i have done research on the mormon church. a lot of research. the mormon church says that there was an apostacy, that the church has fallen away from its original beliefs. things like baptizing for the dead and believing that God and Jesus are different beings. do they really believe this? what evidence is there of this apostacy?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
the apostacy
- Thread starter solar_mirth
- Start date
- Status
twhite982 said:
Hi there!
That is the easiest response when there isn't a good argument.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that apostasy can be adultery, either of the person or a whole nation. General apostacy is turning away from the Lord and breaking his covenants. Nephite apostasy is a stumbling block to believers. In the early church, apostasy was the false Christs and the false prophets. Joseph Smith taught that all the church were wrong and far from God, that there was a new everlasting covenant with God, the fulness of the gospel of Christ.
It can be mutually agreed that there was apostasy in the early Christian church. Paul identified it and purged it from the teachings on many occasions.
Yet, the Saints refuse to believe what the Scriptures teach.
Your turn.
~malaka~
Upvote
0
Heres a list of a few items that strike me as being plain and precious as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that either dont appear in the Bible or dont appear in a plain enough manner so that they are easily or correctly understood:solar_mirth said:
1. Eternal marriage
2. Pre-mortal existence
3. True nature of God
4. Accurate Christology
5. Gospel is preached to the dead.
6. Proxy ordinance work for the dead.
7. True nature of priesthood.
A. Adam was a high priest
B. Abraham was a high priest
C. Noah was a high priest
8. True nature of scripture
9. True doctrine of plural marriage.
10. True nature of theosis (eternal progression)
11. True nature of prophecy
12. True nature of spirits
13. True correlation between grace, faith and works
14. The great apostasy
15. True nature of the Fall
16. Necessity of authority to act in the name of God.
17. Power of godliness
18. Translation of John the apostle
19. Authorship of the Apocalypse
20. Election and sustaining of Church leaders
21. Church structure
22. Necessity of living apostles
23. True doctrine of adoption
24. Separate creations (spirit, spiritual, mortal)
25. True doctrine of the gift of the Holy Spirit
26. True doctrine of the resurrection
27. True doctrine of baptism
28. True doctrine of the meaning of creation
29. True doctrine of the meaning of being born again
30. True doctrine of Jesus as our father.
31. True nature of prophets
32. True doctrine of justification
33. True doctrine of sanctification
34. Doctrine of the degrees of glory in the resurrection
35. Necessity of the Fall
36. Opposition in all things
37. Purpose of creation and the existence of man
38. The correct answer to the problem of evil
39. True concept of Satan and evil spirits.
40. The covenant of baptism
41. The covenant of the sacrament
42. The eternal effects of the atonement
43. The eternal nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ
The doctrines have been taught by prophets, Jesus and his apostles, but werent preserved.
Those are a couple of the plain and precious doctrines and concepts that didnt make it through the apostasy. If I had some time to look at some books, I think I could come up with more. (originally Posted by Alma)
Sherman
Upvote
0
I thought that instead of being on the defensive all the time, I'd like to turn the tables a bit.Malaka said:Hi there!
That is the easiest response when there isn't a good argument.
~malaka~
Also in your response I didn't see any evidence of there not being an apostacy other than your statement saying that Paul quelched doctrinaly any dissenters.
As I read Paul's epistles all are corrective and show a veering away of some kind.
TW
Upvote
0
This topic has been stale for quite a while. Hope you are still interested.solar_mirth said:
I have often stressed the fact that the Christian Body is divided, where the inspired Word states its purpose is to be one.
On another thread I stated:
That to me in part is evedince of the apostacy.
Upvote
0
wow, i thought this thread would go nowhere. thanks for posting.
ok, so here are a few questions:
what of the different denominations in the LDS church? most of the protestant denominations were created by a difference in church structure or form of worship. the mainstream protestant denominations are not quite as different as most would picture them. just because we worship in different ways because we interpret the same scriptures in different ways, that does not mean that there is this huge division or dislike for one another. we are united, just not uniform.
second, JS tried to change the face of american christianity by claiming that everyone was wrong. it has been assumed that the doctrines of the church has remained the same for its entire exitstence. JS claimed that it was wrong, so the burden of proof falls on those that agree with him. so again i ask, where is this great apostacy in the history of the church? where is proof of it? note that i say great apostacy. i mean an apostacy that would completely obscure the original teachings of the church from all of the christians (the only possible way that this complete corruption of the american churches JS spoke of could occur).
third, sherman, would you like me to go back and refute some of the things on that list? the bible is in direct opposition to many of those.
