Mormons believe that in 1820 a young Joseph Smith went into the woods to pray. In answer to that prayer, they believe, Joseph was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ. Today this is called the First Vision. As Joseph reported this vision (in the version that has since been named “official”), he asked the Deities which sect or church was right, and which one he should join. Joseph wrote,
“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt…” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19)
Mormonism entered into the religious scene swinging. According to Mormonism’s founding prophet, if you are not a Mormon, your church is wrong, your beliefs are abomination to God, and you and your fellow professing church members are all corrupt.
I wonder if Mormons would see this as an example of “the blessings of faith [that] carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate” that Mitt Romney has been talking about recently?
Last weekend Dallas Pastor Robert Jeffress publically identified Mormonism as a theological cult. Dr. Jeffress used the term “cult” as a theological classification, not as a pejorative, but that point seems to be lost on Mormons and the mainstream media.
Since Dr. Jeffress’ comments have been made known, Mormons have been vocally decrying his “bigotry,” his “hatred,” and his “fanaticism.” Truthfully, this all too common knee-jerk Mormon reaction grows wearisome.
Mormonism’s very existence is unseverable from the “poisonous language” of its founders and leaders. Why was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints established? Because all existing churches in 1820 were declared wrong–they had abominable creeds and corrupt members professing those creeds. The Mormon Church was established because (it claims) true Christianity had vanished from the earth; it had fallen into complete and total apostasy:
“Every Latter-day Saint knows that following the death of the apostles, Paul’s prophecy was fulfilled, for there were many ‘grievous wolves’ that entered the flock, and men arose ‘speaking perverse things,’ so that the doctrines were changed and the true Church of Jesus Christ ceased to be on the earth. For this reason there had to come a restoration of the Church and a new revelation and bestowal of divine authority. The Church of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures are, therefore, not responsible for the changed doctrines and unscientific teachings of those times, when uninspired ecclesiastics controlled the thinking of the people.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, pp. 467)
Consider just a few of the “punches” Mormonism has thrown in its fight against Christianity:
“Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers’ sermons—preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born.” (Heber C. Kimball, July 26, 1857, Journal of Discourses 5:89-90)
“Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity.” (Brigham Young, July 8, 1863, Journal of Discourses, 10:230).
“What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing…Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest of fools…” (John Taylor, May 6, 1870, Journal of Discourses 13:225)
“I do not wish to say anything in relation to other forms of religion; I do not know that it is necessary that I should do so; but no thinking man can admit that Christianity so-called—I call it a false Christianity, untrue to its name—satisfies the wants of humanity at the present time.” (George Q. Cannon, July 15, 1883, Journal of Discourses 24:185)
“The false and corrupt institutions, and still more corrupt practices of ‘Christendom,’ have had a downward tendency in the generations of man for many centuries. …The overthrow of those ancient degenerate races is a type of that which now awaits the nations called ‘Christian,’ or in other words, ‘the great whore that sitteth upon many waters….” (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 1978, p. 106)
“A false Christ…is a false system of worship, a false church, a false cult that says: ‘Lo, here is salvation; here is the doctrine of Christ. Come and believe thus and so, and ye shall be saved.’…We hear the voice of false Christs when we hear the Athanasian Creed proclaim that ‘whosoever will be saved’ must believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are incomprehensible and uncreated, that they form a Trinity of equals, who are not three Gods but one God, and not one God but three Gods, and that unless we so believe we ‘cannot be saved,’ and ‘shall perish everlastingly.’” (Bruce McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man, p. 48.)
“False creeds make false churches. There is no salvation in believing a lie. Every informed, inspired, and discerning person is revolted by the absurdities and scripture-defying pronouncements in the creeds of Christendom…” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary 1:30. Footnote 2)
“To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic…Still, ‘the power of God unto salvation’ (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth (D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized.” (Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, December 1984, p. 9)
Given the statements I’ve quoted above, I’m astonished that Mormons cry foul when any Christian declares that Mormonism is outside the theological boundaries of Christianity. Do Mormons really believe it is reprehensibly one-sided for evangelical Christians to use strong language to define the fact that there are vast differences between Mormonism and Christianity? Apparently so; a Mormon calling himself Eichendorff went on record with this non sequitur: “no Latter-day Saint makes a point of condemning the beliefs of Evangelicals.”
Mormons who complain about Christians questioning the theology of Mormonism–protesting against any suggestion that Mormonism isn’t Christianity with cries of “bigotry,” “hatred,” and “fanaticism”—need to take a look at the historical discourse found in their own church. I would like to see Mormons abandon this hypocritical name-calling and (changing sports metaphors here) step up to the plate for real, thoughtful discussion. As Bill McKeever is fond of saying, “If Mormons want to be in the religious Big Leagues they need to knock it off.”
Why was Religion even brought up? Isn’t there a Constitutional “wall of separation between church and state”. If Mormons are not Christians and the issue is brought to light, how is this debate going to determine if one is fit for occupying the White House based on this wall of separation and freedom to practice your religion as one see fit to do so. What if I was to accuse a Jew of not being Christian, does this discount his qualification as being fit for election to the highest office in the land? What if a man/women claims to be a atheist, is this so important that a Christian should only vote for a Christian? Aren’t we all equal in the eyes of a inspired Constitution.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”
Sharon, it’s important for everyone to be reminded of this behavior that to many Mormons
still resort to . Much of this probably stems from how Mormons keep their history alive by
emphasizing how they were once persecuted so this gives them a license to shift the focus
away from some of their “unique” doctrines . This can also remind us to watch what words
we use in witnessing to the Mormon people , and it would be beneficial to a constructive
dialog if Mormons would do likewise .
And this concludes our lesson today on the meaning of a “double standard”. Too bad so many Mormons steer clear of sites like this. It’s possible that it could stop some of the whining. It drives me nuts to hear them call theological disagreements as “persecution” while Christians are being killed in Egypt (and other parts of the country) for their beliefs.
And while I tend to vote for candidates that share the same values, beliefs, and viewpoints as I do; I agree with Henry in that I’m not sure why the debates keep coming back around to Romney’s religion. The good that may come out of it is that people will start becoming more aware of the Mormon beliefs and researching a little more thoroughly. I can’t tell you how many Christians I know that are ignorant to what Mormons believe, then when they get cornered by the MMs, they don’t know how to defend their own beliefs, much less witness to them.
I would like Mitt to be asked if he believes that the doctrines expressed in the Apostles and Nicene Creed are abominable. I would also like him to be asked if he thinks that the first century Church went into apostasy after the death of the apostles and needed to be restored.
Never having been a Mormon I don’t know what they think about the Christian religion. My guess is that our exMormon posters could let us know what’s talked about regarding Christianity within Mormon circles.
What was the basic reason for Mormonism being founded?
