Sometimes, when I talk with LDS missionaries about passages in scripture, they'll reject some verses I have memorized because they are NLT or NIV, not KJV. I had tried memorizing the KJV first in the past, but I got discouraged really quickly. It was hard for me to remember the older versions of words (thee/thou/ye), older grammatical conventions, slightly devolved word definitions. I gave up and decided to stick with the NLT. But recently, I encountered another pair of missionaries, prompting me again to re-evaluate my NLT decision. Sometime in the past I dismissed the NKJV to be just as difficult to memorize as the KJV, but after giving it another look... I can't imagine why. Surprisingly, the NJKV seems to fall on the easier side of the memory-difficulty spectrum😄. I was very relieved and happy when I discovered this, so I'm more than comfortable with switching over... but only if it would be useful for discussions with Latter Day Saints. What is the LDS perspective on the NJKV? Is there an official stance? Crucially, a stance that *most missionaries* would know about and reiterate? On a practical level, would the NJKV be a safe choice to memorize and recall for discussions? Or would it become just as futile as an NLT when there are word/phrasing differences? **Edit:** Thanks to Hold To The Rod for clarifying to me that Latter Day Saints are not actually KJV-only. My mistake!

When reading this [*Wikipedia* article on Sealing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealing_(Mormonism)) there is this paragraph: > The union of a sealed couple is regarded as valid only if both individuals have kept their religious covenants and followed Christ's teachings. **Just as deceased individuals may refuse any temple ordinance (such as a sealing) done by proxy on their behalf**, couples, parents, and children who were sealed to each other in life may refuse to accept a sealing of which they were a part. **No one will be sealed to any one with whom they do not want to be sealed.** I also read this about [Baptism (by proxy) for the dead](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/baptisms-for-the-dead) : > Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. **Each individual has agency, or the right to choose**. The validity of a proxy baptism depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church. With the LDS church having practices where my descendants *may* in the future convert into the LDS church, and who then potentially want to baptize me by proxy (after my death) in a temple ordinance, how should I express my desire so that my future descendants will respect my wish *not* to be baptized into the LDS church (or sealed to them) by proxy? Hence the question: **How do individuals who refuse, notify the church so that living members do not attempt to perform temple ordinance on their behalf, after they pass away?** Will noting the wish in their Last Will and Testament be sufficient, or do they need to do something more, such as filling out a form?

Brigham Young taught in April 1852 (as recorded in contemporary journals) that “Adam is Michael or God ... and all the God that we have any thing to do with” (see Wilford Woodruff journal entry dated 1852‑04‑09). Later LDS leaders publicly denounced what they called the “Adam‑God theory” (e.g., Spencer W. Kimball, 1976; Bruce R. McConkie, 1980). In modern discussion, it is often claimed that Brigham Young learned this doctrine from Joseph Smith. Some historians also note that Brigham appears to have believed this attribution, whether or not the transmission can be demonstrated in surviving documents. Question: *What extant primary sources (sermons, diaries, minutes, letters, temple instruction notes, etc.) from Joseph Smith’s lifetime (before June 1844) explicitly teach or clearly imply that Adam is God the Father / the father of human spirits (“the God with whom we have to do”)?* If there are no surviving Joseph‑era documents that state this directly, what are the earliest post‑1844 primary sources that attribute this teaching to Joseph Smith, and what exactly do they say (with dates and provenance)? Please: - Cite primary sources with date and repository (JSP, diaries, archives, etc.). - Distinguish this claim from narrower teachings such as “Adam is Michael” or “Adam is the Ancient of Days,” which might not the same as directly saying Adam being God the Father. I do realize that the Encyclopaedia Judaica shows evidence otherwise and connects them as do other sources, but I'm looking for additional more direct LDS quotes. - Focus on documenting the historical record rather than arguing whether the doctrine is true.

I was looking at this mormon.org page that mentions that "The current prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Thomas S. Monson." 1. Does the LDS church assert that doctrinal statements made by the current Prophet are either "inspired", "infallible", or both? 2. Has the Prophet made any statements about (near)future events that Mormons expect to happen? (I am separating "inspired" and "infallible" because I am not sure how they are interpreted in this context.)

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

According to Mormon Doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman . Which was revealed to Joseph Smith to be located in Missouri (see D&C 116:1 ). This would mean that unless Adam's posterity went on some epic intercontinental journey between Adam and Noah's time, that Noah likely built the ark not too far from Missouri, and sailed it from America all the way to the Eastern Continent. Do Mormons believe the ark was built on the American continent? And that everyone who lived before Noah dwelt in America?

