In early September (2008) one of Mormon Coffee’s LDS friends left this comment:
“On my other posts, I am finding a disturbing trend. I find that when I reference Christ’s words from the New Testament more often than not the rebuttal comes from Paul’s writings.
“I have developed a general rule of thumb when reading the scriptures. If there seems to be a contradiction in meaning, I give priority to the Saviors words.
“Because so much of what evangelicals seem to believe comes from Paul’s writings- often it would seem to the neglect of the Savior’s- would it be correct to assume that you worship Paul?”
Evangelicals, it should go without saying, do not worship the apostle Paul. Neither do we resolve what may seem to be contradictions in Scripture by choosing the words of Paul over the words of Christ. Rather, Evangelicals believe all the words recorded in the Bible are equally authoritative and fully reconcilable, presenting a consistent and seamless witness of the Truth of God.
Agreeing with Ephesians 2:19-20, we believe “the household of God [is] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” What this means has been well-explained:
“To say that the church’s foundation includes the apostles is not in any way to denigrate Jesus as the cornerstone upon which the church rests (v. 20). Actually, to affirm the apostolic nature of the church is to affirm strongly the headship of Christ over His church. The function of the apostle helps us understand how this can be the case. Apostolos is the Greek term for ‘apostle’ and in the first-century Roman world was used of those delegated to speak for a person of authority. The caesar and other ruling officials could send apostles to speak for them in other places, and when the apostles spoke, their words carried the authority of the official who sent them. To reject these apostles was to reject the authority of the one who commissioned them for service; therefore, to deny the apostles of Jesus is to deny the authority of Jesus Himself.
“Paul mentions the prophets as part of the foundation of the covenant community (v. 20), a clear reference to Isaiah, Daniel, Amos and all the other well-known men who spoke for God under the old covenant, and whose words were recorded in the books that bear their names. But this grouping of prophets also includes all the authors of the Old Testament, such as Moses, David, and the other unnamed writers of books like Judges and Chronicles. All of these individuals are also prophets because they give us the Almighty’s very Word (2 Peter 1:16-20).
“If the prophetic foundation of the church is to be equated with their writings, so too is the apostolic foundation of the church found in the apostolic writings. The Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation carry equally the authority of Christ, for they were written by those our Lord called to speak for Him (Luke 10:1-16; John 14:26). It is a great error to elevate the words of Jesus in the Gospels above other parts of Scripture, for the words of Scripture, no matter where they are located, are breathed-out by God Himself (2 Tim. 3:16-17).” (Tabletalk, August 2008, page 33)
I reprint this here in order to explain the Evangelical understanding of the authority of Scripture. I know it will be a great temptation for the ensuing discussion to fall into the idea of the validity/non-validity of Mormon apostles. Please resist that temptation. Suffice it to say that the above information is referring to the biblical apostles; Evangelicals do not recognize any authority in the LDS apostles (see 2 Corinthians 11). Therefore, please limit your discussion to the topic at hand; that is, the authority of the written Word of God as contained in the Bible.
Cluff said
“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Joseph Smith accursed: and that no man can say that Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration, but by the Holy Ghost.”
That would be funny if it wasn’t an assertion without any basis in reason or scripture.
By the same ‘logic’ I can get up and say “I come to you in the name of Barak Obama and I command you to vote for John McCain” (or the other way round, if you prefer). Its just not in the ‘spirit’ of the party and worse, its a misrepresentation.
So, when I see LDS promote the idea of temple and ‘restored’ priesthood, I think “hold on, didn’t Jesus fulfill or complete the story of the Temple at the cross? The meeting place for God and man is Christ himself (Rev 21:22), not a building that one has to be qualified to get into. This isn’t a ‘new’ revelation, its how it was since Abraham and Moses, or so argues Paul in his letters to the Churches in Galatia and Rome in particular and in this case he is in lock-step with the rest of the NT (1 John 1, for example)”
If you want to join the party, get in line with party policy. If you want to speak by the Holy Ghost, you should at least say what the Holy Ghost says. The Holy Ghost always points us to Jesus and to an eternal priesthood that has no forefathers or descendants (which is how I read the ‘order of Melchizedek’ in Psalm 110:4). JS points us to himself and the earthly dynasty that he created.
