LDS If a universal apostasy really happened?

[Daniel Marsh]

footnotes to above

7:9] The King of the universe will raise us up: here, and in vv. 11, 14, 23, 29, 36, belief in the future resurrection of the body, at least for the just, is clearly stated; cf. also 12:44; 14:46; Dn 12:2.

* [7:28] God did not make them out of existing things: that is, all things were made solely by God’s omnipotent will and creative word; cf. Heb 11:3. This statement has often been taken as a basis for “creation out of nothing” (Latin creatio ex nihilo).

a. [7:1] Jer 15:9.

b. [7:6] Dt 32:36–38.

c. [7:9] 2 Mc 12:44; 14:46; Dn 12:1–3.

d. [7:16–19] 2 Mc 5:17; 6:12–16; 7:32.

e. [7:22–23] 2 Mc 7:11, 28; Jb 1:10–12; Ps 139:13–16; Eccl 11:5.

f. [7:32] 2 Mc 5:17; 6:12–16; 7:16–19.

 

[Peter1000]

No my friend, those texts clearly speak that Jesus made an atonement for all men. The Resurrection was going to happen anyways. Eph 2:8-10 makes it clear that those who accept the gift by repenting and calling on Jesus will be saved.

Job 13:15 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
I will continue to trust God even if he kills me.
But I will defend myself to his face.

Daniel 12:1-4 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
12 “Daniel, at that time the great prince Michael will stand up. Michael is in charge of your people. There will be a time of much trouble, the worst time since nations have been on earth. But Daniel, at that time every one of your people whose name is found written in the book of life will be saved. 2 There are many who are dead and buried. Some of them will wake up and live forever, but others will wake up to shame and disgrace forever. 3 The wise people will shine as bright as the sky. Those who teach others to live right will shine like stars forever and ever.

4 “But you, Daniel, keep this message a secret. You must close the book and keep this secret until the time of the end. Many people will go here and there looking for true knowledge, and the true knowledge will increase.”

—In Extra-Canonical Apocalypses:
In the earliest part of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (i.-xxxvi.) there is a great advance on the conceptions of Daniel, although the book is of earlier date. Ch. xxii. contains an elaborate description of Sheol, telling how it is divided into four parts, two of which receive two classes of righteous; the others, two classes of wicked. Of these, three classes are to experience a resurrection. One class of the wicked has been judged and has received its punishment. In H Maccabees the belief that all Israelites will be resurrected finds expression (comp. vi. 26, vii. 9-36, and xiv. 46). In the next Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, lxxxiii.-xc.), composed a few years after Daniel, it was thought that only the righteous Israelites would experience a resurrection. That was to be a bodily resurrection, and the body was to be subsequently transformed. This writer realized that the earth was not a fit place for Yhwh's permanent kingdom, and so the conception of a heavenly Jerusalem appears, of which the earthly Jerusalem city is the prototype.

Against these views some of the later psalmists uttered a protest, declaring that a resurrection was impossible (comp. Ps. lxxxviii. 10, cxv. 17). In spite of this protest, however, the idea persisted. The next Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, xci.-civ.) looked for a resurrection of the righteous, but as spirits only, without a body (comp. ciii. 3, 4). A later Enoch apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch, xxxvii.-lxx.) expresses the conviction that both the righteous and the wicked will be raised (comp. li 1, 2; lxii. 15, 16), and that the spirits of the righteous will be clothed in a body of glory and light.

The author of the Slavonic Book of Enoch (Book of the Secrets of Enoch, xxii. 8-10) believed in a resurrection of spirits, without a body. He nevertheless believed in a spiritual body, for he describes the righteous as clothed in the glory of God. The authors of the Book of Jubilees and the Assumptio Mosis believed in a resurrection of the spirit only, without a body (comp. Jubilees, xxiii. 31 et al., and Assumptio Mosis, x. 9).

All these believed that the soul would sleep in Sheol till the judgment, but several Alexandrian writers about the beginning of the common era held, like Ps. xlix. and lxxiii., that the spirits of the righteous entered on a blessed immortality immediately at death. This was the view of the author of the Wisdom of Solomon (iii. 1-4; iv. 7, 10, et al.), of Philo, and of IV Maccabees. Finally, the scope of the resurrection, which in previous writers had been limited to Israel, was extended in the Apocalypse of Baruch and in II Esdras to include all mankind (comp. Baruch, xlix.-li. 4; II Esd. vii. 32-37).

Jewish Encyclopedia


Resurrection is asserted in all the Apocryphal writings of Pharisaic origin (comp. II Macc. vii. 9-36,xii. 43-44), where arguments against Sadducean Israel are prescented (Book of Jubilees, xxiii. 30; Test. Patr., Judah, 25; Zebulun, 10; Benjamin, 10; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xiii.; Sibyllines, ii. 85; Enoch, li. 1-2; Apoc. Baruch, xxx. 1-5, l.-li.: II Esd. vii. 32; Psalms of Solomon, iii. 16, xiv. 13), and in the Hellenistic writings (see Wisdom iii. 1-9, iv. 7, v. 16, vi. 20; IV Macc. ix. 8; xiii. 16; xv. 2; xvii. 5, 18; xviii. 23). Immortality of the soul takes the place of bodily resurrection. Rabbinical arguments in favor of resurrection are given in Sanh. 90b-92b, from promises made to the dead (Ex. iv. 4; Deut. xi. 9 [comp. Mark xii. 18]; Num. xviii. 28; Deut. iv. 4, xxxi. 16, xxxii. 39), and from similar expressions in which the future tense is applied to the future life (Ex. xv. 1; Deut. xxxiii. 6; Josh. viii. 30; Ps. lxxxiv. 5 [A. V. 4]; Isa. lii. 8); also in Ḥul. 142a, from promised rewards (Deut. v. 16, xxii. 17), which so frequently are not fulfilled during this life (Ber. 16b; Gen. R. xx. 26). Arguments are drawn from the grain of wheat (Sanh. 90b; comp. I. Cor. xv. 35-38), from historical parallels—the miracles of revival wrought by Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel (Lev. R. xxvii. 4)—and from a necessary conception of divine justice, body and soul not being in a position to be held to account for their doings in life unless, like the blind and the lame man in the parable, they are again brought together as they were before (Sifre, Deut. 106; Sanh. 91a; with reference to Ps. l. 4).