The question above asks mainly why the big reaction to the statement where the pastor called the LDS church a ‘cult’. It’s an easy question to answer. These days the word ‘cult’ brings the connotation of something that is evil and dark like the occult. Where-as I know you are taking the word to mean what it originally meant – which is a system of religion or worship or following of a person or thing – under which meaning Christianity can also be called a cult.
It’s like the way you don’t like us using the ‘anti-‘ word as these days it has a harsher connotation than it originally had. The same can be said about many words and the evolution of their meanings – like ‘gay’. It used to mean happy; it was a girl’s name (my mother-in-law’s name was Gay) – now-a-days it is used to denote a homosexual man.
So why the fuss about the word ‘cult’ because the connotation behind it is darker these days than what you want to give it credit for because you want to try and discredit the LDS church.
Falcon,
Of course the first century church went into apostasy. There were many Christian theologies in that period of time, but ultimately around the 4th century the ‘orthodox’ theology won out and the majority of doctrines written by the others were destroyed. When you say that the orthodox Christianity you follow was the majority in early times you are ascribing to a view point that has been proven false by historians for almost 50 years now since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts and other findings. The orthodox Christianity you follow was just one small religion of many Christian ones that grew up then.
Ralph, nice response to the OP. I was wondering about this today and asked my self what good did it do for this Christian man to make such a declarative statement. It kind of puts Rick Perry in a bad spot, what if Romney was to ask Perry if he also thought Romney was not a Christian. How does he answer this without making a issue and angering many of the Conservative Right Wing, many of the same Tea Party voters who also support Glenn Beck and his views. Rick Perry a self proclaimed Christian has to either agree, or disagree and then anger some of the Christian Right who are pretty much in agreement that the LDS Church is a cult and not Christian. I don’t think Perry will lose many votes if he did not agree with this person, but it sets a standard if Rick says, yes I think Romney is a Christian. King of a set back for many Christians who profess otherwise.
Ralph,
As usually you put an interesting spin on the history of the first four hundred years of Christian history. You said, “the majority of doctrines written by the others were destroyed”. And your proof for this is what? That’s not even good conjecture Ralph. What it is is a hope and a prayer trying to find some reason for the need for the “restoration” by the man with the magic rock you follow. Ralph, did you know that there is evidence of UFO and space aliens involvement in the first century Church but it’s all disappeared? That’s right. It was all destroyed along with all of the Mormonism in the first century Church. The Catholic monks did it Ralph.
Ralph, you haven’t changed much in the years you and I have been doing this dance. You provide absolutely no references for your assertions and just repeat Mormon talking points. You have absolutely nothing to offer other than that Ralph, Mormon talking points.
If you want to get serious about studying early Church history let me know Ralph and I’ll provide you with some solid references.
I think you better do a little more study before you just grab something out of left field and present it as some sort of authentic information. I get a kick out of how Mormons want to align themselves with heretics.
Henry,
You think Romney is a Christian? So what evidence do you have for that assertion? Define for me what a Christian is. That would be helpful. Give me some criteria. I heard Romney say on his last run at this that he had “accepted Jesus as His Lord and Savior”. Now typically I’d say if he has done that he’s a Christian. But then I have to go to the next level and ask, “Who is this Jesus that Romney claims he has accepted as his Lord and Savior?” Mormons have gotten very good at appropriating evangelical Christian language but the definitions of the terms are totally different. Quite frankly, that irritates me. The Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses all claim “Jesus”. But their Jesus isn’t the Jesus revealed in the Bible.
So here we go again beating a well worn path.
Ralph, your theory on the original christians all giving up on their devotion to Jesus
and allowing false teachers to completely deceive them gets old. There have been true
believers all down through history to today . You might want to look in the mirror
when it comes apostasy as you are on record testifying that one day you’ll be worshipped
as an Almighty God just as in Rev. 4:8-11 . The One and only True Creator loves you Ralph
and He is waiting for you to dismiss the modern-day prophets you follow that convinced
you of this incredible lie . Please don’t put this off . Rom.1:25
Ralph,
Are you aware of the Great Apostasy in Mormonism? You see after the death of Joseph Smith there were all these competing ideas but the one that won out was promoted by Brigham Young. In fact Ralph, at last count there were at least 70 sects of Mormonism all claiming to be the restoration of original Christianity. All these competing ideas are merely currents in the same stream and the Utah sect is one of the stronger currents.
The grand manifesto ending polygamy in the Mormon church signaled another Great Apostasy but a Fundamentalist sect emerged holding strong to the true restoration. Let’s try this one. After Joseph Smith presented his BoM and the Book of Commandments, he went into apostasy when he changed the original Book of Commandments for the Doctrines of Covenants. This signaled the beginning of the apostasy as another Mormon group stayed with the original revelation and is the true restoration.
How about this. After the true revelation was given via the BoM, changes were made in the text changing the restoration doctrines. This signaled the great apostasy in the Mormon church. Only those holding to the original BoM have the true revelation.
Ralph, I can spin these stories all day long and several sects of Mormonism hold to what I’ve presented. There’s a great apostasy for every sect of Mormonism that emerges.
What’s my point? Mormonism spins a story of a great apostasy in order to justify Smith’s invention. The history of the Christian Church, the doctrines and traditions are well documented as are the heresy’s that challenged the orthodoxy. The basic doctrines of the primitive Christian Church are well known. I have graphs and charts here documenting all of it. The problem with Mormons is they take what little they know about the history and distort it.
Falcon,
I have been doing research into the first and second century Christian community recently using a series of lectures (24 in total) by Bart Ehrman. In these lectures and notes he references over 20 different people (besides his own works) whose works are about the early church, and most can be found in my local university library so I can verify these references. In all of these they provide evidence that your ‘brand’ of Christianity was just one small sect out of many and that it is now the dominant because of various reasons. The majority of the written works of the other Christian faiths (eg Marcionites and Ebionites) were destroyed. So I agree that the Christianity you believe in was around in the first century, I do not agree that it was the only one or the major one. Just because it ‘won the war’ and wrote the history thus showing itself to be ‘The One’ does not mean that it is. As I gave as evidence above, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts show some earlier manuscripts than the church fathers you refer too which give different doctrines than your Christianity. Also the fact that your early church fathers had to write papers against what they call heresy (ie contradictory to their beliefs) indicates that there were many sects back then as well. The only reason they are called the church fathers is because their brand of Christianity came out on top and thus they are revered today by people who believe the same as them.
As far as referencing any of the books in Bart Ehrman’s seminars, I do not have the notes here at work and cannot do it at the moment.
BTW, his lectures are very balanced. I would not have picked him as an ex-Christian athiest which he describes himself to be. In many of his lectures he actually supports the Trinitarian doctrine over the other doctrinal points given, and he also seems to support the ideology of a God.
I do know that some on this site have given their opinions about him in the past, but he is highly revered within his field from both non-Christian and Christian historians from what I have read about him.
One question I would like the pastor above to answer is does he think that Roman Catholics are Christian? That would throw him off side to many people regardless of what his answer would be.
