A couple weeks ago the Vatican raised eyebrows when Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Obviously, given that this blog is a conversation between Evangelicals and Mormons, many of us would disagree with that claim. But I think it’s a fascinating bit of news that is relevant to both the Mormon claim to legitimacy and our previous conversation of how to define Christianity.
The Vatican’s announcement basically said that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ because only the Catholic Church can claim the requisite authority from Christ through apostolic succession. Echoing a similar 2000 statement, the Pope said that other orthodox churches were flawed churches, and that other Christian denominations weren’t even churches at all, but instead, ecclesiastical communities. Presumably, this would include all Evangelical denominations and perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well.
This isn’t actually anything new — the Roman Catholic Church has claimed its place as the true church of Christ all along, not just in 2000 and 2007. The Mormon Church makes a similar claim to authority, through through revelation and modern prophets rather than apostolic authority. Coming from an LDS background, I was very surprised when I first discovered that many (if not most) Christian denominations don’t make similar claims. In a simplistic view, why would you subscribe to a faith that doesn’t even think it’s the right one?
Of course, the simplistic view is woefully incomplete. As Tim described in an earlier post, many Protestant Christian denominations accept baptism and communion from other denominations. They see themselves as part of a world-wide family of Christian worshipers, and the idea of claiming sole authority is alien to them. Tim described that view when he wrote:
When the LDS church defines “the one true church” it leaves everyone else out. It says that all baptisms are invalid outside of the LDS church. It says that taking the sacrament is invalid everywhere outside the LDS church. It says that there is no priesthood authority outside the LDS church. In effect, the LDS church’s position that it is the one and only true church is saying that there is no true Christian worship outside of Mormonism.
While most Mormons would describe their claim to authority in less exclusive terms, that is essentially what they assert — that they and only they have the full truth and gospel of Jesus Christ, with the requisite power and authority to perform saving ordinances and conduct His church. That is also exactly the claim the Vatican has reaffirmed in its recent statement. Like the 2000 announcement, the statement is somewhat controversial because many see it as an implicit rejection or indictment of other faiths. But I don’t think claiming to have the truth is inherently exclusionary. Mormon Church spokesman Michael Otterson observed on his On Faith blog:
Obviously, many other Christians disagree with [the LDS Church’s claim to divine authority] as much as I believe in it, and there ought to be vigorous and constructive debate. Yet I can also acknowledge fundamental differences between Christian churches (many of them clearly irreconcilable) without being offended. It matters not one whit to me that the Catholic and some other churches don’t accept “Mormon” baptisms. We don’t accept theirs either. But I can look for a deeper mutual understanding of those differences, strive for good will and hope to embrace others as fellow Christians.
Like Otterson, I’m not particularly offended by the claims of the Catholic Church. I certainly hope they think they’re right. Even without agreeing with them, I can respect their right to claim authority, just as I hope they respect the claim of my own faith. I don’t see such claims as condemning other followers of Christ. The position of my own church is that other churches are full of faithful, good people who believe many of the true principles of the Gospel of Christ. From what I understand of the Vatican statement and the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church also recognizes the good works of other churches or “ecclesiastical communities.” Rather than interpreting the Catholic or Mormon claims as an indictment of the rest of Christianity, I see it as their sincere attempts to draw closer to Christ and the truth He taught. And that is something I can always respect.
LDS & Evangelical Conversations 
I don’t see how the RC’s think they have a better claim than the Eastern Orthodox church, though. A coequal claim, maybe, but a superior claim? No way.
Nice job. I’m staking my exclusivity claims on the word “Christian”, the Pope is staking his on the word “church”.
I’m actually equally offended by the Mormon and Catholic church’s stance as “the only true church”. It just so happens that I agree with the Catholic church on more profound issues such as the nature of God.
If I recall the previous argument correctly, the claim was the Mormons weren’t Christian because they claim to be the only true Christian church. That seems to make no sense and I am puzzled by why Catholics are considered Christian despite making (in my view) a much stronger claim to exclusive truth than Mormons.
I can’t even remember how many times I have responded with claims that the LDS church is obligated by the “First Vision” of Joseph Smith to think of itself as the Church of Christ to the exclusion of all others. I have usually been shot down as being uninformed, or to caustic. But all I have done is quote LDS sources, along with commenting on my own experience as a Mormon.
