[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
Falcon nailed it. Anyone can claim to be anything but that does make them anything. The truth is found in who can verify what they say they are. A doctor has licenses to prove t hey are doctors. Lawyers the same.
Propphets and apostles need the backing of the Holy Spirit. How do we know they have the the Holy Spirit? They tell us what the Bible tells us. They have the Spirit of Christ in them, and can speak for Christ. This is why the early apostles were told that rejection of them is rejection of Christ.
The LDS do not have the Spirit of Christ in them. So, rejecting them is not rejecting Christ.
FoF told us rejecting apostles is rejecting Christ. I challenge him to show that the LDS apostles are from Christ, and to support it using historical and verifiable evidence. His testimony is not enough.
Rikki,
if Thor sends you a private email I would be surprised.
I say that because when he first came here, he claimed he was a seeker of truth. So I posted my email and offered him to write me and we could talk, he said no. He said talking with one person in private is simply taking one mans ideas and he’s not open to that.
All it told me was, he’s not open to the truth and when you talk privately your real self and agendas can be exposed.
fifth monarchy man- You are right about the statement on books of the New Testament- it came from Jaxi. The absence of quotation marks on your post was a little confusing, but it is clear now it came from her. Sorry for my confusion.
MikeR- I have answered questions and addressed the complaints to the extent I think is possible. The fact that you don’t like my answers does not translate into my not offering answers. In this thread, I focused on two lines of argument or logic Lynn employed to try to support her assertion that Joseph Smith is not a true prophet. As you have apparently not recognized those two points I have made, I offer them again here:
1. Prophets did exist after Christ died and will again exist before He returns to the earth. Therefore, Lynn’s claim that prophets are no longer needed is not true. (The claim that they existed but weren’t needed in the early church is simply a red herring and is a claim made from silence)
2. Christ clearly worked through servants whom followers were expected to “receive” in order to receive Christ. There is no reason to conclude that this ended at any period in the New Testament or would not be true in the future. Therefore, Lynn’s argument that we do not need to “receive” servants of Christ because He is the only “mediator” is incorrect and flawed.
I have already offered opinion and an alternative perspective on the race issue relating to the Book of Mormon and the history of the church. I feel no compulsion to repeat that every single thread. I understand up front that what I post will not alter the activity of a single neuron in any critic’s brain here. I post here for other reasons.
Thanks.
“The claim that they existed but weren’t needed in the early church is simply a red herring and is a claim made from silence.”
Expand on that again, would you? See, when we are told over and over in the NT that Jesus is all we need, and fulfilled the role of the prophets and that the OT law was fulfilled in Him, I am not sure we need anything else. Further, that’s hardly arguing from silence.
I would argue that your claim that they are needed is not supported in the Bible. If all you really have is the fact that two men will prophecy just before Christ’s arrival, you’re not in a good position.
I will get that verse for you but it seems that i am obviously being forced to waste my time addressing an issue.
I wrote that post just yesterday and was very surprised that some have already accused me of not responding and what more making up reasons why they pretend to know why no response has come right away. Christ works not by bullying but by invitation and respect. Let’s all be respectful and get back to the thread.
Please also note that retirement doesn’t mean one has to spend all his time on his butt in front of a computer responding in real time to every post and question on Mormon coffee the moment someone else posts. Now I have been forced to respond to this nonsence instead of the topic at hand so I either get accused of not responding or I get accused of hijacking the thread. I dont appreciate being put in this lose-lose situation.
I am bending-over backwards to say this as christly as i can. Do not respond, just keep this common sence in mind. This goes for everyone including most of all myself.
So let’s all be respectful and GET BACK TO THE THREAD. Thank you.
THOR, are you sure Jesus acted “…not by bullying but by invitation and respect”?
He was often quite direct and forceful. Don’t let plain words written on a paper soften the blow His words had. Don’t also forget his rampage in the Temple.
Now, we are to be respectful, but even then being direct is sometimes required, no?
Oh FOF, out of all that I posted, you focus on the mundane. Of course there is a difference. It is called context, something that you know nothing about apparently. Now, I will proceed to answer your questions from the Bible, which is VERY easy to do, and educate you on something that you apparently either forgot, or never comprehended, because it has been repeated here a plethora of times. And of course you find this hilarious. You NEVER take anything from the Bible seriously, instead you focus on the pseudepigrapha of your false Mormon “prophets”.
The distinction between Biblical prophets who are mediators was that there was a NEW Covenant. The Old Covenant was FULFILLED. Look up the word, genius. Under the NEW COVENANT, the role of prophets changed, because with the distillation of the Holy Spirit, EVERYONE could be a prophet.