Please quit your assertion that JS spoke by the Holy Ghost; he didn’t.
FoF and others: you wrote:
THe NT was not compiled until the 11th century…”
Not sure what you are using for a source for that, but my info tells me otherwise, and before I give the qts, let me admit that the canon was, and in some circles, still is, hotly contested. And so are miracles, the divinity of Christ, and on and on… I will admit that the results given below did not, and do not, satisfy everyone calling themselves ‘christian’.
From the Reader’s Digest “The Bible Thru the Ages” prject editor- Robert V Huber
p. 215: …But for all practical purposes, the canon was even more firmly settled in 367. At that time ATHANASIUS, the bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Easter letter…and identified the books they were to include in their NT Scripture..he agreed with Eusebius’ choices as to what should be left out and supported the inclusion of..James,2cdPet, Jude, 2cd & 3rd Jn, Hebrews, and Rev…he (Athan) wrote of the 27 NT books still recognized as canon by most Cath. and Prot. christians…with the admonition “in these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no one add to or take anything from them.”
MOST CHURCHES AGREED….the churches had come a long way toward unity, but they would never be in absolute agreement on the NT canon..
And then he mentions the Syrians and Ethiopians who had other books in their canon (I’m sure there are others) So there seems to have been wide spread acceptance (not total) of the 27 NT books by mid 4th century. I welcome comments otherwise. GERMIT
Martin said:
“Please quit your assertion that JS spoke by the Holy Ghost; he didn’t.”
JS spoke by the Holy Ghost plenty, my ancestors were there at the time to witness the event, but that was never my assertion.
My assertion is that no man can know that JS was a prophet until the Holy Ghost speaks on the matter.
Don’t you believe in the witness of the Holy Ghost?
I am often glad to see that other groups acknowledge and accept the evidence that the spirit of God offers. I would insist however, that it moves progressively through 4 pivitol points, and the power of God is more clearly evident as you progress:
1. There is a God in heaven who answers prayers.
2. Jesus is the Christ who paid the price for our sins.
3. Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration in our dispensation.
4. The kingdom of God is found on the earth today in the form of the LDS church.
The power of God is evident to all who exercise sufficient faith. Main stream Christians often show evidence of that power for points 1 and 2. That power will begin to disappear when they fail to follow it forward to 3 and 4.
That is why many skeptics begin to say it is not “proper evidence” at all. It that what you are proposing?
4givn asked:
“Still waiting for the answer to the question of, Can you say that all your prophets fruits are good?”
Yes, I can. Dyed in the wool, true blue, through and through.
The revelations given to JS have done nothing but brighten up my life. They give me meaning and purpose.
The Book of Mormon opens my heart and my mind to the workings of the Holy Spirt. Very good fruit indeed.
I served for two years as a missionary for the LDS church. I felt an obvious and concrete witness that JS was a prophet every time I bore witness of that fact. It brought only happiness and fulfillment to those who accepted the Church. Go ask them yourself.
I asked God myself about the matter, and the Holy Ghost was clear.
Now don’t go on about the fruits of polgamy, because I am one. If my GG Grandma had failed to marry after freezing off her foot crossing the plains, I would not be here today. She was the 3rd wife in that family.
Without polgamy I would not exist. A pretty good fruit from my perspective.
What are the fruits of this blog? A much better question. [Name-calling deleted.]
Wow, Cluff, seems your rhetoric is heating up in your last post. Is there a reason why? Seriously, I’d like to know if there is.
But a couple of notices about Mormons in their responses to so many questions.
1) In response to questions of the veracity of the Holy Spirit– they almost aways say what Cluff said, ‘The revelations given to JS have done nothing but brighten up my life. They give me meaning and purpose.’ This indicates that since they feel good about it, it must be true. What it leaves out is that there are other ways to get that feeling of completeness, a brightened light and purpose. It also leaves out the possibility (an honest one) that they may be mistaken.
2) He also says this: ‘I asked God myself about the matter, and the Holy Ghost was clear.’ I’m guessing the matter is the veracity of Joseph Smith’s revelations. He does this without defining a) who the spirit is and b) what the test is to confirm the message.
