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

[ArmenianJohn]

Read the book of Ephesians to find out what the real foundation of the early church of jesus Christ was. Yes, Jesus is the chief cornerstone, so is the most important part of the foundation, but since you knew that, I'm sure you have read Ephesians 2:20 and you also knew that the rest of the foundation is made up of apostles and prophets.

What did I say that's any different?

And since Paul said this when the apostles and prophets were still alive, he meant "living apostles and prophets".

How do you make that leap? You're saying the "prophets were still alive"... Really? Joshua was still alive? Moses was still alive? Daniel was still alive? Where do you get this from? John the Baptist was the last prophet, by the way.

I'm interested in why you didn't mention them?

Aren't you a bible follower? IOW what ever the bible says, we do, what ever the bible does not say, we don't do. Paul obviously knew that living apostles and prophets are essential to the church.
Jesus also obviously knew they were important. The bible records their thoughts, so why don't you believe living apostles and prophets are important to the church today?

So based on your erroneous and unfounded assertion that Paul was talking about "living apostles and prophets" you're now making further assertions, but the problem is that your base assertion is invalid. Paul obviously knew that the Apostles and Prophets were important to the Church but this was regardless of which were alive or dead (since all the prophets were dead by then). Many of the Apostles were dead by then, also. It is the work that the Apostles and Prophets did that the Church is built upon.

The apostles were called by Jesus to take care of the entire church in all the world, and as 1 died, Jesus replaced him with another apostle, for a time. The apostles ordained bishops to take care of a very local area, with limited powers to control a local area. So when you say the there are many churches today have apostolic succession, does that mean they have living apostles? No,

I agree. An "Apostle" is an office in the Church whose job it is to establish the early church. There were 12. There could be no more once they finished their jobs, which they did, because that was their job - to be the first, the foundation. Of course Apostolic Succession doesn't mean we have a "living apostle" and it doesn't even mean that there were ANY apostles since the original Apostle from where the succession began. There are no apostles to establish a church that's been established.

You yourself pointed out that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the Cornerstone (the real foundation of the foundation). I agree with that. So now you're telling me that there are foundations being built on top of each foundation for generations upon generations? When do they move on from the foundations to the rest of the structure? No, it doesn't make sense that the Church is a stack of foundations.

it means they have bishops that took over the church and immediately the large sees, set up thrones for their bishops and they argued the entire day long as who was the most important see. They argued territory, money, doctrines, when the day of Easter was going to be, how many books in the bible. There is nothing religious related that these bishops did not argue and fight over. Read the history, when the apostles were gone, the apostacy floodgates opened up wide and churches were in trouble . No apostolic succession. Bishops were and are not Apostles.

Thrones? Argued? LOL!!! Where did you get your information, Brigham Young University history classes? lol!!!

The only "fighting" was with the heresies that were popping up at the time, especially polytheistic ones that denied the nature of the Trinity, such as you and the mormons believe (making you polytheists).

I've read the history. There were different churches, there were disagreements, but the catholic Church had more agreement, including what the Canon of the Bible was, than disagreements.

If you want to see in-fighting about money, religion, etc. just look at the Mormon religion. Why, even Joseph Smith's own wife and children had to break away from the Salt Lake cult when Brigham Young the polygamist took over. Polygamy that the Salt Lake branch started still goes on today with other mormon cults that have broken from the Brighamists over the very act that the revered Brigham Young did - POLYGAMY.

Look at Warren Jeffs - he is simply another Brigham Young. Yet in less than 200 years there is much more fighting and division in the Mormon religion than there was in the Early Church. Polygamy is one of the biggest reasons and the Salt Lake Mormon branch has flip-flopped, driven out their own prophets and prophets' families. All because old mormon men wanted to marry (have sex with) young teenage girls.

But getting back to Apostles - there are no apostles. Having Apostles today would be like having workers come out to build a foundation for a building that's already built - it just doesn't make sense.

