Since so many people have never read the first post concerning this subject, I am going to repost them and number them. If one will take the time to actually read them and give them some thought, it will become very clear to you the truthfulness of this premise!

I wished to assemble this so it would be easy to digest and at the same time not offensive or argumentative.

When one talks about the apostasy of the original it is to broach a subject that is almost unthinkable. Sort of like when for 1500+ years everyone though that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Then Galileo came along with his telescope he turned everything upside down.

In a like manner, most theologians and Christian historians have for centuries taught that Christ's Church survived without interruption since the meridian of time. They acknowledge it confronted some embarrassing and regrettable, and even tragic mishaps, but nonetheless, they insist, the Church marched on. But there is one major problem with that proposition: like the theory of an earth centered universe, it is wrong!

For many this will be unthinkable. Yet for some it was unthinkable that anyone could reject the numerous and powerful miracles of the Saviour, et the majority of his contemporaries did. For others it was unthinkable that Christ, who was omniscient, would have wept, yet it was so. For some it was unthinkable that Christ, who was perfect, would have selected Judas to the holy apostleship, yet with his omniscience it was done.

In each of the foregoing cases the "unthinkable" was the truth! Fortunately, Joseph Smith, with his spiritual telescope, charted the "celestial skies," and in so doing discovered the truth. He announced to the world that the doctrine of a "continuous" church was wrong; instead, he asserted, the Church of Jesus Christ had been taken from the earth, and a "restoration" was necessary. It was a bold and startling statement, but it was true.

To demonstrate the strength of our position, Ronnie, I am going to remind you of a Catholic theologian who spoke to members of the Church in Salt Lake City. He had asked for and received permission to study our welfare system, for as you know, during the great depression, our member were forbidden to accept the Federal Government's dole. We did not need it as we had a system that was more effective and did not rob one of their self-reliance. He said:

"You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that is all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."

That indeed is the issue. Uninterrupted for 2,000 years or was there a cessation of that church followed by a restoration? In our search for the truth we will examine the evidence -the testimony of the scriptures, the witness of the early Christian writers, the records of history, the power of logic, and the whisperings of the Spirit. Occasionally in isolation, but most often in unison, these witness will leave a consistent and compelling tapestry of the truth, however unthinkable it may seem.

Before we get into more of the specifics the question should be addressed; did Christ establish a formal church on the earth, or did he merely teach an informal body of believers? Some religions teach that Christ did not organize a temporal church, but only a spiritual one. They acknowledge that he taught doctrines of salvation through divinely appointed servants, but they assert a formal organization was not necessary for that purpose. Others teach that Christ did not personally organize a church but that his disciples did so. Of course, if Christ's disciples did so under his direction, then the resulting organization would have his stamp of approval. Lest there be a question, the scriptures confirm there was a formal church and that Christ was its founder.

The Saviour himself made reference to the Church. While speaking to Peter he said, "upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18) Furthermore, Paul declared that Jesus was "the head of the body, the Church" (Col. 1:18) The word church comes from the Greek word ecclesia which means "an assembly called together." It is mentioned more than 30 times in the NT - most of those times in the context of an organized congregation. The Saviour and his apostles made multiple references to "the Church," and they took numerous steps to formally organize it. In fact, the apostles established branches or congregations of the Church and appointed leaders wherever they proselytized. Terrullian (A.D. 140-230), an early Christian apologist spoke of the apostles preaching the gospel throughout the world, and then observed: "They then in like manner founded churches in every city from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith." There were many other references to the "churches formed" in both the scriptures and the early Christian Fathers writings.

But this formal church organized by the Saviour and his apostles was not an end in and of itself, but rather the organization through which God chose to save souls and build his kingdom. The scriptures and early Christian writings are a clear testament and historical record that Christ's Church was not an amorphous group of believers but an organized body of Saints that was established in each city where the gospel was preached and accepted.

Next, we examine the "hallmarks" of this Divine institution known as Christ's Church.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 9/11/2007 11:47p).]

Part 2


We know that the Church the Saviour established is a divine institution. But what are the hallmarks of such an institution?

First, the teachings and doctrines were perfect because the Saviour was their source - the fountain from which they sprang. This does not mean that Christ revealed all religious truth at one given time, for he did not. Instead, he revealed line upon line, precept upon precept, predicated upon the spiritual receptivity of the people.

Second, the Church provided the ordinances necessary to save and exalt man. These ordinances included baptism, confirmation of the Holy Ghost, receipt of the priesthood, and participation in divinely appointed temple ceremonies.

Third, the Church possessed the priesthood - the power and authority to act in God's name. With that authority men had the right and capacity to teach the truths of Christ's gospel with a penetrating power to perform the ordinances with divine sanction, and to otherwise bless mankind. When the Saviour finished the Sermon on the Mount, the scriptures record that his listeners were "astonished at his doctrine." Then the scriptures tell us why: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:28-29). It was not just what he said, but how he said it that caused them to marvel. Paul himself acknowledged this demonstrable power of the priesthood: "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4).

Fourth, the Church was a divinely organized institution that was designed to be the most effective and efficient way to (a) disseminate Christ's teachings, (b) perform and monitor his sacred ordinances, and (c) regulate his priesthood authority in an orderly manner. It seems unrealistic to suppose that God would attempt to administer his Church in some random, unstructured fashion. Paul reminded the Saints that "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33). Rather he is a god of order. That is why Paul instructed the Saints to "let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). Christ's Church was a formal, organized institution. It had deacons, teachers, priests, bishops, elders, seventies, high priests, apostles and evangelists all of which contributed to the "order of the Church".

Christ placed his name upon this divine institution in the meridian of time because it was his Church. The hallmarks that distinguished Christ's Church remained for a short season after his ascension, but then, one by one, they disappeared. Most of the teachings became corrupted or lost, the ordinances lost much of their simplicity and symbolism, and eventually the priesthood vanished until the Church leaders could no longer say with authority, "thus saith the Lord." An organized church did continue for a while, but it was no more than a mere shadow of Christ's original Church. Yes, there were some similarities, some truths remained. An external framework was still visible. But the internal structure - the heart and soul of Christ's Church -was gone.


[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 9/12/2007 12:01a).]

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 9/12/2007 12:55a).]

There is an old saying that no one has ever committed a perfect crime - there are always clues detectable by the observant and trained mind - and so it is with apostasy. Satan's fingerprints are everywhere to be found. This does not mean, however, that the apostasy resulted in a complete absence of God-fearing men and women on the earth. Brigham Young explained:

"There have been people upon the earth all the time who sought diligently with all their hearts to know the ways of the lord. Those individuals have produced good, inasmuch as they had the ability. And to believe that there has been no virtue, no truth, no good upon the earth for centuries, until the Lord revealed the priesthood though Joseph the Prophet, I should say is wrong. There has been more or less virtue and righteousness upon the earth at all times, from the days of Adam until now."

While there existed isolated goodness on the earth, there was not an organized, priesthood-centered church. These are the major evidences of this apostasy I have discussed :

First, the apostles were killed and revelation ceased, thus undermining the foundation of Christ's Church.

Second, the scriptures are a historical witness that the apostasy was in progress and a prophetic witness that it would be consummated before Christ's 2nd Coming.

Third, the Bible ended. If the Church had continued, revelation would have continued, and the Bible would have been an on going book.

Fourth, the Gifts of the Spirit were lost.

Fifth, the dark ages became a historical fact; symbolizing that the light of Christ's Gospel had been extinguished. If the Church had been on the earth and the predominant force in western civilization, those years would have been a period of light ages, not dark ages.

Sixth, many teachings became perverted, some were lost and others invented.

Eighth, the simple mode of prayer was changed, which diluted man's efforts to communicate with God.
Ninth, the scriptures were removed from the hands of the lay membership and retained solely in the hands of the clergy, often in a language the common man could not understand.

Tenth, the wickedness sanctioned by the ongoing church was so prolonged and so egregious that no spirituality minded person could believe that Christ's Church, if on the earth, would condone such behavior.

Eleventh, there was a discernible decline in the moral standards and church discipline of the ongoing church.

Twelfth, the church no longer bore Christ's name.

Thirteenth, the priesthood was lost, and thus no one on the earth was authorized to perform the saving ordinances.

The foregoing evidences -spiritual, intellectual, and historical in nature - while independent in their own right, also compliment and supplement each other. When viewed as a whole and not as solitary threads, they weave a consistent and unmistakable pattern showing that Christ's Church was ultimately lost from the earth.

The next post will begin to examine some of these "evidences" in great detail. They will be most interesting and enlightening.

The scriptures indicate that although the early apostles worked hard to preserve the Church that Jesus Christ left to their care, they knew their efforts would eventually be consumed by crisis. Paul wrote the Thessalonian Christians, who were anticipating the return of the Saviour, that the day would not come until there was a falling away first (@ Thess. 2:3). Paul also warned Timothy that "the time would come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own s shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.(2 Tim. 4: 2-4) and Peter presupposed an apostasy when he spoke of the times of refreshing" that would come before God would again send Jesus Christ...whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began". (Acts 3:20-21)

Or consider this. Peter was slain by his enemies sometime between A.D. 60 and 70. After Peter's , the remaining apostles and their faithful followers struggled for survival in the face of horrifying oppression. To their everlasting credit, Christianity was preserved, and by the end of the second century A.D. It was truly a force to e reckoned with. Linus, Cletus, Clement, and other bishops of Rome were instrumental in helping Christianity endure. Were it not for these faithful saints, the good news of Christ's ministry might have been lost altogether.

There are those who believe that Peter's successor as president of the Church that Christ organized was Linus. In A.D. 79 Cletus succeeded Linus, and then Clement became bishop of Rome and the next successor in A.D. 90.

