LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[Aaron_Bethlhm]

Adding to your argument friend, If God was unable or unwilling to protect the Church founded on Jesus, prophets and Apostles, there is no reason to believe he will protect any future church like the LDS one.

This is so true. Man's ways are dismantled when seen for what they are. There is a way that seems right to a man (multitudes), but the end thereof is destruction.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I'll answer by asking you what position Timothy had, and Titus? And what positions the people chosen by Timothy and Titus had? If you are open minded that is.

I presume you refer to your practice of 'baptism for the dead'. But I've been baptized and do not need any baptism again.

Martin Harris was interesting. He was on the outs with Joseph Smith over the running of a bank, and alleged improprieties. But that bit of Mormon history is about as irrelevant as that of Martin Luther would be. We don't need a Luther reinventing Christianity just as we don't need a Smith reinventing Christianity. Jesus promised that His Church would endure, and that Hell itself could not take it down. That's Biblical. Hell has tried, and is still trying mightily, but has yet to have ultimate success. That's obvious enough from history for almost all but Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Landmarkist Baptists.

Paul says why do they baptize for the dead referring to someone outside the church like by false teachers.

"Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defense of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours. But we will not be wanting (in some defense of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. What, asks he, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? 1 Corinthians 15:29 Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining but one baptism. Ephesians 4:5 To be baptized for the dead therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body; for, as we have shown, it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body, Ephesians 4:5 if the body rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say) that the next question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body."
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Marcion, Book V (Tertullian)

What is the context of "In Alma 34:35, 36 we read: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.""( this is something I was from a google).
Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-12. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-05. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Peter1000]

I'll answer by asking you what position Timothy had, and Titus? And what positions the people chosen by Timothy and Titus had? If you are open minded that is.

I believe they were elders in the church. They also assisted Paul in going from city to city to preach the gospel, and to report to Paul how his congregations were doing.

They also could have been bishops in the church, but I do not know if there is scripture or a tradition from any city that say so.

I also believe they could have been apostles, but I don't think there is a scripture or a tradition that proves that.

So if you have any more information about what positions Timothy and Titus held, please provide a reference.

I cannot think there is a scripture that describes Timothy or Titus ordaining anyone to office, there could be, so if you have anything, please let me know.

I presume you refer to your practice of 'baptism for the dead'. But I've been baptized and do not need any baptism again.

If I am right, you were baptized by a person that does no have the keys and therefore your baptism is not recognized by heaven. If that is the case, then you will either have to convert to the Church of Jesus Christ in this life and be rebaptized by someone who does hold the keys, or when you die and go to the spirit world and are taught the truth, and if you accept it, you will be rebaptized by proxy by those who hold those keys. God truly wants to save you.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

You know all the scriptures that talks about the apostasy. But since you brought up 2 Thessalonians, read all of chapter 2, which does not tell a rosy story, especially verse 7, the mystery of iniquity doth already work.

Now verses 13,14,15 are talking about those of this generation that are listening to the voice of Paul. Yes, they will enjoy the fruits of the gospel. But when the apostles die, those people will have to be saved by the alternative method that God has prepared for them.

In context, the mystery of iniquity is at work in the world, not the church.

 

[Peter1000]

I have a much larger response planned but I need to ask some questions before that.

Let's clarify. God won't let the LDS Church fall away because this is the supposed last dispensation. Would then the LDS Church fall away if God allowed it? That is, if God removed his divine influence on the LDS Church like he did with the Christian Church, it would necessarily fall away? Right?

Yes, if God allowed it. But he will not allow it because it is the end time, and He will not have time to raise up another people to do the work. So He will remove bad players in the apostleship for instance and keep the ship running correctly.

 

[Peter1000]

In context, the mystery of iniquity is at work in the world, not the church.

In context, Paul is writing to the Thessalonians and telling them that the second coming of Jesus will not happen until "there is a falling away first".(see vs 3)

What is this "falling away first". Is that not what the context is. The second coming of Christ will not happen, until after a falling away of the church from the true Jesus. Another word for apostasy. And as the church falls away, the man of sin will be revealed who is satan, and in verse 7 Paul tells us this "mystery of iniquity" is already starting to happen (in the church), and if you will, in the world.

But I believe the context is the church, not necessarily the world.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So because the Catholic church in whatever form has been around since the first century, JS cannot be a prophet. Well, I have not heard that one, so I guess that is a new reason I will have to consider.

