In the early days of the LDS Church, converts all over the world were commanded to gather in one place with all other Latter-day Saints. The appointed gathering place moved from Missouri to Illinois and finally to Utah. According to Brigham Young, the purpose of the gathering was
“…for the express purpose of purifying ourselves, that we may become polished stones in the temple of God…We are here for the purpose of establishing the kingdom of God on earth. To be prepared for this work it has been necessary to gather us out from the nations and countries of the world, for if we had remained on those lands we could not have received the ordinances of the Holy Priesthood of the Son of God, which are necessary for the perfection of the Saints preparatory to His coming…
This work the Lord commenced over thirty years ago, and it is still progressing; the call is still to His people among the nations of the earth—Gather out of her my people, be not partakers of her sins lest ye receive her plagues. When the righteous are thus gathered they will then be prepared for the coming of the Messiah.” (Brigham Young, February 16, 1868, Journal of Discourses 12:161-163)
In those days, the physical gathering of the Saints was imperative:
“In this dispensation there is a principle or commandment peculiar to it. What is that? It is the gathering the people into one place. The gathering of the people is as necessary to be observed by believers, as faith, repentance, baptism, or any other ordinance. It is an essential part of the Gospel of this dispensation, as much so, as the necessity of building an ark by Noah, for his deliverance, was a part of the Gospel of his dispensation. Then the world was destroyed by a flood, now it is to be destroyed by war, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, storms, and tempests, the sea rolling beyond its bounds, malarious vapors, vermin, disease, and fire by the lightnings of God’s wrath poured out for destruction upon Babylon.” (Joseph F. Smith, September 3o, 1877, Journal of Discourses 19:192)
The commandment to gather caused 85,000 Latter-day Saint converts from all over Europe to immigrate to North America between 1840 and 1890. But by the turn of the 20th century the idea of physical gathering began to shift. Over time, without express orders from their ecclesiastical leaders, the emigration of Saints from their native lands slowed to a trickle. Eventually, in 1972 Bruce McConkie announced at an Area Conference,
“’The place of gathering for the Mexican Saints is in Mexico; the place of gathering for the Guatemalan Saints is in Guatemala; the place of gathering for the Brazilian Saints is in Brazil; and so it goes throughout the length and breadth of the whole earth. … Every nation is the gathering place for its own people.’ (Mexico and Central America Area Conference, 26 Aug. 1972, p. 45.)” (quoted in Ensign, November 1992, pages 71 ff)
At the following April General Conference President Harold B. Lee confirmed the Church policy as announced by Bruce McConkie. Since then the commandment to gather has been formally understood to be a spiritual gathering, not a physical one.
But as demonstrated, the early Latter-day Saints were required to gather or immigrate to Zion (i.e., Missouri, Illinois, or Utah); obedience to this call was as necessary for each individual as was faith, repentance and baptism. Indeed, if they had heard Joseph F. Smith’s preaching on the subject, they must have feared for their lives and greatly lamented any delay interfering with their trip to America. Very serious business.
Given that history, isn’t it funny that the First Presidency Message in the October 2008 Ensign said this:
“Why did so many faithful members leave their home countries in those early days of the Church? Many reasons can be named: to escape persecution, to help build the Church in America, to improve their economic circumstances, to be close to a temple, and many more” (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, page 7).
I would suppose that a lot of different things played motivating roles in the decisions of each of these 85,000 emigrants, but doesn’t it seem that the first and foremost driving reason would have been their desire to obey the commandments of their new religion? If immigrating to Zion was as important to their spiritual lives as was baptism into the “one true church,” isn’t it odd that President Uchtdorf didn’t even mention it?
And isn’t it interesting that this imperative command to physically gather the Latter-day Saints to Zion was slowly and quietly changed to mean a spiritual gathering of believers into the LDS Church, as if it were merely a shift in policy?
Isn’t it interesting that the LDS church had two Zions before settling on Utah as their official Zion? But for God’s chosen people, the Jews, there has always been only one, Jerusalem. No matter how persecuted and dispersed the Jews are, Zion is Jerusalem. It seems odd that God has moved Zion around for the safety of the saints.
