if they were apostate how could they be good christians? They would have had false doctrines and practices…but they didn’t according to Scripture and history so I guess they weren’t. Funny tthing about that "tampering…we can see in the JST just what Joseph Smith claims was changed. Doesn’t appear to support the LDS case.LDS doctrine teaches that the New Testament has in fact been severely tampered with, and many “plain and precious parts” were removed form it. The apostates were a lot more subtle than that. The subsequent generations of Christians that emerged, including the Early Christian Fathers, were often good Christians who were themselves victims of that Apostasy, not the perpetrators of it. See 3 Nephi 13:20-29.
zerinus
here is where I have to challenge a basic assumption of mormonism. Yes, revelation is i,portant BUT the specific scripture in question is not supportive of the LDS position. PETER is the rock in this verse. The play on words makes it obvious. Peter had received revelation but Jesus tellls us in explicit fashion that PTER is the rock upon which he will build his church. This makes sense in the historcal context as well. Houses were built a certain way. Peter is the initial rock that other rocks will be added to so that a complete church can be built.“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
“And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:16–18).
This rock of revelation is the source of knowledge concerning the things of God. It is the witness of the Holy Spirit that testifies of eternal truth, and the gates of hell will not prevail against any man or woman who seeks it, who accepts it, who cultivates it, and who lives by it.” Gordon B. Hinckley, “It’s True, Isn’t It?” Ensign, July 1993, 2
"And how could it be otherwise? There is no other foundation upon which the Lord could build his Church and kingdom. The things of God are known only by the power of his Spirit. God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown. No man can know that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.
Revelation: Pure, perfect, personal revelation—this is the rock!
Revelation that Jesus is the Christ: the plain, wondrous word that comes from God in heaven to man on earth, the word that affirms the divine Sonship of our Lord—this is the rock!
The divine sonship of our Lord: the sure, heaven-sent word that God is his Father and that he has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel—this is the rock!
The testimony of our Lord: the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy—this is the rock! Bruce R. McConkie, “Upon This Rock,” Ensign, May 1981, 75
stop right here. Please read the new testament and see what it says about the other Apostles selections. There is no requirement for a certain number or the perpetuity of the office. There IS a requirement that they all be able to personally witness to Jesus, in other words they were all taught directly by him in person. (somewhat of a special case in Paul). So eventually the generation that saw and heard Jesus in the flesh would die off. This hasa nothing to do with Apostasy and only makes sense from an LDS point of view which requires Apostles. (sometimes…Look at how long Joseph Smith ran the LDS church before a single apostles was called…where was the authority then?)"We do know that in the early years following the resurrection of Jesus the Apostles added additional members to their number as vacancies required. Eventually, however, the succession ended. By A.D. 95 only John remained, as far as we know. When John left his public ministry, apostleship ceased. Had it been God’s will, others certainly could have been chosen. But clearly it was not. The apostasy did not happen because the Apostles were gone; the Apostles were taken because the apostasy had occurred…
The reality is the argument for an apostasy will never make sense for people who actually believe in the Catholic Church. Only Catholic dissidents and Protestants can be swayed by this argument.stop right here. Please read the new testament and see what it says about the other Apostles selections. There is no requirement for a certain number or the perpetuity of the office. There IS a requirement that they all be able to personally witness to Jesus, in other words they were all taught directly by him in person. (somewhat of a special case in Paul). So eventually the generation that saw and heard Jesus in the flesh would die off. This hasa nothing to do with Apostasy and only makes sense from an LDS point of view which requires Apostles. (sometimes…Look at how long Joseph Smith ran the LDS church before a single apostles was called…where was the authority then?)
The rest of this post is propaganda predicated on the theory that there must be apostles as a specific office for the church to have authority. There is no scriptural basis for this and it was certainly not the original doctrine/practice in the LDS church.
