Mormons How do you explain this?

Read the story of Abraham/Lot, Moses and Noah and you'll see how this happened. The Lord didn't allow those prophets to confirm the priesthood on others as well. The covenant people had fallen into apostasy and the priesthood was not passed on in the traditional patriartical sense.

Since you also brought up McConkie let's continue with another example:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained: “When Israel, as a people and as a whole, failed to live in harmony with the law of Christ as contained in the fulness of his everlasting gospel, the Lord ‘in his wrath’ withdrew the fulness of his law from them. Because ‘they hardened their hearts’ and would not ‘enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory, . . . he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also’ (D&C 84:19–28.) That is, he took the Melchizedek Priesthood, which administers the gospel, out of their midst in the sense that it did not continue and pass from one priesthood holder to another in the normal and usual sense of the word. The keys of the priesthood were taken away with Moses so that any future priesthood ordinations required special divine authorization. But in place of the higher priesthood the Lord gave a lesser order, and in place of the fulness of the gospel he gave a preparatory gospel—the law of carnal commandments, the law of Moses—to serve as a schoolmaster to bring them, after a long day of trial and testing, back to the law of Christ in its fulness. There is the fulness of the gospel, and there is the preparatory gospel. There is the full law of Christ, and there is a partial law of Christ. The Mosaic system was the partial law, a portion of the mind and will of Jehovah, a strict and severe testing arrangement that would qualify those who obeyed its terms and conditions to receive the eternal FULLNESS when the Messiah came to deliver and to RESTORE it.” (Mortal Messiah, pp. 59–60.)

(I did the capitalization)

Also search these resources for more depth into your question if you really want an answer.

I think the key to this is the priesthood. Yes, the three Nephites are roaming around somewhere. That doesn't mean that they hold all the keys needed to restore the full priesthood power. They were called to administer to others, not to preach and give the priesthood. They have very specific jobs to do.

John holds some of the keys, but not all. Christ holds all the keys, and allows man to use those keys in the manner that He sees fit. He got those keys from His Father. Christ is in charge of them. What He says goes. If there are problems, or men changes things to be what they want, instead of what God wants, those keys are taken away for a time. It is as much a protection for us as for them. If we don't have the keys to misuse, we can't be held accountable for using them wrong.

I'm sure the three Nephites have some of the keys. But, since there was no formal church set up under them, and they weren't given the task of giving the keys, they were only given the ones needed to complete the tasks that God gave them. It is possible that they hold more keys now than before, but with the church set up the way it is, those keys are governed and used in the way that God and Christ would have them used.

Mary's answer was both beautiful and eloquent. It really put into words what I was thinking.

There's one big thing you're forgetting. It is not man who call apostles - nor do these men participate in the quorum of 12 apostles. Their role is now different. God calls his apostles - it requires the inspiration and revelation from God to fill the quorum. Go reread your scriptures - these apostles were entirely rejected by the people. There are tales out of early christianity of numerous attempts to kill John which were unsuccessful. There comes a time when the priesthood is withdrawn. There comes a time when the light of Christ is withdrawn.

Although there were good individuals upon the earth - the church and fulness of the gospel were withdrawn. The 3 Nephites and John continued their ministry of service, not prosletyzing - as directed by the Savior.

Yes, there was a complete apostacy - the Church and authority thereof to perform the saving ordinances were lost from the face of the earth and required a complete restoration.

Such statements are referring to the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon. Whenever Joseph Smith made some fantastic claim, it frightened people, so they fought against it. Atheists can't stomach the idea that Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian by the power of God, since the Rosetta stone had yet to be found, and no one in the world could translate Egyptian hieroglyphics. Christians of other faiths couldn't stomach it either, as it would mean they were following false churches. So they got three experts on Egyptian to testify that the scrolls didn't contain the Book of Abraham, and that the fascimilies were mistranslated. There are two great problems with this 1) We don't have all of the original scrolls, they were lost in a fire and 2) the so-called experts have never agreed with each other on a translation. Pride will do that. Egyptian is highly symbolic and open to multiple interpretations. Joseph Smith is criticized, for example, for not mentioning that the four gods are canopic jars for storing human remains. Although that is true, it is also true that they are four Egyptian gods that represent the four compass points, or four quarters of the earth. Joseph shouldn't have been able to get one word right, yet his translation does get several things right, even according to his critics. But of course, as far as they are concerned, there is no God so he must be lying and/or making it up. A third problem is that the actual text of the the translation agrees with other texts that have since been discovered, including one that shows a lion-couch scene almost identical with one of the Joseph Smith papyri, with Abraham's name clearly written on it. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, there was no genre of books that were claimed to be authored by Abraham. Since then the Apocalypse of Abraham was discovered, and the Testament of Abraham, and the Book of Enoch, and several other similar books. They all have elements common to the Book of Abraham, distinct from the Bible. That isn't a coincidence.