I guess it’s my job to remind everyone, again, that Mormonism is based on continuous revelation. This “gathering” business and it’s changes over time is just a result of new revelation. I’m not so sure that anything a dead prophet had to say really holds much weight today, unless Mormons want it to. The embarrassing stuff is just old revelation, it’s to be ignored. Think about it, if the Salt Lake City bunch can dump plural marrage (well kind of dump it because I understand it’s still on the books to be revived at a later time) and if dark skinned people with the mark of Cain or whoever can now receive the priesthood which they were previously denied because of something they messed-up in the preexistance, this gathering proclamation is just a blip on the radar screen of Mormonism. In Mormonism, everyday is a new day, full of new possibilities and new promises and of course shifting doctrinal positions.
Mormonism is based on continuing revelation. Apparently, it’s also based on continuing forgetfulness. 🙂
Yes, the literal gathering got changed to a spiritual gathering. I have no problem with that; revelation is revelation. What I have a problem with is ignoring the past, as Dieter Uchtdorf did in his message.
I’m currently reading “Devil’s Gate” by David Roberts. It’s a history of the handcart migration. I was shocked by how modern the Mormon leaders’ behavior was. They condemned people who turned back, or even died, as “sinners” or “weak” or “not trusting in God.” People like Levi Savage, who correctly advised the Martin company to not proceed to Zion that year, was verbally torn apart by Franklin Richards, and Apostle. The Apostle, of course, was taking a light carriage to Zion, and didn’t have to worry about snow.
I’m reminded of a poster I saw once. It had a picture of the pyramids, and the caption was “You can do anything you want when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of cheap labor.” That seems to sum up the success of Brigham Young’s nation of Deseret.
Good points so far. I thought it was interesting that Zion kept moving. If JS and/or BY really had direct communication with God why didn’t He tell them to go to Utah in the first place?
However, my favorite part is Mr. Uchtdorf’s first “explanation” -we always have to play the persecution card, don’t we?
Yep, this is another example in a long list where current leadership has reworked and spun a previously firm doctrine to mean something totally different.
Hey, one of the “signs” of a cult is that the members all band together, often living in one place/area, and living outside of that is frowned upon….
Sharon,
A couple of points:
1. “Zion” in Mormon parlance can have two distinct meanings:
a. The Church or Kingdom of God;
b. The place where the Saints reside.
2. In the 19th century the clarion call was for the Saints to gather to Zion. Initially this was Kirtland, Ohio then Independence, Missouri. Violent persecution wherein hundreds (if not thousands) perished drove the Saints to Nauvoo, Illinois where they found some respite until 1845/46 when violent persecution drove them to their epic journey to the Salt Lake Valley which was at that time outside of U.S. territory.
3. When David O. McKay became prophet the Saints henceforth from the 1950’s were called to build up Zion where they resided be it Brisbane, Australia or Edinburgh, Scotland or wherever. This marked a definite change in Church policy.
4. I do not see where you have an issue with President Uchtdorf’s message as he did indeed mention that the early saints emigrated to Utah “to help build up the Church in America” and “to be close to a temple”. Both of these reasons are important to one’s spiritual life.
SteveH wrote “the early saints emigrated to Utah…to be close to a temple”.
I’m close to the temple. In fact I live in it. Its name is Jesus (Rev 21:22).
Oh yes, we also have a building here with a Gold Angel on top, but I’ll never be worthy enough to get in.
Different thread perhaps?
It is humorous that those silly Israelites claimed to be following a prophet out of Egypt. I mean- 40 years walking around in the desert. You would think they would eventually get that they had a false prophet and were worshipping a false god. Forty years to travel a couple hundred miles to their “promised land.”
Don’t mean to be facetious, but couldn’t resist. “Gods ways are not mans ways.” God knows the beginning from the end and does everything for a reason. Sometimes, from an outsider’s or non-believer’s view, or even a followers view, it appears to make no sense. Sometimes God needs to chastize His people, sometimes they need to strengthen their faith. And sometimes, maybe He lets them do what they want simply to let them learn.
The initial call to Zion was needed, I believe, to establish a center of strength for the church. I believe this was in America for very good reasons (another interesting topic). Once that core had been established, the policy changed to establish stakes of Zion throughout the world.
