[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
To FofF & all lurkers
A question that constantly springs to my mind in debates of this nature, is the one that Jesus asked of his disciples in Matthew 16:15 “who do you say that I am”?
So FofF who do you say that He is?
Don’t bother answering it’s a rhetorical question but when the correct answer has been revealed to you, as it was to Peter, you will walk away from your false prophets & will never look back. The reason, the ONLY reason, that any LDS member has for claiming that prophets are needed to guide & lead the Church is because they are without understanding. They do NOT understand the nature of Christ, they do NOT understand the nature of the Holy Spirit & their knowledge of the true nature of God is almost non-existent. Sure they can say all the right sounding words that may impress those who are lost but without understanding their words are empty.
I could quote Scripture to show the truth of what I say but would there be any point? As far as they’re concerned Jesus is just an elder brother, the son of an exalted man & nothing that is said here will change their minds. Pride blinds them to the truth, the need to believe that they are basically of the same substance as Christ. It is pride that leads them to do meaningless works to prove they are worthy, the same pride that prevents them admitting ‘I am nothing & I can do nothing, everything was done for me on the cross’
Until they are prepared to put away their pride & humble themselves before God they will never acknowledge or understand just how far removed from God they really are.
OOPS!
My above post should be to FifthMonarchyMan. At least I had one letter right!
If we look at the Church is the first 400 years, the key position was that of Bishop. In fact the saying went, “Where the Bishops are, there is the Church”. That pointed not only to their function within the Body of Christ but to their lineage.
When the Church Fathers were battling the heretics, the tradition of the teaching specifically regarding the deity of Christ was very important. The Bishops would often pull rank and point out that they were the ones that had been taught by those who had been taught by the apostles.
Even today the Catholic Church uses the dual authority of the Scriptures and the tradition of the Church.
Mormons on the other hand run away from their traditions because the traditions are clouded with often bizarre and embarrassing teachings and doctrines. Is the modern day LDS church willing to go back to its roots and practice Mormonism as it was in the mid-19th century?
There are multiple Mormon sects holding to completely different views of what they call the “restored gospel”. The FLDS doesn’t appear to be embarrassed by what their all about, the CofC will simply say that it’s part of their history and not embrace the doctrines, and the LDS can’t quite figure out if they are fish or fowl. So what the LDS is tasked with doing is basically putting lipstick on a pig; just keep spinning and when that isn’t sufficient deny, obfuscate and when necessary, “lie for the Lord”.
Faithoffathers,
You may not think Lynn’s statement needs clarification, but I believe your statements do. To wit, though you said Lynn’s words need no clarification, you nevertheless restated them in your own words. Please help me understand what you meant when you re-expressed Lynn’s thought as “no other authority or representative is needed.”
You also stated that it is “false and unbiblical” to say (as you restated Lynn’s words a second time) “there is no authority between us and Christ,” while also maintaining that you “agree that there is one mediator between God and man.” It was disagreement with Lynn’s statement — that there is no longer need for a [living] prophet to mediate between God and man — that began your criticism of Lynn on this thread. I find your comments very confusing.
In your latest comment you again say that Lynn’s “argument” that prophets were not needed after Christ is “uninformed and incorrect,” citing Revelation 11 to support your claim. You continue to argue against something Lynn did not assert. As I attempted to point out yesterday by reposting Lynn’s actual statement in context (which you said was unnecessary), her single-sentence comment on which you focus addressed specific functions of biblical prophets that are no longer needed; that is, a prophet is no longer needed to mediate between God and man (1Timothy 2:5) and no longer needed to speak for God (Hebrews 1:1-2). Lynn said nothing one way or the other regarding the existence (or functions) of those called “prophets” in New Testament times.
In the end, Lynn’s post is not arguing for or against living prophets. Her argument is that Joseph Smith is an unstable foundation. She encourages her readers to abandon the house built on sand and instead rest securely on the foundation of Christ.
If you want to discuss New Testament prophets in general, that’s fine, but I would like you to stop misrepresenting what Lynn wrote. Or better yet, focus your discussion on what the OP actually addresses.
Old Man said, “Until they are prepared to put away their pride & humble themselves before God they will never acknowledge or understand just how far removed from God they really are.” This is an idea that I hear often in various Christian circles. As I travel the world I am at times surprised by how backwards some people do things. Then I realize that it is me that has been looking at things backwards. I have found that I am at times screaming that another is ignorant when in fact I am the ignorant one. Christ and his followers were the minority, but that doesn’t take away from the veracity of his teachings. That is why I am excited to read the thread and see what I might learn.