 

[fatboys]

What did I say that's any different?


How do you make that leap? You're saying the "prophets were still alive"... Really? Joshua was still alive? Moses was still alive? Daniel was still alive? Where do you get this from? John the Baptist was the last prophet, by the way.


So based on your erroneous and unfounded assertion that Paul was talking about "living apostles and prophets" you're now making further assertions, but the problem is that your base assertion is invalid. Paul obviously knew that the Apostles and Prophets were important to the Church but this was regardless of which were alive or dead (since all the prophets were dead by then). Many of the Apostles were dead by then, also. It is the work that the Apostles and Prophets did that the Church is built upon.


I agree. An "Apostle" is an office in the Church whose job it is to establish the early church. There were 12. There could be no more once they finished their jobs, which they did, because that was their job - to be the first, the foundation. Of course Apostolic Succession doesn't mean we have a "living apostle" and it doesn't even mean that there were ANY apostles since the original Apostle from where the succession began. There are no apostles to establish a church that's been established.

You yourself pointed out that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the Cornerstone (the real foundation of the foundation). I agree with that. So now you're telling me that there are foundations being built on top of each foundation for generations upon generations? When do they move on from the foundations to the rest of the structure? No, it doesn't make sense that the Church is a stack of foundations.


Thrones? Argued? LOL!!! Where did you get your information, Brigham Young University history classes? lol!!!

The only "fighting" was with the heresies that were popping up at the time, especially polytheistic ones that denied the nature of the Trinity, such as you and the mormons believe (making you polytheists).

I've read the history. There were different churches, there were disagreements, but the catholic Church had more agreement, including what the Canon of the Bible was, than disagreements.

If you want to see in-fighting about money, religion, etc. just look at the Mormon religion. Why, even Joseph Smith's own wife and children had to break away from the Salt Lake cult when Brigham Young the polygamist took over. Polygamy that the Salt Lake branch started still goes on today with other mormon cults that have broken from the Brighamists over the very act that the revered Brigham Young did - POLYGAMY.

Look at Warren Jeffs - he is simply another Brigham Young. Yet in less than 200 years there is much more fighting and division in the Mormon religion than there was in the Early Church. Polygamy is one of the biggest reasons and the Salt Lake Mormon branch has flip-flopped, driven out their own prophets and prophets' families. All because old mormon men wanted to marry (have sex with) young teenage girls.

But getting back to Apostles - there are no apostles. Having Apostles today would be like having workers come out to build a foundation for a building that's already built - it just doesn't make sense.

Paul was a live when he wrote it. Many of the apostles were alive when he wrote it. Was he lying?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Paul was a live when he wrote it. Many of the apostles were alive when he wrote it. Was he lying?

Paul was one of many Apostles and the Prophets were not alive - the messages of the Prophets were recorded in Scripture. No, Paul was not lying. Paul was correct. Paul never said that Apostles and Prophets were perpetual roles in the Church. In fact, Paul recognized that Apostleship ended with the Apostles of his time. Paul ordained bishops under him, not more apostles.

The one who is wrong is the poster who said that Paul meant that the Apostles and Prophets were still alive when Paul wrote this. That is an incorrect assertion. That poster is also wrong to assume that just because some Apostles were alive when Paul wrote this that that somehow means that the office of Apostle was to be a perpetual role; it wasn't.

 

[fatboys]

Paul was one of many Apostles and the Prophets were not alive - the messages of the Prophets were recorded in Scripture. No, Paul was not lying. Paul was correct. Paul never said that Apostles and Prophets were perpetual roles in the Church. In fact, Paul recognized that Apostleship ended with the Apostles of his time. Paul ordained bishops under him, not more apostles.

The one who is wrong is the poster who said that Paul meant that the Apostles and Prophets were still alive when Paul wrote this. That is an incorrect assertion. That poster is also wrong to assume that just because some Apostles were alive when Paul wrote this that that somehow means that the office of Apostle was to be a perpetual role; it wasn't.

