An Internet-age parable of the Restoration

[spamlds]

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.

[Jungler]

I've heard quite a few Mormons describe the apostasy, but I don't see how they match Biblical principles. If the main reason the apostasy happened was because the apostles were murdered, what was God doing in that? Was He unable to protect the apostles or did He decide to let them die? Paul survived many close calls in Acts, so why wouldn't God keep protecting them?

I'm going through Judges right now in my bible study group and it shows a very different picture off how God protects and leads His people even when they repeatedly walk away from Him. In Gideon's story, God made it very clear the glory of the victory belongs to Him. So why would God wait 1600+ years and use very human means to restore the Gospel?

In Samson's story, Israel almost ceased to exist completely because they were willingly being absorbed into a pagan nation. Samson was a violent, drunk sex addict, but God worked through Him any way to preserve His people.

So how can I trust someone who says God took the Gospel away from the early church even though some people still sincerely wanted to follow God? That doesn't sound like the God revealed in the Old Testament.

[spamlds]

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.

[Jungler]

No one is denying the fact that false teachings were a problem in the early church. But just because false teachings existed doesn't mean everyone believed them. So why would God take away fundamental parts of the church from believers who still believed in the true Gospel just because others were following false teachings?

 

I'm not offended by the teaching of the apostasy. I'm saying it doesn't match biblical principles. It's not how the God of the Old Testament behaved.

 

Have you actually read a Protestant interpretation of Matt 16? Here's a good explanation that doesn't gloss over it: http://www.gotquestions.org/keys-of-the-kingdom.html

 

I don't see how that addresses the issue of the deaths of the apostles. If a continuing apostleship is so important to the church, why didn't God protect the apostles better? Was He unable to protect them or did he decide to let them die?

 

What about the many Old Testament examples of how God leads and protects His people even when they repeatedly walk away from Him? God made it very clear to Gideon that the glory belongs to God, not human efforts (Judges 7:2). So why would God wait 1700 years and use human efforts to prepare for the restoration of the Gospel?

 

Jephthah, God's chosen leader at the time, offered his only daughter as a burnt offering to please God, and the rest of Israel didn't seem to have a problem with it (Judges 11:30-40). But God didn't take away the priesthood from them.

 

Samson was morally and spiritually corrupt. He showed no interest in following God. The only time he prayed was when he was in trouble (Judges 13-16). If God worked through someone that bad to preserve His people, why wouldn't He work through someone in the early church to preserve it?

 

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.

Israel was "overwhelmed" by the same forces in the Old Testament, but God still faithfully preserved them even when they weren't asking to be preserved. Why would the early church be any different? 

[faith4]

Gee, I wonder why Christians could possibly be offended, when you so nicely lay it out for us as evil system hackers taking over and refusing all "broadcasts" from God, exploiting innocent people, lying, deceiving, hating, and continuing by appealing to vices.  That's not offensive at all...

 

Good to know all those "hackers" were persecuted and killed in a myriad of horrific ways, such as lit on fire to provide light for the games, fed to lions, roasted alive, gutted, strangled, crucified, squished, limbs chopped off...and none would give up their faith in Jesus.  They would rather die for Jesus than worship the emperor or other pagan gods.  Interesting they would die for a hacked up lie.  Interesting that God allowed this faith (sorry, this terrible terrible deception!!!) to spread to every tongue, nation and tribe teaching people to pray and have hope (gasp!!), open hospitals and orphanages (oh, the horror!!), begin universities (what?!  Education?!? Eviiiiilll!!!!), preserve historical writings and documents from invaders (I may just pass out), compile the Scriptures into the Bible (this is just too much for me) and tons and tons of other terrible things hidden behind acts of kindness, courage, charity, love and faith. (What was Mother Theresa really doing?!  And all the thousands and thousands of other Saints who "cared" and "loved" the "least of these"?! )

 

Interesting that God not only allowed this to spread, but let it be believed and taught that He is all-merciful and all-loving.  That He allowed Satan to take over and parade around for 1800 years, that's one thousand, eight hundred years, before finally coming to our rescue and doing a lil damage control, you know, right before the Second Coming and all, when Jesus comes as the Just Judge and expects us to answer for ourselves.  Intersting that He would allow for the martyrdom of millions of people who die with Jesus' name on their lips and in their heart, but who apparently died believing in the wrong God.   That He would give these people hope when apparently it had been snatched away for the time being...you know...until now when a distant, distant, distant, distant, distant relative could finally find their name and baptise them by proxy.  Because, you know, their faith and love for God, the atonement of Christ, wasn't good yet until they were baptised (properly) hundreds (or thousands) of years later.  And silly me, I thought all we needed was Jesus!  That Jesus had provided for humanity!  That God and his vast love could not be overcome so fast and so easily by puny and sinful men!  That Gods love was enough and He would protect us like He promised!  Sorry for the sarcastic tone, it kinda snuck in there...you know, like those evil hackers!

