great apostacy

[August]

Thanks to everyone who's been responding to my thread about multiple gods, very informative.

Here's my next one. What makes you believe that a "great apostacy" occured? What evidence, historical or otherwise, do you cite to prove that early Christians diverted from the teachings of the apostles? How do you explain this verse, which Catholics such as myself cite to show that our Church will never fall into error. Matthew 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (New American Bible) Once again, just looking for your perspectives, thanks.

[BenRaines]

As I understand it the rock was Revelation, that same revelation that told Peter that Jesus was the Son of God. It was not Peter the church was established on but revelation. Check out the few verses before Christ proclaims "upon this rock I will build my church".

Ben Raines

[August]

As I understand it the rock was Revelation, that same revelation that told Peter that Jesus was the Son of God. It was not Peter the church was established on but revelation.

But assuming that's true, wouldn't Jesus still be saying that revelation wouldn't be lost? This verse is pretty clear to me, Jesus is saying that He will never abandon us, he will never allow the "gates of the netherworld" to prevail. Isn't that what would happen if God had taken the truth away from the world?

[BenRaines]

I don't believe that removing his structured church and/or his authority for a season, or a time, was abandoning us. The people of the time rejected his Son, who gave his life so that all might live again. The world and it's people were not ready for what God had to offer. At a later date, if someone does not beat me to it, I will reference all the scriptures that cover an apostasy.

Ben Raines

[rameumptom]

The problem with the Catholic reading of the verse is, Peter DID fall! He denied Christ 3 times at the crucifixion.

We believe that the rock reference is to revelation or authority. The problem then comes in, how were they lost, if they were.

Paul prophecies of a "falling away" (apostasy is the word used in Spanish) that would occur before Christ returned again. Satan would sit on the throne for a time, deceiving people. Paul also prophecied that after he left, "ravenous wolves" would come in and tear the flock apart. He warned of people having "itching ears" for wicked things, and "always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." In Ephesians, he speaks of the foundation of the Church being "prophets and apostles, with Jesus Christ himself, the chief cornerstone" and that the Church required apostles, prophets and other inspired leaders until "all come to a unity of the faith in Christ." This would prevent people from being tossed to and fro by every teaching.

Many Biblical scholars have written about the struggles of the early Christian church. Bart Ehrman has written several good books on how the proto-orthodox Church had to eliminate continuing revelation so as to prevent the Gnostic Christians from gaining the upper hand. They created a static Bible, so that the many writings going around would not distract or deceive the members of the Church. But in removing revelation, they went opposite what Justin Martyr warned Trypho: that if the Christian Church ever stopped having revelation, it would be just as dead as the Jewish religion was.

Historical evidence shows that the Roman bishop did not obtain preeminence as Pope for centuries after the death of Christ. There was no understood lineage for the early years, regardless of the lineage attempted by some Catholic historians. The pre-eminent bishops tended to be in Jerusalem, not Rome. Also, Pope Benedict recently came out with a statement on what is determined to be the true Christian Church. He enumerated it to be both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. If that is the case, then we have an issue of whether we should be following the Pope or the Patriarch! Who has the true authority? If both do, why have a division? Isn't this totally opposite what Paul taught in Ephesians 4:11-14?

Changes occurred that greatly changed the early church's belief system. Concepts such as indulgences, inquisition, Trinity, Jesus' duality, etc., were political decisions, not revelation. Origen taught that Jesus was a god, subordinate to the Father. He was an early Christian apologist and hero. Two centuries later, St Augustine renounced him as a heretic, because his teachings didn't reflect the Trinity!

Many ancient teachings were lost, which we are only now rediscovering in the early manuscripts and writings: pre-mortal existence of man, anthropomorphism of God, the Divine Council in heaven, importance of continued revelation, man being of the same substance as God, etc.

While I admire the Christian churches and the truths they share, I also recognize that many ancient teachings were lost or changed. And not by revelation. Therefore, the ancient plain and precious things which were lost needed to be restored. Since continuing revelation was rejected in the Churches of the 19th century, God had no choice but to restore these truths to a commoner, and create a new restored Church.

[rameumptom]

Revelation is never lost. Revelation is either accepted or rejected by mankind.