In Mormon theology, it is taught that Jesus Christ’s atonement guarantees the universal, physical resurrection of all humankind. When Jesus physically died on the cross his mortal suffering ceased and his spirit departed from his body. On the third day after his death his spirit re-inhabited his body and he was thereby the first to be resurrected, receiving a perfected, immortal, physical body. Mormon theology holds that all who have ever lived on earth will one day be resurrected. Following resurrection, individuals are subject to judgment by Jesus Christ as part of the Final Judgment. Mormon cosmology describes three possible post-mortem eternal realms, and that the assignment to one of these kingdoms is to be determined at the Final Judgment. These realms are called the the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial kingdom. (Joseph Smith articulated this conception of the afterlife primarily on the basis of a vision he reportedly experienced with Sidney Rigdon in 1832. This doctrinal exposition is canonized within the Latter-day Saint scriptural corpus as section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.) We can succinctly describe these different realms: * The celestial kingdom is reserved for those who have lived righteously, accepted the fullness of Jesus Christ’s teachings and respected all holy covenants. \* * The terrestrial kingdom is an intermediate kingdom. It includes individuals considered honorable in their conduct yet who, during mortality, rejected the "fullness of the gospel." This rejection is explicitly attributed not to inherent malice but to external deception, characterized as being "blinded by the craftiness of men." It also includes individuals who repudiated "the testimony of Jesus in the flesh" (i.e., during their mortal lives), and accepted that testimony in the post-mortal spirit world. In the terrestrial kingdom we also find individuals who did accept the gospel testimony during their earthly lives. but failed to demonstrate sufficient commitment or zeal. * The telestial kingdom constitutes the lowest of the three degrees of glory. Its inhabitants are described as including those who, during mortal life, “received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus.” It also includes "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers and cloakers". We also find murderers, and idolaters in this realm. * A small subset of individuals will not be assigned to any of these realms. Though they will be resurrected, they will be in realm or state of “outer darkness”. Those described as “sons of perdition” are traditionally portrayed as residing in this state, dwelling in company with Satan and his attendant spirits. Many ex-Mormons have reported profound existential anxiety and genuine dreaded angst at the prospect of being assigned to a different eternal dwelling place than loved ones. It is not clear to me – however – whether all Latter Day Saint movements view these assignments as eternal, or whether individuals from lower realms universally (among Mormons) are denied communication with individuals from higher-order higher-status realms. Does the LDS Church or any other Latter Day Saint movement teach a notion of possible social mobility between these realms, in the afterlife? To make it concrete: if one’s parents were assigned to the terrestrial kingdom, one’s siblings to the celestial kingdom, and one’s cousins to the telestial kingdom, according to Mormon theology, will there be any possibility of those relatives ever meeting again? Does the answer differ to this question depending on which Latter-day Saint tradition one considers? To my knowledge, the dogma of hierarchical visitation is accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ([D&C 88:22-24](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=eng&id=22-24#22) and [D&C 76:86-88](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=86-88#85)) , but the Community of Christ has largely moved away from the literal, detailed cosmology of D&C 76 and D&C 88. --- \* "All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory" – Joseph Smith

### Background Mormons believe that the Hebrew Bible was corrupted and had lost many important prophecies and doctrines pointing towards Mormon theology, which were eventually restored by Joseph Smith such as “Genesis 50:33”: > 33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. ### Question Did Jesus and the apostles leave the church with a defective Old Testament which lacked important Mormon teachings? Why didn’t Jesus and/or the apostles fix these supposed corruptions in the Hebrew Bible and provide the new church with an accurate reading of the text?

This image of an ex-Mormon woman published by the Wall Street Journal has caused a stir since the garments are supposed to be a secret: Why are Mormon Temple clothes protected as a secret?

Speaking from a mormon mentality. But not necessarily a member. Looking for ideas from all Christian denominations. The mormons preach in the pearl of great price, that in the pre earth life, all of humanity gathered to discuss the plan of salvation with god. Lucifer and Jesus came forward and shared their thoughts. Lucifers plan was ultimately shot down and it is said he became prideful and was cast out. Some of the other angels followed him etc etc. My question is this. If "all good things come from god" as said by mormon prophets, then how was an angel in heaven able to experience pride and turn away from god before being subject to the "natural man" state of temptation? And second, if in order for God's plan to work, Adam and eve had to partake of the apple and give into sin, then SATAN HAD TO BE PART OF THE PLAN. Therefore God orchestrated it. Which in turn makes god responsible for creating something evil right? Asking for answers from all views. Against mormonism for mormonism, whatver your thoughts are.

How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? In particular, I'm wondering how it operated among the ancient Jewish people, who only had the Aaronic priesthood, and therefore would not be able to give the gift of the holy ghost.

Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 appears to teach that anyone who kills cannot ever be forgiven. Does "killing" refer only to murder or to any killing, be it in self defense or as part of a way? > And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&C 42:18 Does the LDS Church hold to this position today? If so, how is God's forgiveness of David reconciled with that as well as the people mentioned in the book of Alma? > Nathan said to David, “You are the man... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites... David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “**The LORD also has put away your sin**; you shall not die. 2 Samuel 12 (portions) ESV > > And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that **he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed**, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son. Alma 24:10

The text is from Luke 23:43, > And He/Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be > with Me in Paradise. The following are the words of Joseph Smith: > There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits. (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, page 309) Under Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website the following summary is given: > When Jesus was on the cross, a thief who also was being crucified said, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The Lord replied, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits (source ). Notice the words, "The Prophet Joseph Smith "explained" that this is a mistranslation? How does he know it's a mistranslation? It's not a mistranslation according to Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson. Here is what he has to say on the matter. > "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Σημερον μετ' εμου εση εν τω > παραδεισω). > > However crude may have been the robber's Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it." (source ) I am not aware that Joseph Smith knows any Greek so maybe the LDS can explain how Smith came up with how Jesus should have said, "the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits?"

In studying the 1830 publication alongside the 1966 publication, I've discovered a lot of changes in words and phrases. If a Book is purported to be inspired by God (such as the Bible) is it not logical to expect it to not need "improvements?" Does not the existence of these changes demonstrate that indeed neither the original 1830 version nor the 1966 version are inspired or God breathed? And if one does believe that God can change his revelation to man, how then can we know and trust that it won't change again and again like shifting sand? Isn't God by nature immutable? And therefore shouldn't his word to us also be unchanging?

I have read several books that identify archaeological evidence in support of hundreds and hundreds of biblical places, cultures, and historical events. What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?

### Background "Alma" is a name given to a book in the Book of Mormon and two male BoM characters (father and son ), one of whom is the namesake of the book. "Alma" is also a Hebrew noun (עלמה) meaning "young woman", sometimes translated as "female virgin". In semitic languages, female words have a gender indicator of a trailing "a/ah" . Like many semitic nouns "alma"/עלמה has a male gendered counterpart "elem"/עלם which means "young man". It derives from a common Semetic root referring to time, eternity, endurance, and youth. ### Question As a native Hebrew speaker, it is very odd to hear about a male named "Alma" since that word is morphologically female. What reasons do Latter Day Saint scholars of the Book of Mormon and semitic languages give for males being given an apparently female name? What is the Latter Day Saint belief about this name?

[This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38818/was-elohim-the-saviour-and-redeemer-of-his-world) discusses the LDS teaching that > “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams , 1.) The teaching is partially motivated by the passage from John5:19, > So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. Joseph Smith himself said: >As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again > >-- History of the Church 5:426 > >I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning. > >-- History of the Church 6:373 From [LDS.org](https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng) : >The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” As to this notion in the modern LDS church, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith said in an address in 1971: > “This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’ So, in summary: - God the Father was once a man who became exalted to Godhood, and created us in _his_ own creation. - The man who is exalted now will be God of his own creation, as God is God of this one. - All Gods have endured this process. My question is: From a Mormon perspective, does God still worship the God he worshipped when he was a man on his own Earth?

### Nicene Beliefs Non Latter-day Saint Christians (also known as Nicene Christians) believe the following about God: - **There is only one God** > “We believe in one God...” — Nicene Creed, opening line - **God created everything in existence** > “…the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things > visible and invisible.” — Nicene Creed, 381 version - **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** > “…begotten, not made…” (referring to the Son), and “the Lord and Giver > of Life” (referring to the Holy Spirit) — Nicene Creed - **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** > Implied throughout the Nicene Creed and formally defined at the 1st Council of Constantinople (381 CE) ### LDS Beliefs On the other hand, these core Nicene beliefs are **not** shared by the Church of Latter-day Saints. Indeed the LDS Church explicitly rejects these tenets: > **There is only one God** Latter-day Saints worship only God the Father through Jesus Christ, but they also believe in the existence of a plurality of Gods. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, and this divine plurality extends beyond them — faithful humans can and have also become exalted and become gods themselves: > “I will preach on the plurality of Gods… The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.” - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God created everything in existence** LDS theology holds that God organized the universe from pre-existing, eternal matter, rather than creating ex nihilo (out of nothing). Matter is considered co-eternal with God: > “The elements are eternal...” — Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 --- >> **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** LDS theology teaches that God is eternal, but not uncreated in the classical Christian sense. According to LDS theology, the LDS God was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood: > “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form.” — Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** Latter-day Saints reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, they believe in a Godhead of three distinct divine beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ (His Son), and the Holy Ghost. These are united in purpose but are not of one substance. > “Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as developed in the post–New Testament church.” — Gospel Topics: Godhead ### Question With these apparent fundamental differences in mind, do Nicene Christians believe that they worship the same god as Latter-day Saints? Or do they believe that the Nicene/Trinitarian God is ontologically different enough from the LDS God that they cannot be said to be the same being?