Spoken in times past by THE Prophets. What about “times past” don’t you get? He doesn’t do that anymore. The message of Christ was given, he sacrificed Himself to fulfill the law, and the Holy Spirit was disseminated to the Church, so that ALL could partake of the Heavenly Gifts. That is why Jesus said,
ALL the LAW and THE PROPHETS. Jesus gave the ROYAL LAW, that fulfilled the need for Prophets as mediators of the Law. Why else would Jesus say that upon this hung all the LAW and the PROPHETS? But the Holy Spirit still gives the GIFT of PROPHECY, when God wants to communicate with his people special messages for the benefit of the entire church. Something that ANYONE can do, not just ONE MAN. Or a select group of men. That is why Paul stated,
And what does he then say?
There is no ONE PROPHET that is a “mediator” for the entire church. Paul states that EVERYONE should eagerly desire to prophesy, and that it should be SHARED WITH THE ENTIRE CHURCH. Paul says “you can ALL prophesy ONE BY ONE, that ALL may be encouraged.” He writes that this is a COMMANDMENT to the churches. Mormon leaders are IGNORANT, as Paul states they must be, because they do not follow the COMMANDMENT of the LORD.
When has the above EVER happened at a General Conference? It did in the early days, but Jo shut that down because he didn’t like what others were prophesying. He did not want a majority of prophets ganging up on him. A good point is with Hiram Page. What he revealed to the Church was NEVER passed around, though many thought it logical, and revelation from God. Jo had all of his revelations destroyed, and had Page’s stone destroyed. Jo had to convince Christian Whitmer to convince his brothers and Page to “follow Jo”. This is not in accordance with the New Testament, but were commandments made up by Jo himself, where he put himself totally in charge of all “revelation” for the Church. This is UN-Biblical.
When (if ever) were there any PROPHETS who are not of the designated and controlled leadership, allowed to PROPHESY in GENERAL CONFERENCE? Mormons, in fact, deny PROPHETS, because they say ONLY the ONE “PROPHET” can receive REVELATION for the ENTIRE CHURCH, but that is NOT what Paul taught. Paul’s sarcastic comment, “did the word of God come originally from you, and that was it you only that it reached”, has been IMPLEMENTED as a LAW in the Mormon Church, because anyone who is NOT the Mormon FIRST PRESIDENT can only receive revelation for himself. The FIRST President is not subject to the “spirits of the prophets”. He is not subject to ANYONE. And he is swayed by men and “counselors”, who have the best interests of the CORPORATION as their focus, NOT the SAINTS OF GOD.
Is there anyone at all, that is allowed to voice their opinion about what is said in General Conference and instigate a VOTE right then and there to analyze any of it? Nope. They would be ejected from the Conference. This “revelation” from Jo, is totally UN-Biblical:
The Mormon “prophet” usurps the role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Everything they do is in secret, to protect the Corporation. This is the “bad fruit”. And they also, ignore the very words of Christ who said,
Mormon “prophets” TRUST in their riches. That is why Willy Woodruff chose RICHES, instead of the law that he was told he must follow:
The “wicked” DID prevail. He wrote that God told him specifically to KEEP the law. In fact, John Taylor also had a “revelation” in 1886 that said “the Lord” would NEVER revoke the practice of polygamy. A year later, Woodruff was more concerned with the RICHES of the Church:
Woodruff was more interested in the riches of the church, and saving his own butt. When did Paul worry about imprisonment for the cause of righteousness? About “personal property”? Jesus wasn’t concerned with the TEMPLE in Jerusalem, and prophesied its DESTRUCTION. It was NO LONGER NEEDED.
This proves that Mormon leaders cared more about themselves than they did about keeping the law. So it is the “best interests” of man, that supersede the will of the Lord? What happened to the PROMISE of the Lord Himself, just a year earlier when he supposedly told Willy that “no power shall stay my hand”, and that “deny not my word or my law” which concerns the SALVATION of men!!!!
The entire Church could have moved to a place where polygamy was allowed. But they didn’t do that, because they coveted the RICHES they had accumulated. This is in black and white right there above. Every Mormon “prophet” has lived in luxury off the backs of the members of the church. This was in NO WAY a Biblical model. They harp about how they are “like” the Biblical PROPHETS, but they are nothing like them. Their fruits are GREED, AVARICE, Self-AGGRANDIZEMENT, and the LOVE OF MONEY. They are deplorable men who lie, cheat, and steal from the church to better themselves. They got their lessons from Jo Smith, the rotten foundation, and they have carried on in his tradition, ever since.
Christ cleaned the temple claiming what was his, not forcing people into heaven. Being direct doesn’t mean being rude. Let me give you an example.
Rick B, the reason why I dont want to email you privately is because you mess around with what people say. I told you I came here to learn from the group, not limit myself to just one person.
Stop screwing with people Rick. Wait, let me help you so you dont misinterpret this too. Stop bullying.
