Apostacy

[mdb]

Was there really a complete falling away of the true Church on earth and if so, what proof is there of this happening? The reason for the establishment of the Mormon church is because of this great apostasy.

[Doctor Steuss]

Was there really a complete falling away of the true Church on earth and if so, what proof is there of this happening?

Besides the prophecies that it would? I guess it all depends on what you think is meant by "apostasy" and what might be considered evidence (or "fruits") of it. Would the creation of new doctrines be proof? How about the loss of doctrines (which is a pickle, because how would you prove it was lost)? How about saving ordinances (or initiatory “sacraments”) being lost and/or changed?

I tend to think that "apostasy" is ultimately a loss of authority. Thusly, (IMO) it comes down to whether or not the Catholic Church (or a similar Orthodox church) can show a definite line of authority from the apostles. I have seen some compelling evidence for this, but I have also seen some compelling evidence against this.

The reason for the establishment of the Mormon church is because of this great apostasy.

I'm going to have to think about this statement a bit. I'm not sure I'm comfortable pigeon-holing the reasons for the restoration into such tight quarters.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here are a few resources that might help:

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy,” Ensign, Aug. 1976, 51)

Whither the Early Church? (S. Kent Brown, “Whither the Early Church?” Ensign, Oct. 1988, 7)

Early Signs of the Apostasy (Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, Dec. 1984, 8)

The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail (Charles Muldowney, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Aug. 1993, 52)

The Apostasy Foretold (Barry Bickmore)

The Loss of Apostolic Authority in the Church (Barry Bickmore)

Upon This Rock... (Barry Bickmore)

Apostasy from the Original Church of Christ (Gerald Smith)

The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century (John Gee, Ph.D.)

Edited to add:

Another avenue that might be interesting to take is how many of the Early Christian Fathers spoke of esoteric rights...

[CrimsonKairos]

I was reading one of the Ante-Nicene fathers' writings when I came upon the doctrine of eternal marriage. I forgot which father had written it, and I'd give anything to remember!

His reasoning was thus: If God forbade divorce except on the grounds of adultery...if God so emphasized the importance of marriage...why would He turn around and dissolve all marriages after death? Adam and Eve were meant to be married forever before their Fall...so we, too, are meant to have eternal marriages free of divorce in this life or the next.

Good stuff. I love the esoteric rite descriptions too...the Treasury of Light...good stuff. B)

[Doctor Steuss]

I was reading one of the Ante-Nicene fathers' writings when I came upon the doctrine of eternal marriage. I forgot which father had written it, and I'd give anything to remember!

His reasoning was thus: If God forbade divorce except on the grounds of adultery...if God so emphasized the importance of marriage...why would He turn around and dissolve all marriages after death? Adam and Eve were meant to be married forever before their Fall...so we, too, are meant to have eternal marriages free of divorce in this life or the next.

Good stuff. I love the esoteric rite descriptions too...the Treasury of Light...good stuff. B)

I remember similar thoughts being made in regards to Adam and Eve being married forever (don't know if it was an ANF though) because Adam and Eve were married by G-d, and that which is done by G-d is eternal.

The Gospel of Phillip (don't have it here with me... sorry or I'd hook you up with the passages) speaks of a mirrored bridal chamber and of how those united in that chamber will no longer be seperated.

Edited to add:

If you ever find that ANF quote again, please oh please oh please do share... (pretty pretty please)

[mdb]

I don't know how after two postings this got off onto the topic of marriage. That's a whole different can of worms.

What about this "falling away"? Isn't it taught that the Church completely fell away? That for a time, after the martyring of the early Church disciples and leaders (Paul, Matthew, Peter, Timothy, etc.), the gates of hell prevailed (so to speak)? That's why Joseph Smith was told not to associate with any of them isn't it? ... start a new thing, they've all fallen into apostasy.

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't know how after two postings this got off onto the topic of marriage. That's a whole different can of worms.

Sorry about that.

What about this "falling away"? Isn't it taught that the Church completely fell away? That for a time, after the martyring of the early Church disciples and leaders (Paul, Matthew, Peter, Timothy, etc.), the gates of hell prevailed (so to speak)? That's why Joseph Smith was told not to associate with any of them isn't it? ... start a new thing, they've all fallen into apostasy.