The Sadducees denied the resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 8, § 14; Acts xxiii. 8; Sanh. 90b; Ab. R. N. v.). All the more emphatically did the Pharisees enunciate in the liturgy (Shemoneh 'Esreh, 2d benediction; Ber. v. 2) their belief in resurrection as one of their fundamental convictions (Sanh. x. 1; comp. Abot iv. 22; Soṭah ix. 15).

Both the Pharisees and the Essenes believed in the resurrection of the body, Josephus' philosophical construction of their belief to suit the taste of his Roman readers notwithstanding (see "B. J." ii. 8, § 11; "Ant." xviii. 1, § 5; compare these with the genuine source of Josephus, in Hippolytus' "Refutatio Hæresium," ed. Duncker Schneidewin, ix. 27, 29, where the original ἀνάστασις [= "resurrection"] casts a strange light upon Josephus' mode of handling texts). According to the Rabbis, Job and Esau denied resurrection (B. B. 16a, b). Whosoever denies resurrection will have no share in it (Sanh. 90b). The resurrection will be achieved by God, who alone holds the key to it (Ta'an. 2a; Sanh. 113a). At the same time the elect ones, among these first of all the Messiah and Elijah, but also the righteous in general, shall aid in raising the dead (Pirḳe R. El. xxxii.; Soṭah ix. 15; Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, vii.; Pes. 68a; comp. "Bundahis," xxx. 17).

Universal or National.
By means of the "dew of resurrection" (see Dew) the dead will be aroused from their sleep (Yer. Ber. v. 9b; Ta'an. i. 63d, with reference to Isa. xxvi. 19; Ḥag. 12b. with reference to Ps. lxviii. 10 [A. V. 9]). As to the question, Who will be raised from death? the answers given vary greatly in rabbinical literature. According to R. Simai (Sifre, Deut. 306) and R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (Gen. R. xiii. 4; comp. Lev. R. xiii. 3), resurrection awaits only the Israelites; according to R. Abbahu, only the just (Ta'an. 7a); some mention especially the martyrs (Yalḳ. ii. 431, after Tanḥuma). R. Abbahu and R. Eleazar confine resurrection to those that die in the Holy Land; others extend it to such as die outside of Palestine (Ket. 111a). According to R. Jonathan (Pirḳe R. El. xxxiv.), the resurrection will be universal, but after judgment the wicked will die a second death and forever, whereas the just will be granted life everlasting (comp. Yalḳ. ii. 428, 499). The same difference of view prevails also among the New Testament writers; at times only "the resurrection of the just" is spoken of (Luke xiv. 14, xx. 35); at other times "the resurrection of the dead" in general is mentioned (John v. 29; Acts xxiv. 15; Rev. xx. 45).

Didn't I say that "all" men would be resurrected? Yes I did.
Didn't I say that "all" believers will have eternal life? Yes I did.

So what is wrong with what I said?

It is a problem of semantics. OK Jesus died for 'all' men. But only those that believe will be saved.
So it is as if Jesus only died for those that believe. But if you must have it. I agree with you that Jesus died for 'all' men.

 

[He is the way]

I can quote proof texts too, except mine are actually relevant to what is being said.

1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1 Timothy 4:10
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

1 Timothy 2:6
Who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 5:18
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

-CryptoLutheran

One person told me that we are all going to the same place but at a different pace. Some are crawling, some are walking, some are driving, and some are flying.

 

[drstevej]

One person told me that we are all going to the same place but at a different pace. Some are crawling, some are walking, some are driving, and some are flying.

Did you ask to shake his hand?

 

[He is the way]

Did you ask to shake his hand?

No, but I am pretty sure she would have shaken my hand if I would have asked her. It was at an IANDS meeting and she was the speaker. I suppose you are just trying to be funny or sarcastic with the hand shake thing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

God decides who He gives His authority to:
(Old Testament | Jeremiah 1:5)

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(New Testament | John 15:16 - 17)

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.
(Old Testament | Exodus 3:12 - 14)

12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Polycarp was a bishop and I assume that he was set apart as a bishop to officiate in the office of a bishop. Joseph Smith was called of God:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 20:1 - 16)

1 THE rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—
2 Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church;
3 And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand;
4 And this according to the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory, both now and forever. Amen.
5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;
6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;
7 And gave unto him commandments which inspired him;
8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;
9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;
10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—
11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;
12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.
13 Therefore, having so great witnesses, by them shall the world be judged, even as many as shall hereafter come to a knowledge of this work.
14 And those who receive it in faith, and work righteousness, shall receive a crown of eternal life;
15 But those who harden their hearts in unbelief, and reject it, it shall turn to their own condemnation—
16 For the Lord God has spoken it; and we, the elders of the church, have heard and bear witness to the words of the glorious Majesty on high, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Quoting bible verses alone doesn't demonstrate that the Mormon interpretation is correct. Christians have been reading these texts for a lot longer than Mormons and I believe those interpretations are not only historical but also are true to the text.

Still my points regarding the interpretation or Polycarp haven't been addressed. What did Joseph Smith have that Polycarp did not? Mormons seem to make the belief in the apostasy necessary by the lack of Apostles, yet it was (as I've said in other threads) not any Church member's fault that there was no Apostles because they and God failed to appoint successors. It cannot be argued there were people lacking in faith either, since there were many zealous individuals who gave their lives up for Christ. Polycarp being one example, but Ignatius is another. It seems impossible to me, that he should not have been worthy of being an Apostle, but he only was a Bishop.

I honestly think there is no way the Mormons can actually believe in the Apostasy without calling into question the character of every Christian in the second century because apparently none of them was worthy of being made an apostle. Not only this, but the Apostles did not lay it down clearly that the place they had was an office to be passed down.

This however is my own speculation int he absence of Mormon responses. Can you tell me what Joseph Smith had that Polycarp lacked? What 1800 years of Christians lacked, that Joseph Smith had?

 

[Peter1000]

Quoting bible verses alone doesn't demonstrate that the Mormon interpretation is correct. Christians have been reading these texts for a lot longer than Mormons and I believe those interpretations are not only historical but also are true to the text.

Still my points regarding the interpretation or Polycarp haven't been addressed. What did Joseph Smith have that Polycarp did not? Mormons seem to make the belief in the apostasy necessary by the lack of Apostles, yet it was (as I've said in other threads) not any Church member's fault that there was no Apostles because they and God failed to appoint successors. It cannot be argued there were people lacking in faith either, since there were many zealous individuals who gave their lives up for Christ. Polycarp being one example, but Ignatius is another. It seems impossible to me, that he should not have been worthy of being an Apostle, but he only was a Bishop.