I am sure they didn’t. But enough of them did to become sufficiently powerful and influential to usurp the authority over the church, thus making it apostatize:Where does Paul specifically say all the chosen leaders were abandoning the doctrines of the Gospel? In fact he is encouraging those who were believers to continue to live the teachings of Jesus – what makes you think every one of them quit doing so?
I was sure you were joking. You have to be.NDM, check post 2. I await your reply as to the specific date of this alleged apostasy.
Yet we don’t see this actually happening just inferred by reverse engineering some proof-texts.I am sure they didn’t. But enough of them did to become sufficiently powerful and influential to usurp the authority over the church, thus making it apostatize:
Acts 20:
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves {i.e. the church officers or leadership} shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Notice first that Paul is addressing his remarks not just to ordinary church members, but to those who were made “oversees” of the church—i.e. the church officers and leaders. Secondly, he says that he knows (i.e. he is prophesying) that after his death (which implies the death of the Apostles in general, not only of himself), “grievous wolves” shall arise from among the leadership of the church; and that they will not spare the flock (i.e. the church of God). That is another way of saying that they will destroy the church.
that is not what it says and you had to insert your own made up lines to get it even close to that. Paul doesn’t say he’s prophesying nor does he say you even need qany more prophets in that sense. He says that some of the leaders and some of the followers will apostatize, NOT all. He says teh flock won’t be spared that’s NOT the same as the whole flock will be destroyed and nowhere does he say all the sheperds will go away. Nowhere does it say the church will be destroyed or lose it’s ecclesiastical structure or divine authority or anything like that. He merely warns against those who will try to lure away the unwary and says some willeven be leaders. (althought he never specifies apostles)
zerinus;1594716:
of the church will be destroyed. The divine authority will be lost. It means that the church will no longer be guided and directed by revelation and by divine authority any more, as it was when Paul (and the rest of the Apostles) were alive.That does not mean that there will not be any more good Christians left in the world; it means that the ecclesiastical structure
and it never says that ongoing revelation or the perpetual office of apostle is required. It simply does not say what you imply.
2 Timothy 3:In the next quote Paul project that prediction into the future, thus describing the apostate condition of the Christian world in the latter days:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Verse 5 is a prophecy by Paul about what the state of the Christian religion in which we live. He says that they will have “a form of godliness, by deny the power thereof”. “The power thereof” is the ability of the church leadership to communicate directly with God, and to lead and direct the church by revelation form God, as the Apostles used to do. no it’s not and it never says that. It DOES describe people like Joseph Smith pretty well.
(continued)
Amos 3:In other words, they will have the outward appearance of the real thing, but in reality and in practice they deny the most essential elements of it—which is the ability to guide the church by revelation. Who can dispute that this is the state of the Christian world today? They match this description perfectly. The last quote I have is from the Old testament, which sums it all up quite nicely:
I would like to know what date this happened, too.NDM, check post 2. I await your reply as to the specific date of this alleged apostasy.
You mean like Peter? Paul?Where in the Bible does Jesus call a prophet to lead his church after he’s gone?
yes i mean like Peter and Paul. Which one was called to the OFFICE of prophet? I wholeheartedly agree with the letter to the ephesians. The Church (Catholic) IS built upon the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets. It no longer CONSISTS of those. Read the letter to the Hebrews. Read the Gospels. Only in the LDS church is Apostle synonmous with prophet, seer and revelator. Read how the NT describes Apostles. They are those who personally witnessed the earthly ministry of Jesus.You mean like Peter? Paul?
“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” (Eph. 2:19-20)
The “First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained by you as prophets, seers, and revelators, with the President of the Church sustained as the prophet, seer, and revelator, the senior Apostle, and as such the only man authorized to exercise all of the revelatory and administrative keys for the Church.” Jeffrey R. Holland, “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators,” Ensign, Nov. 2004, 6
Interesting notion. It is but it isn’t.I wholeheartedly agree with the letter to the ephesians. The Church (Catholic) IS built upon the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets. It no longer CONSISTS of those.
