LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[Peter1000]

It's the same thing. We have a completed Scripture. There are no more prophets and haven't been since John the Baptist. God has revealed all He intended to reveal for the Church Age until the Second Coming of Christ.

You can disagree with that but it contradicts your saying that the Law is fulfilled and it contradicts the Bible.

Do you not look on the apostles of Jesus Christ as prophets?

What is the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ?

 

[Albion]

Read the following bible verses and you will know that what I say is true.
2 Thes. 2:1-3 & 7
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

So during Paul's lifetime, the mystery of iniquity (the apostacy) was already at work. That is when it started, shortly after the ascension of Jesus.

I appreciate the reply but this doesn't really answer the question. It is, however, better than what I usually get back from Mormons, some of whom seem positively bewildered by such an obvious question as "What marked the onset of this 'apostasy' that's so important to your religion?"

The apostles fought valiently, but as soon as they were all murdered (110ad), the floodgates of the falling away (apostacy) was flung wide open.

Hmmm. So now you're saying that it did NOT occur "shortly after the Ascension" but around AD110?!

So when you talk about the apostacy now, you must say that there was 1 Mormon that showed me from the bible when the apostacy started.

Well, no offense, but THAT wouldn't be a correct reporting of what you've said here. Maybe we can call it "a start on it?"

 

[Peter1000]

You're right - and let me point out a couple of ironies in that whole scenario...

First, they consider Christianity to be apostate from them, yet at the same time they claim to believe in the same Jesus as Christians, and the same Salvation as Christians, and that they themselves are to be rightfully called "Christians" - they want so much to be recognized as "Christians" and have their beliefs seen as being in line with orthodox Christian beliefs but all the while they consider orthodox Christians to be "apostates" and their prophets for decades have spoken out against Christianity. Ironic that they want the apostates to accept them as fellow Christians.

The second irony is that while it kills them to be rejected as Christians by orthodox Christians, the main Mormon Church (the Salt Lake denomination, the largest one) rejects all the other Mormon denominations as being "LDS". They do not recognize the FLDS as "LDS" even though "LDS" is right there in that church's name. They don't recognize the RLDS or the Strangites or any of the other LDS denominations as being legitimately LDS although having some doctrinal differences. They despise the LDS who are still polygamists. They act like they despise polygamy yet they named their flagship and most prestigious university after the biggest polygamist in the history of all the LDS denominations.

And somehow all that irony escapes them.

First, we do not consider Christianity to be apostate from Mormons. That is a silly statement. You are apostate from the early church of Jesus Christ and the original apostles.

Second, we believe in the same Jesus as Christians do, but we believe differently about him. Same person, different beliefs about him.

Thirdly, we do have a different belief as to salvation. We believe that it is by grace that we are saved, after all that we can do. Normal Christians believe that it is by grace alone that we are saved.

Fourthly, we are rightfully Christians according to the biblical definition set in Acts. It says that the followers of Jesus were called Christians first at Antioch. Very simple, and since we are followers of Christ, we fit into the bible definition of Christians. Normal Christians want to put additional restrictions on the biblical definition so that now you have to follow Jesus and believe like they believe in order to be called a Christian. Sorry, it is not for you to redefine Christianity to fit your agenda.

It is not that we do not recongize FLDS, it is that we recognize them as an apostate group from Mormonism. JS was told and prophecied that there would apostate groups, but two interesting conditions were stated about these apostate groups. 1) there would not be a large number of brake-offs. 2) None of the groups would ever rival the main Mormon group. That prophecy has come been fulfilled.

We do not dispise plural marriage. Plural marriage is what has given the church a tremendous boost in population, and has allowed it to prosper in this modern age. Since Jesus has commanded us not to practice plural marriage (1890), we don't, and any groups that do, are cut off from the church at this time.

 

[Peter1000]

I appreciate the reply but this doesn't really answer the question. It is, however, better than what I usually get back from Mormons, some of whom seem positively bewildered by such an obvious question as "What marked the onset of this 'apostasy' that's so important to your religion?"


Hmmm. So now you're saying that it did NOT occur "shortly after the Ascension" but around AD110?!


Well, no offense, but THAT wouldn't be a correct reporting of what you've said here. Maybe we can call it "a start on it?"

What I said was the apostacy started shortly after the ascension, but did not get into full swing until after the apostles were all murdered.