I do know that there are a few on this site that would not include the RC as a Christian faith as they have stated this in the past, and Falcon keeps giving that impression everytime he denotes between his past and present belief.
So if the pastor said ‘No’ that would put him at odds to all the RC out there in the world, not just America. But if he said ‘Yes’ then many of the evangelical community would snub him. He couldn’t win either way.
But I agree with Henry above, as far as I understand about the American system, the question of which religion someone belongs to if they are running for president or any other political position is invalid as neither the twain should meet. This pastor is just running a scare campaign.
Here in Australia the faith of the Prime Minister candidates is never broached when it comes to election, even if it is well known (ie Tony Abbot is Christian (and puts his foot in his mouth many times with stupid comments based on his faith), while Julia Gillard is athiest). But this is never brought up during the pre-election campaigns, jsut the party’s policies and past performances and the person’s personal record in other governmental offices.
Ralph,
I only had to read the name you referenced and really didn’t have to go any further reading your post. Try this:
“It is not sufficient to reply that Bart is writing for a popular audience and thus we would not expect much scholarly discussion even in the footnotes. Even in a work of this sort, we would expect some good up to date bibliography for those disposed to do further study, not merely copious cross-references to one’s other popular level books. Contrast for example, my last Harper book What Have They Done with Jesus? The impression is left, even if untrue, that Ehrman’s actual knowledge of and interaction with NT historians, exegetes, and theologians has been and is superficial and this has led to overly tendentious and superficial analysis. Again, I would be glad to be proved wrong about this, but it would certainly appear I am not.
This book could have been written by an intelligent skeptical person who had no more than a seminary level acquaintance and expertise in the field of NT studies itself. And I do not say this lightly, for this book manifests problems in all areas, if one critiques it on the basis of NT scholarship of the last thirty or so years. There are methodological problems, historical problems, exegetical problems, theological problems, and epistemological problems with this book, to mention but a few areas.”
[…]
– Source: Bart Interrupted — A Detailed Analysis of ‘Jesus, Interrupted’ Part Oneoffsite Ben Witherington, April 7, 2009
That’s a little critique. I think you better find another source!
Ralph, How can you say or teach their was a great apostasy among the christian church? According to Your BoM their are 3 apostles, one of them being the apostle John who will never die. If that is the case, then an apostasy is clearly impossible, otherwise your BoM is wrong.
Yes Falcon,
That critique was about one of his works. The one in particular I am referring to is “Lost Christianities” which has a number of favourable reviews from Christian sites as well as other sites. although one I read said it lacked in a position and was too politically correct. It outlines a number of the first and second century Christian doctrines as well as what ‘scripture’ can be found. He explains that most of the ‘scripture’ that support these groups have been lost or destroyed by the now orthodox group, but what has been found are most likely forgeries made by these other Christian groups in the name of an apostle or other important NT figure, thus ruling out that group’s doctrine as being the true one taught by Jesus.
So the question remains, if there was so much diversity in the early Christian church before the council in Niceae, which one was correct? Can you definately say without spiritual confirmation that the Trinitarian Christianity that you subscribe to is in fact what Jesus and His apostles taught? Or was one of the other branches of Christianity from the early church times the one true doctrine and your’s is the corrupt one?
Rick,
There is one apostle – John the beloved, that was promised to live until the second coming. There wer 3 nephite disciples that were given the same promise. The apostasy was the removal of priesthood authority from the general populace. Since these 4 men’s whereabouts is unknown, yes there was a great apostasy.
One thing that folks can always count on with Mormonism, is it’s total lack of logic in relation to it’s doctrine. We have 4 guys with the Priesthood on the earth yet we are told,
“Since these 4 men’s whereabouts is unknown, yes there was a great apostasy.”
Can anyone really stand behind this with a straight face? Really? Especially when we have Mormon “prophets” telling us,
If the Presidency were to be killed off, then the Council of the Twelve Apostles would stand in their place and preside until the Presidency should be restored; and if they and the First Presidency were all killed off, then the seventies would come forward and they would establish the order of Zion and renew the order of the priesthood upon the earth; and if all the seventies were killed off, and yet there was one elder possessing the Melchizedek Priesthood, he would have authority to organize the Church, under the command of God and the guidance of His Holy Spirit, as Joseph did in the beginning; that it should be re-established in its perfect form. So you can see that this organization is well-nigh undestructible.-Joseph F. Smith, Liahona, or Elder’s Journal 4:45-46, September 7, 1895.
Now what was the purpose of these 4 men, the “desire of their hearts” in staying? To bring souls to Christ, right? So, in all the time they have been here, what have they been doing? Oh yeah, John the Revelator is on a floating rock somewhere with the Ten Tribes… But that still leaves the “Nephites”. They couldn’t find 1 person? 10 people? Enough to organize a Church? God spared Nineveh, for just such a reason, but these guys were so ineffective that they couldn’t find anyone in 1400 years? Give me a break. _johnny
Ralph,
Can you say with all certainty that the doctrine that you follow with the Utah LDS church is the correct one within the plethora of competing doctrines in Mormonism? How do you know which “spiritual revelation” regarding Mormon doctrine is the correct one?
I think you need to think that through before you start in on the early Church history (first 400 years) of the Christian Church. The little scenario you are trying to spin regarding competing doctrines in the early Church has a heavy Mormon scent about it.
Let me remind you of something the apostle Paul wrote: “That which I have received I have handed on to you.”
From whom did Paul receive the gospel? He received it via a revelation from Jesus who appeared to him. I’d say that’s “spiritually revealed”. The bishops of the early Church were charged to teach what they had received from the apostles. The bishops battled back continually, against the heretics. Mormons have this great desire to side with the heretics. Like Mormons, the heretics had this way of twisting the Scriptures to their own heretical way of thinking. So the Church Fathers would continually appeal to the “traditions” of the Church.
The mistake that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses make is that they point to Nicaea, not the Bible, as the source of the doctrine of the Trinity, and interpret the Council as the triumph of heresy over orthodoxy, rather than the reverse. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses would have us believe that Emperor Constantine forced the Council to adopt the crucial word consubtantial (homoousios) to describe the equal divinity of the Father and the Son. What actually was the case was that authority was found through the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus final authority was God Himself.
(attribution; Christian History Issue 85).
Ralph,
I would suggest that if you really want to know and understand the Christian faith, you take the time and trouble to explore/read the writings of the Church Fathers. Granted, not one of these Giants had a magic rock with which he could see buried treasure in the ground, but they did have the Scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The author of “The Rebirth of Orthodoxy: Signs of New Life in Christianity” makes the following comments in regards to his “discovery” of the writings of the Church Fathers.
