spamlds

This discussion is interesting. We have a Catholic who is defending her doctrinal line and the doctrine of papal succession and reliance on tradition as well as scripture. We have a Protestant who rejects the need for priesthood keys, authority,tradition, or anything else beyond a Bible and faith. The difference between those two views is evidence of the apostasy! I wanted to comment on a couple of quotes from the resident Protestant: Quote #1 ...I'm aware of that teaching, but it's not supported by the Bible either. Look at how the New Testament authors treated the scriptures they had. They didn't restore any lost doctrines, let alone whole books that had been lost. They don't even seem to be aware of a Book of Abraham or the doctrines taught in the Book of Moses. They freely quote from scripture without making any corrections. They were completely confident in the accuracy and completeness of their scriptures. Quote #2 Says who? Do any of the New Testament authors say anything about lost scriptures? Do they do anything to restore lost scriptures? They warn about false teachers and make predictions about SOME people falling away from the church, but none of their prophesies mention lost writings. I would dispute that the apostles in the 1st century considered the canon closed. In the 19th century, it was considered that the Council of Jamnia closed the Jewish scriptures around 90 A.D. That theory has been challenged, but it is safe to say that there was not a settled canon in the time of Jesus and the apostles. Then, we might also consider that there are a few mentions by New Testament authors of prophetic utterances from scriptures that are not currently in the Old Testament. For example, the prophecy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene is not contained in the Old Testament, event though it is cited by Matthew in Chapter 2, verse 23. He's quoting a prophet and declaring that Christ fulfilled it, but it's not in the Old Testament. Jude 14 mentions a prophecy from the Book of Enoch in verses 14 and 15. That's not in the Old Testament either but Jude quotes it as a prophecy and obviously considered it scripture. It is a misconception to superimpose modern sectarian aversion to "adding to" the Bible upon ancient believers. If the gospel writers considered the canon of scripture closed, why did they write more of it? Suffice it to say that the scripture is the product of prophets. It doesn't replace them. New prophets often add to the scriptures. Much was lost. There are 17 books we know of that are missing. Various Christian churches today have different numbers of books in their Bibles. Catholics and Protestants don't agree on which books go in it. The Syrian and Ethiopian Churches have books that the others don't include. To presume that God gave a monolithic "rule book" in the form of the Bible and that prophets just interpret it is fallacious. God sends prophets whenever he wants and if people write down what they say, it tends to become scripture. Sometimes they produce new material that restores lost information. For example, Moses wrote the first five books, which includes the account of the Creation. In doing so, he was probably either citing source material or restoring lost scripture about how the world was created. Like Joseph Smith, Moses looked into the distant past and brought forth ancient scripture to a new generation to whom it had been lost.

Quote #3: I believe in authority, as seen in the Apostles and the primacy of Scripture/Tradition. For most of Christian history, the Church was not separate and there was no other "church". There was a universal Church with one faith, one line of bishops/priests, one laity, though many regional "rites" like the Roman/Western, the Eastern, the Alexandrian, the Armenian, etc. This authority was obviously granted to one head, to Peter, whose office has continued uninterrupted since Christ. I recognize and appreciate your affirmation of this belief, though I do not concur with it. The facts of history speak otherwise. A couple of individuals in the forum have felt uncomfortable the the Great Apostasy Timeline thread, but here's the reason I posted it. The quote above is a typical Catholic "testimony." We respect that belief because we respect the person. However, we must politely disagree because the facts tell that Peter was never a pope and that the keys of the kingdom were gone before there ever was a pope. Even if it it could be shown that the first pope had the keys, we can show that the succession of those keys was indeed broken many times. There were popes that killed off their rivals. There were rivals who killed popes so they could take their place. There was a time when a woman, Marozia, occupied the Papacy. Then there was a time when there were three popes at once, fighting between themselves. This last example was mentioned by the current Pope at the time of the retirement of his predecessor. See the linked article here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/pope-benedict-god-resign-mystical-experience In the article, Pope Francis is quoted saying, "The last time there were two or three popes, they didn't talk among themselves and they fought over who was the true pope!" Mormons are not anti-Catholic. Nevertheless, when our beliefs are challenged because they don't fit the template of an apostate creed, we can simply look at the facts. The "testimony" of iguy2314 may be heartfelt and sincere, but it is based on a demonstrable lapse in understanding. There is not an unbroken chain of authority in the Roman Church. I respect his right to believe an error, but I am not bound to not contest it with facts. The Apostasy Timeline I posted gives Mormon believers factual information regarding the history of the matter. It's not anti-Catholic. People certainly have no qualms about attacking Mormon beliefs, but because the truth is on our side, it's relatively easy to defend our beliefs. When a non-Mormon comes into a Mormon social network and claims we are mistaken, then bolsters the argument with Catholic dogma, it's hard for us to not appear anti-Catholic even though we try to be as nice as we can about it.

To address a couple of issues: Quote#1 And you never addressed how the doctrines of Catholicism established the dignity and equality of all people from the New World. Just because we don't mention such things does not mean that time or context requires us to acknowledge them. As a student of history, I have to give the Catholic Church some props for its policies vis-a-vis slavery back in the day. The papal bull that declared that the indigenous peoples of the Americas had souls did eventually lead to more incidents of manumission. On the other hand, the Protestant-Evangelical take regarding the "mark of Cain" was far more severe in the United States, providing the moral underpinnings for the execrable practice of enslaving Africans. It doesn't matter if the Roman Church, the Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Eastern Orthodox or other Christian sects have good people in them, whether they have done good works in the world. What matters is if they have the keys. Were they established by God or did they simply break off from another corrupt branch of the trees. The Mother of Harlots spawned a lot of harlots (Revelation 17:5). How many times have I heard sectarian Christians tell me that Mormons are such good, kind, people, but that we are deceived. Why is it when we say that about other denominations, we are thought to be hurtful and unkind? Quote #2: Again, even some learned LDS have labeled themselves henotheist. So, to committed monotheists, the comparitive ease with which the Godhead can be grasped comes the price of an even weaker semblence to belief in one true God. The definition of Henotheism is not valid when compared to the Mormon understanding of the Godhead's nature. Mirriam-Webster defines henotheism as "the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods." We worship the God of Jesus Christ. We worship the Father in his name. Yet we recognize that Jesus is a God and that the Holy Ghost is a God. We understand that exalted beings become gods and that we are the offspring of God. We don't not "deny the existence of other gods." We affirm that there is a plurality of gods and that our Father, the God of Jesus Christ, is the God we specifically worship. In a broader sense, we worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but we note that the Son and the Holy Ghost reverence the Father and do his will. The definition of henotheism does not adequately describe Mormons. Who did Jesus pray to? Himself? When he said "the Father is greater than I," how is that possible. When he prayed in Gethsemane for the disciples to be one as he and the Father are one, was he hoping that they would become a formless intelligence without "body, parts, or passions" as the creeds describe? We have eyewitness accounts of prophets and lay believers who have seen God in our time. Joseph Smith did not rely upon "hearsay" to know what and who God is and what he is like. It has been my experience as a missionary to teach thousands of people the true nature of God. Almost all of them, when you ask them to describe their conception of God, they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate beings. Usually, they don't think about the Father having a body, but they believe Jesus has one. The only ones who believe in the Triune God are those who specifically studied it and sought to be indoctrinated to understand it. It takes years of education to instill that much confusion, whereas a small child seems to automatically understand who and what God and Jesus are.

I wanted to chime in on a couple of points. Faith4 has a growing understanding of our concept of priesthood, but it's not a complete one. Peter was not the first person to hold the keys of the kingdom on earth. Adam was given them. They came down through his lineage through Seth down to Noah. From Noah to Melchizedek, there was an unbroken chain. Abraham had the gospel preached to him (Galatians 3:8). From Abraham, the priesthood lineage came down through Isaac, Jacob, and then to Joseph. Apostasy usually appears as a gap in the scriptural record because they generally represent times with no revelation. The 400 years of bondage in Egypt was accompanied by a gap in revelation. The untold story is that, when Jacob's family settled in Goshen, they probably drifted away, adopted false traditions, and then God's blessings withdrew from them. It's like the Record of Zeniff in the Book of Mormon, most likely. When Moses came, he was a restorer. He sought to restore the old order that had been handed down through the patriarchs. He had priesthood keys that had been lost to Israel. It was by this power that he presided over the people. He tried to bring them into God's presence, but the people resisted this. For this reason, the Law of Moses was given to give them a "schoolmaster" to bring them to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Even under that lesser law, Israel had trouble avoiding apostasy. There were several times that God allowed them to be conquered and they were dispersed twice that we know of. There were gaps in which there were no prophets and no new revelation given. Most notably, there's another 4-century gap between the end of the Old Testament and the ministry of John the Baptist. During that 400-year period, the Levitical priesthood survived. Many had to be put from the priesthood because they had drifted away from their religious roots and could not prove their connection to the priestly lineage while they were in Babylon. However, we have no record of a prophet bearing the Melchizedek priesthood during that period. Besides being our Savior and bringing to pass the atonement--his most important role--Jesus also acted as a restorer. He restored back the gospel that was preached to Abraham and the prophets before him. The Great Aposasy we have been talking about followed that restoration. When Jesus gave Peter and the rest of the 12 Apostles the keys, he was restoring them. Certain other keys were committed to the Twelve on the Mount of Transfiguration when Moses and Elias appeared to them. After the removal of the apostles, there were still the Nephite Twelve on the other side of the planet, but if you read carefully, you'll see that they did not receive the keys of the kingdom from Jesus. The Jerusalem Twelve received them for the whole world. When they were gone, the keys were gone with them. With the last of the Nephite prophets gone around 400 A.D., there was a general, global apostasy with no man exercising the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood. That's why the restoration of the keys is a big deal. The priesthood keys held by today's apostles are the connecting link between all generations and all dispensations. They are the same. Regarding Anatess' opinion that I'm solely attacking Catholics, once again let me remind her that the LORD is the one who said the creeds were an abomination and that their professors are corrupt. There are many good people in other Christian faiths who are blessed according to the light and knowledge they are willing to receive from God. On the other hand, the creeds and those who defend them are working against God's kingdom. They actively undermine God's true Church. The purpose of this thread was not to debate Catholicism's merits, but to share the correct interpretation of the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" argument that sectarian Christians use to say that the apostasy couldn't have happened. Inasmuch as Faith4 uses that argument to defend the Catholic view, its only natural that there is going to be a discussion of Catholicism's claims. We don't violate her agency by stating the facts. The same goes for the thread on the Apostasy Timeline. If Faith4 is going to argue that it didn't happen, but the facts show that the Roman Church displays evidence of it, then I'll stand by what history has to say on the matter. If she argued from a Baptist perspective, there would be a different point of contention since Baptists don't claim the keys to begin with. I'm sure Faith4 is familiar with the "Mormons are ignoramuses" story. If the reader doesn't know of it, it comes from a General Conference in 1928 by Elder Orson F. Whitney. “You ‘Mormons’ are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other position tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Roman Catholic church. The issue is between ‘Mormonism’ and Catholicism. If you are right, we are wrong. If we are right, you are wrong, and that’s all there is to it. These Protestant sects haven’t a leg to stand on; for if we are right, we cut them off long ago, as apostates; and if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and came out of us. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph Smith and ‘Mormonism;’ but if we have not that apostolic succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and ‘Mormonism’s position is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.” “Doctor,” said I, “that is a very clear and concise statement, and I agree with it in almost every particular. But don’t deceive yourself with the notion that we ‘Mormons’ don’t know the strength of our own position. We know it better than you do. We know it better than any other people can know it. We haven’t all been to been college, we can’t all speak the dead languages, and we may be ignoramuses as you say; but we know we are right, and we know you are wrong.” I was just as frank with him as he had been with me (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, 60.). The ultimate truth can be known by personal revelation. If someone makes the wrong choice because he or she has been misinformed, indoctrinated with religious traditions, or eschews spiritual things in favor of secularism, he or she answers to God for it. We can prove we are right by history, but ultimately, God is going to determine the candidates for the celestial kingdom by sorting people based on their willingness to ask for and receive revelation. If Faith4 or any other Christian believes his or her church is the true one, that's fine. God will judge, not me. He knows what kinds of revelation has given. He has prepared the terrestrial kingdom as a place for the "honorable" people who were "blinded by the craftiness of men." He also has a place in the telestial kingdom for those who preach sectarian divisions (See D&C Section 76:75, 99-100). I don't judge any person, but I can make righteous judgment regarding the creeds based on history and revelation. Again, to return to the thread's topic, a gate prevails when it keeps things in. The gates of hell keep in the wicked and those who still need to hear the gospel, who didn't hear it in mortality. The priesthood keys in possession of the Church has power to free those prisoners from the "pit" or "prison" of which the scriptures speak. They cannot prevail against the priesthood's authority and keep a repentant, believing, baptized soul captive.