This is a good thought, you have a legitmate question.

My take on it is--there may have been priesthood holders in the world, but was the world ready for the priesthood to be restored? Was it God's will? (Sometimes, there is just a natural order of things--experiences that a person or a group of people must have collectively--before it is time for God's plan to be fulfilled.)

Would people that lived throughout the ages have understood and honored the priesthood? Would they have used it baptize, administer the sacrament, and to heal? Would they have lost faith in it? Would they have made a mockery of it?

I think that the time that we did not have the priesthood on the earth was important--it's what the world needed to learn and experience. Think of all the beautiful things that we had accomplished through the middle-ages, and also the awful things that we have learned from because God gave us our agency. It was a natural progression from Christ's original appointment of apostles and the keys of the priesthood given to Peter, building all the way up through the ages as the true plan of salvation was learned and expounded upon by many many great men--all as God willed.

I liked to think that the restoration did not begin with Joseph Smith--it began the moment that the priesthood was taken when Christ's apostles died---slowly but surely, through the work and study and reflection--and sacrifice--of great men, the priesthood was returned to the earth.

You said, "I can't see how an apostasy would have been complete with four apostles roaming around who could have ordained others."

First of all, the 3 Nephites held the priesthood, but they weren't apostles like John was. So there was only 1 Apostle "roaming" around. And that last surviving apostle (i.e., John) WAS one of the people that gave the Priesthood to Joseph Smith.

As far as why we refer to it as "the Apostasy" even though John was still "alive", it's because the KEYS that Jesus gave to the apostles were lost. Joseph Smith received the Priesthood at the hands of Peter, James, AND John. Two out of the three were dead. ;-)

It is not the documents or even the holders that were lost, but it was the loss of the fullness of the priesthood power, whose keys were to be held by the 12 Apostles. The obvious loss of the original Church organization, the loss of key ordinances (e.g., giving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands), the loss of apostles and other priesthood offices, and the reign of civil authority in the remaining shell of the original Church are all signs that the prophesied falling away occurred (2 Thes. 2:1-3) and that a restitution was necessary (Acts 3:19-21).

John and three Nephites could not - even being immortal - fit the bill for 12 apostles, etc. And I kind of think a condition of their being left here was that they were inconspicuous?

edit: @ invisiblemanna - your link doesn't work

edit2: I am curios - email me if you feel like it and tell me what you think is contradictory.....thanx

It is not simply having men on the earth that corrects wrong doctrine.

Protestants and Reformationists came into being because the teachings of the Catholic church seemed inconsistent with what they knew of the Bible.

And yet in addition, each of the protestants and reformationists also could not agree on doctrine, so there came into being many factions and Christian doctrines.

The true authority and organization of Christ's church had to be "restored" to the earth. And such was done through Joseph Smith.

so three guys couldn;t establish the churhc again??? anyways it was the three nephites job to do good deeds for the LDS anyways, never to reestablish the church back on the earth, my dad has his own 3 nephite story.

Your screen name is "by faith", so to answer your question, by faith!

Besides, keys of presidency are not the same as having priesthood power. So going back to your question "whatever other mumbo-jumbo they deem necessary" is referring to a bunch of stuff that you don't seem to really understand.

Now referring to apostles, look at the example of John who was an apostle of Jesus, he was commanded with the other apostles to only teach Jews until Jesus changed that later on - perhaps he wasn't supposed to be out there converting people - if that were so then wouldn't have Peter been the one who stayed?

So we explain it by faith. Personally I don't loose too much sleep on it; but with John living forever it does take away the controversy over his writings and his relative age that other religions either can't reconcile or sweep under the rug.