@fof
I guess you should tell the leaders of the lds inc to “go read the bible” cus according to them last year they said “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began”.
Well they realized how STUPID that explanation was so they then changed it to what the essay says now. And that answer was unequivocally “racism”.
So yeah, Imma gonna go with disgusting racist doctrine. Doctrine which according to your admission is something you believe wholeheartedly in and agree with.
Your church is slipping away from you fof. Have fun when they start changing more doctrine like Indians being lamanites. OH WAIT! They already did that too! Womp womp
Oh, and when I read the bible, I don’t see anywhere that God cursed Solomon for being “black and comely”. I guess the Mormon curse of Cain didn’t apply to Solomon.
Acts 10:34-35 – Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him
I wonder if Solomon was less valiant in the pre-existence? According to fof, Solomon’s skin color certainly implies that he was.
Pingback: Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 2 | Mormon Coffee
Pingback: Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 1 | Mormon Coffee
And if it’s Solomon’s wife who is black and comely then i guess we should slit Solomon’s throat cus according to Brigham Young that’s what we do to people who are interracially married.
Fof said,
its no big deal if my leaders don’t agree, that proves their human.
Fof, what a joke. It is a big deal when your leaders teach, only the prophet can speak for God.
Then when your prophets contradict each other, and they have and I have in the past shown below these quotes.
But the way the prophets get around this problem is, they say, the prophet does not need to say, thus says the lord. So if they contradict each other, lads then can say, it was their own opinion since they did not say it was from the Lord. What a joke and a bunch of liars.
Final note,
Hasn’t the issue of Mormon racism vs fof’s so called “biblical racism” been beat to death on here before? I remember this issue being hashed out on a thread last year.
Basically it boiled down to that nowhere does the bible curse anyone for their race or skin color, rather the bible condemns groups of people based on things like idolatry etc.
This was the thread I was thinking of:
http://blog.mrm.org/2013/06/still-no-formal-repudiation-let-june-8th-be-a-day-of-shame/comment-page-1/#comments
This addressed both issues of “never saying sorry” and the racism of Mormon doctrine.
There was another thread somewhere on here that discussed biblical “racism” but it was usually Shem or fof trying to excuse Mormon racism by claiming the bible “did it too!”
Full disclosure, I am a member of the LDS church, and find discussions on religion very appealing, when had in taste and with respect. I found it very interesting when the Church adjusted their narrative on the history of racism. I never had a warm fuzzy when questioned, and never did like the answer that sometimes “only God knows why things happen.” I am much more comfortable with the knowledge that mistakes were made. At times I can see that there are members of the church that sincerely believe Mormons have the corner on truth and righteousness. I thoroughly believe that God loves and cares for all of his children, not just those who believe a certain way, or even do what is asked of them. I’ve got a few kids of my own, and even when they blatantly disobey me, I would still give my life for them in a heartbeat. Point being, I think we all have a responsibility to practice our belief system to the best of our ability, and I guarantee you we all have different perspectives on what that is. My actions are based on principles that I hold dear, and I pray that at the end of the day God will forgive me for my shortcomings and welcome me back!
The answer is……………
the foundation of the LDS church is Joseph Smith and those who followed him as the LDS prophet. So if these guys are not true prophets, then the foundation of this religion is indeed built on sand. Actually sand would be an up-grade.
The Christian faith is built on the foundation which is Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for sins completed on the cross. That’s it! By putting faith in Jesus as the Son of God, as God incarnate, a believer secures salvation.
Having put our faith in Jesus then, through the Holy Spirit we are born again. Being born again, justified, we are then sanctified. We begin to conform, by walking in the Spirit, to God’s ideal. None-the-less, we are declared righteous by faith in Jesus.
That’s what the Bible teaches.
Falcon, I’d add that only faith in Jesus is needed to achieve that.
We don’t need to recognize prophets or apostles because Jesus is there for us all. Prophets and apostles may exist, and can contribute to spreading Jesus’s word through the world, but they are not necessary to salvation nor for access to God. Jesus is and always will be the mediator for us to God.
Falcon said,
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 say,
actually I don’t think there is any disagreement. There are lots of little “a” apostles even today just like there are lots of little “p” prophets lots of little “b” baptisms (my bath last night for example) and lots of little “e” elders (old man for one) .
The NT is written in simple language using common everyday words that everyone would have been familiar with . The problem comes when we attach later Churchy meanings to those common words.