I think you get a little confused over the timeline of the great apostasy. You mention the saints who were fed to lions, etc, I suppose you are mentioning the Neronian Persecution, which would have been around 64 A.D. In our conception, the Great Apostasy started while the apostles were still alive, but it continued for another century or so before it was really entrenched, around 150 A.D. The apostles of Jesus were martyred between 44 and 74 A.D. John was still around until about 101 A.D. There were still bishops, elders, and deacons who remained. Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D, but about four years before that time, the majority of the believers evacuated to Pella having been warned by revelation. Eusebius wrote: "...[The] people of the church at Jerusalem, in accordance, with a certain oracle that was vouchsafed by way of revelation to approved men there, had been commanded to depart from the city before the war, and to inhabit a certain city of Peraea. They called it Pella. And when those who believed in Christ had removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had utterly deserted both the royal metropolis of the Jews itself and the whole land of Judaea, the justice of God then visited upon them all their acts of violence to Christ and His apostles, by destroying that generation of wicked persons root and branch from among men. (Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, III.7.6 trans. Hugh Jackson Lawlor and John Ernest Leonard Oulton, London, S.P.C.K., 1954, p. 74.) While the apostles yet lived, several of them wrote of antichrists teaching Gnostic doctrines in the Church. The cancer of Gnosticism and Neoplatonism was already eating away at the "faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The big threat from these two groups was the introduction of false doctrines regarding the nature of Deity, particularly the Incarnation, the Logos, and all that. That all led to the Arian Controversy, which wasn't "settled" for another few centuries. Within half a century of John's departure, we end up with two big heretics that caused the first major errors of the Great Apostasy. The controversies caused by Marcion and Montanus led to two "policy changes" that sealed the deal on the apostasy. The first was the declaration that there would be no further scripture and that there would be no future revelation given. They decided that there would be nothing but the Bible. Now, I know that Catholics aren't like Protestants about the Bible. I understand that Church tradition plays a role and that you guys think that the Pope can speak ex cathedra. I know there have been visionaries, but in general, the Roman Church regards them with suspicion. Usually, the policy is to wait until the "seer" is dead and gone so they can't cause any trouble. Either that or they lock them up in a monastery or convent like St. Bernadette. (Yes, I've been to Lourdes.) Anyways, my point is that you don't perceive our view that the apostasy occurred by degrees, one bad, uninspired decision at a time over a few centuries. The Nicene Council sort of formalized the process, but the keys and the true Church had already been taken up to heaven for a century and a half by that time (See Revelation 12:5) leaving the remaining shell of the organization in place, without authority. This shell was then subject to myriad modifications over the centuries and that process still continues.

I apologize for the length of this in advance. I know it'll be long because there are a lot of issues connected to this. The focus on Peter alone is unhealthy. Latter-day saints believe Peter was the president of the Church, with James and John acting as counselors in the First Presidency. We see little instances of deference shown to Peter by John when the two apostles ran to the tomb at the news of the missing body. John, being younger, outran Peter and arrived first. But he waited for Peter to enter first. Paul speaks of his visit to Jerusalem after a 14-year mission and meeting Peter, James, and John for the first time and how awed he was at them (See Galatians 2:9). We don't downplay Peter's importance, but we see our First Presidency in the same light. The president of the Church today holds the keys that Peter did. Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The ancient apostles ordained new apostles and conferred the priesthood anew. Either Joseph Smith made this up or it is true. It's up to each believer to come to terms with it. Personally, I believe it. Why? Because I lived the first two decades of my life without any contact with the true priesthood. I went to dozens of denominations, attended their meetings, and studied their teachings. Then when I became a Mormon, I received the priesthood. A real, true power came into my life. I have laid hands on the sick and had them recover. I have baptized and confirmed people and they truly received the Holy Ghost. In one case, I baptized an African man in France and angels began appearing to his family in Brazzaville, Congo, urging them to read and believe in the Book of Mormon. I know that I don't have any kind of power of my own that can do things like that. However, the priesthood has that power. That power didn't come to me until after I was properly ordained and called of God as was Aaron (See Hebrews 5:4). Regarding Catholics, the apostasy, and the loss of the keys. Again--I mean no offense here--let's look at history and compare it to a hypothetical situation today. Let's suppose a giant meteor or a nuke hit Salt Lake City and killed every single person who currently holds the keys simultaneously. Let's say all that were left were stake presidents and bishops to run the Church. They have delegated authority that is derived from the keys. They would still hold that authority. Nevertheless, the Quorum of the Twelve is who authorizes ordinations of bishops and stake presidents. Without a Quorum of the Twelve, no new bishops or S.P.s could be called. Now let's say that some of the bishops and stake presidents died shortly thereafter, leaving congregations without leaders. Let us suppose that the elders and high priests decided they had authority to elect their own bishops and ordain them. Let's suppose that a council of bishops got together and said, let's make the guy who is the bishop in the biggest, most powerful city an apostle and we'll put him in charge of everyone. They don't have authority to do that. They don't hold he keys independently. They can't act beyond the scope of their authority. Now let's say that there were internal disagreements and external persecution adding additional pressures. Let's imagine that a congregation decides to fire its bishop and elect a new one. (That's what happened with Polycarp anciently). To escape persecution, the Church and the government get linked together and ultimately, when the government collapses the Church fills the void. Now, the elected bishop has civil power as well as control of the Church. This is what happened with the early Christian Church. There was persecution, there were intrigues, and there were false brethren creeping in unawares teaching false doctrine. Worldliness overtook them. They sought the approval of the world and they lost the keys. Over the centuries, the organization became more and more corrupt. True, there were faithful believers who stand out, but they were rare. When the Church became "universal" it exercised tyrannical powers and became utterly corrupt. It sought to keep the scriptures out of the hands of laymen. It persecuted and killed reformers. There was seemingly no end until the Protestant reformers came along. The reformers did much good, but they couldn't restore the keys. They were gone. If any man had authority from that dispensation today, he would have to trace it through John, the last surviving apostle, not Peter. The bishop of Rome may have been ordained by an apostle, but he was never more than a bishop. He didn't have the keys of the apostleship. Without the apostleship to approve the ordination of bishops, there is no way to ordain new ones without usurping power that is beyond their own authority. The deacon's quorum president can't ordain another deacon's quorum president. A bishop has to give him the keys. But a bishop can't call a new elder's quorum president--those keys come from the stake president's level. He's the president of the Melchizedek priesthood in his area. The bishop is the president of the Aaronic priesthood. A stake president can't ordain a bishop and he certainly can't ordain his own replacement. That authority comes from higher up. When the apostles are gone, there isn't anyone who can confer the authority. One of the blessings of this dispensation is that it is the last one. If it weren't for the Lord cutting short his work in righteousness, we would probably end up falling away like previous dispensations. The fact that the Lord will return during this one saves us the fate of previous dispensations. We're not any different people than the saints in the ancient times. The same things would happen to us. Fortunately, the Lord's coming is soon.

I also looked at your supposed quotes by 3 Church fathers and the first two are made up as far as I can tell. Unless you can provide reliable sources for these "quotes" from Origen and Cyprian of Carthage, your credibility just diminished in my opinion. Milner lived in the 18th century and did not provide reliable sources, and all I keep getting when I search these quotes are LDS sources. Since Faith4 accusd me of just making up quotes, I went back and edited the original post with the omitted references. This was never a research paper to begin with, just a discussion from another forum that was worth keeping. I've added the proper APA references and created a "Works Cited" section. So much for the "made up" quotes. Anyone who wants to research these quotes can find them easily with Google. Yes, many of them are cited in other LDS works, but it only takes a slight effort to click a couple more links and find the original documents. I don't expect an apology for being accused of lying and making stuff up. I respect that these things are disturbing for Catholics to read. Nevertheless, they are historical and they are true. The point of this post was not to attack Catholicism or any other faith, but instead to show the proof they demand that an apostasy actually occured. I hope my effort to improve the quality of the facts presented is worth it to someone in the future. After all, it's all about the truth, isn't it?

It all comes down to the Sacred Grove. Joseph Fielding McConkie explained this well in his book "Here We Stand." We can substantiate much of our beliefs using scripture. We can show such-and-such to be biblical. But it all comes down to the same exact quandary that the ancient apostles had. How could they prove that Jesus was resurrected. If that one fact was not true, then nothing else mattered. But how could they prove it? They did miracles and people still didn't believe them. They reasoned and argued with scripture and logic. No matter what, they couldn't prove to the Jews or the Gentiles that Jesus was resurrected. It all comes down to whether or not their hearers could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd or not. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice." Their job, then was to simply preach to as many people as they could and the ones whom Jesus had called at that time would hear, understand, and receive the message. For those who were not ready, nothing would ever prove that Jesus was resurrected. For those who were ready and embraced the truth, spiritual gifts came to them following their covenant of baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit confirmed the truth to them. Today, proving Mormonism is true is like proving the resurrection of Jesus. We say that God spoke to Joseph Smith. We have the Book of Mormon as "proof" but people may not accept it. Like the scribes and Pharisees of old, they argue that it doesn't fit their creeds or their doctrines. It's no different. Even Jesus couldn't convert Caiaphas or Pilate. They were too invested in their own thing to accept anything new. Interestingly, God gave 11 witnesses of the Book of Mormon--the same exact number as the witnesses of the resurrection. There are still people who don't believe in the resurrection despite those 11 witnesses. It's not surprising that people reject the 11 witnesses of the Book of Mormon. They can't see it because they don't hear the voice of the Good Shepherd. We know what we know because of the Holy Ghost. We know the doctrine of the Triune/Trinity is false because our prophets (and some of the lay members of the Church) have seen God and Christ. We have members who have seen angels. We have had spiritual gifts in our midst for almost 200 years. The very survival of Mormonism is a miracle! The miracle of the quails and the miracles of the seagulls! The miracles of Joseph Smith healing hundreds of people along the banks of the Mississippi river bottoms! The transfiguration of Brigham Young after the death of Joseph. Thousands of healings. Angels in the Kirtland Temple! It goes on and on and it isn't finished! What a marvelous thing! Yet it all comes down to the First Vision. Ask any Christian to prove that Jesus was resurrected. It can't be done. It's a matter of faith. Ask a Mormon to prove that Joseph saw the Father and Son in the sacred grove? It can't be done. The Holy Spirit bears witness and only those who are called will hear and obey that voice. We have to preach it to everyone, but the gate is strait and the way narrow. Few will truly find it.

