Keeping the commandments and LDS theology

Bonnie

Super Member
That could even be applied to Jesus Christ. How does that make them any less than real gods? Any less deified? Any less part of the Divine Council?

Bonnie--they are real gods--and all the king's horses, and all the king's men--can't restore the damage that does to your theology.



How does that render them any less than real gods?



The Divine Council was a reality:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:



So--should we dust off the "as far as it's translated correctly" criticism--and dress it in white clothes for you?

As the scholars now know--some of the earliest manuscripts have heavenly beings as the gods--not the sons of Israel. Someone changed it. And it is a major change.

Bonnie--the reason the NRSV has the change--is because it's a recent translation--and the information has just become available and confirmed-- in the last few years of scholarly work. The verdict is in--the text has been altered. The verse should read--gods, or--"sons of God".



I'm not sure how you are relating this to the reality of the Divine Council--or the reality the earlier manuscripts have "sons of God"--not "sons of Israel"--and heavenly beings, not earthly, and "heavens"--not "nations".

Those are major changes--and no scholar can deny that---- now that the manuscripts have been translated--and are now available to peruse.
Why don't you see how I am relating this to what you posted...could it be you do NOT want to see the connection, so that, in seeing, you might be led to the truth?

Do you think the NRSV is more recent than OTHER translations? Have you not looked this up?

NRSV--1989
ESV--2001:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

Didn't you see where the verse says that "the Most High gave to the NATIONS their inheritance, when He DIVIDED MANKIND"? Don't you see "nations" HERE?

Don't you know that "sons of God" can be used figuratively, to mean all people, since God made everyone?

And why do you forget what Paul said in Acts 17?

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands
[/QUOTE]


Why haven't you compared the bolded part of this verse with Deut. 32? And what it says there? Don't you think Paul knew the Pentatuch? Wasn't he an expert in the Law?

Now, how many true Gods did Jesus say exist? How many true Gods has God said exist?
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
I'm not going to get into the meaning of words, but we recognize only one God. That does not preclude the existence of other gods, which is obviously taught in the Bible. It is only heresy to you all because of your traditions which have nothing to do with what the Bible teaches.

You are presenting the information that fuels the argument that our critics pick and choose which verses to accept and ignore the rest. The fact remains the Bible witnesses the existence of other gods. But to us, there is but one God, the Father. If we are henotheists, then so were the early Christians, especially Paul who spelled it out. I just quoted him from the section right after he stated that there are indeed other gods and other lords, many even. Is that not henotheism according to your statement?
in other words, Mormons are henotheists. That is still a type of polytheism.

The bible witnesses NO SUCH THING as other gods--only idols and demons. But you and other Mormons STILL ignore what ELSE Paul wrote IN CONTEXT:

1 Cor. 8,NIV:

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

There is NO GOD BUT ONE. Of course, to the polytheistic pagans, there WAS more than one god FOR THEM--there were dozens! That is why he wrote that there are "gods" and "lords" many, because that is what the pagans believed--BUT they are "so-called gods" Do you know what "so-called" means? But just because the pagans believed there were other gods and other lords, does not mean they actually exist! People can believe in Leprechauns and the tooth fairy, but that doesn't mean they actually exist--does it?
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
I know God didn't take His place among an imaginary Divine Council of the gods:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

And I know the Early Church Fathers didn't believe men becoming gods was a "figure of speech".

“Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.”—Against Heresies, Book 5, preface




Are you referring to this?

John 10:34-35---King James Version
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

So--how do you explain that? There are either no other gods--or there is. Claiming they were humans, or just kidding--won't solve your dilemma created by those testimonies.

https://journal.interpreterfoundati...l-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/

. Deuteronomy 32, sometimes called the Song of Moses, contains a poem Moses is said to have recited to “the whole assembly of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:30) just before his death. The kjv, following the Masoretic version of the text, renders one crucial part of the poem as follows:

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD’S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. (vv. 7–9, emphasis added)

[Page 168]As it reads in the kjv, Moses sings here that God established national boundaries based on the number of the children of Israel (בני ישראל; bĕnê yiśĕrā’ēl) and retained the Israelites (“Jacob”) for himself. More recent translations of this passage, however, contained a significant variant reading.