Again, I am fascinated by the ability to take a pretty cool success story involving sacrifice, courage, and endurance and pick out the negatives, thereby creating a caricature. I argue that this is the tendancy and pattern of church critics, or critics in general.
FaithofFathers,
I could agree with your analysis if the Gospel proclamation had been repent, believe, and move to Jerusalem, but it wasn’t quite the opposite in fact.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” – Matthew 28:19-20
Boldemphasis mine.
So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” – Acts 1:6-8
Boldemphasis mine.
Lautensack
FOF,
Good of you to mention the story of the Exodus. I’m sure you know that the Israelites walked around in circles because of their unbelief (see the Psalmist’s take in Psalm 95). I don’t know how you could safely apply the metaphor to the example above without implying a serious issue of unbelief in either the church leadership or the rank and file.
In any case, I would partially agree with you that its OK for a church to change direction on matters such as “where should we situate our headquarters”. I would also add that I have seen some disastrous attempts at small scale social engineering from evangelical (non-LDS) churches. Perhaps the frontier needed immigrants, and this would be reason enough to encourage people to move.
The issue addressed by the above article is that the ‘inspired’ leaders of the LDS movement had changed their minds (yet again). The kindest interpretation I can give is that their theology is experimental, rather than revealed. This does little for the credibility of the leadership, despite its grandiose claims of ‘continuing revelation’. The problem with such a mind-set, as amply illustrated by the above example and many others, is that when one person considers himself to have received the ‘real deal’, he can preach whatever he likes without the need to cross check with anyone else (not even those from whom he received his anointing).
The Biblical pattern, by contrast, is quite different. All of the OT prophets and NT authors argued, vigorously, that what they were doing was upholding the message of their forefathers (note the history lesson Stephen gives as part of his defence in Acts 6). The leadership style of the LDS movement, by contrast appears to be quite Orwellian (1984).
Why is it that a true prophet can change his mind whenever he recieves a new direction from God, but a false prophet it is always just a blunder or in this case, a quiet shift in policy?
Here is a few examples.
Peter, when he recieved direction from God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Just a quiet shift in policy?
Jonah when God decided NOT to destroy the inhabitants of Ninevah. Just another quiet shift in policy?
The Law of Moses, when it was done away. Just another quiet shift in policy?
Could it be possible, that God is directing the affairs of his kingdom here on earth?
In this case, not only the leaders, but the rank in file realized that we had enough Mormons in Utah. No big surpise to those who follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. The rest of the world needed a chance to be blessed.
When does a quiet shift in policy become the quiet promptings of the Holy Ghost, patiently giving consistent direction to those who listen?
That would be when people begin to exercise true faith.
I have learned to depend on these articles being constantly off base and twisted. It is a little like eating the same meal for dinner every night, with a differnt shade of food coloring. The same garbage, just a new shade.
GRCluff wrote: Peter, when he recieved direction from God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Just a quiet shift in policy? Really I thought it was God’s plan from the beginning to bless all nations (Genesis 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; Psalm 86:9; Matthew 28:19) my bad.
GRCluff wrote: Jonah when God decided NOT to destroy the inhabitants of Ninevah. Just another quiet shift in policy? Jonah is only told to preach against Ninevah, the Ninevites respond and turn from their wickedness. This is the same as men who in modern times preach the Gospel to unbelievers of the impending doom, that lest they repent and believe they shall be destroyed.
GRCluff wrote: The Law of Moses, when it was done away. Just another quiet shift in policy? If I am not mistaken Jesus fulfilled the law. (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44) Furthermore I do not know of any Christian that would state that we should not earnestly seek to abide in the Decalogue given by God.
GRCluff wrote: When does a quiet shift in policy become the quiet promptings of the Holy Ghost, patiently giving consistent direction to those who listen? I agree there are discernment issues at hand, however, gathering together is directly opposite of the commission given to all members of the New Covenant, that command is “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15) and “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
This isn’t some quite shift in policy this is a direct contradiction to the formula Christ laid out in preparation to His second coming. (Acts 1:7-9 cf Revelation 22:20)
Lautensack
To All: this topic (the gathering to Zion) is one that produces many sub-plots rather quickly, Sharon, you are commended for an interesting choice of topic (once again).