I honestly think there is no way the Mormons can actually believe in the Apostasy without calling into question the character of every Christian in the second century because apparently none of them was worthy of being made an apostle. Not only this, but the Apostles did not lay it down clearly that the place they had was an office to be passed down.

This however is my own speculation int he absence of Mormon responses. Can you tell me what Joseph Smith had that Polycarp lacked? What 1800 years of Christians lacked, that Joseph Smith had?

I will give you a short history of the Church of Jesus Christ of the First-century Saints.

Jesus chose 12 to be the foundation of his church.

Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of God. These keys represent the authority to act in Jesus's name when he was not on the earth. The keys also gave the apostles the power to bind and loose on earth, and whatever they bound, or loosed on earth, would be recognized in heaven and it was done. (Catholics claim those keys were passed down to their pope line from Peter, which makes them the true church. Interestingly enough, no other church that has broken away from the Catholic church claims to have those keys.)

Judas betrayed Christ, so the first thing the 11 apostles did after Jesus's resurrection was to replace Judas, which they did with Matthias. (a hint that Jesus wanted to continue the office of apostle, Ephesians 4:11-14 tells us a lot more about how important the office of apostle was and that it was intended to continue).

As the apostles went out into the world, they taught and baptized people to Christ and the church grew rapidly. In order for the apostles to leave and go elsewhere, they needed helpers in those local areas to administer the growth of the church, its teachings, and perform the necessary ordinances set down by the church. So the apostles called elders, and from the elders, they chose bishops, and deacons, and priests, and teachers, and seventy to help in a local area.

The Peter had the keys of authority for the entire world. Polycarp had the authority of just his local area, which was Smyrna. IOW Polycarp could not act like Peter and head for Rome and ordain a bishop in Rome. Polycarp could not ordain any bishop. Only an apostle could ordain a bishop.

So when Peter died, the Lord Jesus did not pass that authority on, because of the wickedness of the world. Even within the church there was major wickedness, even so that some bishops, after they got power would not allow the apostles into their area or into the homes of those that wanted the apostles, and if these people did house an apostle, they were thrown out of the church.

Polycarp had the keys for his local area in Smyrna, and until he died he could do all that was necessary to grow the church and try to keep the people in the true path. And that lasted for about 20 years past the apostles. But as soon as Polycarp died, unless an apostle came to Smyrna, these keys would be lost.

So you ask, what did JS have that Polycarp did not have? JS was given those same keys that Peter held from Peter himself. Sent from Jesus Christ, Peter laid his hands on JS and conferred the keys of the kingdom of heaven upon him and now JS had the authority to call a quorum of 12 apostles, and give them the same authority that Peter gave them in his day. So the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was firm with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone and apostles and prophets. (Ephesians 2:20)

Polycarp had the keys for his local area only. He could not call new apostles or bishops. If he did, he could have gone rogue and ruined the church before the apostles could get back there and fix things.
JS had the keys to call apostles, just like the apostles had when they called Matthias and Paul and others. JS had the authority to call bishops in local areas.

That is the difference.

BTW, what happened to the church of Smyrna?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I will give you a short history of the Church of Jesus Christ of the First-century Saints.

Jesus chose 12 to be the foundation of his church.

Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of God. These keys represent the authority to act in Jesus's name when he was not on the earth. The keys also gave the apostles the power to bind and loose on earth, and whatever they bound, or loosed on earth, would be recognized in heaven and it was done. (Catholics claim those keys were passed down to their pope line from Peter, which makes them the true church. Interestingly enough, no other church that has broken away from the Catholic church claims to have those keys.)

Judas betrayed Christ, so the first thing the 11 apostles did after Jesus's resurrection was to replace Judas, which they did with Matthias. (a hint that Jesus wanted to continue the office of apostle, Ephesians 4:11-14 tells us a lot more about how important the office of apostle was and that it was intended to continue).

As the apostles went out into the world, they taught and baptized people to Christ and the church grew rapidly. In order for the apostles to leave and go elsewhere, they needed helpers in those local areas to administer the growth of the church, its teachings, and perform the necessary ordinances set down by the church. So the apostles called elders, and from the elders, they chose bishops, and deacons, and priests, and teachers, and seventy to help in a local area.

The Peter had the keys of authority for the entire world. Polycarp had the authority of just his local area, which was Smyrna. IOW Polycarp could not act like Peter and head for Rome and ordain a bishop in Rome. Polycarp could not ordain any bishop. Only an apostle could ordain a bishop.

So when Peter died, the Lord Jesus did not pass that authority on, because of the wickedness of the world. Even within the church there was major wickedness, even so that some bishops, after they got power would not allow the apostles into their area or into the homes of those that wanted the apostles, and if these people did house an apostle, they were thrown out of the church.

Polycarp had the keys for his local area in Smyrna, and until he died he could do all that was necessary to grow the church and try to keep the people in the true path. And that lasted for about 20 years past the apostles. But as soon as Polycarp died, unless an apostle came to Smyrna, these keys would be lost.

So you ask, what did JS have that Polycarp did not have? JS was given those same keys that Peter held from Peter himself. Sent from Jesus Christ, Peter laid his hands on JS and conferred the keys of the kingdom of heaven upon him and now JS had the authority to call a quorum of 12 apostles, and give them the same authority that Peter gave them in his day. So the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was firm with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone and apostles and prophets. (Ephesians 2:20)

Polycarp had the keys for his local area only. He could not call new apostles or bishops. If he did, he could have gone rogue and ruined the church before the apostles could get back there and fix things.
JS had the keys to call apostles, just like the apostles had when they called Matthias and Paul and others. JS had the authority to call bishops in local areas.

That is the difference.

BTW, what happened to the church of Smyrna?

This doesn't answer my question. Why wasnt Polycarp appointed as an Apostle?

 

[Peter1000]

This doesn't answer my question. Why wasnt Polycarp appointed as an Apostle?

What did Joseph Smith have that Polycarp did not? This is your exact quote from post #106, plus you said this in the same post: This however is my own speculation int he absence of Mormon responses. Can you tell me what Joseph Smith had that Polycarp lacked? What 1800 years of Christians lacked, that Joseph Smith had?