What he [Smith] was told in answer to his inquiry [which of all the churches to join?] was to “. . . join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me [Jesus] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors [of these creeds] were all corrupt;. . .” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History–this is one of the Mormons’ “Standard Works” of scripture.)
Christians outside Mormonism are, according to this revelation, abominable and what we believe is corrupt.
Correction Gene,
Their “CREEDS” were an “abomination.” Not the Christians themselves.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the point of the LDS faith is if you remove its unique claims to being the “one true church.”
If all you want to do is hold hands, sing kumbaya, and worship Jesus, there are better frameworks for doing it than Mormonism.
Your point, Seth, may be strictly true, linguistically. But as a Christian I am my creed, so if it is an abomination where does that leave me (and the rest of us who are “professors of these creeds”?); it also says those who profess those creeds are corrupt. I suppose I should just shuck that of,f too. Perhaps under some understanding that today’s Mormon doesn’t live by yesterday’s doctrine. (A common claim in various forms.)
But without that first vision there really is no Mormonism. That’s because to eliminate that vision, or to even reduce its importance leaves Mormons with no reason for Mormonism.
Are you a “professor of those creeds” in the way God intended the phrase?
And what does “corrupt” mean?
Always with the word games. First, it isn’t the Christian God’s phrase. It is the Mormon Jesus’ phrase. And, second, I am a professor of “those” creeds in the sense that I accept them as descriptive of the truth. Here is a portion of the Nicene creed (AD 325).
“I believe in one God the Father Almighty. . .And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father…”
This directly contradicts the Mormon view of God, and the vision of Smith which holds that God and Jesus are two separate, resurrected individuals. The true and living God of Christianity does not have a body, is not a exalted man (as Mormonism teaches), and in essence is not a different person than Jesus. Now, granted this is all difficult to explain, or to understand, but it is the consistent position of all mainline, orthodox Christianity.
The point to all of this is that our positions are not reconcilable. There is no way to make them compatible. We can debate ’till the sun goes down for the final time, but at the end of it all one of us is right and the other is wrong. “East is east is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.”
You have chosen your belief system (or it was chosen for you and you accept it). We Christians have chosen ours. In my case, I have moved from one to the other. And I believe it was a move from false teaching to true teaching. So, we have our positions. My goal is to support Christians and help them to see the error of the LDS church. That’s the only reason I respond. If, in the meantime, If I actually help to convert a Mormon, good.
If I recall the previous argument correctly, the claim was the Mormons weren’t Christian because they claim to be the only true Christian church. That seems to make no sense and I am puzzled by why Catholics are considered Christian despite making (in my view) a much stronger claim to exclusive truth than Mormons.
No, the argument is that saying Mormonism isn’t Christian is tantamount to the LDS church saying it is the only true church in the offense it offers.
The argument that the LDS church is not Christian is based on its doctrine being so far removed from Christian doctrine that it no longer represents Christan thought.
Fair enough Gene.
I actually largely agree with you. The Mormon religion was born on a combative premise. So in one sense, there will never be absolute harmony between our churches unless Mormonism morphs into something that it is not currently.
I’ll also plead guilty to the charge of “word games.” But I did think that the possibilities had to be raised.
Would you be OK with me simply suggesting that most Mormons like Christians as a general matter and leaving it at that?
Yes, Seth, I’m OK with that. And, of course, Its not that I dislike Mormons (Just Mormonism). Mormons have a morality for world to envy.
Doesn’t every Christian church/denomination at least implicitly make the same claim? Namely, “that we’re right and everyone else is wrong when they disagree and right when they agree.” The RC’s say this, the Mormons say this, the Evangelical Christians say this.
I would guess that there’s an element of this in every religion, not just Christian churches, but I’m not familiar enough with other religions to know. This question of being “the true church” seems fundamental to Christianity, probably due to its history as a “correction to” Judaism. Islam seems similar in that respect. But is this as much of a question for, say, Hindu or Shinto?
sorry, post #12 was a bit scatter-brained, so I hope my question is discernible.