He stated that there were to be apostles and prophets for as long as it took the church to come into a unity of the faith. Do you think that there was or is now a unity of the faith? If you think there is then why isn't there only one lord one church one faith and one baptism.

 

[Peter1000]

Reading your view into the text? There is no indication in the text that there is an expanding foundation (i.e. yet to be apostle and prophets).

The foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ is: apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. There is evidence in the text that there were 18+ apostles and who knows how many prophets and prophetesses. So the apostleship did expand and continue beyond the original 12.

Notice in this scripture what Paul says about apostles and prophets and why Jesus called them, and especially notice for how long Jesus expected them to be "living" among us. So your opinion that there is no indication in the text that there is an expanding foundation is not correct, based on just the indication in the text of this scripture, and there are others.
Ephesians 4:11-14:
11 And he (Jesus) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

You have in this scripture, the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ and here are the officers of the church. Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors, and teahers. We also know from Ephesians 2:20 that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone. We also know from other scriptures that there were bishops, deacons, priests, and elders.

Why does the text say that Jesus called them? For at least 3 reasons:
1) For the perfecting of the saints
2) For the work of the ministry
3) For the edifying of the body of Christ

How long does the text say these offices will be living among us:
1) Till we all come in the unity of the faith
2) Till we all come to the knowledge of the Son of God
3) Till we all come unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ

Then it ends with an sobering summary: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

So I ask the questions posed by this bible text:
1) Are all the Christian churches in a unity of the faith? The answer is no. So we still need the living foundation.
2) Have we all come to the knowledge of the Son of God? The answer is no. So we still need the living foundation.
3) Have we all come unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ? The answer is no. So we still need the living foundation.

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has all of these offices as specified by bible scripture. The text tells us in a straight-forward manner (not just an indication) what the foundation is, and that it would expand, until certain things happened.

I am not aware of what offices or what the foundation of your non-denominational church is, could you let me know?

 

[Peter1000]

Reading your view into the text? There is no indication in the text that there is an expanding foundation (i.e. yet to be apostle and prophets).

Ignore post

 

[Peter1000]

system error

 

[Peter1000]

Reading your view into the text? There is no indication in the text that there is an expanding foundation (i.e. yet to be apostle and prophets).

Peter 1000 says:
In your opinion, since you believe the text gives no indication that there would yet to be apostles and prophets, which are part of the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ, (IOW very important offices), does the text give any indication that there would yet to be pastors and evangelists?

 

[Peter1000]

Rightly so. Smithism is another gospel. (Gal. 1:6)

You are correct. In many respects it is another gospel than what you follow. But it is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ spoken of in 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 holy prophets since the world began have spoken of the restitution of all things, according to the bible. The true Church of Jesus Christ has been lost through an apostacy (see posts #5 & #6 on this thread) that started not long after Jesus ascension and got into full swing not long after the apostles were murdered. JS was called by Jesus Christ to help usher in the restitution of all things. It is another gospel, but it is the true NT gospel.

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ, far more closely aligns itself with the NT gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Peter1000]

Paul was one of many Apostles and the Prophets were not alive - the messages of the Prophets were recorded in Scripture. No, Paul was not lying. Paul was correct. Paul never said that Apostles and Prophets were perpetual roles in the Church. In fact, Paul recognized that Apostleship ended with the Apostles of his time. Paul ordained bishops under him, not more apostles.

The one who is wrong is the poster who said that Paul meant that the Apostles and Prophets were still alive when Paul wrote this. That is an incorrect assertion. That poster is also wrong to assume that just because some Apostles were alive when Paul wrote this that that somehow means that the office of Apostle was to be a perpetual role; it wasn't.

