Why was the apostasy so long

Most important to me is who God is, the very nature of God. They are completely different teachings, and as Traveler already said, it's very important to know who God is. And as promised, the Holy Spirit led the Apostles to a deeper understanding of God, and this understanding is the Trinity. They may not have used that word yet, however, but the Church was still in its infancy, just getting started.

Jesus promised that the Advocate would guide them into all truth, and this is something that continually happens. It didn't just happen once at Pentecost and that was that. As time has gone on, so the Holy Spirit has continued to illuminate passages from Scripture and make them more clear. When you were 2 years old, were you able to articulate and speak as well as you do now? Most likely not. I believe the Holy Spirit continues to lead and guide the Church, and all who honestly seek the Spirit out, regardless of which denomination you belong to.

How does this work, in your thinking, when two different people from two different denominations honestly seek the Spirit and get different answers that directly contradict each other? And as promised, the Holy Spirit led the Apostles to a deeper understanding of God, and this understanding is the Trinity". This is obviously a matter of experience and personal perspective.

In the years before I converted to Mormonism 35 years ago I visited many churches and studied their doctrines. I met with pastors and priests and became their friend. I asked them lots of deep questions that were related to my personal search for salvation.

Like Joseph Smith, all I found was confusion and contradiction. I didn't see any Church that looked like the one in the Bible. I remember saying in exasperation to my mother one day when I was about 18, "Wouldn't it be amazing to find a church like the one in the Book of Acts in the Bible? One with real apostles, prophets, angels, and revelation? There was the very same Church we read about in Acts!

Thirty-five years later, after having held the priesthood, been involved in its ministrations, having held leadership positions, and served in many different positions as a teacher, leader, counselor, missionary, and branch president, I can tell you absolutely that this is that same Biblical church.

The power of the Holy Spirit is in it. The spirit of revelation guides its leaders at every level. Healings, the gift of tongues, the gifts of prophecy, visions, discernment, and all the rest are part of it. I've seen them with my own eyes. In some cases, I have been the beneficiary or the instrument to receive those things. It's marvelous. People just don't know.

They start criticizing from a doctrinal position and they don't want to seek the Spirit. That's because they don't want it to be true. The cost of following Christ is too great for them. They'd lose status. They'd risk family relationships. They might get persecuted. All those things were part of the biblical Church also. He leads it personally through revelation to prophets today. It's a marvelous thing to know. Through thick and thin, being a member of this Church brings amazing blessings.

And I looked long and hard enough to compare. Nothing else is like this Church! On what basis do you conclude that the use of ritual, candles, and incense came from pagan temples, and not what was going on in ancient Judaism, as we read in the Bible? Please cite evidence supporting your claim that baptism came to include milk and honey.

I've never heard that before, and I'd like to read more about where you heard this from. Also, what specific ceremonies from military traditions and rituals marking the liberation of slaves were included, and please provide the revelant military traditions and liberation rituals so that we can see the connection.

We have Apostolic authority, angels, revelations through private revelations and prophets too. I too have a testimony of my faith, and I too have seen the Holy Spirit at work through healings, gifts of tongues, prophecy, visions, discernments and all the rest of it as well. In fact, the Church's history is full of such wonderful examples of God speaking to us and leading us! It is wonderful!

And I, as well, have been the recipient of some pretty amazing things, God has done great things for me and many others whom I love. That peace that only comes from God is in my soul, and it is truly breathtaking. I've been to services, firesides, farewells, baptisms etc. I have a deep respect for your faith and I love being here and reading through all the questions, comments, and links, so that I can learn more about your faith. I expect you would do the same if you were on a Catholic forum and someone started posting blatant anti-mormon misconceptions.

You assume other people are unable to pray and seek for themselves. You know nothing about me and my journey, and with God as my witness, I have humbly sought only His Will in my life, and that is all I wish to do everyday, He is my witness in this!

And this brings me comfort! He has my heart, soul and mind at all times , and there is nothing I would do if He asked me to do it, least of switch religions! If He had shown me that the truth was in your church I would have converted long ago.