ok, so here are a few questions:
what of the different denominations in the LDS church? most of the protestant denominations were created by a difference in church structure or form of worship. the mainstream protestant denominations are not quite as different as most would picture them. just because we worship in different ways because we interpret the same scriptures in different ways, that does not mean that there is this huge division or dislike for one another. we are united, just not uniform.
second, JS tried to change the face of american christianity by claiming that everyone was wrong. it has been assumed that the doctrines of the church has remained the same for its entire exitstence. JS claimed that it was wrong, so the burden of proof falls on those that agree with him. so again i ask, where is this great apostacy in the history of the church? where is proof of it? note that i say great apostacy. i mean an apostacy that would completely obscure the original teachings of the church from all of the christians (the only possible way that this complete corruption of the american churches JS spoke of could occur).
third, sherman, would you like me to go back and refute some of the things on that list? the bible is in direct opposition to many of those.
Upvote
0
intrepid
Senior Member
- Nov 24, 2003
- 653
- 48
- 80
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This seems like a good place to throw this out for discussion: It's been rattling around in what's left of my brain cells that the LDS Church itself may be in apostacy.
Major changes in LDS doctrine:
Plural Marriage. In 1886 Pres. Taylor said that plural marriage would never end for the LDS. In 1890 it did. Did LDS authorities realize that Utah would never become a state with plural marriage on the books? Utah became a state in 1896. Was this revelation from God or a practical move by men?
Blacks in the Priesthood. Blacks could not enter the priesthood until the revelation in 1978 allowing it. At that time an LDS temple was under construction in Brazil. The population of Brazil is largely non-white. Again, revelation or practicality?
Temple Endowment Ceremony. This was changed in 1990 without any "revelation" or vote. Until then, Mormons were told that it came to them from Heavenly Father through Joseph Smith. The ceremony was "softened" to make it more "user friendly." Was the original too intimidating for 20th century Mormons and converts?
The Word of Wisdom. Adherence to the WoW was not requisite for a Temple Recommend until 1930 (19th century Mormons considered it good advice, but not doctrine). Making it doctrine gives the church more control over the members.
The Book of Mormon was called the most perfect book ever written by Smith himself. There are something like 4,000 changes that have been made. Most are changes in punctuation and the like, but many are not. This seems very much akin to the LDS charge that the Bible was altered during the Great Apostacy (LDS terminology).
Tithing. Tithing is Biblical and encouraged by most denominations. However, for a Mormon it is necessary to enter an LDS Temple. Mormon warns against churches that require money (I don't remember the chapter and verse), yet money is required to enter the holiest LDS sites. As an aside, the LDS church is the wealthiest church in America, per capita, and does not make public their financial information, even to members.
Something to think about...
Major changes in LDS doctrine:
Plural Marriage. In 1886 Pres. Taylor said that plural marriage would never end for the LDS. In 1890 it did. Did LDS authorities realize that Utah would never become a state with plural marriage on the books? Utah became a state in 1896. Was this revelation from God or a practical move by men?
Blacks in the Priesthood. Blacks could not enter the priesthood until the revelation in 1978 allowing it. At that time an LDS temple was under construction in Brazil. The population of Brazil is largely non-white. Again, revelation or practicality?
Temple Endowment Ceremony. This was changed in 1990 without any "revelation" or vote. Until then, Mormons were told that it came to them from Heavenly Father through Joseph Smith. The ceremony was "softened" to make it more "user friendly." Was the original too intimidating for 20th century Mormons and converts?
The Word of Wisdom. Adherence to the WoW was not requisite for a Temple Recommend until 1930 (19th century Mormons considered it good advice, but not doctrine). Making it doctrine gives the church more control over the members.
The Book of Mormon was called the most perfect book ever written by Smith himself. There are something like 4,000 changes that have been made. Most are changes in punctuation and the like, but many are not. This seems very much akin to the LDS charge that the Bible was altered during the Great Apostacy (LDS terminology).
Tithing. Tithing is Biblical and encouraged by most denominations. However, for a Mormon it is necessary to enter an LDS Temple. Mormon warns against churches that require money (I don't remember the chapter and verse), yet money is required to enter the holiest LDS sites. As an aside, the LDS church is the wealthiest church in America, per capita, and does not make public their financial information, even to members.
Something to think about...
Upvote
0
Solar_mirth:
what of the different denominations in the LDS church? most of the protestant denominations were created by a difference in church structure or form of worship. the mainstream protestant denominations are not quite as different as most would picture them. just because we worship in different ways because we interpret the same scriptures in different ways, that does not mean that there is this huge division or dislike for one another. we are united, just not uniform.