“After Ph.D. studies at Yale, I taught in two seminaries…….I was uncritically accommodating to the very modernity that pretended to be prophetic, yet I did not recognize modernity’s captivity to secular humanistic assumptions…….my irascible, endearing Jewish mentor told me that I would remain theologically uneducated until I had studied carefully Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, and Cyril of Alexandria……I worked my way through the beautiful texts of classic Christianity, I reemerged out of the secularizing maze to delight in the holy mysteries of the faith and in the recurrent puzzles of human existence……Every question I thought was new I found had been already much investigated. I was on the threshold of the intergenerational wisdom of the ancient community of faith, which I found was still persisting as a living, caring community. I now stand within the blessed presence of the communion of saints of all generations….What changed the course of my life? Attentiveness to the text of Scripture, especially as viewed by its early consensual interpreters: Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Chrysostom in the East; Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great in the West.
Ralph,
Before I’d jump on the band wagon of a guy like Bart Ehrman, I’d spend my time reading what the Church Fathers had to say.
Ralph, even thought the scriptures make it ever so clear, we find Orthodox Christians can pretty much kiss this off and create a mirage of double speak to explain the following verses.
“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27).
“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1).
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:27-28).
“Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
“Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
“Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
“Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
“This is the disciple [meaning himself; i.e., John] which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:20-24).
Ralph,
This seems to be the Christian consensus of John, Christ and death. I googled this topic and found that this is typical translation.
Bible Q&A, —- Did John not taste of death?
Bible Answer: There are places where Jesus spoke figuratively, but I believe this is an example of where He spoke literally. And you can see the literal fulfillment of this prophecy or prediction by Jesus in the very next verses which follow His statement, Matt. 17:1-3.
“Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, brought them up on a high mountain by themselves, and was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.”
Yet, does this mean that there is still not a debate even amongst Christians?
Adam Clarke, a scholar who published a comprehensive commentary on the Bible at the beginning of the nineteenth century, stated:
“Some have concluded from these words [in John 21:22] that John should never die. Many eminent men, ancients and moderns, have been and are of this opinion. . . . For nearly eighteen hundred years, the greatest men in the world have been puzzled with this passage. It would appear intolerable in me to attempt to decide, where so many eminent doctors have disagreed, and do still disagree.”
I might be more willing to stop using the “Anti” word if Evangelicals would stop using the “cult” word. Discussing and debating doctrines is fine, but when words with strongly negative connotations are used merely for an emotional reaction, then I start to have a problem.
The word cult already has a definition in the dictionary. Evangelicals took this word and made a new definition of it so that it could be applied to Mormons. They took a word that ALREADY had a definition and which brought with it some very heavy emotional baggage, and twisted it so that it could be used against Mormons.
Why was this done? On January 8, 2009, Aaron Shafovaloff posted on this website, “Bottom-line is that Christians need a useful word that is strongly negative to speak of parasitical religious movements like Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.” So he admits that the word cult is used because it is “strongly negative “.
How is that any different that the Mormon use of the “anti” word?
Ralph, Mormon mormon logic is lacking big time. You claim that because they four guys cannot be found then that means all priesthood authority has been removed. Thats crazy. John was to remain alive to preach the gospel. If he remained alive then thats means one person still has the priesthood and their was not a total apostasy.
Thats like saying, I lost my keys, well I might not be able to find them, but we know they did not simply fall off the earth so to speak. They still are here somewhere. This simply shos you guys are willing to believe what ever you want, and sadly at a great cost, your eternal lives. Read Jude, Eternal Blackness of darkness awaits you. How sad.
Also show me from the Bible where Jesus or any of the apostles, Peter, James, John, anyone ever says, YOU MUST HAVE PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY, and I pass this priesthood authority onto you to do these things, It is not in the Bible.
Mikey_Petey,
I notice you have posted here before. I notice you have a habit of only talking about minor issues like, Can we use strong words, or not? I notice when it comes to defending the faith as the Bible says, and standing up and defending the doctrines you believe, you seem to leave. Funny how thats IMO typical of Mormons. They are quick to tell us were wrong, yet they are more than slow to show us the love of Christ and teach us and show us where we are wrong and why and how.
“Can anyone really stand behind this with a straight face? Really?”
Really, and compared to some of the tortured logic I have seen Evangelicals use to defend Biblical inerrancy, easily. When we talk of the apostasy, we are talking about a loss of authority- we mean that nobody on earth was authorized to lead a church. But how can I say that those four (probably more from the other 10 tribes) were not authorized given all those statements about priesthood authority being good enough? Because authority is really an arbitrary thing. You have authority if and only if God wants you to have it. The many statements about what priesthood/blessing gives what authority in D&C are true so long as God wants them to be so, and do not necessarily apply outside the time period. I simply think that those semi-mortal people where spending their time increasing the righteousness in people groups to improve their layer of heaven, doing what little they could to move politics and technology along, and trying to poke Christian theology in the right direction etc. I doubt they really did very much in global terms. They didn’t try to make a church because it simply wasn’t appropriate at that time.
Since my comment about Biblical inerrancy having tortured logic is going to offend some of you, I had better give some examples. The Bible explicitly says it is “impossible for God to lie” Hebrew 6:18 Numbers 23:19 Titus 1:2 2. But it then says that God shall send on the wicked “A strong delusion” 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and has done so in the past Jeremiah 4:10 Ezekiel 14:9 1Kings 22:23. I find it incredible that someone could read them and think that they aren’t contradictory, but I’m sure most of you will.
There are three things to note about Jeffress’ comments. 1. I believe he said he would vote for a mormon or the best man for the job. 2. He stated his beliefs, He has the right to do that and he knows others believe the same way. 3. The term cult has been in our language for years meaning the same thing or something very close to it. I have also heard that Mitt has asked Perry to disavow Jeffress. If I were Perry I would not because it was Jeffress beliefs and he has a right to those beliefs And I have a right to mine.
I believe that God told Joseph Smith not to join any church because God said they were an abomination to him. I as well as Joseph Smith would not deny what God has said. I believe there was an apostasy from the church.
We need to be able to tolerate what others believe without compromising our own.
Mick,
You said:
“When we talk of the apostasy, we are talking about a loss of authority- we mean that nobody on earth was authorized to lead a church.”
According to who?
You’re talking Mormonism through-out your post. It bears no resemblance to Christianity. Mormonism was a 19th century invention of Joseph Smith who claimed prophet status for himself and also included an office of “priesthood” that didn’t exist in the NT Church.
The Catholic church can claim a succession of popes in their claim to being the one true church with authority. Some of the popes were degenerates but many others were not.
Mormons believe what they believe about the loss of apostolic authority because Joseph Smith told them so. Through-out history, God’s Holy Spirit has indwelt believers who have been born again. The “Church” is not an organization but the Mystical Body of Christ; the community of believers, endowed with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as God has seen fit to distribute them among the group. The Holy Spirit has never left these believers thus Christ’s authority has not been lost.