For instance, the Church of Christ, formed by Alexander Campbell, rejects all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They do not believe the Holy Ghost does anything today for us. Will they ever accept a revelation today? No. And so God will not bother sending them one.

So it was in the first few centuries AD. There was revelation occurring. But many manuscripts were being written that purported to be revelations to a prophet or apostle, so as to give it authority (pseudepigrapha). To stench the tide of circulating false manuscripts, St Jerome and others finalized the scriptures, ending revelation. He tossed out some books that had been used by Jews and Christians for centuries, such as the Book of Enoch. Even though it is quoted 39 times in our New Testament, Jerome did not like the theophany in it, and so tossed it out. He rejected the Shepard of Hermas, and many other books. In fact, he almost tossed out Revelation and Hebrews, because they had doubtful provenance. Fortunately, the Western Church insisted they remain in the sacred scripture, and so to have them accept his version of the Bible, he kept them in.

The final issue is, modern continuing revelation was ended on an institutional scale. Did some people receive personal revelation or inspiration from God? I believe so. I believe Martin Luther was inspired to fight indulgences, for example.

But it required a major Restoration to bring back all the many things that had been lost.

[August]

The problem with the Catholic reading of the verse is, Peter DID fall! He denied Christ 3 times at the crucifixion.

He never said that Peter would never fall, he said the Church will never fall.

[August]

Pope Benedict recently came out with a statement on what is determined to be the true Christian Church. He enumerated it to be both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. If that is the case, then we have an issue of whether we should be following the Pope or the Patriarch! Who has the true authority? If both do, why have a division? Isn't this totally opposite what Paul taught in Ephesians 4:11-14?

The Catholic Church is the one, true Church, the Orthodox are schismatic. What Benedict is saying here is that the only Christian Churches are the Catholic and Orthodox, based on our definition of a Church, which requires valid sacraments. Other groups and communities may have Christians, and much Christian truth in them, but they are not Churches of Christ. The Orthodox have valid sacraments, hence they're a true Church in that sense.

[rameumptom]

That is one interpretation.

18 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.

Does the word "it" mean Church or rock? If Peter is the rock, and he fails, then does the church fail also? Yes.

If the rock is revelation, and the people continue in accepting revelation, does the Church fall? No. However, when the people reject revelation, they are no longer built upon the foundation of revelation, and so the Church fails.

Either way, there is a failure to maintain the rock foundation, or to build upon the rock foundation.

[August]

Changes occurred that greatly changed the early church's belief system. Concepts such as indulgences, inquisition, Trinity, Jesus' duality, etc., were political decisions, not revelation. Origen taught that Jesus was a god, subordinate to the Father. He was an early Christian apologist and hero. Two centuries later, St Augustine renounced him as a heretic, because his teachings didn't reflect the Trinity!

Many ancient teachings were lost, which we are only now rediscovering in the early manuscripts and writings: pre-mortal existence of man, anthropomorphism of God, the Divine Council in heaven, importance of continued revelation, man being of the same substance as God, etc.

Do you have sources on this? I'd be interested in reading about it. No one's saying there were no people who believed eroneous things, several of the New Testement letters are written to correct errors.

[rameumptom]

The Catholic Church is the one, true Church, the Orthodox are schismatic. What Benedict is saying here is that the only Christian Churches are the Catholic and Orthodox, based on our definition of a Church, which requires valid sacraments. Other groups and communities may have Christians, and much Christian truth in them, but they are not Churches of Christ. The Orthodox have valid sacraments, hence they're a true Church in that sense.

But what does that mean? True Church implies God recognizes fully the authority of that church, right?

Therefore the RCC and EOC both have authority. It means that the Pope is not the only vicar of Christ. It means that the RCC insistence that the Pope's authority goes back to Peter is no more valid than the Patriarch's claim to authority.

Yet, their beliefs vary immensely. One believes in icons, the other does not. One had a history of indulgences and inquisition, the other did not. One teaches the preeminence of the Pope, the other does not.

You still haven't answered the question of how we can have dual true churches and still match up with Paul's insistence that the Church be built upon prophets and apostles, etc., until we come to the unity of the faith.

