I think you’re right!

Moreover, there is ample precedent to that: 144 years ago, Walter Gibson, sent as a mission president to Hawaii, tried to pervert the Gospel there, and to set himself up as “king.” Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, and Ezra T. Benson came from Salt Lake to excommunicate Gibson, and install new local leadership.

I can just imagine the trepidation righteous members had when they fell afoul of usurper-king. Those Christians in ancient Rome must have felt as bad or worse when many in the remaining leadership kept their noses to the tail of secular rulers.

As the Book of Mormon put it, they were “humble followers of Christ” who did sometimes “err because they are taught by the precepts of men” [II Nephi 28:14].

If the period of absence is short, here’s what might happen: One day, someone with authority will come through. He might ratify (or obtain ratification from the appropriate source for) the ordinances that were “improvidently” performed, or he might require that they be re-performed. Either way, there will be no permanent harm caused by those priesthood holders who took it upon themselves (perhaps unrighteously in the eyes of some) to perform ordinances, which CLEARLY the handbook says they shouldn’t have performed without permission.

If the period of absence is long, then the children of these men might follow their fathers’s differing examples and separate from each other, each thinking the other is wrong but not understanding why. When the bishop dies, do the people do without, or do they elect one? And then, many years or generations later, when a man with proper authority finally does come to Styx City, neither clan might recognize him (and he might not recognize either of those clans, either).

Yes, there is no doubt that there were wolves in sheeps clothing among the early Saints, and no doubt there was some purposeful individual apostasy. But I’m willing to give most of the early Saints the benefit of the doubt and say they did the best they could in a day without leadership or communications — plus the organized pogroms.

But I wonder today, if any of us lived in your imaginary Styx City, and our neighbor made a decision to or not to baptize his daughter or ordain his son, would we still love him as a brother in the Gospel doing the best he could in hard times or would we hate him and quote the handbook against him? As a whole people, I’m afraid we’re not perfect yet.

You make GREAT points! I’d like to add to your scenario to clarify things a bit more:

As I think most of us know, in the early days of the first millenium, there was organised state persecution of Christians. If such persecution happened today (not unreasonable, seeing that the Church was absent as an institution in the Warsaw Bloc during the Cold War–as well as absent today in most Muslim nations), there would be gaping holes in local and general Church leadership–as there was in the ancient Roman Empire.

Imagine the Islamofascists (to distinguish from normative Muslims, whom I greatly admire!) taking over the nation of Lower Slobovia. Of course, they would declare that all who would not “revert” to (their brand of) Islam would be killed. Now imagine the local Bishop in Styx City being made an early example. Would the Stake President in Lower Slobovia’s capital risk calling a new Bishop, or would he–if he could–advise the Saints to “lay low” until the nation could be liberated?

Moreover, what would President Monson and the Brethren in Salt Lake do if the Islamofascists slaughtered most of the Stake and Ward leadership in Lower Slobovia? Would they risk their lives going over there to install new local leaders–or to preside themselves? SHOULD they do that?

I think many of us can see how such can happen in an isolated area of the world–at least one isolated from the bulk of Church membership. It shouldn’t be too great a leap to imagine the chaos of second to third century Rome, except that, with the bulk of general Church leadership being there, there were gaping holes in Priesthood leadership from top to bottom.

Moreover, we Latter-day Saints should have greater appreciation of such an apostasy, even in those with the best of intentions. The great periods of apostasy occurred when the Church as a whole was being persecuted from top down. Witness the extermination order, Joseph Smith’s assassination, the “Utah War”/MMM, and the end of polygamy; in each of those periods, even general authorities fell away.

John, the Church is an amazing institution, where the world is indeed small. I first met my Bishop when he (then 17 years old) was assigned by his Stake President father to teach prospective Elders (including 18-year-old me!). Today, I am his counselor in a Ward and Stake hundreds of miles away. Moreover, his father served in our present Stake’s High Council–and was in the local Temple Presidency.

To this day, I am grateful that Uncle Sam introduced me to Heavenly Father’s Church! What a wild ride!

ji

Steven, it was twenty-eight years ago for me also, in April… 2008 was a good year, perhaps?

ji

If you’ll allow, I’d like to share some thoughts that are almost sacred to me. In doing so, I’d like to hope for a sense of Christian brotherhood.

The original posting (if you’ve forgotten it, please re-read it) offered a very kind hand to early Christians, in contrast to a hard line rejection. The posting assumed a great apostasy actually occurred (so that assumption needs to be honored in my reply), but the posting explores the possibility of kindly and generously seeing many or even most early Christians as doing their best to salvage what truth they could, in contrast to a harder view of them as sinners purposefully perverting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I’d like to add a personal thought to that original posting. I appreciate the posting. Sometimes we can better judge people in the past by asking what would we do in a similar circumstance.