TOm:
The CoJCoLDS embraces like the Catholic Church a visible unity (like the Catholic Church is changing to we also recognize an invisible unity, but that is not part of this thread). So the splinter groups that are not part of the CoJCoLDS are a small fractions of the total folks who recognize the BOM as scripture. I believe that Brigham Young appeared to be Joseph Smith as he explained that God called him to be the successor of Joseph Smith. This was a miracle that confirmed his position as the head of the church. The fundamentalists (like the Ultra-Trad Catholics) have become protesters in that they are willing to effectively schism from the ordained authority of God. While the Ultra-Trad have a good argument in that the Catholic Church does not claim the ability to have supernatural revelation from God, the fundamentalists are ignoring the man who can receive supernatural revelation from God for the entire church in favor of whatever they think is important.
So the schisms within the CoJCoLDS are small splinter groups who have pet doctrines. The Community of Christ is the largest and they do not recognized the miracle that occurred when Brigham Young appeared to be Joseph Smith in front of dozens of witnesses.
Solar_mirth:
second, JS tried to change the face of american christianity by claiming that everyone was wrong. it has been assumed that the doctrines of the church has remained the same for its entire exitstence. JS claimed that it was wrong, so the burden of proof falls on those that agree with him. so again i ask, where is this great apostacy in the history of the church? where is proof of it? note that i say great apostacy. i mean an apostacy that would completely obscure the original teachings of the church from all of the christians (the only possible way that this complete corruption of the american churches JS spoke of could occur).
TOm:
It is not historical record that the doctrines of the church have remained the same. To be Catholic is to recognize natural revelation as the doctrines of the church change. Pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism. Co-equality has not pre-Nicea precedence except within those who are called heretics because the believe that there are not three persons in the Trinity. To be protestant is to embrace the authority of the Catholic Church until it seemed like a good idea to abandon that authority. The church has evolved. To make this more simple, pick a Restored Doctrine you would like for me to demonstrate from the EarlyChurch and I will try. There are a couple that you might be able to find that I will not show in the surviving writings of the EarlyChurch, but the majority are there.
Let me quote a review of the Barry Bickmores Restoring the AncientChurch by a non-LDS.
"...This one thing is at least certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this...To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant..."1
"The position, that historical Christianity is not Protestantism, is certainly true...We maintain Protestantism was the Christianity of the apostles-that very soon after their time, corruptions in doctrine and government were introduced into the church..."2
"Whatever be the Christianity of the New Testament, it is not Romanism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this, and Romanism has ever felt it."3
1 John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Univ. Of Notre Dame Press (1989) pp.7,8.
2 William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles, Still Water Revival Books (1991) pp.46,47.
3 William Cunningham, ibid., p.48.
I do not mean to suggest that history teaches of a Church that looks like the CoJCoLDS, but Barry Bickmore in the book that was reviewed does show that peculiar things about the CoJCoLDS have roots in the EarlyChurch. This is as it should be if the CoJCoLDS is what it says it is.
BTW, the reason that Cunninghams statements do not condemn the Catholic Church is because contrary to what most Catholics think, the Catholic Church develops doctrinally.
Solar_mirth:
third, sherman, would you like me to go back and refute some of the things on that list? the bible is in direct opposition to many of those.
TOm:
Only if it is really important to you to do so. If you want to be thorough you could search the pro-LDS sites and find out the responses to your concerns. The Bible and the CoJCoLDS have lived side by side for 170+ years. We read the Bible, we study the Bible, we love the Bible. The Bible is one of the ways in which the CoJCoLDS knows the will of God (just not the only source). The head of our church gave you the Bible.
Charity, TOm
what of the different denominations in the LDS church? most of the protestant denominations were created by a difference in church structure or form of worship. the mainstream protestant denominations are not quite as different as most would picture them. just because we worship in different ways because we interpret the same scriptures in different ways, that does not mean that there is this huge division or dislike for one another. we are united, just not uniform.
TOm:
The CoJCoLDS embraces like the Catholic Church a visible unity (like the Catholic Church is changing to we also recognize an invisible unity, but that is not part of this thread). So the splinter groups that are not part of the CoJCoLDS are a small fractions of the total folks who recognize the BOM as scripture. I believe that Brigham Young appeared to be Joseph Smith as he explained that God called him to be the successor of Joseph Smith. This was a miracle that confirmed his position as the head of the church. The fundamentalists (like the Ultra-Trad Catholics) have become protesters in that they are willing to effectively schism from the ordained authority of God. While the Ultra-Trad have a good argument in that the Catholic Church does not claim the ability to have supernatural revelation from God, the fundamentalists are ignoring the man who can receive supernatural revelation from God for the entire church in favor of whatever they think is important.
