The Mormon Church recently released an updated edition of its scriptures. One of the resources that underwent some change is the Bible Dictionary, found in the back of the LDS edition of the KJV Bible (print editions). In reviewing some of the changes made to the new digital edition I found one of particular interest in the entry titled “Fall of Adam and Eve.”
The entry previous to the new changes said (in part),
“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam,” 670)
This doctrine, blood forming as a direct result of the Fall, is consistent with the teachings of other Mormon authorities. Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth President of the Mormon Church, was firmly convicted of this doctrine. He wrote,
“We are also taught that, not being subject to death, Adam had no blood in his veins before the fall. Blood is the life of the mortal body…There is no blood in an immortal body, and when Adam transgressed the law and ate the fruit that had been forbidden there came a drastic change in his body and it was transformed from the condition where there was no death to a condition where it became subject to death, or mortality, and from that time forth blood was the life-giving fluid.” (Man, His Origin and Destiny, 362-364)
“We know that when Adam was placed on the earth it was pronounced ‘good,’ and he, as well as the earth, was not subject to death. There was no ‘curse’ on the earth. There was no blood in his body, but he had a spiritual body until it was changed by the fall. A spiritual body is one which is not quickened by blood, but by spirit. Before the fall Adam had a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones, but it was not quickened by blood. The partaking of the forbidden fruit caused blood to exist in his body and thus the seeds of mortality were sown and his body then became temporal, or mortal, subject to the vicissitudes of mortal change. The Lord created all things upon this earth physically and immortal, or free from the seeds of death. The fall of Adam brought the change upon the earth and all things upon its face partook of the conditions imposed upon Adam in the fall.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:5-6)
“Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations… After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:77)
“Since it was by the creation of blood that mortality came, it is by the sacrifice of blood that the redemption from death was accomplished, and all creatures freed from Satan’s grasp. In no other way could the sacrifice for redemption of the world from death be accomplished. Blood being the agent of mortality, it had to be returned to Satan and to death, whence it came… Jesus obtained his blood from his mother Mary; he obtained his power over death from his Father. Therefore he could and did voluntarily surrender himself to his enemies who crucified him by the shedding of his blood. When he arose from the tomb, he was free from blood, and his body had become subject to eternal law henceforth and forever.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:109)
Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie supported Joseph Fielding Smith in this doctrine, as he included the teaching in several of his own books. For example, in Mormon Doctrine, he wrote,
“Adam, our first parent (1 Ne. 5:11), a ‘son of God’ (Moses 6:22), was first placed on earth as an immortal being. His coming was the crowning event of the creation; and as with him, so with every department of creation — immortality reigned supreme. (2 Ne. 2:22.) There was no death, no mortality, no corruption, no procreation. Blood did not flow in Adam’s veins, for he was not yet mortal, and blood is an element that pertains exclusively to mortality…
“In conformity with the will of the Lord, Adam fell both spiritually and temporally. Spiritual death entered the world,… Temporal death also entered the world, meaning that man and all created things became mortal, and blood became the life preserving element in the natural body.” (“Fall of Adam,” 268-269)
Mormon Apostle Alvin R. Dyer also jumped on this doctrinal bandwagon. In his book, Who Am I?, he wrote,
“By their own act of transgression, Adam and Eve brought mortality upon themselves. This imposed conditions causing blood to flow in their natural bodies. But it also rendered them capable to fulfill the greater commandment they had received from God to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’” (247-248)
That blood formed in the bodies of Adam and Eve at the time that they became mortal seems like a pretty solid doctrine in Mormonism. Perhaps it remains so, but the new edition of the Bible Dictionary contains no reference to it. The new entry states (in part),
“Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam and Eve,” new online edition)
Interestingly, a similar change was made in the Bible Dictionary entry titled “Resurrection.” Compare the previous edition and the new edition:
“Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” 761, emphasis added to aid comparison.)
“Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” new online edition)
The Mormon Church explains that the Bible Dictionary “is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine” though it is “based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works” and “the work of Bible scholars.” Nevertheless, the Church says the Dictionary is “subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light.” I wonder whether it was research or revelation that precipitated the changes to the Bible Dictionary that I’ve discussed here. Either way, one usually thinks that research or revelation will add information, rather than having it taken away.
As it was never my intent to post here to get into the specific interpretation of one single verse- Matt 18:20- I will cut to the chase and ask whether you believe we can conclude from this one verse that an apostasy was not possible.
If so, I am not confident we can agree much on the meaning and application of biblical passages.
I initially responded to a statement form clyde which read:
““The whole Mormon explanation on these events doesn’t make sense, especially when we tie in the pre existence to it. In the war in heaven that Mormonism talks about, two thirds chose Gods plan. The other third chose Satans. But how could they make that choice if they didnt know good from evil? How could God cast the third out of heaven if they didnt really understand what they were doing? They either understood or they didn’t. So Mormon God pronounces eternal judgement on those that have no understanding of good and evil (sounds harsh). Or when intelligences get bodies they get dumber. Momorn God took away their knowledge of good and evil so that he could give them an impossible situation so they would have to disobey in order to find the path of eternal life, which is through obedience?”
It has been about 2 years since I posted on this website. I am now remembering the propensity here to get so off topic. But I do understand the nature of these conversations and the limitations in a forum like this.
Thanks.
So, the Israelite Religion survived for how many years? Same God. God’s church is expected to be an “aberration”. “A deviation from the proper or expected course.”
So the church stood no chance because it “would have” been an “aberration” to have done so? What kind of logic is that? There’s Mormon Bubble logic for you.
Noah’s time was before Abraham and God’s promise. Even through apostasy, God ALWAYS stuck with those who repented and turned to him, EVEN IF IT WAS JUST ONE PERSON. The Israelite religion was intact and there were MANY TRUE worshipers that loved God at the time up to and including Christ. Then Christ does his work, and there is not ONE PERSON, according to Mormon logic, that believed in Jesus. After when? What date? What time? What circumstances? What cause?
No answers from the Mormons, only generalized speculation. Just saying that there was a “great & TOTAL apostasy” doesn’t make it so. Never will.
There are many more than ONE verse. Why are you focusing on ONE verse to try and prove your speculation?
By apostasy, I assume you mean that the church would go astray. And, my answer to that is no. It is not possible to conclude from this verse that is possible. This verse is not isolated to disciples, as your conclusion would have to keep it limited to disciples.
But you ignore my question, which is directly related to this topic: is it true that when 2 or more believers come together that Christ is with them? If so, doesn’t that mean consistency? Doesn’t that mean that Christ is there even without ‘leaders’? If you wish to say that it is not true, then you need to explain away the verse which clearly states that if only two or more people come together, he is there.
(BTW, consider this verse, too, from Eph. 3: 14: “For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom every familya in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God,” which suggests Christ is within every believers heart.)
Inflammatory personal remarks noted.
Did Israel stray from the religion revealed to her? Yes.
How many times? Too many to count.
That was my point. The survival of revealed religion through thousands of years, undefiled and unaltered. And this without the care of apostles roughly beyond the 1st century. Yes- I would consider that an unexpected outcome. Even an “aberration” when one considered the history of man and revealed religion.
Again on Israel. How many times did they fall away despite having regularly sent and commissioned prophets from God among them? Answer- lots of times.
It is surprising that so many people seemed shocked to hear Latter-day Saints claim an apostasy occurred. There is a window of time just after the apostles for which we have essentially no record- nothing. And during the ministry of the apostles, they repeatedly and constantly warned the church members of wolves among the sheep, corruption, and apostasy. Why did they spend so much time worrying about those things if an apostasy was simply never going to be a threat?
So am I to understand that you do not believe there was revealed religion before Abraham? Had mankind arrived at his wicked condition in the days of Noah in the abscense of prophets, revelation, commandments, or true religion? If so, that is quite an unsupported, sweeping statement. What of Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Methuselah, etc.? Do you realize that Genesis states that Enoch walked with God for years? And Enoch was Noah’s great grandfather.
I like Isaiah’s statement (or the Lord’s statement through Isaiah), “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” Isaiah 24:5
This was around 740 BCE- after Abraham, Moses, etc. Divinely revealed doctrine, laws, ordinances, covenants were defiled, changed, and broken. Why do you think that such a thing would only happen during certain periods of mankind’s history. There is nothing in his nature that would suggest this.