I live on an island in Alaska. No one can come here except by boat or aeroplane. If we imagine that such travel became impossible for an extended period of time, not just here but everywhere in the world, we can envision a circumstance where the one and only bishop on the island cannot be replaced — because the stake president far, far away can’t get here to lay his hands on a new bishop, and maybe the stake president can’t even contact the headquarters of the world-wide church to get permission to call a new bishop. Please allow me to use this as the background.

In such a case, I suppose that our bishop would continue to hold his office and exercise his keys until he died. In the meantime, as circumstances arose on our island, we would have to solve our own problems by ourselves. There might be differences of opinion among us on how to solve a problem. We would do the best we could. As long as the bishop was alive, we could baptize our children and we could offer the sacrament. But what about when the bishop dies? If I have a child approaching the age of baptism, do I baptize her even though there is no one here holding the keys of presidency of the Aaronic Priesthood (to which priesthood this ordinance rightly belongs)? And do I ordain my son a teacher when he is ready? And what of my oldest son — do I ordain him an elder? All in the absence of appropriate authority? Who presides at our sacrament meeting? When our members disagree among themselves about particular matters (such as some might if I did choose to proceed with these saving ordinances for my children), will we reject each other and fragment into smaller groups? All of this is very likely. Does this necessarily suggest all these people on my island will be apostates, purposefully so? No. In such a circumstance, we’ll have no choice but to do the best we can, and hopefully we’ll be kind to other members who have differing opinions on how to best proceed. And one day (ten years from now? a thousand years?), proper authority will come here again to put things in order.

Perhaps many early Christians found themselves in similar circumstances. And perhaps many of these people did the best they could. Why did the apostles stop visiting? That’s irrelevant — the fact is, as Latter-day Saints today understand, that they stopped visiting. And no doubt, there were a few wolves in sheep’s clothing among them.

So even if we agree that true priesthood authority was lost and the apostleship was taken from the early Church, must we ascribe purposeful apostasy to every member? No, in my opinion — and, I discern, in the view of the original posting.

And isn’t is truly amazing how much truth was saved? Wow! How great God is! God can use all circumstances to bring about his eternal purposes.

Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the only true and living Church on the face of the whole earth? My testimony is that it is. Is it the only church with truth? No. And I believe we have so much in common with traditional Christianity that I am saddened that we are often not allowed to worship and share in peace. Satan laughs at “Christian” hatred.

I write this as a convert to the Church. I hope lifetime Latter-day Saints can accept my offering even though I’m a convert. And I hope non-Latter-day Saints can accept that I wish them no ill will but hope that they might join with me someday at the feast I’m enjoying.

Yours in Christian brotherhood,

John Inman

Well, that certainly makes it convenient to be able to include Joseph Smith in the prophet category then, at least by YOUR definition. I would think it would make it much easier to overlook all of the mistakes, errors, and flat out wrong things he did, huh?

I was just using the Bible’s definition. Deut 18:22 And, since Joseph Smith had SEVERAL prophesies that didn’t come to pass, well, it followed then, from the Biblical definition, that he, indeed, is/was a false prophet.

It appears to me that when “push comes to shove”, that Mormons would prefer to get their definitions from Mormon scriptures rather than from the Bible, right? I guess that would make sense, since much of the distinctively Mormon doctrine is definitely not Biblical.

I’m just saying your definition of what a prophet is, is flawed.

You can be a prophet and still screw up – in God’s own name, no less. It happens.

By your bidding me “adieu”, I assume you are through with me. I understand.

I must, however, reply when you say:

However, to refer to them as “free” not only cheapens the unimaginable price which was paid by the Lord, but it would seek to open the pathway for ALL men to return to live with God.

I must remind you that I was merely quoting scripture when I used the word “free”. The Apostle Paul is the one who actually first used the word by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, I guess you have a beef with God’s word, not just with me. Ephesians 2:8-9

That is, after all, what the Good News is all about. That IS the Gospel. That ALL the work has been done for us and we need only to accept that FREE gift. Many, many reject it. Some, on the basis of disbelief. Others on the basis of flat out rebellion to God. Others still, on the basis of ignorance. (that is, they don’t know) Once again, that is why I must insist that Mormonism gives a different Gospel.

Your explanation of the “grace/works debate” provides a very clear insight into Mormon doctrine. I really appreciate your sharing it with me for I am more determined than ever to stand against Mormonism. Thank you.

Exaltation is distinctly Mormon. Don’t get caught up in the “third Heaven” as thinking it is the same as your “Celestial Kingdom”; it is not. I am familiar with your “degrees of glory” doctrine. I reject it.

What you have demonstrated here, for which I am very appreciative, is that Mormons do indeed, use the same vocabulary, but have a different dictionary.