So the schisms within the CoJCoLDS are small splinter groups who have pet doctrines. The Community of Christ is the largest and they do not recognized the miracle that occurred when Brigham Young appeared to be Joseph Smith in front of dozens of witnesses.
Solar_mirth:
second, JS tried to change the face of american christianity by claiming that everyone was wrong. it has been assumed that the doctrines of the church has remained the same for its entire exitstence. JS claimed that it was wrong, so the burden of proof falls on those that agree with him. so again i ask, where is this great apostacy in the history of the church? where is proof of it? note that i say great apostacy. i mean an apostacy that would completely obscure the original teachings of the church from all of the christians (the only possible way that this complete corruption of the american churches JS spoke of could occur).
TOm:
It is not historical record that the doctrines of the church have remained the same. To be Catholic is to recognize natural revelation as the doctrines of the church change. Pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism. Co-equality has not pre-Nicea precedence except within those who are called heretics because the believe that there are not three persons in the Trinity. To be protestant is to embrace the authority of the Catholic Church until it seemed like a good idea to abandon that authority. The church has evolved. To make this more simple, pick a Restored Doctrine you would like for me to demonstrate from the EarlyChurch and I will try. There are a couple that you might be able to find that I will not show in the surviving writings of the EarlyChurch, but the majority are there.
Let me quote a review of the Barry Bickmores Restoring the AncientChurch by a non-LDS.
"...This one thing is at least certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this...To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant..."1
"The position, that historical Christianity is not Protestantism, is certainly true...We maintain Protestantism was the Christianity of the apostles-that very soon after their time, corruptions in doctrine and government were introduced into the church..."2
"Whatever be the Christianity of the New Testament, it is not Romanism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this, and Romanism has ever felt it."3
1 John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Univ. Of Notre Dame Press (1989) pp.7,8.
2 William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles, Still Water Revival Books (1991) pp.46,47.
3 William Cunningham, ibid., p.48.
I do not mean to suggest that history teaches of a Church that looks like the CoJCoLDS, but Barry Bickmore in the book that was reviewed does show that peculiar things about the CoJCoLDS have roots in the EarlyChurch. This is as it should be if the CoJCoLDS is what it says it is.
BTW, the reason that Cunninghams statements do not condemn the Catholic Church is because contrary to what most Catholics think, the Catholic Church develops doctrinally.
Solar_mirth:
third, sherman, would you like me to go back and refute some of the things on that list? the bible is in direct opposition to many of those.
TOm:
Only if it is really important to you to do so. If you want to be thorough you could search the pro-LDS sites and find out the responses to your concerns. The Bible and the CoJCoLDS have lived side by side for 170+ years. We read the Bible, we study the Bible, we love the Bible. The Bible is one of the ways in which the CoJCoLDS knows the will of God (just not the only source). The head of our church gave you the Bible.
Charity, TOm
Upvote
0
Intrepid,
I have thought about the things you say, but the CoJCoLDS does not have a fixed theology. The Catholic Church does not claim supernatural revelation. They should conform to the Bible and Tradition, but an EC or the Pope can define tradition through the power of the Holy Spirit. The majority of Protestants claim that they come only from the words of the Bible, but in truth they line up behind the Catholic Church in everything except what Luther, Calvin, Wesley, rejected long ago.
The CoJCoLDS does not follow Joseph Smith. He was the first prophet of the Restoration. But with Jesus Christ as the head of our church, we have a much more sure foundation than previous tradition.
I would not present the changes you list the way you list them, but LDS believe that it is possible that more will come forward in the future. We will rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us to know the validity of such things.
Charity, TOm
I have thought about the things you say, but the CoJCoLDS does not have a fixed theology. The Catholic Church does not claim supernatural revelation. They should conform to the Bible and Tradition, but an EC or the Pope can define tradition through the power of the Holy Spirit. The majority of Protestants claim that they come only from the words of the Bible, but in truth they line up behind the Catholic Church in everything except what Luther, Calvin, Wesley, rejected long ago.
The CoJCoLDS does not follow Joseph Smith. He was the first prophet of the Restoration. But with Jesus Christ as the head of our church, we have a much more sure foundation than previous tradition.
I would not present the changes you list the way you list them, but LDS believe that it is possible that more will come forward in the future. We will rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us to know the validity of such things.