Like I said lots of folks can be apostles but the office of Apostle that I’m talking about is very restricted. It contains only those who were specifically chosen by Jesus to serve as witnesses of his resurrection. Paul was the last one of those chosen
I’m pressed for time but if you would like I can provide lots of scripture to back this up when I get a minute.
Peace
Lynn said , ” A prophet is no longer needed ” . She is correct . The context of her statement is
simply the difference in the arrangement between the O.T. and N.T. that’s all . In the church
Jesus established through His apostles there is no ” A prophet ” at the top ruling over the
whole Body of Christ . But Mormon leaders want to rule like prophets in the O.T. and that’s
why they also tried to use the O.T. to justify their teachings about Black skinned people . The
New Testament apostles did not teach what Mormon leaders did about black skin / curse of
Cain . But the Mormon people have been taught to trust their ” living prophets ” over the dead
apostles of the Bible when new doctrines are introduced by their leaders , so when Black skinned
men were not given all the privileges of the gospel as white men , then that’a all that matters .
The Mormon people have been fooled for a long time , but people like Lynn and others on
here who have found the liberating truth about Jesus being enough will be able to help those
Mormons who desire God’s best to look into the New Testament for themselves and see Jesus’
arrangement for those who worship Him .
Oh FOF, I posted the entire account here, just a few days ago on this thread. So that’s OLD NEWS my friend. Once again, reading and comprehension may help you, but I doubt it, because you obviously don’t understand anything about the two witnesses. And while you’re at it, read Sharon’s comments. You can’t even comprehend what Lynn is really saying, only what you want her to say, so you can use that to argue against. You keep doing this, making up stuff that you can then tear down to make yourself feel good, or whatever the reason is.
They are not going to be Corporate Suits. They will be “clothed in sackcloth”. They will not be administrators. They will appear at a time of catastrophic upheaval in Jerusalem. They won’t be sitting in Corporate Offices half a world away, or hiding in their Church Condos. They are called WITNESSES, not PROPHETS, by John. They will be PROPHETS, but only because they will have the GIFT of PROPHECY, which they will use for 3 1/2 years, as they testify of the Lord to the whole earth. They will not be like Jo Smith, who continually ran from persecution, but they will hold their ground, and destroy their enemies by the POWER OF GOD. It will be clear as day, who they are, and what they are doing.
When have Mormon “prophets” ever done such a thing? NEVER. When Jo went to “redeem Zion”, he failed miserably. And when he got there, he was struck down by cholera when he tried to heal those he brought with him to fight the Missourians. In fact, on June 22, 1834, Jo “prophesied” that,
This didn’t happen either. The GENTILES are still there! They never left. Another big fat “0” for Jo Smith. Everything Jo said didn’t happen. I guess after getting a good dose of cholera, Jo had second thoughts about actually redeeming Zion with POWER, as he said he would do just a few months earlier, in February of 1834:
So Jo says that “the Lord” says that the “redemption of Zion” MUST come BY POWER (the same POWER that the Two Witnesses will have), and that they would be led by “a man like Moses”. Well, “Like unto Moses” Jo took them down to Missouri and guess what? HE WAS NO MOSES. Not even close. Then the backpedaling began. But even “the Lord” could not get Missouri away from those pesky Gentiles. And they are still there to this day. (Unlike what Parley and Jo and the Book of Mormon said). But Jo just couldn’t give it up. He wrote this, shortly after he gave what became Section 105:
The Redemption of Zion was prophesied to take place on September 11, 1836. Another big fat “0”. This was in 1834, and the NEXT YEAR, Jo again prophesied the “redemption of Zion”:
The Voice of the Spirit told him “the dye is cast to live or die to this end”. Sure thing. But … September 11, 1836 came and went. Jo was no Moses, but UNLIKE Moses Jo blamed his failure on everyone else. Moses had all kinds of unbelievers and recalcitrant Israelites in his train, but did that stop him? No, because Moses had the POWER OF GOD. If GOD wants something done, and his REAL prophets tell us that it’s going to happen, IT HAPPENS. Jo was no Moses, and modern Mormon “prophets” are just as powerless. The only thing they are powerful at, is making money in concert with the god of this world. And we all know what God of heaven thinks of the rich, don’t we?
Sharon- I restated Lynn’s statements because, in my opinion, she was very clearly stating, among other things, that:
1. No servant, apostle, prophets, or what she says are “mediators” are needed after Christ
2. Acceptance of a “mediator” or representative of Christ is not necessary. She suggests that such acceptance is claiming that “Jesus is not enough.”