So I answered that, but now I will answer why Polycarp was not called to be an apostle.

They say that Polycarp was a disciple of John, and that John ordained Polycarp to be the bishop of Smyrna. John then went on to be exiled to Patmos and came back and lived in Ephesus for a time and then disappeared from history and never again to anyone's knowledge met with Polycarp to ordain him an apostle.

So long story short, the Lord knew the apostasy was in full swing at the disappearance of John by
110-120. Polycarp was killed before he could be ordained to an apostleship. The world was killing all the top tier Christians, such as bishops and elders and there was confusion in the church as the apostles were all killed and now bishops and elders were being killed.
The people took it unto themselves to start choosing and ordaining their own bishops and now it became a fashion show, and the popular man with the most votes, got the job. And to keep his job, he had to please those people that got him there. This lead to controversies about the doctrines and ordinances and church policy etc.

It became a very slippery slope. Why? Because the world was a very wicked place, and by 300 the existing bishops were put in charge of the religion for this wicked world and it went downhill fast.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They say that Polycarp was a disciple of John, and that John ordained Polycarp to be the bishop of Smyrna. John then went on to be exiled to Patmos and came back and lived in Ephesus for a time and then disappeared from history and never again to anyone's knowledge met with Polycarp to ordain him an apostle.

So long story short, the Lord knew the apostasy was in full swing at the disappearance of John by
110-120. Polycarp was killed before he could be ordained to an apostleship. The world was killing all the top tier Christians, such as bishops and elders and there was confusion in the church as the apostles were all killed and now bishops and elders were being killed.
The people took it unto themselves to start choosing and ordaining their own bishops and now it became a fashion show, and the popular man with the most votes, got the job. And to keep his job, he had to please those people that got him there. This lead to controversies about the doctrines and ordinances and church policy etc.

It became a very slippery slope. Why? Because the world was a very wicked place, and by 300 the existing bishops were put in charge of the religion for this wicked world and it went downhill fast.

The problem with assuming that the world's power can overcome God's power is that it leaves your church especially susceptible to the charge of already being corrupted. Given how much the LDS have changed their beliefs, that seems a strong possibility and one you cannot discount possibly happening to your Church in the future given that it happened to your Church 2000 years ago.

This, however, isn't the main problem. You're crafting a narrative to explain something that adds more problems than it solves. For instance, to suggest Polycarp was killed before could become an Apostle is ludicrous given that at the time of his death in the second century he was 86 years old. Since you admit he was worthy to receive Apostleship he should have been given it at an earlier point and there would have only been a benefit to the Church since it would preserve the Apostolic line and keep it from corruption. Given that you believe Saint Peter himself was able to bestow the keys on Joseph Smtih, time and space are no limitation on one's receiving Apostolic authority. So there is really no excuse for Polycarp not being ordained an Apostle, especially when it was clear John was the only one left alive and all the other Apostles dead.

One interesting aspect of Polycarp's letter is his approval of everything in the Ignatian corpus. Ignatius was a great advocate for the place of the Bishop in the Church and he makes no mention of the need for an Apostle or the Church expecting replacements. I suspect given this information you would need to say Polycarp is part of the Apostasy despite his martyrdom or that the Church was corrupted completely by the time of the Ignatian letters (sometime in the early second century).

I mention Polycarp but by no means could it be reasonably argued that he was the only faithful Christian left. We have plenty of other candidates whom we know historically but I suspect there were even more not known to history, of whom Apostleship couldn't be denied. If we look to the character of the Apostles when they were called we see that they were ordinary sinful men whom Jesus chose. They were flawed, subject to error (even after the Holy Spirit came upon them) and so the only reasonable qualification we can expect of an Apostle is that they have faith in Christ. The only conclusion the Mormon must reach in order to explain the absence of Apostles is that there were not even people on the level of Peter before he was called, but the historical testimony of the Church and those who suffered for Christ lays this idea aside. There were plenty of faithful believers in Christ who died in abomination.

There is of course a better explanation. There was no handing down of the rank of Apostle from one generation to the next, hence why the office didn't exist in the second century. The Apostles were a unique ministry, whose only replacement we have recorded is that of Matthias for Judas' betrayal.

So what can you say since you seemingly admit there were qualified people to take over the mantle of Apostle? You also believe that John was alive and wandering around Earth, not that this matters since God can allow Peter to personally give the keys to whomever he wishes. If all of this is true, we can only conclude that the Mormon God wanted the early Church to fail for reasons beyond human understanding. This to me is utterly unsatisfying a belief to hold but it is the only position that makes sense if we accept Mormon premises. Every attempt to explain the Apostasy by Mormons calls God's character into question. He is either incompetent or unwilling to save those who had faith in him.

 

[Peter1000]

The problem with assuming that the world's power can overcome God's power

God's power is really only manifest when people are righteous and are living like God wants them to live. Then His power will be with them, and they will prosper.
The House of Israel is a perfect example: God created the House of Israel, He showed Himself unto them, they knew first hand the power that He generated. He protected them, He fed them, He called them His people, He said for them to call Him their God.
But when they did not do as he pleaded for them to do, he finally cut them off and let the world conquer them. God allowed Israel to be conquered by the world because of their unwillingness to live as he pleaded them to live.

Since you admit he was worthy to receive Apostleship he should have been given it at an earlier point

I can't remember admitting that Polycarp was worthy to be an apostle? But if he was worthy, he was not chosen by Jesus to be an apostle. You would have to take that up with Jesus.
Jesus did replace fallen apostles. Judas was replaced by Matthias. James was replaced by Paul, (not recorded). Paul's traveling companion Barnabas replaced another of the original apostles (not recorded). There is thoughts that Timothy and Apollos were also called to replace fallen apostles. So for about 30 years after the ascension of Jesus, Jesus replaced original apostles as they were murdered. Read Ephesians 4:11-15 to find out why.

Was Polycarp not worthy to be an apostle? Was Ignatius not worthy to be an apostle. Was Irenaeus not worthy to be an apostle? We cannot answer those questions. I can only say that by their time in the mid to end of the second century, it does not look like Jesus was replacing apostles like at first. With Ignatius's focus on the bishop, did he realize that the apostles were gone so the focus was now on the bishop, or was he acting like Diotrephes in 3 John 1:9, and did not want apostles in his area, and was throwing people out of the church if they allowed apostles into their homes.

