Interesting Question about Apostasy

[lds9999]

Most the comments/questions I see on Youtube (where I spend most my online time related to the Church) are fairly basic and ones that I've seen repeatedly. I would be interested in people's thoughts/responses to this comment about the apostasy:

Another problem with the LDS claim of a total apostasy is their own teaching that John, one of Christ's twelve apostles, did not die (see D&C 7:1-3) but was to remain on the earth to "prophesy before nations." Besides John, three of the twelve disciples in the Book of Mormon were granted their desire to remain on earth, to "bring the souls of men unto me," until Christ's return (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 28:6-9) With four apostles remaining on the earth, how could there have been a total apostasy?

[BenRaines]

Well I for one haven't seen them around so that is enough for me.

On the serious side the Apostasy was the falling away of The Church, meaning the established organization with the saving ordinances. John and the Three Nephites are not out there baptizing and doing temple work during those "Dark Ages".

Ben Raines

[MarginOfError]

The fact that John was alive was exactly where the LDS claim to Apostasy originates. The bishops of Rome were claiming leadership over the Church before John had even written the Revelation or his Gospel. The churches grew up having usurped the proper authority of God.

[TheMightyQuinn]

With four apostles remaining on the earth, how could there have been a total apostasy?

The problem is the word "total". The question should read:

With four apostles remaining on the earth, how could there have been an apostasy?

Now it should be obvious how silly that question.

[Guest ceeboo]

Apostasy question

NOOOOOO WAY,:)

NOT CEEBOO:)

NOT CARL:)

NOT A CHANCE I AM POSTING ANYTHING ABOUT APOSTASY, NOPE :)

GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS YOU ALL:)

[Traveler]

Jesus told the Jews in John chapter 8 that those that are in apostasy and choose Satan as their father will do his will. He points out that the primary will of Satan is to murder (See John 8:44). How can anyone say there was no apostasy when there was no law in any Christian society until 1649 that outlawed and prevented the murder of someone for not believing in the predominate Christian sect of that society and it was 1829 before there was a law that outlawed and prevented the murder of someone for not being a Trinitarian.

The Traveler

[abqfriend]

Interesting post--do you have a neutral link for your source?

You infer that all Jews, Budhists, Hindu, Muslims could be be killed without fault before 1829.

-Carol

Jesus told the Jews in John chapter 8 that those that are in apostasy and choose Satan as their father will do his will. He points out that the primary will of Satan is to murder (See John 8:44). How can anyone say there was no apostasy when there was no law in any Christian society until 1649 that outlawed and prevented the murder of someone for not believing in the predominate Christian sect of that society and it was 1829 before there was a law that outlawed and prevented the murder of someone for not being a Trinitarian.

The Traveler

[tubaloth]

To understand the apostasy you have to understood how the priesthood is given.

A man reachs the age to where he qualifies for the priesthood. An interview is given to see if the person is WORTHY of the person. The call to ordain to the priesthood is given, and accepted. Then priesthood is given by the laying on of hands.

The assumption people make is that the apostasy shouldn’t have happen because there was plenty of people to give the priesthood too. That’s not how it works.

Lets pull in a scripture here.

(Mormon 1:13-17.)

13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.

14 And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief.

15 And I, being fifteen years of age and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus.

16 And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

17 But I did remain among them, but I was forbidden to preach unto them, because of the hardness of their hearts; and because of the hardness of their hearts the land was cursed for their sake.

Once people get wicked enough, it’s the LORD that stops the church from moving forward. There is no more preaching, no more ordaining to the priesthood, because people on the earth weren’t worthy of it! Really, instead of just having a flood or destroying the earth (because people were so wicked). The Lord just stopped the preaching of his Gospel.

(Amos 8:11-12.)

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

Besides John, three of the twelve disciples in the Book of Mormon were granted their desire to remain on earth, to "bring the souls of men unto me," until Christ's return (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 28:6-9) With four apostles remaining on the earth, how could there have been a total apostasy?

The other thing to consider is that the 3 Nephites were taken from the earth in some way. The only pain the 3 Nephites would ever feel is the sins of the world. Once it go so bad, the Lord wasn’t going to have them around to feel that pain.

(Mormon 8:10.)

10 And there are none that do know the true God save it be the disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.

We don’t know if they were taken or not, but it makes sense they were.

[KTMxer_250f]

All the priesthood keys weren't on the Earth because the President of the church after Jesus died was Peter, he being the prophet, is the only one who had all the keys. So John didn't have all the keys, nor did the nephites.

[Traveler]

Interesting post--do you have a neutral link for your source?

You infer that all Jews, Budhists, Hindu, Muslims could be be killed without fault before 1829.

-Carol

This is mostly from my own studies. I would refer you to the history of Maryland - in particular St. Mary's County of the 1600's. It might interest you to observe that the law of that time was created because of the slaughter of Catholics that would not denounce their faith for having a settlement in the "New World".