An honest question: what is BY talking about when he says,
“for if we had remained on those lands we could not have received the ordinances of the Holy Priesthood of the Son of God…”
the SEEMS to be a reference to polygamy and plural marriage, couldn’t everything else be done, granted with some tension, in the lands of the ‘gentiles’ ?? I’ll let those who know Mormon history much better than I weigh in on that one.
Interesting how SHORT a Mormon ‘dispensation’ can be….as an ev. christian, we are used to thinking in many hundreds, if not thousands of years for a ‘dispensation’. I guess in LDS terms, a ‘dispensation’ can be…..I’m not sure how short: the polygamy thing went for 55yrs or so, unless you buy into the John Cairncross theory (see Ralph for details).
That’s some pretty neat flexibility there, “thou shalt gather, thus sayeth the LORD”, one generation, and then “no big deal, disperse to the nations” the next (or a few generations) later. CLUFF wants us to believe that this is God leading his people, building HIS kingdom…but it looks like the LDS god can’t quite make up HIS mind how much of a physical/political Zion HE wants…OK, that was a SMALL dose of sarcasm, I hope I slipped under the wire on that….
LAUTENSTACK: great quotes and posts, and you are so on the money about the GO YE THEREFORE, something I have to admit that even the Mormon faithful have been VERY good at since their earliest days, that example is something the evangelicals could learn from. GERMIT
Lautensack said:
“Really I thought it was God’s plan from the beginning to bless all nations
Now how can an overpopulated state of Utah “bless all nations”?
The real trick was to keep the influx active until exactly the right amount of strength was established, then begin to build pockets of strength throughout the world. Genius, but after all, the real author of the plan was God.
If He had followed that plan the first time, He could have made His Church last 300 or 400 years. As it was- 120 years at best.
If you ask me, rolling the Church out to the Gentiles was WAY to early. Better build a strong base in Jerusalem, overpower the Muslims, THEN roll the Gospel out to the rest of the world. Those Greek philosophers changed everything, pulled out the foundation, AND forced a gospel of heresy on the world.
I think He got it right this time. We are keeping the Greek philosophy (it the form of mainstream Christianity) at bay. True religion will prevail.
Cluff, I hope you wrote some of that in jest. Can you see the errors in it, not least of all Muslims existing at the time of the early church.
Speaking of Muslims, don’t they still have a required pilgrimige?
Not saying they are right with it, but that they still have it…
CRCluff wrote: “Now how can an overpopulated state of Utah “bless all nations”?” Well I wouldn’t say Utah blesses nations, rather God does. I mean there are Christians living there despite the heresy that has set up its stronghold in the midst of that state.
As for His plan, um… Islam wasn’t invented until the early seventh century… but now I see why you reject the truth, because God didn’t do things the way you would have liked. As for the crack about Greek philosophy, I suggest you study the Neo-Platonic roots of the Law of Eternal Progression, such a concept is far more Hellenic than anything found in Christianity. Furthermore I am truly sorry you worship such a weak god, who’s purposes are thwarted by men. One day you will admit the Lordship of Christ, I just pray for your sake it is in this life and not as a rebel who hates God in the next.
Lautensack
I will stick with my original plan.
If I were God, (hoping that lightning won’t strike) I would tell Peter to migrate all the Christian converts from among the Israelites to Jerusalem until 3rd century, open up the doors to Samaritans in the 5th, the other descendents of Abraham in the 7th Century, that should pick up the prophet Muhamud, THEN the Greeks and other gentiles could join in the 8th century.
We could avoid the dark ages for nearly 1,000 years!
I am making a mental note. When I become God, travel back through time to create the world, be sure to mention to my son Jesus that He should tell Peter NOT to give the gospel to the Gentiles, talk about pearls before swine.
I can learn from my mistakes. This can be done better.
Who is in control? God.
Who does he direct? Us (Mormons)
What does he tell us? Bless the world with his gospel.
How do we do that?
Easy. FIRST build a postion of strength in the rocky mountains, then send missionaries out into the world so they can build pockets of strength everywhere.
Why? Because the first plan didn’t work.
Why? (now I sound like my little girl) Because the world rejected the foundation of apostles and prophets in exchange for the platitudes of Plato.
Who could have known? That Satan guy is a real pain. It is a good thing that the end is the same as the beginning for God. This one eternal round thing is great.