So there is really no excuse for Polycarp not being ordained an Apostle,

Except Jesus did not call him to the apostleship.

I suspect given this information you would need to say Polycarp is part of the Apostasy despite his martyrdom or that the Church was corrupted completely by the time of the Ignatian letters (sometime in the early second century).

No the church was not completely corrupted by that time because Polycarp and Ignatius still held the keys of the kingdom in his local area at that time. But since bishops cannot ordain apostles or even other bishops, as soon as Polycarp died and Ignatius died, the keys were gone, and there was nothing to hold back the apostasy.

We have plenty of other candidates whom we know historically but I suspect there were even more not known to history, of whom Apostleship couldn't be denied.

How do you step in and make a statement like that. "couldn't be denied". They were denied by Jesus, otherwise they would have been ordained to the office.

There is of course a better explanation. There was no handing down of the rank of Apostle from one generation to the next, hence why the office didn't exist in the second century. The Apostles were a unique ministry, whose only replacement we have recorded is that of Matthias for Judas' betrayal.

That is the answer, the keys were not handed down. But not because they were not wanted and needed (see Ephesians 4:11-15) It is because of the wickedness of the world, including the churches.
For instance Paul goes to Corinth and sets up a church there and lives there for a time to get things in order. Then he leaves and just a short time later, he finds out that there is a civil war in the Corinth church. So he writes and gives them a tongue lashing for being so stupid in the gospel, and behaving like children. I don't know if their troubles ever went away.
The church in Galatia also got a stinging letter from Paul when he say, how could it be so soon that you have left your first love. Did they ever get their church and gospel living together.
And then the 7 churches in Revelations. None of those churches even exist today, Jesus strong words for these churches that seem to be hanging on by a thread when he gave John the revelation. I guess they did not listen.
The leaders were slaughtered, the congregations scattered, the churches burned down, the letters from the apostles burned and destroyed, etc., etc., etc.

So what can you say since you seemingly admit there were qualified people to take over the mantle of Apostle?

I say, was there? You will have to ask Jesus why he allowed the apostles to be killed and finally stopped replacing them? I think I have given you a pretty good answer, but that would to against everything that you have been taught. But the above is true.

If all of this is true, we can only conclude that the Mormon God wanted the early Church to fail for reasons beyond human understanding.

The only way you can understand the fall of the church is to look at the fall of the House of Israel and what become of them. They are still moving around the world thinking that the Messiah is coming. Jesus has left them in the rear and they are still a church, thinking they are the children of God and his chosen people and that when he comes they will be vindicated for their wait, and will see Israel rise again.

Israel fell and Jesus abandoned them, which is beyond human understanding, but it happened. It happened to the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints. Men, not inspired by the Holy Spirit, took over the churches and turned the sees into a "game of thrones". By 1500's Martin Luther said that the Catholic church, which was the largest Christian church, centered in Rome, was the home of satan and the pope was satans czar. That is how bad it was. That was the zenith of the corruption of the church. The Reformation did some good, but it could not recover to be anything like the time of the apostles in the First century.

What it would take to do that was a restoration of the office of the apostles. That happened and it is alive an dynamic today as we prepare for the second coming of Christ.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

God's power is really only manifest when people are righteous and are living like God wants them to live. Then His power will be with them, and they will prosper.
The House of Israel is a perfect example: God created the House of Israel, He showed Himself unto them, they knew first hand the power that He generated. He protected them, He fed them, He called them His people, He said for them to call Him their God.
But when they did not do as he pleaded for them to do, he finally cut them off and let the world conquer them. God allowed Israel to be conquered by the world because of their unwillingness to live as he pleaded them to live.



I can't remember admitting that Polycarp was worthy to be an apostle? But if he was worthy, he was not chosen by Jesus to be an apostle. You would have to take that up with Jesus.
Jesus did replace fallen apostles. Judas was replaced by Matthias. James was replaced by Paul, (not recorded). Paul's traveling companion Barnabas replaced another of the original apostles (not recorded). There is thoughts that Timothy and Apollos were also called to replace fallen apostles. So for about 30 years after the ascension of Jesus, Jesus replaced original apostles as they were murdered. Read Ephesians 4:11-15 to find out why.

Was Polycarp not worthy to be an apostle? Was Ignatius not worthy to be an apostle. Was Irenaeus not worthy to be an apostle? We cannot answer those questions. I can only say that by their time in the mid to end of the second century, it does not look like Jesus was replacing apostles like at first. With Ignatius's focus on the bishop, did he realize that the apostles were gone so the focus was now on the bishop, or was he acting like Diotrephes in 3 John 1:9, and did not want apostles in his area, and was throwing people out of the church if they allowed apostles into their homes.



Except Jesus did not call him to the apostleship.



No the church was not completely corrupted by that time because Polycarp and Ignatius still held the keys of the kingdom in his local area at that time. But since bishops cannot ordain apostles or even other bishops, as soon as Polycarp died and Ignatius died, the keys were gone, and there was nothing to hold back the apostasy.



How do you step in and make a statement like that. "couldn't be denied". They were denied by Jesus, otherwise they would have been ordained to the office.



That is the answer, the keys were not handed down. But not because they were not wanted and needed (see Ephesians 4:11-15) It is because of the wickedness of the world, including the churches.
For instance Paul goes to Corinth and sets up a church there and lives there for a time to get things in order. Then he leaves and just a short time later, he finds out that there is a civil war in the Corinth church. So he writes and gives them a tongue lashing for being so stupid in the gospel, and behaving like children. I don't know if their troubles ever went away.
The church in Galatia also got a stinging letter from Paul when he say, how could it be so soon that you have left your first love. Did they ever get their church and gospel living together.
And then the 7 churches in Revelations. None of those churches even exist today, Jesus strong words for these churches that seem to be hanging on by a thread when he gave John the revelation. I guess they did not listen.
The leaders were slaughtered, the congregations scattered, the churches burned down, the letters from the apostles burned and destroyed, etc., etc., etc.



I say, was there? You will have to ask Jesus why he allowed the apostles to be killed and finally stopped replacing them? I think I have given you a pretty good answer, but that would to against everything that you have been taught. But the above is true.


The only way you can understand the fall of the church is to look at the fall of the House of Israel and what become of them. They are still moving around the world thinking that the Messiah is coming. Jesus has left them in the rear and they are still a church, thinking they are the children of God and his chosen people and that when he comes they will be vindicated for their wait, and will see Israel rise again.