[August]

But what does that mean? True Church implies God recognizes fully the authority of that church, right?

Therefore the RCC and EOC both have authority. It means that the Pope is not the only vicar of Christ. It means that the RCC insistence that the Pope's authority goes back to Peter is no more valid than the Patriarch's claim to authority.

Yet, their beliefs vary immensely. One believes in icons, the other does not. One had a history of indulgences and inquisition, the other did not. One teaches the preeminence of the Pope, the other does not.

You still haven't answered the question of how we can have dual true churches and still match up with Paul's insistence that the Church be built upon prophets and apostles, etc., until we come to the unity of the faith.

I suppose what I mean is that the Orthodox Church is the only other Church that has any authority. The Orthodox Church has apostolic sucession. If you aren't familiar with that term, it means basically that the apostles taught new priests who taught new priests so on and so forth up to the present. The Orthodox and Catholic priesthoods streach back to the beginning, no one else can say that.

[rameumptom]

I agree that no one else can claim apostolic succession as the RCC and EOC can. Unless, of course, one discusses a Restoration of that authority, as does Joseph Smith.

To have had John the Baptist, and then Peter, James and John ordain him and Oliver Cowdery to the priesthood authority; and then to receive priesthood keys of responsibility later from Moses, Elijah, Elias and others, stands as the alternative.

[Guest ceeboo]

That is one interpretation.

18 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.

Does the word "it" mean Church or rock? If Peter is the rock, and he fails, then does the church fail also? Yes.

If the rock is revelation, and the people continue in accepting revelation, does the Church fall? No. However, when the people reject revelation, they are no longer built upon the foundation of revelation, and so the Church fails.

Either way, there is a failure to maintain the rock foundation, or to build upon the rock foundation.

Hello ram,

Wow, if I only had about 13 hours to offer several different perspectives concerning your last several posts " opinions " of interpreting scripture and such.

I will offer a few for your consideration.

The scripture references you provide as " falling away " are very clear and I also adhere to the warning of Christ in this regard. What is enormously different is that none of the warnings " apostasy " you qoute ever even hints at a " total " or " great apostasy " that IMHO would be required for a need of restoration to take place. In addition, the scripture you quote also says that this " great apostasy " will take place at end times when Jesus returns, I certainly do not think that " end times " is somewhere around the supposed death of the first 12 apostles that LDS claim ( or approx 200 ad )??

The Rock ( I know LDS believe that means revelation ) is an authority that Jesus ( God )

left for ALL and promised us ALL that it would never fall till the very end. He ( Jesus ) also promised us ALL that he would always be with us. The Church that he ( God himself ) was talking about had IMHO nothing to do with Peter's fall, my fall, your fall, or any of mere man's fall, IT WAS THAT HIS BODY OF CHRIST " THE CHRIST FOLLOWERS WOULD STAND TO THE VERY END".

The word " it " means Christ's Church, Christ's followers, Christ's promise, and IMHO certainly does not mean Billybob, John Doe, nor revelation.

BTW, Revelation " from the OT " was completly fullfilled with the very words from God's own mouth as he came, taught, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for us ALL, his children he so loves.

" failure to maintain or bulid upon the rock foundation ":confused:

How does one ( man ) build upon, maintain, or even change the very Body od Christ that he left us. IMHO, that is the height of arrogance.

Although I have lots more to share with you my friend ram, I will stop for now as to allow others or you to share also.:)

God bless,

Carl

Edited September 19, 2008 by ceeboo

[Hemidakota]

He never said that Peter would never fall, he said the Church will never fall.

I will remind all, Peter did not received the required confirmation from the Holy Ghost when he denied the Christ. Read the excepts from President Spencer W. Kimball concerning Peter.

[Hemidakota]

Hello ram,

The Rock ( I know LDS believe that means revelation ) is an authority that Jesus ( God )

left for ALL and promised us ALL that it would never fall till the very end. He ( Jesus ) also promised us ALL that he would always be with us. The Church that he ( God himself ) was talking about had IMHO nothing to do with Peter's fall, my fall, your fall, or any of mere man's fall, IT WAS THAT HIS BODY OF CHRIST " THE CHRIST FOLLOWERS WOULD STAND TO THE VERY END".