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD’S own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (NRSV vv. 7–9, emphasis added)

Here the nations are not divided according to the number of the children of Israel but rather according to the number of the gods. Whence this new reading? The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known today as the Septuagint recorded that God divided the nations “according to the number of the angels of God” (κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ; kata arithmon angelōn theou). This was long assumed to be an error, and so the Masoretic Text was preferred by the translators of the kjv. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-twentieth century, however, scholars revisited this matter. Among the recovered fragments was a text (4QDeutj) giving a much earlier reading of v. 8 that significantly diverged from the Masoretic Text. Rather than dividing the nations according to the number of the children of Israel, God, in this textual witness, is said to have divided the nations according to the number of “the sons of God” (בני אלוהים; bĕnê ’ēlōhîm).Carmel McCarthy, writing in the authoritative Biblia Hebraica Quinta, could see no other reason for this variant than it arose through “deliberate emendation” by scribes with “theological motives.”

But the scribal alterations did not end with v. 8. At the conclusion of the song, Moses exults, “Rejoice, O ye nations [גוים; gōyîm], with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and [Page 169]to his people” (kjv v. 43). Again, consulting modern translations reveals a significant difference. “Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land for his people” (NRSV v. 43, emphasis added). The reading provided by the NRSV (among other modern translations), draws from the textual witness of 4QDeutq. As preserved in this fragment, Moses adjures the members of the divine council, identified as “gods” (אלהים; ’ēlōhîm), to worship Yahweh. A poetic parallelism conceptually linking the “heavens” (שמים; šāmaîm) and the “gods” (אלהים; ’ēlōhîm) is also evident in the Qumran version, but lost in the Masoretic reworking, which changed “heavens” to “nations” and omitted reference to the gods worshipping Yahweh altogether. The reading in 4QDeutq aligns closely with the Septuagint, which represents Moses as commanding: “Rejoice, O heavens, with him [i.e. God], and bow down before him, all you sons of God” (εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ; euphanthēte ouranoi hama autō euphanthēte ouranoi hama autō kai proskynēsatōsan autō pantes uioi theou).51

The transmission of Deuteronomy 32 indicates that the divine council is (or was) so overtly present in the text that scribes wishing to downplay the apparent polytheism undertook alterations that would make it theologically suitable for emerging orthodox trends toward a “purer” monotheism. Bernard Levinson sees in this passage “mythological imagery of God presiding over the divine council” that “almost certainly” challenged the monotheism of the copyists handling the text, which in turn “triggered the attempts to purge the text of polytheistic elements.”Paul Sanders summarizes the current scholarly consensus on this matter nicely: “Both in v. 8b and 43a the fragments from Qumran contain references to gods beside YHWH whereas such references are not found in the [Masoretic Text] and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the latter versions the absence of these references would seem to be due to deliberate elimination.”
Where did I say this council was imaginary?
And what "perspective" are you claiming between the "one God"--and the gods of Psalm 82?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

What perspective are you claiming between the Early Church Fathers claims of men becoming gods?

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine [also translated, “that we might become God.” Or, “he was humanized that we might be deified.”]. He displayed himself through a body, that we might receive knowledge of the invisible Father. He endured insult at the hands of men, that we might inherit immortality. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54)

You do realize Athanasius believed in the "one God" also?

How do you collate those anomalies to your theology? By claiming they can't possibly be gods--because of the testimony there is only the "one God"? That's denial--it's not an explanation as to how you collate the two existing, real points.
Why do you not deal with what I have quoted from Isaiah? Why do you ignore all of the Bible verses that Theo has quoted that clearly claim that ONLY ONE GOD exists? And why do you ignore what ELSE the ECFs taught and believed, that disagree with Mormonism--like polytheism? And why do you think the ECFs have some authority with us, when they do not because they are not the Bible? And, since your church teaches the true church disappeared into apostasy after the 1st century--and most ECFs came AFTER the first century--then doesn't that mean that what these men wrote about theosis must be HERESY? Since they were members of the church that had supposedly gone into complete apostasy?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
That would only identify who the gods are. That won't solve your problem.

The question I have--were they REAL gods? If they were indeed real gods--then your theology is violated.

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

Theo--ancient Israel believed they were real gods--and that includes the Biblical writers.
Don't you know that BELIEVING that other gods exists does NOT mean that they actually DO? Don't you know that Israel/Judah whored after other gods many times in their history--which is the main reason God sent Judah into exile in Chaldea for over 60 years? Do you not know that the OT says that the "gods of the nations are IDOLS"? And Paul said that "an idol is nothing in the world"?