3) He also makes this comment: “It brought only happiness and fulfillment to those who accepted the Church.” The ‘it’ is the witness of the spirit, and it is in the context that happiness and fulfillment are attributes that prove its veracity on a broad scale. Actually, no where in the Bible are happiness and fulfillment indicated as proof Christ’s atonement. Actually, to the contrary, it is arguable that the result of following Christ will be hard and difficult. Happiness plays no role, and fulfillment can be found in other ways, too. They do not qualify as proof, or evidence.
Proof and evidence comes in the word of God as written in the Bible. A simple belief in Christ is all that is needed, and this belief will not necessarilly bring happiness or fulfillment. Contentment and confidence in the power of Christ it will bring, but those are not the same as being happy or fulfilled.
Cluff,
“My assertion is that no man can know that JS was a prophet until the Holy Ghost speaks on the matter.”
The role of the Holy Spirit is to empower us to be witnesses of Jesus Christ (please see Acts 1:1-11). You want to bear witness of JS, which is your right and your prerogative. However, to say that the Holy Spirit will testify of JS is not true because JS is not the focus of salvation; his life was intended to be a recipient of salvation through Jesus Christ. The Spirit is not concerned with JS the way you want to suggest because the work of salvation was completed in the Person of Jesus Christ. The role of the Christian is to testify of Jesus Christ and not some man. You might make claims that JS teachings make you feel good, etc., but his teachings are basically anti-Bible and false teachings, and feeling good is not the measuring stick for truth (man-centered teachings). If that’s where you want to be, great, but to try and equate the work of JS with the Work of Jesus is ill-advised. You see, all of history has been focused on the coming of the Messiah, not the coming of some 19th century self-proclaimed prophet. The Messiah has come, about which God’s-breathed words (the Bible) testify. Cluff, I have been in your shoes, arguing with Christians using empty rhetoric that in the end doesn’t ever make sense. It will be intersting to see if you address my comments since you chose to ignore me previously. But, I’ll give you God’s message of grace, anyway. God’s Word is replete with exploring God’s grace, experiencing God’s grace, and expressing God’s grace. God is extending His grace to you, Cluff. I pray that you will explore it so you can experience it. Salvation leads to a life of obedience and service, not the other way around. After experiencing God’s grace, you will want to express it in your interactions with others. You are in my prayers, Cluff.
I love it when people say similar things to Jackg –
We are not suggesting that God is not powerful enough to protect His word. He has given man free agency to choose good or evil and He will usually not intercede. So if man wants to change God’s word to fit his own devices, God will allow it to the eternal detriment of that person. That is what we are saying when we say man has corrupted the Bible and its meaning. God can preserve it if/when He wants, but He has left it up to us.
Next, I have heard at least 3 different meanings of the verses about hell not prevailing against Jesus’ church. These are 1) The ‘rock’ referenced is Peter; 2) The ‘rock’ referenced is revelation; 3) The ‘rock’ referenced is the testimony that Jesus is The Christ; and I do believe I have heard another 1 or 2. This is a major verse in respects to doctrinal validity – so why the variance between churches as to its meaning? Which meaning is the correct one? I have my answer and I am sticking to it.
Lastly, a foundation can be weakened or destroyed and in these instances needs to be strengthened or replaced. As each apostle/prophet died that weakened the foundation and they were replaced as can be seen in the NT twice. When they were all killed the foundation at that time was destroyed thus a new one had to be made, hence the restoration after an apostacy.
Ralph,
Why is this a foundational verse? I don’t read it as such. Is it important? Yes, but I can still have my faith as solid as it is now without Christ’s take on Peter being the rock. Whether or not Peter was the rock is irrelevant to me. What matters is the last phrase: hell will not prevail over it.
That is the important factor in it to me, and probably to most here. We can argue day and night whether or not Peter was really to lead the church or whether or not it was meant metaphorically. What is clear is that hades will not over come it.
Quite frankly, if you take it literally that Peter was the first leader, the Catholics have the best claim to that one.
But here’s a thought that you might not have considered: the role of pride in determining the extent Peter played the role of the “rock which Hades will not prevail against.”
You mention the foundation needing to be replaced or strengthened, which is the role the LDS plays today; they restored the rock.