Also, when I say, “…make the same claim,” I don’t mean “identical,” but rather “similar.” (Just to clarify)
Per Bob Millet, this is what we do NOT mean when we say “the Only True Church”: (see the excerpt from “A Different Jesus?” at this link: http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-only-true-church-does-not-mean.html )
1. It does not mean that men and women of other Christian faiths are not sincere believers in truth and genuine followers of the Christ. Latter-day Saints have no difficulty whatsoever accepting one’s personal affirmation that they are Christian, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, their Savior, the Lord and Master of their life. Nor are Latter-day Saints the only ones entitled to personal illumination and divine guidance for their lives.
2. It does not mean that they are worshipping “a different Jesus,” as many in the Christian world often say of the Latter-day Saints. Rather, true Christians worship Jesus of Nazareth, the Promised Messiah.
3. It does not mean we believe that most of the doctrines in Catholic or Protestant Christianity are false or that the leaders of the various branches of Christianity have improper motives. Joseph Smith stated: “The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to re ceive truth, let it come from whence it may.” “Have the Presbyterians any truth?” he asked on another occasion. “Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. . . . We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons.'”
4. It does not mean that the Bible has been so corrupted that it cannot be relied upon to teach us sound doctrine and provide an example of how to live. “When I lived in England a few years ago,” said Mark E. Petersen, “I went to the British Museum in London and studied the history of the King James Version of the Bible. I learned that its translators fasted and prayed for inspiration in their work. I am convinced that they received it.” Then what of the LDS belief that plain and precious truths and many covenants of the Lord were removed from the Bible before its compilation (1 Nephi 13:20-40; Moses 1:40-41)? While we do not subscribe to a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, we do believe that the hand of God has been over the preservation of the biblical materials such that what we have now is what the Almighty would have us possess. In the words of Bruce R. McConkie, “we cannot avoid the conclusion that a divine providence is directing all things as they should be. This means that the Bible, as it now is, contains that portion of the Lord’s word” that the present world is prepared to receive.
5. It does not mean that God disapproves of or rejects all that devoted Christians are teaching or doing, where their heart is, and what they hope to accomplish in the religious world. “God, the Father of us all,” Ezra Taft Benson said, “uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.” Elder Benson then quoted the following from a conference address delivered by Orson F. Whitney in 1928: “Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else.” Now note this particularly poignant message: “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people.” Elder Whitney then pointed out that we have no warfare with other churches. “They are our partners in a certain sense.”
6. It does not mean that God-fearing Christians who are not Latter-day Saints will not go to heaven. Mormons do not in any way minimize or deny the reality of another person’s experience with the Spirit of God, nor should we question the legitimacy of another’s commitment to Jesus Christ. To say that another way, we do not doubt that many who claim to have had a mighty change of heart have in fact been “born again.” Christians who are somewhat acquainted with LDS beliefs might well respond at this point: “Yes, but do you believe that persons of other faiths will inherit the celestial kingdom?” Latter-day Saints do believe that baptism by proper authority is necessary for entrance into the highest heaven; the baptismal ordinance is an outward expression of one’s personal inward covenant with Christ and acceptance of his gospel. At the same time, LDS doctrine affirms that each man or woman will receive all of the light, knowledge, divine attributes, powers, and heavenly rewards they desire to receive, either in this life or the next. One who seeks with all their soul to come unto Christ will be welcomed eventually into his presence. One who earnestly yearns to qualify for the highest of glories hereafter will have that opportunity. That means that a man or woman who is true to the light they have here will open themselves to greater light.
7. Our belief that we are “the only true and living church” does not mean that Latter-day Saints desire to “do their own thing” or face social challenges on their own. To be sure, we strive earnestly to work together with men and women of other faiths to stand up and speak out against the rising tide of immorality and ethical relativism that are spreading in our world. With most Christian groups, we are persuaded that the changes to be made in our society can only come about “from the inside out” — through the transforming powers of Jesus Christ. Indeed, I am convinced that if we allow doctrinal differences, stereotyping, and demonizing of those who are different to prevent us from joining hands in halting the erosion of time-honored moral and family values, Lucifer will win a major victory.
Thanks, Steve St. Clair
I never understood the first vision to be referring to The Creeds… I always understood it to mean the abominable teachings of the churches at the time (which would be why Joseph shouldn’t join any of them). A creed is just a system of principles or beliefs.