Does believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy mean they actually exist--because some people believe in them?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
That could even be applied to Jesus Christ. How does that make them any less than real gods? Any less deified? Any less part of the Divine Council?

Bonnie--they are real gods--and all the king's horses, and all the king's men--can't restore the damage that does to your theology.



How does that render them any less than real gods?



The Divine Council was a reality:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:



So--should we dust off the "as far as it's translated correctly" criticism--and dress it in white clothes for you?

As the scholars now know--some of the earliest manuscripts have heavenly beings as the gods--not the sons of Israel. Someone changed it. And it is a major change.

Bonnie--the reason the NRSV has the change--is because it's a recent translation--and the information has just become available and confirmed-- in the last few years of scholarly work. The verdict is in--the text has been altered. The verse should read--gods, or--"sons of God".



I'm not sure how you are relating this to the reality of the Divine Council--or the reality the earlier manuscripts have "sons of God"--not "sons of Israel"--and heavenly beings, not earthly, and "heavens"--not "nations".

Those are major changes--and no scholar can deny that---- now that the manuscripts have been translated--and are now available to peruse.

I understand it fits the LDS theology just fine. Grinds to powder-- the theology preached here by the critics.

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
Don't you know that because you THINK it fits LDS theology, does NOT mean that Mormons correctly understand it?

When are you finally going to answer my questions about Ps. 82? Since I have in the past answered YOUR questions many times, even while you ignore mine and others?

1. IF these are actual deity, WHY are they favoring the wicked and not defending the helpless? Isn't favoring the wicked a SIN? Wouldn't that make these "gods" sinners, like demons?

2. IF these are actual deity, HOW would people contact them, when they needed judgments rendered in civil and religious matters?

3. IF these are actual deity, WHY can they "die like men"? Does actual deity DIE? Man can die, which is one reason that Jesus had to be "born of a woman, born under the Law" so He could suffer and die on the cross for us. But can actual deity DIE? Without becoming man?

4. OR are these "gods" here humans who were already exalted to godhood? If so, then why would they judge unjustly and not defend the weak and helpless? Isn't favoring the wicked mean these gods SINNED? Does your church teach that humans exalted to gods can sin?
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
I addressed those concerns--and I will do it again:

1) Claiming the gods are humans still leaves other real gods.

2) Not all scholars believe the gods are humans:

https://journal.interpreterfoundati...l-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/

"Some have gone to great lengths to argue that these “gods” in Psalm 82 are mortals,perhaps judges or magistrates, but this argument fails for many reasons. Besides the insurmountable linguistic and exegetical absurdities in such a reading, when the imagery of Psalm 82 is compared with other Psalms, such as Psalm 29:1 (“Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm; literally “sons of gods”], ascribe to the Lord glory and [Page 167]strength.”) and Psalm 89:5–8 (see below), it becomes clear these gods cannot be humans but must be divine beings.

In turning to Psalm 89, we see a striking depiction of the divine assembly of Yahweh.

Let the heavens [שמים; šāmaîm] praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones [קהל קדשים; qĕhal qĕdôshîm]. For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm] is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones [סוד-קדשים; sôd qĕdôshîm], great and awesome above all that are around him? (Psalm 89:5–7)"


I don't--I just don't understand how you believe those verses somehow covers up or cancels out the numerous verses depicting other real gods, or the Early Church Father's testimony that men may become gods. Or the NT witness--which separates out God the Son from the "one God".

How are you claiming your posted verses deals with that reality?

The LDS believe it just as it is written, IE--for us--there is but one God we worship. That in no way means the other gods testified to in the Biblical text aren't real gods.

Care to address that concern?
How many true Gods did God say exist, besides Himself? How many true Gods did Jesus say exist?