Well yes, exactly, the existence of the Catholic Church means Joseph Smith got it wrong. The existence of the Orthodox Churches does the same. Joseph Smith cannot be right if the Catholic Church is anything but totally apostate. Or if the Orthodox Churches are anything but totally apostate. If it is a mere mess, Joseph Smith is wrong. And the total apostasy you need is both a historical and a theological fiction. The early Church Fathers would show you the continuity of the faith once delivered to the apostles all the way up to the council of Nicea. There is no discontinuity like you need for your apostasy theory. It's all in print and on-line for everyone to read. Greek Fathers, Syriac Fathers, Ethiopian Fathers, all sorts of languages and cultures, one in the faith, and quite different than the LDS.

Except he is an insider eye witness to the complete corruption of the Catholic church and confirms the apostasy first hand.

There are many contemporaries of Martin Luther that did not witness any complete corruption of the Catholic Church. I name some of the better known ones from the 16th century that you may have heard of. They are John Fisher, Thomas More, the Carthusian Martyrs of Britain, Francis Xavier, Peter Favre, Ignatius of Loyola, Margaret Pole, Edmund Campion, Charles Borromeo, Margaret Clitherow, Aloysius Gonzaga, and John of the Cross. Point being Martin Luther was a polemicist who made bold claims but just making the claims does not make them so. The above are names of Catholic saints, again the more well known, who lived lives of sanctity and many of them were martyred for their faith, and all of these in the 16th century. These are all inside witnesses who would disagree with your highly esteemed Martin Luther.

But my point is that Jesus went to the only person who had the authority to baptize at that time, and was baptized by John. The power and authority means everything, even for Jesus.

And yet the baptism of John was incomplete. The baptism of the Church was complete.

We can argue what the actual nature of this Deity is, but I do believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, and I was baptized in the name of this Deity.

It matters what kind of deity a person is baptized into. And maybe you differ from your Mormon peers, but from what I hear they deny the Christian deity. So you can be baptized into any deity but not every baptism is Christian.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I believe they were elders in the church. They also assisted Paul in going from city to city to preach the gospel, and to report to Paul how his congregations were doing.

They also could have been bishops in the church, but I do not know if there is scripture or a tradition from any city that say so.

I also believe they could have been apostles, but I don't think there is a scripture or a tradition that proves that.

Timothy and Titus are what we might call today 'apostolic delegates' who are doing apostolic work but not actually being apostles. Nor were they residential bishops. More as overseers of bishops, something like a contemporary archbishop, who has authority over many towns and the bishops of those towns.

So if you have any more information about what positions Timothy and Titus held, please provide a reference.

I cannot think there is a scripture that describes Timothy or Titus ordaining anyone to office, there could be, so if you have anything, please let me know.

There is the third chapter of 1 Timothy that describes the qualifications of a bishop. Which means Timothy was choosing and ordaining bishops, at the express desire of Paul.

If I am right, you were baptized by a person that does no have the keys and therefore your baptism is not recognized by heaven. If that is the case, then you will either have to convert to the Church of Jesus Christ in this life and be rebaptized by someone who does hold the keys, or when you die and go to the spirit world and are taught the truth, and if you accept it, you will be rebaptized by proxy by those who hold those keys. God truly wants to save you.

Thank you for your concern, but to do as you suggest, to convert and be re-baptized, would be apostasy. I believe in ONE baptism, one baptism only, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not repeatable.

Here's an apostasy verse which shows that there is not going to be a total apostasy: Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. 1Tim 4:1

 

[BigDaddy4]

Do you not see the break in the true tradition? Here it is: Jesus ordains apostles, apostles ordain bishops. The end. The bible gives no example of a bishop ordaining another bishop.
If you can show me a scripture where X bishop goes over to his neighbor city and ordains Y bishop to his bishopric, I will change my mind on the subject.
If you cannot, then you should be willing to be open-minded about my position.

So if you have any more information about what positions Timothy and Titus held, please provide a reference.

I cannot think there is a scripture that describes Timothy or Titus ordaining anyone to office, there could be, so if you have anything, please let me know.

Titus 1:5
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

See also 1 Timothy chapters 3 & 4. Paul, an apostle, gives instruction on how to ordain elders.