It is a fascinating study, I have read several excellent books on the history of Christianity, and you can just see how subtley the apostacy infiltrated through the ranks of the church. By 700ad the world age is even called the dark ages, because the apostacy had effected the church so deeply. Then by 1200 the schoolmen and their learning started to break through the iron fist of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and by 1500 a flood of light came to the world through the reformation and finally in 1820 the world was ready for the restitution of all things:
Acts 3:19-21
19 ¶Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

The "times of restitution of all things" or "the restoration of all things" could only happen in a country like America, and even then, it was almost extinguished. But Jesus told JS that the Church of Jesus Christ would grow and expand until it filled the whole world and in 205 years it is moving to do just that.

 

[Peter1000]

So when your leaders say nobody but mormons are Christian they are lying?

Do our leaders say only Mormons are Christians?

 

[fatboys]

I appreciate the reply but this doesn't really answer the question. It is, however, better than what I usually get back from Mormons, some of whom seem positively bewildered by such an obvious question as "What marked the onset of this 'apostasy' that's so important to your religion?"


Hmmm. So now you're saying that it did NOT occur "shortly after the Ascension" but around AD110?!


Well, no offense, but THAT wouldn't be a correct reporting of what you've said here. Maybe we can call it "a start on it?"

I have told hundreds of people the same thing.

 

[Albion]

What I said was the apostacy started shortly after the ascension, but did not get into full swing until after the apostles were all murdered.

So, we don't really now what caused it or when it happened, but we can say with assurance that the Church of Christ completely died out? I don't get that from what you wrote before.

It is a fascinating study, I have read several excellent books on the history of Christianity, and you can just see how subtley the apostacy infiltrated through the ranks of the church.

So....the apostasy was gradually developing for 700 years or thereabouts? By the way, the Dark Ages are called the Dark Ages because of the decline of (classical) civilization, not because Christianity had changed for the worse.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Do you not look on the apostles of Jesus Christ as prophets?

What is the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ?

No, I look on them as Apostles. The last prophet was John the Baptist.

Christ is the Chief Cornerstone of the Church and therefore He is the Foundation. His Apostles were charged and authorized to build upon the Church further upon Him. There are many Churches today that have Apostolic Succession going back to Christ's Apostles and they have not apostatized.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Do our leaders say only Mormons are Christians?

“From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up of things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are - I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289. This teaching is also repeated in the LDS Church’s 1984 manual, “Search These Commandments,” p. 133.)

 

[Sophrosyne]

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God [i.e. the Mormon Church] and the other is the church of the devil [i.e.. the Christian Church]; wherefore whosoever belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).

 

[ArmenianJohn]

First, we do not consider Christianity to be apostate from Mormons. That is a silly statement. You are apostate from the early church of Jesus Christ and the original apostles.

So, the early church of Jesus Christ and the original apostles has nothing to do with mormons and you have admitted it here. Thank you for admitting that the Mormons are NOT a restoration of the early church of Jesus Christ and the original apostles.

Second, we believe in the same Jesus as Christians do, but we believe differently about him. Same person, different beliefs about him.

Well you say that, but Mormons who know more than you say otherwise. Now, what you say and what these other Mormons say are both "not official", but I think these other mormons know more about mormon religion than you - so I'll go with what they say. Here is one such Mormon:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom Ispeak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.

He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God thanall the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Deseret News, Church News section, Salt Lake City, Utah, week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7)

Well there you have it - Gordon B. Hinckley, a Mormon who knows more about mormon religion than you, agrees with what I said. Now feel free to tell me that you know more than Gordon B. Hinckley and that he is WRONG and you are right. But unless you give me a compelling reason why I should believe you, an anonymous person on the internet claiming to be a mormon, over a past President of the Mormon Church who is quoted in a Mormon publication, I will go with what the more famous and accomplished mormon has said.

Thirdly, we do have a different belief as to salvation. We believe that it is by grace that we are saved, after all that we can do. Normal Christians believe that it is by grace alone that we are saved.

So it's kind of like buying someone a gift but only after all they can pay. "Hey honey, I will buy you that diamond necklace but first pay all that you can pay and I will then pay the rest... Happy Anniversary!!!"

Hmmm.... Not much of a "gift", huh. Basically, mormons don't believe in a "gift of salvation"; you believe in financial aid for salvation only after paying what one can pay first.

So, I agree with you on that point.

