is a gate of righteousness opened unto life, as it is written, Open unto me the gates of righteousness; I will go in unto them, and give thanks unto the Lord:"

Why would Clement say this above if he did not expect them to repent?

Of course he hoped they would repent by following his example and by following the example of the “church” in his area, who hadn’t had such a disruption.

… (edit for length)

54:2 Let him speak in this wise: If through me sedition and strife arise, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye will, and I will do that which is commanded by the majority, only let the flock of Christ be at peace together with the appointed presbyters.

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

58:2 Accept this our advice, and it will not be repented of by you. For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, the confidence and hope of the elect, he who observeth in humility with earnest obedience, and repining not, the ordinances and commands given by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Jesus Christ, through whom is there to him glory, world without end. Amen.

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

65:1 See that ye send back quickly unto us in peace and with joy Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together also with Fortunatus, who were sent unto you from us, that they may the more quickly bring us news of your peace and order, which we pray for and desire, so that we may the sooner have joy concerning your good order.

The words “spoken by him through us” are a bit troubling unless the translation is a little off. Clement wouldn’t have the authority to write in that particular way, as though he had authority over the leaders and members in Corinth.

Agreed that there was danger of “transgression” by their actions and their contention, but the words “through us” (unless that is a mis-translation) go off on a tangent that is improper as to Clement’s authority to write “spoken by Him [Christ] through us”.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Grey Pilgrim,

References to anthroopological disciplines—no artifacts, let alone abandoning the Covenant of the Land…the other great covenant besides that of the Decalogue…means little to Mormons.

Sadly, I know. They’re not ones to let a little thing like the truth get in the way of their “convictions”.

 

[mwok]

I don’t know of any LDS doctrine that tells us exactly when the apostasy was complete. When the apostles were killed the Church was left without the central authority and revelation which Jesus established to keep the Church united. However, the apostles were killed because of the wickedness of the people. In my opinion, there were many righteous Bishops and other members in the Church who held the priesthood and continued to do the best they could to carry on what they had been taught. False doctrine began to come in and by 312 AD the different branches of the Church were not united in doctrine. However, I believe there were many Bishops and members that knew that Jesus was the divine Son of God and therefore the true authority may have continued with some Bishops until they were required to sign the Nicene Creed.

I’ve heard this theory before, but it still doesn’t explain certain facts:

1. If central authority and revelation depended on the apostles, the Gospel of Luke wouldn’t be valid because he wasn’t an apostle of the 12.
2. If the Church wasn’t united in 312 A.D. then we cannot rely on the Bible being correct as it was not compiled until closer to 400 A.D… Before then the Gospel was either transmitted orally or by whatever letter believers had access to.
3. It just seems absurd to me that thousands of Christians would give their lives declaring Christ as their Lord rather than Caesar only to have the Church lay down and die with a forced signing of a document.

 

[NewSeeker]

When the apostles were killed the Church was left without the central authority and revelation which Jesus established to keep the Church united.

As pertains to the alleged Great Apostasy, we Catholics don’t recognize a Mormon’s testimony, the content of any Mormon scripture, or the statements of Mormon leaders as valid evidence. The only evidence we accept in common with Mormons to address this issue is the New Testament and (for some Mormons) the writings of the Early Church Fathers. As has already been pointed out, the crucial criterion identified in Acts for qualification as an apostle was that the candidate must have walked with Jesus from the time he was baptized by John to the time he was taken up. When the last man who walked with Jesus in this way died, there could be no more apostles. The LDS idea that the apostles were intended to be a persistent central authority in the church is debunked by this evidence.

False doctrine began to come in and by 312 AD the different branches of the Church were not united in doctrine.

This assumes that none of these branches retained the true teaching of Jesus and possessed the authority granted to Peter and the other bishops by the apostles. This assumption is unwarranted. There was one branch that retained both truth and authority from the time of the apostles to this day. That branch is the Catholic Church.

 

[NewSeeker]

The words “spoken by him through us” are a bit troubling unless the translation is a little off. Clement wouldn’t have the authority to write in that particular way, as though he had authority over the leaders and members in Corinth.

Agreed that there was danger of “transgression” by their actions and their contention, but the words “through us” (unless that is a mis-translation) go off on a tangent that is improper as to Clement’s authority to write “spoken by Him [Christ] through us”.

It’s not a tangent if 1) there was no Great Apostasy (and, of course, there wasn’t) and 2) if Clement was legitimately claiming authority from Jesus through Peter as Bishop of Rome (which, of course, he was).

The Mormon approach to the presence of contravening evidence is to claim “the translation is a little off”. Very convenient, but also a double-edged sword. The same can be said about any biblical or patristic proof-text a Mormon might employ in support of the LDS position. I think I’ll start using this tactic the next time a Mormon cites a Bible verse or statement from a church father. “Perhaps the verse you cite is mistranslated in the KJV.”

 

[ParkerD]

It’s not a tangent if 1) there was no Great Apostasy (and, of course, there wasn’t) and 2) if Clement was legitimately claiming authority from Jesus through Peter as Bishop of Rome (which, of course, he was).

New Seeker,

He didn’t write as though he was a successor to Peter, at all. He wrote as though he were giving advice and counsel and showing how the Gentiles were being impacted by what the Corinthians had done.