Next time around, build a position of strength first.
GRCluff,
So you think your plans are better than God’s and your Wisdom is higher than His. That’s good to know. Also you basically just admitted that your god did not have any foresight at all and is in fact very dumb and weak, maybe he went to public god school since his parents couldn’t afford a better god education for him. Good thing you’re smart enough to not make his mistakes. Oh and you know Plato and his philosophy ruined your gods “plan of salvation” you know the one where you progress up the chain of being until you reach godhood yourself by being moral, nothing at all like Plato and his chain of being where you move from the material world to the world of the forms by progressing up the chain of being until you reach the level of the forms by being moral. Silly Plato don’t you know that’s not how the gospel works…
Your God is eternal? I though he was once a man, as you are, who became a god… lets keep our theologies straight here. It’s the Christians who believe in One Eternal Immutable Omnipotent God, not the Mormons. And really God is not in control in the Mormon faith, he failed to protect his bride, the church, and let her be ravaged remember by Greek Philosophy right? It is man who controls God, at least in this life on earth in the theology of Mormonism. But like I said earlier, your wiser and smarter than your god, so what do I know. Oh yeah, I have scripture on my side, you know, “upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.” (Mat 16:18) “to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever!” (Eph 3:21) Oh yeah and “the heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.” (Proverbs 16:9) My God is one who laughs at those, such as Joseph Smith Jr., who plot against Him (Psalm 2:4) because to Him the nations are nothing and there are none who you could compare to Him.(Isa 40:17-18) Again I am sorry your god is so stupid and weak.
Lautensack
SteveH: “in the 19th century the clarion call was for the saints to gather to Zion…”
Well, if only God, and/or HIS prophets could find the darn thing….1st it was Kirtland, then in Jackson County MO, then Nauvoo, then Salt Lake, currently nowhere in particular. That’s an interesting tune, I guess that’s your god fine tuning the message to each generation, giving specific revelation and all. I like the reference Lautensack gave in Is 40:17, to the real GOD, the nations are as nothing, and no puny plan of THEIRS will frustrate HIS plans and purposes (compare how GOD has been able to defend ISRAEL , and when HIS people were disobedient, HE didn’t set up a different JERUSALEM, HIS people went off into captivity for awhile. Quite different, or it looks that way to me.
JS and BY were nothing if not pragmatic, and they moved the church as needed, as CLUFF noted for ‘the right amount of strength’. When you are preaching some kind of theocracy, which they were for awhile, mixed with polygamy, you can expect to have to change location a time or two, or face some kind of hostility (this is the elephant walking thru the room when talking about past LDS persecution). All of this looks rather different than the ‘going out to all the nations’ approach of early church history, a strategy that shows what has been on God’s mind for all eternity. GERMIT
Cluff said;
“If He had followed that plan the first time, He could have made His Church last 300 or 400 years. As it was- 120 years at best.
If you ask me, rolling the Church out to the Gentiles was WAY to early. Better build a strong base in Jerusalem, overpower the Muslims, THEN roll the Gospel out to the rest of the world. Those Greek philosophers changed everything, pulled out the foundation, AND forced a gospel of heresy on the world. ”
Sorry Cluff, you crossed two lines here, and I am appalled.
The first is to suggest that God’s plan for the church somehow failed at the first attempt. You are pitting yourself against the Jesus who said “I will build MY church and the gates of hell shall no prevail against it” (Matt 16:18 – emphasis mine). You plainly assert that your church is better than Jesus’. How double-faced of you to claim that you are somehow upholding his legacy!
The second line you crossed is your assertion that it is the church’s job to overpower non-believers. Though the argument is probably lost on you (given your stated position), Christ himself did not come to impose his dominion, but to love his enemies (Matt 20:28). The great paradox of Christianity is that we worship a God who rules by serving, and it is the calling of the true church is to do likewise. Your inclination to impose dominion looks much like the inclination of the Roman church on the eve of the reformation. Do you want to roll back the reformation and re-establish a medieaval heirarchy? Given that LDS frequently use the reformation to prefigure the “continuing revelation” of their movement, your position appears absurd.