"Lol! Sorry, I should've been more clear, what I meant is a church which resembles the one you now have. Temples for sealings, baptisms by proxy being actively taught and done (and no, 1 Cor 15:29 doesn't count), the teaching that God was once a human and progressed and we are also progressing to exaltation, etc. Most important to me is who God is, the very nature of God. They are completely different teachings, and as Traveler already said, it's very important to know who God is. I believe He does want us to know Him and He has revealed Himself and His nature through Jesus. And as promised, the Holy Spirit led the Apostles to a deeper understanding of God, and this understanding is the Trinity" This is obviously a matter of experience and personal perspective. In the years before I converted to Mormonism (35 years ago) I visited many churches and studied their doctrines. I met with pastors and priests and became their friend. I asked them lots of deep questions that were related to my personal search for salvation. Like Joseph Smith, all I found was confusion and contradiction. I didn't see any Church that looked like the one in the Bible. I remember saying in exasperation to my mother one day when I was about 18, "Wouldn't it be amazing to find a church like the one in the Book of Acts in the Bible? One with real apostles, prophets, angels, and revelation?" When I encountered Mormonism, I was amazed. There was the very same Church we read about in Acts! Thirty-five years later, after having held the priesthood, been involved in its ministrations, having held leadership positions, and served in many different positions as a teacher, leader, counselor, missionary, and branch president, I can tell you absolutely that this is that same Biblical church. The power of the Holy Spirit is in it. The spirit of revelation guides its leaders at every level. Healings, the gift of tongues, the gifts of prophecy, visions, discernment, and all the rest are part of it. I've seen them with my own eyes. In some cases, I have been the beneficiary or the instrument to receive those things. It's marvelous. People just don't know. They start criticizing from a doctrinal position and they don't want to seek the Spirit. That's because they don't want it to be true. The cost of following Christ is too great for them. They'd lose status. They'd risk family relationships. They might get persecuted. All those things were part of the biblical Church also. The power of God rests upon the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He leads it personally through revelation to prophets today. It's a marvelous thing to know. Through thick and thin, being a member of this Church brings amazing blessings. And I looked long and hard enough to compare. Nothing else is like this Church!

I appreciate that you're a devoted Catholic who believes the Pope holds the keys. I respect that. Obviously, we disagree. Mormons say the keys were lost and we can show historically that the primitive church fell into apostasy. We've covered that on another thread on this site. Our interpretations of Matthew 16 are naturally different. To us, the "rock" upon which the church was to be built was divine revelation. In the context of the passage, Jesus asks Peter who he thinks he is. Peter replies that Jesus is the Christ, something that Jesus had not yet taught publicly at that point. Jesus says that--because he had not yet taught it--this truth had come to Peter by revelation from his Father in heaven. And upon that rock--revelation--Jesus would build his Church. Sure, I understand the play on words about Peter's name. I read several languages and I'm familar with the nuances. I've had Catholics tell me that Christ intended to build the Church on Peter. I don't believe that's what this passage says. It doesn't make sense that the son of God would build his Church upon a man. The principle of revelation gives the Church power over the gates of hell. Jesus said he would free the prisoners from the pit and prison (Isaiah 24:22). He said the dead would hear his voice and live (John 5:25). Peter said that Christ went to preach to the spirits in prison and that the gospel was preached to the dead (1 Peter 3:18, 4:6). We know that ancient saints performed baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29). These events are directly related to the keys of the kingdom. Jesus gave the apostles power to have actions done on earth by virtue of the priesthood be valid in heaven. Priesthood authority makes our baptisms on earth valid in heaven. Those who hear the gospel among the dead may receive baptism by proxy in our temples, and those baptism free them from the "pit" and "prison." The gates of hell can no longer hold in the captives because the Lord has given the keys to free them to living representatives on the earth. The keys of the kingdom have power to remit and to retain sins (John 20:23). This applies on both sides of the veil because of the binding or sealing power in earth and heaven inherent in the keys. There are many ways to debate this, but a sincere person who reads Joseph Smith's testimony and asks God if the things he said occurred are true will get a witness of the Holy Ghost. God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and he saw them. By this we know the Triune God of the creeds is in error. John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and ordained them to the holy apostleship and conferred the true priesthood. By this we know that the authority was lost from the earth and that the Pope does not hold the keys of the kingdom. Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on Passover in 1836. They restored authority relative to the dispensations over which they presided. The Holy Spirit bears witness that these events are real. We know by the Holy Ghost that they are true. The power that resides in the Church today is manifest in the lives of those who have committed themselves by baptism and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Speaking personally, I converted to Mormonism 35 years ago. I had studied many different faiths, including Catholicism before converting. Although I believe the members of those churches are sincere (in most cases) and they enjoy a degree of light and knowledge, there are many more blessings to be experienced when one is born again by the Holy Ghost. I hope you will consider that, although I write with boldness, I am truly a meek follower of Christ. Baptism by proper authority (via the keys of the kingdom) brings a remission of sins and the companionship of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, also by proper authority.

For those who wanted more detailed references, I suggest reading "The History of the Church of Christ from the Days of the Apostles, Till the Famous Disputation Between Luther and Milbitz in 1520" by the Reverend Joseph Milner, published in Edinburgh, 1836. Many of the references listed above came from this source. I'll try to list others as I have opportunity. I am dismayed at the reaction of some of our own to this post. Keep in mind that an LDS apostle, Elder James E. Talmage, the same man who wrote the magnificent "Jesus the Christ," also wrote a much more detailed book highlighting many of these same events. That book is called "The Great Apostasy." Is an LDS apostle to be criticized for publishing the facts of history? When we teach people that an apostasy occurred, we had better be prepared to back it up. If there was no apostasy, there is no need for a restoration. If the apostasy occurred, as we assert, those we offend by this assertion inevitably demand evidence. I have provided evidence. That's all. The Lord started a fight when he told Joseph to "go not after them," that their creeds were "abominations" and their professors "corrupt." We didn't start the fight. But we must be equipped to defend the truth. The truth may offend those who are resistant to it. You can take this information or leave it, but it is still historical fact, from non-LDS sources. These things are known to the world that desperately needs to find the gospel. I've just put the facts in one place.

Jesus himself defined eternal life as knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ himself (See John 17:3). If a creed defines God as something contrary to his true nature, it keeps a person from knowing God, it keeps a person from knowing eternal life as Jesus defined it. Here are some examples of creed and creed-derived statements that would prevent a believer from knowing the one true God: The Athanasian Creed Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved. Note the exclusionary language. It basically begins and ends with the statement that a person who doesn't believe every single part of this confusing statement of faith cannot be saved. If you, as a Christian, don't agree with one of these points, you are declared to be a heretic. Let's move to another denomination. From the Southern Baptist Convention web site: [Jesus] was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord. For Christians who believe in an "unchanging" God, Jesus sure went through a lot of changes. They tell us he was a Spirit, then he became a man, then died, then rose again with his body, ascended to heaven, and is now exalted on the right hand of himself? He will return bodily to earth with the resurrected body, but he now "dwells in us" as a Spirit? What happened to his body? Where is his resurrected body now? When he comes back as a resurrected being, will he not dwell in us any more? It's a mass of contradictions here. The Methodist Articles of Religion teach that: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." "The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." "Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day." Ok, where to begin in this jumble of confusion? They have one God without body or parts. Yet this being who had no body or parts suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried. This being with no body or parts then rose from the dead. This being, who has no body "took again his body" and "all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature" and ascended into heaven with it only to lose it again and be an incorporeal spirit. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that this is utter nonsense. Somebody made this up! The Presbyterian Church USA openly admits there are problems with their creed on its web site: "Early Christians found some of their oral and written traditions puzzling. Was the God of the Old Testament a different God from the God of the New Testament? Did one God have no beginning and another one have his beginning at Bethlehem? Was the God of law separate from the God of grace? Were Divine beings sent from heaven to earth like relay runners, one carrying on after another one finished? "And if Christ is God and if God is non-physical Spirit, does that mean that Christ never really had flesh and blood? Since there is no full discussion of these questions in the Bible, the source of Christian doctrine, varying--indeed, clashing--answers were given to these theological questions. Christians were in a dilemma as to what to believe." Now, I have had Christian believers tell me that they don't care about their creeds--that their faith is in Christ. The problem is that their churches DO believe in the creeds and take them seriously. They are the reasons that they exist to begin with. Every creed was written to try to solve a controversy and only ended up creating new controversies. Moreover, these are the guidelines that the other sectarian Christian denominations use to point the finger at Mormons and say we are a cult, because we don't fall inside the lines their scholars have drawn up in the creeds. I don't post these to attack any particular faith. Goodness knows, Mormons are constantly the targets of doctrinal attacks and criticisms. I just want to point out that the creeds have meaning to the churches that believe in them, whether or not their members have any faith in them. The creeds are what the Lord called abominations because they keep people from "knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ" as Jesus said. This blocks a person from receiving all the blessings God has for them.