But the important question is, was the Apostolic power transferred from Peter to Linus?

It is significant to note that not all of the original Twelve Apostles had died by this time. John the Beloved, for example, was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. While there, John received the Book of Revelation - a standard book in all Christian Bibles - which raises and interesting and fundamentally crucial question: If Linus was the head of the Church, and if he succeeded Peter, why wasn't the Book of Revelation revealed though him? Why did it come through John, an Apostle in exile?

The answer is clear. The revelation came through John because he was the last living Apostle, the last man holding the keys and authority, as designated by the Saviour Himself, of Apostleship. When God spoke to the Church, he therefore do so through His Apostle, John, on the Isle of Patmos. We do not believe that the Lord would have bypassed John, who clearly had apostolic power, when speaking to the Church.

As significant as the individual ministries of Linus, Cletus and Clement doubtless were, there is no evidence to suggest that these men continued to function as an authoritative Council of Twelve Apostles - the administrative body that the Lord placed at the head of the earthly Church he Himself organized. Without the authority and direction of the Council of Twelve Apostles, men began looking to other sources for doctrinal understanding, and as a result many plain and precious truths were lost. Majority opinion began to rule on doctrinal issues rather than revelation. The crusades and Inquisition left a y trail of , persecution and destruction. Christ's central teachings of faith, hope and charity and tolerance seemed lost on zealots who were absolutely determined "that every knee shall bow" one way or another.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 10/17/2007 2:01p).]

We will begin to examine what happened to Christ's church and we will later look at the external persecution that was done by the Jews and the Romans.

The Church flourished for a season. So rampant was the spread of the gospel in the Holy City that the scriptures record: "The number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).

The HQ of the Church remained in Jerusalem for 10-12 years after the Saviour's ascension, but in the interim, the persecution had become intense. As a result of this persecution, the Saints were "scattered abroad" and "went every where preaching the word" (Acts 8:1,4). Later, when Peter received his marvelous vision, he announced the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:17-18) and there after Paul became the mighty messenger to them --a "teacher of the Gentiles" (2 Tim. 1:11). Clement of Rome (AD 30-100) observed that Paul "taught righteousness unto the whole world" and reached the farthest bounds of the West." The author of The Shepherd of Hermas (AD 90-150) was of a similar understanding. Of course "the world" meant as it was then known to them.

The Church was no longer a local institution; it was fast becoming a "worldwide" force. But there was a price to be paid --it was quickly adopting the ways of the world.

The "lights" then began to go out. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes a bold and startling statement; it declares there was a turning point that occurred shortly after the death of the apostles--an apostasy or falling away that eventually resulted in a total loss of Christ's Church from the earth. While an apostasy of the Church is not the same as an apostasy of individuals from the Church, the former cannot occur without the latter. Individual members of Christ's Church may reject its teachings and ordinances without affecting the authority and integrity of the Church. When, however, a sufficient number of persuasive individuals apostatize, and in the process the official Church doctrines and ordinances become perverted, then, inevitably the priesthood or divine power that sustains and sets the Church apart from all other worldly organization is lost. That constitutes an apostasy of the Church. From that point forward the ongoing institution may propagate some truths; it may be a fraternity of sorts; it may render service and satisfy certain social needs. All this is good. But it will lack the power to save and exalt man. Elder Boyd K. Packer, acting President of the Council of the Twelve described the apostasy as follows: "The Apostles were martyred, and in time, an apostasy took place. The doctrines of the Church were corrupted and the ordinances changed. The keys of the Priesthood authority were lost." As unthinkable as that proposition may be to some, the evidence of its occurrence is overwhelming.

The apostasy was not a straight-line descent. Things seldom happen that way in real life. For a time following the death of the apostles, there were isolated islands of righteousness among certain congregations. There were devoted members of the Church, some of whom were righteous martyrs, but the overall level of righteousness was quickly waning. Spirituality was succumbing to secularity, and the pure doctrines of the Kingdom were being overrun by heresy. The gospel light were dimming. William Manchester, a noted author and historian, observed: "Christ's missionary commandment had been clearly set forth in Matt. (28:19-20), but in the early centuries after his crucifixion the flame of faith flickered low." Hugh Nibley observed that the Church was "fast falling asleep; the lights were going out."

Next we will examine in detail whether the demise of Christ's Church was known in advance, and the terrible persecution of the Church by the Jews and the Romans and its impact.

One of the objections raised about the possibility of an apostasy revolves around the issue of why would Christ and the Apostles establish a Church if they knew if was going to go into a state of apostasy. So, a natural question is did they know it, and if they did, what scriptural or historical support is there for this position?

The spiritual blackout did not catch Christ or the Apostles by surprise. Such a question would be tantamount to asking --did the Lord know Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit or did her transgression put a "wrench" in the divine plan? Did Jesus know that Judas would betray him or was he somehow caught off guard? Did the Saviour anticipate his crucifixion or did it unexpectedly come upon him? Of course the Lord knew Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit, that Judas would betray him, and that He himself would be crucified. Likewise he knew the apostasy would occur. Both he and the prophets testified of it. It came as no surprise whatsoever. In this regard it was inevitable. While God did not dictate it or desire it, he did allow for the agency of man and thus accounted for it in his master plan. Justin Martyr AD 110-165) one of the first Church apologists who ultimately gave his life for the cause , understood this principle:

"For what things He (the Saviour) predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For he said, 'many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' And 'there shall be schisms and heresies.' And 'beware of false prophets'...There are, therefore and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things ... So that in consequence of these events, we know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after him.

Tertullian (AD 140-230) made a similar observation: "The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they would come to pass." A scholar of early Christianity, A. Cleveland Coxe, who provided editorial notes to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, observed: "If it shocks the young student of the virgin years of Christianity to find such a state of things (the proliferation of heresies), let him reflect that it was foretold by Christ himself, and demonstrates the malice and power of the adversary."

Lehi, a Book of Mormon prophet, put things in their eternal perspective when he observed; "Behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things" (2 Nephi 2:24). Christ and his apostles knew of the apostasy, they prophesied of it and God in his wisdom provided for a remedy through the glorious restoration of his Church.

Although external persecution was a historical reality that had a substantial impact upon the early Church and its members, it was not the cause of the great apostasy. This external persecution was leveled by both the Judaic religions of the day and by the Roman government.

The persecution by the Jewish leaders was in reality a conflict between systems, not between peoples or nations. Christ was a Jew: His apostles were Jews, and the disciples who constituted the body of the Church at its establishment and throughout the early years of its existence were largely Jews. When we read of the Jews opposing the Church, we understand that Judaistic Jews are meant as the defenders of Judaism as a system, upholders of the law and enemies of the gospel.

Judaism in all of its various forms, was a rival religion to Christianity - competing for converts and power. It had no tolerance for this upstart religion that claimed the Mosiac law was fulfilled and sacrificial ordinances were obsolete. Its leaders knew that Christianity, if allowed to prosper, would dilute their following and erode their power base. Worse yet, if Christianity prevailed certain Jewish leaders would be recognized as the assailant of the only true Messiah.

The scriptures tell us that the scribes and chief priests "feared Him, because all of the people were astonished at his doctrine" (Mark 11:18). After Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees counseled: "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation" (John 11:48). It was religious jealousy that dictated the first half of the sentence and political fear the rest.

Next, I will explain the real cause of the demise of the Church: "the enemy within"!

I wanted to conclude my remarks concerning the Jewish persecution. The scriptures record in Matt: 12:14 that after Jesus healed the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees held a council as to how they might destroy Him. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, an incontestable miracle witnessed by many of the Jews (John 11:45), the Pharisees met as a body and "From that day forth they took counsel together for to put Him to death (John 11:53). But this alone did not satisfy their insatiable obsession to eradicate divine witnesses, bury every heavenly clue and thus Lazarus - a living, walking witness of Christ's healing powers - created a disturbing presence in their kingdom, and they decided he must be put to death (John 12:1011).

So desperate were the Judaic leaders to destroy Christianity that the watch guards at Christ's tomb were paid large sums of money if they would falsely testify that "Christ's disciples came by night, and stole him away" (Matt. 28:12-13). Their rabid persecution of the apostles was a further attempt to thwart the growth of Christianity. Christ had prophesied that his disciples would be delivered up to councils, "and in synagogues ye shall be beaten; and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake" (Mark 13:9) When Paul converted to Christianity "the Jews took counsel to kill him" (Acts 9:23) These were perilous times for the Church and its leaders. The Judaic rulers had no tolerance whatsoever for Christianity. For them Christianity was a burgeoning threat to their religious and political survival. From their perspective, it had to stamped out at any cost!

But the Jews were not alone if their efforts to persecute the Christians. It is an incontestable historical fact that persecution was heaped on the Christians beginning with Nero (AD 64) and concluding with the Diocletian reign. This persecution ebbed and flowed depending on the Roman ruler at the time.

Tacitus (c. AD 56-after AD 113), a Roman historian, wrote of the brutal deaths met by some of the early Christian martyrs. Some were nailed on crosses, others sewn up in the skins of wild beasts and exposed to the fury of dogs; others again were smeared over with combustible materials and used as torches to illuminate the darkness of the night.

Reading the litany of torture, insults and torments heaped upon the early Christian Saints is almost more than one can endure. Diocletian, the Roman emperor who reigned from 284 AD to 305 AD, ordered the destruction of all Christian books and the death penalty for anyone found possessing any. So bitter and exhaustive was the Dioclettian persecution that monuments were raised to him commemorating his "termination" of the Christian Church. One was inscribed "For having extinguished the name of Christians who brought the Republic to ruin." A second pillar honored the emperor with the following inscription "for having everywhere abolished the superstition of Christ; for having extended the worship of the gods."