Your “apostles” do not meet the biblical criteria to be true apostles.So now we must choose another to take Judas’ place. It must be someone who has been with us all the time that we were with the Lord Jesus - from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us into heaven. Whoever is chosen will join us as a special witness of Jesus’ resurrection. - Acts 1:21-22
when ? where? there is no mention of this anywhere in the Bible, not even the JST.Interesting notion. It is but it isn’t.
Peter was called as the senior Apostle, the prophet, or President of the Church. Under his prophetic keys came revelation for the Church. Peter, James, and John comprised the First Presidency.
I think the main question is “where do you get these ideas?” I see your quotes as typical LDS unfounded assertions. Try to be objective for a moment and think as if you had never heard of modern prophets or apostles. You might not be so quick to assume that because peter, james and john were favored by Jesus that automatically means they were the first presidency of the church. That’s a HUGE leap with no scriptural support unless yoiu just accept the Joseph Smith story. Even then…where does he call apostles or a first presidency? there was an awful long time there and common sense would dictate that if that were true they would have had someone other than him and Oliver receivng the keys from Peter, James and John. I mean why go from three down to two and not even have the same “calling”? Joseph and Oliver were “first and second Elder”. When was Joseph Smith ordained an Apostle? cuz according to the D&C that’s not what happened with Peter, James and John."Peter, James, and John were the key leaders in the New Testament Church and to that extent functioned as a First Presidency. Whether these Apostles regularly met apart from the rest is not known, but their authority is evident from the Bible and early Christian writings. Most important, Christ selected them. He promised Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 16:19.) An event shortly after suggests fulfillment, when the three accompanied Jesus to a “high mountain apart,” where Moses and Elias appeared in glory before them. (See Matt. 17:1–3.)
Matthew veils the fulfillment of the promise to Peter, but Joseph Smith clarifies it: “The Savior, Moses and Elias gave the keys to Peter, James and John on the mount when they were transfigured before him.”
With this authority these ancient Apostles ordained Joseph Smith, Jr., and Oliver Cowdery and gave to them the keys of presidency. (See D&C 27:12.)
Christ took only Peter, James, and John with him on a number of sacred occasions, such as the time he raised a dead child (see Mark 5:37–42) and the time he suffered at Gethsemane (Matt. 26:37–39). Furthermore, Peter and John were the first men at the empty tomb (John 20:1–10), and later that day the resurrected Savior appeared to Peter before appearing to the other Apostles (Luke 24:34).
Right after Jesus’ resurrection, Peter led the gathering of Jesus’ disciples when a new Apostle, Mathias, was chosen. (See Acts 1:15.) Peter declared the gospel for the “eleven” in Jerusalem on the miraculous day of Pentecost. (See Acts 2:14.) Then Peter and John spoke before the Jewish council that condemned Christ, declaring that they would offer their lives rather than compromise their witness of his divinity. (See Acts 4:19–20.)
As the gospel spread to Samaria, Peter and John went there to supervise the work and to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (See Acts 8:14–25.) The prominence of these two Apostles is highlighted by the fact that none of the other original Apostles appear by name from Acts 2 through 11. The climax of the first part of Acts is the revelation to Peter that the gospel should be taken to Cornelius and other gentiles. (Acts 10.)" Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The First Presidency of the Early Church: Their Lives and Epistles,” Ensign, Aug. 1988, 16
PS - My whole purpose here is to present the “party line” and to answer questions about it.
So the LDS must have seen these “plain and precious parts” to know they exist and aren’t included in the Bible.LDS doctrine teaches that the New Testament has in fact been severely tampered with, and many “plain and precious parts” were removed form it. The apostates were a lot more subtle than that. The subsequent generations of Christians that emerged, including the Early Christian Fathers, were often good Christians who were themselves victims of that Apostasy, not the perpetrators of it. See 3 Nephi 13:20-29.
zerinus