What happened in the interim? Did Hades prevail? Why or why not? If Peter is the rock, and the rock is singular (which it truly appears to be), how does the role of the 12 play into that?
I think you’ve taken this verse and put meaning into that is not there on a plain reading of it.
MichaelP,
I never said I believed that Peter was the rock – I only said that is one interpretation I have heard of that scripture. The Catholics use that one to ‘argue’ that they received their authority from Peter who Jesus gave it to. I have heard other Christians also taking that verse to mean that Peter was the rock.
The LDS interpret it as revelation from Heavenly Father via the Holy Ghost is the rock which hell (hades) will not prevail against. Hades has never and never will prevail against revelation from God. Hades will prevail against men and their choices and when men decide to choose the wrong thing then God cannot give any revelation because men have hardened themselves against receiving it.
The reason I believe it is foundational is that only one of the 3 (or more) interpretations is correct. If #1 is correct then the Catholics, as you said, have more of a claim to being the only true church. If #2 is correct then the LDS church or any other church who interpret it as such have claim on the only truth. If #3 is correct then many people are in the truth regardless of their subscribed religious affiliation.
If God inspired scripture then it can only be interpreted one way – His way. Any other way is incorrect and will not lead to heaven, regardless of a persons’ convictions about Jesus Christ because it teaches another doctrine as RickB likes to quote. That is why we have prophets and apostles today, to assist in interpreting scripture to keep us in God’s way. God’s house is an house of order, with only one person appointed to be able to act as God’s mouthpiece at any one time (ie prophet) then it can be kept in order. If the general congregation can say they speak for God then there is more than one master and confusion sets in – no order available.
Cluff,
“but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
(Hebrews 1:1-2)”
Here I am, Mormon, as the case may be– interacting per request to a seriously misinterpreted verse of scripture. Be sure to thank me now.”
OK, thanks! For making my point for me. Is your software malfunctioning, because you constantly skip sections of Scripture that are inconvenient. You are not addressing Hebrews 1: 1-2, you are skipping verse 1 and going to verse 2. Hebrews 1: 1-2 makes a contrast, one you conveniently let out. Let’s look at the whole verse:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb 1:1-2)
Sound a little different when we look at the whole thing? The contrast is that we formerly had prophets but now we do not. Just like temples and just like human priests. Things changed, but you seem bent on going back to the Old Testament. You place your faith in men and their works. If you have Christ you don’t need the revelations of men.
Cluff,
You are very proud of what Smith has done for you. You mentioned the BoM, but the fruits of the HoC, JoD, and the others, didn’t make it into your post. I think it is wise of you not to include them because they contain things that are not “CHRISTIAN”. I know that some of the fruits that came from Smith, let alone the others, were bad. I think that even some of your fellow LDS friends would have to agree with this assessment.
I am a little disturbed by you last comment, but that is ok. I won’t hold that against you, because I know that my pride can get out of hand.
I want to ask you about your verification of the BoM. When you asked “if these things were not true”, did the Spirit manifest itself with that question? W/LOVE
Ralph,
Once again, it is proven that the fruits of Mormonis is biblical eisegesis.
“So if man wants to change God’s word to fit his own devices, God will allow it to the eternal detriment of that person. That is what we are saying when we say man has corrupted the Bible and its meaning. God can preserve it if/when He wants, but He has left it up to us.”
You prove the point that you believe man is more powerful than God; perhaps, that is because Mormons hold a low-view of God, I mean, after all, Mormons believe the Creator was once created and had a beginning, He who is without beginning or end. You know, a man can stick to all the wrong answers he wishes, but in the end it will not save that man.
“Lastly, a foundation can be weakened or destroyed and in these instances needs to be strengthened or replaced.”
Perhaps this would be true of the Mormon god, but the God of Christianity set a foundation against which not even Hades could prevail.
“so why the variance between churches as to its meaning?”
You make this statement as if it somehow proves a need for the false prophets of the LDS Church. Take a look at what they teach, test it against the Bible, and you’ll see the heresy in their teachings.