These noble martyrs deserve our highest respect and our most profound reverence. They will have received their celestial reward as recorded in Rev. 6:9, 11. Joseph Smith also paid tribute to these early Christian martyrs: "Many of those who suffered death at the fiery stake were honest, true Christians, according to the light they possessed. I have seen these martyrs by aid of the Urim and Thummim; God has a salvation for them."

Have you ever wondered why of all the different religions, the mild and beautiful Christian religion was alone selected to bear the wrath and feel the vengeful power of Rome? The answer is that Satan knew there was no power of salvation in the idolatrous worship of the heathen, but when Jesus and his followers came, in the authority of God, he recognized in them the principles and power against which he had rebelled in heaven. Thus he stirred up the murderous rage of the people against God and his followers, therefore continuing more intensely the "war in heaven" on earth.

But all of theses things combined did not cause the "demise" of the Church. You will learn beyond doubt that it was the enemy within and not without!

As I mentioned earlier, the demise of the Church was not caused by the intense persecution anymore than the crucifixion of the Saviour ended Christianity. It was not the external evil that destroyed Christ's Church, but rather internal wickedness - the enemy with in. That is what proved its downfall!

The author of "The Epistle to Diognetus" referred to the widespread persecution of the Saints but rather than weaken or destroy them, it strengthened them. Justin Martyr concurred stating the more that were beheaded, crucified and thrown to wild beasts, and chains and fire...but the more such things happened, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful and inspired of God through the name of Jesus. Origen observed the same thing.

There is no external force, however powerful it maybe, that can destroy Christ's Church. Ultimately, destruction comes from within. Of course the persecutions produced those individuals that renounced their new faith and returned to their old. But these instances of apostasy from the Church may be regarded as individual desertions and of comparatively little importance in its effect on the Church as a body. It should be repeated that apostasy from the Church is insignificant as compared with apostasy of the Church as an institution. The apostasy described in the New Testament is not desertion of the cause but a perversion of it, a process by which the righteous are removed and none perceives it. The Christian masses do not realize what is happening to them, they are "bewitched" by a thing that comes as softly and insidiously as the slinging of a noose. Durant made this astute observation with regards to the Roman Empire; "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within."

There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 27:13 that we feel sums up the situation as to the only way the Church could be destroyed from the face of the earth: "This is my Church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people." This is a doctrinal keystone that can be built upon -that only transgression or wickedness from within will bring about the downfall of Christ's Church. God will protect his Church against all external influences as long as the Church is pure and righteous. But if his people become wicked, even though the power of God remains intact, he is unwilling to give divine sanction and protection to a church filled with iniquity. Otherwise, the integrity and purity of his Church would be compromised.

So what then was the wickedness that brought about the downfall of Christ's Church? There was not a "single" source as Satan has a complete arsenal that he uses against the Saints as he continues his war against them. But, that being said, the two principal forms, both of which are related, were personal disobedience to the commandments and second, heresy. Unfortunately, these cancers began spreading after the ascension of the Saviour. When the disobedience became so widespread and the heresies so profound, the Lord finally withdrew his authority so that his name and power would no longer be associated with the corrupt behavior and perverted teachings of men. Later, I will give specific examples of the disobedience and heresies that quickly infiltrated the early Church as seen through the eyes of the apostles and historians.

Here are some of the examples of the causes of the demise of the early Church. The Apostles spoke of wickedness that was occurring in their day and of further wickedness that would yet come to pass. Paul wrote to the Galatians: "O foolish Galations, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth" (Gal. 3:1). To Titus he spoke of those who professed God (those who were members of the Church), but were "abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1:16). Peter spoke of those "which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray" and "who loved the ways of unrighteousness" (2 Peter 2:15), and then warned the Saints: "Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness" (2 Peter 3:17) These were perilous times and Paul affirmed that some Saints had "already turned aside after Satan" (1 Tim. 5:15).

Paul saw it unraveling before his eyes and could hardly believe it! "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ" (Gal. 1:6). He saw that some were idlers and gossips: "There are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but they are busybodies" (2 Thess. 3:11). James reprimanded the members for neglecting the needy: "But ye have despised the poor" (James 2:6). John records the Lord's condemnation of those that were casual in their commitments: "I know thy works, that thou are neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold not hot, "I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Rev. 3:15-16).

However, the overwhelming evil that infected the Church was immorality. It is mentioned again and again by the apostles. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you" (1 Cor. 5:1) He then reprimanded them, but evidently unsuccessfully, for he later wrote to the same Saints: " And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed" (2 Cor. 12:21). James spoke to the Saints in reproving terms: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is the enmity of God?" (James 4:4). Peter spoke of those "Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls" (@ Peter 2:14). Jude noted that "there are certain men crept in unaware... ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4), and further spoke of "filthy dreamers" who "defile the flesh" (Jude 1:8) Lest there be any question about the multiple warnings of these decadent conditions, Jude reminded the Saints: " But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." (Jude 1:17-19)

And finally John, the last known apostle, reprimanded the Saints at Thyatira because they had allowed a woman called Jezebel (some believe she was the wife of the local bishop) "to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication" (Rev. 2:20). Clearly there was widespread disobedience in the Church, acknowledged by the apostles in frequent warnings and reproving. Next, we will examine the multiplicity of heresies and the return to Mosaic Law.

A little has been discussed of what destroyed the Lord' true Church. It took two forms; disobedience to God's commandments and what will be examined today, the rank heresies concerning the doctrines.

One of the best examples of early heresy in the Church followed the ascension of Christ. In the early days of the Church the membership was largely composed of Jews, and hence the critical issues centered around the law of Moses. As a result, the initial heresies were prompted by those Jews who had joined the Church, but who could not seem to free themselves from the formalistic law under which they had previously been bound. One case in point was the law of circumcision. Certain Jewish converts taught the Gentiles, "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." In response, Paul and Barnabas had "no small dissension and disputation with them". After "much disputing" on the subject, the apostles announced the will of the Lord, namely, that circumcision (a ritual of the Mosaic law) was not required under the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 15:1-2,7,25-28.

Now one would have thought that this apostolic decision would have settled the matter, but it was no so. At least ten years after this historic decision, Paul returned to Jerusalem and discovered "many thousands of Jewish" converts who were still "zealous of the law" of Moses (Acts 21:20). No doubt this was one reason the epistle to the Hebrews was written -to help the Jews understand that the law of Christ was superior to the law of Moses and, in fact had superseded it.

Paul warned the Saints at Galatia in: Gal. 4: 9: "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" The Bible scholar, Adam Clarke, made this insightful commentary on this verse; "After receiving all this (the gospel). Will ye turn again to the ineffectual rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law - rites too weak to counteract your sinful habits, and too poor to purchase pardon and eternal life for you". So widespread and pervasive was this return to former traditions that Paul lamented: "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain" (Gal. 4:11). In other words, Paul was worried that all of his teachings in Galatia were for naught because the Saints had so seriously backtracked to the law of Moses.

So grievous was this backlash of Mosaic formalism that Paul both lamented and warned Titus that "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not" (Titus 1:10-11). Origen also acknowledged the seriousness of this heresy in his day: "Let is be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accepts Jesus, and boast on that account of being Christian, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law."

Many of the early Saints could not let go of the traditions of their forefathers. Unfortunately, they could not let go of Moses to take hold of Christ. But what of the Jewish converts who did not fall prey to this trap, or the Gentiles who were not riveted to the law of Moses? Were they free of heretical doctrines? Unfortunately not. New waves of heresy pounded the doctrinal foundations of the Church with unrelenting fury.

We will next examine only two of the additional major heresies - Hedonism and Gnosticism. After that we will look at additional major evidences of the great apostasy such as the devastating effect of the loss of the Apostles, the testimony of scriptures, the loss of miracles and gifts of the Spirit followed by the "Dark Ages", many ordinances perverted , others lost and new ones invented and the loss of the priesthood. Lastly we answer the question: why was Christ's Church allowed to be lost from the earth and did the removal of His Church from the earth mean God had failed?

We will examine some of the main reasons for all of the heresies. One of the main reasons for their widespread exposure was "money". Paul spoke of those who were "teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11). It has gone on in large measure continuously even until today! Peter, recognizing this was a problem, commanded the Church leaders to teach "willingly; not for filthy lucre" (1 Peter 5:2). Money was one of the prime reasons for the downfall of Simon of Samaria who had joined the Church. Upon witnessing the apostles bestowal of the Holy Ghost upon new members, he "offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." In response, Peter gave this stinging rebuke; "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter" (Acts 8:18-21). In the Didache (80-140 AD), a Church manual of instruction on moral issues and ordinances, the warning was given: "Let every apostle, when he cometh to you be received as the Lord; ... but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet." Recognizing that some leaders were teaching "for hire", the further counsel was given: Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money."

Pride and arrogance were other underlying causes. Paul spoke of false teachers who were arrogant and "puffed up" (1 Cor. 4:18-19). When Simon the magician was reprimanded and rejected by Peter, Irenaeus observed that Simon "set himself eagerly to contend against the apostles, in order that he himself might seem to be a wonderful being." So egotistical had Simon become that he alleged, as recorded by Irenaeus, "that it was himself (Simon) who appeared among the Jews as the "Son", but descended in Samaria as the Father, while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit."

Tertullian wrote that individuals like Valentinus, who had been denied the office of bishop, were inflamed with the desire for revenge. Thus, they with all their might tried to exterminate the truth. The Apostle John wrote of the renegade church leader, Diotrephes, who would not receive John or the appointed Church leaders because he "loveth to have preeminence among them (the Saints)" (3 John 1:9).