The Great Apostasy has been a topic of interest for the past couple of days on LDS.net. I've linked this article, but I don't want to be accused of "pimping" the S.P.A.M. blog. For that reason, I'm posting the content here. I had images posted in the original, but the forum won't let me post them. Anyhow, the following information was gathered from non-LDS sources. The quotes are from early Christian saints, from history, and from Protestant reformers. A student of history doesn't have to go far to see evidence of the apostasy. Our sectarian and anti-Mormon critics may attack our claim that the Great Apostasy occurred, but they have a mountain of evidence here that they have to deal with first. Hopefully the members of the forum will be able to use this as a reference for future debates. If you want to see the original with the pictures, it's in the S.P.A.M. Archives. (Note: As a forum member challenged the validity of this post because of some missing citations, those problems have been fixed and a "Works Cited" section included.) The Apostasy was Predicted The ancient apostles and prophets warned that the Church of Christ would fall away from the simple truths Jesus had given it. The Bible, compiled after the beginnings of the Great Apostasy, recorded these predictions: Isaiah warned that "This people draw near me with their mouth" but their hearts were far from God. (Isa. 29: 10, 13.) and that spiritual darkness would cover the earth (Isa. 60: 2). Amos said there would be "a famine of hearing the words of the Lord." (Amos 8: 11) Jesus himself said there would "arise false Christs and false prophets" to oppose the true ones (Matt. 24: 24), but that you would recognize them by their fruits. Paul said that after his departure that "grievous wolves shall enter in among you (Acts 20: 29). After preaching to the Galatians, he was astonished at how fast this process of apostasy had taken root among them. He wrote, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him" (Gal. 1: 6) Paul also sought to allay the anticipation of an immediate return of Christ when he wrote concerning the anxiety for this event to the Thessalonians. He told them that that day would not come until there had been a falling away first and that the "son of perdition" would be revealed first. (2 Thessalonians 2:3) Paul also told Timothy that some church members would err concerning the truth about the time of the resurrection (2 Tim. 2: 18) and that even believers would be led astray, having "a form of godliness" but deny the power thereof, (2 Tim. 3: 5) Paul also told him that the time would come when the church itself would "not endure sound doctrine" and would turn away from the simple truths Jesus taught, following false teaches instead. (2 Tim. 4: 3-4) Peter gave similar warnings to the church, saying that there would be false prophets and false teachers among the people (2 Pet. 2: 1). Jude tells us in present tense that there were certain men crept in who were leading the ancient saints astray. (Jude 1: 4). John said that the leaders of some Christian congregations had rejected the apostles while they still lived and excommunicated those who stood up the ordained apostles of Jesus. (3 John 1:9-10) In the messages to the seven churches in Asia, John wrote that some men, claiming to be apostles, sought to lead the church astray. The church in Ephesus had tried them by ecclesiastical authority and found them to be liars. (Rev. 2: 2) This Great Apostasy was well underway by the time John wrote his last words in the opening years of the second century. When the last of the apostles ceased to minister among men, the keys of the kingdom were withdrawn from mankind and the errant Church's demise accelerated. Here are some of the important historical mileposts that transpired. Second Century Marcion- The wealthy son of a bishop, Marcion stirred controversy by trying to create the first canonic list of biblical texts. He taught that the god of the Old Testament was not the true God but rather that the true and higher God had been revealed only with Jesus Christ. Marcion was excommunicated from the Roman church c. 144 CE, but he succeeded in establishing churches of his own to rival the Catholic Church for the next two centuries. He created such controversy that, when they excommunicated him, they even gave him back all the money he had donated to the Church. Now that's serious! Montanus- Montanus claimed to be the embodiment of the Holy Ghost, whom Jesus had promised to send. He strongly criticized the growing corruption in the Church, denouncing the lack of revelation and spiritual gifts as evidence of apostasy. The Montanist sects believed in continuing revelation, but acted without benefit of the keys of authority. The resulting controversies stirred by these heretics caused the mainstream Church to declare an end to close the canon of scripture and declare that revelation had ceased. In addition to the Marcionites and Montanists, there were other heretical offshoots such as the Gnostics, Ebionites, Simonians, Cleobians, Dositheans, Gortheonians, Masbotheans, Meandrians, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Bsilidians, and Saturnillians, each of which introduced new false teachings into the Church. Third Century After a period of intense pagan persecution during the second century which killed off many professing Christians, there came period of relative peace, wealth, and luxury for them. It may well be the increased affluence and acceptance may have weakened Christianity more than the persecutions did. Here are some descriptions from the Christians of this period. Origen- "Several come to church only on solemn festivals; and then not so much for instruction as diversion. Some go out again as soon as they have heard the lecture, without conferring or asking the pastors questions. Others stay not till the lecture is ended; and others hear not so much as a single word; but entertain themselves in a corner of the church. (Milner, 1836) Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage- "Each had been bent on improving his own patrimony; and had forgotten what believers had done under the apostles, and what they ought always to do. They were brooding over the arts of amassing wealth; the pastors and the deacons each forgot their duty; works of mercy were neglected, and discipline was at its lowest ebb; luxury and effeminacy prevailed; meretricious arts in dress were cultivated; fraud and deception practiced among brethren. Christians would unite themselves in matrimony with unbelievers; could swear not only without reverence but even without veracity. With haughty asperity they despised their ecclesiastical superiors; the railed against one another with outrageous acrimony, and conducted quarrels with determined malice. Even many bishops, who ought to be guides and patterns to the rest, neglected their stations, gave themselves up to secular pursuits. They deserted their places of residence and their flocks; they traveled through distant provinces in quest of pleasure and gain; gave no assistance to the needy brethren; but were insatiable in their thirst of money. They possessed estates by fraud and multiplied usury. What have we not deserved to suffer for such conduct? Even the divine word hath foretold us what we might expect: 'If his children forsake my law and walk not in my judgments, I will visit their offenses with the rod and their sins with scourges." These things had been denounced and foretold, but in vain. Our sins had brought our affairs to that pass, that because we had despised the Lord's directions, we were obliged to undergo a correction of our multiplied evils and a trial of our faith by severe remedies" (Milner, 1836). Eusebius- "Nor was any malignant demon able to infatuate, no human machinations prevent them so long as the providential hand of God superintended and guarded his people as worthy subjects of his care. But when by reason of excessive liberty, we sunk into negligence and sloth, one envying and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, upon the point of taking up arms against each other with words as with darts and spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity, then the divine judgment, which usually proceeds with a lenient hand, whilst the multitudes were yet crowding into the church, with gentle and mild visitation began to afflict the episcopacy; the persecution having begun with those brethren in the army. But as if destitute of all sensibility, we were not prompt in measures to appease and propitiate the Deity; some indeed like atheists, regarding our situation as unheeded and unobserved by a Providence, we added one wickedness and misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves (Eusebius, 1833). In addition to growing worldliness, negligence, and wickedness among the general population of the Church, Mosheim's "Ecclesiastical History" tells us that the government of the Church also began to change. "The ancient method of ecclesiastical government seemed in general still to subsist, while, at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule and degenerated toward the form of religious form of a religious monarchy . . . This change in the form of ecclesiastical government was soon followed by a train of vices, which dishonored the character and authority of those to whom the administration of the Church was committed . . . The bishops assumed in many places a princely authority, particularly those who had the greatest number of churches under their inspection, and who presided over the most opulent assemblies. They appropriated to their evangelical function the splendid ensigns of temporal majesty. A throne, surrounded with ministers, exalted above his equals the servant of the meek and humble Jesus; and sumptuous garments dazzled the eyes and the minds of the multitude into an ignorant veneration of their arrogated authority. The example of the bishops was ambitiously imitated by the presbyters, who, neglecting the sacred duties of their station, abandoned themselves to the indolence and delicacy of an effeminate and luxurious life. The deacons, beholding the presbyters deserting thus their functions, boldly usurped their rights and privileges, and the effects of a corrupt ambition were spread through ever rank of the sacred order (John Lawrence Mosheim, 1811) Copying the pagan temples and rituals, candles and incense began to be used as part of Christian worship. Also introduced during this period was the veneration and worship of martyrs. Virtues and prodigies were attributed to the bones of saints and martyrs. True spiritual gifts, as described in the New Testament, were no longer manifested or expected. The manner of baptism changed as well as the manner of excommunication. Baptism, a simple rite of immersion administered upon repentance became an elaborate ceremony including milk and honey, ceremonies borrowed from military traditions and rituals marking the liberation of slaves, the lighting of candles and the wearing of white robes and crowns. Infant baptism became common as did sprinkling or the pouring of water on the head instead of immersion. The simple ordinance of the sacrament became the elaborate mass. Transubstantiation began to be taught as doctrine. Ultimately, the lifting up of "the host" for veneration and worship as God itself became common. Later, only the priest would drink the wine, administering only the bread to the communicants, thus changing or ignoring the commandment to eat and drink in remembrance of Jesus. Fourth Century It appears that without apostles to guide the ancient church, that men of good reputation were submitted to the people for their approval to head congregations. The bishops chosen in this manner relied upon the body of elders as a council of sorts. In the fourth century, the principle of common consent was abandoned and power was consolidated in the bishops. The lay members were excluded from ecclesiastical affairs. The organization of the church began to shift, mirroring the political government's organization. Bishops of large cities established smaller communities in the suburban areas and surrounding countryside. They ordained bishops that were subordinate to their own authority. Thus the church began to coincide with the political organizations of the Roman territories, with archbishops overseeing large areas corresponding to Roman civil authority. The links between the civil government and the church began to consolidate. By this point, doctrinal innovations and controversies consumed the Church. Gnosticism, Hellenism, and pagan ritual began to infect the teachings and practices. The Arian Controversy led to such contention the Emperor Constantine called the Nicene Council to resolve the matter: Was Christ man or God? Was he created or eternal? Are God the Father and God the Son separate or simply manifestations of the same being? The Nicene Creed, intended to unite the Church, fractured it. Arius was banished and his writings burned. When readmitted to fellowship, he was murdered in Constantinople, with disciples of Athanasius being the chief suspects. Neoplatonism reconfigured the concept of the Godhead. The Athanasian Creed is attributed to this period, although it was not discovered until the 12th century. Fifth Century through the Seventh Century The Apostles' Creed was devised. Rival bishops contended for primacy. Prelates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem sank below the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople in wealth and dignity. The latter two contended for the title of "universal bishop." The rise of Islam in Asia Minor diminished the power of the Bishop of Constantinople, permitting the Bishop of Rome to claim the triumphant title of Pontiff. When classical Rome fell, the Church became an alternative political structure and the bishops became the ultimate powers in their realms, commanding armies and ruling over the nobles. Corruption and vice were rampant because no secular authority could effectively check the clergy. The attempts to live in celibacy gave rise to scandal. It became the custom for priests to live with "sub-introduced women," who passed as sisters of the priests (Roberts, 1895) Salvian- "The very church which should be the body to appease the anger of God, alas! What reigns there but disorders calculated to incense the Most High? It is more common to meet with Christians who are guilty of the greatest abominations than with those who are wholly exempt from crime. So that today it is a sort of sanctity among us to be less vicious than the generality of Christians. We insult the majesty of the Most High at the foot of his altars. Men, the most steeped in crime, enter the holy places without respect for them. True, all men ought to pay their vows to God, but why should they seek his temples to propitiate him, only to go forth to provoke him? Why enter the church to deplore their former sins, and upon going forth--what do I say?--in those very courts they commit fresh sins, their mouths and their hearts contradict one another. Their prayers are criminal meditations rather than vows of expiation. Scarcely is service ended before each returns to his old practices. Some go to their wine, others to their impurities, still others to robbing and brigandage, so that we cannot doubt that these things had been occupying them while they were in the church. Nor is it the lowest of the people who are thus guilty. There is no rank whatever in the church which does not commit all sorts of crimes" (Jackson, 1884). Eighth through the Eleventh Centuries Perhaps no other references outside the 8th-11th centuries are necessary to establish that the Church had fallen into complete and total apostasy, bereft of the Spirit of God, without authority, a rejected harlot that had committed fornication with the kings of the earth. Just consider the manner in which the "Vicars of Christ" ascended to the throne of power. 757 A.D. - Upon the death of Pope Paul I, the Duke of Nepi compelled some bishops to consecrate Constantine, one of his brothers, as pope. 768 A.D. - A more "legitimate" group of electors chose Stephen IV and Constantine's eyes were put out and the Bishop Theodorus' tongue was amputated. The Bishop was left in a dungeon to die in agony of thirst. 