While having a conversation with a member of the Latter day saints. I did some independent research regarding their official account of the origin of their Faith. I did not see any similar question, if there is one I do apologize. Forgive the long build up to my question, it helps the question be properly understood. It is down below in large friendly letters. :) I found this in "Joseph Smith's History" on a very well designed website, that would display explanations for certain words and even links to specific Bible verses involved. During my reading of the first hand account of events, I intentionally did not bother with any historical details nor look up things to bias my original opinion of the text. ---------- The account does not seem to show that Joseph did anything to confirm that his vision was from God and not from the evil one. I come from an eastern orthodox perspective and it seems that Joseph neglected (perhaps due to his age) 2 out of the 3 things we are supposed to do when confronted by visions of supernatural nature. 1. Challenging the messenger, demons can perfectly imitate even divine figures and loved ones. Even various Orthodox saints were deceived by visions where demons impersonated Christ, saints, or similar. We are supposed to challenge them, who sent them, etc. (Example St. Issac of the caves was tricked into worshiping a demon that another one called Christ) 2. Test the message itself, it should align with scripture if it is from God. (Remember this for the question at the end) 3. Seek guidance from a spiritual leader. --------------- These are the issues (minor and major) that I see from reading it. 1. It seems odd that the vision starts with "overpowering darkness" preventing him from speaking. But that doesn't really pose an issue, especially if Joseph did become freed by calling out to God. 2. In the vision, one being points to the other and says "this is my son", who's son? Lucifer and God both will say that they have a son. The orthodox church accounts of visions have many instances where one demon calls another "Christ" to deceive the recipient. 3. The angel Moroni, according to Joseph misquotes scripture by changing verses entirely. This should have been a clear sign that it was false. The "angel" versions are significantly different. 4. Joseph told pastors of his vision, but the pastors he told flatly refused to acknowledge that visions could even occur. (Making it regrettably impossible for him to seek spiritual guidance) -------------------- My main question is this focused on my 3rd objection above. #### "According to the account Joseph as a young man knew the scriptures, despite this he allowed an angel that he knew **changed a text from the Bible** to guide him. How do members of the church of latter day saints reconcile for this direct sin performed by the angel Moroni? >36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, **though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles**. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus: > > 37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall **burn** as stubble; for **they that come shall** burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Compare with: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1 or Malachi 3:19) ----------- > 38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will **reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of** Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Compare with: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:" (Malachi 4:5 or Malachi 3:24) ----------------- Changing verses is a sin, and the angel Moroni did it, and Joseph noticed and recorded it officially. > “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.) I understand the LDS response to this already, if the first vision and angel are valid from God, then there is no issue. But the angel sinned according to the account, by changing the scriptures... > We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, **nor do we distort the word of God.** On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2). > “**Your word**, LORD, **is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens**” (Psalm 119:89). > “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but **the word of our God endures forever**” (Isaiah 40:8). > “Heaven and earth will pass away, but **my words will never pass away**” (Matthew 24:35)

Within the theology of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Great Apostacy is held to. The Great Apostacy is primarily identified by the loss, or removal, of priesthood keys and authority from the earth. I can't find any specifics from a church source on when this occurred. Does anyone know of any detailed explanation on when the apostacy occurred? I'd like to give an idea as to why that is the case, and encourage members to poke holes in it if possible. In our theology, the Apostles hold all the keys of the priesthood, which constitute the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction. Sometimes the Apostles delegate those keys. For example, "Bishops hold the priesthood keys to lead the work of the Church in the ward" (local congregation) (source ). "A bishop is called by inspiration of the Lord and ordained by a stake president under the direction of the First Presidency of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve."(source ) *In the absence of keys held by apostles, there can be no ordination of bishops. A bishop does not hold the keys to authorize the ordination of successor bishop (**this seems to be the key claim**).* As it relates to the Great Apostacy, once the Apostles are all gone, the keys to direct bishop ordination are gone. A bishop could be ordained and alive at the time the last Apostle is taken, and he could ordain others to offices in the Aaronic priesthood, but once he dies the keys he was delegated are gone. So it may be true that holders of the priesthood are alive at the time the last apostle was taken, but within the next 100 years or so, no living key holder will be left and soon following no authoritative ordination will be possible. This seems to be the reason we can't pin a date down, we don't know when the last priesthood holder died. Thoughts?