Charity, TOm
Upvote
0
intrepid
Senior Member
- Nov 24, 2003
- 653
- 48
- 80
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Tom:TOmNossor said:
My view of your religion as that of a friendly outsider. It actually appears to me to be as much a culture as a religion; not a bad thing at all.
As I look at the LDS history I mentioned, I do so with an eye that, perhaps, can be more cynical than yours. If the early church had fallen into almost total apostacy before the apostles were cold in their graves, what assurance do you have that the revelations you received (or will receive) came from the Holy Spirit? Do you think that a 2nd century Christian, about to be fed to the lions (literally) in Rome, thought that his or her church was in apostacy?
I don't know if President Hinkley is a Living Prophet, but he is a great CEO. Their are probably many CEOs of corporations that would like to have the top-down management control over their organization that he has over his.
Merry Christmas,
Intrepid
Upvote
0
fatboys
Senior Veteran
intrepid said:
The only scritpures used by the apostles were the Old Testament. Christ used these scriptures to confound the scholars of his day. The New Testament was not written. There were not scribes taking down Christ words and thoughts as he went form place to place. The Gospels were written after the fact. Paul wrote many letters of correction as the gospel was preached and then the missionaries moved on to the next place. Apostasy was surely to creep in, knowing the thoughts, and hearts of men and our tendency to get things wrong. This is why we need living prophets today. And we don't have to worry about intepertation as it is left to the those are called to do so. We do have the power to ask God for ourselves if what they are interpreting is correct. So although the fincances of the church are controled by its leaders, they do not control me personally. I have control over myself, and can go to God and ask for myself.
Upvote
0
- Oct 23, 2003
- 16,711
- 1,132
- 54
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
If the early church had fallen into almost total apostacy?
B.H. Roberts, an LDS Seventy and LDS Church historian, in his introduction to the History of the Church, stated that the LDS Church is founded upon this very premise. He wrote, "Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (vol. 1:XL). If however, the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants were true, it would be difficult to arrive at such a conclusion.
In chapter 21 of the Gospel of John, the resurrected Christ spoke with His disciples. In verse 18 He told Peter how he would die at the hand of others. When Peter asked the Lord what would become of the Apostle John, Jesus said,
"If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." What appears to be a mild rebuke seems to have been misconstrued by Mormonism's founder as a promise that John would never die. Though not a subject talked about much in public, it is taught very clearly in section seven of the Doctrine and Covenants that the Apostle John is still alive somewhere on the earth. The introduction to section seven states, "The revelation is the translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself."
Joseph Smith claims that when John was asked by the Lord what he desired, John responded by saying, "Lord, give me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee" (vs.2). To this the Lord supposedly said, "Because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people."
Scholars outside of the LDS Church tend to agree that John, though not having died the death of a martyr, lived out his days, perhaps in Ephesus. The LDS Church, however, maintains that John made a personal appearance to Joseph Smith sometime around 1830.
Joseph Smith claimed the Apostle John (as well as Peter and James) appeared to him and Oliver Cowdery and bestowed upon them the Melchizedek priesthood. Just when this took place is not exactly known although LDS historians insist that it had to have taken place after Smith claimed to have seen John the Baptist on May 15, 1829. Mormon historian B.H. Roberts estimates that it took place sometime between May 15, 1829 and April of 1830. Not only is the time in which John made his appearance a matter of debate, but the manner in which John appeared also seems to be one of confusion among LDS leaders.
Tenth LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith states that Peter and James appeared as resurrected beings, but John is not so described. He wrote, "There is a statement in the Gospel of John, written of his gospel account, which intimates that the Lord gave him power to remain until the second coming. There is a revelation in the Doctrines and Covenants, Section 7, which confirms this thought" (Answers to Gospel Questions 3:93).
Despite the fact that D&C 7 states that John was to have "power over death," he is described in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as a "resurrected" being (Dispensation of the Fulness of Times). Mormon presidents George Albert Smith and Spencer W. Kimball both describe John as a resurrected being who appeared to their founding prophet. During a General Conference message in 1950, Smith, the eighth LDS prophet, said Peter, James and John were men who "lived upon the earth as we have lived, who have gone on and performed their part and have been resurrected and sent back to earth" (Conference Report, April 1950, pg. 188). Kimball, meanwhile, described John as a resurrected being at the top of page 456 of his book, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. LDS Apostle John Widtsoe added that it was "the resurrected apostles, Peter, James and John" that conferred the Melchizedek priesthood upon Smith and Cowdery (Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 249-250).