[There was no reason at all to add this comment to your last one. No one here is bullying. -grindael]
Here we see FOF playing his game of definitions. Of course, the word “apostle” has been defined by the Christians here, but obviously NOT to FOF’s satisfaction or he would not be erecting another of his straw-men. What do YOU mean by an “apostle” FOF? The Bible tells us what the qualifications of the special TWELVE Witness “Apostles” was,
Some points about the selection of Matthias:
1. Judas had abandoned his office. The new apostle was “to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside” (Acts 1:25). There certainly is no precedent here, then, for a succession of apostles who served in their office faithfully.
2. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. That is clearly an unusual, even unique, situation. Matthias did not succeed Judas; he replaced him: “Let another take his position of overseer” (Acts 1:20). Matthias was “to take the place” of Judas’s apostolic ministry (v. 25). The difference is important. A successor would prove a succession, an intergenerational line of one apostle after another. A replacement does not prove or imply a succession.
3. Matthias’s appointment was a fulfillment of messianic prophecy or typology specific to the historically unique event of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas. Peter is explicit on this point: Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus…. For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’” (Acts 1:16, 20)
Since no one else will ever even have an opportunity to betray Jesus in this way, this is a unique historical incident that is not to be repeated.
4. Peter specified that the replacement was to be one of the men who had been a disciple of Jesus since the time of John the Baptist’s ministry (Acts 1:21-22). No one living after the first century could possibly fulfill this requirement.
5. The apostles did not ordain Matthias. The apostles did not themselves “ordain” Matthias. The two candidates for Judas’s replacement were put forth by the entire assembly of disciples (the 120), not by the apostles (Acts 1:15, 23). The apostles did not choose Matthias, but deliberately took themselves out of the decision-making process by asking the Lord to reveal his choice through the casting of lots (Acts 1:24-26).
This does not seem to be at all a precedent setting event. It was done, because Judas had ‘turned aside’ and Matthias was chose to replace him, not succeed him. How can ANY Mormon “apostle” qualify to be one of the Twelve Witnesses”? The whole purpose of the TWELVE, was to be an actual EYE WITNESS of Jesus Ministry from the beginning right to his resurrection.
Which, FOF, Mormon “Apostle” qualifies for this? NONE. You will NEVER answer this, because you can’t. As for the rest of those who were called “apostles”, there were in fact messengers and special witnesses, but not OF THE 12. There was to be no more Quorum of the 12 after the original Quorum died off. The only one ever replaced was Judas, because he transgressed.
Mormons though, have this backwards:
Let’s quote the whole thing, to see the context:
Notice what some always leave off at the end:
“INSTEAD, speaking the truth in LOVE, WE WILL GROW to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”
That is why Paul says there is one body and one SPIRIT just as one is called to HOPE when one is called, and each is given grace as Jesus apportioned it. Some he gives the gift (verse 8) of being apostles, and prophets, ect. (verse 11) And we still have those Apostles with us, for we have their words written for us in the Bible! What they gave us, has helped to MATURE the body of Him who is at the head, CHRIST. They are not “priesthood offices” and nowhere in the New Testament can that be affirmed. These are OBVIOUSLY GIFTS of the Spirit. As Paul wrote to Titus,
If you use common sense, one could not appoint by letter, because it took a face to face meeting to establish that these men were trustworthy. See.
Read what Paul states to Timothy:
It is a duty and a work that a man may aspire to hold. Mormons are automatically ordained into the priesthood at age 12. This is not in accordance with any Biblical tradition. Interestingly, the Greek word translated as “aspires” means to stretch ones ability to obtain. Therefore, your average, run-of-the-mill Christian is unable to qualify for the position. It takes effort on the part of the man desiring the office to stretch himself to his full abilities to live Christ-like in this present age.
As mentioned, Paul’s instruction to Titus also shows this duty to be a distinct one, when Titus was instructed, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). Men are placed in the position of an elder; they don’t just happen to obtain the duty. Since elders are always mentioned existing in the plural in congregations, it is a strong conclusion that there must be two or more men qualified before elders can be appointed. “So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23, emphasis mine). This is true with the appointment of the first deacons, as recorded in Acts 6:
Even though the apostles were inspired men, they did not select the men to be appointed. Instead, the congregation was asked to select the men based on the qualifications given to them. Once the congregation selected the men, the apostles then appointed (gave their seal of approval) to the elders in charge. It says nothing about Priesthood here at all.
The 12 were there to set the pattern that was to come. Once they did so, their work was done. They were there to teach about Christ and help the Church into maturity, the maturity that comes from the HOLY SPIRIT and LOVE. Paul was called to take this message to the Gentiles. Once the Pattern and the various churches were established, each one could run themselves. In the beginning they had problems, which the Chosen 12 helped them to overcome. Today, we have those instructions in the Bible. With that, and help from the Holy Spirit, we are guided in all things to the head, who is CHRIST. We need no “mediators”. Not when we have direct access to Jesus via the Holy Spirit, and his Spiritual GIFTS to the Church. ((Many thanks to Richard Packham for some of this).
