No Apostacy according to the Bible, Book of Mormon and D&C

[_Mittens]

In support of their doctrine of a "universal apostasy," LDS quote such Bible texts as Amos 8:11-12; Is. 60:2; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1:6-9; II Thes. 2:3; I Tim. 4:1- 3; II Tim. 1:15, 3:1-5, 4:2-4; II Peter 2:1-3; Rev. 3:14-17 and 13:6-7. But, not one of those verses says that there will be a universal, complete or total apostasy, and some do not even apply to the church! The Bible teaches that some had turned away from the gospel in New Testament times, and that it would increase in the last days (II Tim. 3 and 4). But, nowhere does it teach a universal apostasy by the end of the first century or any other time! In fact, the word "apostasy" is never used in the King James Version of the Bible which is the official LDS version.

The Apostle Paul wrote: "Unto Him (God) be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end Amen" (Eph. 3:21). Could that be true if there was a universal apostasy of the church for several centuries? Jesus also said, "Upon this Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Notice that it is Christ Himself (not mortal men) who builds His church or adds to it (Acts 2:47), and Christ has all power in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18; Rev. 19:6). LDS often claim that the true church must be built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, as Eph 2:20 says. This is commented upon later in this chapter under the sub-title, "Apostles." But Paul wrote, "...other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 3:11). Since Jesus Christ is the Foundation of the church, He is also part of the church! Could that church "collapse" or become extinct when the omnipotent Christ is the Foundation of it? Is it possible for Christ to lose "the church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25)? Christ is called the "Good Shepherd" in John 10:11. But, any shepherd who loses all his sheep is not a very good shepherd!

Jude 1:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


Jesus must bear some responsibility for the existence of the church since God "gave Him to be head over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:22). The Lord Himself also nourishes (feeds) and cherishes (lovingly cares for) the church (Eph. 5:29). Jesus never told anyone else to go build His church. Instead, He declared, "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). And after He ascended into heaven, Acts 2:47 declares, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." He needed no successor to build His church because He lives forever (Heb. 7:24-25). That is why Col. 1:18 declares, "He is the head of the body, the church." Notice the present tense verb is used which shows that Jesus was still Head of His church even though He had ascended to heaven many years before that was written! And Jesus is still the Head of His Church and He is adding members to it today! Thus, when LDS claim that Christ's church was prevailed against and ceased to exist, they insult the living Head of the Church!

Even Mormon scripture denies a total or universal apostasy. The B. of M. III Nephi 28 and the D. & C., Section 7, tell the story of the Apostle John and three "Nephite" apostles who were to remain alive on the earth until the second coming of the Lord! If four apostles have been on earth since the time of Christ, a universal apostasy could not have taken place during that time according to President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church. He said, "As long as one elder remains on earth today he would have the priesthood and could organize the church even though all of the apostles and first presidency, etc., were killed off" (Latter Day Prophets Speak by David H. Ludlow, p. 213). Can that be true of the LDS Church today and not have been true for the original church after which the LDS Church claims to be patterned? Thus, even if a universal apostasy took place, the four Apostles who never died could have restored the church without Smith's help! But, LDS claim Christ's church ceased to exist after about 100 years while Smith's is still growing after more than 150 years! Did Joseph Smith really build a better church than Jesus Christ?


http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaims7.htm#apostasy

[_Albion]

A universal apostasy...the great foundational lie of Mormonism...but as George Costanza said: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

[_Drifting]

Even Mormon scripture denies a total or universal apostasy. The B. of M. III Nephi 28 and the D. & C., Section 7, tell the story of the Apostle John and three "Nephite" apostles who were to remain alive on the earth until the second coming of the Lord! If four apostles have been on earth since the time of Christ, a universal apostasy could not have taken place during that time according to President Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church. He said, "As long as one elder remains on earth today he would have the priesthood and could organize the church even though all of the apostles and first presidency, etc., were killed off" (Latter Day Prophets Speak by David H. Ludlow, p. 213). Can that be true of the LDS Church today and not have been true for the original church after which the LDS Church claims to be patterned? Thus, even if a universal apostasy took place, the four Apostles who never died could have restored the church without Smith's help! But, LDS claim Christ's church ceased to exist after about 100 years while Smith's is still growing after more than 150 years! Did Joseph Smith really build a better church than Jesus Christ?


http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaims7.htm#apostasy

In the intervening years before Joseph pitched up, where did these guys go for Sacrament Meeting?

[_Tobin]

A universal apostasy...the great foundational lie of Mormonism...but as George Costanza said: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

Yeah, the Dark Ages never happened. Nope. No signs of apostasy anywhere.

[_LittleNipper]

A universal apostasy...the great foundational lie of Mormonism...but as George Costanza said: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

There is black and white. There is right and wrong. What at person chooses to believe will not change reality, just the kind of society one endeavors to establish...

[_Albion]

Certainly not in the period known as the Dark Ages unless you can offer proof that there were no believers during that time. Christ's church, as you have confirmed in a previous post, is made up of believers, called out ones, and is not an institutional church. Jesus' mission did not fail no matter the lie of Mormonism.

[_LittleNipper]

A universal apostasy...the great foundational lie of Mormonism...but as George Costanza said: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

Yeah, the Dark Ages never happened. Nope. No signs of apostasy anywhere.

There were always some small congregations here and there that were relatively unaffected by what took place in Rome. Then came the Reformation. God put the printing press to good use ----- just as He did the Roman road system centuries earlier... God can take the bad and make good from it.

[_just me]

A universal apostasy...the great foundational lie of Mormonism...but as George Costanza said: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

Yeah, the Dark Ages never happened. Nope. No signs of apostasy anywhere.

So, according to you, the Dark Ages were because of lack of believe in some obscure religion?

[_Tobin]

So, according to you, the Dark Ages were because of lack of believe in some obscure religion?

Why, what you attribute to this era of enlightenment to?

[_just me]

So, according to you, the Dark Ages were because of lack of believe in some obscure religion?

Why, what you attribute to this era of enlightenment to?

The rejection of superstition. LMAO
You know, many scholars don't even use the term "Dark Ages" anymore...
Should I take your question as a 'yes' to my question?