So I don’t have a gripe with you folks having your own private religion, but don’t call it a “restoration” of Christianity because none of it existed in the first century. We can point to where Joseph Smith got his ideas and they certainly didn’t come from Scripture. Mormons like to call it “revelation” but I see it as creative “imagination”.
Smith lived at a time of religious experimentation so his ideas were competing with that of others who were creating their own groups. I can provide a list along with the “prophets” who led them. It’s incumbent on people to make solid judgements based on reliable information.
Ralph, there was no complete apostasy , plain and simple. This is a theory devised by
your leaders to make room to introduce the need for a “modern-day” mouthpiece of
God to correct everyone on what the Christian gospel should be . But we don’t another
prophet today, we have scripture.
Henry, There’s no mirage here with the Apostle John. Have’nt some Mormon authorities
told us that he’s walking around the earth leading people to Christ ? Can we then count on
Mormon spiritual leaders to find him ?
Mikey Petey, Take the second paragraph in your post and apply it to your FLDS brothers,
some prominent Mormon leaders have . I do agree with your first sentence though ; you
should have stopped after that .
Mick, you said that apostasy = loss of authority, nobody on earth was authorized to lead a
church etc. I think there’s a little more to it than that, at least if I take Mormon authorities word
for it instead of yours, which would only be fair after all we’re concerned about the claims of
Mormon leaders to accurately relay truth from God . I read that this claim of apostasy
supposedly resulted in the following : ” the gospel was not among men ” ; ” universal apostasy
from Christian doctrine ” and by 1820 , ” there was not one fundamental truth belonging to
the place of salvation ” that was not obscured by false tradition , etc.
I’m sorry Mick but that is absolutely false . The gospel [ 1 Cor 15:1-4 ] has been available .
Mick,
I see time after time many Mormons jumping on the atheist bandwagon of denigrating the Bible. For someone calling themselves a Christian, this is poisoning the well. Be careful. But Mormons find themselves in a strange position, for they do this not with disproving the Bible as their objective, but trying to defend Mormon “revelation”.
Here’s the mindset. Mormonism is contradiction, so try and make the Bible seem to do the same thing. Many go to atheist sites and mine them to do so. It doesn’t offend me as much as it makes me sad that this is a particular strategy of those who are on the fringe, the cultists.
Mick: we are talking about a loss of authority.
Get it. Not that difficult. But if Jesus apostles weren’t (as these four were) then why not? Why did God take away their authority to do so? They could not find any people who would accept their message? They were that ineffective as apostles of Jesus? Totally and inescapably illogical.
Mick: Because authority is really an arbitrary thing…
Huh? Authority is “arbitrary”? How so? Are you saying that God is arbitrary? He just took away authority because he felt like it? Then we are to discount Jesus words that He would be “with us always”, until the end? That the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church? Because He FELT LIKE IT?
Mick: I simply think that those semi-mortal people where spending their time increasing the righteousness in people groups to improve their layer of heaven, doing what little they could to move politics and technology along, and trying to poke Christian theology in the right direction etc. I doubt they really did very much in global terms. They didn’t try to make a church because it simply
wasn’t appropriate at that time.
You think. Let’s see what your “authorities” say. Here’s the big contradiction, laid out for us at lds.org:
“We do know that in the early years following the resurrection of Jesus the Apostles added additional members to their number as vacancies required. 21 Eventually, however, the succession ended. By A.D. 95 only John remained, as far as we know. When John left his public ministry, apostleship ceased. Had it been God’s will, others certainly could have been chosen. But clearly it was not. The apostasy did not happen because the Apostles were gone; the Apostles were taken because the apostasy had occurred.”
Try making sense out of that. The apostasy did not happen because all of the Apostles were gone, they were TAKEN because there was an apostasy. Circular illogic. But John and the three Nephites WEREN’T TAKEN. There were four apostles left who had all the time in the world to find righteous people. lds.org continues:
“As he [Jesus]would not perform further miracles before the unbelievers at Capernaum, neither would he leave his anointed Twelve in an apostate group. So John was taken from among men.”
Also,
“But when the members of the sacred band of apostles had reached the end of life in different ways, and when there had disappeared that generation privileged to hear the wisdom of God in person, then did the organization of godless error take root through deceitful purveyors of falsehood. With none of the apostles still alive, they openly tried to counter the message of truth with the proclamation of a knowledge falsely named.”
But this is a flat out contradiction. There were FOUR apostles still alive on the earth WHO COULD NOT DIE. And these guys were so ineffectual that in 1400 years they could not organize a church? Smith said that the
“priesthood” was bestowed by Peter, James and John, because they had to be “sent” because no one else had the authority. But Mormons say that if there is just one Elder with the Priesthood, that is good enough. You had FOUR on the earth who had the Priesthood.
Mormons say that men like John Wesley, and other reformers were “righteous” men. Out of all the world, in those 1400 years, there wasn’t a place where they could start a church? Not a righteous group of people ANYWHERE? Bunk. Again, this stretches incredulity beyond the pale of logic. And it’s hard to keep a straight face at the illogic of it.
Mick: “The Bible explicitly says it is “impossible for God to lie” Hebrew 6:18 Numbers 23:19 Titus 1:2 2.”
Paul gives the reason for the “strong delusion”. These men had already rejected the message of Jesus. And this particular passage says something significant that you may have missed. Paul says,
“And now you know what is holding him back, so that he [the man of lawlessness] may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one [Jesus] who now holds it back will continue to do so till he [the man of lawlessness] is taken out of the way.”
Paul says Jesus will continue to “hold back” the rebellion (not a total apostasy) until the man of sin is “taken out of the way”. And when does this happen? Paul says, “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.” When Jesus comes again! So Jesus “will hold him back” until just before he comes, and he will destroy him PERSONALLY.
This is not a “great apostasy”. It is a rebellion that takes place BEFORE Jesus comes, and Paul says,
“The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason [that they refused to love the truth] God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
Mick: …has done so in the past Jeremiah 4:10 Ezekiel 14:9 1Kings 22:23.
Read this for the answer to Jeremiah 4:10:
“…I will destroy them with the sword, famine and plague.” But I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, the prophets keep telling them, ‘You will not see the sword or suffer famine. Indeed, I will give you lasting peace in this place.'” Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.” (Jeremiah 14:12-14)
Jeremiah apparently assumed that the prophets who had been prophesying peace were speaking the word of God, hence his complaint of deception in 4:10 upon learning that God would bring destruction instead (4:6-9). However, it was not God who was deceiving the people, but the false prophets.
The answer to Ezekiel is right there:
When any Israelite or any alien living in Israel separates himself from me and sets up idols in his heart and puts a wicked stumbling block before his face
and then goes to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer him myself. I will set my face against that man and make him an example and a byword. I will cut him off from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD. And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.
Meaning that they are enticed to God, but aren’t really following God. They are following their own will. Like if anyone is enticed by the thought of something. I’m enticed by the high pay of being a brain surgeon, but don’t want to do the work to actually become one. There is more to God than just a fleeting desire to be a prophet. That is what the verses are saying here.
