Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Apostasy

[prodigal-sun]

You do, naturally.

Or…John 16:13.

Either way.

So I take it that you believe John 16:13 was not corrupted by the apostacy? Can I assume all of John is OK?

Please do not mistake my faith in Christ and his church as me saying what is right or wrong in faith & morals, I submit to the will of God and to the authority he gave his church… naturally!

It is you and your church that is assuming to know what is truth in scripture and what is not! I am only asking how do you know! Which passages can you trust and which ones are false?

Peace!

 

[majick275]

Parable of the Talents. Thank God Christ alone will judge.

Of course you realize that LDS teaching contradicts that statement. The judgement will be delegated to the various holders of the keys for each dispensation including Joseph Smith.

www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/final.htm

 

[PaulDupre]

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. - Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 9, 1859. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91

Paul

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Christ alone is the judge. His anointed are merely appendages of Him, called to assist and bear witness whether we heeded their testimony. This is nothing new.

“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19:28)

 

[zerinus]

Christ alone is the judge. His anointed are merely appendages of Him, called to assist and bear witness whether we heeded their testimony. This is nothing new.

“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19:28)

Well said! and here is more:

Daniel 7:

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

1 Corinthians 6:

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life

3 Nephi 27:

27 And know ye that ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just. Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

I wouldn’t go that far. In fact, I have to disagree.

All that has been conceded is that the Twelve are not necessary to establish the Church, nor is an entire quorum of twelve necessary to perpetuate the keys. The LDS would argue the Bible fully supports this view.

Certainly, in the LDS view, when the Church is established and fully operational, there is always a Quorum of Twelve Apostles. They are an essential foundation for the Church. (Eph. 2:20)

Let’s look at Ephesians 2:20:

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

Where does that say we still need apostles and prophets? Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God and everything we know flows from that revelation. Any new understanding which comes from the Holy Spirit is in accordance with the final revelation we see in Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:20 does nothing to prove that we still need the office of apostle and prophet. I believe there are still people who demonstrate the life of apostles and prophets, but to call it a formal office based on this passage is a stretch.

 

[zerinus]

Let’s look at Ephesians 2:20:

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

Where does that say we still need apostles and prophets? Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God and everything we know flows from that revelation. Any new understanding which comes from the Holy Spirit is in accordance with the final revelation we see in Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:20 does nothing to prove that we still need the office of apostle and prophet. I believe there are still people who demonstrate the life of apostles and prophets, but to call it a formal office based on this passage is a stretch.

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

ALL these offices are necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” not just some of them; and ALL of them are necessary in order that “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” not just some of them. That obviously includes the offices of Apostles and prophets. They were meant to continue, just as all the other offices were meant to continus.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

ALL these offices are necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” not just some of them; and ALL of them are necessary in order that “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” not just some of them. That obviously includes the offices of Apostles and prophets. They were meant to continue, just as all the other offices were meant to continus.

zerinus

Who says these things are offices? Where are your evangelists? I know you claim the “evangelists” are really “patriarchs”, but why couldn’t Catholics claim there are apostles and prophets, but they are simply called by a different name like you do with evangelists?

I would suggest to you that there is a difference between the “apostles of the Lamb” and the other ones who are sent out who could likewise be called apostles. The apostles of the Lamb are the 12 called originally by Jesus with Matthias replacing Judas. The other apostles would just be missionaries. I note that Bishops and Deacons aren’t in that list even though we do know these are actual offices from the New Testament mentioned in the Bible.

Your proof-text comes up short because it doesn’t mention the two actual offices listed in the Bible and because you don’t have anything called evangelists in your own church. And I never thought the term evangelist fit the patriarchs very well anyway. Mormons recognized they didn’t have evangelists so they had to make the excuse that evangelists are really patriarchs.

 

[zerinus]

Who says these things are offices? Where are your evangelists? I know you claim the “evangelists” are really “patriarchs”, but why couldn’t Catholics claim there are apostles and prophets, but they are simply called by a different name like you do with evangelists?
I would suggest to you that there is a difference between the “apostles of the Lamb” and the other ones who are sent out who could likewise be called apostles. The apostles of the Lamb are the 12 called originally by Jesus with Matthias replacing Judas. The other apostles would just be missionaries. I note that Bishops and Deacons aren’t in that list even though we do know these are actual offices from the New Testament mentioned in the Bible.

You are just inventing a whole lot of stuff as you go along. There is no basis for these. But there is every good, solid reason to believe that the Twelve Apostles were just that, Twelve, and they were meant to continue as Twelve. We have produced enough biblical evidence for that.