Fof F ,
No , you have’nt addressed the substance of these threads . You have a m.o. which is to pick a
small point in the comments from Lynn and then blow that of like a balloon to make it look the
whole issue of the Mormon church teaching about Negroes is just what Jesus wanted for his
restored church . That’s a subtle tactic , but you’re not fooling anyone here . Your current line
of reasoning in those two points you listed are similar to this theme of yours throughout this
series of threads .
Quite frankly you are simply reading too much into what Lynn stated . Now granted if she were
here to comment then that would make it easier , but I think what you see in her statements
about ” prophets is too much assuming on your part . Taking what she said at face value , she’s
simply contrasting the O.T. arrangement arrangement concerning prophets with the N.T.
church organization . As a ex Mormon she well knows there is a difference in these and that
Mormon church organization structure with it’s one man at the top as God’s mouthpiece is
more in line with much of what see find in the O.T. It is clearly not the N.T. arrangement .
So when she said that , ” A prophet is no longer needed ” , the context of her statement is in
contrasting Mormonism (Joseph Smith ) with the N.T. and what it reveals about Jesus and
His church . Do you really think she is saying that no prophets of any kind have a place in the
N.T. church when 1Cor 12 and Eph 4 state that they do ? Please .
The way you stretched out the definition of mediator was silly because it really missed the
point she made about that as well .
I’ve said many times that Jesus warned all of us to be on the lookout for false prophets arising
in the latter days . Mormon prophets are a textbook example of who He was referring to , and
their teachings about Negroes is a classic example of why we can’t trust their claims to be
appointed by Jesus to preach His gospel . We might as well accept any of the other latter days
prophets of Mormon flavor — Warren Jeffs , Christopher Nemelka , John Bryant who came
on the scene in recent years because after all they have a inner witness and make authoritative
claims also . But Paul’s warning in Gal 1:8 is a great tool to evaluate any man who has arisen
and claims to be sent from God . . Bottom line ,you have nothing to offer me when it comes to
trusting your latter days apostles .
I’m sticking with the apostles teachings about God, race, peoples , and salvation revealed in the
New Testament .
One day hopefully you will see how you’ve been detoured from the that standard into accepting
the gospel of counterfeit prophets / apostles of the latter days —-Matt 24: 11
THOR, I only responded to your comment about Christ being nice and respectful to show that I disagree with your comment. Frankly, I think it is a cop out. Sure, we are to be loving, but sometimes loving another requires passion and being direct. Would you calmly sit by while you saw a loved one in danger? No! You wouldn’t. Jesus, too, is our model. Even if He were cleaning out what is His, we are standing up for what is right and what is His.
As to the topic at hand, we do not need prophets today. Ample scripture has been given above to support that. The only counter argument that has been provided is that prophets can exist today and that they are still needed. Nothing has been shown to suggest they are needed. An argument that people who reject apostles reject Christ is not an argument that they are needed today, at least not a good one.
Do you have any thoughts on whether or not prophets are needed today?
grindael,
Excellent post on the role of the NT prophet and prophecy in the Body of Christ. I couldn’t have done better myself. 🙂
If we want to see an example of how a NT prophet operated all we have to do is turn to Acts 21:10-11. This could also be a Word of Knowledge that the prophet Agabus was manifesting.
And what about a false prophet? Look to Acts 13:6-12. Paul said to this false prophet:
“But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?”
Paul’s rebuke and actions could be applied directly to the false prophets of Mormonism in particular Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Mormons need to decide whether they are going to follow these miscreants into spiritual destruction or turn to the Lord for forgiveness and the Gift of Eternal Life He is offering through Jesus Christ Our Lord.
THOR,
It’s very important that you not get side tracked . You must look at what is being said in this
series that Lynn has provided ( and also the info MRM has to offer about this issue ) and
render a decision about Mormonism . Should we be leery to trust Mormon leaders claims
to be the very same church Jesus established through His apostles 2000 years ago — restored
by Mormon prophet Joseph Smith , or not ? Should you care about this ? This is very serious
in light of Matt 24:11 .
We’re trying to help you here . We care .
HORO,
Would you please share your religious affiliation and/or belief system and also tell us again what you are doing here on this blog?
You did say you wanted to learn but you spend most of your time playing self-appointed monitor.
So what do you believe?
I should just let Rick respond to you and not mix in but you wrote:
Here’s something that you should know. Rick will take the time to be very specific with you regarding your questions and concerns. In one instance, he provided one of our LDS questioners with the information that led her out of the LDS church and to a personal relationship with Jesus.
Something tells me that perhaps you have some hesitation because you really don’t want information that will allow you to learn and grow.