As for Kings, The prophesy is ‘against’ Ahab, a particularly evil king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. He typically gathered false prophets around him (as “Yes” men) and complained about the prophet Micaiah (who uttered the above) that he only ‘spoke bad things about him’ so Ahab did not consult with him much! (I Kgs 22.8,1)
All of these are atheist arguments to try and poison God’s word. They are used by folks that don’t really understand the Bible, and have not studied it in depth. This is called a red herring, because it is a diversion from the illogic of the original argument. _johnny
What we have here is two constitutional issues.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Pastor Jeffery has free exercise in speaking his mind, this is his Constitutional right.
“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult. … Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian,” Dr. Jeffress said.
What is my point, nothing other then I think Pastor Jeffery does more harm then good. I understand that Romney is now calling out Rick Perry to either condemn or agree with Jeffery.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas-newsroom/index.html#/v/1214715554001/hatch-reacts-to-mormonism-debate-in-gop-race/?playlist_id=86909
The Bible says,
The Bible tells us Gods Faithfulness abides unto ALL generations, Yet according to Mormonism this is not true. It cannot be true if the was a great and total apostasy. So where Did Gods Faithfulness Go?
The Bible says, God cannot lie, and IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for God to Lie. So did God lie? or are the Mormons wrong? I suspect as usual the Mormons will have an answer for this. And even if they dont, they could care less about what God says or does, They want to believe what they want to believe.
Ralph said: “I have been doing research into the first and second century Christian community recently using a series of lectures (24 in total) by Bart Ehrman.”
Ralph, that was your first mistake and you know it. You hold a doctorate in a professional field which means that you know how to do research. If you want to learn about Christian history, then learn it from Christians – not apostates/agnostics. Ehrman was never a Christian (never spiritually regenerated/born again). Going to a Christian school and obtaining advanced degrees does not mean that one is in the family of God and a believer. Ehrman is one among millions of “tares” among the “wheat” through the ages who eventually can’t keep up the charade and leave (1 John 2:19). The elect of God will persevere to the end (Matthew 24:13). Ehrman was sifted early.
Some would say I have a tremendous amount of knowledge about Mormonism. I don’t think so compared to others that I know. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean I am a Mormon. I know about it, but I am surely not one nor would I ever be. If I wanted to do research and lecture on the history of Mormonism in New York and Ohio in the early 1800’s, would I better off getting my information from LDS sources such as Richard Bushman who is an LDS historian or from Mark Hoffman who is an LDS apostate? You’re going to Ehrman for information on Ante-Nicene Church History is the same as me going to Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah to listen to what Hoffman has to say about Mormon history. Why go to Ehrman? You can read the writings of the early Christian fathers for yourself. You can buy the whole set for a mere $100!
http://www.christianbook.com/the-ante-nicene-fathers-10-vols/9781565630826/pd/30823?product_redirect=1&Ntt=30823&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
Ralph said: “Also the fact that your early church fathers had to write papers against what they call heresy (ie contradictory to their beliefs) indicates that there were many sects back then as well. The only reason they are called the church fathers is because their brand of Christianity came out on top and thus they are revered today by people who believe the same as them.”
Ralph, do you know why that is? Because truth prevails! What was going on back in the early Christian church is still going on today: heretical sects claiming to be Christian while purporting damnable heresies have to be refuted by God’s workmen. False prophets in polytheistic religions were continually trying to corrupt the monotheistic religion of the Jews. God’s true prophets were “on the march” warning the Jews and verbally denouncing the pagan religions of the world trying to corrupt them. Incipient Gnosticism was creeping into the early Church. The Apostle’s Paul and John were on the frontline warning God’s people of this heresy. Paul didn’t mince words to the Galatians about those trying to bring the Jews who had converted to Christianity back into bondage (law) in Galatians 1:6-10.
Ralph, nothing there is definitely nothing new about this today. False religions, whether be large or small sects, have always been around and will continue to be around until the return of Christ because Jesus Himself warned that this would be the case in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. The 19th century in America was a “brewing pot” of n0n-Christian sects that would eventually become large ones: Mormonism (false prophet: Joseph Smith); Jehovah’s Witnesses (false prophet: Charles Russell); Christian Science (false prophet: Mary Baker Eddy); Seventy-Day Adventism (false prophet: Ellen G. White). Shall I go on? Lies are exposed; truth prevails.
Obviously this political religious test thing is a sensitive issue. But a couple of thoughts about which I would like to hear back from you all (some technically but not intentionally contraversial or even possibly offensive to the sensitive):
1) “religious test” is kind of a vague term and I haven’t heard anyone explain exactly what they mean by this – Obviously we shouln’t bar all people based solely upon their religion (so no “No Mormons no matter what!”. Nor can we assume that any one member of a religion believes in everything that the religion professes (there are “christians” that aren’t really Christian, and there are ‘lds” that aren’t really LDS).
2) But is there nothing that might be included in a religion which, if we were to know that a candidate was not only member but a true believer in this particular thing, would justifiably disqualify that person from votes? What if the religion and candidate believed in some reprehensible activity, legal or not? Maybe technically legal, but should be illegal? Or from the opposite direction- pro-life- often justified and springing from a religious view but we don’t disqualify the person for being the particular religion that espouses this position, nor do we vote b/c s/he is christian, but prolife. Or, though I would hate to use him for this example, how many people didn’t vote for Bush the first time because he talked about Jesus, and they thought he was dumb b/c he was Christian?
3) So is there anything in LDS that could be considered independently rebprehensible as a belief such that it SHOULD disqualify a candidate from votes? I’m not going conspiracy here; I make no claim about LDS politicians in general or specifically Romney – just brainstorming.
continued
Ralph said: “So the question remains, if there was so much diversity in the early Christian church before the council in Niceae, which one was correct? Can you definately say without spiritual confirmation that the Trinitarian Christianity that you subscribe to is in fact what Jesus and His apostles taught? Or was one of the other branches of Christianity from the early church times the one true doctrine and your’s is the corrupt one?”
Ralph, you’re right. The question(s) remain(s). Here is one of mine related to your being educated by the non-Christian/non-theologian Ehrman or from your own studies within Mormonism related to ancient Christian church history. Ralph, I want to know why there isn’t any mention of anything even remotely close to Mormonism anywhere in the enormous amount of writings from this period in Christian church history. Why isn’t the word “Mormon” anywhere in the rows of history books and writings of the church fathers? If John and the three Nephites were still around before they left permanently for Cancun or Aruba, why didn’t any one of them happen to say one word to Jerome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Novatian, and Hippolytus who were all around long before Nicea in A.D. 325? If you can demonstrate your religion’s existence anywhere on the known earth supposedly during this time period, then we would have a starting point.