Fourthly, we are rightfully Christians according to the biblical definition set in Acts. It says that the followers of Jesus were called Christians first at Antioch. Very simple, and since we are followers of Christ, we fit into the bible definition of Christians. Normal Christians want to put additional restrictions on the biblical definition so that now you have to follow Jesus and believe like they believe in order to be called a Christian. Sorry, it is not for you to redefine Christianity to fit your agenda.

Christians worship Christ as the One True God. Mormons have at least two gods they worship - their "heavenly father" and a separate god named "Jesus Christ" who, unlike the Jesus Christ of Christianity, is a creation and is a brother to all of mankind as well as a brother to Satan. Additionally, Christians are completely monotheistic, i.e. we believe there is only One True God in the entire universe. Mormons are henotheists, meaning they believe there are many gods, countless gods, throughout the universe, but that they (the mormons) only have to worship the particular gods that rule their world/planet. The Christian God, Jesus Christ, has existed for all eternity and is THE Alpha and Omega, whereas the mormon gods were once mortal men who had to earn their way to godhood through the masonic rituals of mormonism.

So, no, you aren't rightfully Christians. Your religion is far closer to Islam which is a religion that, like you, claims to honor Jesus Christ but does not recognize Him as the One True God of all eternity.

It is not that we do not recongize FLDS, it is that we recognize them as an apostate group from Mormonism. JS was told and prophecied that there would apostate groups, but two interesting conditions were stated about these apostate groups. 1) there would not be a large number of brake-offs. 2) None of the groups would ever rival the main Mormon group. That prophecy has come been fulfilled.

So you believe that Emma Smith and Joseph Smith's children through her apostatized. Got it, thank you.

But aside from that, the fact remains that all the LDS denominations are rightfully called "LDS" because they are part of the latter-day-saints movement. Whether you believe they're apostate LDS or non-apostate LDS, they are still LDS. But your Salt Lake cult is so over-protective of the term "LDS" that you get defensive and angry if anyone refers to, say, Warren Jeffs' cult as "LDS". But they are.

We do not dispise plural marriage. Plural marriage is what has given the church a tremendous boost in population, and has allowed it to prosper in this modern age. Since Jesus has commanded us not to practice plural marriage (1890), we don't, and any groups that do, are cut off from the church at this time.

If you didn't despise it you wouldn't excommunicate for it.

Mormons today like to pretend that polygamy is so disgusting and abhorrent to them yet they actually accept it. You're one of the rare ones I've heard admit that you believe polygamy is or at least was a good thing.

Now there's that other pesky fact that Joseph Smith did it behind Emma's back, threatened her with a "revelation" that she would be killed if she didn't go along with it, and he married underage teen girls. Disgusting.

 

[fatboys]

So, the early church of Jesus Christ and the original apostles has nothing to do with mormons and you have admitted it here. Thank you for admitting that the Mormons are NOT a restoration of the early church of Jesus Christ and the original apostles.


Well you say that, but Mormons who know more than you say otherwise. Now, what you say and what these other Mormons say are both "not official", but I think these other mormons know more about mormon religion than you - so I'll go with what they say. Here is one such Mormon:


Well there you have it - Gordon B. Hinckley, a Mormon who knows more about mormon religion than you, agrees with what I said. Now feel free to tell me that you know more than Gordon B. Hinckley and that he is WRONG and you are right. But unless you give me a compelling reason why I should believe you, an anonymous person on the internet claiming to be a mormon, over a past President of the Mormon Church who is quoted in a Mormon publication, I will go with what the more famous and accomplished mormon has said.


So it's kind of like buying someone a gift but only after all they can pay. "Hey honey, I will buy you that diamond necklace but first pay all that you can pay and I will then pay the rest... Happy Anniversary!!!"

Hmmm.... Not much of a "gift", huh. Basically, mormons don't believe in a "gift of salvation"; you believe in financial aid for salvation only after paying what one can pay first.

So, I agree with you on that point.


Christians worship Christ as the One True God. Mormons have at least two gods they worship - their "heavenly father" and a separate god named "Jesus Christ" who, unlike the Jesus Christ of Christianity, is a creation and is a brother to all of mankind as well as a brother to Satan. Additionally, Christians are completely monotheistic, i.e. we believe there is only One True God in the entire universe. Mormons are henotheists, meaning they believe there are many gods, countless gods, throughout the universe, but that they (the mormons) only have to worship the particular gods that rule their world/planet. The Christian God, Jesus Christ, has existed for all eternity and is THE Alpha and Omega, whereas the mormon gods were once mortal men who had to earn their way to godhood through the masonic rituals of mormonism.