At least the posters here, when they confront FOF and his nonsense, provide specific documented information.
Now you need to decide whether or not you are going to continue to play hall monitor or actually provide some cogent, meaningful and thoughtful discussion points.
I’m beginning to think you’re a posser with limited knowledge.
Lynn mentioned what ” Joseph built ” . What have Mormon leaders claimed he built ?
The religious system of Mormonism is supposedly is exactly the same church Jesus established
through His apostles like Paul , and they claim to also have the very same gospel he preached in
his travels as well as the same authority Jesus gave Him . That is the claim coming from Mormon
leaders .
As is common with other successful false prophets in the latter days Mormon leaders have
resorted to using half truths at first to gain the attention of their audience .
Mormon leaders do this by saying that their church is the one true of Jesus Christ because it
has been restored to earth in exactly the same form as it existed when Christ established it
first 2000 years ago . They will quote 1 Cor . 12 and Eph 4 where the church offices are
mentioned to proof of their claim . That serves as the bait to get someone to trust their claims,
but there is more to the story , which , when finally seen , tends to render a different verdict
on their claims of having restored the organization of the church that He established in the
first century through His apostles .
The N.T. describes the church , it mentions prophets and apostles . But Mormon prophets
and apostles are latter days imitations of the true . Claiming to have the offices of prophet
and of apostle is not enough because men can simply use these titles to gain an audience
and thereby mislead sincere people . This is what Mormon prophets and apostles have done.
The proof is in the pudding . The teachings about Negroes is one good example of why these
latter days apostles are only men wanting to be such , who feel in their minds that everyone
else is wrong so they will represent Jesus correctly , but Jesus did not appoint them because
they veered off of the true gospel and succumbed to teachings aberrant doctrines , and this
is how Paul told all of us to beware of especially in the latter days –2 Tim 4:3,4 .
What Joseph built was a building that looks correct on the first appearance , but upon closer
examination it is constructed in a manner that has not continued with the proper/authentic
blue print as guide , and thus is’nt a safe place to live . That blue print is what Jesus built 2000
years ago — His church ( and gospel ) .
Falcon,
From past experience I know that my reply to FOF will fall on deaf ears. It’s ok though, others will benefit from the truth. He is just a foil for that, to me. He does a great benefit in posting here, because he gives lots of false and spurious teachings that can be easily contrasted with the truth of the Bible. I’ve dealt with many over the years, and like I’ve said before there are many Mormons that I converse with, who disagree and acknowledge that Mormonism has some serious problems. They don’t turn a deaf ear to the truth, but try and cope with it.
Christians believe in the Bible and what is written therein. When it comes to the gifts of the Spirit, every man must be judged by his peers, as to whether what they say and do is of God, or not. Hence, “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets”. That is why the early Churches were set up with an Overseer and a ruling body of Elders, each to look after their OWN FLOCK. It is only when men get delusions of grandeur that error creeps in. They then take power unto themselves and start instigating all kinds of rules and regulations that have nothing to do with the message of the Risen Lord.
As Paul states,
This right here answers those who ask if we are all “children of God”. The “guardians” were the PROPHETS that God sent with his message BEFORE the advent of the Christ. Paul says something important here. He says BEFORE “THE COMING OF THIS FAITH” we were held in custody ‘under the law’, locked up until ‘the faith that WAS TO COME WOULD BE REVEALED.” This shows that Mormon claims that there was a ‘gospel of Jesus’ in former dispensations is incorrect. Paul then says “NOW that this faith has come…WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A GUARDIAN.” Why? Because we “are all children of God through faith, for all who were baptized into Christ “have clothed yourselves with Christ.” If we “belong to Christ” then we are “Abraham’s seed,” and ‘heirs according to the promise”.
Paul then tells us:
When we were under the law, we were slaves, subject to ‘guardians and trustees’ for a certain time. This was ‘until the time’ set by the ‘father’. And when the time fully came, He sent his Son, Jesus ‘to redeem those under the law’, ‘that we might receive adoption to sonship’. If we were already sons, (spirit children) we would not need to be adopted, for we would already BE Heirs. But God sends ‘the Spirit of his Son into our hearts’ the Spirit that calls out ‘father’, so we are no longer slaves to any law, sets of rules or regulations, or ‘guardians’, that might enact such regulations. We have direct access to Jesus, because NOW we are his children and heirs.
Joseph F. Smith was in violation of his own laws, and by his own words:
“if a man keep all the law save in one point, and he offend in that, he is a transgressor of the law, and he is not entitled to the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
What “law” did he not keep? The law of Consecration and Polygamy, and he even admitted this during the Reed Smoot Hearings:
Is it right that Mormon ‘prophets’ can pick and choose which laws to violate, while holding back blessings from others who in good conscience do not keep their unjust laws of tithing and the Word of Wisdom? Paul says no:
He then added,
We live by FAITH in Jesus who has spoken to us in these last days, the one ‘hung on a pole’, so we might “receive the promise of the Spirit,” and our ‘works’ flow our of our faith and love in Jesus. This is true deification, as taught in the Bible and by the early Church fathers.