Christ’s church has always been here. The church/congregation was here in the Old Testament through the Jews who kept the covenant looking forward to the coming Messiah. Those in Christ in the New Covenant are part of the same church/congregation. Yes, Trinitarian Christianity is what Jesus and the apostles taught and was passed down to the fathers. You know this because you have read the writings yourself dated before Nicea.
3)(continued)
Considering the history of the LDS church in relation to the US government, particularly the fact that Joseph Smith made several prophecies (or if you claim they were just emotionalism in order to avoid the “false prophecy” conclusion, it still holds) against the US, one could be justifiably concerned if a particular believer candidate really believed in, agreed with, looked for or planned to work toward the fulfillment of said statements. Whether prophecy or emotionalism, it is a point of concern. Extreme example – if we knew a candidate was not only Muslim or Mormon but of a militant version of either that accepted its leaders’ prophecies/commands to destroy or make the US pay for past wrongs, would we not be very justified and simply logical in not voting for this person?
4) At this point it would seem that we should obviously refrain from any blanket rejection based on professed religion (#1), but that two things are important as RELATED to a candidate’s religion: what the content of the religion is (especially as it relates to the country, its citizens, or their rights) and, the truly justifiable test – what the particular candidate believes should happen to the nation/citizens/rights whether they stem from the religion or otherwise.
So it seems at least hypothetically reasonable to avoid any test based on a generalization of a religion but that it is exactly what we should be doing to test the beliefs/aspirations of a candidate whether those come from a religion or anything else. This would seem to no longer be a “religious test” but an “idea test”, and no idea should have a pass simply because it comes from a religion. In the end,we might find out what Romney believes about prophet authority and prophecy for the office.
The Great Apostasy: Part 1
Mormonism, like all non-Christian contemporary religious movements that were birthed in the 19th century, must attempt to proclaim some reason for their existence on this planet. One thing that Mormons share with other non-Christian sects and false religions of the world was that there was an apostasy in which all of Christendom has spiraled into thus making Christianity disappear and the need for a return or restoration. A prophet or seer proclaims that he is that person, claims divine revelation, writes new scripture, and claims all are in error except him and his new church. Mormonism joins a large group of these movements that all have the same background and claim.
Mormons cite 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as the proof-text all the while not reading it in context with other Scripture before and after it along with not understanding the historical context, background, and audience Paul was writing. Will there be an apostasy? Yes, but did it occur when the Mormons said it took place and was it all of Christianity meaning every believer on the face of the earth? Not hardly. I simply ask Mormons to look at 1 Tim 4:1 where it says that “some shall depart from the faith.” SOME is not ALL.
I then like to ask the Mormon this question: How do you know this isn’t referring to you? Maybe Paul was referring to Joseph Smith and the Mormons?
James Talmage, an LDS authority who wrote the LDS’ authoritative work entitled “Articles of Faith,” also wrote a book entitled “The Great Apostasy,” in which the LDS have solidified their historically groundless charge that Christianity completely disappeared from the face of the earth.
Apostasy: Part 2
Talmage stated: “If the alleged apostasy of the primitive church was not a reality, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims” (Talmage, The Great Apostasy, Preface). Talmage knew full-well what was at stake (historically) when he put forth this thesis in the preface of his book. The Mormon Church has no claim of existence in this universe if Christianity has not gone into apostasy. There are two key pillars that can possibly validate Mormonism being the true religion: Joseph Smith being a true prophet and a great apostasy of Christianity. If either one or both of these pillars is broken, then the whole LDS building comes crumbling to the ground.
Mormons’ love affair and loyalty with Joseph Smith is a sensitive issue. The subject of the great apostasy is one I like to engage Mormons with because it is one they don’t seem to have reservations about discussing or canned answers that have been given to them by their leaders to give to Christians. I have been able to bring up this issue and ask questions at the LDS ward with great success with the Spirit’s enablement and power. If Christianity did not cease to exist and that can be proven, then Mormonism, by its own definition, collapses on itself. It can be proven and effectively demonstrated by LDS scriptures and references, Bible references, and Christian church history. We begin with another quote:
“Nothing less than a complete apostasy of the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (History of the Church, page XL).
This quote from the LDS’ history of their church coupled with Talmage’s quote is in agreement. I am thankful for their continuity on this point.
Apostasy: Part 3
The Christian’s first stop should always begin and end with the Word of God: the Bible. What did Jesus Christ say regarding the future state of His church? We land at Matthew 16:18 = “…upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What is “this rock”? It’s the confession that Peter just made in verse 16. Jesus Christ is the rock: 1 Cor 10:4. The Mormons have to agree with this because their own scriptures state the same: Helaman 5:12 and Moses 7:53.
The Mormons claim that there was a total apostasy. This would logically mean that Christ’s church was overcome by the gates of hell prevailing against it despite Christ saying that this would not take place. Do the Mormons state this is what happened? I ask them if this took place. Most of them say “no” because they know what this would mean: Jesus lied. However, Mormon sources give their brethren a crushing blow:
“Jesus made his appearance on the earth in the meridian of time, and he established his kingdom on the earth…the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, AND THEY PREVAILED AGAINST IT, and the kingdom ceased to exist” (Mormon apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13:125). [Note: the words of Mormon apostles are equated as one in the same with their prophets and should be adhered to by Mormons in D&C 1:14]
It’s a “Kodak moment” on the faces of Mormons when this quote is read to them. That look soon turns pale when the issue of Jesus’ lying comes into play. To say that there was a total apostasy is to credit Jesus with a gross lie and is blasphemous. God cannot lie.
Apostasy: Part 4
It’s impossible to reconcile this LDS claim of the gates of hell prevailing against Christ when He has all power in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18). Christians received a kingdom that cannot be moved (Heb 12:28). After all, Christ is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11). The Lord was adding to His Church daily (Acts 2:47). Did Jesus Christ not tell the truth? Is He not the foundation? Are the forces of evil stronger than the omnipotent God? These and many other questions are what the Mormons must answer based on their claim of a total apostasy thus justifying their corporate endeavors in real estate to build their pagan temples.
The Book of Mormon spends almost an entire chapter (3 Nephi 28) discussing three Nephites along with the Apostle John that were to not “taste death” (vs. 7-8) and were to remain alive until the return of Christ. Right now we have four people supposedly in the Mormon world who were alive during the time of Christ on the earth and who are supposedly still alive now if one is to believe the BOM. Verse 30 states that “they are as the angels of God” and “they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.” Really? I would like to know why one of these four hasn’t bothered to come to Salt Lake City and visit the prophet. Look, if the LDS Church wants instant credibility based on their claim of these four people being alive, all they have to do is have Monson and the Apostle John come forward and present them together to the seeing world. Not one prophet has had a visit from these four individuals. Where are they? What have they been doing all these years?