So as you look at perpetual roles, do you think it was more important to have perpetual pastors and evangelists, but not apostles and prophets (which are part of the foundation of the church Eph. 2:20). Are you willing to say that Jesus didn't have an ongoing role for very important apostles and prophets, but did have an ongoing role for pastors and evangelists? This logic does not make sense to me. Help me out please with your logic.

 

[Peter1000]

What did I say that's any different?


How do you make that leap? You're saying the "prophets were still alive"... Really? Joshua was still alive? Moses was still alive? Daniel was still alive? Where do you get this from? John the Baptist was the last prophet, by the way.


So based on your erroneous and unfounded assertion that Paul was talking about "living apostles and prophets" you're now making further assertions, but the problem is that your base assertion is invalid. Paul obviously knew that the Apostles and Prophets were important to the Church but this was regardless of which were alive or dead (since all the prophets were dead by then). Many of the Apostles were dead by then, also. It is the work that the Apostles and Prophets did that the Church is built upon.


I agree. An "Apostle" is an office in the Church whose job it is to establish the early church. There were 12. There could be no more once they finished their jobs, which they did, because that was their job - to be the first, the foundation. Of course Apostolic Succession doesn't mean we have a "living apostle" and it doesn't even mean that there were ANY apostles since the original Apostle from where the succession began. There are no apostles to establish a church that's been established.

You yourself pointed out that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the Cornerstone (the real foundation of the foundation). I agree with that. So now you're telling me that there are foundations being built on top of each foundation for generations upon generations? When do they move on from the foundations to the rest of the structure? No, it doesn't make sense that the Church is a stack of foundations.


Thrones? Argued? LOL!!! Where did you get your information, Brigham Young University history classes? lol!!!

The only "fighting" was with the heresies that were popping up at the time, especially polytheistic ones that denied the nature of the Trinity, such as you and the mormons believe (making you polytheists).

I've read the history. There were different churches, there were disagreements, but the catholic Church had more agreement, including what the Canon of the Bible was, than disagreements.

If you want to see in-fighting about money, religion, etc. just look at the Mormon religion. Why, even Joseph Smith's own wife and children had to break away from the Salt Lake cult when Brigham Young the polygamist took over. Polygamy that the Salt Lake branch started still goes on today with other mormon cults that have broken from the Brighamists over the very act that the revered Brigham Young did - POLYGAMY.

Look at Warren Jeffs - he is simply another Brigham Young. Yet in less than 200 years there is much more fighting and division in the Mormon religion than there was in the Early Church. Polygamy is one of the biggest reasons and the Salt Lake Mormon branch has flip-flopped, driven out their own prophets and prophets' families. All because old mormon men wanted to marry (have sex with) young teenage girls.

But getting back to Apostles - there are no apostles. Having Apostles today would be like having workers come out to build a foundation for a building that's already built - it just doesn't make sense.

ArmenianJohn says:
What did I say that's any different?

Here are your exact words:
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.

According to Eph. 2:20 Jesus is only the Chief Cornerstone, but not the entire foundation of the Church.

According to Eph. 2:20 the whole foundation is made up of apostles and prophets and Jesus. Therefore this is the foundation, not just Jesus. Do you see the difference?

ArmenianJohn says:
How do you make that leap? You're saying the "prophets were still alive"... Really? Joshua was still alive? Moses was still alive? Daniel was still alive? Where do you get this from? John the Baptist was the last prophet, by the way.

When Eph. 2:20 says that part of the foundation is made up of "prophets", do you think it meant Joshua, and Moses, and Daniel? No, it did not, it meant living, current prophets. John the Baptist was not the last prophet.
Acts 21:10-11
10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
And
Titus 1:12-13
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.

The apostles were prophets, they had a special witness of Jesus and bore a special testimony that he lives. That is the spirit of prophecy.

These are the kinds of men that receive revelation from Jesus about certain circumstances, that helps to lead and guide the people of the church. They are essential to a living church. That is why they are part of the foundation of the true church of Jesus Christ.

My unfounded assertions that Paul was talking about "living apostels and prophets" is biblical, not unfounded. It is well grounded.