795 A.D. - Nephews of Pope Adrian seized his successor, Pope Leo III in the street, forced him into a nearby church and attempted to put out his eyes and cut out his tongue. 816 A.D. - Stephen V was driven from the city of Rome. Paschal I, his successor, was accused of blinding and murdering two ecclesiastical rivals in the Lateran Palace. 872 A.D. - Pope John VIII secretly allied himself to pay tribute to Muslim invaders and the Bishop of Naples maintained a secret alliance to receive a share of the plunder from them. 891 A.D. - Formosus, a conspirator who had been excommunicated for the murder of John, was elected pope. 896 A.D. - Boniface VI becomes pope despite his being deposed as a deacon for his immoral and lewd conduct. Stephen VII, his successor, had the body of Formosus disinterred, clothed in papal robes, and tried before a council. The indecent scene ended with cutting off three of the deceased's fingers and the corpse being cast into the Tiber River. Stephen was ultimately deposed and thrown into prison where he was strangled to death. 896-900 A.D. - No less than five popes were consecrated and deposed. 904 A.D. - Leo V was thrown into prison by Christopher, who usurped his place. He was expelled from Rome by Sergius III, who seized the papacy by military force. 905 A.D. - Sergius lived with a celebrated prostitute, Theodora, who exercised extraordinary influence and control of the Pope. Theodora also was romantically involved with John X, leading to his ascending to the papal throne in 915 A.D. He maintained the papacy with Theodora's help for 14 years. However, the hateful intrigues of her daughter Marozia led to his overthrow. John X was thrown into prison where he was killed, smothered with a pillow. 931 A.D. Marozia engineered her son's becoming Pope John XI. Another of her sons, jealous of her devotions to the first, had Marozia thrown into prison. The grandson of Marozia then became Pope John XII in 956 A.D. 956 A.D. - John XII was only 19 when he became pope and his reign was so shockingly immoral that the Germanic Emperor Otho I was compelled by the German clergy to intervene. John was tried on the charges of selling ordinations of bishops for bribes, as well as having ordained a ten year-old as bishop. He was charged with incest and multiple adulteries. He was deposed and Leo VIII reigned in his stead. 963 A.D. - Leo VIII, upon gaining power, seized his antagonists, cut off the hand of one, the nose, fingers, and tongues of others. He was killed by a man whose wife he had seduced. John XIII was strangled in prison. Bonficace VII imprisoned Benedict VII and killed him by starvation. John XIV was secretly put to death in the dungeons of St. Angelo castle. The body of Boniface was dragged by the populace through the streets. Emperor Otho took the liberty of the Italians from appointing the "successor of Saint Peter." By his royal authority, he places his own kinsman, Gregory V on the pontifical throne, only to have him flee before the opposition of the Romans. There was even an "anti-Pope, John XVI. Emperor Otho seized him, put out his eyes, cut off his nose and tongue, and sent him through the streets mounted on an ass facing backwards with a wine-bladder on his head. 1033 A.D. - Benedict IX, a boy of less than 12 years sat on the "apostolic throne." One of his successors, Victor III said the boy's life was so foul and shameful that he ruled like "a captain of a banditti." Unable to bear his adulteries, homicides, and abominations, the people rose up against him. Knowing he was about to lose his position, Benedict put the papacy up for auction! It was purchased by a presbyter named John who became Pope Gregory V in 1045 A.D. Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries The doctrine of the granting of indulgences and exemptions from temporal penalties became common. This led to the selling of forgiveness for sin for monetary considerations. This practice, among others, contributed to the rise of Protestantism. An agent of the Pope, John Tetzel boasted that he had saved more souls from hell through the selling of indulgences than Saint Peter had by preaching Christianity. Fourteenth through the Sixteenth Centuries Three popes at one time! Rivalries between Rome and Avignon in France resulted in a period where there were two popes simultaneously? Which one of them had Peter's keys? This fiasco continued until 1409 when a general council of the Church was convened at Pisa. The two popes were deposed and a third installed in their stead. However, neither deposed pope would bow to the will of the council. The Church would not be reunited under a single Pope until 1414 (Talmage, 1909). Rise of the Court of the Inquisition in Spain- Thousands were burned at the stake and tens of thousands tortured. Through the challenging influence of Protestants, the Roman Church abandoned the practice of indulgences at the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, it had done so for four centuries. The practice placed the Popes in the position of sitting in judgment as God himself, fulfilling the scripture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. The Council of Trent also forbade the reading of the scriptures by non-clergy. It declared, "…the holy scriptures were not composed for the multitude, but only for that of their spiritual teachers." The Protestant Reformation Martin Luther- A German priest, Martin Luther defied the Roman Church and is excommunicated. John, Elector of Saxony undertook the establishment of an independent church based on Luther's teachings. By what authority was this done? What authority did Luther have? If the Roman Church had no authority, by what authority could a church be established? In this case, the state assumed the authority that belongs only to God. Ulrich Zwingli- Led the reformation movement in Switzerland. His trial by the state eventually led to civil war between Catholics and Protestants. In the battle, Zwingli was killed and his body was brutally mutilated. William Tyndale- Tyndale was "condemned by virtue of the emperor's decree, made in the assembly at Augsburg. Brought forth to the place of execution, he was tied to the stake, strangled by the hangman, and afterwards consumed with fire, at the town of Vilvorde, A.D. 1536; crying at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice, 'Lord! Open the king of England's eyes.'" His crime? Translating the Bible into English (Foxe). John Calvin- Calvin appeared as another leader of the Swiss reformation movement. A doctrinal extremist, he taught the depravity of man and the false doctrine of predestination, denying the truth of man's agency. In 1553, Calvin was found at Geneva consenting to the burning at the stake of Servetus because he published views Calvin considered heretical. Henry VIII and the Church of England- King Henry VIII sought and failed to obtain permission to divorce his wife. He and the English Parliament broke away from the Roman Church and founded the Church of England. Again, we must ask, by what authority was this done. What revelation or dispensation from God enabled an earthly king to establish a church in God's name? The Church of England established the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1646, which still serves as the functional creed for modern Protestantism. It includes the following claims: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men . . . The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (Westminister Confession of Faith, n.d.). The Confession denies the possibility of current and future revelation from God and limits God to only speak through the Bible. It also declares God's nature to be "a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions" in clear contravention to many scriptures that describe God with a body, parts, and passions. Seventeenth Century to Present As we can see, the Roman Church's claim to the unbroken transmission of the keys of the kingdom from Saint Peter are not supported by history. John was the last surviving apostle who receive his authority from Christ. Only he would have had the authority to ordain any successors. The Roman Church does not and cannot claim authority from John. Even if it were the case that Peter somehow ordained a successor, we can clearly see that the papacy has been the nexus of political intrigue, murder, corruption, and abominations throughout the centuries. Men murdered for it. It was even auctioned and purchased. There is no possible way that the authority of the ancient apostles comes down to the present day through this corrupt lineage. This authority was lost and with it, the keys of Christ's kingdom on earth. If it were possible that a corrupt tree could produce pure branches, the assertions of Protestantism to have reformed the Church might be valid. However, there was no possible way any reformer, however sincere or influential, could restore the keys of the kingdom that were lost in the apostasy. This would require a new gospel dispensation--a new revelation. The Church of England's sermon "Perils of Idolatry" it states: "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned all ages and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry, most detested by God and damnable to man, for eight hundred years and more" (Sermons or Homilies Appointed to be Read in Churches, 1824) Roger Williams- Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that, "There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking." (Bryant, 1872) Williams also said, "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew." (Anderson, 1966) John Wesley- John Wesley, the founder of Methodism wrote in his sermon, "The More Excellent Way" the following indictment of Christianity: "The cause of this [decline of spiritual gifts following Constantine] was not, (as has been vulgarly supposed,) `because there was no more occasion for them,' because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, `the love of many,' almost of all Christians, so called, was `waxed cold.' The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly `find faith upon earth.' This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left." (Russie, 2011) Alexander Campbell- The founder of the Church of Christ (Disciples) wrote "The meaning of this institution (the kingdom of heaven) has been buried under the rubbish of human tradition for hundreds of years. It was lost in the dark ages and has never, until recently been disinterred" (Roberts, 1895) Dr. William Smith- "In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read: "...we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments. . . " (Smith, 1896) Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick- A prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the decadent condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words: "A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around hint, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian'" (Associated Press, 1925) Summary The scriptures clearly predict the falling away of the ancient Christian church. Not only did the world reject the apostles and their authority, but the Church did also. In the centuries that followed, it descended into corruption. Attempts to reform it could not restore the authority that was lost and the teachings that no future revelation could be expected and that any claims to such must be rejected outright prevented this from occurring. Protestant reformers have been cited, indicating that they understood that a new gospel dispensation must come before the Church could be restored. Reformation was not enough. Man could not, of himself, restore the authority that only comes from God. The Restoration Latter-day Saints testify that God himself brought to pass the restoration of the primitive Christian Church again in modern times with all its gifts, powers, keys, and authority. God the Father and the Son appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith in 1820, restoring the true knowledge of God, forever invalidating the creeds of man's religions. In 1823, a heavenly messenger named Moroni revealed the location of the plates upon which was engraved a sacred, ancient record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. Joseph Smith was given power to translate this record into English and publish it as the Book of Mormon in 1829. In 1829, John the Baptist appeared and restored the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the keys of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Later in that same year, the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordained them as apostles of Jesus Christ. In 1836, Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in Kirtland, Ohio and conferred priesthood keys related to the gathering of Israel, the gospel of Abraham, and the power to bind the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers. All the powers and authority possessed by ancient Christians is present once again on the earth today. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the repository of those keys and the Church is governed as it was anciently by living apostles and prophets. I invite you to investigate these claims, bearing witness that they are true. You can learn the truth of them for yourself through the Holy Ghost. It is by the Holy Ghost that I know that they are true, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Works Cited Anderson, W. F. (1966). Apostasy or Succession, Which? Board of Publications, Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Associated Press. (1925, February 22). Predicts Split from Evangelical Church: Modernist Leader Forecasts Trend Away from Theological Creeds. Palm Beach Post. New York. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19250222&id=MWgyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DbYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2613,5314483 Bryant, W. C. (Ed.). (1872). Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In. I. New York: D. Appleton and Co. Eusebius. (1833). The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine (in Ten Books). viii. (A. Rev. C. F. Cruse, Trans.) Philadelphia, New York, New York: Rev. R. Davis & Brother. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=W59UAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PR1 Foxe, J. (n.d.). Foxe's Book of Martyrs. (W. B. Forbush, Ed.) Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html Jackson, R. G. (1884). The Post-Nicene Latin Fathers. (D. L. Prof. George P. Fisher, Ed.) New York: D. Appleton and Company. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=oJcCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&dq John Lawrence Mosheim, D. (1811). An Ecclesiastical History Ancient and Modern, from the Birth of Christ, to the Beginning of the Present Century. I. Charlestown. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=C59UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dqfzcdF9MTgqzGk4_Eoz_XhY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eHriU_yFIZWmyASArYHwBQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false Milner, R. J. (1836). The History of the Church of Christ from the Days of the Apostles, Till the Famous Disputation Between Luther and Milbitz in 1520. Edinburgh, Scotland: Peter Brown and Thomas Nelson. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=sHdchJiaHjcC&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=The+History+of+the+Church+of+Christ+from+the+Days+of+the+Apostles,+Till+the+Famous+Disputation+Between+Luther+and+Milbitz+in+1520&source=bl&ots=zJWEpetMPT&sig=6HcQGy9wlq6Q0Xi3V40YvzKX54Y&hl=e Roberts, B. H. (1895). A New Witness for God. Salt Lake City, Utah: George Q. Cannon & Sons. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=gboUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA488&lpg=PA488&dq#v Russie, A. (Ed.). (2011). The Essential Works of John Wesley. Barbour Publishing. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=6dMsmySqXRsC&pg=PT727&dq Sermons or Homilies Appointed to be Read in Churches. (1824). London: Ellerton and Henderson. Smith, D. W. (1896). Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company. Talmage, J. (1909). The Great Apostasy. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=yJn69K_Q0y0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Westminister Confession of Faith. (n.d.). Retrieved from Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