“I love it when people say similar things to Jackg -”
Not quite sure what you wanted this to elicit. But, it does reveal something about your heart. Before you attack my heart, my heart goes out to people like you and Cluff and all Mormons because I have stood in your shoes, blissfully ignorant to the truth of God’s Word. I have to speak boldly against the heretical teachings of JS because his teachings are leading people who truly desire Jesus down the wrong path. Read Peter to learn about the true priesthood. Don’t take my word for it; read it for yourself. God is extending His grace to you, as well. I pray you receive it and know how sweet it is.
Arthur,
NKJV Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
Nothing in those verses either expresses or implies that God will no longer speak to prophets. In fact the Bible clearly declares that there will be prophets in the last days.
KJV Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two PROPHETS tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
GB,
It most certainly does expressly say that, there is a clear contrast between the old way and the new. In the past God spoke through prophets but now He has spoken to us by His Son. It cannot be any clearer especially when you read the rest of the book of Hebrews and see even more contrast throughout the book. Hebrews is devastating to the mormon notion of prophets and a “restored” priesthood because the whole book refutes it entirely. We don’t need a “restored” priesthood because we have Christ. We don’t need prophets bringing new “revelation” because we have Christ. We don’t need temples because we have Christ.
Also, does prophet mean the seem thing in Rev 11:10 as it does in mormonism? These prophets are not anything like mormon prophets. I am quite confident that Monson cannot pour fire from his mouth, or stop the rain, or turn water into blood. They are testifying of Christ, there are not rewriting the Bible or changing who He is. Prophecy is a gift in the NT, but it is not a gift that rejects the revelation of who Christ declared Himself to be and the redemptive revelation of how sinful man is justified before a holy God. You can’t just search for the word “prophet” in the NT and use that as justification for a mormon prophet.
And Rev 11 speaks of TWO prophets. I thought there was only one? Or are there three if you count the first presidency? Or are there 15 if you count the quorum of the 12?
(BTW, Did you call James White yet to tell him how wrong he is about Greek?)
4givn said:
“You mentioned the BoM, but the fruits of the HoC, JoD, and the others, didn’t make it into your post”
Hold on now, I love the D&C and the PoGP too.
I have been reading Abraham in Egypt by Hugh Nibley.
I love the comparison he makes between the Book of Enoch and the Book of Abraham in the PoGP:
The position of the Book of Abraham today is much like that of the Book of Enoch 150 years ago. Ever since ancient times scattered clues, even sizeable fragments of a supposedly lost Book of Enoch, kept turning up, leading to much speculation and controversy as to whether there ever really was a Book of Enoch. (160, Oct. 1975, 78ff.) It was only when one major text, the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, known as First Enoch, was brought to light early in the nineteenth century that scholars started looking seriously and putting together evidence that brought forth one version after another—Old Slavonic, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.—of that same lost Book of Enoch which had so long been viewed as a figment of Gnostic imagination. After all that, it turned out, the Book of Enoch was real.
So it is now with the Book of Abraham.
The Apocalypse of Abraham, and Testament of Abraham are two independently discovered, and very ancient documents. Their identity as ancient documents is certian. Now, as you examine the English transaltions of BOTH, you find parallels to the JS translation. Too many parallels to be a coincidence.
I will quickly buy the explanation that JS was able to translate the whole book from a small fragment of the original text found the the Book of the Dead. It only validates my faith more when multiple ancient documents show up and we already have the BEST translation straight from God himself.
Now, do I have a problem with the other Books of Scripture?
Arthur,
As usual, you ignore the important points and respond with red herrings.
There is no “contrast between the old way and the new”.
Really? God has ALWAYS CALLED His spokesmen He even called His Son. The contrast is that Jesus is the SON OF GOD, the others aren’t.
The BIBLE clearly shows that there were prophets AFTER Jesus. In fact the author of Hebrews (Paul/Saul) is designated a “prophet” by the BIBLE.
Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain PROPHETS and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and SAUL.
Paul (a prophet) said 1 Cor 14:29 Let the PROPHETS speak two or three, and let the other judge.
. . .
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Notice in this verse that JESUS clearly describes His continuous process of using prophets.
Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I WILL SEND them PROPHETS and APOSTLES, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
Notice He uses the future tense “will send”.
JESUS also said Matt 10:41 He who receives a PROPHET in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.
Why would JESUS say THAT if there were to be no more prophets?
