[In honor of Black History Month 2014, each Monday in February Mormon Coffee’s blog post will address a topic related to racism in Mormon history. Today guest blogger Lynn Wilder presents Part 3, the final installment of the series she began on February 3rd.]
The Bible invites people to “reason together,” (Isaiah 1:18) to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) against the Word of God (Acts 17:11). What is rotten at the foundation, at the root, and does not “bear good fruit” will be hewn down. Still LDS, I read the following and knew there was a problem with the foundation of Mormonism.
“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:9; Matt 3:10).
For biblical Christians, the Bible is the standard for measuring truth. For Mormons, truth comes from four standard works of scripture and the words of prophets. The LDS prophets will never lead one astray, never mislead the saints, I was taught when I was LDS.
“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff, p. 199).
“You can always trust the living prophets” (True to the Faith, 2004, p. 129).
There are many such quotes.
But, what if a Mormon prophet did lead the church astray? Well, one could say he was speaking as a man and simply made a mistake, like Dieter Uchtdorf proposed in his conference talk October 2013.
“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.”
Okay, Mormon prophets are human and they make mistakes. It’s difficult for other Mormon prophets, seers, and revelators to tell when the prophets speak for God and when they err. Sometimes mistakes are made by 11 church presidents in a row: Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball as the recent statement on Race and the Priesthood on lds.org concedes. I get it. What about the mistakes of the founding prophet Joseph Smith?
What if a “mistake”—a false teaching—appeared over and over again from the establishment of the church in 1830 to 1978, for 148 years, in not just one but in several “official” places? What if it appeared in both the words of prophets and the words of other general authorities, say, when they spoke in conference? What if that “mistake” was still taught in two of the four standard works of Mormon scripture and is still there today? Now, what if that false teaching (e.g., racism) came from the founding prophet? Now that would be a problem, according to the Bible.
The LDS Church stands or falls on the foundation of Joseph Smith—his First Vision of the Father and Son with “glorified” bodies of flesh and bone, modern day revelation, the practice of polygamy, and “translated” scriptures with racial bias. This foundation rests in the arm of flesh (2 Chron. 32:8). One cannot be baptized into the LDS Church, receive the Mormon Holy Ghost, or work their way to eternal life with the Father and the Son without professing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored Christ’s original church in these latter days. Jesus alone is not enough. Mormons must confess belief in Joseph Smith. Without this acknowledgement, they cannot be exalted to the highest heaven. Joseph is the foundational key to Mormonism.
Jesus is Enough
Simply, the Bible is clear. Jesus is enough. He alone is the foundational cornerstone (Psalms 118:22; Matt 21:42). He alone is the mediator between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5). A prophet is no longer needed. God spoke through the prophets until John the Baptist (Luke 16:16). Then Jesus came and He as God spoke for Himself (Hebrews 1:1).
The Bible establishes if a foundation is rotten, the entire structure/organization/person/religion must go. Remember the house built on the sand?
“For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).
And the house on the sand washed away…
—
Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 1
Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 2
This came to me in church yesterday. The pastor is doing a series on revival leading up to Easter. He was in Chronicles where it talks about King Asa. Anyway, if you know the history of Israel and the split between the northern ten tribes and the southern two that became Judah, it’s an up and down litany of faithfulness to God and then back to idol worship.
Anyway, what came to me is that the Mormon “prophets” have become idols for the LDS people. They about worship these guys and even have a hymn dedicated to the “prophet” which they sing in full voice whenever he makes an appearance.
The LDS people need to get rid of the idols in their lives and turn to the Living God who alone can provide for them salvation. The Mormon “prophets” are absolutely inconsistent in what they bring to the LDS people as “truth”. There is no truth in these men just endless speculation which in later generations appears so foolish that a cottage industry has grown up in LDS circles to assign the labels of “folklore” and “opinion” to these obviously flawed men.
It’s when people go outside the Bible and begin to accept, believe and apply other sources in order to find the “truth” that they get into trouble.
In the case of Mormons, that’s their claim to fame. The results of their continuous revelation and additional scripture have led them down a path to spiritual destruction.
The simple question is, if these prophets and their utterances and their scriptures are reliable, why then does the modern LDS church have to continually deny, lie, obfuscate, make excuses for and shun them?
If a person has a low bar of acceptability when it comes to the things that Mormons have come to depend on; if the person is willing to condone bad behavior and live in a world of cognitive dissonance, then they can make Mormonism work for them.
In order for Mormonism to work for the true believer they have to accept certain premises i.e. the Bible can’t be trusted, it has been copied so many times that mistakes have crept in, medieval monks conspired to take the Mormonism out of the Bible, after the death of the apostles their was a great falling away from the truth and Joseph Smith needed to restore the original gospel and the practices of the first century church.
Now if Mormons were courageous enough to face the truth, they would have to admit that the foundational premises on which their religion is based is total fantasy.
If we reject the prophets of Christ, we cannot claim to be accepting Christ.
Christ said, “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the adust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” Matthew 10:14-15
and
“He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s breward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.” Matthew 10:40-41
The claim that the believe that we need to follow living prophets is unbiblical is, well, unbiblical.
And despite the common criticism that no prophets were called or existed after Christ is uninformed of the Biblical text.
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” Act 13:1
“And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” Acts 15:32
“And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.” Acts 21:10
Saying that no church or Priesthood or earthly authority is needed is much like saying that all a person needs to do to be cured of disease is a physician- no medication prescribed by the physician, no operation, no physical therapy, no need to follow or do anything. Just have a mental acceptance of the physician, and you will be healed.
@FaithofFathers
It’s good to see you post. I may disagree with your opinions, but I’m excited to hear them. You’ve put some thoughts into them and ‘support’ them with Scripture.
This is an excellent quote, but it’s taken out of context, Fof. Jesus was ‘a prophet’ and the reference here is to those who receive ‘a prophet’. There’s no reference to ‘the prophet’. Why is that? It’s because no prophets led the church. The church was led by either James or Peter who refer to themselves as ‘an apostle’ or ‘a servant’ never as a prophet (1 Peter 1:1,NASB; James 1:1,NASB).
“And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then …” (1 Cor. 12:28,ESV; Ephesians 4:10-12,NASB).