I don’t know what those abominable teachings were–I wasn’t around then, and I never looked into it. It was enough for me to say, none of the churches on earth at the time had the whole truth. Jesus was giving the whole truth to Joseph Smith.
I feel like reading too much into it (saying that Mormons believe that God thinks that people who believe in The Creeds are corrupt), or assuming that the creeds referred to are The Creeds is just looking for ways to be offended, honestly. I mean, you have to admit, in churches then (as in churches now) you get a lot of hypocrisy (which I imagine is abominable in God’s eyes), a lot of behavior that Christ criticized in the New Testament.
Which isn’t to say that you don’t find that same stuff in the LDS Church–it certainly happens, and as in all churches, nobody’s proud of it.
But I think that being too literal or going to word by word about the First Vision–or about anything, really–is just going to lead to nitpicky arguments about what the “True” beliefs/doctrines/whatever are.
Steve St.Clair and Katyjane, I must ask: With all of these “justifying” remarks (creeds doesn’t mean creeds, but something else; when you say the LDS church is One True Church, you really mean something else), why don’t any of the responding Mormons explain how this one thing separates us irreconcilably is something else: The Mormon God is an exalted, resurrected man who is only the God of this world. This view is unquestionably unacceptable to the rest of us.
Our God is pure spirit and is the God of all creation, and is the God who is one in essence with Jesus, as stated in those abominable creeds. See post #8.
I know I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, so I’ll make this my last response in this thread.
Because that doctrine isn’t actually all that significant or important or closely-held by most Mormons?
Yes, it’s an “official” teaching of the church, but it’s prominence has certainly waned over the years. I’d reckon plenty of Mormons aren’t even aware that the Church teaches it (they should be aware, but it’s an easy thing to miss).
But… we’ve been over this ground before, so I’m not sure it makes sense to go the rounds on it again.
“who is only the God of this world”
No, you are putting words into our mouths Gene.
Mormon doctrine clearly states that the God we worship has created and is master of, “worlds without end.” Our scriptures clearly state this. There “is no end” to His works. Our God is endless and I do not see Him as being confined to any geographic space that the human mind can comprehend.
It is sheer caricature to assert that we believe each god gets one world that he is responsible for. It limits God much more than Mormons can be fairly accused of doing.
Very interesting conversations you folks have here! I’d like to throw in some personal experience/feelings re: Gene’s comment about the nature of God.
Growing up Catholic, I could never understand the creed that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were all the same God, but in some mysterious unaccountable way were able to also be separate. It was an inexplicable doctrine, and I was told that it was a great mystery, and could not be understand by main — I had to just take it on faith. This was their answer to all my questions. 🙂 I admired (and still do) many of the people I knew who were/are great men and women of faith in my church, and appreciated many aspects of the faith of my youth. But the doctrines the church held fast to, including the Trinity, remained problematic for me.
My reasoning went like this (and still does). Jesus repeatedly taught his disciples about becoming one with him as he was with his Father; he repeatedly said he was going to his father and “your” father. These were the verses that the priests and nuns and CCD teachers pointed out to me as justification for the Trinity belief. It still didn’t make sense to me.
1. The disciples and Jesus were separate individuals,
2. Jesus invited them several times to become one with him AS he was with the Father,
3. “AS” means in the same way, similarly, “do this like Dad and I are doing”
3. Jesus sure seemed to be convinced that this oneness was possible, therefore it must have been,
4. it was Jesus’s own comparison,
and that argued to me more against the Trinity doctrine than for it, and seemed to me to indicate that they were certainly separate individuals enjoying a oneness of mind and heart and purpose, rather than a oneness of identity/soul/personhood or what have you.
Also arguing for a separateness of individuals is the accounts we have of Jesus’ baptism. Jesus is physically in the water being baptized, and John bears witness of a voice from Heaven claiming Jesus as His beloved Son in whom He is well pleased, as well as a dove’s appearance and John’s clear understanding that this is/represents the Holy Spirit witnessing of Jesus’ Messiahship.
Jesus also prayed many times to His Father — was he praying to himself? And then, the gospels agree that Jesus’ body was no longer in the tomb after the third day, and upwards of 500 witnesses, the women who followed Jesus, and the 12 apostles of the Lamb all bore witness that they had seen the resurrected Christ, had physically touched his wounds, ate with him, drank wine with him, were embraced by him, and saw him ascend into heaven. The angels who spoke with the disciples who witnessed this most miraculous event told them that Jesus would return in the same manner that he ascended.