In all honesty, the keys the bishop holds gives him the right of revelation to deal with the situation. It is his stewardship to work with the family and to muster the power of the priesthood executive committee and the ward council in his ward to assist as determined by the deliberations of those councils. There is a lot of wisdom in a ward council. The auxilary presidencies bear the burden with the bishop. Yet the bishop has the keys to determine what is enough and what is not. The focus will be on getting a family back to self-sufficiency, naturally. I was a branch president and, like a bishop, I had to use inspiration to make such determinations. It's a tough responsibility and one that every bishop or branch president feels heavily. The Spirit does indeed guide the bishops and presidents how to work in these situations. The revelatory influence is real. Trust in the Lord and that the Bishop will do right, following the inspiration that is granted to him. As an afterthought, I also experienced that stake presidents will not even tread upon the Bishop's authority in this area. It's a stewardship that belongs to them. A bishop can ask the stake president how to proceed in such a situation, but the stake president will tell him, "It's your stewardship--you make the call." I was really amazed when I saw this occur when I was a counselor in a bishopric and when I was a branch president. One of the beautiful things about the system is that it is so responsive to individual situations despite the Church being made up of millions of people.

In case you're wondering why I've been so active on here this morning, I have a bad cold and I'm unable to go to church this morning. My "church" then is to share a few gospel messages to edify and hopefully share some points of doctrine that will help someone else. I've contributed to a couple of threads about the apostasy and why the creeds were said to be "abominations" to God. The apostasy was foretold in the Bible and we can show historically that it occurred. Nevertheless, many defenders of the creeds get defensive and use out of context passage of scripture to say that the apostasy never occurred. One of the passages they use is found, ironically, in Matthew chapter 16. When Jesus asked Simon Peter who people said he was, Peter explained some of the misconceptions people had about Jesus. Some said he was Elijah come again or some other prophet. Then Jesus asked Peter and the other apostles the million-dollar question: "...But whom say ye that I am?" Peter replies for the whole group, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus blesses Peter and declares that this testimony was from the Father by revelation. If you go back and read, Jesus repeatedly told people that the kingdom of God had come to them, but he left it up to the audience to figure out who he was. He wanted the Holy Ghost bear record of it to them. Jesus said, "...Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Then comes the scripture that sectarian critics and anti-Mormons use out-of-context to say that the apostasy couldn't have occurred. It's verse 18 from Matthew chapter 16. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Our critics say that an apostasy could not have occurred because that would mean that the "gates of hell" prevaileed against the Church. Very few people ever give that verse any thought as to what it means. Even less thought is given by them to the first part that says that Christ was going to build his Church upon the spirit of revelation by which the Father had given Peter the testimony of Christ's true identity. I can't claim credit for this idea; that goes to Joseph Fielding McConkie. McConkie asked the question, how does a gate prevail? If you Google a definition of "prevail," you'll find something like this: "...prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious." How does a gate win? It wins or prevails when it does what it is designed to do. What is the definition of a gate? Google tells us a gate is a "a hinged barrier used to close an opening in a wall, fence, or hedge." A gate is designed to hold and keep things in an enclosed space, yet allow access to those who have power to open it. A gate prevails when it keeps in the things that it's supposed to keep in and allows access to those who have authority to enter and exit the confined area. A gate doesn't attack anything. The gates of hell can't attack or destroy the Church of Christ. They can't prevail against it. In fact, the authority of the priesthood gives apostles and their ordained representatives power to move in and out of the gate. Jesus continued saying: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The keys of the kingdom have power to bind on earth and in heaven. They can open or shut the gates of hell. The very keys of the priesthood have the power to free souls trapped in the spirit prison by virtue of its authority. There is a clear link between Christ' preaching to the dead (John 5:25, 28-29, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Peter 4:6) and baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) in the opening of the prison doors. In context, Jesus is saying that he is giving the apostles the revelatory power and authority to open and close the gates of hell. Whoever believes their testimony and is baptized will be saved. Those who reject it will be sealed up unto damnation. Because of the eternal reach of the keys and the sealing power, even the gates of hell cannot prevail against those who died in ignorance once divinely-appointed messengers are sent into their midst to bring the gospel's light. The apostasy occurred because members of the Church began to follow the teachings of men who did not possess authority, who taught strange doctrines like Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. The apostasy did not occur because the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. Ultimately, the Restoration brought the keys back to earth and even the gates of hell are subject to priesthood keys once again. The next time someone uses Matthew 16:18 to tell you that the ancient Church could not have fallen into apostasy, just read the surrounding verses with them and ask them to explain the meaning of each verse. Then ask them what a gate does and how a gate prevails. The answer is obvious and the meaning is clear once we understand that the keys have power to bind on earth and in heaven. The only remaining question for them to answer is who holds those keys today. Therein lies all the rest of the gospel's potential blessings.

Before I joined the Church 35 years ago, there was an impression that had formed in my mind from attending many and various Protestant and Catholic services and Sunday Schools. If you've been raised in the LDS Church, you don't understand this narrative. The narrative is this: God created Adam and Eve in a perfect world. They were like joyful naked children running around, innocent. Then they "discovered their nakedness." I remember a little old lady who held Bible class for children in her home awkwardly trying to explain this. I figured out later on that most Christian sects believe that sex was the original sin. They believe that Adam and Eve suddenly discovered one another and did the "wild thing." This displeased God and he cast them out of Eden and cursed them. In other words, it's all their fault. I've had some of the pastors of these denominations explain to me that Eve actually had sex with "the serpent" first, then went and did it with Adam. Seriously. This is what I was taught by many of these learned pastors. Original sin comes to all of us because we are Adam and Eve's posterity, according to their doctrine. The fact that you have sexual desire as a mature person is the taint of original sin. That's why Calvin taught that man is fallen and degenerate. All through the teaching of the Old Testament, these churches taught that God was vengeful and punishing. Then, he got a better idea. According to their creeds, the Father (the One God of Aristotle and Plato) came down and became a mortal, died for our sins, and then transformed himself into the Holy Ghost. Because he went through the mortal experience, he knows what it is like for himself. From that point on, he became merciful and forgiving, not vengeful and punitive. Thus, in the sectarian mind, the "fear of the Lord" comes of the Old Testament, but the new covenant of the New Testament is kindness, mercy, and love. Over the centuries, much of the persecution that was focused on Jews by Christians came because of resentment that the Jews rejected mercy and kindness offered by Jesus and thus, they merited the vengeance of God upon them. Most latter-day saint converts come into the Church from other Christian denominations and they struggle to harmonize what they once were taught with what they now understand. When we understand the fall properly, as taught in Genesis, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham, and of course the temple ceremony, we understand how the Lord is both to be feared and respected and, at the same time, trusted for mercy and forgiveness. When the false precepts about the fall and original sin are corrected, we see that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. We see that Jesus wasn't "Plan B" for a "Plan A" that failed. We understand that God loves us, that he created the world for us, and that he gave us agency to choose. We see how it all fits together. It is difficult for lifelong latter-day saints to understand the amount of false teaching that has to be unlearned and how much new truth there is to drink in after conversion. This allows us to understand situations like the one in which Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered because it bore no fruit. Jesus had the power over life. He could raise people from the dead. He could raise himself up from the grave when the time came. But he also illustrated that he had power to judge and condemn. He sometimes corrected people with sharpness. He overturned the tables of the money changers. He called the lawyers "vipers" and the Pharisees hypocrites. His disciples were afraid to ask him questions sometimes, fearing his rebuke. Yet they loved him and they were willing to lay down their lives for him. They endured persecution for him. When I read Peter's words in his epistles, written near the end of his life, the gravity of the reverence he has for Christ really stands out to me. He knows, like Joseph Smith said, that "God is not trifling with you and me." In the culture of the Church we strive to show this reverence and fear of God, even though we love him. For example, in the Church Handbook of Instructions, there are seeminly small details that show this reverence. For example, if a ward or stake puts on a gospel-oriented play or skit and Jesus is portrayed in it, the scripted lines of the character that plays the Savior can only be scripture. No ad libs are allowed. Aside from the temple movie and the First Vision movies made by the Church, God the Father is never portrayed in any church play or skit. As Jesus was careful to always honor the Father, how much more should we be careful to show him the ultimate in reverence? The Lord represents the ultimate fairness in judgment. He knows us and he has borne our sins. He lived the live of a mortal. Yet he felt the unwavering demands of justice upon his own flesh and he did not quit. He has power to create, to sustain, and to destroy. He obtained that power at great price. He bore the ultimate in suffering. For that reason alone, the fear of God should be upon us, as well as a loving trust in his offer of mercy, conditional upon sincere repentance and faith.