As one would expect, the apostasy was a process, not a singular event. It is of interest to note that the principal argument among church historians is not whether Christ's Church declined, but when it declined. Even before the first century, Jude pled with the remaining faithful members to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints" (Jude 1:3). The apostasy had become so bad that Diotrephes, a rebellious Church leader in the days of John the Revelator, spoke out against John and the brethren "with malicious words". Equally bad, this religious despot forbade the local members from receiving the Church leaders, and if they did, then Diotrephes "casteth them out of the Church" (3 John 1:9-10) In other words, he excommunicated those who sustained the apostles and those whom they appointed. This was nothing less than open rebellion against God's appointed servants!

Those who came on the scene subsequent to the apostles observed this spirit of rebellion and apostasy. J. B. Lightfoot, who translated and edited the writings of the apostolic fathers, noted "a feud had broken out in the Church of Corinth. Presbyters (church leaders such as elders) appointed by Apostles, or their immediate successors had been unlawfully deposed." Clement of Rome spoke of a "detestable and unholy sedition" which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to ...a pitch of madness." This rebellion touched every place the Church had been established.

But, it is important to understand that the martyrdom of the apostles was not the source of the apostasy; rather it was a consequence of the apostasy. The seeds of the apostasy were planted and springing during the ministry of the apostles. Thereafter they nurtured into full bloom when no apostles remained to weed them out. No doubt if there had been significant righteousness among the Saints, the Quorum of the Twelve would have continued. The apostasy did not happen because the apostles were gone; the apostles were taken because the apostasy was in effect. Evidently the time came when the transgressions of the people were so blatant, and the heresies so profound, that the Lord allowed the death of his apostolic ministers without providing a means of succession. God would not overrule the agency of the people.

With the power vacuum created by the death of the apostles, the local leaders quickly filled the void. Each local bishop became autonomous and governed his own region according to his own dictates. While there was correspondence between local bishops and attempts to harmonize on certain doctrinal issues, Church doctrine and procedure often varied from one locale to another. Without the influence of the apostles, the unifying force of the Church was gone. Because of distance and problems of travel, the Church became fractionalized and the power struggles began.

Let it be understood that the Church as an institution continued but it evolved into a different one than had been originally established -one without revelation and without priesthood authority! We will begin to look at the evidences of the apostasy.

As I mentioned earlier, there is an old saying that no one has ever committed a perfect crime - there are always clues detectable by the observant and trained mind - and so it is with the apostasy. Satan's fingerprints are everywhere to be found. This does not mean, however, that the apostasy resulted in a complete absence of God-fearing men and women on the earth. Brigham Young explained:

"There have been people upon the earth all the time who sought diligently with all their hearts to know the ways of the lord. Those individuals have produced good, inasmuch as they had the ability. And to believe that there has been no virtue, no truth, no good upon the earth for centuries, until the Lord revealed the priesthood though Joseph the Prophet, I should say is wrong. There has been more or less virtue and righteousness upon the earth at all times, from the days of Adam until now."

While there existed isolated goodness on the earth, there was not an organized, priesthood-centered church. These are the major evidences of this apostasy which I have discussed:

First, the apostles were killed and revelation ceased, thus undermining the foundation of Christ's Church.

Second, the scriptures are a historical witness that the apostasy was in progress and a prophetic witness that it would be consummated before Christ's 2nd Coming.

Third, the Bible ended. If the Church had continued, revelation would have continued, and the Bible would have been an on going book.

Fourth, the Gifts of the Spirit were lost.

Fifth, the dark ages became a historical fact; symbolizing that the light of Christ's Gospel had been extinguished. If the Church had been on the earth and the predominant force in western civilization, those years would have been a period of light ages, not dark ages.

Sixth, many teachings became perverted, some were lost and others invented.

Eighth, the simple mode of prayer was changed, which diluted man's efforts to communicate with God.

Ninth, the scriptures were removed from the hands of the lay membership and retained solely in the hands of the clergy, often in a language the common man could not understand.

Tenth, the wickedness sanctioned by the ongoing church was so prolonged and so egregious that no spirituality minded person could believe that Christ's Church, if on the earth, would condone such behavior.

Eleventh, there was a discernible decline in the moral standards and church discipline of the ongoing church.

Twelfth, the church no longer bore Christ's name.

Thirteenth, the priesthood was lost, and thus no one on the earth was authorized to perform the saving ordinances.

The foregoing evidences -spiritual, intellectual, and historical in nature - while independent in their own right, also compliment and supplement each other. When viewed as a whole and not as solitary threads, they weave a consistent and unmistakable pattern showing that Christ's Church was ultimately lost from the earth.

We will examine some of these "evidences" in great detail. I promise you, they will be most interesting and enlightening.

Let us begin with the first evidence: The Loss of Apostles and Revelation.

The question begs, "did the Church continue after the death of the apostles, or did the death of the apostles dictate the demise of the Church. Paul had explained that the Church was "built upon the foundations of Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the first cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). Paul then went on to say that we need apostles and certain other offices "for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith" (Eph. 4:12-13). In other words, the apostles kept the doctrines pure and the Saints unified. They were spiritual filters through whom the doctrines flowed. Without them the Church was like a ship without its rudder, "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14).

It is no wonder that Satan was so intense in his attack against the apostles - for if the apostles could be extinguished, the Church would lose its foundation. The Saviour himself prophesied, "he world hateth you (meaning the apostles)...If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you" (John 15:19-20). Then He warned them: "The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God's service" (John 16:2). That is why Paul believed that "the apostles... were appointed unto death" (1 Cor. 4:9). In fulfillment of those prophesies the apostles were killed as they went out to preach the gospel in foreign lands. At first, successor apostles were chosen such as Matthias (Acts 1:22-26), James (Acts 12:7; Gal. 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14;14) and Paul (Acts 14:14; Romans 1:1; 1 Cor. 4:9; 1 Cor. (9:1).

But why were not replacement apostles continuously chosen so the Quorum of the Twelve would remain indefinitely? Because in this meridian of time, communication and travel were slow. The apostles were spread through our the world preaching the Gospel as the Saviour had enjoined them to do. Eventually, the surviving apostles could not return to Church headquarters in a timely fashion to chose successors as they had previously done at Judas' death (Acts 1:23-26), and as a result the Quorum of the Twelve was eventually phased out. We may not know with historical certainty how each apostle met his death, but there seems to be a consensus that their deaths were violent.

But why would the Lord allow the death of His apostles if they were the foundation of the Church and necessary to bring the people to a unity of the faith? Because the Lord has never forced his prophets upon the people. After years of prophetic succession, the last 400 years of the OT were devoid of any reported prophetic presence. The King James Version of the OT concludes with this cryptic phrase: "The End of the Prophets". Such absence was a shadow of things to come. Micah described the tragic plight of a people without prophets: Micah 3: 6-7 "Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God." Such a condition, however, was not a consequence of God's desires, but of man's unrighteousness!

There seems to be no dispute that the "apostolic age" came to an end. The real question is whether or not an apostolic equivalent or succession (through bishops) continued. Thus the question we will answer next is whether there was an Apostolic Succession.

Some of you might be interested to know that Jordan Vajda, a Catholic priest, who after intense study joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, acknowledged that the loss of the apostles and revelation triggered the Great Apostasy. "And to get back to my original hang-up - the great apostasy : I have come to recognize that it really had to do with the loss of living apostles to guide the Church. What I find in the LDS Church is a restoration, a fullness: once more there are living apostles to guide and direct the Church, to receive revelation that teaches and instructs us."

What did his "intense study" reveal that made him change his deep seated and long held beliefs? This is what we will begin to examine in great detail.

The first question that must be addressed is was there an Apostolic Succession? Some contend that Peter passed his authority to a successor, called a bishop, and that bishop did likewise, and so on. The first such successor is claimed to be Linus, but as noted by the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity; "Nothing is known of his life or career." These successors are alleged to constitute the papal line of authority. In essence, the pope (meaning "papa" or "father" is deemed to be the supreme bishop. The official Vatican position is as follows: "The Catholic Church recognizes in the apostolic succession ... an unbroken line of Episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today."

But, Francis A. Sullivan, a longtime professor of theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, wrote a book entitled "From Apostles to Bishops" and acknowledged that the argument asserting a direct line of succession is historically defective! He noted: " One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Church history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as an unbroken line of Episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today." With historic candor, this learned scholar admitted that there was no historical link between Peter and his supposed papal successors. There was much extrapolation and surmising and proposing, but in the final analysis there was no verifiable historic connection.

It helps to understand that contrary to the assertion of papal succession, the Church, after the death of the apostles, operated as local congregations, and not under a central command. Firmilian (230-268 AD), the bishop of Caesarea, criticized Stephen, the bishop of Rome, because he claimed succession from Peter. "I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen ... who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter." Firmilian wrote of Stephen's disagreement "with so many bishops though out the whole world" and then made it abundantly clear that Stephen did not have power over other bishops: "For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all."

On one occasion this same Stephen attempted to assert his general command over the African Council of Bishops on the issue of whether or not a heretic needed to be rebaptized. In 258 AD, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, called a council of 87 bishops to discuss a response to what Cyprian called "the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen." As part of their response, these bishops expounded that there was NO successor to Peter, there was No Pope, and there was NO supreme bishop! They wrote: "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another." In other words, as early as 258 AD, the church was directed by local bishops, nothing more!

On yet another occasion when Cyprian spoke concerning the succession to Peter, he acknowledged that the church had become a church of local sovereignties under individual bishops. "Thence, through the change of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church." Suffice it to say, he was shocked to think that anyone would claim to be a pope or have general authority over the Church. It was simply not the manner in which the ongoing church operated at the time of Cyprian (200-258 AD), more than two centuries after the ascension of Christ. It was a clear historical admission by him that there was no pope and thus no papal line of authority!