Your proof-text comes up short because it doesn’t mention the two actual offices listed in the Bible and because you don’t have anything called evangelists in your own church. And I never thought the term evangelist fit the patriarchs very well anyway. Mormons recognized they didn’t have evangelists so they had to make the excuse that evangelists are really patriarchs.

That is simply not true. When the office was first revealed, they were called evangelists, or evangelical ministers. Later on they were called patriarchs, I suppose because that is easier to pronounce:

Section 107:

39 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation

Articles of Faith 1:

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

If Joseph Smith had invented the whole thing off his own head, he could have easily created two offices, one called evangelists and the other patriarchs, and he would have given each a different role. He could have given “evangelists” a role similar to the one traditionally given them by Christians; and “patriarchs” the role that is commonly given to them by LDS. He wouldn’t have first called them “evangelists,” and then and then allow the name to simplify itself in LDS lore into “patriarch”.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

You are just inventing a whole lot of stuff as you go along. There is no basis for these. But there is every good, solid reason to believe that the Twelve Apostles were just that, Twelve, and they were meant to continue as Twelve. We have produced enough biblical evidence for that.

That is simply not true. When the office was first revealed, they were called evangelists, or evangelical ministers. Later on they were called patriarchs, I suppose because that is easier to pronounce:

Section 107:

39 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation

Articles of Faith 1:

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

If Joseph Smith had invented the whole thing off his own head, he could have easily created two offices, one called evangelists and the other patriarchs, and he would have given each a different role. He could have given “evangelists” a role similar to the one traditionally given them by Christians; and “patriarchs” the role that is commonly given to them by LDS. He wouldn’t have first called them “evangelists,” and then and then allow the name to simplify itself in LDS lore into “patriarch”.

zerinus

Patriarch is easier to pronounce than evangelists? Give me a break. And where is your office called “Pastor.” Your whole line of reasoning doesn’t make any sense and falls apart. The Catholic Church could make the claim that Cardinals are apostles if they followed your reasoning. You simply can’t make your case.

Perhaps the change from calling evangelists evangelists to calling them patriarchs is an example of LDS apostasy?

 

[majick275]

and let’s not forget seventies that were in every ward and then not. and as long as amgid keeps harping on TWELVE apostles, why are there 15 in the LDS church? none of this consistent with Joseph Smith’s teachings much less the Bible. That’s what happens when you just “invent” a church. I noticed NDM has move on to another thread, I guess that means he quit on this one?

 

[christianley]

and let’s not forget seventies that were in every ward and then not. and as long as amgid keeps harping on TWELVE apostles, why are there 15 in the LDS church? none of this consistent with Joseph Smith’s teachings much less the Bible. That’s what happens when you just “invent” a church. I noticed NDM has move on to another thread, I guess that means he quit on this one?

NDM might as well. This one’s going nowhere good for him.

 

[zerinus]

Patriarch is easier to pronounce than evangelists? Give me a break. And where is your office called “Pastor.” Your whole line of reasoning doesn’t make any sense and falls apart. The Catholic Church could make the claim that Cardinals are apostles if they followed your reasoning. You simply can’t make your case.

Perhaps the change from calling evangelists evangelists to calling them patriarchs is an example of LDS apostasy?

Admit it Christian, you are struggling. You don’t have a valid argument to bring against LDS. The wisest thing to do under those circumstances is to admit the truth.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Admit it Christian, you are struggling. You don’t have a valid argument to bring against LDS. The wisest thing to do under those circumstances is to admit the truth.

zerinus

Actually, this entire thread has really shown me how weak the LDS argument really is. The LDS argument is built on taking a couple of scriptures which mention apostles and building a whole church on them. It doesn’t wash because you can’t prove that apostles don’t exist in the Catholic Church under a different name. Just like you don’t have any offices named pastor or evangelist, we don’t have an office called apostle. Doesn’t prove a thing.

 

[Karin]

Admit it Christian, you are struggling. You don’t have a valid argument to bring against LDS. The wisest thing to do under those circumstances is to admit the truth.

zerinus

There are many valid questions to bring against the Mormon Church…

1. **
   *]Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!
   *]If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions?
   *] If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)
   *]How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)
   *]If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)
   *]Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).
   *]Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to Heaven? (The Young Woman’s Journal, Vol. 3, pages 263-264. See repreint in Mormonism --Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, page 4.)
   *]Since Mormonism teaches that only God the Father had a physical body at the time Adam was created, why did God say, “Let us make man in OUR image”? Why didn’t He say, “Let us make man in MY image?” (Gen. 1:26).
   *]Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324).
   ]Why is the Book of Mormon quite specific about Christ but does not add anything that the New Testament does not address (for example, what Christ did from age 12 - 30)?
   ]Why does the Book of Mormon prophesy that the Jews would be restored to the land of their inheritance if they believed in Christ (they are occupying it now w/o believing in Christ)? (2 Nephi 10:7)

 

[NotreDameMormon]

NDM might as well. This one’s going nowhere good for him.