I guess you're referring to Matt 16:18? If you are, this is my speculative opinion...

It helps to know what is meant by ecclesia. The gates of "hell" (I'll address the meaning of "hell" in a moment) would not prevail against those called by Christ, or ecclesia ("church"). There was no gaurtantee for those who weren't ecclesia. Also, hades ("hell") is simply a resting place for the dead. The gates of hades did not prevail because Christ went and preached to the dead thus opening up the gospel for them.

The "falling away" IMO was a loss of authority. It wasn't a sudden event, and it didn't cause for there to be no more good men on earth or for G-d to completely remove His light from the world. It simply meant that the keys for governing His kingdom here on earth were lost and needed to be restored.

Such is my understanding...

[prisonchaplain]

Besides the prophecies that it would?

This may be the greatest "line in the sand" doctrine of LDS theology...the one that most keeps the Church from being accepted as "Christian" by other groups.

I hope most LDS understand the frustration from the other side of the fence. What we hear is, "How dare you say that we (LDS) are not Christian? We believe in Jesus. He's right in our name. What do you mean, ours is a different Jesus? He's the Son of God. He's deity. Etc. See, you should consider us as fellow Christians. Oh. By the way. We believe that the rest of you are apostate, and that we represent the only true, restored Christian church, having exclusive authority to carry out the ordinances that are requisite for true salvation."

Now, if you are right, what else can you say? But to the unconvinced, you seem like those Christians who say they are the inheritors of God's promises to Israel, and that ethnic Jews have lost their spiritual covenant with God.

The response of the kinder rabbis is: Be the best Christian you can be...but you are not now, nor will you ever be, a Jew, nor an inheritor of OUR covenant.

I guess it all depends on what you think is meant by "apostasy" and what might be considered evidence (or "fruits") of it. Would the creation of new doctrines be proof?

Might you have in mind, the Trinity? Of course, Trinitarians argue that our doctrine is not new, but rather the fleshed out doctrine of God that has roots even in the Old Testament. The explanation became sophisticated by Nicea, in response to numerous challenges that arose.

How about the loss of doctrines (which is a pickle, because how would you prove it was lost)? How about saving ordinances (or initiatory “sacraments”) being lost and/or changed?

Those of us from non-sacramental Christian traditions (i.e. that believe salvation is through faith, sustained through obedience, not through the sacraments or ordinances of the church) would argue that there is little in the New Testament to indicate that conversion was only complete or empowered through rituals. We have baptisms and share communion, but we do not rely on human leadership to "authorize" them.

I tend to think that "apostasy" is ultimately a loss of authority. Thusly, (IMO) it comes down to whether or not the Catholic Church (or a similar Orthodox church) can show a definite line of authority from the apostles. I have seen some compelling evidence for this, but I have also seen some compelling evidence against this.

When I first understood this, it blew my theological mind. I've always believed that the Great Commission was for all believers. That we were all to spread the gospel. We were also all to "rightly divide the Word of God." That we were all to pray for the sick (especially the mature members).

So, to hear that some believed such things were restricted to leadership, or particular individuals chosen by human leadership, seemed to me to detract from the thrust of the NT--that the message of Jesus was to be spread to everyone by his followers.

Bottom-line: Catholics and LDS might engage in an interesting discussion/debate on the Apostasy and Authority. For evangelicals like myself, there seems to be an effort to corral what Jesus' had intended for all of us to use.

[mdb]

But if this apostasy happened then how would God, by Jesus Christ, be given glory in the church? And this to ALL generations. There would have been a large "generation gap" where no glory would have been given to God in the Church since the Church had fallen until Mormonism appeared. That causes a major problem.

Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

(Eph 3:20-21)

[CrimsonKairos]

That has to be the flimsiest argument against the apostasy I've ever encountered. Are you employing satire, or are you expecting us to take you seriously?

[Doctor Steuss]

But if this apostasy happened then how would God, by Jesus Christ, be given glory in the church? And this to ALL generations. There would have been a large "generation gap" where no glory would have been given to God in the Church since the Church had fallen until Mormonism appeared. That causes a major problem.

Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

(Eph 3:20-21)

Hi mdb,

Once again, we have ekklesia here. The meaning is a bit different than "church" (as is the meaning of the word kaleo, which this is derived from). In fact, from my studies, I’m not sure I necessarily have an accurate meaning pinned down yet. But its meaning seems to be somewhat broader than what we might deem to be defined as “church” nowadays.

Also, I think you might be trying to read too much into this scripture (i.e. if there isn't a "church" then G-d isn't getting any glory). If there are people praising G-d through Christ, would He not be receiving glory despite the fact that the authority of the priesthood wasn't on earth? I tend to think yes, He would still receive glory from that. Also notice the poetic usage of "all generations." If we take the solid definition of “all generations” that you are proposing, then this would necessarily also be retroactive (meaning that His church has been established at all times in the past... meaning the scriptures showing apostasies in OT times are in error). I think “all generations” here is being used as a poetic device showing the pre-eminence of G-d and the expanses of his glory (hence the “forever and ever. Amen” closure of the passage).

Edited to add:

Also, it might help to have an understanding of the LDS concept of redemption for the dead. Just because there isn't a "church" (and once again, I'm not quite sure I have Christ's definition of the word from these scriptures pinned down) on earth at a given time does not necessarily mean it is not existing in the here-after.

prisonchaplain,

FYI, I wasn't thinking of the Trinity. Unlike many, I actually have an appreciation for the doctrine and what those who "created" it were trying to do. I also think that it may have been understood slightly differently in ancient times than it is now (there seems to be a disconnect from the Nicene creed and the Anathasian [sp?] creed **see edit #2)

I unfortunately don't have time to respond to your post now, but I want to revisit it tomorrow when I do have time. I can definitely see how the LDS concept of an apostasy and restoration would be offensive to other Christians (just as I'm sure the reformation is offensive to Orthodox churches, and the Orthodox claims to authority is offensive to protestants, and how the Christians claiming Christ is the only way is offensive to Jews and Muslims and... so on… and… so on…). Unfortunately we (as humans) rarely argue about G-d, instead we argue for Him as we haven't yet learned to share.

Hope you have a blessed evening and I look forward to devoting the time to your post that it deserves tomorrow.

Regards,

"Dr." Stu

**Edit #2: Also, there is a bit of a disconnect for the Western Orthodox concept of the Trinity and that of the Eastern Churches. I see what it was trying to reconcile, but in doing so I think it added a bit too much extra-biblical baggage. Nonetheless, IMO there is beauty in it.

[CrimsonKairos]

I disagree with your appraisal of the Nicene Creed, but otherwise heartily concur with your other statements.

[prisonchaplain]

I look forward to your comments, Dr. S.

[mdb]

Also, I think you might be trying to read too much into this scripture (i.e. if there isn't a "church" then G-d isn't getting any glory). If there are people praising G-d through Christ, would He not be receiving glory despite the fact that the authority of the priesthood wasn't on earth?

I look forward to more of a response from you. If I may comment on the above, I do not believe that God could not and does not receive glory in any other way, but this passage is specifically noting glory given "in the Church ... to all generations". In the context of the verse, "all generations" cannot include those generations of pre-Christ origin since the Church was non-existent until Jesus ordained it. The Church is the body of Christ and through it, by Christ Jesus, God will be given glory.

Additionally, the priesthood is no longer needed. Jesus is a priest forever and there is no need for any other priest, temple or ordinances. Read the book of Hebrews very carefully. It is quite clear on the subject.

Respectfully,

[CrimsonKairos]

Um, Hebrews was an epistle written by a former Pharisee to hardcore Jews, convincing them that Christ fulfilled the Law of Mosaic sacrifices.

Paul's intent in writing Hebrews was not to show that there need be no clear priesthood leadership after Christ's resurrection. Paul's point was that there was no need for animal sacrifice anymore, or High Priests according to the Levitical tradition who would sprinkle blood in the temple.

To say that there need be no sprinkling of blood in the temple is quite different from saying there need be no temple worship at all. In fact, if we use Christ's acts as a pattern, we would expect new temple ordinances to replace the old. The Lord's Supper replaced the Passover; his death on Calvary replaced the animal sacrifices that Jehovah revealed to Moses; the Sabbath became Sunday instead of Saturday due to his resurrection; etc...