So- in my opinion, it would certainly be an “aberration” for man to NOT change, alter, defile revealed religion, even after Christ had died for us.
You are creating a straw-man argument in claiming that LDS believe not one person who “believed in Christ” after the apostasy. I don’t know of one statement from one person who would suggest such a thing. Our claim is that the ordinances, doctrine, and authority was altered, changed, and lost. Of course, there were still good people as there have been in every period of earth’s history. But this did not prevent the loss of the true religion any more than it did in ancient Israel or any other time.
My point about the verse above is that this was used here to argue that an apostasy could not have occurred. And that verse does not say that in the least.
Thanks.
FoF: If this is your position, then we have a vastly different idea of who Christ is and what he did. His sacrifice was the ultimate and final sacrifice such that nothing else would need to be done or restored. Unlike the saints of old, who had to follow specific rules to meet God’s approval, Christ set aside those rules through his sacrifice. All that is needed is the acceptance of Christ to achieve God’s approval. And this is what the OT had been moving towards from the beginning– all things pointing to Christ. And this is God’s plan, and has been all along.
You say that is not true, and that more is needed. You say that Christ’s sacrifice is not an ultimate sacrifice for all time (if not directly, implicitly). You infer that there will be another fall, and God will have to make additional changes in the future, for it is man’s nature. You say these because you say that man has fallen over and over again, and has done so even after Christ. You say this directly: “So- in my opinion, it would certainly be an “aberration” for man to NOT change, alter, defile revealed religion, even after Christ had died for us.” As a result, of this position, it has to be that God has to come in and adjust things from time to time.
Do you not see, at least, how radically different these points of view are?
As to the verse you speak of, if it is Matt 18:20, you come to quite a sweeping conclusion of the history of the church and God’s plan all through Christ saying that when 2 or more people come together, he will be there. I was always taught never to make doctrinal statements from one verse alone, that you need to ensure the verse is in line with what else is said in the Bible. Do you take a different position on how to discern meaning?
You are conflating two different things- the atonement of Christ and the apostasy.
The “falling away” or apostasy takes nothing away from the atonement of Christ. It is not clear to me why you would suggest such a thing.
The atonement of Christ stands on its own as the greatest act and achievement of the universe. It is the only means of salvation for all of mankind. I stand by that to the end.
But mankind has a certain nature. And that nature includes the propensity to change, alter, defile, and manipulate the revelations, ordinances, doctrines, and patterns received from God. And man has his agency.
Saying that all we need is Christ and His atonement does not change my argument regarding the apostasy. The fundamental doctrine of the atonement, the organization He created, the authority with which He commissioned His servants have been manipulated, changed, and in the case of authority- lost. That takes nothing away from the atonement.
I am not sure why you are using the word “fall” in your argument. Do you think I am arguing that mankind is repeatedly “falling” as Adam and Eve “fell?” That is not my argument. The more appropriate term would be apostasy or “falling away.”
My point about man’s nature and the aberration it would be if there was not an apostasy is all directed at the pattern of repeated rejection by mankind of God and His servants and His truth. This has occurred over and over throughout history. To argue that such a thing did not occur over the last 2,000 years would have been a very big change to that pattern and history.
You could consider your position like a person at the end of a line of people- say 500 people in that line- who privately repeat a verbal message down the line from one person to another down that line of 500 people. Standing at the end, you are insisting that the message you received is precisely the same message initiated by the person on the other end of the line- 500 people down the line, even though many, if not most of the people between the two ends are not known to you.
It is a very weak position, in my opinion, and requires some very big assumptions. And the fundamental assumption behind it is that the degree and extent of continuity of the church through these 2,000 years is a direct measure of God’s power. This is so because you assume He has revealed that an apostasy would ever occur. I assert that God never said an apostasy would never occur. In fact, Christ and His apostles alluded to such a “falling away” repeatedly. And mankind’s rejection of Christ’s church or even Christ Himself is not a measure of God’s power- it is nothing more than a measure of man’s nature and choices.
As almost all analogies are imperfect, I acknowledge that the analogy above does not take into consideration the written record in the form of scriptures. They certainly help with the continuation of knowledge and doctrine. But the application even applies to a degree to the scriptures since we do not have the autographs and cannot name or identify all those who have had care for them from their initial creation to today.
Thanks. That is probably all the posts I have for the day.
“But mankind has a certain nature. ”
Is mankind more powerful than God?
Is God consistent?
Did God say that he would be with us always, and that he will dwell in or hearts?
If God is consistent, and is always with us, would he allow his message to be so altered such that his message disappears for about 1500 years?
Man has fallen, indeed, and I continue to use that word, because it is the constant state of mankind. We will always be a fallen creature. But God is consistent, and always has been, even for the supposed 1500 years of apostasy. You use an analogy about the game of telephone, to which I reply that you underestimate God’s power and influence.
It is funny to hear you state we base our position on some assumptions. Christ told us that before calling someone else out on their sin you need to look into your own heart and see your own. In other words, you have some assumptions you need to deal with, not least that you can prove the apostasy from one single verse.
By the way, FoF, or any other LDS posting here and reading this, don’t under estimate the power of assumptions in our lives. The very basis of your faith appears to begin with the assumption the stirring in your belly grows from the spirit of God, not any other being. You accept that based on a single verse in the BoM.
Contrast this with the basis of traditional Christian faith that we are to consider all of God’s word before making a decision on a stirring of emotion.
Consider the very assumption of the power of an emotion.
There are many other distinctions based on assumptions in our faiths, but challenge your assumptions. Test them. It is important to do this to ensure you know why you believe what you do and whether it stands against the truth. This more than going back to your religious books. This is getting to the very heart of your faith.
If you conclude that your faith is still correct, there is nothing else I can say short of asking God to pray that you continue challenging your faith. I cannot convince you, nor anyone else. But God can, as long as you are open to finding the truth, not the one that conforms to your assumptions.
For what it is worth, I constantly challenge my beliefs and my assumptions. I don’t trust my feelings. I look into everything I hear or read concerning faith, and verify it with the Bible before I determine its veracity. I have had huge moments of doubt that my faith is correct. But when I consider all of the evidence in front of me, including my emotions, I conclude as I do. I cannot see any other way. And when I consider everything, I allow myself to alter the assumptions.
I challenge you do the same. If God is the truth, and only reveals the truth, then by submitting ourselves fully to his truth we will come to the same conclusion. It is the only way. Until then, it is our stubbornness that is clouding the truth, and that becomes our sin.
Part of the question, then, is when we will have the last chance to find the truth? And that, enters us into the world of assumptions and the vast divide we have in our faiths.
FOF
said,
The significant difference is that this dispensation is the only dispensation that will not ultimately end in apostasy.
I say,
You said that the supposed apostasy was permitted because it would result in something “better”.
In what sense is the LDS organization “better” than the Church Christ founded?
You can’t say the LDS organization is the same as Christ’s Church because “the same” is not “better”
and
You can’t say that it’s better because it will not end in apostasy because that is exactly the point in dispute
It would be like me saying that I allowed my house to burn down so that I can build a house that is not burnt down.
It is illogical nonsense
You say,
But the establishment of the church anciently is not the same thing as the atonement.
I say,
Actually God’s word says that the establishment of the Church was the very reason for the atonement ,
quote:
who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
(Titus 2:14)
End quote:
peace
MJP,
I asserted the following in a post above:
“And the fundamental assumption behind it is that the degree and extent of continuity of the church through these 2,000 years is a direct measure of God’s power.”
To which you responded: “I man more powerful than God?”
Do you see the problem? You continue to assume that whether or not there was an apostasy is a measure of God’s power. And there is no basis for such an assumption. God never promised to prevent a “falling away” or apostasy. You guys are reading this into passages of scriptures that in no way say that.
And yes, God is consistent. And so is man in rejecting God. Your line or reasoning does not change or really answer my argument.
And yes, I understand the insidious nature of assumptions and bias. I take significant measures to identify and recognize them in my own thinking a logic.