So, no, you aren't rightfully Christians. Your religion is far closer to Islam which is a religion that, like you, claims to honor Jesus Christ but does not recognize Him as the One True God of all eternity.


So you believe that Emma Smith and Joseph Smith's children through her apostatized. Got it, thank you.

But aside from that, the fact remains that all the LDS denominations are rightfully called "LDS" because they are part of the latter-day-saints movement. Whether you believe they're apostate LDS or non-apostate LDS, they are still LDS. But your Salt Lake cult is so over-protective of the term "LDS" that you get defensive and angry if anyone refers to, say, Warren Jeffs' cult as "LDS". But they are.


If you didn't despise it you wouldn't excommunicate for it.

Mormons today like to pretend that polygamy is so disgusting and abhorrent to them yet they actually accept it. You're one of the rare ones I've heard admit that you believe polygamy is or at least was a good thing.

Now there's that other pesky fact that Joseph Smith did it behind Emma's back, threatened her with a "revelation" that she would be killed if she didn't go along with it, and he married underage teen girls. Disgusting.

You are looking at it from your modern perspective. As a male I would be scared to death to have to live polygamy. I have a hard enough time with one wife let alone many which my grandfather had. In fact we are having a kimball reunion soon.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You are looking at it from your modern perspective. As a male I would be scared to death to have to live polygamy. I have a hard enough time with one wife let alone many which my grandfather had. In fact we are having a kimball reunion soon.

I don't understand what your reply has to do with anything I said. I never said or implied that polygamy was something enjoyable or good. What I did bring up though was that marrying a 14-year-old girl, let alone 2 of them as Joseph Smith did, is disgusting and is child molestation.

 

[fatboys]

I don't understand what your reply has to do with anything I said. I never said or implied that polygamy was something enjoyable or good. What I did bring up though was that marrying a 14-year-old girl, let alone 2 of them as Joseph Smith did, is disgusting and is child molestation.

First off he was sealed to them. Second there is no evidence that he ever had relations with them. By nature women are more spiritual than men. There are going to be more women who make to heaven that men. The bible says that for every man who makes it to heaven there will be seven women that will make it. Do you think that if we make it to the highest kingdoms of God that we are going to have the same weaknesses that we have now. If so we for we won't be there. There is not going to be jealousies. There is not going to be greed or lusts or unrighteous desires. My wife and I will be working on become one more perfectly than we were able to do here. As we work on becoming one with each other we will becoming more at one with the Father and Jesus. If there is polygamy there it applies to that as well. You just see it as perverse because you think at a corruptable level and think that is what it will be in the next life.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

First off he was sealed to them.

Same thing. "Sealing" is official, religious mormon marriage which is supposed to be for eternity (i.e. not even "till death do us part" as Christian marriage is).

Second there is no evidence that he ever had relations with them.

That's a weird thing to say about married people - you can say that about any married couple, especially if they're childless. If people have entered into marriage they are doing so in part for the purpose of having sex. There's no other reason to be married.

By nature women are more spiritual than men.

That's a very sexist remark and one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

There are going to be more women who make to heaven that men. The bible says that for every man who makes it to heaven there will be seven women that will make it.

Where does the Bible say that?

 

[NYCGuy]

By nature women are more spiritual than men.

Huh? Where does this idea come from? Is this a Mormon belief?

 

[Sophrosyne]

By nature women are more spiritual than men.

I guess Jesus should have been a woman and Mr Smith too then.

 

[Ironhold]

Are your prophets, apostles, and church leaders that I quoted right or wrong? Or are you still avoiding answering?

I already answered you: just about everything you cited was their own individual opinion.

 

[Ironhold]

But when really pressed, he and others retreat back to the "if it's not in the 4 standard works, it's not Scripture and we can't be held to it" dodge.

That is clearly false and you know it.

Since you're so big on backing things up all of the sudden, please show me where I myself have said that.

...And for the record, kindly check the copyright status of the works cited in that post.

 

[Ironhold]

“From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up of things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are - I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289. This teaching is also repeated in the LDS Church’s 1984 manual, “Search These Commandments,” p. 133.)

LDS theology is that the key prophet over each dispensation will have the right to, in essence, testify when the people from that dispensation come to receive their judgement.

That means Moses, Isaiah, and others will fulfill that capacity as well.