I look forward to seeing you disavow any apostasy nonsense.

 

[Peter1000]

Well yes, exactly, the existence of the Catholic Church means Joseph Smith got it wrong. The existence of the Orthodox Churches does the same. Joseph Smith cannot be right if the Catholic Church is anything but totally apostate. Or if the Orthodox Churches are anything but totally apostate. If it is a mere mess, Joseph Smith is wrong. And the total apostasy you need is both a historical and a theological fiction. The early Church Fathers would show you the continuity of the faith once delivered to the apostles all the way up to the council of Nicea. There is no discontinuity like you need for your apostasy theory. It's all in print and on-line for everyone to read. Greek Fathers, Syriac Fathers, Ethiopian Fathers, all sorts of languages and cultures, one in the faith, and quite different than the LDS.

There are many contemporaries of Martin Luther that did not witness any complete corruption of the Catholic Church. I name some of the better known ones from the 16th century that you may have heard of. They are John Fisher, Thomas More, the Carthusian Martyrs of Britain, Francis Xavier, Peter Favre, Ignatius of Loyola, Margaret Pole, Edmund Campion, Charles Borromeo, Margaret Clitherow, Aloysius Gonzaga, and John of the Cross. Point being Martin Luther was a polemicist who made bold claims but just making the claims does not make them so. The above are names of Catholic saints, again the more well known, who lived lives of sanctity and many of them were martyred for their faith, and all of these in the 16th century. These are all inside witnesses who would disagree with your highly esteemed Martin Luther.

And yet the baptism of John was incomplete. The baptism of the Church was complete.

It matters what kind of deity a person is baptized into. And maybe you differ from your Mormon peers, but from what I hear they deny the Christian deity. So you can be baptized into any deity but not every baptism is Christian.

Many of the saints of the 16th century were put to death by the Catholic church and that is OK with you? The murders of thousands of people that disagree with the pope on small as well as large matter, is OK with you. Murder, plunder, rape, persectuion, etc., etc., etc. is what the vicar of Christ is all about, is what the true church of Jesus Christ is OK with. Read your Catholic history and tell me this is the church that holds the keys of the kingdom of God.

The baptism of John was the water baptism is incomplete without the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit baptism- see Acts 2:38).
You have to have both to be saved.

We deny some Christians idea of the Deity. We believe that God the Father, and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one. I can support that biblically 10 ways. There are some Christians who think differently about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we cannot help that. But to say our baptism is not recognized because we don't think of God the Father and Jesus and the Holy Ghost exactly like some Christians think of Him, is not right. IOW you believe that 70% of all Christian baptisms are not recognized, and maybe 95% if they have to believe exactly like you think God the Father and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are like.

It is one thing to say that your baptism is not recognized because the man baptizing you is not authorized to do that work, but to say it is not recognized because I do not believe exactly how you believe is a way different condition.

 

[Peter1000]

Titus 1:5
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

See also 1 Timothy chapters 3 & 4. Paul, an apostle, gives instruction on how to ordain elders.

I look forward to seeing you disavow any apostasy nonsense.

Sorry, but an elder is not a bishop, try again. Only apostles could come to that area, and from the elders, he would ordain one of them as the bishop. Titus could not do that, only an apostle could do that.

 

[Peter1000]

Titus 1:5
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

See also 1 Timothy chapters 3 & 4. Paul, an apostle, gives instruction on how to ordain elders.

I look forward to seeing you disavow any apostasy nonsense.

Good you found that Timothy and Titus could ordain elders. Now find me a scripture where they ordained bishops. When you find this, then my position is less secure. Not with just elders though, my position stays the same.

 

[He is the way]

Adding to your argument friend, If God was unable or unwilling to protect the Church founded on Jesus, prophets and Apostles, there is no reason to believe he will protect any future church like the LDS one.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 13:1)

1 UPON you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

 

[He is the way]

Paul says why do they baptize for the dead referring to someone outside the church like by false teachers.

"Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defense of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours. But we will not be wanting (in some defense of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. What, asks he, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? 1 Corinthians 15:29 Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining but one baptism. Ephesians 4:5 To be baptized for the dead therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body; for, as we have shown, it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body, Ephesians 4:5 if the body rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say) that the next question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body."
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Marcion, Book V (Tertullian)

What is the context of "In Alma 34:35, 36 we read: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.""( this is something I was from a google).
Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-12. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-05. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This is from your link Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead:

"
One reason Mormons advance the practice of baptism for the dead is a sense of justice. Billions of people have died without ever hearing the gospel of Christ and without having the chance to be baptized into his Church. How could God consign such people to damnation without giving them the chance to be saved? But if they never heard the gospel in this life, when else could they hear and respond to it except in the next life?