These are the statements and claims that I am arguing are false and not in agreement with the Bible. If the statement that “prophets are no longer needed” is somehow distracting or not clear enough, why did she include that simple statement? The New Testament clearly demonstrates that Christ worked through “middle-men” in the form of apostles and prophets after His death and resurrection. Therefore, Lynn is not correct in her argument.
You say that “In the end, Lynn’s post is not arguing for or against living prophets.” In fact, that is precisely what is stated. “Prophets are no longer needed.” She then states that God spoke through prophets up to John the Baptist, but then God “spoke for Himself” through Christ. Her argument is very clear. But it is false. And that is what I am trying to point out.
Prophets very clearly existed after Christ in the New Testament. And they will exist before He returns as stated in Revelation 11. That directly contradicts one line of argument that Lynn used against Joseph Smith.
Another line is that we don’t need any more intermediaries. And I quoted Christ Himself saying that those who accepted His apostles accepted Him. And those who reject His apostles reject Christ. There is nothing in the New Testament that states an end to that principle.
My comment agreeing with the idea that there is only one mediator was agreement that Christ is the only Savior and person who can save us. The “Mediator” issue is a matter of how “mediator is defined.”
By the way, 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 1:1-3 do not state that prophets are no longer needed to speak for God. And I explained why above.
MJP- Christ disagreed with your argument that “we don’t need to recognize prophets or apostles because Jesus is there for us all.” He clearly stated that those who accepted the apostles were accepting Him. And those who rejected the apostles were rejecting Him.
If there are real apostles today, accepting them is accepting Christ. And I find it difficult to claim one can be saved while rejecting Jesus.
Actually, we can see here that FOF is blatantly changing what Lynn ACTUALLY said. She said A PROPHET is no longer needed, NOT “Prophets are no longer needed.”. The use of the “A”, means that she was saying this in relation to something. What was it? A PROPHET as a MEDIATOR or God’s only spokesman on earth, as were the Prophets before Jesus came in the flesh. NOT the GIFT of PROPHECY. Again, what FOF is advocating flies in the face of everything written in the New Testament about the gift of prophecy and what prophets do for the church.
This is so clear and simple that it boggles the mind that FOF would try and manipulate what Lynn said. For what purpose? So FOF can build his own strawman and then feel good that he could tear it down. This is ALL FOF does folks. The walking strawman strikes again.
The problem is, by their fruits you will know them. Mormon “apostles” are not REAL apostles. As Jesus himself said,
No one here is rejecting Jesus. We are rejecting false apostles and prophets who, by their fruits have been proven to be false.
Dang I can’t resist this one
FOF said
The “Mediator” issue is a matter of how “mediator is defined.”
The dictionary simply says
: one that mediates; (occupies a middle position) especially : one that mediates between parties at variance
on the other hand Bill Clinton said:
It depends on what the definition of is is
I say,
Do you sense a pattern???
Peace
grindael- really? You think it is significantly different to say that prophets are not needed any longer vs. a prophet is not needed any longer?
And where exactly is there a distinction found in the Bible between prophets who are mediators and prophets who are not mediators? This is becoming hilarious.
Are apostles no longer needed? (Or should I ask is AN apostle no longer needed) What is there about Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, Dallin H. Oaks, and the others that should be considered “bad fruit?”
fifth monarchy man- I am not sorry for trying to to be precise in defining mediator. I am doing so in an environment when my opposition is salivating for any opportunity to claim I don’t believe in the “real Jesus” or that I put my trust in men, not Jesus. A prophet, apostle, preacher, bishop, disciple all act as a mediator of sorts. Do you not try to “mediate” for God by “preaching” or “ministering” to LDS people here? I recognize one true mediator in Jesus Christ. But there are other types and degrees of mediating. And it is the conflation of these two things upon which an argument is being made here to reject modern prophets and apostles.
Family man said
No offence family man, but either you did not read the Bible, or you read this and ignored it.
But Jesus clearly said, You are of your father the Devil. So we are not all God Children. The Bible also tells us, that only those that call upon the name of Jesus are Born again and are His Kids.
We are all Gods Creation, but we are not all Gods Kids.
The Bible is clear, Not all will be saved, and the way to life is so narrow few find it, but the way that leads to death is broad and many are headed that way.