Where is that body now, if Jesus isn’t in possession of it?
What is the resurrection, if not the taking up of that which is corrupt and mortal (our own bodies), and putting on immortality (a resurrected body) as Paul taught, and Jesus Himself taught?
To me, the Bible itself argues against the Trinity. To some this make me, a woman who knows with her whole heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and seeks daily to follow Him, NOT Christian. Yet, a Catholic priest told me when I was 16 that he did not believe Jesus was literally God’ son. Yet he IS a Christian because he believes in the doctrine of the Trinity?
There’s one thing about beliefs that I’ve learned in all my years as a practicing Christian — No one, not even those who claim to be members of the same church or attend the same congregation every week — believe exactly the same thing, regardless of the professed doctrines of said church.
So what does it really matter what someone else believes? Seems to me what matters is that we each follow our own hearts and consciences. No matter what name we call him or what details about him we believe or don’t believe, He seems to always answer the sincere prayer of faith.
Peace and Blessings,
Gloria
I wanted to comment on this one the other day and then had to leave…
Anywho…so much to read that I didn’t get through the comments.
As I read the post though the thing that came to mind was “power trip”. You would think that the “power trip” would only be in the business world where everyone is trying to make more money. Not true. I see it even in the smallest of churches. The pastor gets on his pulpit in front of everyone…and whatever it is…it turns into some sort of power trip. “I’m in control here”. As if somehow he is less of a sinner than I am?
The pastors, teachers, leaders who impress me the most are those that admit they aren’t perfect. They are humble in mind and spirit.
Anywho…that is what came to my mind as I read…
I am a Mormon with a testimony that came from the other side of the veil. We must stick to teaching and discussing doctrine.
We as members do not accept the doctrines that came from the council of Nicea in 325 AD. ( It is unfortunate that many Christians today are misguided and mislead from that half pagan and half Christian council.) -my personal comment.
We accept that Jesus Christ started a church while he was on the earth. We believe as stated in Corinthians that the “truth” would fall away and the church taken off the earth. But.. to be followed by a “Restoration”.
Gene, what we claim is, Jesus Christ restored his church. The only thing you’ll find different is that we have the authority of God (priesthood).
You have read the quote of Joseph’s first vision;
” I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
I think we’ll agree that this is blunt, but we must consider that if this truly came from the Lord then getting offended would only be evil. But, if this is the truth, hopefully all of us would do everything in our power to obey the Lord. Members of the Church believe it is true and it will be impossible to disprove it. Only through the Spirit and personal revelation can things of God be taught.
no church is better than any other,all are equally good or
bad. if you honestly belive that yours is the only way to
heaven,then you will be turned away at the gates,for
all the right reasons. ( your memory is the gate )
dislike of other people due to thier choice/no choice of religeon is an evil trait,that shows no compassion for what
this life we have is really about.
there is no heaven or hell after death,just peace of mind in the last few moments of reflection.
cowards fear death,because they are afraid of the life they
have now, they wish for something more (do the lotto )
be a good ,honest,decent person , you will get your
rewards now. not in a afterlife that does not exist.
bert clark – ( normal working man – not educated but
nearer the truth than most preachers )
bret,
That’s just an excuse for saying I don’t have to change my ways and I don’t have to do any work to find the truth.
Or it’s just a cop-out. “I’ll never find the truth anyway, so please stop nagging me about it.”
And what about the intolerance that you show toward those who actually believe in absolute truth claims?
I find that relativism is often just an excuse for being intellectually lazy. The convenient answer for people who don’t give a damn what their fellow human beings think or believe, and can’t be bothered to get off their butts and find out.
“For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord.” (2 Nephi 28:3.)
I find that relativism is often just an excuse for being intellectually lazy. The convenient answer for people who don’t give a damn what their fellow human beings think or believe, and can’t be bothered to get off their butts and find out.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair, though.
I think it’s honestly hard not to come to completely relativistic conclusions if you really try to get at truth.