GB and others: I don’t think you read Arthurs posts closely enough, or it doesn’t look that way to me. He mentioned that prophecy IS a NT gift, hence there must be ‘prophets’ operating with that gift, but they do NOT function quite like the OT prophets (when revelation was coming primarily out of one, or perhaps a few, person) and certainly not like the LDS, where PROPHET is an OFFICE or POSITION, and no just something (admitedlly special) that people with that gift do. Big difference. Show us from the NT or from early church history where ‘prophets’ operated in a manner parallel to the way LDS prophets operate (or used to operate, because it seems they currently are much more into building malls and giving conference speeches these days).
MARTIN: was that you who noted that as the incarnational nature of the Christ within the body went DOWN, the hierarchical nature of the LDS church went UP ?? This is in no way limited to the LDS church, and pops up like a weed in too many places to list. Write this down folks as a DIRECT PROPORTION: the MORE that any church makes of a particular man/woman’s role of authority (esp. if this involves ‘special revelation’) the LESS they will make of the AUTHORITY of Jesus that is ONLY shared with men as a KING shares with an ambassador or ‘sent one’. An aside: not that different than ISRAEL clamoring for a king (see 2cdSamuel) in order to BE LIKE THE OTHER NATIONS. God (sadly) gave them what they wanted…while promising them a new king. I favor the NEW KING and PROPHET, thank you. GERMIT
FoF: we’ll get you out of identity jail in no time, don’t you fret
GB,
“As usual, you ignore the important points and respond with red herrings.
There is no “contrast between the old way and the new”.
…and you are ignoring the questions. Are the prophets in Revelation the same in function and office as Thomas Monson? You are mistaking the gift of prophecy with an office of prophet. No one is denying revelation and prophecy, what I am denying is that Thomas Monson is a prophet and that J.S. and B.Y. were prophets because they are not proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they are proclaiming a different Gospel. Paul proclaimed the same Christ as Peter and John and James and Christ Himself as He declared Himself. Thomas Monson declares a different Christ, and just as there are men with prophetic gifts in the world, we are very much warned that there will be false prophets. If Monson holds any sort of prophetic ministry it is that of a false prophet. Now THAT sort of prophet I do believe exists.
Hebrews is a book of clear contrasts between the inferior and obsolete priesthood of men and the infinitely superior Priesthood held only by Christ. If you will read it without your mormon lenses, you would see that. In the Old Covenant there were prophets who revealed God’s will, priests who interceded for men, temples where sacrifice took place. In the New Covenant, there is just Christ. His person and work are complete and sufficient revelation. You are following a prophet who cannot add to the revelation of Christ, only twist and pervert it.
Germit: . . . not like the LDS, where PROPHET is an OFFICE . . .
GB: Nowhere in LDS canon is being a prophet called an “office”, because it ISN’T an office it is a spiritual characteristic just as in the Bible. Just because you guys want to create a strawman with this “office” thing doesn’t make it so.
Arthur: Are the prophets in Revelation the same in function and office as Thomas Monson?
GB: You claim to have been a knowledgeable Mormon? One more time, there is NO office of prophet!!! It is a spiritual characteristic just like “seer”.
Arthur: You are mistaking the gift of prophecy with an office of prophet.
GB: No, you are the one mistaking that there is an “office” of prophet.
Actually GB, I am a lot more knowledgeable about mormonism now that I am out than I ever was when I was in. Let me make in simpler for you, does Monson and before him Hinckley, Smith, Young etc. FUNCTION in the same way as the prophets of Rev. 11:10?
From Harold B. Lee, general authority:
“In the doctrines of the Church we have been told that only one man at a time on the earth can hold all the keys of the priesthood. Said the Lord, “… there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred” (D&C 132:7), meaning the President of the Church, the prophet, seer, and revelator.”
So is there one prophet or two like in Revelation or 3 or 15? That is kind of an important distinction. Maybe David Koresh really WAS a prophet? The point really is that the gift of prophecy doesn’t equate to new and different revelations of Christ that contradict what the New Testament says. That is why Heb 1: 1-2 is so vital because it shows that we don’t need a “prophet” who holds a priesthood that only Christ holds, who contradicts the teachings of Christ and Paul and John and Peter. Smith, Young, Hinckley, Monson all are false prophets who seek to lead people astray. If a man says one thing and the Bible says something else, I will go with the Bible
(BTW did you call James White yet? It is a toll free number…)
To GB; well, if I was sloppy or careless in joining PROPHET with OFFICE, I certainly apologize. Joining me in sack cloth and ashes will be whoever wrote p. 1044 of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism
“….as evidence of this, they [members of the LDS church] point to callings and OFFICES (e.g.