And speaking of assumptions, you are making some big ones about me and the basis of my belief and a single verse in the Book of Mormon. Careful, my friend. I have spent as many hours in studying these things for myself as I have in pursuing my professional training. I take it very seriously and have invested huge amounts of time and money to look at all angles of my faith, beliefs, and conclusions- examining arguments for and against my conclusions. I appreciate the sentiment and expression of desire to come to God’s truth. I could not agree more.
fifth monarch man,
I think your connecting the atonement with the ability of the church to avoid apostasy is fallacious thinking. No offense, but I see no support for that connection and assumption. There is nothing in scripture to support it. Yes- Christ died to help, bless, and save us. But that does not mean His church would never fall into apostasy. If you insist on that logic, how far do you take it? If success is ensured by the greatness of Christ’s atonement, then where do you draw the line of that success? In other words, does the success of His atonement mean every person will be saved? I think you would answer- “of course not.” Well, why? The answer to that is the same reason an apostasy of the church is not impossible.
And the passage from Titus that you quote does not suggest to any degree that there would be no apostasy. Christ died to save people. That does not mean all people will be saved. See what I mean?
Thanks.
FOF,
First some unfinished business
I’m not sure why you did not answer my question. Perhaps you missed it. What about the LDS organization is better than the Church that Jesus founded? I’m waiting patiently for an answer
FOF says,
I think your connecting the atonement with the ability of the church to avoid apostasy is fallacious thinking.
I say,
To recap I never argued that the Atonement was linked to Christ’s protection of his Church.
I could do this but that is not my point. My point was that the rejection of Jesus lead to the establishment of the Church. What I want to know is what “Better” thing resulted from Christ supposedly watching his Bride perish from the earth.
you say,
If you insist on that logic, how far do you take it? If success is ensured by the greatness of Christ’s atonement, then where do you draw the line of that success? In other words, does the success of His atonement mean every person will be saved?
I say,
I draw the line exactly where the God’s draws the line. Christ did not die to make the everyone his Church. He died to save those who God gave to him and to establish a triumphant Church that would not pass away
For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.”
(Hebrews 2:10-13)
The Bible is also clear that an eternal Church is the Father’s gift to Christ as a reward for what he did (the atonement).
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14)
This is not rocket science
peace
FOF
If I was going to waste time arguing with you that God promised that the Church would not apostatize I might point you to a passage like this.
It’s one of my favorites and its where my user name comes from
Quote:
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
(Daniel 2:44)
end quote:
If that promise allows for an apostasy words have no meaning .
But once again arguing about something so obvious as Christ’s protection of his Church is not my purpose here.
I want to know how the LDS organization is “better” than the Church that was established by Jesus
peace
Faithoffathers, your reasoning , in trying to defend the great apostasy theory created by your
leadership, is rather strained . I’m shaking my head at how you’ve attempted to defend this
false doctrine of theirs . You’re correct that mankind has shown a pattern of repeated
rejection of God through history . However , this by no means can be used to show that every
single person is guilty of rejecting God ‘s truth and becoming an apostate . That would be
a ridiculous belief . You also failed to grasp what I said about Jesus being with His people ,
those that worship Him ( a take on Matt 18:20) . I was’nt talking about Jesus/God being
involved in the affairs of mankind throughout history , but that SPECIFICALLY He is
personally with His followers , just the truth that Matt 18:20 is conveying . This has
always been so , and it is another reason why the universal , complete apostasy doctrine
created by your leaders is little more than a conspiracy theory , despite your denial to
the contrary .
Now, you stated that Matt 18:20 is not an open ended promise to attend any gathering of two
or more persons conducted in Jesus’ name , that this verse is Jesus referring to His apostles .
Sorry but you have missed the mark on this one . Jesus’ promise to be with His church officers
certainly applies to those who also worship Him ( but are not officers) —-that is the truth this
verse conveys . This is the very comfort of all who have gathered in His name for 2000 years
now despite heavy persecution or much apostasy —there has ALWAYS been those , though
maybe small in numbers , who have faithfully worshiped Jesus in spirit and in truth .
What’s especially indicting against your stated view of Matt 18:20 is that even some of your
own leaders disagree with you ! Therefore , even though you may be a good person , you can’t
be looked to , to understand scripture , at least with Matt 18:20 .
Mormon leaders have cleverly created their total apostasy doctrine as a way to try and convince
people that they are Jesus’ true apostles . However , they have only proven otherwise because
of their introducing aberrant doctrines about Jesus and the true gospel of salvation .
There was no complete/universal apostasy of Jesus’ Body , neither from His gospel of salvation.
That salvation has always been available to anyone who read the scriptures or heard it shared .
fifth monarchy man,
First question- the only thing that is “better” about the church Christ established in the last days compared to the ancient church is that is will be here when He returns.
Second question or point- the rejection of Christ didn’t lead to the establishment of His ancient church. He established it before His trial and crucifixion. So it doesn’t make sense to say the rejection of Him led to the creation of His church. It was established before He was ultimately rejected.
Christ didn’t die to establish a church. He did that before He died.
It is true that it is not rocket science. But you are reading into those passages things that are not there. Christ having an eternal dominion does not equal His church on earth never falling away. He had dominion before His atonement. His dominion is not dependent upon our acceptance of Him. His dominion is not dependent upon the “success” of His church or its avoiding apostasy.
Understand that the church did not cease to exist with the apostasy- it exists in this world and in Heaven and in the Spirit world. Hence, the statement in Revelation 12:6 that “the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” The woman is the church. And she fled into the wilderness during the apostasy. She did not cease to exist, but she was rejected by mankind on earth.
Thanks.
FOF says,
First question- the only thing that is “better” about the church Christ established in the last days compared to the ancient church is that is will be here when He returns.
I say,
So Jesus allowed his church to perish from the earth so as to bring forth an organization that is better because it will not perish from the earth. Can you really not see how foolish that answer is?
You say,
Second question or point- the rejection of Christ didn’t lead to the establishment of His ancient church.
I say
That is just a grossly unbibical statement. Jesus’ death is the only grounds for the Church. The Church exists because the Spirit is now present in all of God’s children (Acts 2:17-18) The Gift of the Holy Spirit is only possible because of the atonement.
quote:
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
(John 16:7)
end quote:
you say,
He established it before His trial and crucifixion. So it doesn’t make sense to say the rejection of Him led to the creation of His church. It was established before He was ultimately rejected.
I say,
Actually he established it before the foundation of the world. Then he purchased it with his blood after he was rejected. Christ did not establish his church when he died but the Church is the “Better” thing that resulted from his Death.
You say,
Christ didn’t die to establish a church. He did that before He died.
I say,
Actually the Bible says repeatedly that he did die to establish a church. Read the Titus passage again and while your at it check out 1 Peter 2:6-10 and Ephesians 2:13-22 and Revelation 5:9-10 and Ephesians 3:9-11 etc etc etc
you say,
Understand that the church did not cease to exist with the apostasy- it exists in this world …..
I say,
If the Church did not cease to exist on the earth. What was JS supposedly restoring ?? If the Church existed on the earth at the time of JS life then his entire enterprise is nothing but a usurpation of proper authority
You say,
She did not cease to exist, but she was rejected by mankind on earth.
I say,
The Church has always been and will always be rejected by the world just like her Lord was. This is simply our calling it is not some sort of apostasy to be restored by a “better” organization
That the true Church will always be rejected by a sinful mankind is probably the most clear promise in scripture.
quote:
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
(1 Peter 2:21)
Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
(2 Timothy 3:12)
I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.
(John 17:14-15)
end quote
peace
FOF says,
you are reading into those passages things that are not there. Christ having an eternal dominion does not equal His church on earth never falling away.
I say,
We are not talking about Christ’s dominion we are talking about the Saints receiving an everlasting kingdom (the Church) that will not perish. The Bible is clear about that
quote:
But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’
and
And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’
(Daniel 7:27)
and
And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
(Revelation 5:9-10)
peace
No, I’m not creating a straw man. This is what your leaders have taught. (Mormon bubble logic):
And these are just the MODERN Mormon quotes. I have many, many more. The Gospel is the “good news” of Christ. This of course has been changed by Mormons to be THEIR complete set of ordinances, laws, regulations, priesthood, etc. etc. This of course is NOT what Jesus taught. YOU have erected a straw man in limiting GOD. The Bible NEVER limits God. He always will come to those who repent and be with them. Therefore, (by Mormon Bubble logic) there had to be a COMPLETE, TOTAL & UNIVERSAL APOSTASY, of EVERYONE, which your leaders ABSOLUTELY teach.