Israel fell and Jesus abandoned them, which is beyond human understanding, but it happened. It happened to the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints. Men, not inspired by the Holy Spirit, took over the churches and turned the sees into a "game of thrones". By 1500's Martin Luther said that the Catholic church, which was the largest Christian church, centered in Rome, was the home of satan and the pope was satans czar. That is how bad it was. That was the zenith of the corruption of the church. The Reformation did some good, but it could not recover to be anything like the time of the apostles in the First century.

What it would take to do that was a restoration of the office of the apostles. That happened and it is alive an dynamic today as we prepare for the second coming of Christ.

All this explanation amounts to is that you have no reason for explaining why there were no Apostles except God chose not to. So if we are to follow the logic of your statement that Apostasy was inevitable, would we not have to conclude God wanted the Apostasy to happen? What was the benefit of this? 1700 years of abomination dominating Europe and then subsequently the world. Was it impossible for Mormonism, instead of Christianity to have done that?

You also have an inconsistent argument when you try to shift blame to the Church itself for being unable to stop it's own corruption but then suggest that Apostles are needed to keep the Church intact. What was the Church to do given God's abandoment of them? You also did suggest Polycarp was worthy to be an apostle when you said he had yet to be ordained an Apostle. Though for you to insist on standards for Apostleship when we have Peter, an uneducated fisherman who betrayed Christ as an example of who can be called to be an Apostle any such argument falls flat. There were plenty of faithful candidates who in their Christian walk went contrary to the world. Polycarp is a microcosm, an example of those faithful Christians for whom I see it as utterly inexplicable if Mormonism were true, that he shouldn't have been an Apostle.

Why did God want the Apostasy to happen? What was the point?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Didn't I say that "all" men would be resurrected? Yes I did.
Didn't I say that "all" believers will have eternal life? Yes I did.

So what is wrong with what I said?

It is a problem of semantics. OK Jesus died for 'all' men. But only those that believe will be saved.
So it is as if Jesus only died for those that believe. But if you must have it. I agree with you that Jesus died for 'all' men.

I blame lack of sleep due to care giving.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

All this explanation amounts to is that you have no reason for explaining why there were no Apostles except God chose not to. So if we are to follow the logic of your statement that Apostasy was inevitable, would we not have to conclude God wanted the Apostasy to happen? What was the benefit of this? 1700 years of abomination dominating Europe and then subsequently the world. Was it impossible for Mormonism, instead of Christianity to have done that?

You also have an inconsistent argument when you try to shift blame to the Church itself for being unable to stop it's own corruption but then suggest that Apostles are needed to keep the Church intact. What was the Church to do given God's abandoment of them? You also did suggest Polycarp was worthy to be an apostle when you said he had yet to be ordained an Apostle. Though for you to insist on standards for Apostleship when we have Peter, an uneducated fisherman who betrayed Christ as an example of who can be called to be an Apostle any such argument falls flat. There were plenty of faithful candidates who in their Christian walk went contrary to the world. Polycarp is a microcosm, an example of those faithful Christians for whom I see it as utterly inexplicable if Mormonism were true, that he shouldn't have been an Apostle.

Why did God want the Apostasy to happen? What was the point?

HI, the great apostasy is part of end times, it did not happen in the past.
Jesus said, the Gates of Hell, which refers to the authority of evil in our language will not prevail against the church.

These are some of the texts that apply, please read in context since I am tired and make mistakes.

Revelation 11:7 When they finish proclaiming their message, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will fight against them. He will defeat them and kill them,

Revelation 13:1 [ The Two Beasts ] Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads; on each of its horns there was a crown, and on each of its heads there was a name that was insulting to God.

Revelation 13:2 The beast looked like a leopard, with feet like a bear's feet and a mouth like a lion's mouth. The dragon gave the beast his own power, his throne, and his vast authority.

Revelation 13:3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have been fatally wounded, but the wound had healed. The whole earth was amazed and followed the beast.

Revelation 13:4 Everyone worshiped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshiped the beast also, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?”

Revelation 13:5 The beast was allowed to make proud claims which were insulting to God, and it was permitted to have authority for forty-two months.

Revelation 13:11 Then I saw another beast, which came up out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb's horns, and it spoke like a dragon.

Revelation 13:12 It used the vast authority of the first beast in its presence. It forced the earth and all who live on it to worship the first beast, whose wound had healed.

Revelation 13:13 This second beast performed great miracles; it made fire come down out of heaven to earth in the sight of everyone.

2 Thessalonians 2 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Evil Things Will Happen
2 Brothers and sisters, we have something to say about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We want to talk to you about that time when we will meet together with him. 2 Don’t let yourselves be easily upset or worried if you hear that the day of the Lord has already come. Someone might say that this idea came from us—in something the Spirit told us, or in something we said, or in a letter we wrote. 3 Don’t be fooled by anything they might say. That day of the Lord will not come until the turning away from God happens. And that day will not come until the Man of Evil appears, the one who belongs to hell.[a] 4 He will stand against and put himself above everything that people worship or think is worthy of worship. He will even go into God’s Temple and sit there, claiming that he is God.

5 I told you before that all these things would happen. Remember? 6 And you know what is stopping that Man of Evil now. He is being stopped now so that he will appear at the right time. 7 The secret power of evil is already working in the world now. But there is one who is stopping that secret power of evil. And he will continue to stop it until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that Man of Evil will appear. end of the Man of Evil.But the Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath that comes from his mouth. The Lord will come in a way that everyone will see, and that will be the

9 When that Man of Evil comes, it will be the work of Satan. He will come with great power, and he will do all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders. 10 The Man of Evil will use every kind of evil to fool those who are lost. They are lost because they refused to love the truth and be saved. 11 So God will send them something powerful that leads them away from the truth and causes them to believe a lie. 12 They will all be condemned because they did not believe the truth and because they enjoyed doing evil.

 

[Peter1000]

All this explanation amounts to is that you have no reason for explaining why there were no Apostles except God chose not to. So if we are to follow the logic of your statement that Apostasy was inevitable, would we not have to conclude God wanted the Apostasy to happen? What was the benefit of this? 1700 years of abomination dominating Europe and then subsequently the world. Was it impossible for Mormonism, instead of Christianity to have done that?