At the time of the Nicene Council (325 AD), Sylvester was the bishop of Rome. If he were the successor to Peter, one must wonder why he did not convene the council, preside at it, have substantial influence in the decision-making process, and sign the edict. Quite to the contrary, he was not consulted in the convening of the conference; it was called by Constantine. While Sylvester was unable to attend due to his age, he sent his representatives, but they had no presiding role and little if any known input into the final decision. In addition, Sylvester was never asked to ratify the decision, nor issue it under his name. If the bishop of Rome had been the presiding officer of the Church, does it seem likely that the most important council in church history and the most significant doctrinal statement ever issued by the church would be devoid of his presence, his influence, and his ratification?

Local bishops with equal, but local authority continued until about 858 AD. From time to time certain bishops of Rome asserted their political and spiritual power as the supreme leader of the church. But, why the bishop of Rome? Why not the bishop of Jerusalem or Antioch or Alexandria? There seemed to be no sharp dividing line between political and religious authority, particularly after the time of Constantine. The next post will deal some more with the shift of power from local congregations to the bishop of Rome and the disastrous Nicene Council.

I'm just taking the time to read the material posted and give it some thought in order to see the "truthfulness of this premise." As part of doing this I'm going to point out some of what I believe are weaknesses in the argument presented.

quote:

---

...remind you of a Catholic theologian who spoke to members of the Church in Salt Lake City. He had asked for and received permission to study our welfare system

---

quote:

---

He said:

"You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that is all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."

---

Name of the Catholic theologian here would be helpful as would be a source of the story.

quote:

---

The question begs, "did the Church continue after the death of the apostles, or did the death of the apostles dictate the demise of the Church. Paul had explained that the Church was "built upon the foundations of Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the first cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). Paul then went on to say that we need apostles and certain other offices "for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith" (Eph. 4:12-13). In other words, the apostles kept the doctrines pure and the Saints unified. They were spiritual filters through whom the doctrines flowed. Without them the Church was like a ship without its rudder, "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14).

---

Definitely go to verses cited here by Genesisag and read them in context. In my opinion they do not lead to the conclusion he is suggesting.

quote:

---

But why were not replacement apostles continuously chosen so the Quorum of the Twelve would remain indefinitely? Because in this meridian of time, communication and travel were slow. The apostles were spread through our the world preaching the Gospel as the Saviou had enjoined them to do. Eventually, the surviving apostles could not return to Church headquarters in a timely fashion to chose successors as they had previously done at Judas' death (Acts 1:23-26), and as a result the Quorum of the Twelve was eventually phased out. We may not know with historical certainty how each apostle met his death, there seems to be a consensus that their deaths were violent.

---

You have not in any way proven the necessity that all the Apostles as a group were needed to appoint successors nor if it were not done in this manner it broke the chain of Apostolic Succession. I do not remember if later post contain an explanation of this or not, hopefully they will.

quote:

---

The King James Version of the OT concludes with this cryptic phrase: "The End of the Prophets".

---

Is this phrase part of God's inspired Word or just an addition by the translators of the King James Bible? It is not part of any translation I have at hand so I will go with the second explanation and as such adds nothing to your argument.

Just briefly looking at other parts reposted; you are still not giving the sources of the Early Church Father quoted. It would be nice to have this so I can see the quotes in context as part of giving the argument presented some serious thought.

Once again I'm going to ask for the source in which you are obtaining the information for this lesson.





[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 9/12/2007 1:13a).]

As I mentioned earlier the power shift from local congregations to the bishop of Rome (or the pope) as the supreme authority evolved overtime. At first one or more bishops of Rome, such as Clement (30-100 AD), were helpful to smaller struggling congregations, such as when Clement gave brotherly counsel and advice to the Saints at Corinth. But later, others started flexing their ecclesiastical muscles on a global basis, such as Anacletus, a bishop of Rome who died as a martyr in about 90 AD. He tried to mandate the celebration date of Easter for all Christians, but finally reached a peaceful compromise with Polycarp (69-156 AD). Then there were some such as Stephen, a bishop of Rome in the mid-third century, who were overtly aggressive in their grab for power and in their attempt to dictate doctrinal matters on a church wide basis, but who were rebuffed for a time by such as the African Council of Bishops. Worse yet, there were some who were conniving and who stooped to fraud to gain their dominance. A. Cleveland Coxe summarized how the bishop of Rome finally achieved supremacy.

"After the Council of Nice they, (the bishops) were recognized as patriarchs, though equal among brethren, and nothing more. The ambition of Boniface III led him to name himself 'universal bishop'. This was at first a mere name 'of intolerable pride', as his predecessor Gregory had called it, but Nicholas I (858 AD) tried to make it real, and, by means of false decretals, created himself the first 'Pope' in the modern sense, imposing his despotism on the West."

These decretals (or doctrinal decrees issued by the pope) came about because the German archbishops and kings paid only lip service to the would be popes of Rome. In an effort to gain their support and loyalty, forged documents alleging Rome's preeminence were created. Somewhere in the AD 840s, a French cleric forged a series of church decrees giving ultimate power to the bishops of Rome. Will Durant explained as follows:

"It was an ingenious compilation. Along with a mass of authentic decrees and letters attributed to pontiffs from Clement I (91-100) to Melchiades (311-14). These early documents were designed to show that by the oldest traditions and practice of the Church no bishop might be deposed, no Church council might be convened, and no major issue might be decided, without the consent of the pope. Even the early pontiffs by these evidences had claimed absolute and universal authority as vicars of Christ on earth. Pope Sylvester (314-15) was represented as having received, in the "Donation of Constantine," full secular as well as religious authority over all western Europe ... The forgery would have been evident to any good scholar, but scholarship was at low ebb in the ninth and tenth centuries. The fact that most of the claims ascribed by the Decretals to the early bishops of Rome had been made by one or another of the later pontiffs disarmed criticism; and for 8 centuries the popes assumed the authenticity of these documents, and used them to prop their policies."

In a footnote, Durant added: "Lorenzo Vallo, in 1440, so definitely exposed the frauds in the 'False Decretals' that all parties now agree that the disputed documents are forgeries."

Recognizing the foregoing historical problem of papal succession from the apostles, and further recognizing there was no scriptural witness of apostolic succession though popes, Professor Sullivan, a Roman Catholic theologian, "suggested" an alternative approach to succession for the ongoing church as follows:

First, he proposed that the apostles "shared" their "mandate" (or their power and authority) with both their missionary coworkers and with the leaders in the local churches, and that when the apostles died both of these groups carried on their ministry. Accordingly, he claimed there were initially two lines of apostolic succession (the missionary and the pastoral), which he "suggested" merged into one during the second century While he acknowledged this was a new development after the New Testament times, he explained: "Most Catholic scholars ... maintain this development was so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God's plan for the structure of the Church."

Second, he contended that the new "episcopate" (the priesthood organization of bishops) was necessary to fight off heresies and provide unity in the church. It is interesting to note that even those who claim there existed a form of apostolic succession acknowledge the major heresies and disunity that confronted the ongoing church.

Third, he submitted that "the Christian faithful recognized the bishops as the successors to the apostles in teaching authority."

To summarize, professor Sullivan does not believe that Peter passed his authority to one successor replacement, but rather that ALL of the apostles passed on their authority to missionary coworkers and local pastors or bishops. Eventually, he "asserted", the bishops gained control of local congregations as the Spirit guided the development of the Church and, finally one bishop emerged as the supreme bishop, to be known thereafter as the pope. After asserting such a historical proposition, tempered by what he called as "theological reflection," he candidly admitted: "We simply do not have documentary evidence on which to base a historically certain account of how it took place."

For those who hope to subscribe to the foregoing theory of succession, face many insurmountable obstacles. One obstacle is the lack of historical evidence, to which Professor Sullivan has admitted above.

A second obstacle is that the ongoing church believed revelation ceased with the Bible; yet the foregoing theory requires the Holy Spirit to guide the development of the church in the post-New Testament era. Such divine guidance is, in truth, another name for revelation!

There is yet a third obstacle. If the bishops assumed the power or the "mandate" of the apostles, one would assume they would "take over" the role of the apostles. But the bishops were local ministers over local churches, while that apostles were general ministers over the general church. The bishops never became "general" ministers. Professor Sullivan so acknowledged: "A bishop is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs." The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that anyone of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop.". In addition, the bishops were never considered as equal to the apostles in authority and power. Ignatius (35-107 AD), the bishop of Antioch who eventually gave his life as a martyr, recognized this distinction while writing to the Trallians: "Seeing that I love you I thus spare you, though I might write more sharply; ... but I did not think myself competent for this, that ... I should order you as though I were an apostle." Ignatius clearly understood that to be a bishop was not the equivalent to being an apostle!

Before I cover the Nicene Conference, I want to finish the question as to whether the Quorum of Twelve Apostles was essential to the perpetuation of Christ's Church, which I will do on my next post.

It should be an obvious concern if the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were really necessary to the perpetuation of Christ's Church. Many people believe that the 12 Apostles were only meant to be a single episode in history. But, the scriptures do not agree with such a conclusion. Following the death of Judas and the ascension of Christ, the first official act of the Church was to select a replacement apostle for Judas: "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." The word "must" left no room for leeway. Accordingly the eleven remaining apostles nominated two men to fill the vacancy. They prayed to know "whether of these two thou (God) hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell." The scriptures then record that Matthias was chosen "and he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:22-26). The pattern had been set -The Quorum of Twelve Apostles was to continue as the foundation of Christ's Church.

In spite of this, most Christians believe that there was no ongoing need for a Quorum of Twelve Apostles. They assert that the reason for the cessation of apostles was not due to the loss of Christ's Church, but because the apostles were no longer needed. In essence, these advocates believe that the apostles founded the Church, completed their mission, died, and that was the end of the story. No replacements were necessary. Of course one might ask that since a house is completed and the rood finished, can one then remove the foundation without devastating consequences, by merely reasoning the foundation had served its purpose. If the apostles, referred to by Paul as the foundation of the Church, were no longer needed, one might ask why they were essential to the establishment of the Church, but not necessary for its perpetuation?