What window? How long? We have records going back to the FIRST CENTURY.
Didache 50-120 A.D.
Barnabas 80-120 A.D.
First Clement 80-140 A.D.
Ignatius 105-115 A.D.
This is just a FEW. Here are the rest. These men taught the Gospel and fought against Gnostacism, etc. You can’t tell me that these men “lost” the Gospel or did not have it. There is no “window” here for an “apostasy”. Please tell us in exact detail how this TOTAL & UNIVERSAL “apostasy” happened. There is nothing in the ECF’s teachings that show the MORMON Gospel of Law of Moses type “regulations”, temple marriage, temples, many gods, endowments, etc., etc. It’s just NOT THERE so Mormons have to say that it was all somehow magically removed, but none can ever say how or when and use the same argument to discredit the Bible.
You quote Isaiah 24 but RIP IT OUT OF IT’S CONTEXT. It is not speaking of Isaiah’s time. Mormons have also quoted it saying that it applies to Jo Smith. (See D&C 1:15) Let’s quote the WHOLE THING, and see if it matches up to the “apostasy” and “restoration” by Jo Smith:
When was the earth’s inhabitants completely laid waste and “burned up” and “very few left” before/after the time of Isaiah or before Jo Smith? Where is the “restoration” spoken of here? Nowhere. This shows that “very few” still had the “everlasting covenant” from the time of Jesus until his 2nd Coming. Those “few” are the ones who TRULY live the Gospel as taught by Jesus.
Isaiah was a REAL prophet. This is speaking of the 2ND COMING of Christ. This was all laid out by Jesus in Matthew 24. This HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. The Lord did not “burn up the earth” at the time of Isaiah or Jo Smith. Even though Israel continued to break the covenant, God said he would NEVER forsake his chosen people. He NEVER HAS. The Gentiles are now grafted in as a part of God’s chosen people.
Jo’s God couldn’t even “redeem Zion” by “his power” as Jo prophesied he would. Jo’s God was powerless before a couple of thousand Missourians, further proof that he was a false prophet. Please read in context next time you want to quote scripture.
“There is a window of time just after the apostles for which we have essentially no record- nothing. And during the ministry of the apostles, they repeatedly and constantly warned the church members of wolves among the sheep, corruption, and apostasy. Why did they spend so much time worrying about those things if an apostasy was simply never going to be a threat?”
This is one of the most ignorant things I have read here (and I don’t mean stupid as “ignorant” can be taken). Grindael didn’t include Clement of Rome in his short first century list. Clement was a companion of Paul who became the bishop of Rome and wrote a letter to the Corinthian church about 10 years after John wrote Revelation and his gospel. Clement writes highly of the Corinthians in his letter so obviously Paul’s earlier warnings (which Mormons point to as proof of apostasy) payed off to their benefit. This statement that, “There is a window of time just after the apostles for which we have essentially no record- nothing”, is rooted in either ignorance or subjective confirmation alone.
Grindael, fifth monarchy man , MJP, and Mistaken Testimony : great job in exposing the
“great apostasy ” doctrine of Mormonism for what it is — a ridiculous doctrine . It’s really
sad when we read what Mormon authorities have taught because it’s apparent they advertise
this doctrine simply to try to stand out as the true church of Jesus today . It’s a tactic that has
unfortunately misled many people .
FoF:
God has always said people will fall away. The NT is rife with examples. Falling away does not mean apostasy. This is an assumption I think you should direct your attention towards. And the Matt. 18 verse you quoted as proving it. That is far from true. I understand you have other sources, but when you ask if this verse proves it, you certainly think it gives great credence to it. And on that you are very wrong.
But, reading through your response, I was led to consider the parable of the sower, quoted here:
Matthew 13:1-9:
“13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
I am curious to know what it is you think this parable means.
Speaking on the general topic of the Apostasy, I don’t think the Bible contain sufficient information to prove one way or the other. The simple fact is that the verses people use to prove the impossibility of it don’t say this; while on the other hand there is no verse that states there will be.
While I believe the evidence of the Bible does support the occurrence of the apostasy, the passages I could cite are just as easily interpreted by others as speaking only to individuals and not the whole church. While I can take every verse they give to prove me wrong and give alternate (and perfectly logical) reasons as to why they don’t prove it.
Honestly, the entire discussion has been beaten to death and nothing more really remains to be said. However, just a few comments to illustrate my point.
Fifth Monarchy
Daniel speaks to our day, not the time of Christ. The Kingdoms that are to exist (symbolized by the clay and iron feet) when God will raise up his kingdom are those that came after the Roman Empire (symbolized by the Iron Legs). The Roman Empire did not fall until a few centuries after Christ, and thus the church set up by Christ cannot be the Kingdom that Daniel speaks of as a stone cut without hands.
Also, the Bible never once says that Christ died to establish his church. It says he died to redeem his church, which is a very different thing. The church was established by him as he called and ordained men to the ministry; and as he preached to the Jews. This happened before his crucifixion. However, it was the atonement that sanctified and redeemed the church, but only after it was established.
MJP
I personally agree with you that Matthew 18: 20 does indicate that when ever any two believers are gathered they will have the Spirit of the Lord with them. However, just as you claim this cannot apply to us as we have a different understand as to who Christ is, I say that when the doctrines and ordinances became corrupted and people lost the true knowledge of Christ then they no longer had this promise, as they were no longer gathering in the name if Christ, but in the name of something else.
Simply put, Christ’s promises only apply if the people remained faithful. Once the church was corrupted and people began to believe false doctrine all the promises were made void, as they were no longer done with faith in the true Christ.
Take also the statement “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” So, as long as the church was on that foundation it would never fall; however, once it left that foundation, due to false doctrine and corruption of ordinances, it did fall, for it was no longer built on the proper foundation.
Shem, then you admit that underlying assumptions define how you interpret your beliefs.
If the Bible is not reliable, and claim it is not, you can go elsewhere to support your position. But even this is based on an assumption– that an apostasy had come, that people had fallen, the Bible distorted, and that the real gospel was brought to North America, among others.
I won’t presume to be able to change your mind here, but I can ask you consider the assumptions.
Shem, thanks for admitting that the Bible does’nt contain sufficient information to prove
the apostasy one way or the other . I’ll remember that next time I read how your leaders
use the Bible, especially N.T. verses to teach about their doctrine of a great Apostasy ,
which necessitated the alleged restoration in 1830 through Joseph Smith .
This is really an admission of defeat folks. The evidence absolutely shows that Mormonism did not exist prior to 1830 and no Mormon has EVER been able to prove this. On the other hand, we KNOW there was no “Great & Total Apostasy”, by what is written in the Bible, and what came after.
Jesus said: “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18); “Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world” (Matt 28:20); “The Father…will give you another Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16); “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you” (John 14:26); “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13). None of these mentions a “total and complete apostasy”.
Jude wrote, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was ONCE FOR ALL entrusted to God’s holy people.” Jude 1:3
Look also at the many New Testament verses which speak of the Church as Christ’s own body, such as Romans 12:1-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; 5:21-32; and Colossians 1:18. Since Christ is the mind and head of his Church (Eph 4:15-16), animating the body, the members enjoy spiritual union with him (John 15:1-8). It’s inconceivable that he would permit his body to disintegrate under the attacks of Satan. The apostle John reminds us that Jesus is greater than Satan. (1 John 4:4).
Although, tragically, the gates of hell can and do prevail over individual Christians who succumb to sin and cut themselves off from life-giving union with Christ (Rom 11:22; Gal 5:4; 2 Peter 2:20-22; 1 John 5:16-17), they can’t prevail against the Church Jesus built on the the ROCK of Revelation that Jesus gave to Peter and his Apostles. If they could—if they did—Jesus is made to look foolish for having taught, “Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish'” (Luke 15:28-30)
Consider another of Jesus’ promises: “I will ask the Father and he will send you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of the truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans” (John 14:16-18). If Mormons are right about a complete apostasy, Jesus did leave us as orphans—for 1700 years! The fact that Mormons will try and claim that this promise was “only” to his chosen 12 is ludicrous.