And don't you know that angels are created heavenly beings? Are they deities?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Carmel McCarthy, writing in the authoritative Biblia Hebraica Quinta, could see no other reason for this variant than it arose through “deliberate emendation” by scribes with “theological motives.”
Yay. More evidence that the Bible has been brutally mishandled by men down through the ages.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
But does whoring after other gods prove those gods exist?
Ps 82 isn't talking about whoring after other gods. Clearly, the gods mentioned in Ps 82 and the sons of God mentioned in other Bible scriptures make no mention of "whoring after other gods".
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Would you like to see what another scholar says about this Deut. 32:8 verse?
Who is Dr. Robert Luginbill that he can say anything is wrong? He doesn't like the LXX, it's wrong. He doesn't like the oldest manuscripts we have of Deuteronomy, it's wrong. Which supports my earlier statement that if modern Christians get anything that disagrees with their theology, then it's wrong. Even if he managed to get the originals, people like Dr. Robert Luginbill, will still say it's wrong.

The fact is Bonnie, neither he nor you knows what's right. I would be inclined to believe that the earlier the text the more correct it is. Nevertheless, we can easily see that there are issues and if one doesn't know what's right then all they have left is chaos and confusion; all which would be cleared up if there were first, in the church, apostles and second prophets. You all don't have that. Dr. Robert Luginbill isn't either one of those. All he offers to substantiate his claim is the Qumran text is based on an "inferior text type" which he offers without explanation about what he means by that. He assumes the Qumran text is based on the LXX as a "back-translation". But we can rest assured that it is his "firm opinion" that he's right. :rolleyes:
 

Bonnie

Super Member
And what figure of speech to you imagine this might mean? You think God didn't mean what he said?
Don't you think God meant what He said when He stated--I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from Me, THERE IS NO GOD."?

Did He mean what He said when He stated that NO God came before Him and none will be formed after Him?

However, "figure of speech" isn't the exact word I was looking for. "Title" would be more accurate. And don't you know that in a few places in the OT, humans were called "gods"?


This use of the word “gods” to refer to humans is rare, but it is found elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, He said, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). This simply means that Moses, as the messenger of God, was speaking God’s words and would therefore be God’s representative to the king. The Hebrew word Elohim is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.
The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.

Now, let’s look at how Jesus uses this passage. Jesus had just claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:25-30). The unbelieving Jews respond by charging Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6, reminding the Jews that the Law refers to mere men—albeit men of authority and prestige—as “gods.” Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates in general. If those who hold a divinely appointed office can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?

The Pharisees also knew that Jesus was accusing them of judging falsely, by quoting this Psalm. But whereas the "gods" in Ps. 82 were merely human judges, who proved it by being corrupt, Jesus PROVED who He was and is by the mighty works that He did among them.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
And don't you know what Jesus is saying in John 10?
Yes. Don't you?
Don't you remember what we have written here about this?
As I recall, you wrote your opinion about it, your own private interpretation.
Don't you remember what is written in this link, that I have posted earlier on this board?
That was someone else's private interpretation and still an opinion.
nd that HE was basically saying "you didn't get your BVD's in a bunch when the psalmist called them "gods", but you do when I call myself the Son of God and PROVED who I am by the works that I have done"?
That isn't what he said, even loosely paraphrasing, that isn't what he said, not even close to what he said.

This is what he said, If God called you gods, then why are you upset when I say that I am the son of God. That isn't what made them angry though. He didn't prove anything. He said, if you won't believe me, believe the works that I do "that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father". This last quote is what set off the gods he was speaking to at the moment.
And by this, HE was accusing THEM of judging falsely, just as the "gods" in Ps. 82 did?
No. He wasn't "accusing" them of anything.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Do YOU think Jesus believed there were other true Gods in the universe? More than one?
Yes. Most definitely. He just said it and he said the scriptures cannot be broken. Bonnie, do you think that Jesus himself, believed he was God? Did he not tell Mary that he had yet to ascend to his God? Doesn't that indicate that there were at least two gods that he believed existed? And by John 10, that there were many, many more gods that existed in the universe? Was Jesus a true God? Was His God a true God? Do you have any understanding of the scriptures?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
And dberrie, when are you going to answer my questions about Ps. 82?
They've been answered. You may not like the answers, but that does not mean that your questions haven't been answered.
Let's answer them again.
1. IF these are actual deities, why do they favor the wicked and not defend the helpless? Wouldn't that be a sin? Wouldn't that make them sinners like demons?
This question is irrelevant. The fact is, God called them gods, twice. Apparently, God's definition of a god is not the same as yours. Even God noted in Adam AFTER he partook of the forbidden fruit. "They have become as one of US..."
Paraphrasing, they have become as one of the gods...