As to translating, one who studies the translating process knows there is not always a one-to-one relationship between words from one language to another, and that a translator is faced with making choices as they bring a meaning into another language as best they can, but that can involve a bias because of the “choice-making” they would go through for the “right word”.

 

[NewSeeker]

New Seeker,

He didn’t write as though he was a successor to Peter, at all. He wrote as though he were giving advice and counsel and showing how the Gentiles were being impacted by what the Corinthians had done.

Clement didn’t expressly claim that authority in the letter, but it is reasonable to conclude that the claim was in the background and assumed, as evidenced by his use of the phrase “spoken by him [Christ] through us”. That is precisely the point: did Clement have grounds to talk like Jesus was speaking through the Roman church? It is undeniable that he was, indeed, talking like that. The various English translations of 1 Clement are all in agreement on this point, so we need to dispense with the notion that perhaps there is a mistranslation here. This is not direct evidence that Clement actually had that authority, but it is direct evidence that he claimed it, and indirectly that the Roman church claimed it through Clement. As for whether it is evidence that the Roman bishop actually had that authority, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that Clement wouldn’t have made the claim without precedent. That this precedent was established while Peter was alive is also reasonable, seeing how Clement was writing in about 90 AD, just a few decades after Peter’s tenure as Bishop of Rome.

As to translating, one who studies the translating process knows there is not always a one-to-one relationship between words from one language to another, and that a translator is faced with making choices as they bring a meaning into another language as best they can, but that can involve a bias because of the “choice-making” they would go through for the “right word”.

Agreed. Translating can at times be a sketchy business. That’s why you need an objective, infallible guide against which various translations of christian documents can be tested. Good thing we have one in the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[ParkerD]

Clement didn’t expressly claim that authority in the letter, but it is reasonable to conclude that the claim was in the background and assumed, as evidenced by his use of the phrase “spoken by him [Christ] through us”. That is precisely the point: did Clement have grounds to talk like Jesus was speaking through the Roman church? It is undeniable that he was, indeed, talking like that. The various English translations of 1 Clement are all in agreement on this point, so we need to dispense with the notion that perhaps there is a mistranslation here. This is not direct evidence that Clement actually had that authority, but it is direct evidence that he claimed it, and indirectly that the Roman church claimed it through Clement. As for whether it is evidence that the Roman bishop actually had that authority, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that Clement wouldn’t have made the claim without precedent. That this precedent was established while Peter was alive is also reasonable, seeing how Clement was writing in about 90 AD, just a few decades after Peter’s tenure as Bishop of Rome.

Agreed. Translating can at times be a sketchy business. That’s why you need an objective, infallible guide against which various translations of Christian documents can be tested. Good thing we have one in the Magisterium of the Church.

New Seeker,

So, then, you have what you want, and can live by that. It’s just fine with me. It’s a personal choice one can make for themselves, which is what God intended in the plan of salvation–free will choice.

 

[NewSeeker]

New Seeker,

So, then, you have what you want, and can live by that. It’s just fine with me. It’s a personal choice one can make for themselves, which is what God intended in the plan of salvation–free will choice.

Part of me wishes the old, confrontational Mormonism of Bruce R. McConkie was still dominant in the church. The emerging happy-go-lucky, “everything will work out fine in the end” approach of many Mormons these days doesn’t serve my family well at all. I kind of wish my wife’s church friends still said old-school things like “Now that your husband has apostasized and won’t be joining you in the Celestial Kingdom, how are you going to be exalted now? Will you be content as a ministering angel or are you going to do something about your exaltation?” Since that kind of thing is no longer very common, my wife can keep going to church, asking me to keep my Catholicism a secret from our sons, and believe that we’ll still somehow all end up together in heaven. I’d rather she was actually forced to make a choice between going to the Celestial Kingdom and me. I’m confident she would choose the latter. As it is, the new happy face of mormonism makes it easy for her to continue to believe that every unique teaching of Joseph Smith taught is completely irrelevant to salvation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

New Seeker,

So, then, you have what you want, and can live by that. It’s just fine with me. It’s a personal choice one can make for themselves, which is what God intended in the plan of salvation–free will choice.

ParkerD, Jesus Christ did not die in order that you could choose evil. He died in order for you to be Saved.

Choosing evil is not God’s intention. That is something you should never believe. True holiness is found in those who have forsaken evil, not those who have clothed themselves in self-delusion.

Seek Truth, as there is but One Truth, and this Truth isn’t self-defined. Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. He is not what you make Him, the whim of your desires, and then labeling that a “plan of Salvation”. He is what has Made you, you do not make Him.

You are not self-made.

Peace.

 

[Stephen168]

When the apostles were killed the Church was left without the central authority and revelation which Jesus established to keep the Church united.

As has already been pointed out, the crucial criterion identified in Acts for qualification as an apostle was that the candidate must have walked with Jesus from the time he was baptized by John to the time he was taken up. When the last man who walked with Jesus in this way died, there could be no more apostles. The LDS idea that the apostles were intended to be a persistent central authority in the church is debunked by this evidence.

And if having Apostles was was the ‘central authority’ then why did it take Joseph Smith 5 years to create the position. And when he did; they were not the ‘central authority.’

To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys of the kingdom’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

 

[Stephen168]

In my opinion, there were many righteous Bishops and other members in the Church who held the priesthood and continued to do the best they could to carry on what they had been taught.

Can you give us a step by step explanation on how the Mormon Church could lose ‘priesthood authority’ and still exist as an organization?