PROPHET, apostle, the seventy, etc..)
brackets are mine, () are from the article itself, and emph. on PROPHET is mine
I don’t want to nitpick a word, if you want to say “position” or even “elected servant”, I don’t care, the idea is still that these guys do not FUNCTION as they did back in the OT dispensation, and they don’t get placed in that role the same, either, but I’m rambling….. So how many references to OFFICE or OFFICER in LDS publications regarding the role of PROPHET do I have to find before the sack cloth comes off ??? This stuff is sure itchy……
GB: you are a fighter, I give you that. GERMIT
Arthur,
A little clarification;
“the President of the Church (that is the office), the prophet (a statement of preeminence not exclusivity), seer, and revelator.”
A: So is there one prophet or two like in Revelation or 3 or 15?
GB: Only God knows how many prophets He has at any one time.
A: the gift of prophecy doesn’t equate to new and different revelations of Christ that contradict what the New Testament says.
GB: True! From my study of the NT I find no contradictions between the Bible and LDS theology.
And you are free to believe that Heb 1:1-2 means whatever you want it to mean, but your argument is unconvincing.
Incompetent or deceptive?
Why should I care what J White thinks?
Germit,
The role of a prophet has NOT changed.
G: So how many references to OFFICE or OFFICER in LDS publications regarding the role of PROPHET do I have to find before the sack cloth comes off ???
GB: If you can find one in LDS CANON (that is the Bible, Book of Mormon, D & C, or the Pearl of Great Price), then you can take that itchy thing off!
G: you are a fighter, I give you that.
GB: Just earnestly contending for the faith.
Well GB, if he is teaching falsehoods about God because of his faulty Greek, shouldn’t you correct him? My point is that you made a big deal of your supposed expertise in the original languages but have been unwilling to demonstrate your qualifications to speak on Greek and Hebrew, or to cite your references. I can only assume you have no idea what you are talking about and are just blowing smoke (figuratively, not in a violating the word of wisdom way).
“True! From my study of the NT I find no contradictions between the Bible and LDS theology.”
You need to go back and study that NT more. Is Christ eternal and uncreated, or is He a created being? Is man utterly sinful or not? Did God ordain and command marriage as monogamous or not (commandment not description)? Is man justified by faith alone or by a combo of faith and works? Are there two destinations for all men, heaven or hell, or are there three levels of heaven and outer darkenss? Is there one God, eternally existing in three persons, or are there a multitude of gods? These are not minor quibbles but fundamental differences between the Bible and mormonism. At least be intellectually honest enough to recognize that.
“And you are free to believe that Heb 1:1-2 means whatever you want it to mean, but your argument is unconvincing.”
Ok, lets take a quick survey. To my fellow readers and posters, read Hebrews 1: 1-2 and see if you agree that it means that God formerly spoke through prophets but now speaks through His Son, as I said. Or do you agree with GB who claims that it doesn’t say what it clearly says?
With regard to Hebrews 1:1-2, at the risk of repeating myself, I shall chime in with the words of our Lord from Matthew (11:13): “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John”
and from Luke (16:16) “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached”
Apparently Christ understood the roll of prophets the same way as the author of Hebrews and the same way as we “born-again” types do: that prophets are no longer are necessary since Christ has come to be the Mediator between God and men.
I always fail to understand why the LDS do not get this very clear biblical concept. Thanks for asking, Arthur!
Arthur,
Incompetent or deceptive?
Why would J White accept criticism?
Since you have not refuted my argument, I can assume you have no refutation and are just blowing smoke.
A: Ok, lets take a quick survey.
GB: Ah the logical fallacy known as “ad populum”.
A rather risky approach considering; Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT.
Moses called Jesus a prophet,
Deut 18:15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
. . .
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Peter reiterated that Jesus was a prophet,
Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
Since Jesus came after John the Baptist, does that make Him a false prophet?