 

"In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world"  Jn. 16:33 

 

"I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you"  Jn. 14:18.

 

"I [Jesus] gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.  I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.  They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.  Consecrate them in the truth.  Your word is truth.  As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.  And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.  I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me."  Jn 17:14-21. 

 

I guess Jesus concescrating Himself for them and those who will hear them, means nothing after all. 

 

But, "Love never fails."  1 Cor. 13:8. 

 

My God, my Savior, my Redeemer, my Rock and Fortress, the Great I AM, my everything, has never failed me. 

 

God bless to you spamlds, you are now in my prayers!  Please pray for me as well :)

[spamlds]

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.

[iguy2314]

Oh, of course, I forgot to see Revelation 12:5.

[Just_A_Guy]

Faith4, with all due respect, a Catholic--of all people--should understand that throughout history people have been willing to die for a brand of Christianity that others might deem "heretical". And you are too sophisticated a theologian to fall for the "whatever church gets more members/builds more schools and hospitals, is the true and infallible church" line of reasoning, to say nothing of the "nothing really bad can happen to a true believer" schtick.

You seem to argue that God would prevent such a dire state of apostasy. Our testimony, as Mormons, is that while He allowed humans the latitude to create such a state--He also prepared the requisite means to fix it.

[faith4]

Faith4, with all due respect, a Catholic--of all people--should understand that throughout history people have been willing to die for a brand of Christianity that others might deem "heretical". And you are too sophisticated a theologian to fall for the "whatever church gets more members/builds more schools and hospitals, is the true and infallible church" line of reasoning, to say nothing of the "nothing really bad can happen to a true believer" schtick.

You seem to argue that God would prevent such a dire state of apostasy. Our testimony, as Mormons, is that while He allowed humans the latitude to create such a state--He also prepared the requisite means to fix it.

 

My sacracstic reply was in direct response to spams extremely offensive "parable". 

 

Shall we review?

 

"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...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...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... the hackers continued their attacks...In other cases, they were able to turn converts away, back to their old, corrupt system because of peer pressure, tradition, or coercion...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....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,"   

 

Does it look like spam was willing to conced that any good was possible in all this?  No.  He just wants to make my faith look as evil as possible.  And you're right, I'm not going to use the "whoever has more members is the true and infallible church" line of reasoning, that was not the point.  My point was to highlight spams absurd "parable" & his complete lack of any respect for non-LDS Christians, who he deems either ignorant or too vain or proud to convert.  And btw, every Christian, through every century, has been able to access the "System Administrator", nothing has ever blocked him/her from prayer and the love of God.      

 

And yes, I would argue that God would prevent such a dire TOTAL apostasy.  After all, I am Catholic, not b/c I'm lazy, ignorant our proud like Spam would like for everyone to believe, but b/c I have received a testimony, after much prayer and fasting to the "System Administrator". 

 

But if this is how spam is showing how the Holy Ghost has affected his life, he's doing a pretty terrible job of witnessing this to me.   "This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Jn 13:35.  I have been thoroughly enjoying my time on this forum learning about your faith from those who are devout, but his posts on this forum have been a huge turn-off.  I will quietly remain on this forum anyway, since I know who is credible, and who is not.  JAG I have always enjoyed your posts, thank you for being respectful.    

[Just_A_Guy]

I'll defer to Spam to defend or amend his parable (and the concomitant verbiage) as he deems appropriate. It strikes me that it would have been worth pointing out that, in the parable, as far as the end-user was concerned, the system still worked--just not as well as it could have been working, and no longer in a manner that allowed the Administrator the type and degree of control that He was entitled to, and originally did, exercise.

Naturally, Catholics will still see that as incredibly patronizing. I don't know how to make things more civil, though--any apologia for any religion is eventually going to boil down to "we are right, and those who don't agree with us are wrong". We can (and, I hasten to add, should!) couch the assertion as carefully as possible, but ultimately--it's not polite, it's not nice, and given that we all internalize our religions so much--it can't help but be at least a little disrespectful on a personal level.

[spamlds]

I understand the sensitivity of our discussion.  Because people internalize and personalize their faith, they take it as a personal affront when Mormons teach the First Vision.  It makes us seem unyielding and inflexible.  On the Internet, where there is no tone of voice or nonverbal communication, things can seem to be insulting which are not meant to be.

 

Nowhere along the way in these discussions did I say anything derogatory about Faith4's person.  I have been talking about doctrine and history.  No offense has been intended at any time.