Now, one can claim that God desired this to be a one time event, but this seems unlikely when a successor apostle was chosen to replace Judas. "Must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection" )Acts 1:22. Why choose a replacement after the Saviour's accession into heaven? In addition, why would Paul, Barnabas and James thereafter be selected as apostles? Although there is no revelation (scripture) that states the continuity in the apostleship was to cease, there does exist an established precedent that it was to continue.

Others have suggested that there was no ongoing need for apostles by the early Saints as they no longer needed the apostolic wisdom or needed their spiritual maturity. That the Saints were in "perfect harmony" with the divine doctrines. We have discussed in some detail how laughable that was.

Without the apostles there was no hope of keeping the doctrines pure. As an example, consider a letter by Paul to the Corinthians concerning the resurrection. Although Paul had taught them the correct doctrine of the resurrection, he later learned that some had departed from it and had adopted the position of the Sadducees -that there was no resurrection. So he wrote them a pointed letter as recorded in 1 Cor. 15:12 "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" As soon as the doctrine started to vary from the truth, the apostles brought it back on course. With the death of the apostles there was no self-correcting mechanism left as the doctrine was passed along; there was no check and balance system. Instead the doctrines spread unchecked on many fronts and heresies flourished.

It is wishful thinking to suppose that local bishops, who acted with great independence from each other, and were separated by days and weeks of travel time, to be able to communicate effectively on a timely basis. Some congregations made heroic efforts to maintain a correct and unified doctrine, but without the apostles, they were destined for failure. With no longer any central command, there was only local leaders and local congregations with local opinions! Origen (185-255 AD) often gave his "opinion" on a doctrinal issue and then concluded by saying something such as, "if therebe any one, indeed, who can discover better ... let his opinion be received in preference to mine." Cyprian would give local counsel to his parishioners, but added the caveat that his decision (even on such far reaching doctrinal matters as baptismal sprinkling versus immersion) was not meant to be binding on other leaders. It was simply "his opinion" for his congregations.

Early Christian writers declared that the disunity did not really occur until after Constantine, but in truth the dilution of the doctrine was well under way by then. There were early Christian writers who wrote voluminously tying to explain their varied opinions on the nature of Jesus, the relationship between the Father and the Son, and whether there was one God or multiple gods. The Nicene Creed merely codified the ambiguity that already existed. The doctrine of a pre-mortal life was fast vanishing. The necessity of baptism by immersion was giving way to the more convenient method of sprinkling. The doctrine of original sin was invented, and as a consequence infant baptism began to creep into the Church. Simple ordinances, such as baptism and the sacrament, were being converted to formalistic rituals. The doctrine of baptism for the dead was mystifying to the early Christian leaders, at least by the time of Tertullian (140-230 AD).
To claim the apostles were not necessary because the local churches were unified would be a gross distortion of historical reality. When Constantine came on the scene, he brought about a quasi-unity of the faith, but unfortunately by his time much of the unified doctrine was already erroneous. In addition, the doctrine was now being dictated by an unbaptized political leader, not a prophet of God.

The need for divine guidance through living apostles has always been essential to the spiritual well being of man. For the entire 4,000 years of Bible history, God revealed his words through prophets -Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter and a host of others. This was his chosen method of communication to man, as announced by Amos: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). Christ's Church is a living Church, not a dead church, and revelation is the lifeblood that gives the Church its vibrancy, its power, and its life. Take it away, and only a dead form remains!

Durant understood the need for guidance as he observed: "When the first generations of Christianity had passed away, and the oral tradition of the apostles began to fade ... a hundred heresies disordered the Christian mind." With the disappearance of the apostles, Satan's influence was profound. Many fell sway to his divisive tactics. Finally, Irenaeus saw the imploding of Christianity into a thousand fragments unless some unification was taken: "the only way of preventing Christianity from disintegrating into a thousand sects ... was for Christians to accept humbly one doctrinal authority -the decrees of the episcopal councils of the church." And so man-made councils, at first local, and thereafter universal, replaced the apostolic quorum, and reason supplanted revelation as the "rock" upon which the church was built. As a result the church became more of a political than a spiritual body. The process of integration of Church and State begun by Constantine, continued until the two became inseparable. And thus the remnant of Christ's Church became in large part a political body clothed with ecclesiastical vestments.

We know what happens when the foundation of a building is removed. With the demise of the apostles, the collapse of Christ's Church was inevitable. Without the apostles there remained no doctrinal anchor, no quorum to speak for God. Each local bishop was left to his own devices and resources. By the time of Augustine (354-430 AD) there were some doctrines that had completely disappeared and only a handful that remained untainted. The loss of the apostles left the Church a spiritual Titanic -headed for destruction.

Next, we will also examine additional evidences and learn why Christ allowed His Church to be lost from the earth.

I was going to explain why Christ allowed the demise of the Church he organized but I realized I had only given one of the 13 major evidences showing that it had happened. Thus I would like to focus on one of the most obvious and controversial - The absolute fact that many teachings were perverted, others lost, and new ones perverted. I will attempt to give this subject the attention it deserves.

There is no question the apostles had kept pure the teachings of Christ, as long as they were alive but after their death the heresies flooded the Church. Eusebius (270-340AD) quoted Hegesippus (110-180 AS), another early Christian author in this regard:

"The church continued until then (shortly after the death of the apostles) as pure and uncorrupt virgin; whilst if there were any at all, that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom, had passed away, then also the combinations of impious error arose by fraud and delusions of false teachers." These also, as there were none of the apostles left, hence forth attempted, without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth."

While the apostles were on the earth, there was "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). With the loss of the Quorum of the Twelve, reason supplanted revelation as the well from which the church would drink. John Fox, the author of Fox's Book of Martyrs, summed it up well: "Most of the errors which crept into the Church at this time arose from placing human reason in competition with revelation." William Manchester referred to the church as "hopelessly at odds with the preachings of Jesus, whose existence was the sole reason for its (the church's') existence." Savonarla (1452-1498 AD), a Dominican friar and fiery reformer of the 15th century, likewise observed: "If there is no change soon ... the Church of Italy will be punished for not preaching the pure gospel of salvation."

When Thomas Jefferson came on the scene, he too recognized the great perversion of Christian doctrines, but he also believed there would be a restoration of the original doctrines if freedom of religion were allowed to flourish, not just in theory, but in practice. He wrote as follows: "I hold that the precepts of Jesus, as delivered by himself, to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what ... came from him ... and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by his pseudo-priets, will again be restored to their original purity. This reformation will advance with the other improvements of the human mind, but too late for me to witness it."

Jefferson's statement proved prophetic. He wrote the foregoing in 1820 - the same year Joseph Smith received the First Vision. Jefferson died in 1826 - four years before Christ's Church with its original teachings was restored to the earth.

The following is a sampling of some of the pure doctrines originally taught in the Bible that eventually became perverted or lost. In some cases surrogate doctrines of manmade origin filled the void. In others, the doctrine simply vanished. Fortunately, in the Lord's timetable the truth would be restored in its pure and undiluted form.

The Nature of God

A real student of the scriptures knows how important it is to know the true nature of God. John the Beloved wrote in John 3:17, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent". The Church of the New Testament and the early Christian writers taught that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were three separate, distinct beings, having a oneness in unity and purpose. Unfortunately, this simple doctrinal belief quickly evolved into a mystery, namely that the Three were an inexplicable triune - three Gods who were somehow only one substance and one God. In addition, the early Christian writers came to the erroneous conclusion that God was some immaterial essence. Tertullian recognized that there was a corrupting influence at work: "No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teachings on this great article did not suffer at all."

Even today, there is much confusion in the Christian world about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and whether they are material or immaterial beings. If someone is not aware of this uncertainty, then he simply needs to ask ten or twenty Christians of different faiths, at random, the following questions: Do you believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being or separate beings? Do you believe that God has a material body or instead is some immaterial, undefinable entity? Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected with a glorified body of flesh and bones and, if so, does he still have a material body in heaven today? If Christ retained his resurrected body, does God the Father also have a similar glorified body of flesh and bones, since Jesus is in his Father's express image? If Jesus, however, does not have a glorified physical body in heaven today, then what happened to his resurrected body, and what was the purpose of the resurrection? And if Christ's spirit left his body again, this would mean that he died again, because the definition of death is the separation of the spirit and the body. There is no scriptural account of Christ's "second death".

We will, in the next post, examine closely the question: One God or Three God's?

If the members of the Godhead are different manifestations of the same person or substances, as some assert, then many scriptural events and passages make no sense whatsoever! Much of the confusion centers around John 10:30: "I and my Father are one." From this, many have assumed that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same person. They often include the Holy Ghost in this "oneness". The scriptures assert and many of the early Christian writers testified, however, that they were three separate and distinct persons who shared a oneness, not in identity of person, but in purpose, unity and will. The scriptural references to their separateness are numerous. Following are but a few examples.

Why would Jesus have prayed to himself? Why would he have pled with himself for the cup to be removed? Why would he in agony have said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Matt. 27:46) if he and the Father were the same? What imploring value would these petitions have had, if made only to self? If they were the same individual -the same God-why would Jesus have stated in John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I". How could his Father be "greater" than he if they were the same person. It was Jesus who said, "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me" (John 5:30). Certainly this was a magnificent statement of submission. What submission would there be if he were merely following his own will, but under a different name?