If you will again read Eph. 4:11-14 you will know that the apostles job was not finished because they started a few churches around the Mediterranean Sea. You should quickly find out that we need apostles and prophets today more than eve.
The bible text gives evidence that there could have been 16+ apostles. As one died, another was ordained in his place. It is difficult to know exactly how many were ordained after Mathias, Paul, and Barnabas. Probably Timothy and others, that are not recorded.

ArmenianJohn says:
Thrones? Argued? LOL!!!

You have never read the history of the Christian church. Look how we go round and round over simple doctrines. Now add to that the power of a throne in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and add to that the enormous egos and wealth and the prestige of being the number 1 see. If you can't see the massive confict after about 200ad, I can't help you.

Sorry, the Catholic church at one time had the entire church, but because of the corruption and murder, and power-grabbing, it lost 1/2 of its followers to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and then of the 1/2 they had, they lost 1/2 of those followers to the reformation. Not very agreeable were they. No, they were haute and cruel masters and eventually, the people revolted and the Christian world was split asunder, never to be one again. Then the reformers couldn't agree on anything and that part of Christendom split, and split, and split until you have over 3000 denominations today. Not very agreeable, would you say. The apostacy struck deep and hard and there eventually needed to be a "restitution of all things" (see Acts 3:19-21).

 

[Commander Xenophon]

He needed to tell this lie in order to create a case for receiving his "revelations" which have since been shown to be frauds as well. There was no kind of a complete "apostasy" in which the world lost any spiritual "truths" from God. The Word of God, the Bible, has remained intact and consistent for thousands of years now and the Gospel is alive and well amongst real Christians.

What Joseph Smith did was essentially set up an occult religion, mostly plagiarized from another occult religion he was a member of, Freemasonry. When you look at what Joseph Smith introduced it is clear that he was creating a religion for his own (and that of his cronies, which is itself his own) interests and gain. It hit its peak with his excesses in forming gangs (armies) and his polygamy, both of which drew attention to him and his cult from the outside world.

But the bottom line is that the Great Apostasy the mormons talk about is not something that has happened. In the End Days there will be such a great falling away from God and we can see it starting to happen, but it's not something that has happened in the world since the time of Christ.

Very good post. The Orthodox Church, including the Armenian Church, which is the oldest "national" church and is home to the oldest surviving cathedral at Holy Etchmiadzin, is a witness to this.

However, tragically many other Christians aside from Mormons believe in "the great Apostasy." Usually the extremely anti-Catholic denominations and sects who are also unaware of the Eastern churches. The existence of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East clearly invalidate this argument, by collapsing the false dichotomy of Rome vs. "restoration"

 

[Peter1000]

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.


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

Albion says: So, we don't really now what caused it or when it happened?

What part of "it got started shortly after the ascension of Jesus, but got into full swing as soon as the apostles were murdered, is hard to understand. Yes, we know when it started. Shortly after the ascension of Jesus Christ. So now you need to respond: Thank you for letting me know when it happened, according to the LDS POV.

Albion says: 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.

Reread your Christian history. the Catholic church was so corrupted that it tainted the entire Christian world. Why did classical civilization decline. Here is several reasons for that decline:
1) the people were not even allowed to read the scriptures or they were burned at the stake.
2) You could sin and then buy forgiveness. You could even pay a little extra for sins you would commit in the future. Jo 3) The inquisition was in full force in France, and Spain.
4) War, and death and destruction was the way of life.

It was the dark ages because the apostacy was in full swing and 2 Thes. 2:1-7 was being fulfilled.

Through it all the Christian church did not die out completely. Thousands of people did thousands of good works. But the church was changed. It was in apostacy and stayed on that path until the reformation. It made some improvement in some things and made other things worse. That is why the protestant church is a 3000 denominational church, because of the confusion.