The word " it " means Christ's Church, Christ's followers, Christ's promise, and IMHO certainly does not mean Peter, Billybob, John Doe, nor revelation.

God bless,

Carl

Carl, the current protestant view cannot be correct in this case, that the "rock" you are referring too, the church would be built was the Christ himself. Carl, we do know the Christ being the foundation, center, and circumference as to the whole gospel scheme of things; then the notion that we must affirm that Jesus must here be referred to in this Matthew passage in order to hold his place as the foundation of the whole gospel scheme, as held by Luther, will disappear.

For any other church claim that Jesus is the "rock" referred to in the Book of Matthew 16, would not be correct interruptation, unless we could be assured, as the case requires, that as Jesus said "on this rock I will build my church", He pointed to, or in some way indicated himself. There is nothing in all the circumstances that gives the necessary evidence that this was done, or that it was the Christ's meaning.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi August! Just wanted to let you know that you rock. I have a great respect for anyone with questions, to actually go ask members of that faith for answers, instead of just reading critical materials on it.

What makes you believe that a "great apostacy" occured? What evidence, historical or otherwise, do you cite to prove that early Christians diverted from the teachings of the apostles?

The general concept of a great apostacy is enshrined in the Bible.

2 Thessalonians 2: 1-3 is talking about the 2nd coming "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..."

Here are other scriptures that allude to a post-resurrection, pre-2nd coming apostacy:

Isa. 24: 5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

Isa. 29: 13 this people draw near me with their mouth.

Isa. 60: 2 darkness shall cover the earth.

Amos 8: 11 a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord.

Matt. 13: 25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat.

Matt. 24: 5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.

Matt. 24: 24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets.

John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.

1 Cor. 11: 18 there be divisions among you.

Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him.

Gal. 3: 1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.

2 Thes. 2: 3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first.

1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.

1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.

2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.

2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.

2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.

2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.

Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.

James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.

2 Pet. 2: 1 false prophets also among the people.

2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.

1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.

1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.

Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.

Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.

Rev. 13: 7 to make war with the saints.

There seems to be plenty of Biblical precidence for the notion. And, since we mormons believe Jesus himself came down and told Joseph Smith face to face that it happened, it's sort of a foundational belief of ours.

LM

[Guest ceeboo]

Carl, the current protestant view cannot be correct in this case, that the "rock" you are referring too, the church would be built was the Christ himself. Carl, we do know the Christ being the foundation, center, and circumference as to the whole gospel scheme of things; then the notion that we must affirm that Jesus must here be referred to in this Matthew passage in order to hold his place as the foundation of the whole gospel scheme, as held by Luther, will disappear.

For any other church claim that Jesus is the "rock" referred to in the Book of Matthew 16, would not be correct interruptation, unless we could be assured, as the case requires, that as Jesus said "on this rock I will build my church", He pointed to, or in some way indicated himself. There is nothing in all the circumstances that gives the necessary evidence that this was done, or that it was the Christ's meaning.

Hello Hemi,

I think this was my bad ( I have reread my post ) I did not ( sorry and I thank you for pointing it out ) give NEARLY enough weight to the AUTHORITY JESUS himself gave to Peter ( Keys ). To be clear, I absolutely believe the apostolic succession has indeed been in place and has been protected by Jesus ( God ) as to the validity and authenticity of this very Church he left us ALL, and will stay that way until the very end, as HE PROMISED ( not because of some early Christian leaders or such)

God bless,

Carl

[Hemidakota]

No problem Carl.

Others who are LDS members, there are various meanings to this term from the biblical NT, BoM, and the D&C. Listen to what the Prophet Joseph Smith said:

John was a priest after the order of Aaron, and he held keys of the priesthood, and came forth preaching repentance and baptism, for the remission of sins, but at the same time cries out, "There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose," and Christ came according to the words of John, and he was greater than John, because he held the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood and kingdom of God, and had before revealed the priesthood to Moses; yet Christ was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness; and Jesus in his teaching says: "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." What rock? Revelation.(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 273-74. )

Members of the Church should not spend their time in argument over this passage; nor should there arise misunderstandings. In the Doctrine and Covenants we find passages in which the term "rock" refers definitely to revelation, also to the Church and to Jesus Christ. In the Book of Mormon and the Bible like passages are found. Here are a few examples:

Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.(D. & C. 6:34. See Ibid., 10:69; 33:13; and 3 Nephi 11:39. )

It appears clear that this passage refers to revelation. In the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 50:44, the rock refers to Christ, "the stone of Israel." In the Book of Mormon are several passages that clearly refer to Jesus and others that refer to revelation and the gospel; for instance, consider these:

And in them [Nephite records] shall be written my gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock [revelation] and my salvation.(1 Nephi 13:36.)