There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. Scripture is very clear in stating that this life is the only chance we get. Once we die, our fate is sealed: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). There are no “second chances” after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known. Thus, those who do not hear the gospel in this life will be judged based on the knowledge they did have in this life."

The idea that people can't be taught in the spirit world is very problematic and disagrees with the Bible:

(New Testament | 1 Peter 4:5 - 6)

5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

The judgement does not come right after we die either. Hebrews 9:27 does not say our fate is sealed upon our death. Can he be right that billions of people will NOT end up in heaven because they were not baptized? God is not that unjust. God is indeed a just God and He has provided a way for ALL of His children. They WILL hear the gospel and be able to accept or reject the necessary ordinances to get into heaven. God is just and fair to ALL.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Many of the saints of the 16th century were put to death by the Catholic church and that is OK with you? The murders of thousands of people that disagree with the pope on small as well as large matter, is OK with you. Murder, plunder, rape, persectuion, etc., etc., etc. is what the vicar of Christ is all about, is what the true church of Jesus Christ is OK with. Read your Catholic history and tell me this is the church that holds the keys of the kingdom of God.

Well played slam. And if it works for you, then bully. But what was the name of that Mormon massacre? The one Brigham Young blamed on the Indians? I could ask about the weird sexual histories of the Mormon founders as well. It's all so not OK.

We deny some Christians idea of the Deity. We believe that God the Father, and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one. I can support that biblically 10 ways. There are some Christians who think differently about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we cannot help that. But to say our baptism is not recognized because we don't think of God the Father and Jesus and the Holy Ghost exactly like some Christians think of Him, is not right. IOW you believe that 70% of all Christian baptisms are not recognized, and maybe 95% if they have to believe exactly like you think God the Father and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are like.

No. You guys refuse to accept the Trinity, and almost all who call themselves Christians do accept the Trinity. So I accept at least 95% of baptisms. Methodist baptisms, Mennonite baptisms, Baptist baptisms, no problems. Sorry, not yours. But then you think you have something better anyway.

It is one thing to say that your baptism is not recognized because the man baptizing you is not authorized to do that work, but to say it is not recognized because I do not believe exactly how you believe is a way different condition.

And Christian baptism can be done by anyone, provided it is actual Trinitarian baptism, with real water, and the right words, and the intent to do what the Church teaches. Mormon baptism flunks because of your different concept of the deity. So we're quite different in that. I can accept the baptism of every garden variety Trinitarian Christian. Not the Jehovah's Witnesses because they aren't Trinitarian, or the Oneness Pentecostals or Mormons for the same reason. But I can and do accept the baptism of Lutherans and SDA folks and Baptists because they are doing exactly what the Catholic Church requires for baptism.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Good you found that Timothy and Titus could ordain elders. Now find me a scripture where they ordained bishops. When you find this, then my position is less secure. Not with just elders though, my position stays the same.

Chapter 3 of 1 Timothy discusses criteria for bishops and deacons. Timothy and Titus were ordaining bishops.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, if God allowed it. But he will not allow it because it is the end time, and He will not have time to raise up another people to do the work. So He will remove bad players in the apostleship for instance and keep the ship running correctly.

Alright, let's go further. The Mormon Church would fall away without God's grace or intervention. Regardless of the reason for why you believe God to be doing this for the Mormon Church the fundamental factor I want to isolate is that it is due to God's will or decision that that the Mormon Church doesn't fall away.

If for example the Mormon Church was left to it's own devices and God abandoned it to it's own determination, apostasy would necessarily follow. There is nothing the Mormons themselves could do to avert this, right?

 

[Peter1000]

Chapter 3 of 1 Timothy discusses criteria for bishops and deacons. Timothy and Titus were ordaining bishops.

This is a very good chapter that lets us know what Paul looked for when choosing a bishop to ordain. However, Paul does not say anything like: Now, Timothy or Titus, if you find such a man, go ahead and ordain him to the office of bishop. Nowhere do you find that verbiage.