Every reference in the Bible places the authority of an apostle above that of a New Testament ‘Prophet’. If FoF, you are going to discuss prophets in the New Testament, you should discuss them in the context of the early church where the apostles led the church. Not a single reference of the prophet or prophets leading a church. (Judas or Silas or Agabus never led the church).
Please show me one verse in Scripture where Jesus, Paul, Peter or anyone else among the apostles required someone to have priesthood authority? Or setup the early church structure with a prophet at the helm?
@FaithofFathers
Just one more thing. Heb. 1:1 refers to the entirety of the canon written (Old Testament[past] – Prophets, New Testament[now] – Jesus Christ).(Heb 1:1,NASB)
” Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”
How does the Son of God speak to us?
““And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then …”</i (1 Cor. 12:28,ESV; Ephesians 4:10-12,NASB)."
First through apostles. You'll notice that the majority(if not every single book) of the New Testament were all written by apostles.
What, precisely, is a prophet’s reward? What’s a righteous man’s reward?
RikkiJ,
Thanks for the response.
But your points are really beside the point. Lynn claims that “prophets are no longer needed” and that “Jesus is enough.” In other words, no other authority or representative is needed. And my point is that prophets existed after Christ in the church. And- Christ told the apostles that those who rejected them necessarily rejected Christ Himself. And those who received His apostles received Christ. These two points show that Lynn’s logic and argument is flawed and false.
Whether or not the LDS church and its structure matches you interpretation of New Testament church structure is beyond the argument here.
1. It is perfectly Biblical to be required to receive Christ’s servants in order to receive Christ.
2. It is perfectly Biblical to have prophets in the Church of Christ.
I am sure you know that believe the church is indeed lead by apostles. All 15 of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles are apostles, prophets, seers, and revelators according to our belief. And that is perfectly Biblical.
FOF,
I agree that prophets exist in the Church of Jesus Christ. However we are also warned that false prophets will also rise. The question boils down to who are true prophets and who are false prophets and how can we detect them. Can true prophets teach false doctrine? Well according to your own current “Prophets” they can. They admit this with their latest announcement on the black race issue.
They claim Brigham Young taught false doctrine in regard to the Black Race as also with the Adam God doctrine. How can a true prophet teach false doctrine? This is a contradiction in terms. Unless of course they are calling Brigham Young a false prophet. But this would only invalidate their own claim to being prophets.
If there is any truth in Mormonism it lies with the fundamentalist Mormons or not at all. I have come to determine there is more truth within the mainline Christian faith. As much as I like some of the things taught in the Book of Mormon. I no long trust the Book of Mormon to be an authentic history.
or the Pearl of Great Price for that matter.
@Faithoffathers
The question I ask is why are they beside the point? Is it because you have no answers for them?
Lynn’s point was that prophets as methods of revelation are no longer needed for Scripture. Heb 1:1, NASB.
The prophets were never an authority who ruled over ‘a church’, since there were no ‘churches’ or Christianity in the Old Testament. They never had priesthood authority.
If you want to push for rejection of prophets as rejection of Christ, this is a valid point. However, the ‘prophets’ that Christ is discussing are evangelists proclaiming his message – (Matthew 10:40-41,ESV). Nowhere does it talk about priesthood authority or the authority of the prophet presiding over a church. Can you quote Jesus talking about ‘a prophet’ as needing priesthood authority? Or perhaps discuss the main point of Lynn’s argument – that is Joseph Smith’s foundation wasn’t built on the early church model but his own.
1. It is perfectly Biblical to be required to receive Christ’s servants [ who teach the right gospel and who are not false prophets ] to receive Christ. (Christ defines false teachers teaching in his name – Matt. 24:24,NASB). Yes this is true within Jesus’ teachings’ context
2. It is perfectly Biblical to have prophets in the Church of Christ [ yes but once again written/special revelation for Scripture doesn’t come through them as is evidence in the New Testament – see Heb.1:1,NASB ]
Why stop there? You’ve omitted key points.
3. It is perfectly Biblical to have apostles – the correct number of which is (original is 12). If we are talking about what the Bible recognizes as the original apostles, you may wish to consult with Revelation 21:14, NASB.
4. Having a Prophet lead the apostles? Is that Biblical? Certainly not, it is not Biblical. If it is please show me where in the New Testament, a prophet led the church?
Take the challenge!
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The true 12 have been accorded their proper protocol in heaven. There is no mention in heaven about the 15 or the 12 plus the 3. Absolutely nothing.
The issue of prpohets in todays church. I certainly believe they can exist. Prophecy is a valid strength in Christ. However, I don’t think prophets are generally needed in todays church. This has been touched by others here, but Jesus is our ultimate prophet. We don’t need others to learn of God, and we don’t need others to intrepret what is spoken by God.
As to Lynn’s point: if a prophet is found to be wrong, he is no prophet. That directly puts LDS prophets out of contention if only for the issue of blacks and the preisthood.
This particular topic of what Mormon leaders taught about Negroes for such a long time to be
part of Jesus’ gospel — restored , is a great example of why the Mormon people and those
considering joining the Mormon church should stop for a moment and evaluate it in light of
the New Testament apostles gospel preaching . There’s something amiss . Mormon leaders
lead their followers into false doctrine , refused correction , and succumbed to the very
behavior they accused others of , namely , teaching for doctrine the commandments of men .
The Mormon church has drifted , morphed , into a giant religious organization whose leaders
can’t afford to admit in clear terms that their recent predessors long taught false doctrine as
the gospel of Jesus Christ . Organizational power and financial stability are at stake if they
were to admit that they failed to recognize truth from error for such a long time .
But this behavior has served as a wake up call to not only conscientious Mormons but to others
as well because it is an excellent example of how Jesus’ warning in Matt 24:11 has been found
to be true , and that can be the very answer what Mormons are looking for — returning to the
foundation , the bed rock of gospel preaching — the teachings of those men that Jesus actually
did appoint to teach the gospel of salvation , His apostles like Paul –Rom 1:16 . Trusting men
who come on the scene nearly 2000 years later who attempt to mimic the claims of Jesus’ true
messengers can result in being detoured into another gospel ( 2 im 4:3,4 ) , a close imitation .
This is exactly what has happened to the Mormon people .