By the way, please desist from playing the racism card by goading us with the “Moslems are a greater threat” line. Remember that God loved Moslems so much that he sent his one and only Son to die for them (John 3:16 – my paraphrase). I’d be happy to talk to you (and Moslems) about Islam, but not on this forum.
Martin said:
You plainly assert that your church is better than Jesus’
I can see your confusion. Maybe I can clear some of this up.
I am comparing the “gathering to Zion” theme for Christ’s Church in the first century, to His church in the 19th century. (That Mormon Church)
From your perspective, they may not be the same, but to me I see some things in common:
1. In both cases, the world had declined to a state of darkness. Prophecy had ceased.
2. In both cases, there was a prophet called to restore the truth. John the Baptist to prepare the way for Christ’s first coming, Joseph Smith to prepare the way for his second comming.
3. In both cases there were many sects that thought they had all the truth they needed.
4. In both cases a Church organization was created.
5. In both cases the Church was commanded to “preach to every nation”.
Now the way that the Church moved forward though time was significantly different from my perspective.
The 1st century Church got too spread out too fast. They lacked consistent faith, and failed to follow the Holy Ghost until spiritual gifts ceased. That is when the world took over and Satan began to create his churches.
Maybe I should add my interpretation of Matt 16:18.
On this rock, the rock of revelation, I will build my Church. As long as revelation and priesthood authority is on the earth, the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
When ongoing revelation ended, the proper priesthood authority was revoked. The foundation was lost and we got our first Pope. He was a very poor substitute for a foundation. No priesthood authority, no revelation.
Does that help?
GRCluff,
1) I agree, but the world has been in a state of darkness since Genesis 3, it still is, and will be until Christ’s return. This in no way affects God’s ability to keep a remnant for Himself. (1 Kings 19:9-18)
2) So Joseph Smith was preparing the way of the second coming? Hmm… I could have sworn that Jesus said He would come again like a thief in the night, when we would not expect Him. Oh right, He did. (Matt 24:42-44 cf. 1 Thes 5:1-2)
3) This unfortunately cannot be used to substantiate your claim because there are over 100 sects that claim to follow the true teachings of Joseph Smith Jr.
4) I agree, the first time it was the true church. Joseph Smith’s is a cheap knock off.
5) I agree, but in the first case we are told to declare the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27 cf Matt 28:20) in the second you are not rather you are to hide things that seem embarrassing.
As for your eisegesis of Matthew 16:18 are you saying that you would correct Jesus by saying “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will never prevail against it, that is of course unless men choose to thwart the plans of God Almighty since he has no control in the lives of men, and is actually just a weak dumb god with no foresight whatsoever.”
So when Leo the First became the First Pope in 440 AD priesthood authority was lost. Okay, assuming that was true, and that Jesus was no longer our High Priest (a direct implication of losing priesthood authority Heb 6:20), what about the 400 years before that, when the Bishop of Rome wasn’t a Pope? As for a foundation I could have sworn the foundation had already been laid in the Prophets and Apostles with Christ as its Cornerstone, oh that’s right, it had. (Eph 2:19-22) Oh and shoot that passage is speaking about believers being a metaphorical building, or do you think that believers should actually being made into a physical “dwelling place for God” even though the verse states “in the Spirit?
Lautensack
Lautensack:
Speaking of the Church:
Eph 2:11 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Why a foundation of apostles and prophets?
Because they are the people authorized to receive revelation for the Church. The apostles are the ones delegated in fact to speak for the Lord. The ONLY way he can be the cornerstone is through communication with those on earth.. It is revelation FROM Christ through the Holy Spirit that can establish a solid foundation for true doctrines.
You are right to bring that up in the context of Matt 16:18, but you offer an invalid interpretation.
Matt 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Note that Peter had the proper approach for truth. Not flesh and blood but communication with God? Isn’t that the foundation I just recommended?
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Now Christ extends the same foundation to the whole Church. That foundation was apostles and prophets, was it not? Peter was one of the apostles, and about to become the next prophet of the Church was he not? It is the same foundation; revelation.
Here is how it works:
1. Peter specifically, and the prophet (which Peter was) and apostles in general have the proper priesthood authority. The Catholic Church has that part right.