You also have an inconsistent argument when you try to shift blame to the Church itself for being unable to stop it's own corruption but then suggest that Apostles are needed to keep the Church intact. What was the Church to do given God's abandoment of them? You also did suggest Polycarp was worthy to be an apostle when you said he had yet to be ordained an Apostle. Though for you to insist on standards for Apostleship when we have Peter, an uneducated fisherman who betrayed Christ as an example of who can be called to be an Apostle any such argument falls flat. There were plenty of faithful candidates who in their Christian walk went contrary to the world. Polycarp is a microcosm, an example of those faithful Christians for whom I see it as utterly inexplicable if Mormonism were true, that he shouldn't have been an Apostle.

Why did God want the Apostasy to happen? What was the point?

All this explanation amounts to is that you have no reason for explaining why there were no Apostles except God chose not to. So if we are to follow the logic of your statement that Apostasy was inevitable, would we not have to conclude God wanted the Apostasy to happen? What was the benefit of this? 1700 years of abomination dominating Europe and then subsequently the world. Was it impossible for Mormonism, instead of Christianity to have done that?

You also have an inconsistent argument when you try to shift blame to the Church itself for being unable to stop it's own corruption but then suggest that Apostles are needed to keep the Church intact. What was the Church to do given God's abandoment of them? You also did suggest Polycarp was worthy to be an apostle when you said he had yet to be ordained an Apostle. Though for you to insist on standards for Apostleship when we have Peter, an uneducated fisherman who betrayed Christ as an example of who can be called to be an Apostle any such argument falls flat. There were plenty of faithful candidates who in their Christian walk went contrary to the world. Polycarp is a microcosm, an example of those faithful Christians for whom I see it as utterly inexplicable if Mormonism were true, that he shouldn't have been an Apostle.

Why did God want the Apostasy to happen? What was the point?

God did not want the apostasy to happen, but he knew it would. If you read the book called the didache, you will see what I mean. But this early time in the church, after the apostles died, other leaders of the church were already telling the people it was OK to sprinkle their heads with water if they were in a place with little water.

The first line of the didache says it was written by the 12 apostles, but its late date in the first century tells us that is spurious, and is why it is not included in the bible today.

It also talks about how to handle men who come telling the people that they are apostles. Fake apostles by the end of the first century. (see Revelation 2:2). Great, already having problems, and it only grew worse.
By the third century men were called by their name and after their name they were given the title
Apostolic. So we get St. Athanasius the Apostolic. Which is given to give the affect that he is an apostle, which he was not.

You also have to know the entire plan of God for men on earth to understand how God could allow an apostasy. All people world wide who have lived since Adam will have the opportunity to hear the fullness of the gospel, and have a chance to make the right decisions. A lot of this work is done on the other side, or in the spirit world. That is the reason for a place called the spirit world, where the spirits of the dead go and learn of Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies.

It is quite ingenious, so do not think that God abandoned his people during the apostasy, he did not. For instance did he abandon entirely the Chinese or the people of dark Africa, no, he will give them that opportunity in the spirit world, where they can be taught outside the traditions of their fathers, and be able to make clear and good choices regarding their belief in Jesus Christ, that can alter their hereafter for eternity. God knows exactly what he is doing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

God did not want the apostasy to happen, but he knew it would. If you read the book called the didache, you will see what I mean. But this early time in the church, after the apostles died, other leaders of the church were already telling the people it was OK to sprinkle their heads with water if they were in a place with little water.

You’re misconstruing what the Didache actually says. It teaches that in the absence of living water (a stream or river) one can baptize someone else if the circumstance requires it. I’ve always read that to mean if there was an emergency and the convert required baptism but there was no river or if it endangered them in some way only a sprinkle was necessary. It was by no means a normative way of baptizing and full immersion is still in practice today as it was yesterday.

The first line of the didache says it was written by the 12 apostles, but its late date in the first century tells us that is spurious, and is why it is not included in the bible today.

Actually the first line of the Didache is “There are two ways, one to life and one to death, but the difference between the two ways is great.”

You are probably referring to the title, which doesn’t indicate that it was written to by the Apostles but that it contains the teachings of the Apostles. I don’t know anyone who has thought of the Didache as being written by the Apostles themselves, only that it contained Apostolic teaching. Its contents are unobjectionable for the reasonable reader.

It also talks about how to handle men who come telling the people that they are apostles. Fake apostles by the end of the first century. (see Revelation 2:2). Great, already having problems, and it only grew worse.

By the third century men were called by their name and after their name they were given the title

Apostolic. So we get St. Athanasius the Apostolic. Which is given to give the affect that he is an apostle, which he was not.

Which problems and why is Athanasius because of a title applied to him later by the Coptics (perhaps Dzrhemi can explain that title) implicate the Saint in anything? If I were to guess why he has that title, it’s not because he is thought to be an Apostle in the sense of the twelve but that in his character and faith he was Apostolic.


We should judge the man for his actions and teachings, which I believe speak for themselves. He was willing to suffer exile five times for the sake of Christ and refused to kowtow to Arianism which was the theological trend of his day.

You also have to know the entire plan of God for men on earth to understand how God could allow an apostasy. All people world wide who have lived since Adam will have the opportunity to hear the fullness of the gospel, and have a chance to make the right decisions. A lot of this work is done on the other side, or in the spirit world. That is the reason for a place called the spirit world, where the spirits of the dead go and learn of Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies.

Hearing the Gospel is one thing, achieving Godhood as a Mormon is another. The main intent of the universe in us existing is to ascend to divinity and become gods within the Mormon model. This can only be done on earth if one is baptised, married or sealed in a temple and then live a moral life. God in his decision to allow the Apostasy to occur through his own negligence has forbidden that option for many until Mormonism arose. Not even the Apostles knew they had to be sealed in the temple. All those faithful between the time of Christ and the advent of Joseph Smith will never have the chance to become what the universe intended them to be, gods in their own right.


If you deny this and insist that the possibility of divinity is open to them, then you deny your own Mormon fundamentals that teach the necessity of baptism for the dead and temple marriages. Mormons can’t do this for everyone in the past and so their opportunity is forever gone because your Heavenly Father didn’t inform them.

It is quite ingenious, so do not think that God abandoned his people during the apostasy, he did not. For instance did he abandon entirely the Chinese or the people of dark Africa, no, he will give them that opportunity in the spirit world, where they can be taught outside the traditions of their fathers, and be able to make clear and good choices regarding their belief in Jesus Christ, that can alter their hereafter for eternity. God knows exactly what he is doing.