[Traveler]

Was there really a complete falling away of the true Church on earth and if so, what proof is there of this happening? The reason for the establishment of the Mormon church is because of this great apostasy.

It is interesting to me the character and nature that discussion of the apostasy take through time and place. I find this discussion at it start to be most telling. For example, the notion that there is an obligation to “Prove” “Complete Apostasy” - as though there is significant difference between “Apostasy” and “Complete Apostasy” in the eyes of G-d. Which is what we are talking about – Not our individual opinions but the opinion of G-d.

But before we get into particulars of this discussion I would like to clear up something – just for the record. For anyone that does not believe in an apostasy (deviation from the church and kingdom of G-d as established by Jesus The Christ) please answer for me the following question so I can determine how to continue with you in this most important consideration, in order to demonstrate a deviation from truth.

To which is there greater authority and power:

1. The Church to determine what is scripture and how scripture is defined:

or

2. The Scriptures to define the Church and how it governs it members and determines operations, procedures and organization?

The Traveler

[sixpacktr]

Along the lines of this topic, I have a question. I once asked this of a Lutheran friend of mine, and he kind of went nuts on me, but here goes:

Didn't the Protestants start up because they thought that the Catholic church had gone "out of the way"? Admittedly, my knowledge on this is slim, but I thought that Martin Luther had had it with indulgences and other things so he posted his 29 or 99 or some such thing grievances against the church on the door. And the same for Wyckliffe and Calvin and the others...

If I'm wrong, pls let me know, but why would there be a need for a reformation if there hadn't been an apostasy (in the eyes of these men, admittedly) within the Catholic church?

[Doctor Steuss]

I disagree with your appraisal of the Nicene Creed, but otherwise heartily concur with your other statements.

You disagree with me!?!?! How dare you!?!?! (Kidding). BTW, check this out (a friend posted this on another message board)…

Marriage..."is good practice for life as a god." Clement of Alexandria in Wagner, After The Apostles, 180

-----End Derailing Tangent----

Good morning prisonchaplain,

I might be responding in bits and pieces throughout the day.

This may be the greatest "line in the sand" doctrine of LDS theology...the one that most keeps the Church from being accepted as "Christian" by other groups.

I hope most LDS understand the frustration from the other side of the fence. What we hear is, "How dare you say that we (LDS) are not Christian? We believe in Jesus. He's right in our name. What do you mean, ours is a different Jesus? He's the Son of God. He's deity. Etc. See, you should consider us as fellow Christians. Oh. By the way. We believe that the rest of you are apostate, and that we represent the only true, restored Christian church, having exclusive authority to carry out the ordinances that are requisite for true salvation."

Now, if you are right, what else can you say? But to the unconvinced, you seem like those Christians who say they are the inheritors of God's promises to Israel, and that ethnic Jews have lost their spiritual covenant with God.

The response of the kinder rabbis is: Be the best Christian you can be...but you are not now, nor will you ever be, a Jew, nor an inheritor of OUR covenant.

A few more comments on the above (I already made a few about it in my other post). I think that there isn’t all that much difference between the LDS and many others within Christianity. Those who consider themselves the “elect,” or those who think they have the correct Biblical Christianity or the proper interpretation of scripture or believe themselves to be “saved” and know the correct way to be “saved” are basically doing the same thing (albeit possibly to a lesser extent). The only difference I see between Protestantism and the LDS is one believed a reformation was needed whereas the other believed a restoration was needed. As to the “unconvinced,” I tend to think their qualms should be diminished slightly given the universalism undertones of LDS theology. But, nonetheless I understand that no one likes to be told they're wrong (I’m not too keen on being told I’m going to hell and having my sister called a whore and harlot all because we’re LDS [and yes, that did happen once to my sister at a Hill Cumorah Pageant]). We all think we have the best “truth,” the only difference is that the LDS officially believe they have it while everyone else unofficially believes they have it.

BTW,

The “kinder” Rabbi’s will allow you to convert to Judaism. You may not be “Jewish,” but you can indeed gain access to the covenant through adoption (although many [if not most] sects of Judaism don’t allow for this), and by entering into the everlasting covenant that Paul seemed to think wasn’t all that “everlasting.”

[Doctor Steuss]

More...