2. The best evidence of proper priesthood authority is ongoing revelation. The prophet speaks with God (the cornerstone) to learn his will directly. The Catholics lost that when they lost the priesthood authority.
GRCluff wrote: Because they are the people authorized to receive revelation for the Church. The apostles are the ones delegated in fact to speak for the Lord. The ONLY way he can be the cornerstone is through communication with those on earth. It is revelation FROM Christ through the Holy Spirit that can establish a solid foundation for true doctrines.
Would it then be your position that the Apostles never gave us this foundation of Revelation, they never wrote down what God would have them write down for faith and practice. Also why is God continuing to lay and relay a foundation rather than build upon that?
GRCluff wrote: 1. Peter specifically, and the prophet (which Peter was) and apostles in general have the proper priesthood authority. The Catholic Church has that part right.
2. The best evidence of proper priesthood authority is ongoing revelation. The prophet speaks with God (the cornerstone) to learn his will directly. The Catholics lost that when they lost the priesthood authority.
1. I think you need to note that through out the old testament there is a distinction between Prophet and Priest, something Mormon’s don’t catch in their study of the OT. Some Prophets were priests (Ezekiel) some weren’t. (Isaiah) Furthermore not all prophets would qualify for the Mormon Priesthood, namely Anna, Deborah, Miriam, the four unmarried daughters of Phillip.
2. This is built upon the false understanding that a Prophet is a Priest, see above, it is also built upon the faulty premise that all believers are not a “royal priesthood” (2 Peter 1:9)
Lautensack
Lautensack asked:
Would it then be your position that the Apostles never gave us this foundation of Revelation, they never wrote down what God would have them write down for faith and practice. Also why is God continuing to lay and relay a foundation rather than build upon that?
Excellent questions, lets see if I can do them justice.
The apostle Paul teaches the concept like this:
1 Cor 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
You mention faith, but in what does your faith lie? Is it in the wisdom of men(and their ability to understand and interpret the Bible) or in the power of God?
Try this:
1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
I know Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration, not because it is clearly stated in the Bible, but because it was the SAME spirit (the Holy Spirit) that told me Jesus was Christ.
It worked for me just like Paul taught, but it required the proper foundation- faith in the power of God as was suggested in demonstration of the Spirit and of power
The foundation is layed and relayed individually and globally as true faith is exercised — the way Paul taught. Without faith in the power of God there is no foundation.
GRCluff wrote: You mention faith, but in what does your faith lie? Is it in the wisdom of men(and their ability to understand and interpret the Bible) or in the power of God?
Are you saying we shouldn’t interpret and understand the bible, that we shouldn’t “study to show ourselves approved by God” (2 Tim 2:15) That seems to be what you are saying, but I may be mistaken.
Furthermore the dichotomy you set up is a false one, because no where does Paul mention the study of the scriptures in 1 Cor 1-2, he does say that the Jews, like the Mormons, demand signs (a burning in the bosom is a sign) but he says the Power of God is Christ and Him Crucified. Now if I say my faith rests wholly upon the Crucifixion of Christ as my substitute contrary to the wisdom of the world which states if we are Moral enough we can earn God’s favor, who is really trusting the Power of God and who is seeking refuge in the wisdom of men?
1 Cor 12:3 brings us back to a discussion of Christ, that Lord, which is linked to the Shema of the Old Testament, is God. Joseph Smith Jr. does not do this, rather he makes Jesus a lesser deity than the Father, removing the distinction between God and Man he became an anti-Christ by denying Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3)
Finally you haven’t answered the question you set out to, rather you avoided it. Where in 1 Cor 2, since that was your passage, does Paul teach a succession of Apostles and Prophets? Where does he teach that the apostles didn’t fully lay the foundation he spoke of in Eph 2:19-22, and that we must relay the foundation? According to 1 Cor 1:3-2:5 the foundational teaching of the Apostles is Christ and Him Crucified, that is the foundation not signs or demonstrations of the Spirit and of Power, for there is no greater demonstration than this. I pray that you will repent of your worldliness and reject the wisdom of the man Joseph Smith Jr. and place your faith in the Cross of Jesus Christ, which is the Power of God.
Lautensack
Lautensack wrote:
he does say that the Jews, like the Mormons, demand signs (a burning in the bosom is a sign) but he says the Power of God is Christ and Him Crucified.