My central concern in all of this has not be addressed. The lack of Apostles is due to the lack of God appointing Apostles or telling John to appoint Apostles. It can be established that all that is necessary Is faith in order to be an Apostle since Peter and the twelve were uneducated and simple men. We also have the example of Paul, an educated man being called by God for a unique Apostolic mission. There was no lack of either in the history of the Church and God’s decision to not appoint anyone to stop the Apostasy is tantamount to abandonment. Would you not conclude the same if all your Apostles died off and none were found to replace them?


The problem is solved by simply admitting that the ministry of Apostle was never intended to be handed down. If it were so important there is no excuse for why there were no replacement Apostles. Did John not have one faithful follower?

 

[dzheremi]

You are probably referring to the title, which doesn’t indicate that it was written to by the Apostles but that it contains the teachings of the Apostles. I don’t know anyone who has thought of the Didache as being written by the Apostles themselves, only that it contained Apostolic teaching. Its contents are unobjectionable for the reasonable reader.

It occurs to me that he might be confusing it with the Didascalia Apostolorum, which is even later (c. 3rd century), but y'know...it's got the word "Apostolorum" in it, so...bang. Silver bullet. Christianity is dead now. Let's all be Mormons.

Which problems and why is Athanasius because of a title applied to him later by the Coptics (perhaps Dzrhemi can explain that title) implicate the Saint in anything? If I were to guess why he has that title, it’s not because he is thought to be an Apostle in the sense of the twelve but that in his character and faith he was Apostolic.

Indeed, the Copts call him "the Apostolic", and have for quite some time (not sure when this started, but we do find it in the Coptic of the liturgies, and the medieval Coptic writings like Ibn Kabar in the 14th century bear out that it was carried over into the Arabic period), for the exact same reason that someone of your tradition might call someone like St. Nino, the baptizer of the Georgians, or Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the apostles to the Slavs, the "Equal to the Apostles" (Isapostolos).

Why Peter is making this out to be anything nefarious or corrupting is absolutely beyond me, as I'm fairly certain I've explained this exact title to him before in the not-too-distant past. Maybe he has forgotten, or maybe it doesn't matter anyway because Mormonism will accept anything in defense of its strange take on ecclesiology and Christian history. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Daniel Marsh]

God did not want the apostasy to happen, but he knew it would. If you read the book called the didache, you will see what I mean. But this early time in the church, after the apostles died, other leaders of the church were already telling the people it was OK to sprinkle their heads with water if they were in a place with little water.

The first line of the didache says it was written by the 12 apostles, but its late date in the first century tells us that is spurious, and is why it is not included in the bible today.

It also talks about how to handle men who come telling the people that they are apostles. Fake apostles by the end of the first century. (see Revelation 2:2). Great, already having problems, and it only grew worse.
By the third century men were called by their name and after their name they were given the title
Apostolic. So we get St. Athanasius the Apostolic. Which is given to give the affect that he is an apostle, which he was not.

You also have to know the entire plan of God for men on earth to understand how God could allow an apostasy. All people world wide who have lived since Adam will have the opportunity to hear the fullness of the gospel, and have a chance to make the right decisions. A lot of this work is done on the other side, or in the spirit world. That is the reason for a place called the spirit world, where the spirits of the dead go and learn of Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies.

It is quite ingenious, so do not think that God abandoned his people during the apostasy, he did not. For instance did he abandon entirely the Chinese or the people of dark Africa, no, he will give them that opportunity in the spirit world, where they can be taught outside the traditions of their fathers, and be able to make clear and good choices regarding their belief in Jesus Christ, that can alter their hereafter for eternity. God knows exactly what he is doing.

Bottom line, you are calling Jesus a liar. Gates of Hell will not overcome the church.

Don't forget even your BOM says, that the Apostle John is alive on earth until Jesus returns in his Glory, thus it is impossible for the church to fail too.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It occurs to me that he might be confusing it with the Didascalia Apostolorum, which is even later (c. 3rd century), but y'know...it's got the word "Apostolorum" in it, so...bang. Silver bullet. Christianity is dead now. Let's all be Mormons.



Indeed, the Copts call him "the Apostolic", and have for quite some time (not sure when this started, but we do find it in the Coptic of the liturgies, and the medieval Coptic writings like Ibn Kabar in the 14th century bear out that it was carried over into the Arabic period), for the exact same reason that someone of your tradition might call someone like St. Nino, the baptizer of the Georgians, or Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the apostles to the Slavs, the "Equal to the Apostles" (Isapostolos).

Why Peter is making this out to be anything nefarious or corrupting is absolutely beyond me, as I'm fairly certain I've explained this exact title to him before in the not-too-distant past. Maybe he has forgotten, or maybe it doesn't matter anyway because Mormonism will accept anything in defense of its strange take on ecclesiology and Christian history. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If God was unable or unwilling to fulfill his promise about the Gates of Hell, then there is no reason to believe that LDS religion is a restoration of any kind. It would be just another false church.

2 Corinthians 11:14 That does not surprise us, because even Satan changes himself to look like an angel of light.

This text reminds me of JS vision with a pillar of light.

"16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the dsun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me."Joseph Smith—History 1

Exodus 13:21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night.

Nehemiah 9:12 Moreover You led them by day with a cloudy pillar, And by night with a pillar of fire, To give them light on the road Which they should travel.

Nehemiah 9:19 Yet in Your manifold mercies You did not forsake them in the wilderness. The pillar of the cloud did not depart from them by day, To lead them on the road; Nor the pillar of fire by night, To show them light, And the way they should go.

The Bible has them seeing a a pillar of fire, not a pillar of light.

THE CATHOLIC DIDASCALIA

THAT IS TEACHING

OF THE TWELVE HOLY APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES OF OUR SAVIOUR
Didascalia Apostolorum
Didascalia Apostolorum

 

[Daniel Marsh]

1 Nephi 1 - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.6?lang=eng
Nephi begins the record of his people—Lehi sees in vision a pillar of fire and reads from a book of prophecy—He praises God, foretells the coming of the Messiah, and prophesies the ...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=pillar+of+light+&facet=all&page=2

It appears that even the BOM goes with Pillar of Fire, not Pillar of Light.

Go figure.