I will not judge you either, what's in your heart God knows and He is our judge. However, I will say, that if the information you've provided throughout your various posts on this topic comprise your knowledge of the Catholic Church, then you didn't research very hard. It looks like you only got one side of the coin to look at, and that side is dirtied from anti-Catholic misconceptions, and actual history which, c'mon, after years, there's gonna be stuff, I ain't gonna lie. Have you ever looked at the other side of the coin though?

The other side which shows all the good the Church has done, all the holy men, women and children, the faith, love, courage, and charity that has been a light on a hill for so many people throughout the ages? I can't answer that as I'm not God. God has a purpose for everything though, and it seems He takes us through paths which are meant to refine us, test us and teach us.

But what I've learned is, if we're honest, then we should always follow wherever He leads and trust Him. He asks us only to trust Him and learn to love Him above everything, and to love everyone else as well.

I'm preaching to the choir here I know. Isn't that just as much a problem, if not more so, with LDS theology? Mormons keep saying we need to seek and rely on the Spirit to know which church is true, but different denominations sincerely believe they are being guided toward the right faith. How can it be a reliable method of testing truth when so many people pray and get different answers.

The answer should be that doctrine should be tested by prayer and scripture. When Paul was rebuking the Galatians for following a false Gospel, he didn't tell them to pray about what he was saying. He referred back to the Gospel they already received Gal.

John gave his readers a model of testing false teachers in 1 John and it doesn't include prayer. He told them to reject a teacher if their teaching doesn't match what was revealed in the Gospels.

Yes, there are many passages that talk about how important prayer is, but none of them mention prayer as a way to know if someone is a false teacher or not.

It's not a problem for us at all. It's only a problem for those who like to accuse us of arrogance for the viewpoint. Those who like to do so will do so, in spite of any explanation. Arguing about it isn't going to do much good. That's what the LDS point of view is. But we then don't follow with an explanation that entirely disregards prayer in the testing process. If you're going to agree that prayer is part of the test, maybe you should include prayer as part of the explanation of how to test.

Just sayin'. Could you explain how it's not a problem for you? Mormons keep saying prayer and Holy Ghost guidance is how you know your church is true. But other denominations also have prayer and the Holy Ghost. How can you be so sure yours is better than theirs? I'm not disregarding prayer. Yes, it does play a role in studying the Bible. At the same time, you can't disregard scripture while praying. Why would you trust a prophet when they say something not taught in the Bible is an important part of the Gospel?

The doctrine of 3 different kingdoms in heaven is not in the Bible. It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption :. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body KJV. Paul raises questions of how the dead will be raised and what kind of bodies they will have. His answer includes Paul referring to different kinds of bodies with various terms 18 times.

But how many times does he mention kingdoms in heaven? He doesn't mention heaven itself or kingdoms at all. The focus of the passage is what heavenly bodies will be like, not different kingdoms in heaven. Our earthly bodies are corrupted, dishonorable, weak and natural. Heavenly bodies will be incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual.

Plus, if the 3 kingdoms doctrine was really part of the true Gospel, why would only one New Testament author vaguely refer to it in 2 verses?

Galatians and Romans talk extensively about the Gospel, but don't mention anything about 3 kingdoms in heaven. Again, yes, prayer is important.

But that can't mean we should let a teaching disregard scripture because they ask us to pray about it. It is not a problem for me.

I was not devoid of spiritual experiences as a Catholic. As a matter of fact, my foundational Christian learning is from Catholic teaching. I joined LDS not because I found out that the truths manifested to me by the Spirit as a Catholic became all of a sudden false. The Spirit that spoke to me as a Catholic is the same spirit that speaks to me now.

But, the scripture is not ALL of the source of faith. There is also Sacred Tradition. Now, you might ask The answer is simple - it's the exact same way you figured out that the Bible is true. When we read any of the common LDS scriptures about how to get an answer to a prayer we find it is more involved then simply asking.

We need to have faith, we need to study the question out, and we need to we sincere in our asking. He is not going to answer if we have no faith, if we have not studied it or if we are not sincere about following through with it. We also have faith that the Lord is the master teacher and that if we will let him he will guide us along the path that he knows is best for us. For some people that could simply be that other churches and the people in them are what the Lord judges to be the best for a person at that stage in there life.