One thing we know is the fact that there have been immoral and heterodox members in the Church. Jesus didn’t promise that the Church wouldn’t be menaced by immorality and heterodoxy. Rather, he promised that the wheat and the chaff (good and evil) would be side by side in the Church until the end (Matt 13:24-43, 47-50).
In a recent written exchange, Mormon apologist Robert Starling, attempting to prove the divine origin of Mormonism, cited the chief Rabbi Gamaliel’s prediction regarding the New Testament Church: “[I]f this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God” (Acts 5:38-39). Starling unwittingly undercut his own claim of a great apostasy. Gamaliel was right. The Church Jesus built could not (and was not) destroyed.
Jesus bestowed a unique authority on his disciples. He conferred on them his power to bind and lose in heaven and on earth (Matt 18:18). He gave them his authority to forgive sins (John 20:21-23; 2 Cor. 5:18-20). He promised his disciples that when they taught, he Jesus, spoke through them, and that whoever rejected their teachings rejected Jesus himself (Matt 10:40; Luke 10:16).
His disciples then transmitted this authority to their successors (Acts 1:15-26). Paul exhorted a newly appointed Overseer/Bishop, “Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.” (1 Tim. 4:14). This was the gift of the Holy Spirit. In 2 Timothy 1: 13-14, Paul tells Timothy, “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the [gift of the] Holy Spirit who dwells IN US, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.”
The gift of the Holy Spirit, would enable Timothy to guard the treasure of the gospel, and he would do so, by not neglecting the gift that was in him, the Holy Spirit. Around A.D. 80-100 Clement, a bishop of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthians, expounded on many doctrines, including, monotheism, the doctrine of grace (“those who by God’s grace were made perfect in love”) and the blood of Christ (“our Lord Jesus Christ gave his life’s blood for us — he gave his body for our body, his soul for our soul)”. Clement also speaks of apostasy and repentence:
Clement also gives this prayer,
Clement does not speak of any “priesthood authority” in connection with the Church of Christ. He speaks of the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit” the SAME GIFT that Paul spoke to Timothy about. THIS is what drives the Church of Christ. This is what gives it POWER. This is the legacy of Jesus Christ to His body. Peace, love and the Holy Spirit which transforms men to “keep the commandments” Jesus has given, to love God and our neighbor. Where is the apostasy? In the individual. Where is the repentance? In the individual, who Clement says that God gave every chance to repent and when they did, they were saved.
Clement also, had to deal with controversy at the Corinthian Church. Here is what he said and how he did so. Notice my friends that there is nothing that would confirm a “great and total apostasy”, nor that one was coming. Note how Clement cites the Apostle Paul, and how he speaks of the authority of the original apostles and how that authority was handed down. Remember, this is between 80-100 A.D.:
This letter of Clement is confirmed to be the oldest Christian document besides the letters/gospels of the original apostles. The importance of them was not lost on those who came after. By A.D. 110, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and disciple of the apostle John, while on his way in chains to Rome to be martyred for the faith, composed letters to six major centers of Catholicism, along the route (Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, Smyrna, Rome). Ignatius provides us with valuable insights into doctrines and practices of the Christian Church at the close of the first century—only one generation removed from the time of Christ. His writings make it clear that their was no “apostasy” and that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were handed down intact. He wrote,
We can see that the whole organization of the church in those days was bishops, presbyters, (elders) and deacons. There were no others, except the chosen apostles. I urge everyone to read through these letters to gain a better understanding of what these men believed, and how they were willing to die for it. It all centered on Jesus. His Grace, His Blood, and His Resurrection. They fought against the Gnostic Heresy and the creeping heresy from outside influences. They clung to the teachings of the Apostles and saved them up. They had the letter and the Gospels. There were no rituals or regulations except baptism and the sacrament. There is none of the trappings of Mormonism here. http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/ignatius/
Ignatius was at last thrown to the wild beasts and devoured, as he longed to be for his belief in Christ.
Irenaeus of Lyons wrote,
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
Shema says,
Daniel speaks to our day, not the time of Christ.
I say,
Wow,
I never cease to be amazed at how someone can miss something so clear
If it was a snake it would bite you.
Christ chooses his most often used self designation while on the earth (The SON of Man) from this very passage.
He quoted from it all the time while speaking in the present tense about his mission. He even gave his trial/crucifixion as the exact date for it’s fulfillment ……”from now on”……..
quote:
Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
(Matthew 26:64)
end quote:
You say,
The Roman Empire did not fall until a few centuries after Christ, and thus the church set up by Christ cannot be the Kingdom that Daniel speaks of as a stone cut without hands.
I say
What??? The whole point of the prophecy is that the rock grows into a mountain. It is a slow process that nevertheless is guaranteed to succeed. Of course it takes some time for the statue to fall. If it was an instantaneous collapse the prophecy would make no sense.
you say,
the church set up by Christ cannot be the Kingdom
I say,
WOW again.
I need to let that sink in
so the King cannot set up the Kingdom. Do you even pay attention to what you are saying.
You say,
The church was established by him as he called and ordained men to the ministry; and as he preached to the Jews. This happened before his crucifixion.
I say,
Please provide some evidence for your contention merely claiming something does not make it so. Christ does not say as he chose disciples before Calvary “I am now establishing my church” He tells
them “I will οἰκοδομέω (build) my church”
The Spirit was not given until after the Resurrection. The Church can not exist with out the Sprint.
quote:
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
(John 7:39)
end quote:
Are you actually saying that according to Mormonism the Church can exist with out the Holy Spirit?
That would explain a lot
You say,
However, it was the atonement that sanctified and redeemed the church, but only after it was established.
I say,
Do you actually believe that the Church can exist with out it’s members being redeemed?
Again this would explain a lot.
If I’m not mistaken you are saying that according to Mormonism the Church can exist in an unredeemed state and with out the Holy Spirit as long as it has the proper rituals. No wonder you believe it can apostatize.
You just have a vastly different concept of the Church than Christianity does. Your “church” sounds more like the shrine club than the Bride of Christ.
peace
Grindael, I agree that the more we consider what Mormon authorities have taught about
their “Great Apostasy ” doctrine , the more odd it becomes —-especially when evaluated in the
light of the scriptural record ,( and some common sense) . Shem admits this doctrine can’t be
established Biblically even though many of his leaders have said otherwise , and Fof F with his
comment about Matt 18:20 is’nt something many of his leaders would agree with at all .
I think we know why Mormon authorities created their great apostasy doctrine — it is a clever
advertising tool to convince the public that they are special , the only group of true followers of Jesus , those who constitute His Body . So it get’s people’s attention when they say things like :
Christianity sicked and died ; a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine ; a complete
apostasy from the gospel established by Jesus and His apostles ; salvation not available again
until 1830 ; etc, etc . Unfortunately sincere people have fell for that type of false advertising .
It’s a blessing to be able to remind our LDS friends and neighbors that Mormon leadership has
not been trustworthy guides in important spiritual truths , and that there is acceptance by God
and a saving relationship with God resulting in eternal life with Him in heaven and the fullest
blessing therein available outside of Mormonism .
Hi Mike!
Of course, Jo invented the “Great and Total Apostasy” to give credence to the Book of Mormon. We have yet to see the lauded “records” from the Lost Ten Tribes who are supposedly circling the earth on a big rock, or tucked away inside the North Pole somewhere, staying alive like they did in Journey to the Center of the Earth, I suppose. The problem with Mormonism, and with Jo in particular is that his words (unless they are heavily edited and made ready for prime time) condemn him. There are no Moon-men Quakers. There are no “tribes” circling the earth on a giant rock. There are no people living in a big hole under the North Pole. Take for example the whole reason for the “restoration”, that God had specifically “raised up a prophet” to establish “Zion” in the last days. That would be Jo. Well, he screwed it all up. You know what happened. He went there and the Mormons got booted out of Jackson County and Jo went with a band of a couple of hundred to “redeem Zion” in 1834. They in turn failed. Jo then blamed it on his fellow “saints” who he said were a bunch of slackers that ruined it all for them. (D&C 104). That, it would seem is the end of the story. But it’s not. Here’s what many Mormons (and others) don’t know….