In JS time it was fashionable to talk about the primitive church and getting back to the primitive church. That is why JS gained followers right away, because he said that God and Jesus told him that he was going to be a new prophet for restoring the primitive church to it's fullness again. When Jesus chose 12 new apostles in this modern era and they began to function, their message resinated with the people and today there are 16,000,000 members and it is the fastest growing Christian church in the world. It will continue to grow because this is the time of the restitution of all things.

 

[Alla27]

There was no kind of a complete "apostasy" in which the world lost any spiritual "truths" from God.

How do you know?

The Word of God, the Bible, has remained intact and consistent for thousands of years now and the Gospel is alive and well amongst real Christians.

How do you know?

When you look at what Joseph Smith introduced it is clear that he was creating a religion for his own (and that of his cronies, which is itself his own) interests and gain.

Clear to whom?

But the bottom line is that the Great Apostasy the mormons talk about is not something that has happened.

How do you know?

In the End Days there will be such a great falling away from God and we can see it starting to happen, but it's not something that has happened in the world since the time of Christ.

From God, yes. But we are talking about Christ's THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH. It was falling away from the Church of Christ not from God in general. People still believed in God, but there was no Church of Christ on earth after the 1st century.
Here, now you know.

 

[Albion]

Albion says: So, we don't really now what caused it or when it happened?

What part of "it got started shortly after the ascension of Jesus, but got into full swing as soon as the apostles were murdered, is hard to understand. Yes, we know when it started. Shortly after the ascension of Jesus Christ

I asked when it occurred and what it was that represented apostasy. I was not told what the apostasy was, for one thing. The deaths of the Apostles is not apostasy. Then too, I was told that "it happened" right after the Ascension, uh, well, up until AD110 or so, that is. In other words "it" wasn't defined and it "happened" in, well, exactly sometime or other over an 80 year span of time...approximately! That's three non-answers of importance.

 

[Peter1000]

I asked when it occurred and what it was that represented apostasy. I was not told what the apostasy was, for one thing. The deaths of the Apostles is not apostasy. Then too, I was told that "it happened" right after the Ascension, uh, well, up until AD110 or so, that is. In other words "it" wasn't defined and it "happened" in, well, exactly sometime or other over an 80 year span of time...approximately! That's three non-answers of importance. [/QUOTE

Peter1000 says:
Do you understand what apostacy means?

 

[Albion]

Yes, I do. But the suspicion I have that the folks on the other side who are throwing the word around do not actually understand it themselves has occurred to me more than once as I read these posts.

 

[Peter1000]

Very good post. The Orthodox Church, including the Armenian Church, which is the oldest "national" church and is home to the oldest surviving cathedral at Holy Etchmiadzin, is a witness to this.

However, tragically many other Christians aside from Mormons believe in "the great Apostasy." Usually the extremely anti-Catholic denominations and sects who are also unaware of the Eastern churches. The existence of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East clearly invalidate this argument, by collapsing the false dichotomy of Rome vs. "restoration"

The Eastern Orthodox church is the prime witness of the apostacy. Why did you feel a need to break away from the western church?

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, I do. But the suspicion I have that the folks on the other side who are throwing the word around do not actually understand it themselves has occurred to me more than once as I read these posts.

So tell me what you think the apostacy is. If you think there was no apostacy, you can say that too.

Tell me what you think Paul was saying in 2 Thes. 2:1-3 & 7?

 

[Albion]

The Eastern Orthodox church is the prime witness of the apostacy. Why did you feel a need to break away from the western church?

So tell me what you think the apostacy is.

When you say "the apostasy" you are referring to the Mormon idea of there having been one. I asked what that is supposed to have been. Do I take it that you don't know, not any more than the other Mormons asked before? If so, I'd think it very wrong to base a religion upon believing that something happened a long time ago to end the church that Christ founded and in defiance of his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church...but no one knows what it was or, for that matter, when it happened. Just say "apostasy" and you've got the justification for making a new one.