“MJP- Christ disagreed with your argument that “we don’t need to recognize prophets or apostles because Jesus is there for us all.” He clearly stated that those who accepted the apostles were accepting Him. And those who rejected the apostles were rejecting Him.”
Did He? I am back to the role of the Holy Spirit and what Christ actually said. Christ’s admonition to them stated that those who accept them will accept Christ, and those that don’t, also reject Christ. What is important here? Is it that Christ gives the authority through the position, or through the message Christ gives them? These men are preaching Jesus’ word, and a rejection of them is also a rejection of the message of Christ.
And how are they to always preach the word of Christ? Because the Holy Spirit is with them. Remember, the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Trinity, which means that Christ is always there through the Spirit. Jesus also told them that He would always be with them, even to the end.
So, if Jesus was with them always through the Spirit, it stands to reason that the important factor is not the authority of an apostle, but the presence of Christ with them and the message that Christ gives to those who accept or reject.
“If there are real apostles today, accepting them is accepting Christ. And I find it difficult to claim one can be saved while rejecting Jesus.” I’ll agree with you here, with one caveat: is the Holy Spirit a part of the apostle and is the apostle teaching the true word of God? Otherwise, anyone can claim to be an apostle and not everyone who accepts or rejects that person will accept or reject Christ.
Family Man,
Thanks for stopping by . I hope you can see why we’re trying trying to remind Mormons of a
real danger in their midst , namely, the danger that false prophets pose to sincere people .
Jesus warned you of such , so please understand this is a very real danger . I say this because it
appears you do not take this issue of how Mormon leaders taught about black skinned people
seriously , at least that’s how you come across . Can we trust Mormon leaders to be consistently
reliable guides in their gospel teachings ? I testify to you that I cannot , and my heart breaks for
those Mormons who feel that a life filled with living moral principles can somehow make up for
following false prophets . That’s ” a short coming ” as you say , that can bring dire spiritual
consequences in the end ( something that the Bible and Book of Mormon both teach ) .
Sadly, but too many Mormons have a mindset that all false prophets /apostles are like a Brian
David Mitchell ( he’s the ” latter days prophet who kidnapped Elizebeth Smart a few years ago)
and because Mormon leaders are well dressed , polite , and talk a lot about being good moral
people , that somehow these men just could’nt be false prophets etc . Please don’t fall for that
type of reasoning .
You said , ” I am much more comfortable with the knowledge that mistakes were made . ”
” mistakes ” ? That’s a start , but maybe the next time one of your children break a promise
or pass on a falsehood and then later when confronted with the evidence they refuse to say
” I apologize for misleading you ” , but instead say they merely wish to ” adjust” a “mistake”
perhaps you might recognize something is not quite right . Now certainly the age of the child
is to be considered here but the point is the Mormon people should hold their leaders
accountable for what they teach —- they should not allow them to play what amounts to word
games . The latest statement about the priesthood ban should have contained an admittance
that false doctrine was taught then passed on from Mormon prophet to Mormon prophet .
Where’s the accountability ? Please read 2 Tim 4: 3,4 this describes the behavior by Mormon
leaders on their teachings about Black skinned people in Jesus’ ” restored ” church .
Please read all the information on this issue that MRM offers . It can help you to see more of
the picture on this issue .
Take care .
FOF said,
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.
I say
I never said that the books of the NT were written by apostles I said that they were all associated with apostles. The book of Mark was associated with Peter and the book of Luke was associated with Paul for example. As for scholarly consensus What does scholarly consensus have to do with the issue of canon?
You say,
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.
I say,
I never once said that Paul was the last to see Christ before he returns to earth. Paul does however make it abundantly clear that he is the last one to witness the resurrection. His post ascension visitation is the exception that proves the rule. That is the point of the paragraph (Acts 15:9-11)
To hold the office of Apostle you need to have been a witness to the Resurrection (Acts 1:22, Acts 4:33, Luke 24:48, 1st Cor 15:7, 1st Cor 9:1 etc etc etc). Paul was the last person ever to be able to make that claim.
peace
FOF said,
A prophet, apostle, preacher, bishop, disciple all act as a mediator of sorts. Do you not try to “mediate” for God by “preaching” or “ministering” to LDS people here?
I say,
perhaps we are at the root of the disagreement. I do not in any way seek to mediate for God the very thought of the thing is blasphemous.!!!!!!!!
I seek only to point folks to the only Man that can serve as a mediator between man and God. I struggle with trying to say this as clearly as possible so you don’t miss it .