But there is good news:
The Mormon people can be freed from following these men and thus experience the kind of
life that only Jesus can personally give .
As we discuss Lynn’s statement that “A prophet is no longer needed,” please keep the context in mind. Lynn wrote:
Specifically, Lynn states that a prophet is no longer needed to mediate between God and man and to speak for God. Jesus takes care of these things. Jesus is enough.
Inquisitor,
Yes. There certainly are false prophets. I do not think LDS prophets have taught false doctrine. The recent statement on race was not an admission that they were wrong. It was a statement to the effect that it is not clear where precisely the doctrine and policy came from. David O. McKay for one, as the prophet, indicated that he had sought the Lord’s will on the race and Priesthood issue and said he had received the answer that the time had not come for the policy to change. I sustain him and his role as Prophet. Of course you disagree, but my point is that it was not an admission that “they were wrong.”
Same with Adam-God. I believe Brigham Young was misunderstood and is still misunderstood. Please don’t jump right into that because I don’t want to distract from the topic of the thread. But I do not believe he taught false doctrine, just that very few people understand what he was trying to teach.
RikkiJ- there is no reason to think the canon is closed other than tradition. There is nothing in scripture that indicates that prophets as a means of revelation are obsolete. The verse you cite does not say that prophets are no longer needed. It is a statement about God communicating through His son directly. It does not say prophets will never be needed again.
The claim about the apostles never needing Priesthood is really an argument from silence. Christ “ordained” the apostles and gave them authority. He gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom.” He most certainly gave them some form of authority that was required to do what they did.
Again- you can disagree with church authority structure. But the argument from Lynn above is flawed for the reasons I outline. That is my point. I understand that you disagree with our church structure. But I believe it is much more in line with New Testament statements than the vague “mystical body of Christ” alternative. But I do not think the New Testament includes everything on church organization or structure. It never claims to provide such detail. But again- that is beyond the scope of Lynn’s argument.
Sharon- I don’t think her point needs any clarification. She seems to be saying that there is no authority between us and Christ. And I think that is simply false and unbiblical. Where does it say that there is no need for a prophet to speak for the Lord? There are no such statements in the New Testament. In fact, the presence of prophets in the New Testament AFTER Christ certainly suggests your argument is incorrect. Otherwise- what was the purpose of those prophets?
I agree that there is one mediator between God and man. But you must define what a “mediator” is. If you take that too far, you could claim that there is no reason to preach the gospel because God does not work through “mediators.” I think you are wrong here.
FOF
You stated regarding the recent announcement.
“It was a statement to the effect that it is not clear where precisely the doctrine and policy came from.”
This is an utterly false statement! Many of the church “Prophets” in the past have taught that the restriction came from God. Now the LDS church “Prophets” are vacillating on this issue and claiming spiritual ignorance.
Bruce McKonkie
“were more valiant than others…Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin…The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence” (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).
Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote,
“It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black” (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
and again..
“there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
Mark Peterson said,
“When He [God] placed the mark on Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation” (Race Problems, p.15).
On December 3, 1854, Brigham Young said, “When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity” (Journal of Discourses 2:143).
There are many more teachings to numerous to quote.
Now the church states “It is not clear where this doctrine came from????”
FOF brought up that prophets existed after Christ. This was interesting. There was nothing biblical that I have found yet that says if apostles or prophets trump one or the other so I will keep looking for that. (I am refering to the whole first apostles then prophets quote). FOF had some good scriptures though. I wish the bible was more clear in certain respects; clarity seems lacking. At times like this I am reminded of that national geographic show about the dead sea scrolls and a supposed book of Enoch. I can only find a verse about Enoch in the bible. This show said it used to be part of the bible. I can’t find out why that is. I bring this up because the thread has been talking about apostles and prophets which distictions the bible doesn’t make clear. I ask myself if maybe these scrolls might clear some of this up? Or will it just make things more confusing? I just wish there was more to tje bible that would clear this up or maybe I havent studied or understood everything that is there. Just to be clear, I believe in Jesus and his ways, so whatever Jesus says goes for me. I just like to look at things from different angles so that I try not to miss something. Anyways, thank you FOF for those scriptures, I need to dive a little deeper. I see what you are saying and it makes sence thus far.
FOF. You also said something about the canon not being closed only that it is tradition to think that it is closed. What do you mean by that? If the canon isn’t closed that would mean that there is more to the bible than is in the traditional christian bible. Are you saying that these dead sea scrolls I saw on national geographic are real? I just used them as an example in my like five minutes ago. Would you care to clarify what you are saying please? Thank you.
Well time for my lobby for modern day prophets.
Ephesians 4:11-16 “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets and some as evangelist, and some as pastors and teachers………” First Corinthians Chapters 12 and 14 address the topic.
Acts 13:1 identifies prophets and teachers.
Acts 21:9-10 tells us that their were women prophetesses and identifies a man by the name of Agabus as a prophet.
The problem is that this isn’t what Joseph Smith was about. He was trying to shoe horn OT prophets and the OT priesthood into his ever changing always developing religion.
Mormonism has nothing to do with the NT office of prophet and the Gift of the Holy Spirit known as prophecy.
Christianity is built on the foundation which is Jesus Christ. Mormonism is built on a false foundation of a religious system if, when followed Mormons believe, can turn men into gods just like the Mormon heavenly father or Jesus.
In-the-end, what Mormonism is built on is the fantasy world of Joseph Smith, a false prophet.
Bear in mind what a mediator is, FoF. You stressed that point in your last post about pushing a mediator too far. A mediator is someone who acts as go-between between two or more different groups. They generally resolve conflicts. Thus, Jesus acts as our mediator in that he is the one who negotiates with God the Father where we will spend eternity. There is but one Mediator, Jesus.
A mediator in a more scientific sense can be something that transfers medium of some sort between two places. Information could be transferred via a mediator, but that would not support the LDS position. I would think that the worst case that FoF speaks of would not harm a thing: if Jesus is the only one to transfer information, then what’s the problem? Is it that people who have been given information by Christ would not be able to share that information? This is quite laughable. Is the problem that Jesus cannot speak to each of us individually? Or that we cannot share the information we receive from Christ? Also laughable.