We learn Line upon Line. Precept upon Precept. If the Lord says that a person will learn something better elsewhere we really can't argue with that. As for thing not being found in the Bible the main core and basics very much are. But we also understand that we have the Bible because God called prophets and apostles and revealed things to them and then they wrote it. Every verse of scripture repeats this pattern. Therefore to say that prophets revealing new things is somehow not Biblical can only happen if one ignores the bible.

The very verses people try to use to close things up are an inherent testimony of God not closing it. You need to be a member in order to leave a comment. Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy! Already have an account? Sign in here. Sign in to follow this Followers 0. Recommended Posts. A true prophet speaks for God and what he says comes to pass. Exactly what was his track record? No better than a tarot card reader or Jeanne Dixon. Perhaps, not even as good! It has to be ALL, not just a couple.

Well, the same could be said for Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and snake handlers. The same is definitely true for me. I prayed about the Book of Mormon when I was searching for God and the truth after I read it , and I got nothing but silence.

I prayed about the Catholic church when I was searching for God and the truth and got nothing but silence. I prayed about the Bible when I was searching for God and the truth, and God answered. No doubt one has occured. Mormonism restoring the Gospel? Not a chance in Heaven or in Hell. Jesus of Mormonism existing? Only in the imagination of Joseph and his followers. I am trying to help you see that the True Savior is not found in Mormonism. Your savior is a myth.

The one true Messiah is not the offspring of a man-cum-god. If you find the true Messiah, then you will indeed have a testimony. When most Christians are called down for rude, unchristian acts, they apologise and adjust their behaviour. Are you going to do this or not? Are you going to follow the common rules of the logical Christian house, or not? They are not the same thing.

Please read more carefully. Or do you insist on denying me rights that you assert? And, assuming the Book of Mormon was true, exactly what were you planning to do with that truth once you got it? Do you think God is in the habit of giving people faith and truth that they cannot and will not back up with works? Good for you—and for the Catholics!

I suspect that the Catholics have quite enough embarassment! That is something for you to prove, and not just assert. You are forbidden to convert this forum into a kangaroo court, with you as judge! Your attempts at mind-reading are singularly unsuccessful—and highly annoying. Please stop it! For your information, I first met the Saviour while worshipping with the Baptists.

Yes, Sir, those other Christians include the Latter-day Saints! Or you could simply ignore everything I said, and go back to reestablishing your kangaroo court. And I will immediately quash it. Yet Joseph Smith raised enough funds there to pay for the Kirtland Temple and erase his debts. Is that not treassure enough? As I said in the previous comment, you have drained our reservoir of good will.

You will please answer my question about Jonah before we proceed further. God sent Jonah to the Ninevites. Jonah disobeyed and had the fish experience. He repented and did what God asked him to do.

The ruler of that city had been the prince of darkness. So, indeed, Nineveh was overthrown, inasmuch as it abandoned one ruler Satan for another God. Might I point out that you are the one who has used the following terms to describe me:. Now all you need to do is to live it!

The ability for me to comment, question, criticize the doctrine and beliefs of your religion on a public blog? If I have attacked you personally, then I apologize. I do not apologize for attacking your religion nor for the comments I have made about your lying prophet, your false scripture, or your imaginary Jesus. We already agree. And none of us thinks it was somehow inappropriate for God to spare Ninevah. No caveats, no provisos, straightforward.

Maybe not Isaiah… Anyone else here know the exact spot? Ah, the typical anti-Mormon answer. Is it because you all try to dodge the hypocrisy you show in the standard Christian answer?

You need your eyes checked. You are obviously willing to cut Jonah slack, even when his prophecy is cut-and-dried, but you refuse to extend the same courtesy to Joseph Smith, whose prophecy you cited was anything but. How silly of me! The Bible you use gives me some idea of your religious position. You claim to be a Christian; thus, I take you as one, and expect you to act like one.

Your snarky claim that I am not one is telling me that you think I am either too stupid to know what I think, too dishonest to tell the truth about that, or both. On the other hand, you appear to think you can do both of me and my fellow LDS, as shown by your comments:. Or, are you engaging in a personal attack by implying that I am lying when I say that I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour many years prior to my becoming a Latter-day Saint?

As I said above, you are quite free to question the truth of the Restored Gospel. You have your own blog. Be sure to cite your source so that everyone can double check. An internet source would be preferable so that I can go to see exactly where you got it and then see for myself.

