The Great Apostasy: A Timeline


spamlds
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. I am not keen on being called arrogant.

I don't understand. I'm just asking why you believe your church is the right one, especially when one of your central beliefs isn't taught in the Bible.

 

Now, you might ask... how does one know if anything outside of the Bible are true?  The answer is simple - it's the exact same way you figured out that the Bible is true.

Continuing revelation is one thing. I can understand the argument for teaching on new issues that didn't exist 2000 years ago. But that's very different from believing a Gospel that includes a central teaching not found in the Bible. Why would the New Testament authors not talk about such an important doctrine like 3 kingdoms of heaven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Continuing revelation is one thing. I can understand the argument for teaching on new issues that didn't exist 2000 years ago. But that's very different from believing a Gospel that includes a central teaching not found in the Bible. Why would the New Testament authors not talk about such an important doctrine like 3 kingdoms of heaven?

 

You are assuming that they did not teach it.  The Bible covers the stuff that people wrote down.  The New Testament is mostly the Apostle Paul countering false teachings and clarifying confusion.  The Scriptures are clear that Paul knew that there was the Milk of the Gospel and the Meat of the Gospel and that last bit he was very careful how he shared it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for thing not being found in the Bible the main core and basics very much are.  But we also understand that we have the Bible because God called prophets and apostles and revealed things to them and then they wrote it.  Every verse of scripture repeats this pattern.  It even happened after Christ came and fulled the Law of Moses (All the New Testament beginning with Acts testifies to this.)

So the doctrine of 3 kingdoms in heaven isn't part of the core or basics of the restored Gospel? Can you summarize the restored Gospel without referring to 3 kingdoms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that they did not teach it.  The Bible covers the stuff that people wrote down.  The New Testament is mostly the Apostle Paul countering false teachings and clarifying confusion.  The Scriptures are clear that Paul knew that there was the Milk of the Gospel and the Meat of the Gospel and that last bit he was very careful how he shared it.

Yes, I'm assuming a doctrine not taught in the Bible was not taught by the authors of the Bible. Why isn't that a reasonable assumption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm assuming a doctrine not taught in the Bible was not taught by the authors of the Bible. Why isn't that a reasonable assumption?

 

 

Because written records would have been harder and more expensive to create (and therefore rarer) then oral tradition.  And if you have anything at all that might be wise to keep back (aka Meat) a person would be even less likely to write it down

 

So the doctrine of 3 kingdoms in heaven isn't part of the core or basics of the restored Gospel? Can you summarize the restored Gospel without referring to 3 kingdoms?

 

Heaven is part of the core or basics.  The fact that God's Judgement is going to be both Just and Merciful is also.  Greater understanding of how Heaven is setup and how God plans to balance Justice and Mercy, is just that a greater understanding, that does not alter the core or basics.  (Unless of course one made presumptions in the absence of God giving the details, then your presumptions are what needs to alter)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. I'm just asking why you believe your church is the right one, especially when one of your central beliefs isn't taught in the Bible.

 

If you follow Mormonism then you not exactly why we believe our church is true. But I'm not going to get into a "my spiritual experience is just as valid as yours", useless debate on the matter. You have the right to your views. I don't begrudge you that.

 

Edit: Oh, and as far as the not taught in the Bible thing...are you not aware that Mormons believe that many plain and precious truths were taken from the Bible during the great apostasy? If you did not know that about us, now you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Oh, and as far as the not taught in the Bible thing...are you not aware that Mormons believe that many plain and precious truths were taken from the Bible during the great apostasy? If you did not know that about us, now you do.

Yes, 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.

 

Since they trusted that God had preserved the scriptures for 2000-3000 years, shouldn't we follow their example and trust that God has also preserved the scriptures for the past 2000 years?

 

Yes, the early church had to face pressures like false teachers, corrupt leaders and persecution. But Israel had to face the same type of pressure and God still preserved the scripture. Why would God suddenly stop preserving scripture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm aware of that teaching, but it's not supported by the Bible either. 

 

Um...but if plain and precious truths were removed from the Bible then...why would we feel the Bible must support everything we believe?