The existence of prophets after Christ isn’t really helpful to the LDS case, either, as nowhere does the Bible say that these prophets spoke for God in the same way they did before. However, we are told that prophets are needed to speak for God, and the Jesus is the mediator (either advocating for us or communicating to us) who speaks to us of God.
Falcon. Did you mean to write that Mormons will become gods? It sounds like that is what you wrote. What’s up with that?
Inquisitor,
It is entirely unclear when and where there was any causal effect between the doctrine of the curse of Cain and the restriction on holding the Priesthood. You cannot be suggesting that Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, Mark E. Peterson, or other more recent church leaders were the source of the doctrine or instituted the policy. That is my point. Who started the policy? When was the policy instituted? We do not know. That is my point. Quoting statements about individuals of African descent being less privileged does not answer the question. See what I am saying? And we do not know if the opinions of the people you quoted are a result of the policy or the cause. Being precise in our thinking and the things that we claim is important.
HorusOrianRa- Nowhere is it stated in the Bible that there will be no more scripture revealed by the Lord. That is what I am saying. It is entirely an argument from silence to claim otherwise. Other posters are claiming that there is no further need for servants of the Lord to receive revelations that would be considered scripture. My statement was in response to those claims.
falcon- your statement is entirely opinion and interpretation. Great. It doesn’t prove anything.
MJP- Christ’s servants absolutely spoke for Him after He ascended into heaven. Those servants, at the least, were the apostles. The identity and precise role of those servants is not really the point. Rather, the point is that there were very clearly individuals chosen and authorized to speak for Christ after He was gone. You really cannot identify when that changed, other than arguing from silence again.
“Being precise in our thinking and the things that we claim is important.”
Quote of the day from FoF.
Being precise in our thinking, huh? In other words, parrying the issue precise enough such that you can wiggle your way out of it all.
Look, Lynn has given numerous quotes in her three pieces to demonstrate the early “prophets” thought less of blacks than they did of whites. This is not in question. Smith even said it was not worth shedding blood to free the slaves, and that he really hoped whites would not be found in the arms of blacks.
There is nothing that I or anyone else can say that will tell you that Smith was indeed a racist, as were Young and a host of later “prophets”. As long as that question of what came first exists, you will give the benefit of the doubt to your leaders. It is what it is, I suppose.
As to those who spoke for Him? Didn’t Christ promise to be with us always and to the end? And, who, by the way, is the Holy Spirit and what role does He play in this? Were these men and women speaking for Christ, or was Christ speaking through them via the Holy Spirit?
And it is YOUR burden to show how Christ not our one mediator, and that Paul is not lying when he says that Christ is the one mediator. You’ve failed to show either one, and we are not arguing from silence. Rather, it is you who argues from silence. You have no proof your faith is a restored anything at all, yet… you KNOW it has to be true. We have given you ample evidence.
Here’s more on my take regarding modern day prophets: are they possible? Of course. But I have yet to see a reason or place where one is currently needed. If you can show me, I’ll look.
Of course we have another FOF strawman argument. Christ said nothing about FOLLOWING these prophets, he said that if you “receive” them, you will receive a reward for doing so. But what, exactly WAS a prophet in the New Testament Church? Was he the ONLY spokesman for God on the earth? Nope. Here is where FOF goes off the tracks. The New Testament does not define prophets in the same way that the Mormons do. For example, Paul states,
A PROPHET, is one who PROPHESIES! They have the SPIRITUAL GIFT OF PROPHESY! Is this an “ordination”? NO. It is a FREE GIFT of the Holy Spirit to those CHOSEN by the HOLY SPIRIT.
Mormon “Prophets” are Ordained and chosen by MEN. That is why they don’t prophesy! They CAN’T. Do we see Mormon “prophets” doing so? Nope. Because when they did, they gave FALSE PROPHECY!
Paul says that prophets are ONLY for strengthening the people, encouraging them and for comforting them. He says nothing about them being put at the HEAD of the CHURCH. This is because they actually PROPHESY! Their prophecies edify the church and show forth the power of God. Do Mormon “prophets” do this? Nope. They are POWERLESS. And, Paul states,
Where is the Mormon “prophet’s” interpreter? Nowhere to be found, because they have absolute dictatorial control over the church. NO ONE, can contradict the Mormon “prophet”. When, if ever, has the Mormon “prophet” stood up in General Conference and prophesied? And then where do the others “prophesy in turn”? They don’t. Mormons don’t follow the rules laid down by Paul, they do everything in secret, and they VOTE. Their words are carefully prepared and released, and NO ONE can criticize them, or you are in jeopardy of losing your standing in the church. (As so many have for doing so) The whole Mormon system is UNBIBLICAL.
Chrisitans, on the other hand, believe in the GIFT of prophecy, when it is coupled with the rules laid down by Jesus and his chosen Apostle Paul. Mormon “prophets, seers & revelators” do not follow the Biblical rules, they follow their own, (men’s) rules.
Once again, we see FOF using straw man tactics to make an invented argument that he can then rebut. But his whole argument is faulty. There will be prophets that come before Christ does. They are described in Revelation, Chapter 11. THey will come with POWER. Do any Mormon ‘prophets”, show this kind of power? NEVER:
They will show the world that they truly are God’s chosen prophets. There will be no mistaking it. They will not just vote on things and make up “revelations” that they say are given by the “inspiration” of the Spirit, without prophecy, without a shred of evidence of their calling. Mormon ‘prophets’ are a fraud. We don’t need to follow self-proclaimed “prophets” that have no power. It doesn’t mean that Christians reject prophets. We just reject false prophets that have proven themselves to be false. Like Mormon prophets.
As for the New Testament PROPHETS that FOF mentions, yes, we believe in them. They had the GIFT OF PROPHECY, which Mormon “prophets” lack.
Once again, we have ABSOLUTE PROOF that Mormon “prophets” are false. Here is Parley P. Pratt, using his “priesthood authority” to prophesy in 1838:
Yes, the JARGON of the MORMON PROPHETS. Exactly. LaRoy Sunderland lived to be a ripe old age and even published another book criticizing Mormonism! Pratt’s “prophecy” UTTERLY FAILED. He made himself look absolutely foolish and stupid.