A diary entry by Joseph Smith that was made on September 25, 1835, has often been overlooked in relation to the “redemption of Zion”. On that day, he wrote (in his own hand):
What is interesting about this diary entry, is that on the 22 of June, 1834 (fifteen months earlier) Smith wrote a “revelation” in which he said,
“For behold, I do not require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfil—I will fight your battles. Behold, the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints.” (Doctrine & Covenants, Section 104: 14-15, emphasis mine)
Are you confused? Well, you’re not alone. If you know anything about Mormon History, Smith tried to “redeem Zion” in 1834, and failed miserably. D&C 104 was a scathing denunciation of those who had committed “transgressions” (verse 2) and were the supposed cause of that failure. But here also, (D&C 104) we have Smith saying that “not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage”. So according to this “revelation”, God would take care of things- but not by force. That is what is so interesting about the 1835 diary entry. But there is more. If one reads the “official” accounts about “Zion” and it’s ultimate “redemption” written for the Church’s website, one reads:
The letter they are quoting here, was dated December 10, 1833, many months before Smith’s march to “Zion” in the spring (May) of 1834. Why then, is this portrayed as the end result of the Zion affair? The “official” Mormon website also has this to say about “Zion’s Camp”,
This “official” account by the Church does not mention Smith’s diary entries a year and a half later, but rather states,
In 1839 John Corrill published his Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, and wrote,
“A council was held…” In the Book of John Whitmer, who was the brother of David Whitmer we find this account,
This time they didn’t have “very great armies” which contradicts the “revelation” that said that the LORD would fight their battles with the “destroyer” (that never came). From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we read:
They had “answered the Lord’s call” but no destroyer… No mention here either, of the 1835 diary entry, or the following letter written by Joseph Smith on August 16, 1834 where he gives a date for the “redemption of Zion”:
Are you beginning to see things clearly now? The SET DATE for the “Redemption of Zion” was September 11, 1836. But it didn’t happen. What date did Brigham Young order the Mountain Meadows Massacre to take place on? September 11.The Mormons always blamed the Missourians for their failure to “Redeem Zion”. Notice with Smith’s prophecy that he ALWAYS leaves in that bit about “if the “saints” don’t do EVERYTHING” they will fail. What more could they do?
Here is another diary entry, from April of 1836:
By the summer of 1836, some of Clay Counties citizens became concerned with the ever-increasing number of Mormons in the region resulting in isolated outbreaks of violence. These hostilities led Missouri Church leaders to search out other places for Mormon settlement. In August, W. W. Phelps and John Whitmer purchased land, one-mile square, in a relatively uninhabited portion of Ray County and there established Far West as the new place of gathering.
September 11, 1836 came and went. The Lord did not “redeem Zion” or “fight your battles”. He did not send “the destroyer” to “destroy and lay waste mine enemies”; and Jo’s God’s promise that “not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints” ever came to pass.
Even Parley P. Pratt was so convinced that he prophesied that there would not be an “unbelieving Gentile left on this continent” in 50 years from 1838, or the Book of Mormon “was false”. He published this Prophecy in a Pamphlet called “Mormonism Unveiled” in 1838.
This is the quality of the “prophet” of the “restoration”.
MJP
“then you admit that underlying assumptions define how you interpret your beliefs.”
In a sense yes. Now, I say this only because what you can an assumption is something that I cannot prove outwardly, and thus for all practical purposes in this discussion it is the same as an assumption. I do not believe in the Apostasy based on assumption. However, in a discussion based in logic I must treat it as an assumption, as you do not have the same bases for the faith that I do.
However, in saying this I also acknowledge that you have many assumptions in your beliefs as well, which is why I stated that the Bible is insufficient to prove this point. Your interpretation of these verses is truly based on your assumption that there was no apostasy. I assume that there was, and so I see a different meaning in these same verses. This is my point. For both of us we first must assume our doctrine is correct before we are really able to see it taught in these verses.
Mike
I don’t think that you really understand what I am saying. I already stated that I believe the Bible does support the doctrine of the apostasy, and that through the Bible we can see that it truly did occur. However, in doing so I am willing to admit that in a discussion based on logical argument it is impossible to actually prove this, for the simple fact that the verses of the Bible are too easily interpreted in different ways to fit different doctrine.
Fifth Monarchy
Let me clarify. Daniel 2, in which we have the dream of the statue and the stone cut without hands, is speaking of our day, and is a prophecy of the establishment and restoration of God’s Kingdom, fulfilled through Joseph Smith. Daniel 7: 1-8 speaks to the same kingdoms as the statue, with Rome being the fourth with Iron teeth (parallel to the Iron legs of the statue), and the ten horns being those kingdoms that came after. Thus everything that happens after is, once again, after the time of Christ. In verse 9 the vision progresses rapidly until all worldly kingdoms will be overthrown and Christ will return (the Son of Man) and claim his dominion of the Earth. These events have not yet happened, but tell of events just previous to the Second Coming.
Matthew 26: 64 does not declare a fulfillment of this prophecy. All this is is a declaration that after this time Christ will come in power, and that he will no longer be the submissive lamb of sacrifice. If the wicked men to whom he was talking were ever to see him again it would be in his glory and power in heaven.
You say “The whole point of the prophecy is that the rock grows into a mountain. It is a slow process that nevertheless is guaranteed to succeed. Of course it takes some time for the statue to fall. If it was an instantaneous collapse the prophecy would make no sense.”
You need to read the prophecy again.
Daniel 2: 44 “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed…”
In the days of the Kings that come after the Roman empire shall God set up his kingdom. He doesn’t set up his kingdom during the time of Rome and let it slowly destroy the kingdoms. He sets it up during the time in which the Roman Empire has been divided and is partly strong and partly weak. This is not the time of Christ, as the time of Christ is when Rome was at its strongest.
You say “Are you actually saying that according to Mormonism the Church can exist with out the Holy Spirit?”
Sort of, yes. While Christ was on the Earth in his mortal ministry the Spirit was not given. They had Christ instead. However, in all other times the spirit is given. I don’t understand why this is, and it has never been explained. But he established his church while he was alive.
As to evidence of his establishing a church, in Luke 6 he chooses the apostles which he choose out of all his disciples (indicating that he already had a descent following) and late, in chapter 10, he appoints seventy others. Both this accounts clearly show that he has established an ordained ministry to preach the gospel, all of them being sent out to preach by themselves.
Then in Matthew 16-18 we have Christ telling the apostles how to direct the church after Christ has gone, indicating that some kind of organization was already in place.
Of course there is more, as all the accounts of Christ’s ministry show that he is working to organize a church while he is still among them. Now, the scriptures never say directly “Christ organized a church at this time in this place” but the accounts are filled with evidence.
You say “If I’m not mistaken you are saying that according to Mormonism the Church can exist in an unredeemed state and with out the Holy Spirit as long as it has the proper rituals.”
The difference is that I can make a distinction between an organization and the faithful followers of Christ. There can be no true community of the faithful without the spirit and the redemption of Christ. However, people can be organized into a church with proper rituals without these things being present. I mean, just look at Christianity for the past 1500 years.
However, to clarify, the atonement of Christ is what redeems all men, but that redemption and sanctification was applied to all the faithful before the time of Christ. Thus Abraham was redeemed and sanctified by the atonement just as much as I am. So, no the church set up by Christ did not exist in an unredeemed state, anymore than Abraham did. But it was still through the atonement that this was possible.
Through the atonement the church was sanctified, even though the atonement had not yet taken place.
Shem, in all due respect, you don’t get my point. You also contradict yourself here in saying the Bible does prove the apostasy, but that that conclusion is based on assumption. I am asking you to challenge your assumptions.
I have challenged mine, and am happy to discuss how so. It requires one to fully remove himself from the situation he is in, at least intellectually.
shem said,
In verse 9 the vision progresses rapidly until all worldly kingdoms will be overthrown and Christ will return (the Son of Man) and claim his dominion of the Earth. These events have not yet happened, but tell of events just previous to the Second Coming.