Mormons want to take us back to the days of rules and regulations, and ‘guardians’ who would enforce those rules and regulations. What do they thin is meant by, “we are no longer under a guardian”? WHO was “the guardian”? Can those like FOF even answer this? Would Paul or Peter, or John ever have thought themselves as “guardians”? This poses a dilemma for Mormons, and that is why they are obsessed with the Old Testament, and have to continually quote it out of context to support their Mormon Law of Moses and their “spokesman for God” heresy.
I always have hope that those like FOF will hear the truth. For,
No ONE RULING PROPHET or GUARDIAN needed folks. Only Jesus. You can get ALL YOU NEED from HIM ALONE. You don’t need to be taught how to manage money or corporations. You don’t need to be harassed by others who would question your worthiness to have access to Jesus. His Salvation is a FREE GIFT. You don’t need to EARN an exaltation, all you NEED to do is,
This does not come by forced “rules” and “regulations” given by dictators. It comes from the Holy Spirit, again, Paul:
There are none “higher” in the “priesthood”. All are equal to God. All are not FORCED to GIVE. We GIVE in accordance to the SPIRIT. The Church of God is built on equality under the Holy Spirit, and trust in each other. It is not built on some kind of pyramid scheme, where ONE MAN is the head of all and dictates to all BELOW HIM. All the GIFTS of the SPIRIT work together for EVERYONE, and this house is built on LOVE and THAT is the SURE FOUNDATION, which is CHRIST, JESUS.
grindael,
thanks for your help . I so appreciate all the former Mormons here who have a desire to
reach the Mormon people with the good news of Jesus . Mormons simply don’t need Joseph
Smith , Brigham Young or Thomas Monson .
As for Jo Smith, some have said, (and this is a sampling of many, many quotes that say the same thing):
Christ, on the other hand, came for ALL generations. Contrast that, to what Paul said so many millennia ago,
Mormon Temples will be burned, as will all earthly things. All the wealth and worldly things of the Mormon Corporation will also be burned, as well as that of ANY MAN. All that will remain are Christ’s WORDS, imprinted on the hearts of his followers. Did Jo Smith build on the foundation of Christ? No. Why? Because he did not know Christ. Mormons try and FORCE people to believe in Jo Smith, and call those that do not, ANTI-CHRIST. Such is the fruit of Mormon “prophets”. Mormonism will fade and fail, while Jesus and those that believe on HIS WORDS found IN THE BIBLE will increase.
TheHorusOrionRa ,
You accuse me of being a bully, so how about we be honest here and say, You are a liar and a fraud. Now when people ask, How can Rick say that, here is why?
You said to me,
You have never written me via private email, so your accusing me of something with out evidence, that makes you a liar. If you have written me under a different name than we still have a problem.
If someone else wrote me privately, then shared what we wrote with you, then we have a problem. So you want to accuse me with out evidence, be prepared to be called on it.
Thor,
Lets put it all out on the table.
I am not known for leaving things alone, so let me say again, You accuse me of messing with what people say, If you feel that way, then not only do you need to back it up with evidence, but you also could have said that right off the bat when I asked you if you wanted to email me, instead of saying, you dont want one mans version. So that leads to the question of, Did you lie when you first replied to me, or later when you gave a different reason?
Now as far as Jesus cleaning the temple with a whip of cords, your fine with that, but what about things John the baptist said, or peter, or paul Etc.
Over view of what they said, You brood of Vipers, you white washed tombs, Fools and slow of heart,
They mentioned hell and called people false prophets, and wolves in sheeps clothing, called blindness down upon someone, claimed two people lied to God, then they dropped dead.
Wow, is that a form of bullying? if so, How? If not, then we as Believers in Jesus should be also able to speak the truth, even if it seems harsh.
Now onto the issue of you saying
So does this mean you must have groups think for you? If you go to Church, more time than not, only one pastor speaks, if you use your logic, you must not go since you will limit yourself to one person.
Now you claim your a seeker of the truth, yet you claimed I was wrong about not everyone being a child of God. Much scripture was given to you showing your wrong, yet you never replied to us. So does this mean your really not interested in the truth? If you are, you either need to admit you were wrong, or if you feel your still right, you should prove it. Staying silent makes you look like your lying.
Falcon asked you if your a christian or not, Prior to him asking, I asked you twice, are you a non-LDS christian? Currant LDS member, former LDS, Atheist, or something else?
You never replied to me either time. If you cannot answer a simple question, it will leave people to wonder, why are you here? and whats your agenda? If you feel I’m being mean, then feel free to not post here.
grindael- a while back I made a comment about you that assumed something about your education. I apologize for that. I know nothing about your level of education.