This is all the PROOF you need folks. Mormon “prophets” are a sham. Here is your DIRECT PROOF, which I’ve posted many times and FOF has NEVER ADDRESSED. Ever. You see, he can’t. No Mormon can. This is a FALSE PROPHET. Just as was Jo Smith, Brigham Young, and every other ordained “prophet, seer, and revelator” in the History of the Mormon Church. Why follow THOSE “LIVING PROPHETS” when they will lead you astray, just as Parley P. Pratt did?
And whose life ended in tragedy and murder? Not LaRoy Sunderland’s, but Parley P. Pratt, who was murdered in 1857 by a disgruntled husband, who went mad after Pratt stole his wife and made her one of his polygamous “spiritual wives”. As a direct result of this murder, the Mormons then retaliated against the immigrants at Mountain Meadows, just a few months later, where they murdered over a hundred people. Such are the fruits of Mormon “prophets”.
FoF said
Instead of giving us your opinion, can you PROVE he was misunderstood? No you cannot, Did you ever stop and think maybe everyone is understanding him just fine, and it’s more a matter of, if he said what he meant, then he is a false prophet and you and your church dont like that Idea?
No I bet you dont want to think like that, so it’s easier to say, everyone doesa not understand him.
MJP- clarity and precision is sorely needed here in every thread, in my opinion. Glad you found my stating that amusing!
If you will read my posts and responses to this article, I made specific counter-arguments. And I think those points stand. I understand that you think we are racists. I get that. I did not say otherwise because there is no convincing you and the others here otherwise.
Christ absolutely commissioned His servants to represent Him and declare His will after He left. There is no question about this. Lynn seems to argue otherwise. And it does not require much thought or searching on the New Testament to see that she is wrong.
It also is very clear that Christ stated to His apostles that those who received them were also receiving Him. And those who rejected those apostles were rejecting Christ in the process. You can argue all you want that the prophets and leaders of the restored church are false prophets, but you cannot claim legitimately that they are false prophets because Christ did not work through mediator-type servants in the way I am arguing. Make sense?
The whole “mediator” argument is really semantic. Call the apostles whatever you want to- Christ worked through them to communicate and direct His church. Yes- Christ is the only “mediator” or Savior that saves us. I god that.
I have no interest in convincing you that the church is what it claims. My purpose is to show the flawed arguments that are leveled against the church here.
RickB- No. I cannot prove anything on a forum like this. I cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow or that it did today. Neither can you. I can point out the flaws of arguments though. And each person must make their own conclusions.
As far as the role of Adam, I have studied and pondered it for many years. But I have kept my mind open. And it was only recently that it came together and made sense. No chance I will expound on that.
FOF said,
the point is that there were very clearly individuals chosen and authorized to speak for Christ after He was gone. You really cannot identify when that changed, other than arguing from silence again.
I say,
The apostles were not “chosen and authorized to speak for Christ” they were chosen to be witnesses of his resurrection.
quote:
—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
(Acts 1:22)
and
And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.
(John 15:27)
and
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 1:8)
and
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ,
(1 Peter 5:1a)
and
Christ can speak for himself thank you very much
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
(Hebrews 1:2)
HORA
Wrote:
Falcon. Did you mean to write that Mormons will become gods? It sounds like that is what you wrote. What’s up with that?
Actually what I meant was that the foundation of the Mormon faith, LDS/FLDS, is that they believe that if the religious system is followed they will become gods. Their wives will become goddesses. They will rule their own planetary system and procreate spirit off spring who will then populate the planets that they rule. That’s LDS/FLDS 101. Other sects of Mormonism do not believe this nor do they accept the extra-Biblical “scriptures” with the exception of the BoM. The CofC sect gives their members the option of what they want to think about the BoM.
Anyway the LDS/FLDS have to go outside the Bible to find this god maker nonsense. It’s one way to ascertain that these folks are totally off the bubble, have false prophets and are no where on the Christian continuum.
grindael,
Good posts on prophecy and prophets.
Who speaks for Christ?
Well as grindael has so apply pointed out, after Jesus’ resurrection, on the day of Pentecost, the Father sent the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit are manifested to build up the Body of Christ until we can attain spiritual maturity. The Spirit distributes those Gifts as He pleases within the individual members of the Church.
The Spirit and the Word speak for Christ.
One of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit is discernment. That is why we Christians can say with absolute certainty that Mormonism is a false religious system, with a false spirit and false prophets.
We DO KNOW! We ABSOLUTELY KNOW.
Once again, FOF is not telling the truth. We do KNOW EXACTLY when the Priesthood ban was started, and by whom. It was by Jo Smith. Only eight months after Jo’s death (well before the 1847 troubles with William McCary & others) this was published in the Times and Seasons:
It is obvious from this, that the doctrine was in place and being taught since at least 1842 when Jo “translated” the Book of Abraham. They here, call it a “decree of eternal wisdom”, or a DECREE of GOD. And then we have Brigham Young, who said,
I have quoted Brigham Young’s statement on this blog more than 10 times, and in three conversations that FOF participated in, and YET, he still REFUSES to acknowledge the TRUTH. Young said,
Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.
What about this is not PERFECTLY CLEAR? Young said that any man having ONE DROP of the seed of Cain cannot hold the priesthood, and then says that IF NO OTHER PROPHET EVER SPAKE IT BEFORE, I WILL SAY IN NOW IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.
How much does it take, for those trapped in the Mormon bubble of denial to see the truth of it? If it was not PERFECTLY CLEAR before Brigham Young, he made it so with that statement. This was a PUBLIC statement, not one made in private. Young absolutely affirmed that this was the TRUTH and that it was being taught before he said this. Saying “We don’t know” is a baldfaced lie. It is a stupendous lie. We have it absolutely documented that Young made it clear that it was TRUE. Who are the “they” that also knew it? Those that doubted that it was indeed true.
FOF can keep repeating the same lie over and over again until HE thinks it is true, but he is only deceiving himself, as are the entire Mormon Hierarchy who knowingly lied and put up the same thing on their “official” website.
How can one believe “prophets” that lie like they do? Only those who have itching ears and hear what they WANT to hear.