 

They were completely confident in the accuracy and completeness of their scriptures.

 

And why wouldn't they be? The plain and precious truths were removed later, per our belief.

 

Since they trusted that God had preserved the scriptures for 2000-3000 years, shouldn't we follow their example and trust that God has also preserved the scriptures for the past 2000 years?

 

No. No we shouldn't. If I felt we should, I would be a Catholic or some other "The Bible is the end all of scripture" based faith.

 

Yes, the early church had to face pressures like false teachers, corrupt leaders and persecution. But Israel had to face the same type of pressure and God still preserved the scripture. Why would God suddenly stop preserving scripture?

 

Nonsense. There are so many lost scriptures out there. So many writings by so many prophets that are lost and gone. So many other writings that were not canonized. Tons, and tons of stuff. I'm not buying every word ever written by the prophets through all ages of man was preserved. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. No we shouldn't. If I felt we should, I would be a Catholic or some other "The Bible is the end all of scripture" based faith.

Shouldn't this be about what the Bible says and not what you or I feel? 

 

Nonsense. There are so many lost scriptures out there. So many writings by so many prophets that are lost and gone. So many other writings that were not canonized. Tons, and tons of stuff. I'm not buying every word ever written by the prophets through all ages of man was preserved. Sorry.

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.

 

Yes, there are some verses that mention some books not in the Bible. But there's no reason to assume those books were scripture. The NT authors never quote from those "lost" books. There were other letters and books written the same time as the D&C, but that doesn't mean they were lost from the D&C or should be included in your scripture, right? In the same way, many books and letters were written during Biblical times, but that doesn't mean they should have been included with the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this be about what the Bible says and not what you or I feel? 

 

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.

 

Yes, there are some verses that mention some books not in the Bible. But there's no reason to assume those books were scripture. The NT authors never quote from those "lost" books. There were other letters and books written the same time as the D&C, but that doesn't mean they were lost from the D&C or should be included in your scripture, right? In the same way, many books and letters were written during Biblical times, but that doesn't mean they should have been included with the Bible.

 

 

 

It is about what the bible says

 

Here are some of the bible's lost books

 

quoting from here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

 

Now you might be able discount some... but you are talking about whole works of prophets, seers, and visions etc that the people in the bible clearly accepted a scripture that we simply don't have.

 

Please note I am not attacking scriptures or the word of God.  I am attacking the idea that the Bible as we currently have it is the End All and Be All of scripture and the Word of God. The books that were canonized in the bible where not canonized till well after Christ.  Until then it was perfectly acceptable for an Apostle or Prophet to write scripture.  That is when things changed, that is when what we see as a very nonbiblical limit or restriction to the scripture came into play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you guys are posting huge volumes, so I haven't read all of these posts, but I want to point out one simple fact.  The Great Apostasy is not about losing truth, or corruption of Christ's Church.  It's about loss of authority, specifically the keys of the Church, the loss of the keys given to Peter, James and John, and the priesthood keys held by the apostles.  Truth (or lack thereof) is a side effect of not having those keys.   Now, anyone can argue that they have the keys, or that the keys were not lost, or that they are no longer requred, but LDS doctrine teaches that these keys were restored to Joseph Smith.  And historically, Mormons look at the shift from central authority of apostles to a shift and competition at the bishop level to who was authorized to run His church.  There was an Eastern and Western schism, and various minor groups that all claimed authority.  That schism and loss of central authority is the Great Apostasy.  But that does not mean that all truth was lost, or that the people were evil or planning on corrupting the churches.  We could have lost the BIble altogether, or had a perfect copy of it, but the apostasy would still exist.  Simply put, another church could have the identical doctrines and practices as the LDS Church, but still lack priesthood authority.  Mormons reject RLDS and FLDS claims of authority because they lack a lineage of apostolic succession (or more specificically, we don't recognize their claims of succession). Simiarly LDS reject the apostolic succesion of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and their various protestant branches. No, the key to understanding the Great Apostasy, is understanding the Restoration and the various keys given to Joseph Smith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No. No we shouldn't. If I felt we should, I would be a Catholic or some other "The Bible is the end all of scripture" based faith.