Mormon Apostle A. Theodore Tuttle also claimed John was a resurrected being when he appeared with Peter and James (Conference Report, October 1964, pp. 8-9). Meanwhile, Henry D. Moyle, the counselor to David O. McKay, retold the story of John's visitation: "Jesus Christ conferred his priesthood upon the apostles of old. Then Peter, James and John as resurrected beings conferred the same priesthood which they had received from the Lord upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery" (Conference Report, April 1962, pg. 101).
A natural question to the above testimonies would be, "How could John be a resurrected being if he was promised that he would never die?" Though the word "resurrected" is not the most common adjective used to describe John, the phrase "heavenly messenger" or "heavenly personage" is certainly used on numerous occasions by LDS leaders. General authorities such as James Talmage, Bruce McConkie, Orson Pratt, George Q. Cannon, Orson Whitney, Charles Callis, Joseph Wirthlin, Joseph F. Merrill, William Critchlow, and Milton R. Hunter all used the word "heavenly" when speaking of John's visitation to Smith and Cowdery. Even Joseph Fielding Smith, while making a distinction in his book Answers to Gospel Questions, used this expression when he said, "That they [Smith and Cowdery] did obtain them [Priesthood and Keys], we know, and that the keys of the kingdom were conferred by these heavenly messengers, we have evidence to show" (Doctrines of Salvation 3:98). And in the book entitled Meet the Mormons (1965) published by the LDS Church, Peter, James, and John are called "heavenly messengers" (pg.47).
If D&C 7 is to be believed, John could not die until Jesus returned. Thus, either Jesus' promise to John failed or the Second Coming has taken place. Since neither are plausible, how could John have become a "heavenly" messenger? This title seems odd for someone who was not going to get to heaven until after Jesus returned.
Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie denied that John was resurrected. Rather, he claimed that John appeared as a translated being. McConkie wrote, "At that appearance, Peter and James were resurrected beings; John was translated." (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 572). How McConkie arrives at this conclusion is not clear, but it certainly is not supported by D&C section seven. The word "translated" gives the impression of going from one place to another; this would contradict the specifics of Jesus' alleged promise which tells us John was to remain on earth. Section seven gives every indication that John would remain on earth as an earthly messenger, not as a translated or heavenly one.
The Book of Mormon, touted by Joseph Smith to be the most correct book of earth, claims that the resurrected Jesus Christ came to the American continent and promised three Nephite disciples that they also would live until the Lord's coming (Although the Book of Mormon does not specifically call them apostles, Bruce McConkie does in his book The Mortal Messiah, Vol.4, p.392). Third Nephi 28:7-9 makes it very clear that these three would remain alive to bring souls unto the Lord "while the world shall stand." The prophecy states:
"Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father. And again, ye shall not have pain while ye dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand."
How these mere men could maintain this longevity is explained in verses 37 and 38. Here, the writer inquires of the Lord how these three are able to live so long. Verses 38-40 state:
"Therefore, that they might not taste of death there was a change wrought upon their bodies, that they might not suffer pain nor sorrow save it were the sins of the world. Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place in the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them...And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ."
Verse 31 claims these three would perform "great and marvelous works," yet neither the Jews or the Gentiles would know them (verse 27,28).
It is difficult to give credence to a total apostasy when you have four apostles roaming the earth. Though no specific promise of success is given to John, such a promise was allegedly given to the three Nephites. 3 Nephi 28:29 states most clearly that they "shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls." If this is the case, why was Joseph Smith supposedly told in his first vision that all the churches were wrong? Wouldn't those who converted under the tutelage of these men be considered a part of the true church? Since we have no evidence that John, or these three Nephites, ever worked in harmony with Joseph Smith to build his new church, are we to assume that their converts are a part of "the church of devil" as described in 1 Nephi 14:10 of the Book of Mormon? If Mormons choose to go with the total apostasy theory, they must conclude that the efforts of John and the three Nephites were frustrated and yielded no fruit. To hold this view casts doubt on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and even Christ Himself.
By Bill McKeever
B.H. Roberts, an LDS Seventy and LDS Church historian, in his introduction to the History of the Church, stated that the LDS Church is founded upon this very premise. He wrote, "Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (vol. 1:XL). If however, the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants were true, it would be difficult to arrive at such a conclusion.
In chapter 21 of the Gospel of John, the resurrected Christ spoke with His disciples. In verse 18 He told Peter how he would die at the hand of others. When Peter asked the Lord what would become of the Apostle John, Jesus said,
"If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." What appears to be a mild rebuke seems to have been misconstrued by Mormonism's founder as a promise that John would never die. Though not a subject talked about much in public, it is taught very clearly in section seven of the Doctrine and Covenants that the Apostle John is still alive somewhere on the earth. The introduction to section seven states, "The revelation is the translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself."