Apostasy: Part 5
3 Nephi 28:31 states: “great and marvelous works shall be wrought by them”. Are there great and marvelous works today? If any of this were true (these four being alive), then we would expect to have seen LDS wards and temples throughout the world prior to the arrival of Joseph Smith. What have these three Nephites and John been doing all these hundreds and hundreds of years? Where are they now? Are they in apostasy themselves and now on permanent vacation in Aruba or Maui?
John is mentioned in D&C 7. He supposedly asked Jesus to let him live forever so that he “may live and bring souls unto thee” (v. 2). Is John doing this now? Was he doing this before Joseph Smith’s adventure in the woods of Palmyra, New York? John was told by Jesus to “prophesy before nations, kindred, tongues and people” (v. 3). Is John doing this? John, where are you? If John didn’t die, then why were there a complete apostasy and the need for a restoration as Joseph Smith stated? If the three Nephites and John were alive and doing what they were commanded to do, then there would be no need for Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson today. The Apostle John should have an apartment in Salt Lake City – not Monson, a mere prophet.
The truth: John is dead. This is a well-known, historical fact. Jerome wrote about his death:
“He [John] returned to Ephesus under Nerva Pertinax and continuing there until the time of emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout Asia, and, worn out by old age, dies in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Jerome, pp. 364-5).
Apostasy: Part 6
Mormons will cite John 21:22-24 in a hopeless attempt to make this theory work. It fails miserably because verse 23 states, “yet Jesus said NOT unto him [John], he shall not die”. John would know. He is the writer of this gospel. He puts to rest this false belief that he will not die. Jesus is telling Peter to mind his own business. Peter needed to live his own life of faithfulness and not compare himself to others.
Where does all this lead in Mormonism? On page 657 in their Bible dictionary under heading “Dispensations” it states: “A dispensation of the gospel is a period of time in which the Lord has at least ONE AUTHORIZED SERVANT ON THE EARTH who bears the holy priesthood and the keys, and who has a divine commission to dispense the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth.”
With that said and according to LDS scriptures, John met those qualifications. Therefore, by their (LDS) own doctrine and definitions there couldn’t have been a total apostasy and need for restoration by Joseph Smith. The priesthood was never lost because John never died and should still be proselytizing the LDS gospel.
Do you really think that the Old Testament prophecies and all that happened culminating up until the time of the New Testament, the birth of Jesus, His ministry, His trial, His persecution and suffering leading up to His death, the crucifixion, His death and resurrection, the labors and persecutions of the early Christian believers, etc., all took place so that the church could be dissolved in 300 years? Does that sound logical to you? How does the LDS Church explain the massive amount of historical writings by Christian church fathers and theologians from 300-1830 A.D.?
Apostasy: Part 7
How about the Book of Mormon? Jesus Christ supposedly comes to America, institutes church ordinances including the priesthood to the Nephites, establishes His church all for the very people he gave it to be completely destroyed in 421 A.D. all the while Christ knowing that these events would take place? Is that even reasonable from an LDS perspective?
Christ promised suffering for His followers (Phil 1:29), but that is a fry cry from Jesus stating that all His followers would be wiped out entirely and totally. There isn’t one shred of evidence anywhere historically or otherwise to support the LDS claim. It has been demonstrated above that even their own sources and scriptures disqualifies their claims. How do the Mormons explain God’s silence (in their view) between 421 A.D. and 1830? Were there not any converts by John and the three Nephites? If not, why not? If so, where are they? They didn’t believe in missions? Why isn’t there even one sentence in the massive amount of historical writings by Christian fathers during this time period to back up this claim? Why do we even have their writings? These shouldn’t exist either!
In conclusion, if we are to believe the Mormon “authorities” and claims, Jesus didn’t tell the truth as reported by Matthew in his gospel. Jesus doesn’t have all authority. He doesn’t have all power. The powers of darkness overrun His kingdom and church. Christ was an absolute failure in the Father’s directive for the redemption of mankind. Christ came to save His people and not lose one of them. All that the Father gave to the Son, not one would be lost. However, I guess Jesus blew it according to the Mormons. Praise God the Mormons are the liars and not God (Heb 6:18).
“If Christianity did not cease to exist and that can be proven, then Mormonism, by its own definition, collapses on itself. It can be proven and effectively demonstrated by LDS scriptures and references, Bible references, and Christian church history. We begin with another quote:
“Nothing less than a complete apostasy of the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (History of the Church, page XL).
The issue is about Authority and Priesthood. Too claim that Christianity is the same today as it was in the NT times seems to be indefensible when Christians give away these two ingredients. What you would need to appreciate and proven by the scriptures is that the foundation, Jesus Christ the head of the Church; organized His Church top down with Apostles and Prophets, that the Keys given too Peter are still with the Church.
Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt 16:19]. The ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15-17; cf. 10:11].
Where can the Christian Church today show us that the Apostacy does not concern itself anymore with Authority, Priesthood, and Sealing powers.
Good job Andy!
Facts are stubborn things it is said and your presentation here has been very “stubborn” in refuting the false claims and I would say total nonsense of Mormonism. Mormonism is built on a fantasy and in order to keep the Mormon believer in tow, the LDS church apologists have to come up with more outlandish and fantastic explanations to try and support the imaginative mental meanderings of Joseph Smith and those claiming to be prophets who followed him.
I find it interesting that Mormons never point to the apostasy in their own various sects of Mormonism. It seems about every other week there’s a new Mormon prophet on the rise, the one who is faithful and true, who is going to restore all the things that have been lost in Mormonism.
“In Colorado City, the faithful are taught that apostates are more wicked than Gentiles, or even mainline Mormons…..(apostates)…have ‘turned traitor on the priesthood and their own existence and they are led about by their master:Lucifer….Apostates are literally tools of the devil.’
This quote is from “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer. The book is a fascinating look at Mormonism and especially those men who raise up and claim they are the one faithful and true. Mormonism breeds “apostasy” and the belief by many men that they have the gift of spiritual revelation and a special communication with God.
It all goes back to Joseph Smith and his fantastic claims of revelation from God and fortified with fabulous stories of appearances of heavenly beings including Jesus and God the Father. Mormonism took shape right before the eyes of those who jumped on Smith’s bandwagon as he entertained them with new and novel approaches. Smith took a hunt-and-peck, trial-and-error approach to his creation as did those who followed after him.
grindael,
It is a curious phenomenon that these Mormon apologists and wannabee Mormon apologists spend so much time mining the claims of atheists in an attempt to discredit Christianity in the hopes that they can prove Mormonism is true. It’s really paradoxical.
These guys especially like to rip into the Bible and denigrate God’s Word all the while claiming it as one of their four standard works. My observation is that Mormons believe more in the BoM than they do the Bible and believe more strongly in modern day revelation than they do either the Bible or the BoM.
It sure would be fun to have a free pass as the Mormon prophets have been given to create revelation and not even have to be in any way consistent or held accountable for what is said.
It would be kind of interesting to know exactly what presidential candidate Mitt Romney believes about Mormonism and if his beliefs would have an effect on how he’d govern.