I say,
actually it says that the kingdom Christ will set up will break in pieces “all these Kingdoms” that is the 4 kingdoms in the vision. and it will happen in the “days of those kings” not some time in the future
quote:
Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
end quote:
You say,
Matthew 26: 64 does not declare a fulfillment of this prophecy. All this is is a declaration that after this time Christ will come in power
I say,
I agree that Christ will come in power but the verse does not say that. It says that from now on the high priest would see “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
compare that statement with this
quote:
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14)
end quote:
The connection is obvious to any one with eyes to see even the wicked High Priest knew what he was talking about that is why he accused him of blasphemy and not just delusions of grandeur
quote:
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.
(Matthew 26:65)
end quote:
peace
you say,
There can be no true community of the faithful without the spirit and the redemption of Christ. However, people can be organized into a church with proper rituals without these things being present.
I say,
The Church is the only true community of the faithful. It is also the Bride of Christ.
A group of unredeemed people with out the Spirit pretending to be the church are at best a harlot usurper.
If what you were claiming were true then Jesus would be married to an unrepentant prostitute that is unreconciled to God. Are you really wanting to claim that Jesus will marry an unrepentant prostitute?
quote:
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
end quote:
(1 Corinthians 6:16-17)
you say,
I mean, just look at Christianity for the past 1500 years.
I say,
When I look back at the past 1500 years I see the true Church often being persecuted by folks in corrupt organizations like yours who claim that they are Christ’s bride simple because they performed some ritual.
At the same time I see the stone cut out by no human hand despite this persecution slowly becoming a great mountain and filling the earth. just as was prophesied.
Hallelujah
peace
peace
Shem , I did understand what you said , you clearly stated that the Bible does not contain
sufficient information to prove that there was a apostasy . We (non-LDS here) have shared
statements about what your leaders have described as the “Great apostasy” , you say this
doctrine can’t be proven by the Bible . I merely reminded you that Mormon Authorities have
indeed declared that information in the Bible does establish it , according to them the Bible
actually predicts it . This being the case I have to say that I care little about your own opinion.
You’re a Mormon who hopefully one day will come to see that teachings by those above you
in the Church is a gross mishandling of verses in the Bible that they have chosen to bolster
their aberrant doctrine about Jesus, His gospel and His Body . Actually, their teachings on this
issue is exactly something that I would expect from prophets arising in the latter days who try
to convince people that they alone are appointed by God to teach His important truths
affecting man’s salvation , truths supposedly long unavailable to mankind because of an alleged
universal apostasy .
MJP
You said “You also contradict yourself here in saying the Bible does prove the apostasy, but that that conclusion is based on assumption.”
I never said it proves it. I said it supports it and that I can personally see it taught in the text. I made a very clear distinction between this and actual proof. Please try to be more careful in reading what I say.
You said “It requires one to fully remove himself from the situation he is in, at least intellectually.”
This is impossible. Once an idea is put into your mind it cannot be taken out. You don’t challenge an assumption by removing yourself from the situation, but by approaching that situation from the standpoint of a different assumption.
I am reminded of the movie Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston. The old Roman asked his replacement “How do you fight an idea.” The younger man answered him “With another idea.” That is how an assumption is challenged. This I have done. I have approached the Bible from your assumptions, and I find it all very confusing. I have said, long ago, what if they are right, and the Bible continually persuades me that you aren’t. Can I prove this? Of course not. But it is what it is.
Don’t think you are the only one who has questioned things.
Mike
“you clearly stated that the Bible does not contain sufficient information to prove that there was a apostasy”
But I also said that it doesn’t contain enough information to disprove it either. In addition I pointed out my personal belief that it has great support for the apostasy. The problem is that you took only one sentence and tried to make my entire meaning on that single sentence, ignore the context. This is why I clarified my point.
To reiterate it: The Bible is insufficient to prove the point one way or the other in a discussion of this nature. However, I do believe that it does teach and predict the apostasy, though I am willing to admit that you are able to read the same verses and not see this as being the case.
Fifth Monarchy
Now you are purposely switching verses and thus confusing my words in a rather dishonest manner. You quote what I said concerning Daniel 7: 9 and claim that it contradicts Daniel 2: 44. Please address things properly.
As to destroying all the kingdoms, are you suggesting that the church prophesied of was established at the time of the Babylonian Kingdom? Your own reasoning makes no sense. If this stone was the church set up by Christ than it didn’t destroy the first three kingdoms either, as they all fell before Christ ever came.
The symbolism of destroying all the kingdoms is in the fact that all earthly claims to authority will be destroyed and God will rule on earth. However, it is made very clear that this will happen long after the Roman Empire has fallen, and thus long after Christ’s mortal ministry. As I pointed out, it clearly states that it will happen in the time of the fractured kingdoms that were to follow Rome.
Now, the connection between Daniel 7 and Matthew 26 is obvious. Christ is declaring himself the Son of Man, thus declaring himself the Son of God, and God in his own right, and is also claiming power and authority in Heaven. His use of the title is obviously a reference back to Daniel, and I have never denied this. That does not prove that he is declaring a fulfillment of this prophecy, but rather declaring that he is the one who will fulfill it, and that when they see him next it will be in fulfilling it.
Your obvious connection only works if you ignore the obvious meaning of the prophecy in the first place.
Speaking of the church, it seems you have ignored half of what I said. The faithful members of all times have been redeemed through the atonement, and were redeemed through the atonement even before the atonement occurred. Thus, when Christ set up his church those who were faithful were redeemed, even though the atonement had not be performed as of yet. On the other hand, those who were members of the church but were not faithful were not redeemed.
That is the difference between the church and faithful. You can join the church and not be redeemed, but you cannot be among the faithful and not be redeemed.
Shem, I certainly don’t think I am the only one to challenge things, but I absolutely disagree that it is impossible to remove oneself from ideas. Its actually very possible, though difficult. Since you just said, though, that once an idea is put in your mind, it can never leave, I’ll give you this: it is possible to remove yourself from your assumptions.
As to the Bible proving the apostasy, you said this: “I already stated that I believe the Bible does support the doctrine of the apostasy, and that through the Bible we can see that it truly did occur.”
Specifically, I am focusing on the words “…through the Bible we can see that it truly did occur.” What is this if not a statement saying the Bible shows the apostasy truly did occur, or in other words, it proves it? This last statement of yours only strengthens the “support” you say the Bible gives to the idea of the apostasy to the extent that it not only supports it, it shows it truly did occur.
It is my guess that no matter how much you state that the Bible only supports rather than prove the apostasy, you will have a hard time establishing, convincingly, that you hold that belief.
shem,
you say,
You quote what I said concerning Daniel 7: 9 and claim that it contradicts Daniel 2: 44. Please address things properly.
I say,
Context is your friend shem. The vision of the four beasts and the stature made of four materials are about the same event. The establishment of the Kingdom.
The “proper” way to address scripture is to not to dissect and prooftext it but to look at its context and parallels.
You say,
are you suggesting that the church prophesied of was established at the time of the Babylonian Kingdom? Your own reasoning makes no sense. If this stone was the church set up by Christ than it didn’t destroy the first three kingdoms either, as they all fell before Christ ever came.
I say,
I’m not suggesting anything I’m quoting the passage it says that the stone destroyed all four of these kingdoms.
quote
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
(Daniel 2:44)
end quote
Once you understand this you will see why the sort of crystal ball tea leaf gazing you are doing is just not warranted by the text.
Daniel makes it clear that all the kingdoms are connected somehow (hince the one statue) and they are all defeated by the Son of Man and his kingdom.
That is exactly what happened
you say,
That does not prove that he is declaring a fulfillment of this prophecy, but rather declaring that he is the one who will fulfill it, and that when they see him next it will be in fulfilling it.
I say,
The text does not say “the next time you see me” It says “from now on you will see me” .
That indicates present not future fulfillment. This is just basic English. Just let the text speak for itself
you say,
You can join the church and not be redeemed, but you cannot be among the faithful and not be redeemed.
I say,
First of all you can’t join the Church unless you are called. The word church means called out ones Those who are called are by definition faithful.
quote:
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
(Romans 8:30)
end quote:
you say,
Thus, when Christ set up his church those who were faithful were redeemed, even though the atonement had not be performed as of yet.