You have a very interesting, but limited manner of engaging differences of opinion. Because I disagree with you, you insist I “never take anything from the Bible seriously.” That is a very base and lazy waving of the hand, my friend. Show me how I have misused Biblical text, please.
From your posts, it is apparent that it is you who is trying to insert things into the text that simply are not there.
A quick look at a couple of examples should suffice. Like others here, you have misused and misinterpreted Hebrews 1. The text does not say that there is no role or need for prophets as a result of Christ’s mission being completed. It simply says at that point in time that God communicated through prophets before Christ. And with the mission of Christ, God has communicated through Christ. That is it. It says nothing about there being no need for prophets.
A critical part of understanding text is recognizing what the text is not saying. And this text is not saying there is no longer a need for prophets.
Are you and others suggesting that the prophets and people prior to Christ did not have the Holy Spirit as a guide? Because that would be a very interesting and false claim. What exactly did God mean when He said, “my Spirit shall not always strive with man?” He said this in the setting of mankind growing increasingly wicked. What did it mean for “His Spirit” to “strive” with man?
Or when the Lord said to Moses, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.” Numbers 11:16-18
The Old Testament provides plenty of accounts of the Spirit of God working with people, and not just the prophets. Gideon, Joshua, Jephthah, Amasai, Azariah, Zedekiah, Jahaziel all had the Spirit of the Lord work in them. Of the children of Israel in general, the prophet Nehemiah said to the Lord, “Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst.” Nehemiah 9:19-20
The Lord also said to Israel, “Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work: for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts: According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.” Haggai 2:4-6
There are many instances in the OT when several people of no apparent consequence were filled with the Spirit and prophesied. How is the OT any different than the NT as far as prophesy and prophets? I understand Old and New Covenant. But you can’t just sweep everything under that rug and claim- “well it was different.” Did Moses not also plead that all could be made prophets?
It is true that the Holy Spirit could not be present when Christ was present. I do not understand the reasoning for that. But that is what the scriptures say. I think you guys are only seeing the change that occurred when Christ left and the Spirit came. The Spirit was also present before Christ came. And I think that is confusing you.
But that is really beside the point. Christ led the church through apostles. And He expected people to receive those apostles. And there were prophets after Christ as well. So, the lines of argument that claim there are no prophets and that Christ does not use servants that must be received are flawed and untrue.
As far as requirement to be an apostle, you are extrapolating a global absolute from a specific set of circumstances in your argument. The passage from Acts does not say that any apostle in any day must be among those who were with Jesus during His ministry. Peter is saying that a man must be chosen to replace Judas from among the followers of Christ who has been with them. Do you think they would have chosen a newly converted person to jump in at this point?
And Peter offered or suggested two men to replace Judas. If you are correct and Peter was not the one through whom the replacement was chosen, why then was Peter the one who produced the nomination of only two men? Were there only two men who met the qualifications you are forcing into the text? If so, how about all the other subsequent apostles? This really gets you into trouble with the text.
You say the apostles did not “ordain” Matthias. That depends upon what it means to ordain a person. This, and you are speaking from silence. You say so many things for which there is no support. You insist that others were called “apostles” but were different somehow. You have absolutely no justification for this other than the need to make your theory work. But that requires you to force a lot into the text that is not there.
How many apostles are mentioned in the New Testament? At least 19, possibly up to 24. The original 12 plus Matthias, James (brother of Jesus), Barnabas, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Silvanus, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, Junia, and possibly two other unnamed apostles. There is at least one of those, Paul, who does not meet the criteria you are claiming are outlined in Acts 1. We do not know whether the others were around when Jesus ministered among the people. Given their Greek names, it is likely that some did not. But even if Paul is the only one, the logic you are trying to force on the office of apostle does not work. Do you suggest Paul was not a true apostle? Wouldn’t that be weird if so much of the New Testament scripture comes from a person who wasn’t a “true apostle?”
And what if I believe all modern apostles have experienced a witness of Christ that is different than the typical witness? What if the claim is that they have seen Christ? Would they qualify then? What would make them different than Paul?
And your argument that there was not to be any succession comes out of thin air. You, again, are trying to force something into the text. You can go on and on and elaborate your rationale, but it ain’t in the text, dear friend.
FOF,
Really you have to stop this:
“Are you and others suggesting that the prophets and people prior to Christ did not have the Holy Spirit as a guide?”
There you go again! Where in the world did you come up with that conclusion? Every time you post you provide an example of what cults do to the thinking processes of those who buy into their false, aberrant and totally destructive teaching. I think rick may be right when he calls you a liar. You are either that or totally delusional. You do appear to have at least average intelligence but I would question your level of reading comprehension.
grindael and others of us have clearly explained the role of the prophet in the OT and in the NT. And this was your conclusion? grindael is right. Mormons like yourself provide a perfect foil from which to present an accurate picture of the NT covenant to those Mormons who come here and are questioning Mormonism.