What you do find in verse 14 is that Paul expected to see them shortly, and therefore I would expect that Timothy and Titus could have been on the lookout for these good men, so that when Paul of any other apostle was to come, would then do the ordination and grow the church.

One other possibility, and that is that Timothy and Titus were apostles themselves. As the apostles were killed, other new apostles were chosen and ordained by the apostles to take their place. We know of Matthias (Acts 1:23), we know of Paul, and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), possibly Barsabas (Acts 1:23 &
Acts 15:22). There are others too, Apollo.

This means that Jesus wanted the apostleship to remain and Timothy and Titus were major workers for Jesus Christ and the apostles, and may have been ordained to the apostleship (although not recorded) and had the right not only to look for, but ordain men to be bishops.

 

[Peter1000]

Well played slam. And if it works for you, then bully. But what was the name of that Mormon massacre? The one Brigham Young blamed on the Indians? I could ask about the weird sexual histories of the Mormon founders as well. It's all so not OK.

No. You guys refuse to accept the Trinity, and almost all who call themselves Christians do accept the Trinity. So I accept at least 95% of baptisms. Methodist baptisms, Mennonite baptisms, Baptist baptisms, no problems. Sorry, not yours. But then you think you have something better anyway.

And Christian baptism can be done by anyone, provided it is actual Trinitarian baptism, with real water, and the right words, and the intent to do what the Church teaches. Mormon baptism flunks because of your different concept of the deity. So we're quite different in that. I can accept the baptism of every garden variety Trinitarian Christian. Not the Jehovah's Witnesses because they aren't Trinitarian, or the Oneness Pentecostals or Mormons for the same reason. But I can and do accept the baptism of Lutherans and SDA folks and Baptists because they are doing exactly what the Catholic Church requires for baptism.

There is no doubt, the Mountain Meadow Massacre is a bright red stain on the church. We accept it, and take responsibility for it, but we also count it as an anomaly with deep regret.

There have been thousands of hours spent by tens of authors to prove that BY ordered the massacre, and to this day there is not one document that has been found that incriminates BY in that fashion.

John Lee was the one that gave the (completely unconscionable) order to fire. It is beyond any degree of understanding how he somehow came to give that order. I am sure he regrets it too, for he was hung for the crime and his soul will smolder in hell, as will others that were there that day.

And I would think just like you, if BY had been involved with this massacre, then the keys of the kingdom of heaven would not reside with this church. But he wasn't and they do.

As for sexual improprieties, you have no good knowledge of how the Lord views plural marriage. You have no good knowledge of the plural marriages that JS was engaged in. So until you get past lies that the critics who hate JS say, and you find out the truth, we really cannot have a discussion of that.

But if you are trying to console yourself that the abomination of the Catholic bishops have pressed upon the world for centuries with one mistake by the men in the Church of Jesus Christ, I am sure you will come to the right conclusion. There is no comparison.

The Trinity as you know it is at least 70% different than any other Christian church in the world. Oh, the outward appearance may be close, but if we started to dig through the details, it would not take too much time before you could not stand to be in the same room with the other churches.

That is why they are no longer of your church, they do not believe everything you believe. So if you accept their baptism, good on you, but you are accepting their baptism for the wrong reasons.

The bible does not say you have to believe in the Trinity to be baptized. The bible does not even have the word "Trinity" on any page.

 

[Peter1000]

Alright, let's go further. The Mormon Church would fall away without God's grace or intervention. Regardless of the reason for why you believe God to be doing this for the Mormon Church the fundamental factor I want to isolate is that it is due to God's will or decision that that the Mormon Church doesn't fall away.

If for example the Mormon Church was left to it's own devices and God abandoned it to it's own determination, apostasy would necessarily follow. There is nothing the Mormons themselves could do to avert this, right?

I don't think God would do this for any reason. I believe he would do this because the leaders of the church have rejected him, because they are not willing to receive revelation any more and have gone off the path.

Now in our case, I believe God will correct the errors by the leaders by replacing them. The reason for that is, like I say, the time is too close now to the second coming to raise up a new group of people to do this work.

So rather than letting this church drift away on it own supposed power, He will do what he needs to do to keep it on line. So far, because of the willingness of the apostles and prophets to listen and hear the Lord, the Lords work is moving forward as he sees fit.