Joseph Smith claims that when John was asked by the Lord what he desired, John responded by saying, "Lord, give me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee" (vs.2). To this the Lord supposedly said, "Because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people."
Scholars outside of the LDS Church tend to agree that John, though not having died the death of a martyr, lived out his days, perhaps in Ephesus. The LDS Church, however, maintains that John made a personal appearance to Joseph Smith sometime around 1830.
Joseph Smith claimed the Apostle John (as well as Peter and James) appeared to him and Oliver Cowdery and bestowed upon them the Melchizedek priesthood. Just when this took place is not exactly known although LDS historians insist that it had to have taken place after Smith claimed to have seen John the Baptist on May 15, 1829. Mormon historian B.H. Roberts estimates that it took place sometime between May 15, 1829 and April of 1830. Not only is the time in which John made his appearance a matter of debate, but the manner in which John appeared also seems to be one of confusion among LDS leaders.
Tenth LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith states that Peter and James appeared as resurrected beings, but John is not so described. He wrote, "There is a statement in the Gospel of John, written of his gospel account, which intimates that the Lord gave him power to remain until the second coming. There is a revelation in the Doctrines and Covenants, Section 7, which confirms this thought" (Answers to Gospel Questions 3:93).
Despite the fact that D&C 7 states that John was to have "power over death," he is described in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as a "resurrected" being (Dispensation of the Fulness of Times). Mormon presidents George Albert Smith and Spencer W. Kimball both describe John as a resurrected being who appeared to their founding prophet. During a General Conference message in 1950, Smith, the eighth LDS prophet, said Peter, James and John were men who "lived upon the earth as we have lived, who have gone on and performed their part and have been resurrected and sent back to earth" (Conference Report, April 1950, pg. 188). Kimball, meanwhile, described John as a resurrected being at the top of page 456 of his book, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. LDS Apostle John Widtsoe added that it was "the resurrected apostles, Peter, James and John" that conferred the Melchizedek priesthood upon Smith and Cowdery (Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 249-250).
Mormon Apostle A. Theodore Tuttle also claimed John was a resurrected being when he appeared with Peter and James (Conference Report, October 1964, pp. 8-9). Meanwhile, Henry D. Moyle, the counselor to David O. McKay, retold the story of John's visitation: "Jesus Christ conferred his priesthood upon the apostles of old. Then Peter, James and John as resurrected beings conferred the same priesthood which they had received from the Lord upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery" (Conference Report, April 1962, pg. 101).
A natural question to the above testimonies would be, "How could John be a resurrected being if he was promised that he would never die?" Though the word "resurrected" is not the most common adjective used to describe John, the phrase "heavenly messenger" or "heavenly personage" is certainly used on numerous occasions by LDS leaders. General authorities such as James Talmage, Bruce McConkie, Orson Pratt, George Q. Cannon, Orson Whitney, Charles Callis, Joseph Wirthlin, Joseph F. Merrill, William Critchlow, and Milton R. Hunter all used the word "heavenly" when speaking of John's visitation to Smith and Cowdery. Even Joseph Fielding Smith, while making a distinction in his book Answers to Gospel Questions, used this expression when he said, "That they [Smith and Cowdery] did obtain them [Priesthood and Keys], we know, and that the keys of the kingdom were conferred by these heavenly messengers, we have evidence to show" (Doctrines of Salvation 3:98). And in the book entitled Meet the Mormons (1965) published by the LDS Church, Peter, James, and John are called "heavenly messengers" (pg.47).
If D&C 7 is to be believed, John could not die until Jesus returned. Thus, either Jesus' promise to John failed or the Second Coming has taken place. Since neither are plausible, how could John have become a "heavenly" messenger? This title seems odd for someone who was not going to get to heaven until after Jesus returned.
Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie denied that John was resurrected. Rather, he claimed that John appeared as a translated being. McConkie wrote, "At that appearance, Peter and James were resurrected beings; John was translated." (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 572). How McConkie arrives at this conclusion is not clear, but it certainly is not supported by D&C section seven. The word "translated" gives the impression of going from one place to another; this would contradict the specifics of Jesus' alleged promise which tells us John was to remain on earth. Section seven gives every indication that John would remain on earth as an earthly messenger, not as a translated or heavenly one.