At the same time, I would agree that many people who buy into total relativism are being intellectually lazy, not because there’s something inherently intellectually lazy about an absolute relativist position (more than any other position), but because it’s the predominant popular opinion in our broader culture, and is therefore an easy default.
The person who doesn’t want to have to grapple with issues isn’t really best served by adopting a completely relativistic position in all circumstances, but they are always best served by simply sailing with the prevailing wind.
Not that “sailing with the prevailing wind” is inherently lazy, because it’s possible to grapple with truth and honestly conclude that the prevailing wind happens to be blowing in the right direction.
well done and 3 cheers to kullervo, fantastic response.
i cant belive how some of the above comments claim that
people are lazy, and cant find the truth ! . just because
they have different views to thiers. i think this says more about thier lack of undertanding of life , than it does of the
people it is aimed towards denouncing.
people can belive whatever they wish, alah, christ , santa ,
elfs and fairys. it makes no difference. when we are dead,
its how we behave and respect other people in this life at
the present that shows our inner real self. IF there is a
heaven, we will be judged on our actions , not on self
satisfying belifes.
Unless, of course, you’re completely wrong, and it matters what you believe.
Seriously, how could you know that for sure?
I didn’t say my way was right bert. Read a little more carefully next time.
What I did say was that your approach sounded like a real cop-out.
And you really aren’t reading that carefully if you think that Kullervo’s response was an unqualified agreement with yours.
Seriously. Total misread.
hi ,to seth r and kullervo.
i did not misread or think that it was an unqualified agreement with my own way of thinking from your response. i was just pleased to know that some people can
have a open mind on this issue, without being against the
idea that there is only one religeon that has all the awnsers, and all else is wrong.
as you say we will never know this for sure , but i will not try to hedge my bets by placing all my eggs in one basket that seams to have many holes.
peace – love – good health to you all.
“there is only one religeon that has all the awnsers, and all else is wrong.”
That was never an assertion I tried to make.
enough said
There appears to be mass cofussion as to who owns the rights to the ‘Only Trur Church’ on earth. The Catholics claim Apostolic succession whereas the Mormons claim Apostacy and need for a restoration.
The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of the Mormon church and it claims that after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, He established 12 more Apostles on the earth simultaneously with the 12 in Israel. Ok, so there are a total of 24 Apostles on the earth. In the Book of Mormon, 9 want to recieve their reward in Heaven. The other 3 ask to stay, and are granted permission to remain on the earth until Christ comes again.
O.K., so all of these Apostles have the requisite priesthood and the remaining 3 did not have their priesthood powers revoked. It would seem that the Priesthood never left the earth and there would be no need for a restoration. There is no elimination of priesthood powers.
Also, revelation was received by joseph smith that John the Beloved asked that he not receive the taste of death. The Lord granted this request and again Priesthood powers have not left the earth.
With all of this power and protection “There is No Need for a Restoration”! I believe that some Mormons need to explain and not with Feelings or personal testimony!
David,
How do you know that they didn’t leave the earth?
DUN DUN DUN!
John,
It is not based on what I know or do not know. It is based on the Book of Mormon scriptural reference of 3 Nephi 28. The three shall remain on the earth with John the Beloved from Jesus’ Ministry and they will dwell in the flesh until He comes again in His Glory. The other nine would die when they reached the age of 72 years old. Read your BOM and the truth will be revealed. They are not DUN!
David,
But what if they did? Have you considered that?
DUN DUN DUN!
John,
I believe we are left with only two choices. One, Jesus Christ lied in the BOM in stating that they would remain on the earth until He comes back in His Glory. Or two, the BOM is a make believe book from the simple mind of joseph smith and nothing in it should be considered valid. Having said that then the d&c would be deemed untrue since it also mentions that John the Beloved would remain on the earth until Jesus returns. One of these characters is not telling the truth.
Yes, the Lord Jesus established one True Church – but the catholic church as it is known today is not that original Church. A careful study of Church history from the Day of Pentecost forward reveals a series of changes made to the Apostle’s Doctrine. The people who made these changes had their reasons for doing so – but they were in direct conflict with the Apostles (see Galatians 1:8). The original Church in the Book of Acts still exists today, but it is certainly not the “catholic church”. Reader,the starting point for your life is simple obedience to Acts 2:38.