.

 

Correction.  The Catholics don't believe this either.  Catholics do not believe "The Bible is the end of all scripture".  And yes, Catholics have to defend their beliefs against the "Bible folks" as well...

 

So, now that we've established that, and that bytebear right there explained the issue of Authority... and the Catholics (Eastern and Western Catholics both) and the Mormons are the only ones that profess a claim to this Authority from Peter, then when it comes to the topic of The Great Apostasy, then we can conclude the "Bible only" folks has no stake in the matter because their beliefs don't hinge on its occurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this be about what the Bible says and not what you or I feel? 

 

No. Why are you arguing with Mormons about their beliefs? What's your objective here?

 

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.

 

Yes, there are some verses that mention some books not in the Bible. But there's no reason to assume those books were scripture. The NT authors never quote from those "lost" books. There were other letters and books written the same time as the D&C, but that doesn't mean they were lost from the D&C or should be included in your scripture, right? In the same way, many books and letters were written during Biblical times, but that doesn't mean they should have been included with the Bible.

 

I'd point out the logical fallacy in this...but I'm really wondering why I engaged here. Seriously. What's your objective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction.  The Catholics don't believe this either.  Catholics do not believe "The Bible is the end of all scripture".  And yes, Catholics have to defend their beliefs against the "Bible folks" as well...

 

Well then what is jungler going on about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you guys are posting huge volumes, so I haven't read all of these posts, but I want to point out one simple fact.  The Great Apostasy is not about losing truth, or corruption of Christ's Church.  It's about loss of authority...

 

Whereas the point is valid, I don't think it's accurate to state it this way without the insertion of the word "only". As in, The Great Apostasy is not only about losing truth, etc...

 

Losing truth and the corruption of the church is most definitely part of what the apostasy was. However, the key loss was authority, as you point out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. I'm just asking why you believe your church is the right one, especially when one of your central beliefs isn't taught in the Bible.

 

Continuing revelation is one thing. I can understand the argument for teaching on new issues that didn't exist 2000 years ago. But that's very different from believing a Gospel that includes a central teaching not found in the Bible. Why would the New Testament authors not talk about such an important doctrine like 3 kingdoms of heaven?

 

Wait, wait... you're saying that the 3 heavens are not in the Bible?  It is actually referred to by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians about the 3rd heaven and the different degrees of reward - one being gold, the other silver, the other being costly stones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired.  This is long and full of anti-Catholic misconceptions.  You do know that the OT Temple used candles and incense right?  That doesn't come from pagan rituals, it came from the original Jewish worship, as well as an altar, vestments, singing psalms, etc etc.  And we don't worship saints or relics, and the spiritual gifts described in the NT have been, and are, expected and manifested?  You do realize that God has never stopped working miracles among His people, right?  These past 2000 years are full of miracles and prophecies, which are documented and believed in, and continue to this very day, right??   

 

Tooooooo much. 

The Great Apostasy that LDS believe is in relation to the priesthood authority and divine direction through prophets, the organization of the Church.  It does not mean that God cannot work miracles or communicate with individuals or that people cannot have the Light of Christ within them during that time. 

 

So, if you believe that an Apostasy of that manner never occured, who were the prophets that continued in the priesthood Authority of God in the past 2000 years specifically without any break in the chain from Christ' time to now?  If there is any break in the line, in which one prophet somehow gets the authority on their own without it being passed in succession from the previous prophet then by definition there had to be an Apostasy and a restoration of the authority.  If you say there is none, then it is on you to draw the straight line from the Apostles of old to now.

 

Here; I will get you started;

 

Matthew 16; (the keys given to Peter) "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.

 19 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."

 

Acts 8; " 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God."

 

....

D&C 27; " 12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

 13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;"

 

 

This is what has to happen when it is not done by the proper authority, through Jesus Christ, and the proper way, by those who received the authority by laying on of hands; Acts 19; "

 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 And all the men were about twelve."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Great Apostasy that LDS believe is in relation to the priesthood authority and divine direction through prophets, the organization of the Church.  It does not mean that God cannot work miracles or communicate with individuals or that people cannot have the Light of Christ within them during that time. 