And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their rock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?(Ibid., 15:15.)

Rejoice, O my heart, and cry unto the Lord, and say: O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation.(2 Nephi 4:30. Compare Helaman 5:12.)

From these passages we see that the "rock" is used variously: in reference to the gospel, revelation, and Jesus Christ. When we get this clearly in our minds and have the spirit of discernment so we can understand the passages in which this term is used, there should be no conflict as to the correct meaning by members of the Church.

[rameumptom]

Perhaps a key scripture that suggests a great apostasy would be one that prophesies of a restoration?

Acts 3

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

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

IOW, Christ will not come for his Second Coming until after the "times of restitution of all things". This denotes a restoration, as restore and restitute mean the same thing. Why would God have to restore/restitute "all things" if they are already upon the earth?

Another verse on restoration of the gospel is in Revelation 14:6:

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

So, before the Babylon of the last days falls, an angel will come forth preaching the everlasting gospel to all the earth. Why do this, if the earth already has the everlasting gospel?

While you may not agree, there clearly are verses that preach an apostasy AND a restoration in the gospel. Now, whether you wish to interpret these as we do, or in another way is up to you. All we can do is show you how the Bible can be read to show there was an apostasy and a restoration. I believe we have successfully shown that the Bible can be read in this way.

You can dispute our interpretation, and you are welcome to do so. But that wasn't your point on this thread. You did not ask us to prove the apostasy, just show where it is predicted.

[rameumptom]

Hello ram,

The Rock ( I know LDS believe that means revelation ) is an authority that Jesus ( God )

left for ALL and promised us ALL that it would never fall till the very end. He ( Jesus ) also promised us ALL that he would always be with us. The Church that he ( God himself ) was talking about had IMHO nothing to do with Peter's fall, my fall, your fall, or any of mere man's fall, IT WAS THAT HIS BODY OF CHRIST " THE CHRIST FOLLOWERS WOULD STAND TO THE VERY END".

The word " it " means Christ's Church, Christ's followers, Christ's promise, and IMHO certainly does not mean Billybob, John Doe, nor revelation.

BTW, Revelation " from the OT " was completly fullfilled with the very words from God's own mouth as he came, taught, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for us ALL, his children he so loves.

" failure to maintain or bulid upon the rock foundation ":confused:

How does one ( man ) build upon, maintain, or even change the very Body od Christ that he left us. IMHO, that is the height of arrogance.

Although I have lots more to share with you my friend ram, I will stop for now as to allow others or you to share also.:)

God bless,

Carl

There are apostasies that occurred in the Bible before. Noah's day was full of apostates that rejected the living prophet of the day. Moses had his share of apostates to deal with. Isaiah was slain by apostates. Elijah went into hiding because the apostates ran the country. Even Jesus was slain by apostates.

Why should you be surprised that apostasy didn't occur again, especially after all the verses showing apostasy occurring?

Paul taught that the foundation of the Church are "apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:19). If Jesus is referencing a "rock", it isn't the membership or body of Christ. The membership are the Church that is situated ON the rock.

But the rock or foundation is prophets and apostles and Christ. How does that work? Revelation. Christ, as the cornerstone, reveals his secrets through his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7) and apostles. That is how this foundation/rock works. Nowhere does it state that the membership is any part of the rock. Nowhere does it state that anyone other than a prophet or apostle is part of the foundation or rock.

Christ builds upon the rock by giving revelation to his apostles and prophets. That is not arrogance as you claim. It is the pattern God has given for building his Church ever since Adam. Christ warned that true shepherds come in through the gate. Anyone coming in from any other way is a thief. I've shown the pattern God has always used and uses today. The concept of apostles and prophets outlived Paul, as the apostle John continued leading the Church (not a Pope Linus or Clement) through the first century AD.