The Book of Mormon, touted by Joseph Smith to be the most correct book of earth, claims that the resurrected Jesus Christ came to the American continent and promised three Nephite disciples that they also would live until the Lord's coming (Although the Book of Mormon does not specifically call them apostles, Bruce McConkie does in his book The Mortal Messiah, Vol.4, p.392). Third Nephi 28:7-9 makes it very clear that these three would remain alive to bring souls unto the Lord "while the world shall stand." The prophecy states:
"Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father. And again, ye shall not have pain while ye dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand."
How these mere men could maintain this longevity is explained in verses 37 and 38. Here, the writer inquires of the Lord how these three are able to live so long. Verses 38-40 state:
"Therefore, that they might not taste of death there was a change wrought upon their bodies, that they might not suffer pain nor sorrow save it were the sins of the world. Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place in the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them...And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ."
Verse 31 claims these three would perform "great and marvelous works," yet neither the Jews or the Gentiles would know them (verse 27,28).
It is difficult to give credence to a total apostasy when you have four apostles roaming the earth. Though no specific promise of success is given to John, such a promise was allegedly given to the three Nephites. 3 Nephi 28:29 states most clearly that they "shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls." If this is the case, why was Joseph Smith supposedly told in his first vision that all the churches were wrong? Wouldn't those who converted under the tutelage of these men be considered a part of the true church? Since we have no evidence that John, or these three Nephites, ever worked in harmony with Joseph Smith to build his new church, are we to assume that their converts are a part of "the church of devil" as described in 1 Nephi 14:10 of the Book of Mormon? If Mormons choose to go with the total apostasy theory, they must conclude that the efforts of John and the three Nephites were frustrated and yielded no fruit. To hold this view casts doubt on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and even Christ Himself.
By Bill McKeever
Upvote
0
Absolutely not. Your church is the one making the accusation. It is your problem to prove your statements. To say that there was a complete apostasy is to say that there was a time when not one true believer was on the face of the earth. This is the only way that there could have been a need for a "restoration" of the Spirit. Now, I know that this is not the case but just so we go off of your beliefs, lets remember that your church teaches that John the Beloved and three nephites were left alive until Christ comes. Wouldnt they then have all of the things you claim needed to be restored? If so, why didnt they ordain joey smith? Just doesnt make much sense to me.twhite982 said:
Upvote
0
When you choose to make a statement like that and then show mormon doctrine you only show how silly the mormon claims are.Sherman said:
Upvote
0
What a funny turn of events. Back a little while the mormons referred to the Catholic Church as the harlot of babylon and now that you want to try and make your cause look better, you try and compare yourselves to them. Nope, wont work.TOmNossor said:
Upvote
0
There aren't any. If you are referring to splintered groups that call themselves LDS or relate their organization to the Restoration, they are considered apostate and out of the faith.
On this I cannot agree. I see Christian Churches dividing today over struggles of leadership and many other issues where they should be one in heart, if they were practicing their beliefs in the Bible.
The origin of Christianity roots back to Martin Luther breaking away from Catholicism. Right there is apostasy, if the authority that Jesus gave (by the laying on of hands) to the leadership of His Church was maintained via Catholicism.
Interpreting the same scriptures differently is the epitome of the apostasy. It is the evidence that the Holy Spirit is not among them. Since the things of God are understood by the Spirit of God, and if they had the Spirit, then they would understand the same.
You put that in past tense, as if it was over. Joseph's efforts are still growing. I think he succeeded, and I don't see how that could be possible without Divine help. He could not have done what he accomplished by himself.
That is another evidence of apostasy. Everyone is looking for proof! They need physical evidence for something that is spiritual in nature, which is an oxymoron. The true concept of Faith has been lost due to the apostasy.
Upvote
0
Thats funny, if I had to make the call, I would say that it is the salt lake lds church that is in apostacy. At least the "splinter" groups, as you call them, have the guts to hold to what they believe. They didnt cow down to the federal government and call it a revelation when they told them to stop polygamy. They dont have a new revelation every time something paints them in the wrong political light. They dont change their ceremonies or garment styles. They dont place mans laws above what they believe (mistakenly) to be Gods. No sir, I think your church is in apostacy if you look at it right.MormonFriend said:
Upvote
0
Might want to be careful saying such things since your church cant seem to get a handle on what their doctrine is from one day to the next.MormonFriend said:
The Body of Christ has many different functions. This is accomplished by using people from different walks of life. Not all people worship the same or function the same. I personally go to a Baptist denomination but I am not a "Baptist" but a Born Again Christian. I would walk into any other true Christian Church and feel just fine worshiping Jesus within their walls. While we may see some things different, the basis of Christianity is agreed upon. The lds church on the other hand, well, nevermind.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