The Saviour said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31) He then set forth a list of independent witnesses of his divinity, citing John the Baptist, his own miraculous works, and "the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me." Now if he and the Father were the same being, then it would be counterproductive to list the Father as a witness of his divinity, for the Saviour prefaced the testimonial by stating that if he bore witness of himself, "my witness is not true" (John 5:33-37).

In the beginning God said, "let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26) Who is the other person making up the "us" and "our" if God and Jesus are the same personage? Tertullian referred to this scripture as proof of the distinct nature of the Father and the Son; "I ask you how is it possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrases, saying 'let us make man in our own image and after our own likeness'; whereas he ought to have said, 'Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,' as being a unique and singular Being?" Tertullian further spoke of the distinct nature of the Father and the Son. Referring to 1 Cor. 15:14-25, he observed: "Now from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have already been able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate persons ... He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up - and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected - must necessarily be two different beings.

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD) acknowledged that Jesus was the begotten Son of God, and then rightfully concluded "that which is begotten (Christ) is numerically distinct from that (the Father) which begets." Dionysius of Alexandria (c. A.D. 264) acknowledged that Christ was the son of God and then observed that this fact argued to the conclusion that Christ and his Father must be two separate persons: "Parents are absolutely distinguished from their children by the fact alone that they, themselves, are not their children." The logic seems so compelling - and so simple and straightforward - that it is difficult, if not impossible to dispute!

Next we will examine more convincing evidences that they are not "one" God and determine where the Holy Ghost fits in.

Many are probably aware that the scriptures present a similar rationale for the separateness of the Son and the Holy Ghost and for the distinction of the Holy ghost as a god. If the Son is the same as the Holy Ghost, why is it that the man who speaks "A word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him" (Matt. 12:32)? If they are one and the same, why should there be different consequences for the same sin? There is no question that the Holy Ghost is a god in his own right, as is evidenced by the reprimand of Peter to Annanias: "Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ... Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God" (Acts 5:3-4)

The separate, distinct nature of the three members of the Godhead was evidenced at the baptism of the Saviour. On that occasion Jesus stood in the water, the Holy Ghost descended upon him, and the Father spoke from the heavens: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:16-17) The three members of the Godhead again manifested themselves at the stoning of Stephen. While "full of the Holy Ghost," Stephen saw "Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55). For those who try to dilute or mystify the reality of three gods, Dionysius of Alexandria (c.A.D. 264) wrote, "if from the fact that there are three hypostases (essential parts), they say that they are divided, there are three whether they like it or no, or else, let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether."(a) In other words, he argued, there is either a trinity or there is not - but do not give any nonsense that they are three separate, distinct persons yet somehow only one being or substance.

While there are some scriptures that suggest the Father and the Son are one (John 10:30, John 17:21, 1 John 5:7), they become clear as to what is meant by "one" when read in context. There are likewise scriptures that suggest a husband and wife are one. "therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24) Accordingly, the real question is, what does it mean to be one, as that term is used in the scriptures. No one would contend a husband and wife are one physical body, or one and the same individual manifested in different forms. However, a husband and wife may be one in purpose and in mind and in will!

In speaking of missionary work, Paul declared, "Now he that planteth and he that waterth are one." Then he explained how they are one: "For we are laborers together with God" (1 Cor. 3:8-9). Again, the scriptures are not referring to a oneness in person, but a oneness in purpose. So it is with God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ. They are two separate distinct individuals with a unity of purpose and mind and will.

Remember, Jesus prayed that this type of oneness be extended to all his disciples: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee" (John 17:21). Certainly he was not preaching that all believers be merged into one physical mass, but rather be one in purpose and mind. Hippolytus (170-236 AD) gave this same interpretation of John 10:30:

"Understand that He (Jesus) did not say "I and the Father "am" one, but "are" one. For the word "are" is not said of one person, but it refers two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to his Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." ... Are all one body in respect to substance, or is it that we become one in power and disposition of unity of mind?" (b)

Origen was in accord with this interpretation: "We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or substances, are in unity of thought in harmony and in identity of will." (c)

The early Christian writers knew there were three separate gods who were one in purpose. This was an inescapable conclusion derived from the scriptures, as discussed above. But there was a problem. The Church's explosive growth had been among the Gentiles, whose culture was dominated by Greek philosophy. Certain key Greek philosophers, such as Plato, taught there was only one cause to all being and that cause was God. He wrote, "God is the absolute idea ... the first and final cause of all being, and consequently superior and anterior to being itself". From this conclusion was reached that all other beings must be subordinate to the original cause and, thus, there could exist only one God. This single dogma had a powerful influence on Christian thinking.

Edwin hatch noted that Christianity's affinity for Greek philosophy formed the basis of the theological battle for several centuries - three gods as dictated by the scriptures versus one God as dictated by the philosophers. How did the battle end? As all most all great conflicts end, in compromise. The dominant Theistic philosophy of Greece became the dominant philosophy of Christianity. It prevailed in form as well as substance. (d) The Nicene Creed, adopted in 325 AD was a crucial step in the integration of the scriptures with Greek philosophy.

We will next examine the underlying need as to why a such a council was convened and the resulting impact.

(a) The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 6:92
(b) The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:226
(c) The Ane-Nicene Fathers, 4:643-44
(d) Hatch, the influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church, 133, 207-8.

I am sure that many remember that about 319 AD, Arius was serving as leader of one of he Alexandrian Churches. He was bright and influential. He taught that God the Father was uncreated and thus always existed. The Son, however, was the creation of the father and therefore had a beginning. This meant there was a time when the Son did not exist, and therefore he must not be equal to the Father in divinity. In other words, the Son was subordinate to the Father because he had been created by the Father and unlike the Father, did not exist for all eternity. In summary, Jesus was greater than man, but nonetheless of lesser divinity than the Father. On the other hand, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius taught that Jesus was coequal to the Father throughout eternity - that Jesus was not a lesser or subordinate God. This presented a deep theological problem - were there two Gods or one God?

In 324 AD Constantine, with his victory over Licinius, became the emperor of the entire Roman Empire. He believed that Christianity of the future, but he knew it was terribly divided at the time over the "Arius-Athanasius dispute. Constantine seemed to have little concern for theological dogma. What he wanted was peace and harmony in the empire. Being the consummate politician, he knew he could not have the former without the latter, hence the prime reason for the Council of Nicea. While other councils were held before this one, it is sometimes referred to as the first ecumenical council, because it was the first council that had a broad representation of bishops throughout the empire.

Motivated by the spirit of compromise and political expediency, someone at the council proposed that "omoousios" (two Greek words combined meaning "same substance" be used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. In essence, they were deemed to be consubstantial, or of the "same substance". It mattered not that such a word was never used in the scriptures or by the early Christian writers; it suited the exigencies of the moment. The concept of consubstantiality was ambiguous enough that the vast majority of attending bishops were willing to accept it. It could mean that God and Jesus were equal (that is, having the same substance) but at the same time two persons, because one can not be consubstantial with himself.

Not long after the Nicene Council -at least by the fifth century- the ongoing church had unofficially adopted what is commonly called the Athanasian Creed. It was an attempt by man, without the aid of revelation, to further elaborate on the nature of God. The final product was a litany of contradictions. The "creed" eventually became the official stance of the ongoing church. The simple and sublime truth about God had become a total mystery. If one doubts such an assertion, he merely needs to read the language of the creed and then explain it to another in his own words. Almost always, after going through a line of convoluted reasoning, the participant will end up by saying, "But it is a mystery".

It is recognized by many to be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in such few words. But one may ask, how did the doctrine of the Godhead become entwined in such a web of inconsistencies? The Church leaders were faced with two irreconcilable conclusions - three gods on one hand, as taught by the scriptures, but only one God on the other, as taught by the philosophers. Eventually political expediency dictated the outcome, and both conclusions were deemed to be true. When asked how this could be, the standard answer was given: "It is a mystery". The real truth is, it was a political compromise that ended in a maze of contradictions that could only be defended by camouflaging it in the garb of a divine mystery. To those who disbelieved, the Athanasian Creed pronounced this dire consequence: "Unless one believes it faithfully and firmly, he can not be saved." The scriptures and philosophies of man had merged into a doctrinal quagmire.

As most on this board know, Mormons believe the "mystery" concerning the nature of the Godhead was solved with the appearance of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ's to the 14 year old boy, Joseph Smith. One of the great questions concerning God was solved and it revolved around the following question:

AN IMMATERIAL OR MATERIAL GOD?

Origen spoke of the separate and distinct identities of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, but he acknowledged that the church at his time did not have a clear understanding of whether God was material or immaterial: "For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood, - whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies, - a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching, and the same inquiries have to be made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit."

What an admission! The doctrine concerning the physical nature of God was lost. Instead, it was replaced by the opinions of men. While Origen acknowledged that the church in his day did not have a doctrinal stance on the physical nature of God, he nonetheless gave his opinion that God was immaterial: "It is an attribute of the divine nature alone - meaning, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - to exist without any material substance and without partaking in any degree of a bodily adjunct ... And if God is declared to be a body, then He will also be found to be material, since every body is composed of matter, But if He be composed of matter, and matter is undoubtedly corruptible, then, according to them, God is liable to corruption." It is of some interest to note that after Origen gave the foregoing opinion on the immateriality of God, he wrote with intellectual honesty: "The above, meanwhile, are the thoughts which have occurred to us, when treating of subjects of such difficulty as the incarnation and deity of Christ. If there be anyone, indeed, who can discover something better, and who can establish his assertions by clearer proofs from holy Scriptures, let his opinion be received in preference to mine." What happened to the steadfast doctrines of the apostles that were not influenced by the vagaries and whims of men?