You are indeed saved. However, simply by the fact that you have abandoned the Jesus that you accepted and now embrace the Jesus of Mormonism, gives evidence that there is a problem.

The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. I just called them long distance to verify that The Jesus you accepted in Mormonism requires that you do all that you can do, then grace is administered to make up the difference. So, which is it? So, I suppose you can read this as Jonah prophesying incorrectly rather than God.

But for purposes of comparison with Joseph Smith, it hardly matters. We all assumed God meant destruction, but Jonah said it would be overthrown. Did it, therefore, go from being a city ruled by evil to a city ruled by God? Qal a. Niphal a. Hithpael a. Hophal to turn on someone. I think that what happened met the criteria of the prophesy. The Jesus you accepted in Mormonism requires that you do all that you can do, then grace is administered to make up the difference 2 Nephi I have always read 2 Nephi to mean that we are saved by grace in spite of our best efforts.

Even accepting your interpretation—which many Mormons appear to share—a question remains. Now, what God told him to say may have been different. The Mormon religion teaches, does it not? The repentance spoken of requires you to stop your sin, p 67, Gospel Fundamentals ; abandon that sin, Spencer W.

Kimbal, The Miracle of Forgiveness p. This sounds like a tall order to me. Are you personally able to do all of this? Is anyone you know able to do this? Isaiah Your personal interpretation is much closer to the truth than what your religion actually teaches.

The whole point of the Gospel Good News! Where did you get that? There you go again! Did you call long distance, because you thought I would deny that? Your assumption of bad faith is appalling, Sir. You cannot even trouble yourself enough to ask me how I understand the Scriptures that I accept, can you, Sir? Do you think that I am so stupid, or so dishonest or both! That is because it is not possible for true faith to be alone [See James ; dead faith is not true faith.

Do you think that doing works means that one has no faith or grace? If those with faith do no works, are they any better off than devils, who also believe, but work no righteousness [See James ]? A tall order, yes; but it is exactly what God requires of us. We are commanded to be perfect, even as Jesus and the Father are perfect. Your personal interpretation is much closer to the truth than what your religion actually teaches.

I cannot pretend to be an expert in Catholicism, much less Buddhism or Islam. However, my Catholic friends would probably disagree with your description of their faith. The Bible is full of exhortations to action. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he could do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him to keep the commandments. Perhaps my reading of the Bible is too literal, but I see Jesus as telling the rich young ruler to do something to receive eternal life.

Jesus said nothing to him about grace; he spoke of obedience and works. I do not see how any effort on my part could somehow nullify the Atonement. Quite the contrary.

The Atonement makes it possible for me to follow Jesus Christ. Following Jesus requires great effort. That is only possible through the grace of God. There is no attempt at mind reading. I want to know how you can resolve that. Your assumptions towards me are equally as appalling. As is your vilifying my every statement. Am I reading your mind, or will you say that you truly regard me with respect? No, I do not think you are stupid.

Not at all. Nor do I think you are dishonest. I do, however, think you have been deceived. After all, if you can get saved in a Baptist church, why does the Mormon church bother to exist? Your 28 years as a Mormon surely has shown you the differences, right? What part is the restoration? Please tell me what YOU believe. First of all, WOW! I really like how you put those little gray lines to denote my quotes. That is really neat. But, here it goes….

Yes, I do, but I think it teaches faith comes first, then as a result of faith there will be repentance and baptism.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. It is possible that some would. I see the man as wanting to prove his righteousness and Jesus called him on it. It was a matter of the heart not a matter of works. There is no bait here. Would you describe your understanding of the atonement so that I can understand where you are coming from?

Why do you insist that we can only mean the latter sense? I am more than happy to answer your legitimate questions. All I ask in return is for you to behave civilly, instead of acting offended when I admonish you about your uncivil behaviour. You think wrongly, Sir. Yes, we know that. It would be wise, I think, to find out what we believe before concluding that we are deceived.

In my experience, it is the majority view. Would you consider whether Latter-day Saints have a better grasp about the meaning of LDS-unique Scriptures than their critics?

Good question! I have three reasons, off the top of my head: 1. Differences between what? Original Christianity and the hodgepodge of Christian Churches that came after the apostasy? Of course. But there are also similarities. These, of course, caused me to reevaluate just what the Great Apostasy was. For example, the HTML code.