If I claim to in any way stand between God and man I have become an Antichrist. Taking for myself the very office that rightly belongs to Christ. The office that he paid for with his precious blood.
I’m not sure how I can express myself any clearer. This is not a trivial issue of definitions this is an issue of the worst kind of arrogant disobedience. I say that with a heavy heart I hope you understand the gravity of my warning
Peace
The definition of a mediator, as a person, is one who stands in the middle of a dispute to resolve it for the other two, or something that transmits information. I went over this with FoF earlier. Neither of these help his cause.
And I agree with 5thMM that one who pretends to mediate before God on our behalf is heretical.
Real quickly, I thought I’d give a shuot to Lynn for posting these articles. They’ve been great.
To sum up what I said earlier to FofF, & also because he has totally ignored it.
All Christians here know the Jesus of the Bible therefore they DO NOT NEED a prophet to lead them.
Mormons do not know the Jesus of the Bible therefore they DO NEED a prophet to lead them.
Simple really.
You have to prove everything from Scripture, fof. Doctrinal falsehood is non-adherence to Scripture.
If the LDS is going to claim a restoration to what the early church practised, they are simply not doing it.
Kudos to Fifth Monarchy Man who touched on the value of Scripture through Prophets(Old Testament). Were there prophets in the New Testament? Absolutely. (Ephesians 4:11,NASB).
Were they the revelators through which scripture (New Testament) came? Absolutely not.
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (Luke 16:16,NASB)
I’m sorry I’m not communicating, but essentially, I would like to see where Peter or James, whichever you would like to slice it (Leader of the First Church @ Jerusalem) was ‘ordained’ a Prophet over the Apostles. Why does my argument make no sense? Because you have no proof, and you cannot argue it? You still haven’t provided proof of your stance from the Bible. Challenge still stands.
Once again I would like you to re-read the verse. He did not give Peter the keys of the kingdom, but promised that he would/will give those him. Just as Christ will give you eternal life if you turn to Christ. In the same manner, Christ will give Peter the keys. (John 10:28,NASB). This is entirely conditional – just as is the acceptance of Christ as one’s Saviour.
If the keys refer to the leadership of the church, and James the Just was the leader, did Peter actually receive them? It makes some sense (possibility) that Peter received these keys, but they simply were not referring the leadership of the first church.
Thank you for finally agreeing with me. The canon of scripture (in the New Testament) came through apostles, not prophets. There was no Prophet ordained in the New Testament to reveal Scripture. (Luke 16:16, NASB)
Therefore what the LDS teaches as a leadership principle, that a Prophet should lead the church is false. If not, Fof, show it to me in Scripture.
Canon closure – valid question. It was closed simply when the NT church (according to most records) realized that the apostles had passed away. Only their writings were still used as Scripture and only formally recognized years later(Hebrews bears some controversy, but that is simply in the minority). There was no first presidency in the early church nor a Prophet who led the apostles.
FOF,
There is a huge difference between “a” prophet and prophets.
Because your a Mormon, you don’t see the distinction. “A” prophet is what your church has at its head. That’s the context. Context makes all the difference in the world.
In orthodox Christianity, as the Bible teaches, there are those who, through the Holy Spirit, been given the gift of prophecy. These prophets have a very particular ministry within the Body of Christ. If you would bother to read First Corinthians chapter 14 you’d see very clearly how the gift of prophesy functions within the Body. Someone with this gift is not honored any more than anyone else within the Body. They play a particular role.
Your problem is that as a Mormon, you are not acquainted enough with the Biblical pattern and instructions to believers to understand these things.
You’ve bought into a faux religious system created by a false prophet that isn’t even vaguely related to the NT church.
MJP- Of course an apostles must be a true apostle to represent Christ. But you are adding to the words of Christ in qualifying the authority of those apostles He chose. He clearly stated that those who received them received Christ. You are qualifying His clear statement. But I agree that apostles have the Holy Spirit with them who testifiesw of their message of Christ.
fifth monarchy man- You said, “You’ll notice that the majority(if not every single book) of the New Testament were all written by apostles.” Now you are saying that the books of the New Testament are “associated with apostles.” Which is it?
Also- you say Paul stated he would be the last to witness the resurrection. Where does he say that? The verses you link to certainly do not state that- ” And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” Was this a mistake in reference? Or is there another passage that supports your claim? If so, please provide it. I Corinthians 15:8 doesn’t say it either. He is simply the last on the list of people had seen Christ at that point. He does not say- I am the last person who will witness the resurrection. You are inserting something into the text that is not there.