Thanks for your question. I'll do my best to explain the Mormon position. It is essential to understand the apostasy to appreciate the need for a restoration. I'll post two links to articles I've written on the topic. The Great Apostasy: A Timeline Gnosticism and Neoplatonism: The "Other Gospel" Christians from other denominations feel offended when we talk about the apostasy. They feel attacked unnecessarily. They feel like Mormons are saying that God rejects them personally. This is not what we mean. The apostasy has to do with the loss of the "keys of the kingdom" that Christ gave to Peter and the apostles, as recorded in Matthew chapter 16. Most Protestant-Evangelicals gloss over this moment. Catholics don't, however. Like Mormons, Catholics understand that something important took place in that chapter. Jesus gave an authority to the twelve apostles as a body that is unique in all the world. It had power to "bind on earth" and "bind in heaven." In other words, actions done by apostolic authority--the keys of the kingdom--have eternal significance. Baptism performed by authority is recognized in heaven. Marriages bound by apostolic authority are sealed in heaven--eternal. Without the keys of the kingdom, the Church is just a club of believers with no eternal power. With the keys, it is the authorized "embassy" of heaven on the earth. Roman Catholics believe that the Pope still has the keys today. In the articles I linked above, historical sources show that the primitive Church was overwhelmed by several forces. One was corruption, wealth, and power-seeking. Another was false doctrines that were already being taught that the apostles opposed, namely Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. The last one was the rejection of the key-holders by the Church itself. In 3rd John, the apostle complains about a man named Diotrephes, who usurped the leadership of the church, and forbade the members to receive the apostles. Can you imagine? This man, having set himself up as a leader in the Church, "cast out" (excommunicated) the members who continued to believe and receive the word from Jesus' own servants, the apostles. John was the last of the apostles. It should be noted that the Twelve had replenished their number when one of them died. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. After James was killed, shortly thereafter Paul was called and ordained. This indicates an intent to maintain the quorum of the twelve. Because the apostasy took root within the Church and a general rejection of the apostles and the leaders they ordained, the Lord did not direct them to call any more. John was the last remaining apostle. Anyone who holds the keys today would have to have received them from John. This also happened with the bishops of the early church as well. Polycarp was a Christian bishop who was "excommunicated" by his own flock, who replaced him with a usurper. Polycarp traveled the world preaching Christ and writing letters to the other congregations, urging them to remain faithful. Note in the Bible's Book of Jude, Paul urges the members to "contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Past tense. Almost all of Pauls letters were written to contend with false doctrines that were creeping into the Church. After the apostles were gone, history shows a swift downward decline. Check out the "timeline" article above. By the year 150, the church had banned future revelation from God. By the 10th century, there is no end to the corruption that took place in the Church. Now let me emphasize here: none of this means that there were no true believers. The remnants of the Church Jesus established had rejected the keys of the kingdom or claimed them falsely. However, there were individuals who history indicates were righteous men and women. We believe God has provided the means to save those who believed in him during this period when the true Church and its keys were missing. However, the creeds of Christendom, and those who devised them, were corrupt. They taught that the believer should no more expect revelation from God, angelic visitations, miracles, and spiritual gifts. The creeds fragmented the body of believers into warring factions. Men like Tyndale and Huss were persecuted and martyred for trying to put the Bible in the hands of laymen where they could study it beyond reach of the corrupt clergy. The Restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith brought back the keys of the kingdom. They are once agan in possession of mortal apostles today. The gathering of the elect is to the body of Christ. They will come as they are drawn by the message of the gospel and the authority of the keys of the kingdom. When you read the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament, you see how the Church operated, how it functioned. You see the role of apostles and seventies. You see the roles of bishops. You see how they interact and function not only as a hierarchy on earth, but how it interacts with heaven. For example, the Holy Ghost moved to send Philip (a seventy) to the Eunuch who was reading Isaiah. Philip had authority to baptize him by virtue of the keys of the kingdom. An angel comes to Cornelius and tells him to send for Peter--who held the keys of the kingdom--to bring him the truth. Saul of Tarsus even had the Lord appear to him, but that alone did not save him. Instead, the Spirit sends Ananias, Bishop of Damascus to baptize him. In the Book of Acts, we see that heaven itself honors the keys and authority that has been conferred. Let anyone answer the question, which church is the true one? They all say they are right and thus indicate that the others are somehow in error? A Baptist will say that Methodists and Presbyterians are in error because they baptize children. Presbyterians will say that the Baptists are wrong. Protestants say Catholics are in error. The Popes say that non-Catholic denominations are not "proper churches" and are not accepted. Interestingly, the founder of the first Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that, "There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking." (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.) Williams also said, "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew." (Underhill, Edward, "Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty", cited in William F. Anderson, "Apostasy or Succession, Which?", pp. 238-39) Williams' hope that Christ would send new apostles was eventually fulfilled. Joseph Smith went into the woods to pray to ask God which one of these was right. The answer he received in the First Vision was that none of them were right. None of them had the keys. None of them had authority. All of them were wrong. God could not put "new wine into old bottles." He had to start all over. That restoration was predicted in the Bible. Peter said there would come a time for the restitution of all things. John saw an angel flying in the heavens bringing the gospel to the earth in the last days. Ezekiel saw the joining of the scriptures of Judah with those of Ephraim. Isaiah saw the sealed book being read by one who was not learned. (Acts 3, Revelation 10, Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 29). I encourage the unconverted to meet with the Mormon elders and they will explain these things to you personally, which is always better than an Internet forum. Like Joseph Smith discovered, the answer to the question, "Which church is true?" comes to the sincere seeker by faith, willingness to obey God's voice, and through the Holy Spirit.

This is a post I wrote for the S.P.A.M. web site back around 2009-2010, when Windows Vista was first coming out. I used the release of the new version of Windows as an analogy for the apostasy and restoration. It turned out to be a pretty good parable of sorts, using some modern elements we can all relate to in the Internet age. Enjoy! A fellow Latter-day Saint, Greg N. wrote the other day, using the analogy of the "blind taste test." To get a fair assessment of a product, one often has to get around the prejudices and false notions that people already have. It is a reasonable thing to do. Take off the labels, take off the fancy packaging, and put the product in a situation where it can be evaluated on its own merits. Microsoft is currently using such a marketing approach to get people to reconsider the false notions they have about Windows Vista. People are resistant to new things. Windows Vista is a perfect, current example of this. I began my career in information technology on machines that ran Windows 95, 98, and NT. I still get "warm fuzzy" feelings every time I get near a NT box! Then Microsoft introduced Windows 2000 for the enterprise environment. Wow! What a change! There was a lot of resistance by some system administrators, because we had put so much time into building and securing networks built upon Windows NT. A lot of our work would be undone. There was a learning curve. The common system components were called something different and they were located in different places. The fundamentals of computing and networking are still the same, but we had to go hunting to find them. When I built my first Windows 2000 network, I was pleasantly surprised. Hey! This works! It took some time to get used to the new interface. That slowed me down somewhat, but not for long. After studying it, I was prepared to use it. Once I used it, I could see the benefits. I was "converted to it." The same thing happened when XP came along. People were reluctant to accept it. Again, there were benefits, but there was a learning curve. Now, we've got Vista and it's the same old story. It's just resistance to change. There is a wonderful parallel here with the gospel. Although there is no single, perfect computer operating system, there IS a single, perfect gospel. The Lord has, at varying times, revealed portions of it according to man's ability to accept and live it. The ancient patriarchs like Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham enjoyed a fullness of it. In Moses' time, because of the unbelief and rebellion of Israel, the Lord provided the people with the Levitical Law, a "schoolmaster" to bring them to Christ. They had a "tutorial program" given to them to prepare them to recognize and believe in Christ. Jesus gave the whole gospel program to Peter, James, John and the other apostles. They had the "keys of the kingdom." This is like having "administrator rights" to the whole network. No one else was authorized to make changes or to reconfigure the "network." That didn't stop the Adversary from trying to hack the network, however. Eventually, his hackers cracked the security by getting people to reject the legal "admins" and to ultimately murder them. They pirated and spoofed others, to convince them that their network was the same as the original one. Once the hackers had compromised the system, they changed the system passwords. In the "forest" of network domains, these false system administrators cut the links and separated their domains from the topmost level. They changed the security and refused "broadcasts" from the top. In time, God--the top-level "System Administrator"-- sent out a new product, a new version. This version included full backward compatibility with the original system he had devised. However, the hacked, corrupted system was not compatible. As the new system rolled out, the hackers did not take this lying down. They published all sorts of articles and books that said that the new system wouldn't work. They said that the new product was flawed because it didn't match their hacked, pirated system. As the new system rolled out, the hackers attacked it, not only in discussions about it, but they physically attacked it also. They spread lies, distortions, sent out viruses. However the new system had greater security and was resistant to their attacks. As the new product rolled out, many people listened to the hackers, simply because they had been there for so long, they assumed that they must have some kind of authority or legitimacy. However, it just wasn't the case. In time, the new system gained converts. Some immediately saw its benefits. Others heard the testimonials of those who had been converted. Because they had confidence in their friends and associates, they investigated for themselves and found that the new system was good and they adopted it for themselves. The new system spread around the world rapidly. Nevertheless, the hackers continued their attacks. In some cases, they managed to crash some individual systems. In other cases, they were able to turn converts away, back to their old, corrupt system because of peer pressure, tradition, or coercion. Mostly, their efforts were focused on deterring others from converting to the new system. It was easier to prejudice those who were ignorant of the possibilities of the new system or who were just too proud to make the switch. The hackers exploited human nature's resistance to change. They made convincing intellectual arguments and some that simply appealed to prejudice or vanity. They put out new screen savers, new innovations, and new service packs, but they couldn't match the functionality and robust capability of the newly revealed system. Most of all, what they couldn't match is the thrill of being able to access the old features of the original system, which the hackers told everyone were no longer available. When faced with losing their market share, there's nothing the hackers wouldn't do to protect the power and control they exercise to keep their user base from learning the truth. The most frightening thing in the world to them is a user who suddenly realizes for himself that he can go to the top-level "System Administrator," download the new system directly and get a free password to all the features of the new system. Likewise, the Restored Gospel has been given by God, the "System Administrator." It is being rolled out across the earth. There are those who oppose it, but nothing will stop it or deter it from moving forward. Eventually it will be far more ubiquitous than Windows and provide every single person who believes it with access to the full light, power, and knowledge that God has to offer us.