First, the sun doesn’t “rise”. The earth revolves around the sun. But that might be too complicated for FOF to grasp. And is there proof that the sun was still giving its light today? Absolutely, because it was seen by billions of people, and if it was not, we would know immediately because it would be dark outside during the normal daylight hours, and we wouldn’t be able to see the moon at night without a telescope, etc., etc. We have cameras in space, and global communications. We would know IMMEDIATELY, if it was not. But that didn’t happen, and it was easily proved, because the sun is giving its light to parts of the world right now, and this can be seen from video feeds scattered across the planet. This is REALITY folks, something that might be hard to grasp for some like FOF.
This is simply another ridiculous analogy by FOF.
And the sun will be here tomorrow, because we KNOW that it has enough hydrogen to burn for another 4 billion years. If the sun were to become unstable, (against astronomical odds) we would know well ahead of time. There is nothing that can damage the sun, except a black hole, or another body with very heavy gravity, and we would know if there was one within the solar system. We would see it, or see its effects long before it got to the sun.
This is called science and the laws of physics. Anyone who understands these things would not have made such a ridiculous statement.
FOF is full of straw men. Sometimes I think he is simply a walking straw man.
But folks, this is what you get from someone who believes that the Book of Mormon has been “proven” to be true. He can believe that, but can’t believe that there is proof that the sun was still shining today and that it will shine tomorrow. I find this hilarious.
Oh Lord! This had to come up. Of course it did. ONLY FOF can truly understand what Brigham Young taught. Everyone else is totally incapable of doing so. Sorry folks, that you all don’t have the special FOF decoder ring that allows you to actually understand Young’s plain English. Sheesh.
But then, for those like FOF, Young HAD to be speaking in some kind of code, because the plain meaning of what he said destroys FOF’s entire House of Mormon Cards. It all comes tumbling down. Now, here is Brigham Young, published to the world in the Deseret News, proclaiming the Adam God doctrine. It is VERY PLAIN and EASY to understand. Once again, I’ll post it so that the lurkers can see for themselves that FOF is lying. (And of course he will NEVER reveal his “understanding” about Adam, because he knows that he wouldn’t be able to defend it at all).
Brigham Young taught that Adam/Michael was the “Father of Spirits”, that Eve was the “Mother of Spirits” that they conceived after they had lived on an earth and attained their exaltation. He also taught that GOD STILL PROGRESSES, and does not have “all knowledge”. Plain as day, in fact, Young repeated this over and over again, what mystery? It is as plain as day in this sermon.
There is no other way to interpret the plain English that Brigham Young uses here. (Except for FOF and his secret decoder ring). Adam then went into the Garden of Eden with Eve and ate mortal food and “fell” so they could have mortal children. Adam is the GOD of this world, the father of the SPIRIT of Jesus Christ, and the Father (with Mary) of his MORTAL BODY. Elohim, is Adam’s grandfather, and Yahovah was his father, as Young taught elsewhere. This is plain as day, and Young taught it. Only a fool would deny it.
Brigham published this sermon in the Deseret News in 1873 to make a point to those (like FOF) that choose to ignore reality and believe that Young taught something else. He didn’t. This sermon PROVES that. Absolutely, my lurker friends, PROVES IT.
Today, In Mormonism, it is FALSE DOCTRINE. That is the confusion of following Mormon “prophets”. Another of their many fruits.
grindael,
Very interesting observation.
You keep hammering away at FOF, showing exactly what was taught by BY and others, and he still can’t acknowledge it. Why is that? That more than anything is the point. FOF cannot spiritual appraise what is being said. He has a dark cloud hovering over him and chains that bind him; all spiritual of course.
This is a very good example of what happens to the thinking processes of someone who is trapped in a cult. I’ve noticed this time and again with Mormons on this blog, over the years.
Why are so many people trolling FOF? Not cool folks.
HORO,
I have no idea what your last comments mean. Please explain what you mean about people “trolling FOF”. Do you know what a troll is? I think I gave you an in depth description on a previous thread.
FOF gives as good as he gets on this blog.
On-the-other hand, don’t bother explaining your comment.
But before Sharon has to step in here, I don’t think we want to get into discussing if FOF is being “trolled”.
I’m wondering if you yourself aren’t “trolling” attempting to get this thread into a discussion of FOF.
I think we’d rather stick with the topic at hand. BTW, Mormons have been known to do what your doing in an attempt to hijack the thread and get everyone off topic.
Frankly, I did find the clarity comment amusing, FoF. Why? Because you use your ‘clarity’ to create confusion and avoid answering questions. Manipulation at its best.
Your arguments have been addressed adequately and all you do is say why our arguments are flawed without responding to our responses. All the while, the flaws in your arguments are glaring. Example: my previous paragraph.
See, clarity would be useful to lead to an answer, not create more questions. Creating more questions is creating confusion, not clarity. In addition, we have been very clear in what we have presented to you. There are excellent quotes Regarding the above topics that clearly show the thinking of your leaders. We have clarity on these matters, but by creating confusion you can justify your testimony.
Onto the apostles and Christ’s admonition: I think you miss the role of the Holy Spirit here. Again, we see a lack of understanding His role in our faith from you. All while you complain to us about flawed arguments…
Grindael,
You mentioned in one of your earlier comments Parley P. Pratt and a wife he stole leading to his murder, and then to the mountain meadow massacre. Could you elaborate? I am a descendant of Parley, and I know that my family, as well as my wife’s family were directly involved in the mountain meadow massacre. But I must confess that I know very little about those events, only what my family has told me, which is probably what their parents told them before and so on. As I am a new ex-mormon I am finding it hard to trust anything I’ve learned from my family or from the church and I’d be very interested in hearing about Parley and especially about the massacre from a third party.
If you could offer any links your sources of info, as well as your impressions I’d really appreciate it.
[I’ve sent you some information by way of e-mail – grindael]
FOF said:
“I do not think LDS prophets have taught false doctrine. The recent statement on race was not an admission that they were wrong.”
This is a scary and frightening admission from FOF and is a peek inside the mind of a TBM who comes from the kimball era (or earlier).
My father believes the same as FOF. These are men that are chomping at the bit for the “principle” to be reinstated so they can continue the blessed doctrine of D&C 132. These are men that believe that blacks were “less valiant” in the pre-existence. These are men that believe they will be gods in their celestial mansions.