My interpretation differs.
The only thing he claims to know, is Christ and Him crucified. No statement was made to equate Christ to the power of God in this context.
The power of God is the demonstration of spirit and of power.
That explains the word POWER used together with the demonstration of spirit. In the same sentence?
The burning in the bosom that you mention is none other that the demonstration of spirit that Paul mentions. You will trip all over yourself to back pedal away from that one.
Once you gain some experience with those activities (the demonstration of the spirit) you realize that the Holy Ghost DOES offer power.
The power to know that God lives. The power to know that Jesus is Christ. The power to teach things you don’t really know. The knowledge of things to be. The power of prophecy. The power of seership. You see were I am going with this.
You really have to twist things here to find an interpretation that works with your flawed theology.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to accept it as it is written, to understand that spiritual gifts — the ones that you deny– are real? The only problem is– they exist in the Mormon Church, not in the poor substitute you follow.
GRCluff Wrote: “The only thing he claims to know, is Christ and Him crucified. No statement was made to equate Christ to the power of God in this context.”
Really, have you even read the passage you are interpreting in it’s context? It begins in 1 Corinthians 1:18, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:24 Paul interchanges the Cross with Christ Himself as the power of God, and the wisdom of God for that matter. Even the LDS Quad cross references refer to this power as being Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:7, D&C 19:3, D&C 88:7-13)
GRCluff Wrote: “That explains the word POWER used together with the demonstration of spirit. In the same sentence? The burning in the bosom that you mention is none other that the demonstration of spirit that Paul mentions. You will trip all over yourself to back pedal away from that one.”
Or we could allow scripture to interpret itself and see that the Power of God is Christ and Him Crucified at least in the immediate context. There is no break in the text that would demonstrate that Paul has stopped speaking of the Cross of Christ as the demonstration of the Spirit and Power. Now I agree that the Spirit does offer power, as seen in its apex at the cross of Christ, but no where in the text is an experience mentioned, rather Paul warns against such signs.
….Continued….
….Continued….
Finally you assume I am a cessationalist, not sure what this actually has to do with the passage at hand, perhaps if we were discussing 1 Corinthians 12 this would be relevant. Unfortunately if we let the text speak for itself we see that the Cross of Christ is the “demonstration of the Spirit and power” of God. Not a sign or wonder such as a “burning in the bosom.” Therefore I must conclude by quoting you. “You really have to twist things here to find an interpretation that works with your flawed theology.” You must bring things into the text which simply are not there. I would be happy to converse with you on the spiritual gifts if a relevant passage were being discussed however from 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5 the power and wisdom of God is the Cross of Christ. This may seem like foolishness to you, and if it does, there may be a reason for that, 1 Corinthians 1:18 is a hint. I pray that you will come to know the power of God which is Christ and Him Crucified.
Lautensack
To All: it seems like no matter what the topic of the thread is, we seem to gravitate toward the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS; the witness of the HOLY SPIRIT and POWER. Just an observation, and I know I have wandered away from many a theme myself, so I’m certainly living in the proverbial glass house BUT what do any of the last 8 or 10 posts have to do with Zion?? Just wondering. GERmIT
germit:
I guess that was my fault, I started comparing the restoration of the gospel in our day to the restoration that happened in Christ’s day. I found the lack of “gatherering to Zion” in Christ’s originial Church quite interesting.
Lautensack:
The “power of God” is made manifest in many ways. Salvation through Christ is one of them, but you seem to limit His power to that event alone.
God DOES have power to communcate with man, and comunication through the Holy Spirit is also a manifestation of that power. That is the power that Christians today continue to deny. Paul appears to put God’s power into that context in my view.
Cluff said
“Does that help?”
Thanks for posting a civil reply to my ealier post.
I could write more, but the discussion has moved on. To respond briefly;
1 No I don’t buy the idea that the LDS movement has finally got it right after maybe 1700 years (by your reckoning) of getting it wrong. The reason has got little to to do with structure and much about how Christ rules his church.
2 Its a cheap shot to resort to the “Islam is a greater threat” and “the Roman Catholic Church is evil” lines. The double irony is that Mormonism reflects the Christology of Islam and the ecclesiology of Medieaval Roman Catholicism.