A really good example of a creed would be the Westminister Confession of Faith. Normally, I try to avoid direct comparisons of one particular denomination's doctrine in a negative way. We are constantly the targets of such "analysis" by non-Mormons, but in this case, there is a useful point to be made. The Westminster Confession contains a lot of language on many different points of doctrine which are at odds with revealed religion in general, but this one statement is illustrative of the attitude that makes such creeds an abomination to God. "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." Note the very last sentence in that declaration. Nothing is to be added--ever--to scripture "whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men." In one breath, they declare any future revelation from God to be invalid. If God chose to speak again, they are bound by their creed to not listen to God. In essence, they forbid God to speak. It is man telling God, "If you speak again, we won't listen to it because it's not in the Bible." That is an example of an "abomination" to which the Lord referred. It is man telling God that, don't bother to talk again because we're not going to listen. You gave us the Bible and that's all we're going to believe. If you didn't think to put it in the Bible to begin with, we're not going to hear of it. The Westminster Confession is the foundation of the "reformed" churches, particularly Presbyterianism. This creed is filled with such statements that actually try to limit God. If a person believed the doctrine taught in the creed, he would forever ignore "new revelations of the Spirit." Compare that to the Bible's teaching that the "...testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10). The creed would deny individuals the chance to obtain the "testimony of Jesus" because "new revelations of the spirit" are to be rejected outright. The creeds are an outgrowth of the spirit of Phariseeism. Each of them is an attempt to lock God into a box or a contract of some kind. It sets limits on what God can demand and what the believer can expect. They get in the way of personal contact with God. Joseph Smith's experience in the First Vision tells us that God is not limited by the creeds. He defines the terms of our existence--we don't define the terms of his existence. He is real. He reveals himself as he sees fit. He commands and we are to obey. He is a personal God. He answers prayers and reveals truth to those who ask in faith. There are those who have tried to compare our 13 Articles of Faith to the sectarian creeds. A careful reading of the Articles of Faith show that none of them limit God. They don't limit God's interaction with man. We believe that God will reveal whatever he will, whenever he wills it, to whomever he chooses to reveal it. In contrast, all the sectarian creeds draw a line that says, one one side of the line is orthodoxy and on the other is heresy. The Articles of Faith don't do that. The Athanasian Creed ends with "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." That's exclusionary language. It tells you that you're going to hell if you don't believe every point of it. The 2nd Council of Constantinople in 533 A.D. had a whole page worth of curses upon those who didn't believe every single point. You can read that document here. http://www.creeds.net/ancient/2Constantinople.htm It was this kind of stuff that led to all sorts of atrocities that became prevalent in Christendom of the Middle Ages. For example, in 891 A.D., Formosus, a conspirator who had been excommunicated for the murder of John, was elected pope. Five years later, Boniface VI becomes pope despite his being deposed as a deacon for his immoral and lewd conduct. Stephen VII, his succesor, had he body of Formosus disinterred, clothed in papal robes, and tried before a council. The indecent scene ended with cutting off three of the deceased's fingers and the corpse being cast into the Tiber River. Stephen was ultimately deposed and thrown into prison where he was strangled to death. You can read a whole timeline of the Great Apostasy here: http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/great-apostasy-timeline.html I could continue to elaborate, but suffice it to say that a study of the creeds by a person knowledgeable with the Bible will turn up numerous conflicts that are the products of men who denied the spirit of prophecy and revelation. The history of what happened to the Christian Church due to the rejection of contemporary, living prophets and apostles is a sad story of corruption and vice clothed in the garbs of religiosity. The Lord called the creeds "abominations" because they stood as a centuries-old barrier between people who sought God and those who sought to limit God's ability to communicate with man by threats of violence, trial, hanging, burning at the stake, torture, and death. The glory of the First Vision swept all that away forever. We know God lives. We know he speaks today. We know he can speak to us. We know he speaks to living prophets. The Church is connected to the "home office" in heaven once again.

I have a theory--it's just that--a theory. It's not doctrine. i can't prove it, but here's the way I envision it. Please take this as a lighthearted notion, not anything super serious... Jesus said "Ye are gods" speaking of us. I think we all took some small part in the creation. We had a strong interest in it. I expect that the Lord has "classes" at different levels that we worked on. We begin with basic geology, chemistry, physics, and those sorts of things so we can understand the processes involved. Somewhere there were more advanced classes in how to make single-celled organisms, then multicellular ones. Like a good university, there were labs. Somewhere, there was a team whose class project was to see if if they could make a lizard as big as a house and, voila--there were dinosaurs. They had a good run, but eventually their project failed. They didn't take into account adaptations for colder weather. There was probably a class that put together the platypus from some spare parts left over from ducks and beavers. Anyways, I think that we all took part in the creation in some small measure and we developed a love for the place that would be our home for our mortal sojourn. My feeling is that we all were the "gods" that were involved in the creation, under the tutelage of the Godhead.

To Latter-Days Guy: Here's an article I wrote a few years ago that you will probably enjoy. http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-temples-esoteric-teachings-and.html?q=esoteric+teachings When i taught the Temple Prep class in a ward where we used to live, i used to stress to the members in it that we have to keep in mind that temple ordinances are full of symbolism. Mormons tend to be very literal about our understanding of spiritual things. When it comes to ordinances, like baptism for example, that they are assigned meanings by the Lord. Think for a moment of a stop sign. It is so common (like baptism) that we automatically know what it means when we see an octagonal red sign anywhere in the world. However, there is nothing about the octagonal shape or the color red that inherently means "stop." We have assigned the symbol a meaning and it has become commonplace now. Baptism is an example. Aside from the imagery of bathing, burial, and resurrection that we might see with our eyes, the dunking of a person in water has been assigned a specific meaning by the Lord and taught to his servants. It symbolizes a covenant to always remember Jesus Christ, take his name upon us, and keep his commandments. Likewise, the Lord elegantly used the common symbols of bread and wine to remind us of a covenant. He could have used something else, but he used things that were commonplace. It would have been novel when it was first instituted, but now it's a generally accepted symbol. When you go through the temple, the ordinances are given specific meanings by the Lord and we learn them as he has designated them. Like a stop sign, they are abstract. They only have meaning because the Lord has assigned them those meanings. If they resemble something else familiar to us or anything outside the temple, we need to remind ourselves that we need to understand the Lord's assigned meaning. Here's another example. We all have a strong emotional reaction to the swastika because of its association with Nazi Germany. However, the swastika is an ancient symbol that was sacred to Native Americans. There is no connection between Native Americans and Nazis separated by an ocean and thousands of years. The symbol means different things to them. Likewise, there have been some people who have tried to connect the endowment to other traditions or sources, like Freemasonry. That trouble some people unless you realize that the meanings are different because, regardless of any similarities, the Lord has assigned the signification of temple ordinances. When you go to the temple, keep an open mind, expect to see commonplace things that are given spiritual significance by the associations with the temples. It is a beautiful experience. Its meaning is only understood through revelation. That revelation comes little by little with repeated visits. As you'll see in the linked article, the temple has long been a part of the Christian faith.

I think every missionary asks this question decades down the road. You can't help but ask the question. When you think how much wisdom and experience you accumulate in life AFTER living another 30 years, you naturally look back and wonder how much more effective you could have been. I can liken it to my experiences as a musician. I sometimes go back and listen to old recordings of myself from 20 or 30 years ago. I played guitar as a soloist and occasionally with bands. I have a recording of a radio show I appeared on in 1987. My technique was very powerful--even better than it is today--but I was lacking a depth of musicality that I possess now. I cringe to hear parts of that recording now, because I can hear the flaws, not so much on a technical level, but of interpretation and finesse. I regard my mission like that sometimes. If I could go back, knowing what I know now, I would have done some things very differently. Yet the Lord accepted my offering because it was my best effort at the time. I'm satisfied with it because he is. It's sad when people we brought into the gospel don't make it. I've had several close friends whom I baptized outside of my mission who eventually fell away. Living the gospel is hard and it involves making hard choices sometimes. Some of them chose education and career over serving the Lord. Others succumbed to loneliness because they didn't find a mate and married outside the Church. One of them had his wife--a lifelong member--cheat on him and then divorce him and it broke his heart. In the end, each situation was a test that asked believer "Lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15) They faced having to follow Jesus despite the pain that continued faith would cost them. The choices they made took them away from the pain and away from the Lord. They could have continued to carry the cross, but they lost hope and despaired. To me, it is significant that I've heard old men, particularly general authorities, express the hope that they would remain faithful until the very end. You'd think that they'd feel really confident in their abilities by that time in their lives. Instead, the reality of God's chastening has made them humble and reliant upon the Lord because they are acquainted with the pain and trouble that can come from God's chastening hand. I look back on my mission and I see it as the beginning of that process. I went out into the field as a new convert of 20 months. I was so inexperienced! Yet it is the trials of my mission that gave me the first lessons in enduring faithfully that have kept me going for over three decades. For that alone, it was worth it. I hope for the strength to maintain that faith through whatever comes.

The ministering of angels is more common than one might think. Remember Paul said, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares" (Hebrews 13:2). A resurrected being can conceal his glory, just as Jesus did when he appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Angels who are spirits of the unborn or the dead who have not yet been resurrected can minister to us without our seeing them. I heard a story of a man who was seriously ill on an airplane who felt hands laid upon his head as if he were receiving a blessing. Shortly after the plane landed, he went to the hospital needing to have his appendix removed. People have been protected in tornadoes, floods, fires, car accidents, and a myriad other dangers by angels. It's interesting that a person would be have that as a specific gift or counsel given in a patriarchal blessing, but very cool!

Here's my take on this topic. I keep faith and an open mind. There are certain things I know for myself by the Spirit. I know that there is a God, that he reveals truth through various methods, and that he is intent on making us grow through faith. Evidence doesn't test us. It doesn't challenge us. It doesn't make us grow. God gives us sufficient revealed knowledge to keep the most faithful moving forward towards exalation. That doesn't mean that we get the "high-def" version of all truth. He also gives truth in ways that it can be understood by people in different times and circumstances. Genesis comes to us from ancient people whose situations were far more different that ours today. In many cases, God gave visions to people and they strained to write what they saw. Millions, maybe billions of years of the creative process were presented as days. John saw fighter planes and tanks and could only describe them as locusts and armored horses. Other prophets saw cars and called them chariots. Joseph looked into the celestial kingdom and saw people with a "white stone" that reveals information to them. Around our house, we call the iPhone the "iStone." So when I read of Adam and Eve, I know that Joseph Smith saw and heard Adam/Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna River (See Section 128). Adam was a real person. The name Adam means "many." Does that tell us that there were more than one at the beginning and that the one who was Michael the first mortal man on earth? Possibly. My mind is open to that possibility because it doesn't change the essence of the gospel. Were the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life literal or figurative? I think it was probably both. I believe there was probably a real tree, but the symbol of it (like the cross) took on greater metaphorical meaning. There was a real cross upon which Jesus was crucified and there is a symbolic cross that his disciples take up when they follow him. In the recent debate over Kate Kelly and the Ordain Women movement, one LDS writer made a beautiful metaphor that called womanhood the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and the priesthood "the tree of life." Both are necessary to exaltation. One has the power to admit souls into mortality and the other to admit them into eternity. Another beautiful metaphor that is literal and figurative is what we call the "veil" between mortality and immortality. Every woman is the "veil." No one passes into mortality without passing through the body of a woman. So to me, the gospel is filled with marvelous richness both literal and in metaphor. There are literal things and spiritual things that are bound together. Moses' name meant "waters" because his adopted mother drew him from the water. Yet the Lord makes a play on words with his name when he tells Moses that he will make him mightier than "many waters." Then Moses later parts the Red Sea. Literal and figuratively, the narrative goes together. Such narratives are not done haphazardly. They are inspired and they are thoughtful. I don't need all the "facts" to line up when I read the Book of Abraham. When I read it, it fills me with the Spirit. Too many people get hung up on Kolob without seeing the powerful syllogism the Lord teaches through the metaphor of Kolob. Is there a real Kolob? Yes, and I expect that it is probably Sirius, a heavenly body that was significant to the ancients. But beyond literal, the most important message is what the metaphor of Kolob teaches us about eternal progression and exaltation. Don't get hung up on details. Search the scriptures and enjoy them. Savor the truths, the language, and the inspiration that comes. Then you'll know for yourself everything the Lord wants you to know at every moment along your progression back to him.