As a result of this theological uncertainty concerning the corporeal existence of God, a false doctrine arose concerning the nature of God, namely, that God was immaterial. This heresy was founded upon one or more of the following assumptions: (1) God was invisible and therefore had no form or substance, (2) all matter was corruptible and, therefore, a god who was eternal could not be composed of a corruptible substance, and (3) God is a spirit and therefore cannot have a material body.

No doubt much of the foregoing was influenced by Greek philosophy. Aristotle had taught: "The Supreme Being is immaterial; it can have no impressions, no sensations, nor appetites, nor a will in the sense of desire, nor feelings in the sense of passions; all these things depend on matter." Edwin hatch explained the overwhelming impact such philosophy had on the Christian doctrine of God: "It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the conceptions by which Greek thought lifted men from the conception of God as a being with human form and human passions, to the lofty height on which they can feel around them an awful and infinite Presence." Hatch also noted the Greek preference for a God who "was not limited by parts or bodily form" Then he added: "But it is probable that the conception in its first form (meaning God) was rather of a material than of an ideal unity."

But God declared his materiality in the first book of the Bible: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." A few chapters later, Moses confirmed that Adam was "in the likeness of God," and then, to help us understand how he was using the words "likeness" and "image", Moses observed that Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth (Gen. 5:3). The parallel was clear - man in the physical likeness and image of God, just as Seth was in the physical image of his father.

Now this begs another question. How was man created in God's image if he was not in the form of his person? Ezekiel believed that must be the case for he wrote that God's "likeness" (was) as the appearance of a man" (Ezek. 1:26). In the Clementine Homilies (most likely written in the third century), Peter is quoted as saying that man is in the image of God: "And Simon said: 'I should like to know Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been molded after the shape of God.' And Peter said; 'I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case ... It is the shape of the just God.' "

One should find it very interesting to note that Paul declared that Christ is in "The express image of his (God's) person" (Heb. 1:3), meaning that he would look like God the Father, much as a son is in the image of his mortal father. What does the word "image" mean in these verses if God has no form, no substance, no materiality? James reaffirmed that man was "made after the similitude of God" (James 3:9). But how could man be made in God's similitude if God has no form or image to imitate? One must wonder why there is such an active pursuit to change the simple meaning of words such as "likeness" and "image" and similitude" to some erudite and mystical meaning that has no relationship to their common meanings. Yet almost every Christian church today teaches that God is a spirit, without body, parts, or form. At least one major church declares that God is also without passions, hence the phrase that "God is without body, parts, or passions. I think anyone will agree one must wonder what type of relationship someone can develop with a god who is immaterial, invisible, and undefinable!

As I mentioned earlier, the loss of the apostles left the church a spiritual Titanic -headed for destruction! We are establishing the Nicene creed of the Trinity was the figment of man's reasoning and that not only is the Godhead three separate and distinct entities, but God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ have material and glorified bodies of flesh and bone.

Paul declared: "We are also his (god's) offspring. Then he added, "For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:28-29). What was Paul's point? That "like" begets "like", and thus, if we are his offspring, we must be like him! A similar message was recorded in Hebrews, which reminds us to be in "subjection unto the Father of Spirits and live" (Hebrews 12:9). There are multiple passages that refer to God as our Father in heaven. Why? Because we are his spirit children, created in his image.

God is not an "it" as many Christians assert. He is not a thing. He is not some neuter force, not some ethereal non substance. The scriptures not only refer to God as our Father in heaven, but as "him" or "he" in verse after verse. Why? Because God is a male personage!

Thus, consistent with being a male personage, God has a corporeal body. Jacob declared: "I have seen God face to face (Gen. 32:30). Paul spoke of a face to face encounter with the Lord (1 Cor. 13:12), and John saw the day when the worthy would approach the throne of God and see his face (Rev. 22:4). The seventy of Israel "saw the God of Israel: and there were under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone" (Exodus 24:10). The Ten Commandments were written with the finger of God (Exodus 32:23). God said to Moses: "I will take away mine hand", and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen (Exodus 33:23). The Lord said with regard to Moses: "With him I will speak mouth to mouth" (Numbers 12:8). It was the resurrected Saviour whom Stephen saw "standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55). Ezekiel saw the appearance of his loins (Ezekiel 1:27). John saw the coming of the Lord and declared that "his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns ... And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword" (Rev. 19: 12,15). He furthered revealed that Jesus "sat upon" a white horse and "was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood" (Rev. 19:11, 13). The scripture also tell us that "Enoch walked with God" (Gen. 5:24) and that Abraham "stood yet before the Lord" (Gen. 18:22). Isaiah "saw the Lord sitting upon a throne" (Isa: 6:1). Now I ask you, does this sound like an amorphous, immaterial being -one whom the scriptures declare has a head, a face, eyes, a mouth, a hand, a finger, back parts, loins, who sits upon a throne, rides a horse, wears clothes, and who has conversed with, walked with, and been seen by multiple prophets? Some would dismiss them as figurative, not literal statements, but why make repeated references to God's body, person, image, and similitude if he has no body, has no image, and lacks similitude?

The next post I will include the additional scriptural evidence of God's corporeal nature.

I will try to finish this up this week.

I actually printed all of that and started reading. About 3 pages into it I don't think I am going to have the time to actually respond to each of your false assertions and ridiculous conclusions.

One example...(again, this is only the most recent that I highlighted).

Under the major evidences of the apostasy...

quote:

---

Ninth, the scriptures were removed from the hands of the lay membership and retained solely in the hands of the clergy.

---

Do you really think we're that stupid? Who was it that copied and passed down the scritpures BY HAND for centuries? Who was it that canonized the books of the bible for the benefit of the whole church? And, most importantly, when was the printing press invented? In the very early church copies of the scriptures were hand writen and highly valuable. Maybe each church or city had one or two copies of each book...IF that. The church had to protect the sacred scriptures for EVERYBODY. Sorry, but at that time it was simply impossible for the lay people to have copies of the scriptures on their bedside. Give me a break! The church also, for good reason, didn't want legitimate copies of the scriptures to fall in the hands of heretics for fear that they would copy their own slant into the scriptures. You make it sound like the early church hoarded bibles from the lay people for some nefarious reason...when in fact it was simply IMPOSSIBLE that the lay person had a bible at least until the mid 1500s. And you and your Mormon buddies can thank the Catholic Church for preserving the Word until 1830 when Joseph Smith tried to start his own whack "interpretation" of the King James Bible.

What a joke. You must think we're idiots. What an insult.

This is most likely my last comment on this nonsense. I just don't have the time to deal with your silly manifesto. Maybe others do.

"...and to summarize, who cares?"

quote:

---

It is significant to note that not all of the original Twelve Apostles had died by this time. John the Beloved, for example, was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. While there, John received the Book of Revelation - a standard book in all Christian Bibles - which raises and interesting and fundamentally crucial question: If Linus was the head of the Church, and if he succeeded Peter, why wasn't the Book of Revelation revealed though him? Why did it come through John, an Apostle in exile?

---

By this reasoning all the books of the New Testament should have been reveled through Peter until he was martyred. This obviously not the case with only a small part of what we know as the New Testament being credited to Peter. The fact the Apocalypse was disclosed to St. John on Patmos rather than St. Linus in Rome proves nothing concerning if he was a valid successor.

quote:

---

Without the authority and direction of the Council of Twelve Apostles, men began looking to other sources for doctrinal understanding, and as a result many plain and precious truths were lost.

---

Do you ever attempt to prove the point that "many plain and precious truths were lost" in this discourse or are you going just keep repeating the phrase in hopes we just accept it as fact?


[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 9/12/2007 10:22a).]

quote:

---

symbolizing that the light of Christ's Gospel had been extinguished

---

IF his gospel was extinguised then that means there was no way for people to be saved during this time period. Wouldn't that make a God an unfair and unjust God if he left people without a way to be saved through all the years up to Joseph Smith? This stands in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches. God is JUST and is FAIR and wants all men to be saved, but you are saying the opposite about the dark ages.

_______________________________________________________
"You see character does count. For too long we have gotten by in a society that says the only thing right is to get by and the only thing wrong is to get caught. Character is doing what's right when nobody is looking. " -JC Watts

you lost me at

quote:

---

I wished to assemble this so it would be easy to digest and at the same time not offensive or argumentative.

---

quote:

---

IF his gospel was extinguised then that means there was no way for people to be saved during this time period.

---

As Universalists, Mormons aren't too worried about this.

Seamaster -"What a joke. You must think we're idiots. What an insult."

The temptation is there but you might like to visit with William Tyndale and all those who had gotten a newly printed copy of the Bible. Your Church butchered them for daring to have a copy.

As far as reading this, I warned you before that this would be a painful experience. I am reminded what Jack Nicholson's character said in the movie, I think it was "A Few Good Men": The truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 9/12/2007 5:41p).]

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 9/13/2007 10:07a).]

???

I'm still curious...

What is more implausible: God took a break for 1700 years, or that God suddenly decided to relocate his center of operations from the holy land to the midwest USA after 1700 years of nothing? Neither argument is particularly convincing.

MouthBQ98 -When I give you all the evidences of the promised restoration coupled with the scriptures describing the great apostasy that had already started, coupled with many respected historians who concluded that it did happen, you will easily see which is the more plausible!

This is so funny.

If Smith was right about an apostasy, then Jesus was a pathetic failure when it came to establishing his Church. After all, what are we to think of his promises? If there really was a complete apostasy, how do we explain our Lord's claim that his Church never would be overcome, "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:19)? What about his promise that he would be with his Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20)? What about his promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16, 26)? What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?

THE Mormon Church simply has no convincing answer to the ocean of biblical and historical evidence of which this is just a drop. All of it contradicts the complete apostasy theory. Yet there's another problem with the theory: the problem of silence. There's no evidence of any outcry from first or second century "Mormons" denouncing the introduction of "Catholic heresies."