I say,
Sorry that is just unbibical. Old covenant saints were not part of the Church until their redemption was secured .
quote:
And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
(Hebrews 11:39-40)
and
and to the assembly (church) of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
(Hebrews 12:23-24)
peace
shem,
just in case you need additional proof that Daniel 2 and 7 are about the same event
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
(Daniel 2:44)
And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:14)
nuff said,
peace
MJP
You don’t understand what I am saying. I giving opinions on two different issues, and you are trying to claim that I contradict myself.
First Issue: Does the Bible contain sufficient evidence to support a belief in the Apostasy? In my opinion yes it does.
Second Issue: Does the Bible contain sufficient evidence to prove the apostasy actually existed? In my opinion, no, it doesn’t.
Notice the difference? In my opinion the text of the Bible supports this concept and we can see that it happened. However, my opinion concerning the text does not constitute evidence of proof, and thus I can acknowledge that the text does not actually prove that the apostasy occurred.
Fifth Monarchy
I am going to be brief as I have little time.
Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 do not prophesy of the same events. Yes, the four kingdoms are the same, but that is when the parallel ends. Daniel 2 speaks to the establishment of God’s Kingdom, while Daniel 7 prophecies of the second coming. Your opinion to the contrary proves nothing.
Now, Matthew 26: 64 does not say “from now on” but “Hereafter.” This is a phrase that states clearly that at some future time what ever is being talked about will be realized. Thus Christ is, as I said, declaring that at a future time, when these wicked men once again see him, Christ will be coming in glory in the clouds. He is never recorded as being seen of the wicked after this, and the only time he is prophesied to be coming in glory in the clouds in the Second Coming.
As to your definition of church, I think I am going to have to see a reliable dictionary that shows this, not just your assertion or the assertion of other Christians who give only verses from the Bible that don’t even use the word as their evidence.
Speaking of Hebrews, I am very familiar with these verses, but they do not prove that the people of the Old Testament were not redeemed before the coming of Christ. It is not Biblical to say that Elijah, or Moses, or any of the other great prophets were not redeemed. They were redeemed through their faith, just as all those who came after are.
You say,
Now, Matthew 26: 64 does not say “from now on” but “Hereafter.” This is a phrase that states clearly that at some future time what ever is being talked about will be realized.
I say,
actually the phrase is “απ αρτι οψεσθ”
I’m not going to get into a discussion about the Greek but αρτι is used 39 times in the NT and it never means “at some future time” 25 times The KJV translates it “now”.
Only one time in an undisputed text (Matthew 26:64) is it translated “Hereafter” the phrase means “from now on”. This is simply not disputable.
you say,
He is never recorded as being seen of the wicked after this, and the only time he is prophesied to be coming in glory in the clouds in the Second Coming.
I say,
Actually the wicked see Jesus every day through his body the church and this text does not say that “he will be seen coming in glory in the clouds” It says “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven”.
It’s not about the second coming it is about Jesus ascension to the Father’s side and the establishment of the Kingdom this is what the book of acts is all about it happened just as Daniel 7 predicted.
you say,
As to your definition of church, I think I am going to have to see a reliable dictionary that shows this,
I say,
how about Strong’s Greek dictionary?
quote,
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out,
that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): – assembly, church.
end quote:
nuff said
you say,
It is not Biblical to say that Elijah, or Moses, or any of the other great prophets were not redeemed. They were redeemed through their faith, just as all those who came after are.
I say,
They were redeemed by the blood of Christ just like me and that sacrifice happened at a particular time and place.
peace
Shem, I appreciate what you are trying to say, but I think when pushed comes to shove, you would conclude that the Bible does, in fact, prove that apostasy. You have no other choice, or your position on the apostasy would fall apart.
Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of argument, that at best the NT suggests that an apostasy was to occur, you are still left with the requirement that you go outside of the Bible to prove it. Without getting into the reliability of what it is you find outside of the Bible, it is a truth that you must go outside of the Bible to prove the apostasy.
Is it not?
Shem,
Just in case anyone is wondering why I’m belaboring the point here.
Shem claims that the Bible is silent one way or the other about the supposed apostasy when in fact Daniel’s prophecys make it abundantly clear that there will be no apostasy and that the kingdom that Christ set up at Pentecost will never end and will remain on the earth till the final judgement.
The only way he can dispute this is by ignoring context and changing the clear meaning of words.
That is why it’s important
peace
Just to clarify
apostasy should read general apostasy.
No one is a disputing that individual people and churches fall away from time to time but the stone not cut by hands just keeps growing as was promised.
peace
MJP
“Is it not?”
No. For the simple fact that I don’t think there is enough evidence in anything to prove the apostasy occurred in an discussion of this nature. I am speaking in this context, and in no other, which I have said previously.
If you want a well organized essay on the evidence of the apostasy that considers all perspectives and all evidence available that is objective and usable in a logical discussion, then you will be left with the conclusion that there is no evidence to prove or disprove the apostasy.
On the other hand, if you want a subjective reasoning as to why I believe the apostasy took place I need go no further than the Bible, for I can show half a dozen prophecies at least that declare that it would take place. But this is not proof; it is subjective interpretation and reasoning.
Fifth Monarchy
The problem is that you are the one ignoring context and the clear meaning of words. In Daniel 2: 44 it clearly states the church prophesied of would be established in the time of the divided kingdoms, represented by the feet and toes. This happened after the Roman Empire fell, and thus cannot be the church the Christ established.
The same is true in Daniel chapter Seven. The church is established after the ten horns (or the divided kingdoms) and after the one horn destroys the three.
I am ignoring and changing nothing. The timeline of Daniel does not fit your interpretation and comparison with Matthew 26. Your assertion that the members of the church constitute the wicked seeing Christ is a completely unbiblical concept that is used to defend a conflated interpretation of the text.
This is just incredibly distorted logic. It speaks of the Kingdom that God “set up” and that was done by Christ, not after the Roman Empire was destroyed. Here is what the Bible says:
It struck the image on it’s feet, which was the ROMAN EMPIRE. THEN it became a mountain that filled the earth. That is Christianity. Simple, simple stuff. It doesn’t say that it would be “set up”, and then destroyed and then restored and then “set up” a second time by Jo Smith or anyone else.
“In the days of those kings” means DURING the Roman Empire, not after it. It doesn’t say AFTER the days of those kings, it says DURING the days of those kings it would be “set up”, which it was, BY CHRIST. This is so simple that even a cave man could understand it, but not those who live in the Mormon Bubble of denial.
shen said,
In Daniel 2: 44 it clearly states the church prophesied of would be established in the time of the divided kingdoms, represented by the feet and toes. This happened after the Roman Empire fell, and thus cannot be the church the Christ established.
I say,
I’m sorry but the text clearly says “in the time of those kings” 2:44 and ie the four of the statue. There is no mention of other kings in chapter 2 you are reading this into the text.
The mixed nature of the last kingdom (clay and iron) fits perfectly the mixed nature of the government of Palestine in the first century but not after 70 ad.
Remember Jesus was convicted in separate trials before the iron Romans and before the clay Jewish authorities.
moving on to the parallel in chapter 7 . That text says that the beasts are not destroyed when the Son of Man comes in the clouds to the fathers side to set up his kingdom.
quote:
As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
(Daniel 7:12)
end quote:
The triumph of the church is not complete till long after it’s establishment verse 7:26-27 but we are talking about when it begins
It begins in the time of the fourth beast (verse 13).
I don’t see how you can possibly read this in any other way especially when you have the very words of Jesus in Mathew marking this prophecies fulfillment.
you say,
Your assertion that the members of the church constitute the wicked seeing Christ is a completely unbiblical concept that is used to defend a conflated interpretation of the text.
quote:
I can’t believe you actually just said that. You really have a subchristian idea of what the church is don’t you. That might explain you believe that the church could apostatize.
quote:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
(Matthew 25:41-45)
and
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
(1 Corinthians 12:27)
and
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
(Ephesians 5:29-30)
etc etc etc.
This is all pretty basic stuff. Church 101.
Here is a passage I forgot about showing why The church will remain on the earth the last judgement
Hear the word of the Lord
quote:
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. ………..Let both grow together until the harvest,………..
and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'”
(Matthew 13:24-30)
end quote:
peace