The fact of the matter is that Prophets of the Mormon church have disagreed with one another, time and time again. Even the members of the quorum of the 12 don’t agree with each other and present conflicting opinions on many different issues. These facts alone tell us that the Mormon church is not what it claims to be; it is not the all knowing all truthful gospel that Mormons think it is.
It is perfectly okay for people to disagree when it comes to religion, but when you claim that you are the one true gospel, and the leaders of your church can’t agree… well THAT is not okay.
I also believe that when FOF says that the church never admitted wrong doing, he is partially correct. There have been articles here on Mormon coffee that address how the church never says “sorry” or admits wrongdoing.
This just encourages people like FOF to privately continue their belief in disgusting and racist doctrine like blacks and the priesthood, while outwardly saying something different. It’s EXACLTY the egotistical attitude of having “secret” knowledge that Mormons get off on. Then they tell everyone who confronts them that they “just don’t understand”.
I completely agree with Johnnyboy. When I was Mormon (and very devout) I definitely got off on the idea that I belonged to the church with all the answers and everyone else “just didn’t get it.”
But now that I have seen the light I finally am humble enough to realize just how little I know, and I actually prefer the thought that I don’t have all the answers, it makes it easier to have an open mind and really devote myself to learning, rather than fighting off other people’s beliefs.
One final note:
I believe the church in its current state is trying desperately to pacify both kimball era Mormons AND the younger generations of Mormons. The carefully worded “admissions” of wrongdoing never admit wrongdoing, thus placating older members in their outdated beliefs while convincing the new generation that the church has changed and moved on.
It’s quite impressive actually in the scope of it. Too bad it really is easy to see
@janstorm
Of course you agree with me! That’s why we are friends irl. HAHAHHAH
😉
Did Jesus leave representatives here are earth to go baptize and teach, proclaiming the forgiveness of sins through His death on the cross and resurrection? Yes he did. Were those representatives here proclaiming the forgiveness of sins 500 year later? Yes. 1000 years later? Yes. 1500 years later? Yes. Even today Jesus representatives on Earth are given the task of bringing the good news of the forgiveness of sins, baptizing in the name of the Triune God, and inviting us to gather round and partake of the Lord’s Supper. His Church has never left the earth. Just as Jesus promised. There is no need for new and different Apostles, prophets, teachers, and priests – the ones that our Prophet, Priest, and King sent are here today – fulfilling their God ordained offices, just as they always have been.
janstorm,
welcome .
Evaluating the latter days prophets /apostles of Mormonism track record of gospel preaching
is mandatory for conscientious LDS and anyone concerned about being possibly fooled by the
smooth advertising of false prophets today . Not much difference in taking time to look into
claims / promises made by certain car salesmen , doctors , or drug companies and their
“approved ” prescription medications , in order to avoid deception and the possible financial
or physical harm that can follow . Spiritual deception from imitation prophets is a very real
real danger as well these days .
Listening to Mormon authorities ( and especially Mormon apologists ) in how they attempt
to excuse some teachings by their recent predecessors is similar to listening to a seasoned
politician at a press conference rationalize his errors . They learn to use just the right words in
a way that gives them some wiggle room etc , without apologizing or flatly admitting they did in
fact mislead their supporters . False prophets are no different , to survive they must concoct
a response that is clever enough to not admit they taught false doctrine . This is what we see in
the latest official statement by church leaders about the reasons for their priesthood ban .
When the information is read on this issue a verdict emerges , one that is based on
documentation and common sense : the Mormon people are the victims of a broken trust .
They had been detoured into embracing aberrant doctrine simply because they trusted the promises of those that lead them to never teach /condone false doctrine . Doctrinal purity
was available form these men , while those who were in other churches were saddled with
preachers who could not be relied on to know God’s mind about important gospel truths .
That is the atmosphere Mormons lived in under Joseph Smith , and especially his successors
in leadership . Yet , incredibly , some of the egregious teachings about black skin/curses /Cain
that some non-Mormon church leaders of the day were dispensing to their flocks , Mormon
leaders quietly borrowed these and then carefully re-packaged them up and presented it to
the Mormon people as part of the ” restored gospel ” of Jesus !
This behavior lasted for well over a century .
Jesus was right : Matt 24:11
Janstorm,
Glad to see you made it safely to shore . Sadly, there are so many more like you once were who
are still following latter days prophets who have a track record of tossing their followers
to and fro on the waves of their aberrant teachings .
Jesus is enough . No secret temple rituals , no submitting to a man in Salt Lake City who
claims to be God’s sole authorized mouthpiece on earth , king of the earthly kingdom and
the prophet who rules over Jesus’ church . Three notorious lies .
The truth prevails : John 14:6 ; Heb 7:25 . May the Mormon people discover that Jesus is
enough .
@Faithoffathers
Faithoffathers, you have failed the challenge to support your stance from scripture or from ‘early’ church fathers.
Here are the challenges issued:
1. Challenge of a Prophet leading Apostles:
Every reference in the Bible places the authority of an apostle above that of a New Testament ‘Prophet’. If FoF, you are going to discuss prophets in the New Testament, you should discuss them in the context of the early church where the apostles led the church. Not a single reference of the prophet or prophets leading a church. (Judas or Silas or Agabus never led the church).
No support found in scripture or in early church practice.
2. Challenge of Priesthood Authority:
Please show me one verse in Scripture where Jesus, Paul, Peter or anyone else among the apostles required someone to have priesthood authority? Or setup the early church structure with a prophet at the helm?
3. Challenge of writing of New Testament canon:
How does the Son of God speak to us?
““And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then …” (1 Cor. 12:28,ESV; Ephesians 4:10-12,NASB).”
First through apostles. You’ll notice that the majority(if not every single book) of the New Testament were all written by apostles.
You have not provided any evidence to support your view, whether canonical or historical. Why is that? Is it because it isn’t found in the Bible?
I respect your views, but I challenge you to support your views based on Biblical evidence.