And “pointing” others to Christ and God could be considered a mediator of sorts. That doesn’t mean you are God or the Savior. You are a “go-between,” or a person who directs. That can be one who mediates. I am not sure why this one word is holding up any discussion. I don’t need it to make my point. Lynn simply stated that there is no need of a mediator. I am fine with that. But how did Old Testament prophets “mediate” in ways that are blasphemous now? That is the issue I have with this language.
Also- you claim that an apostle must be witness to the resurrection. The verse you link to does not state that. I quote from the Greek- “Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his
resurrection.” Acts 1:22
It says that a person must be “ordained” to be a witness “with us.” Could that be an actual ordination or granting of authority to be an apostle? If so, that supports what I am saying. It certainly does not state that a person must witness the resurrection to be a witness (or an apostle). What you are saying may be true- but that passage does not state that.
Old man- your statement is little more than rhetoric. It is not much different than saying “we are right and mormons are wrong.” It simply does not carry much weight on its own.
@Falcon
What you have said does not necessarily disagree with what we are talking about here. There are/were apostles and prophets in the New Testament. However, our topic is revelation in terms of written scripture. And in that, its impossible to find a Prophet leading apostles(NT Church). Second, prophets in the New Testament had a different role prophets in the Old Testament. The Old Testament clearly was revealed through prophets, but not the NT. Revelation came through Christ, and he ordained apostles to give unto us scripture. (Requirements for an apostle to replace Judas as an one of the twelve are listed here: Acts 1:21,NASB.) Hope this clears up.
I will have to respectfully disagree with Rick B when said that we are not all gods children. This is certainly not true. Whose children are you then?
Hey FOF,
You said,
You said, “You’ll notice that the majority(if not every single book) of the New Testament were all written by apostles.” Now you are saying that the books of the New Testament are “associated with apostles.” Which is it?
I say,
Actually the quote you are giving was not from me at all it was from Jaxi I think. I quoted him and responded with my own statement.
You say,
Also- you say Paul stated he would be the last to witness the resurrection. Where does he say that?
I say,
He does not say he will be the last. He says he was the “last of ALL” as “one born out of time”. the phrase means the same thing as abortion (think unnatural) . The meaning is clear his post Ascension visitation was unusual and not to be repeated. He contrasts his experience with that of “all the apostles”.
I realize you pride yourself in being able to make language bend to your aide. But surely even you will not make “All” and “last of all” and “born out of at time”
mean “some” and “first of many” and “born the way the majority are”.
you say,
acts 15:8 Was this a mistake in reference? Or is there another passage that supports your claim?
I say,
You are correct I was trying to hurry I meant (1st Cor: 8-11). It’s all about Paul explaining that his apostleship “born out of time” had the same responsibility as that of those born normally ie to bear witness to the Resurrection .
You say,
It says that a person must be “ordained” to be a witness “with us.” Could that be an actual ordination or granting of authority to be an apostle?
I say,
That is exactly what it means the only person qualified to do the ordination is Jesus. The qualifications of the office are laid out in the verse. Peter institutes the process in response to a direct command in scripture to replace a specific individual the traitor Judas. Jesus not the other apostles did the ordaining
If someone was to presumptuously attempt to ordain apostles that did not meet the qualifications and not in response to a direct scriptural command they would be acting as the mediator in the place of Christ. Do you see the seriousness of this?
You say,
But how did Old Testament prophets “mediate” in ways that are blasphemous now? That is the issue I have with this language.
I say,
That you don’t know the answer to that is proof positive that you miss the entire message of the Bible .
OT Prophets ministered in the OC that was nothing but a shadow of the New. Once Jesus instituted the New Perfect covenant with his blood it is the height of insult to seek to return to the shadow. Read Hebrews please
Prophets presuming to mediate between God and man now would be exactly the same sin as continuing to sacrifice for sins.
How can you not see that? It is the very heart of the message of the NT
Peace
@TheHorusOrionRa
Whose children are you then?
1. We become children (or more specifically sons of God) by faith. (Gal. 3:26,NASB)
1b. Those who receive Christ alone have the right to become Children of God (John 1:12,NASB)
2. Christ called those who ‘lied’ (in context, the religious leaders), children of the devil (John 8:44,NASB)
Can you show otherwise, THOR?
@FifthMonarchyMan
“You’ll notice that the majority(if not every single book) of the New Testament were all written by apostles.” – this I believe I mentioned, you may have misquoted FoF here.