Might you have in mind, the Trinity? Of course, Trinitarians argue that our doctrine is not new, but rather the fleshed out doctrine of God that has roots even in the Old Testament. The explanation became sophisticated by Nicea, in response to numerous challenges that arose.

As stated before, I didn’t necessarily have the Trinity in mind (as I don’t necessarily think you can “create” a doctrine that no one understands… j/k).

Mainly I had creation ex nihilo in mind. To me, it causes a lot of issues regarding the problem of evil, G-d’s plan, and the place of humanity amongst His creations, etc. Other than Jonathan Goldstein, there isn’t a scholar of ancient Judaism out there that believes it to be native to Judaism (and he may have changed his mind as he admitted the weakness of his position in a debate with David Winston). Before the end of the first century C.E., this doctrine didn’t exist. Although it was a bit of a side note in his overall paper, Peter Hayman gives some rather conclusive and concise statements regarding it in volume 42 of the Journal of Jewish Studies (the paper was titled: “Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”)

I am aware of the “scholarship” of Ross, and Morey, but their zeal to argue for ex nihilo causes them to never truly engage the evidence against it. Copan, Craig and O'Neill have raised the bar, but their arguments are severely wanting. The majority of scholarly support shows this to be a doctrine that was “created out of nothing.”

As for “lost doctrines.” The main two that I see as “lost” (that have substantial scholarly support for having existed both in ANE Judaism and/or early Christianity):

Theosis (Although there is a growing reemergence of this -- albeit not to the extent that LDS believe it).

Divine Assembly / Counsel of the Gods

Those of us from non-sacramental Christian traditions (i.e. that believe salvation is through faith, sustained through obedience, not through the sacraments or ordinances of the church) would argue that there is little in the New Testament to indicate that conversion was only complete or empowered through rituals. We have baptisms and share communion, but we do not rely on human leadership to "authorize" them.

If you have pistis in Christ, and He asks you to be baptized or partake in the Lord’s supper or a similar sacrament or ritual, would you not do it? If you were to not do it, would that not be a manifestation that you do not truly have pistis in and for your Lord? LDS do these things because they’re asked of us. My understanding of LDS doctrine is that we are saved by the grace of G-d, through pistis (“faith”) which will ultimately manifest itself through obedience. One cannot have faith, loyalty and fidelity in a Lord and not follow Him. In the end, we are saved by the grace of G-d. We partake of His infinite grace through faith/loyalty/fidelity and obedience to Him.

Baptism in and of itself does nothing (I mean, heck, you’re getting dunked in water… how’s that supposed to help your soul). It is what it is representative of that does something. It is a covenant to G-d, and an outward manifestation and public declaration that we are burying our prior sinful selves and being reborn as Disciples of Christ. It is this public declaration and covenant that contains efficacy. As to why baptism was the medium chosen, I suppose the symbolism behind it was important, but it may also have been chosen because the early Saints were probably already familiar with the Mikvah (although as far as official LDS doctrine, baptism has been in place since the time of Adam).

[mdb]

We all think we have the best “truth,” the only difference is that the LDS officially believe they have it while everyone else unofficially believes they have it.

What does that mean? Explain.

[Jason]

Trust the man who is seeking for truth, don't believe the man who claims to have found it.

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

We all think we have the best “truth,” the only difference is that the LDS officially believe they have it while everyone else unofficially believes they have it.

What does that mean? Explain.

Good morning mdb,

I had tried to word that several different ways as I was afraid it might be enigmatic, and it appears that my efforts to make it clear were in vain. Hopefully this helps explain it more clearly:

LDS make their belief that they have the best "truth" part of their doctrine. Catholics (and others branching from the orthodox tradition) would probably be another example of having more-or-less a doctrine that they have the best “truth.” Whereas everyone else might not have it as a doctrine of their given denomination or theology, but they believe it nonetheless (or why else would they even embrace that particular paradigm?)

Example: Someone who is a Calvinist believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. Despite this obvious belief, they probably don’t have an actual doctrine stating such.

Example: Someone who is a Lutheran believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. Despite this obvious belief, they probably don’t have an actual doctrine stating such.

Example: Someone who is an LDS believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. However, they openly acknowledge this belief and make it a doctrinal tenet.