@Faithoffathers
Yes, but that is an isolationist stance, fof.(If we assume what you are saying is true). If you take that verse in context with the other verses in the NT, you’ll see that prophets do not lead a church. And you have yet to provide New Testament evidence with the requirement of a prophet leading a church. (Challenge re-issued)
1. No, I’m just asking you to furnish proof of ‘priesthood authority’. If Christ gave authority to his disciples, I can easily say that he gave them discipleship authority, and that authority is needed to ‘run the church’ today. It no where explicitly mentions it, but this is the logic you are using.
2. He DID not give Peter the keys of the kingdom. He PROMISED to give him the keys of the kingdom.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.(Matt. 16:19,NASB)
It is valid to assume Christ promised to give him the keys of the kingdom, but nowhere does it say he actually received the keys(Christ’s promises were conditional). If we are to assume he did receive the keys of the kingdom, these were not necessary to run the church, since the early church in Jerusalem was run by James.
3. You can make the point that Peter was a lead apostle among the apostles, but realistically, historically it was James that actually was the first overall leader. (Gal. 2:9-10,NASB; Gal. 2:11-12,NASB; 1 Cor. 15:3-7,NASB; Acts 12:17,NASB; Acts 21:17-18,NASB). In today’s ‘LDS’ church Peter would be the head apostle of the 12, and James would be the ‘Prophet’. I’m just using the ‘LDS’ example to explain the hierarchy of the NT first church, rather than agreeing with the LDS setup of apostles and prophets.
Succession based on Peter isn’t accurate to what is accorded scripturally or biblically or historically.
Secondly, Fof, you would have to show where Christ told Peter, I will give ‘only’ you the keys of the kingdom.
Challenge issued. Still waiting for proof, faithoffathers!
Supporting documentation for James’ position in the early church:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm (Chapter 7, point 9 & Chapter 5, point 2)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm (Chapter 22, point 4)
http://www.textexcavation.com/james.html#josephus (James the Just)
Herewith you’ll find Eusebius of Caesarea discusses in an indirect
fashion the first bishop of Jerusalem as James the Just:
History of the Church 3.11.1-2 and History of the Church 4.22.4
Rikkij said,
First through apostles. You’ll notice that the majority(if not every single book) of the New Testament were all written by apostles.
I say,
This is a very important point. One of the most important primary criteria for a book to be considered NT scripture is that it be associated with the apostles.
quote:
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,
(2 Peter 3:1-2)
end quote:
The first category ended with John the Baptist the second category ended when the Apostles died.
There can be no more Apostles after Paul (1st cor 15:8). God closed the cannon when the last apostleistic book was written this is not rocket science.
That is why very popular ancient books like the Shepard of Hermes were not considered Scripture even though they were beloved and completely orthodox. That is also an important reason why modern books like BOM can never be Scripture even if they make you feel good.
peace
FOF,
Nuts, I hate to disagree with you on the “apostles” topic but I think I must.
It all comes down to how you want to define the word, role and function of an “apostle”. I believe Barnabas is identified as an apostle. The word can be defined as “one sent”. That opens it up to other participants other than the original 12. Someone had to replace Judas. The eleven did give a criteria for choosing the replacement and then drew “lots”.
Do we have teachers, pastors and evangelists in the NT church? Of course we do. Do we have prophets? The NT is pretty clear that we do; again First Corinthians 12 & 14 explains it all.
So apostles? I don’t know, it’s an office in the Church and is listed with the others in Ephesians chapter four. I don’t see anything in Scripture that would tell us that the office was withdrawn from the Church with the close of the cannon of Scripture.
There are churches that identify certain men as “apostle”. It’s a trend with some groups. If they want to do it, I’m not going to climb all over them.
As for me, I purpose to know Christ and Him crucified. I’ll leave it at that.
Janstorm,
Of course leaders of the church have disagreed on many things. That proves absolutely nothing. They are human beings. What an unrealistic expectation that there be no disagreements. Your conclusion that the presence of human disagreement among the leaders “proves” that the church is not what it claims to be is really bizarre. Where is it stated that in order for a church to be true, its leaders must agree about everything?
And where is it stated that the restored church has the answer to every question? Again- extremely unrealistic expectations. This is a very common theme and pattern. Straw man at its finest.
JohnnyBoy- it is very hypocritical, in my opinion, for a person who believes in the Bible to accuse another person of being arrogant and having “discusting” beliefs because they believe God waited to extend all blessings to a particular group of people. Go read the Bible. That is the fundamental reality of much of the Biblical story.
RikkiJ- who said it had to prove that the early church was lead by prophets over apostles? I didn’t know that was required. Not sure why. My two points are that prophets existed in the ancient church and that Christ absolutely used intermediary leaders, like the apostles, who represented Him and whom Christ’s followers were required to “receive.” Those two points have not been successfully counted by anybody here. What we have is the typical side-topics and distractions about Adam-God and a whole host of pet-topics.
But I will briefly address your points:
1. Prophets leading apostles. This really has no traction- because Joseph Smith was, according to our belief, ordained an apostle, as were all the subsequent apostles and prophets of the church. So, you are asking me to show a precedent of a prophet leading an apostles. But in the church, the prophet is an apostle. So your argument makes no sense.
2. Priesthood authority. Call it whatever you want, but Christ absolutely gave His apostles authority to lead the church. He “sent” them and “ordained” them. He gave Peter the “keys of the Kingdom.”
3. The canon. Not really sure of your point. Is the canon closed? If so, why. When was it closed. Do you understand that all modern scripture came through those we consider “apostles?”
fifthmonarchyman- Please provide the evidence that all the books of the New Testament were written by apostles (I believe they were). But please show us the scholarly consensus that supports your claim.
You quote 1 Corinthians 15:8: “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”
You guys always do this- you try to force something into the text that is simply not there. Paul here is simply naming people who had seen Christ after His resurrection to prove that Christ rose from the dead. He is NOT stating that Paul is the last person who will ever see Christ before He returns to the earth. Your logic here is no different than the logic used by those who claim that the canon is closed because Revelation states that nobody should add to the book of that revelation. Very simplistic and incorrect.
As to Lynn’s argument that prophets were not needed after Christ, I suggest a reading of Revelation 11 where it describes two of God’s witnesses who will prophecy and who will eventually “lie in the street” for 3 1/2 days before rising again. Prophets existed in the ancient church, and they will exist before Christ returns to the earth. Lynn’s argument is uninformed and incorrect.