 

Let's think for a moment, because when you look at it, Mormons are in the same exact situation as our former-day saints in the First Century vis-a-vis an established "orthodoxy," for lack of a better term.  Let's compare the situations.

 

During the Babylonian captivity, the Sanhedrin was formed to preserve Judaism.  Why did Israel go into captivity?  Because the people rejected the prophets like Jeremiah.  Since God had withdrawn prophets from them, they became dependent upon the written word.  Their job became to maintain Mosaic teachings, culture, and tradition no matter what.

 

When the Jews finally returned to their ancestral lands, the Sandhedrin still worked to preserve Jewish religion.  When John the Baptist came along, they regarded him with suspicion.  Because they were so focused on "the Book," most of them would not accept a true prophet who stood among them.  When Jesus showed up, now they had another "prophet" to deal with.  They rejected him even though he did miracles in front of them.  They searched their scriptures to find ways to trip up and defeat this supposed pretender.  They dreamed up stratagems to lure Jesus into tripping over his words or contradicting himself.

 

Jesus was inflexible with them.  He said, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).  He called them hypocrites and vipers.  He wasn't very nice to them.  He wouldn't even speak to Herod!  They took it very personally.

 

Let us compare the modern-day restoration of Jesus' Church with the situation today.  In our time, we had an established orthodoxy that tried to preserve Christian teaching, just like the Pharisees and the scribes did.  They became totally reliant upon the written word of God because their creeds shut them off from asking for revelation.  Yet when real, legitimate, keys-of-the-kingdom-holding apostles came among them again, the protectors of religious orthodoxy reacted just like the Pharisees did.  They persecuted them.  They spread falsehoods about them.  And they ended up killing the Prophet that God had sent.  They also killed two apostles of Jesus, Parley Pratt and David Patten.

 

As I have taught the gospel in meekness through the years, I've been physically assaulted, spat upon, roughed up, and had a Baptist deacon chase me across his lawn with a shovel in his hand.  Our missionaries get accosted by various religious zealots around this country and around the world.  We get called the same names that they called Jesus and the apostles of old.  We are told we do miracles by the power of Beelzebub, just like they said of Jesus.  Our churches and temples have been targets of arson and vandalism.  Yet we've done nothing but preach the gospel with meekness.  It's the message we bring that elicits that reaction from them.  It has nothing to do with us as individuals, thus we take no personal offense at those things.  

 

It seems a strange thing to me that non-LDS people would join an LDS forum for the purpose of telling us our doctrine is wrong, and then they claim to be offended when we defend the doctrines they question.  Does it not seem offensive that they, by their words and actions, imply that we are ignorant, deceived, or deceivers?

[faith4]

See, spam, it's the rewriting of history that I don't like.  You're not only unfamiliar with my Church's history, but you're apparently unfamiliar with your own as well.  Why did the Baptist minister chase with you off his lawn with a shovel? I have a hard time believing it was b/c you were being meek and kind.  Perhaps I'm having trouble finding any brotherly love and kindness in your posts online, b/c this is a forum and we can't speak face to face, I understand that.  That's why I've always given the benefit of the doubt to other posters online, especially on a site like this where I already know your beliefs don't line up with mine.  But if you've had this much trouble w/people of other faiths, then it makes me wonder if perhaps you just don't know how to witness your beliefs, which then makes me wonder if you've ever felt the Holy Spirit after all.  All of my LDS neighbors and friends, have done a much better job than you have in the witnessing department, I have no problems with them whatsoever, and they have no problems with me and my family.  And I have found that most posters here also do a fine job giving balanced arguments, which are well thought out and yet respectful.  The discussions here are usually very interesting and thought-provoking.  Go back and read JAG's posts on this thread, I find nothing disrespectful in his tone at all.  He can disagree with my beliefs, and admit that this is a tough one, but he's not patronizing me.  

 

As for persecution, my Catholic brothers and sisters are being martyred right now, as we speak, in the middle east.  They're being thrown out of their homes and robbed.  Forced to convert, be exiled or executed.  In fact, my Christian brothers and sisters have been continually martryed these past 2000 years in one place or another, for our beliefs (and I speak of not just Catholics, but other Christians as well).  Persecution is nothing new for us, you speak about it as if you are the only ones who have ever been persecuted or called names.  We've got about 1800 years worth of persecution on you, and I'm expecting it to turn even uglier on Catholics in this country within the next few years.  Jesus told us to expect persecution, and that's what we've been given, I have no fear of this or what's coming.  

 

So keep on posting, I'll keep on my rolling my eyes at your version of "history" & tolerate it (maybe) b/c I already know that God is not just my judge, but yours as well.  I only wish the best for you, and all others on this forum :) 

 

I will pray for you, please pray for me!