Where you and I may differ is on the purpose of baptism. I believe that baptism by immersion is required for salvation; some Christians say it is optional. What is your belief about baptism? You may be right that it was more a matter of the heart than works.

But then, obedience almost always is. I believe that Jesus meant what he said: To gain eternal life, the young man had to obey the commandments, give what he had to the poor, and follow Jesus.

In other words, the young man had to act. I have always hoped that he later changed his mind and did as he had been asked. But the young man needed to give them up to follow Jesus and thereby to gain eternal life.

Because of our sins, we have become estranged from God, and are excluded from returning to him. Because of Adam, we also have inherited physical death. Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, offered to take upon himself the penalty for our sins, as well as the effects of the fall of Adam. To accomplish this, Jesus condescended to be born and to live as a mortal man. This period is called the Great Apostasy.

This apostasy resulted in the formation of many churches with conflicting teachings. During this time, many men and women sought the truth, but they were unable to find it. Many good people believed in God and Jesus Christ and tried to understand and teach truth, but they did not have the full gospel or priesthood authority. The Church, like the living God who established it, is alive, aware, and functioning. It is not a museum that houses a fossilized faith; rather, it is a kinetic kingdom characterized by living faith in living disciples.

It means that doctrinal finality rests with apostles and prophets, not theologians or scholars. Because there is no organizational hierarchy to which I am required to answer, I am free to write and declare whatever I choose.

I have thought since then, however, that what my friend perceives to be a marvelous academic freedom can become license to interpret, intuit, or exegete a scriptural passage in a myriad of ways, resulting in interpretations as diverse as the backgrounds, training, and proclivities of the persons involved.

There are simply too many ambiguous sections of scripture to let the Bible speak for itself. Some of these matters are not exactly insignificant. Who decides which interpretation is that which Matthew or Paul or Jesus himself intended?

Further, who decides who decides? What is the standard by which we judge and interpret? Who has the right to offer inspired commentary on words delivered by holy men of God who spoke or wrote anciently as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit see 2 Peter ?

While each reader of holy writ should seek to be in tune with the Spirit enough to understand what is intended by the scripture, Latter-day Saints believe the final word on prophetic interpretation rests with prophets. Everyone becomes his or her own theologian. There is no longer any need to consult Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther about their understanding of various passages when you yourself are the final arbiter of what is the correct reading.

This tendency, together with the absence of any authority structure within Protestantism, has created a kind of theological free-for-all, as various individuals or groups insist that their reading of the Bible is the only possible interpretation. This statement is, of course, considered to be harsh and hurtful to members of other Christian churches. Alexander Campbell, a contemporary of Joseph Smith and the father of the Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ movements, was one who was particularly troubled by creeds.

Backman Jr. Joseph Smith was not necessarily opposed to religious creeds in general. It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it.

In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, intelligent, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language—that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. Latter-day Saints believe that the creeds spoken of in the First Vision were the post—New Testament creeds that sought to codify beliefs concerning God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and their relationships—concepts that had evolved during the time following the deaths of the original Apostles.

To the extent that creeds perpetuate falsehood, particularly concerning the nature of the Godhead, then of course our Father in Heaven would be displeased with them.

To the extent that creeds divide people, categorize people, exclude people, and even lead others to persecute them, one can appreciate why they would be viewed as undesirable. It may well be that God the Father and the Prophet Joseph were just as concerned with creedalism as they were with incorrect doctrine within the creeds. Orthodoxy, not love and grace, became the central focus. You had to be the right kind of Christian, a faithful adherent of our religious code.

Those within this tight circle were our brothers and sisters, and we were obliged to love them. Those outside our church, denomination, or religion were unsaved. Do we believe that all ministers of other churches are corrupt? Of course not.

Joseph Smith certainly did not intend that. By reading the passage carefully, we find that the Lord Jesus Christ was referring to those ministers who were quarreling and arguing about which church was true—that is, the particular group with which Joseph Smith was involved.

Joseph Smith evidently had many warm and friendly contacts with ministers of other religions. Pratt, and others in America and England. Some of them who carried the Christian attitude of tolerance did not join the Church.

There are many others like them today. Bushman has written. They did not understand what the book meant. It was a record of revelations, and the ministry had turned it into a handbook.