Although others might not have a doctrine stating they have the best “truth” or the most accurate interpretation of scripture, they believe it nonetheless. The cause of scorn is because the LDS openly admit what everyone else secretly believes. If they didn’t believe they had the best “truth,” the LDS claim would be far from offensive and the issue would be moot. It’s basically a kettle and pot sharing the same pigmentation, but only the kettle openly admits it. Or, in less charitable terms, it’s blatant hypocrisy (although they may not recognize it as such).

Hope that helps, if not I can give it another go.

Trust the man who is seeking for truth, don't believe the man who claims to have found it.

I've never heard that variation. I'm only familiar with the old French hombre, Andre Gide's take on the axim:

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Nonetheless, wise words...

[Maureen]

Example: Someone who is a Calvinist believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. Despite this obvious belief, they probably don’t have an actual doctrine stating such.

Example: Someone who is a Lutheran believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. Despite this obvious belief, they probably don’t have an actual doctrine stating such.

Example: Someone who is an LDS believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. However, they openly acknowledge this belief and make it a doctrinal tenet.

Although others might not have a doctrine stating they have the best “truth” or the most accurate interpretation of scripture, they believe it nonetheless. The cause of scorn is because the LDS openly admit what everyone else secretly believes. If they didn’t believe they had the best “truth,” the LDS claim would be far from offensive and the issue would be moot. It’s basically a kettle and pot sharing the same pigmentation, but only the kettle openly admits it. Or, in less charitable terms, it’s blatant hypocrisy (although they may not recognize it as such).

I definitely disagree with this. For me personally, many Protestant denominations agree doctrinally with each other, there is even agreement with certain Catholic doctrine. Lutherans and Pentecostals pretty much believe the same "truth", but they way they worship and praise God is different. I would say that the main difference in many protestant faiths is their worship style.

M.

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

Example: Someone who is a Calvinist believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. Despite this obvious belief, they probably don’t have an actual doctrine stating such.

Example: Someone who is a Lutheran believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. Despite this obvious belief, they probably don’t have an actual doctrine stating such.

Example: Someone who is an LDS believes they have the best “truth” and know the true path to salvation. However, they openly acknowledge this belief and make it a doctrinal tenet.

Although others might not have a doctrine stating they have the best “truth” or the most accurate interpretation of scripture, they believe it nonetheless. The cause of scorn is because the LDS openly admit what everyone else secretly believes. If they didn’t believe they had the best “truth,” the LDS claim would be far from offensive and the issue would be moot. It’s basically a kettle and pot sharing the same pigmentation, but only the kettle openly admits it. Or, in less charitable terms, it’s blatant hypocrisy (although they may not recognize it as such).

I definitely disagree with this. For me personally, many Protestant denominations agree doctrinally with each other, there is even agreement with certain Catholic doctrine. Lutherans and Pentecostals pretty much believe the same "truth", but they way they worship and praise God is different. I would say that the main difference in many protestant faiths is their worship style.

M.

I'm sorry, but... huh? How are you disagreeing with it?

Your agreeing with each other doctrinally doesn't change the fact that you think you have the correct doctrines (or "truth"). LDS openly admit it and make it a doctrinal tenet, but this does not negate that other believe this about themselves.

How about this: Do Lutherans have a more correct understanding of scripture than Wesleyan Methodism (also known as Evangelical Arminianism)? What about Calvinism? How about Progressive Christianity?

You state that "many Protestant denominations agree." “Many,” not all. You have just shown that you believe that some Protestant denominations don't have the best or most accurate "truth."

I really don't see how you can't notice this as smacking with hypocrisy.

Edit: Or better yet. Do you believe you have a more accurate understanding of scriptural "truth" than the LDS?

I think you agree with me, you just don't recognize it...

Edit #2:

Sorry, I've tried to edit out some of the "venom" from this post. I'm used to posting on a more combative MB and I'm having to work on my "voice." Hopefully you can forgive me of this shortcoming as I work on posting in a more "Christian" tone.

[Jason]

I've never heard that variation. I'm only familiar with the old French hombre, Andre Gide's take on the axim:

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Nonetheless, wise words...

I'm pretty positive mine is just a rip-off of Gide's. But I like it anyway.