Yes, I’ve moved on to the new discussion topic: Continuing Revelation in the Church.

I am not concerned with the allegations made here. The ones related the Apostasy have already been answered sufficiently in the thread. The majority of posts here in the last few days have, for the most part, left the focus on the Apostasy and are topics better suited for a later discussion on the Restoration or The Book of Mormon. I’ll answer them then.

Come join the new discussion!

 

[majick275]

I am disapointed then that NDM chose something like “continuing revelation” rather than the “restoration”.

The apostasy questions were waved off as being more “restoration” questions. So they still aren’t being answered. We have no evidence of global apostasy OR restoration…so what value in “continuing revelation” as a thead?

 

[NotreDameMormon]

I am disapointed then that NDM chose something like “continuing revelation” rather than the “restoration”.

The apostasy questions were waved off as being more “restoration” questions. So they still aren’t being answered. We have no evidence of global apostasy OR restoration…so what value in “continuing revelation” as a thead?

Enough. A good and thorough discussion of whether continuous revelation is a reality is necessary to bridge a wrap up of the apostasy and a discussion of the Restoration.

All your questions will be answered, but I cannot approach every possible topic at once. Give me a break.

This was a legit question (one that has not already been answered) that lends itself to our previous discussion on the apostasy and allows for a better discussion of the Restoration.

And you have been given the biblical and historical evidence of the apostasy. Your not being convinced is a non-issue for the thread. The thread is a presentation and a discussion. You lie when you say no evidence has been presented for the LDS view. It has. If it’s a sign you seek…

 

[majick275]

Enough. A good and thorough discussion of whether continuous revelation is a reality is necessary to bridge a wrap up of the apostasy and a discussion of the Restoration.

subjective at best. I claim improper sequencing based on your previous posts.

All your questions will be answered, but I cannot approach every possible topic at once. Give me a break.

I was trying to stay on this one. You are the one who claimed it was restoration as opposed to apostasy.

This was a legit question (one that has not already been answered) that lends itself to our previous discussion on the apostasy and allows for a better discussion of the Restoration.

duly noted.

And you have been given the biblical and historical evidence of the apostasy. Your not being convinced is a non-issue for the thread. The thread is a presentation and a discussion. You lie when you say no evidence has been presented for the LDS view. It has. If it’s a sign you seek…

careful now… I said specifically that you “waved Off” numerous legitimate challenges your apostasy theory as being restoration questions. You implied at least that would be your next topic. Primarily, there has been a consistent position taken here that IF a complete global apostasy occurred, followed by a restoration, THEN we should be able to see the original pre-apostasy state in manner that facilitates comparison/contrast with apostasy and also the “restored” state. Since you have not offered to show us the “original” valid state. (pre-apostasy) we have only the “restored” state to go by. we can see the difference between it and what you CLAIM is the apostasy period but we only have Jooseph Smith’s word to validate that. I asked you to use his “restored scriptures” to illustrate that. (JST and BoM) YOu claimed that was off topic and required a restoration thread. What we have now is a “continuing revelation” thread that would appear to be dependent on the apostasy and restoration. (from an LDS perspective at least)

so let’s be careful about calling people a liar right now.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

there has been a consistent position taken here that IF a complete global apostasy occurred, followed by a restoration, THEN we should be able to see the original pre-apostasy state in manner that facilitates comparison/contrast with apostasy and also the “restored” state.

This argument may have been something you wanted to see answered, but it was never the topic of the thread. The thread was a discussion limited to the first segment of your logic, whether an apostasy occurred.

The restoration, while based on the notion of an apostasy, has nothing to do with its beginning and occurrence. Further, your desire to compare the restored Church with the early Church is not a rational possibility, as noted in this thread. It is a flawed assumption that we can compare what is with what was lost. There may be parts of the restored and early Church that match, but then, those parts are not lost, are they?

The “original valid state” of the early church was not in question. It consisted of Jesus, the Twelve, Seventy, bishops, etc. The modern restored version may be controversial to you, but we are not there yet. Do not confuse the thread’s topic with topics others choose to post and debate. I did what I could to keep the thread discussion focused and organized on the occurrence of an apostasy.

All of your questions and challenges for the Restoration, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon will have their chance to shine. But, they will have to wait their turn. Right now, the best topic to bridge the apostasy discussion and the restoration, is a discussion on God’s revelations to man. (You see Joseph Smith in the distance?)