That seems pretty strait forward. Perhaps, God defines a god as one knowing good and evil.
2. Why, if they are deity, will they "die like men" and "fall like any prince"? Does actual Deity DIE? Human nature dies, but can God/Deity nature die?
The answer to the first question is in the text. They will die like men and fall like one of the princes IF they do not judge justly and not show partiality to the wicked.
The answer to your second question is, apparently, yes. Didn't Jesus die? Isn't he God?
The answer to your third question is the same as the answer to your second question.
3. IF these are actual deities who judge on earth, then how would people contact them when they required them to make a civil or religious judgment?
Again, this question is totally irrelevant. Your "if" clause makes an assumption that can't be found in the text. Nothing in the text suggest that they are on earth or that anyone would contact them or that they were making any civil or religious judgment. The problem posed is that they judge justly. It says nothing of civil judgement or religious judgement. Bonnie, everyone judges. They do not have to be a ruler or a judge or a leader in religion. This passage applies to everyone, just as the Isaiah passages that you don't seem to grasp his message but love to draw a connection claim. It is a human problem. Ps 82 is talking about everyone who has the capacity to judge.
4. Are these "gods" in Ps. 82 exalted humans from other worlds? If so, why are they judging unrighteously? Why are they favoring the wicked and not defending the helpless? Do humans exalted to deity SIN?
This is one of those obtuse questions based on what you "think" we believe and has nothing to do with Ps 82.
1. No they are not exalted humans. They aren't exalted because they can die like men.
2. I don't know. Does the passage tell us why they are doing it? No
3. That seems to be a pandemic here as well. Why do people do it here? Why did a third of the host of heaven do it there? Personally, I think it is the nature of most men to cheat or fix the odds in their favor or the favor of their friends.
4. Your last question is incoherent. I'm not sure what your asking, maybe it, again is based on what you think we believe and should be worded, "Can humans be exalted to deity in sin?" The answer is no. But with God, all things are possible. That's what Jesus said. I believe him. Do you?
When are you finally going to give me a straight-forward, honest answer,
When are you finally going to accept our straight-forward and honest answers?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Do you think Jesus believe, by citing this verse, that He believed in other true Gods in the universe?
Yes. That's what he said, didn't he? Did he not say that God said, "ye are gods" and then back it up with a statement, "the scriptures cannot be broken"? Bonnie, that's a flat out statement that there are other gods in the universe and He said that God said so. Your adjective is irrelevant. Jesus did not use it and it doesn't exist in Ps 82 either.
And that His Father was "once a man on an earth" who had to learn how to become a god, by going from one glory to another until he achieved godhood?
Again, this is just showing that what you think we believe, is not what we believe and shouldn't even be part of your argument because you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes. God the father was "once a man on an earth" just like Jesus Christ was "once a man on an earth". That's what we believe. The rest if modern Christian critical misinformation about what we believe. He did not need to learn how to become a god anymore than did Jesus. That is what the KFD states contrary to your misinformation about that text. But it is apparent that both Jesus and his Father and our Father, did go from one glory to another. We can easily see that in Jesus' life. He was once a spirit, then received a body, then died and received a resurrected body never to be separated from that body.

Our critics seem to ignore one critical factor in the life of Jesus Christ. The fact that he could die like a man. That couldn't happen until be became a man. He entered life, essentially in the same condition that Adam did. They were both born with the innate capacity to live forever and, apparently, the innate ability to choose to die. Christ, now, cannot longer choose to die, just as his Father also cannot choose to die. Their body and spirit are one, just as we hope that in Christ, our body and spirit will be one.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Cite, please. That just isn't true. The LDS believe the apostasy happened gradually.
I believe the apostasy was instant, but the knowledge of the gospel faded gradually. The apostasy, as I understand it, resulted from the lost of the priesthood; kill all the prophets and apostles and you can no longer administer the gospel. No one has authority. But remnants of the gospel continued to persist even without the authority to administer the gospel. Eventually, this is the gradual part, the gospel was changed to suit the dictates of men with the theology being completely wrecked by the time it arrived in our day. We can see this gradual fading of gospel truths in the writings of the ECFs, some of them eventually being called heretics by mainstream Christianity, in this case, the Catholic church.

That's just my two cents.
 
Top