Even though we had the Constitution in the USA that allowed freedom of assembly in association to religion this did not stop the plunder of Native Americans that did not adopt the Christian faith. In 1829 there was finely a law passed in the State of New York that specifically stated that a person’s life and property could not be plundered on the reasons that they did not believe in the Trinity. This law was passed because of the death and plunder of a Jewish family. It is interesting to note that even though this law was passed in New York as the “Mormons” were establishing a new religion, it did not stop the plunder of their property or the threats for their life in that state – nor did it stop the “un-Christian” treatment of Native Americans.

If you (or anyone else) can show me a published law in any Christian Society that protected the rights of individuals of other religions and such laws were documented to have existed and be utilized – I would be most interested.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

All the priesthood keys weren't on the Earth because the President of the church after Jesus died was Peter, he being the prophet, is the only one who had all the keys. So John didn't have all the keys, nor did the nephites.

Peter was put to death early in Christian history. We find in scripture that Paul (an Apostle at the time) was subordinate to James that directed the affairs of the Christians during that time period. It is believed that this particular James was not the James that was with Jesus. The point I wish to make was that there was a successor to Peter in the scriptures and he was not in Rome.

The Traveler

[abqfriend]

Please Provide your source link. I am a Catholic, and like "Mormons" we have suffered much for our faith. As our history is long-in times past we have not been as accommodating to other faith traditions where we held the majority. New York was early settled by the Dutch -then the English. Catholics were not the majority religion in early New York State.

So-Please provide your source link for what you present.

-Carol

This is mostly from my own studies. I would refer you to the history of Maryland - in particular St. Mary's County of the 1600's. It might interest you to observe that the law of that time was created because of the slaughter of Catholics that would not denounce their faith for having a settlement in the "New World".

Even though we had the Constitution in the USA that allowed freedom of assembly in association to religion this did not stop the plunder of Native Americans that did not adopt the Christian faith. In 1829 there was finely a law passed in the State of New York that specifically stated that a person’s life and property could not be plundered on the reasons that they did not believe in the Trinity. This law was passed because of the death and plunder of a Jewish family. It is interesting to note that even though this law was passed in New York as the “Mormons” were establishing a new religion, it did not stop the plunder of their property or the threats for their life in that state – nor did it stop the “un-Christian” treatment of Native Americans.

If you (or anyone else) can show me a published law in any Christian Society that protected the rights of individuals of other religions and such laws were documented to have existed and be utilized – I would be most interested.

The Traveler

[Justice]

Priesthood keys are such that one may be given the right to direct the affairs of the church in any given area. Much like when an Apostle today spilts a Stake of Zion.

Just because James was directing the affairs of the church in a particular area does not mean he was ever "prophet" or chief Apostle. I'm not saying he wasn't, because I don't know. I'm just saying what you suggest isn't proof that he was.

[Traveler]

Please Provide your source link. I am a Catholic, and like "Mormons" we have suffered much for our faith. As our history is long-in times past we have not been as accommodating to other faith traditions where we held the majority. New York was early settled by the Dutch -then the English. Catholics were not the majority religion in early New York State.

So-Please provide your source link for what you present.

-Carol

Here is the link to the toleration act of 1649 http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0859518.html

You will find that English speaking Catholics came early to the America because there was no place for them among any Christians living in Europe. In this case it was the Catholics - men, women and children that were under attack and the toleration act was the first effort I have found by any Christian society to protect a religious minority be it another Christian sect.

Again this was not Catholics in the majority but Catholics that were under attack. I will have to do some looking to find the law passed in New York to protect a minority non-Trinitarian Christian.

The problem with these laws is that there may have been something I have missed. If anyone knows of a Christian society that did indeed have law on the books to protect minority religions that were known to be used – I would like to know about it. If the link I gave is studied one will realize that despite the law there were many “Christians” willing to break such a law to behave in an very non-Christian manner.

I cannot think of any better example of apostasy from the concepts of love and compassion taught by Jesus than the lack of laws providing religious tolerance and the unwillingness to adhear to such laws when they are finely made.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Priesthood keys are such that one may be given the right to direct the affairs of the church in any given area. Much like when an Apostle today spilts a Stake of Zion.

Just because James was directing the affairs of the church in a particular area does not mean he was ever "prophet" or chief Apostle. I'm not saying he wasn't, because I don't know. I'm just saying what you suggest isn't proof that he was.

The fact the Paul was obligated to report to James and not James to report to Paul indicates that James was of greater authority than the Apostle Paul – at least at the time that both Paul and James lived and served within the early Christian church. It would appear that the opinion of some Christians of our modern era has drifted from that time.

The Traveler

[Guest tomk]

Most the comments/questions I see on Youtube (where I spend most my online time related to the Church) are fairly basic and ones that I've seen repeatedly. I would be interested in people's thoughts/responses to this comment about the apostasy:

Another problem with the LDS claim of a total apostasy is their own teaching that John, one of Christ's twelve apostles, did not die (see D&C 7:1-3) but was to remain on the earth to "prophesy before nations." Besides John, three of the twelve disciples in the Book of Mormon were granted their desire to remain on earth, to "bring the souls of men unto me," until Christ's return (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 28:6-9) With four apostles remaining on the earth, how could there have been a total apostasy?

The promise was that the priesthood would never be taken from the earth. And it wasn't.

But that does not mean the church did not apostasize and become extinct.