John prophesied of prophets in the last days receiving revelation (Rev 11). Why would we have prophets for thousands of years, stop for two thousand years, and then have prophets again prior to the 2nd Coming? The Protestant and Catholic responses cannot easily answer this question. Only the LDS view of Restoration can explain it.

If prophets were no longer needed, then John was wrong, and that makes the Bible false. But if John was correct, then prophets will be needed even to the end of the world. And that places any other interpretation in serious jeopardy.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Thanks to everyone who's been responding to my thread about multiple gods, very informative.

Here's my next one. What makes you believe that a "great apostacy" occured? What evidence, historical or otherwise, do you cite to prove that early Christians diverted from the teachings of the apostles? How do you explain this verse, which Catholics such as myself cite to show that our Church will never fall into error. Matthew 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (New American Bible) Once again, just looking for your perspectives, thanks.

As I see it, God puts symbols within symbols within symbols. For instance, as Christ was baptized, so should we be baptized. We believe that the earth is a living thing, and it was baptized by water during the flood of Noah and will be baptized by fire when Christ returns.

So it is with the Church. As Christ died and was resurrected, so will we be. The same can be said of the church. It died and was restored, or resurected if you will. In that sense the gates of hades (As it is in Greek) did not prevail against it, as they didn't prevail against Christ. Death had a temporal victory against Jesus and the Church, but ultimately total victory and triumph belongs to Heavenly Father and his Son.

[Guest ceeboo]

There are apostasies that occurred in the Bible before. Noah's day was full of apostates that rejected the living prophet of the day. Moses had his share of apostates to deal with. Isaiah was slain by apostates. Elijah went into hiding because the apostates ran the country. Even Jesus was slain by apostates.

Why should you be surprised that apostasy didn't occur again, especially after all the verses showing apostasy occurring?

Paul taught that the foundation of the Church are "apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:19). If Jesus is referencing a "rock", it isn't the membership or body of Christ. The membership are the Church that is situated ON the rock.

But the rock or foundation is prophets and apostles and Christ. How does that work? Revelation. Christ, as the cornerstone, reveals his secrets through his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7) and apostles. That is how this foundation/rock works. Nowhere does it state that the membership is any part of the rock. Nowhere does it state that anyone other than a prophet or apostle is part of the foundation or rock.

Christ builds upon the rock by giving revelation to his apostles and prophets. That is not arrogance as you claim. It is the pattern God has given for building his Church ever since Adam. Christ warned that true shepherds come in through the gate. Anyone coming in from any other way is a thief. I've shown the pattern God has always used and uses today. The concept of apostles and prophets outlived Paul, as the apostle John continued leading the Church (not a Pope Linus or Clement) through the first century AD.

John prophesied of prophets in the last days receiving revelation (Rev 11). Why would we have prophets for thousands of years, stop for two thousand years, and then have prophets again prior to the 2nd Coming? The Protestant and Catholic responses cannot easily answer this question. Only the LDS view of Restoration can explain it.

If prophets were no longer needed, then John was wrong, and that makes the Bible false. But if John was correct, then prophets will be needed even to the end of the world. And that places any other interpretation in serious jeopardy.

Hello my friend ram,

First, I DO believe apostasy occured in the past, does today, and will continue to occur in the future. This ( I think we are in agreement on :)).What I do not agree with and would offer that you can not find in scripture is a Total or Great apostsay ( lights out ) ( Christ's Church gone ) ( We have been orphans for 1700 years until JS ) That is not only, IMHO, more than far fetched but would leave no other possible conclusion than Jesus did not keep his promise that " IT WILL PREVAIL UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD ". I do know the reasons why LDS MUST claim " complete apostasy ".

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on several interpretations of the Scripture and will extend a hand of appreciation for you sharing yours.:) But will offer just a few for your consideration.