Thanks Rikkij
I thought it was jaxi who said that. No matter I would heartily agree that the majority of NT books were written by apostles those that weren’t had a direct connection to the apostles.
It sounds like we are saying the same thing but FOF is trying to make the majority you mentioned mean all and then score points and muddy the waters by knocking down that straw man.
peace
TheHorusOrionRa said,
“I will have to respectfully disagree with Rick B when said that we are not all gods children. This is certainly not true. Whose children are you then?”
Ephesians 2:1-5
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved.
We are spoon fed by our culture from birth that we are all special, all children of God, that when people die God is simply calling them back home, God just wanted another angel, God loves us just the way we are except for those rare bad apples like Hitler. But that is not reality. We are by default, apart from God’s grace given in Christ, born children set apart for wrath, without even hope in the world.
Ephesians 2:11-13
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
@MistakenTestimony
I really like that post. What good is the gospel if we are already God’s children? Very good point!
fifth monarchy man ,
you said in reference to Fof F , he ” …..is trying to make the majority you mentioned mean all
and then score points and muddy the water by knocking down that straw man .”
That’s a accurate assessment of how he has addresses much of the content of these threads
about Blacks that Lynn has provided . ” muddying the waters ” and ” straw man ” arguments ?
Sounds about right . He will not address the substance of this issue , but then neither have his
leaders as is evident in the way they have handled questions of why the priesthood ban for
a long time , and the latest attempt to give a official answer by these men is still anemic .
Thor,
A few people have replied to you with the same verses I would have given you showing we are not all God’s Children.
So I guess you either need to provided chapter and verse from the Bible stating we are all Gods Children as you say and Family man claims, or adamit your wrong.
Honestly something tells me you wont do either. If you wont do either, then it will tell me you dont know your word and also cannot be trusted. Balls in your court. Rick
“Old man- your statement is little more than rhetoric. It is not much different than saying “we are right and mormons are wrong.” It simply does not carry much weight on its own.”
But it wasn’t said in isolation was it? If you had read & understood my first post you would know that the second wasn’t rhetoric, it was a summation of the first, the one you completely ignored. How very convenient for you.
So once again, & this time try reading what I say, you need a prophet to lead you because you do NOT know Christ & therefore CANNOT know the Holy Spirit, the one who leads all genuine Christians.
Like ALL CULTS the LDS have found alternative leaders, self-appointed FALSE prophets.
Here’s a question for you,
Is it God or man who chooses & calls a prophet?
Rather than wait for some ambiguous reply I’ll answer the question for you.
Because the LDS is a corporate sole, it means that God has NO part to play in the calling of your false prophet simply because THERE IS NO CALLING. The church has to follow a man made law concerning corporate soles & the next in line becomes president of the church & automatically, (via a man made law) becomes a prophet. A man made prophet leading a man made church.
What an insult to the one you claim to follow.
@Fifth
Sorry, I actually realized I misread your last post quoting FoF. Apologies.
@Thor
(Romans 9:8,ESV)
This is a key passage I didn’t list previously. It clearly speaks about children of the ‘flesh’ (Romans 9:4-6;9:26,ESV) as descendants of Abraham or Israel. But instead, those who choose to be sons of God (Romans 9:26;9:30,ESV) are sons.
Jesus also specifically claims those who listened to him as God’s children:
(John 8:42,ESV)
We become sons of God by believing in Christ.
Claiming to be an apostle or prophet doesn’t make someone one any more than claiming to be a taco makes someone a taco.
There has to be some evidence or proof that God has indeed anointed someone to the office and gifted them to perform the duties (of the office).
The LDS church is not built on a foundation of apostles and prophets and certainly not on Christ Jesus Our Lord. Even a casual reading of the NT shows clearly who Jesus is, what the Father’s plan of salvation is, and how the Body of Christ is to function under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Joseph Smith was little more than a religious amateur playing “let’s make a religion”. The foundation that he built in Mormonism isn’t even consistent among the various groups that identify at Mormons. Why is that? It’s because that some of his followers, very early on recognized Joseph Smith’s on-going departure from what the Word of God tells us.
The Body of Christ is based on the Lord Jesus Christ and on His revealed Word.
@Thor
If you want to contact me for any information, proof or scriptural backing (since it may go out of topic) of this forum, feel free to do it: rikkijmerica @ gmail.com
Offer is open to any lurkers who want to ask questions as well. Blessings.