 

So, if you believe that an Apostasy of that manner never occured, who were the prophets that continued in the priesthood Authority of God in the past 2000 years specifically without any break in the chain from Christ' time to now?  If there is any break in the line, in which one prophet somehow gets the authority on their own without it being passed in succession from the previous prophet then by definition there had to be an Apostasy and a restoration of the authority.  If you say there is none, then it is on you to draw the straight line from the Apostles of old to now.

 

Seminary... faith4 is Catholic.  I presume Roman.  The Roman Catholic apostolic line of succession originates from Peter straight down to Pope Linus then to Cletus and to Clement (and this is as far as I've memorized, LOL)... all the way down to Pope Francis of today.

 

Here's the complete list.

 

But you might think... they're called Popes, not Prophets!  It really doesn't matter what they are called.  It only matters that the Roman Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome was the one that got handed all the keys of Peter as Peter was believed to have set up his seat in Rome and ordained Linus as his episcopal successor while Paul travelled all over the east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

 

And the bolded above is where you erred.  None of anything you wrote... NONE of it... proves a Great Apostasy occurred.  And that's a truth that you can take to the bank.  Therefore, it serves nothing - NOTHING AT ALL - but disturb Catholics.

 

And from one LDS to another... you should stop posting that stuff and calling it proof of a Great Apostasy.  You're making us look bad.  If somebody asks you why YOU think a Great Apostasy happened, you can point to those things as signs of it that makes YOU believe it happened.  Do you see what I'm saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

 

You're right, you won't be getting an apology.  If you're going to post something that looks like a research paper, then you had better be prepared to include references.  Most everyone I see who posts on here, does that on there own, rarely have I had to ask. 

 

Thank you for the citations, I will have to look at them next time I have a larger chunk of time for research.  I hope you read the quotes in their full context, oftentimes, any quote taken out of context can look bad, such as your 3rd quote from Eusebius.  And I also hope you had a chance to do a full research of the lives, and other writings, of the fathers you're quoting, since you believe them to be valuable to your cause.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Great Apostasy that LDS believe is in relation to the priesthood authority and divine direction through prophets, the organization of the Church.  It does not mean that God cannot work miracles or communicate with individuals or that people cannot have the Light of Christ within them during that time. 

 

So, if you believe that an Apostasy of that manner never occured, who were the prophets that continued in the priesthood Authority of God in the past 2000 years specifically without any break in the chain from Christ' time to now?  If there is any break in the line, in which one prophet somehow gets the authority on their own without it being passed in succession from the previous prophet then by definition there had to be an Apostasy and a restoration of the authority.  If you say there is none, then it is on you to draw the straight line from the Apostles of old to now.

 

Here; I will get you started;

 

Matthew 16; (the keys given to Peter) "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.

 19 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."

 

Acts 8; " 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God."

 

....

D&C 27; " 12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

 13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;"

 

 

This is what has to happen when it is not done by the proper authority, through Jesus Christ, and the proper way, by those who received the authority by laying on of hands; Acts 19; "

 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 And all the men were about twelve."

 

????  I have no idea what all these Bible verses are supposed to prove to me.  ???  And anything that comes from one of your own books I do not consider authoritative, so please don't include them as "proof". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

????  I have no idea what all these Bible verses are supposed to prove to me.  ???  And anything that comes from one of your own books I do not consider authoritative, so please don't include them as "proof". 

 

Wait, what?  He wrote a book on it???

Ayayay.

 

Oh, you mean, the LDS books.  :D

 

I don't think SeminarySnoozer meant for this to be proof, unlike spamlds claims... I think SeminarySnoozer meant for this to simply show why he thinks there was a Great Apostasy and because he believes the BOM is true it extends to the D&C and therefore, he believes it is authoritative.  Make sense?  So, basically, he is showing how he drew the line from Peter to Joseph Smith to Pres. Monson...

 

I gave him the apostolic line that supports the Roman Catholic claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share