Matt 28:20 " Behold I will be with you always, until the end of the world "

John 14:16 " The Father will give you another advocate to be with you always "

1Tim 3:15 Describes Jesus' Church as " The household of God ", " The Pillar and foundation of truth "

Mormons believe that the LDS Church is the same one that Jesus established in Palestine BEFORE CLAIMED TOTAL FALL, right? If so, why are there no mention of this great apostasy " FALL" by any of the nemerous early Church writers. Why, also, is there no mention of any of the " LDS " teachings on things like " nature of God given by men like JS, Snow, and others. It is also interesting to me that there doesn't seem to be any early Church writters that even mention ever hearing of a Mormon or what one is. The earliest history of the word Mormon is 1820, NO ???.

Not sure if I understood your " prophets " point. I will suggest that IMHO, The end of Prophets ( in the sense that they were used in OT to speak to us for God ) was ended by the very God that spoke for himself to us on this earth about 2000 years ago.

At any rate, I do appreciate the sharing of thoughts with you:)

God bless,

Carl

[rameumptom]

Okay. Let's discuss what we mean by Great Apostasy.

We do not mean that no truth or goodness or faith in Christ occurred during that period of time. There was quite a bit. We believe that each person receives as much light and truth as they are ready and willing to receive.

We do believe, as it teaches in the book of Mormon that much truth remained, but many plain and precious truths were lost, and were in need of restoration. This included ancient doctrines, priesthood authority and keys that were lost, etc.

Does any of this mean there is absolutely no priesthood authority in other religions? No. It does mean that much of the authority and power were lost over the years. Why are there no prophets or apostles leading the key religions today? Why are ancient ordinances such as baptism for the dead (still in the Eastern Orthodox teachings, but not actively taught today) not performed?

Just as the Jews of Jesus' day still had much of the truth, but were missing key teachings and authority, so we believe much has been lost that God desired to restore.

In D&C 1, it tells us that the LDS Church is the "only true and living church upon the face of the earth, with which, I the Lord, am fully pleased." This denotes that there may be other true churches on the earth, but God is not as pleased with them for having lost the plain and precious things.

For this reason, a restoration is important. Not to take away from the good in other religions, but to add greater things with which to bless mankind.

[rameumptom]

Hello my friend ram,

Mormons believe that the LDS Church is the same one that Jesus established in Palestine BEFORE CLAIMED TOTAL FALL, right? If so, why are there no mention of this great apostasy " FALL" by any of the nemerous early Church writers. Why, also, is there no mention of any of the " LDS " teachings on things like " nature of God given by men like JS, Snow, and others. It is also interesting to me that there doesn't seem to be any early Church writters that even mention ever hearing of a Mormon or what one is. The earliest history of the word Mormon is 1820, NO ???.

Not sure if I understood your " prophets " point. I will suggest that IMHO, The end of Prophets ( in the sense that they were used in OT to speak to us for God ) was ended by the very God that spoke for himself to us on this earth about 2000 years ago.

At any rate, I do appreciate the sharing of thoughts with you:)

God bless,

Carl

Joseph Smith's First Vision has Jesus warning him not to join any church because their "creeds were an abomination" to God.

Wilford Woodruff, an early Church writer wrote:

Let [any] man use [the] priesthood for any other purpose than the building up of the kingdom of God, … and the heavens withdraw themselves, the power of the priesthood departs, and he is left to walk in darkness and not in light, and this is the key to apostasy of all men whether in this generation or any other.

Orson Pratt Pratt also said:

"This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (Journal of Discourses, vol.18, p.44)

Clearly there were early belief that key teachings were lost. In fact, the Reformed Baptist movement that Alexander Campbell began in Kirtland, Ohio was based on the view that God would have to send new apostles and prophets, with the accompanying revelation and gifts of the Spirit. When LDS missionaries showed up, most of his congregations converted to Mormonism, including Parley P. Pratt and Sidney Rigdon. He refused to join, because he wanted to be signed on as a top leader/apostle. Joseph Smith refused it to him, saying that God calls people to positions of authority, it wasn't a political appointment. Campbell left the area and began the Church of Christ movement, which rejects the gifts of the Spirit and modern revelation and miracles.

BTW, there wasn't an "end to the prophets" though. Prophets continued AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ (see Agabus in the book of Acts, for instance). And remember, John prophesies that there will be prophets on earth in the last days.