I’m not even going to spend the time responding to your claim about OT prophets and the Holy Spirit.
FoF:
“It says nothing about there being no need for prophets.
A critical part of understanding text is recognizing what the text is not saying. And this text is not saying there is no longer a need for prophets.”
Yet, it says more about there being no ongoing need for a prophet than it does for saying there is an ongoing need.
I’ve told you so many times now your own failure to see the flaws in your own argument. Here’s another example. We have quotes stating that Jesus is the only thing we need, and you gather from the lack of a very clear statement that expressly states: “No more prophets are needed” that there is a need for an ongoing prophet?
Come on. This is a very weak position to argue from.
Wow grindael posts a tremendous explanation of the precious benefits NC and FOF does not get it. Who would of thunk it.
I mean it was so plain and simple and beautiful even a child see it and not help but praise God for his wonderful gift.
Yet FOF want’s to show us that the OC arrangement with it’s guardians and mediators was not so bad after all. He has no comprehension of how insulting his words are to the one who paid for the New covenant.
The older I get the more I realize the truth of God’s word.
quote:
Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
(John 12:39-41)
end quote:
peace
Was the man who wrote the following a NT prophet:
“At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open.”
The author was Martin Luther. He had tried religious law and he was miserable.
He was extraordinarily successful as a monk. He plunged into prayer, fasting, and ascetic practices—going without sleep, enduring bone-chilling cold without a blanket, and flagellating himself. As he later commented:
“If anyone could have earned heaven by the life of a monk, it was I.”
Luther sought by these means to love God fully, he found no consolation. He was increasingly terrified of the wrath of God. Then he came to understand through Romans 1:17 that humility was no longer a virtue that earned grace but a necessary response to the gift of grace. Faith no longer consisted of assenting to the church’s teachings but of trusting the promises of God and the merits of Christ.
(see: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/theologians/luther.html?start=1)
Frankly, I don’t know what office Luther was assigned to in the NT church Body, but my guess is that he was a pastor, a teacher, an evangelist maybe even a prophet. A prophet is guided by the Spirit and the Word. Those who claim to be prophets but don’t follow the Word, are false prophets.
falcon- it is no surprise you don’t respond to or engage anything I posted.
grindael said, “The distinction between Biblical prophets who are mediators was that there was a NEW Covenant. The Old Covenant was FULFILLED. Look up the word, genius. Under the NEW COVENANT, the role of prophets changed, because with the distillation of the Holy Spirit, EVERYONE could be a prophet.”
What are we to conclude from this statement? Was the Holy Spirit reserved to just the prophets before Christ? Were Old Testament prophets “mediators” because others could not have the Holy Spirit? Others could not prophesy? Because there is absolutely no scriptural justification for those claims. There are many instances, as I said before, in the OT when normal folks were filled with the Spirit and prophesied. But somehow because that was under the old covenant, it was different? If that is good enough for you, great. But that type of hand waving and sweeping under the rug is not enough for me.
fifthmonarchyman- it is so typical to fall back to the position that because I disagree with you, I am shaming Christ. It is a sure sign of difficulty on the other side of the argument when claiming blaspheme of sorts is employed. Especially from folks who are claiming that LDS do not use their heads or reason. How about I say you are blaspheming God by criticizing the Book of Mormon. How does that work for ya? Is that a debate winner? It is just like the claim that a “blinding spirit” is preventing me from understanding your arguments. I understand your arguments. I simply see the lack of support for those arguments.
MJP- you say, “we have quotes that say Jesus is the only thing we need.” I have shown over and over that those “quotes” are not, in fact, stating what you say they do. Does that matter?
You also state that, “you gather from the lack of a very clear statement that expressly states: “No more prophets are needed” that there is a need for an ongoing prophet?” Didn’t you say you were an attorney? How in the world do you support that statement. I showed that Lynn’s claim that “a prophet is no longer needed” is not supported by scripture, and therefore Joseph Smith cannot be rejected on that basis. Where did I make the conclusion that a prophet is needed? I claimed the opposite cannot be concluded from scripture (that a prophet is no longer needed). That does not force me to make the opposite absolute counter claim (a prophet is needed).
The number of rabbit trails and overabundance of quirky and flawed thinking here leads me usually to make my case and avoid the inevitable disintegration of these threads.
FoF,
That comment you are claiming came from me didn’t come from me. I haven’t even been posting in this conversation. And if you are quoting me from some other OP than I would appreciate you let me know which one so that I can look at the context in which I was speaking. But I don’t remember saying the apostles wrote all the Book of the New Testament.
FoF,
I know you have seen this, but I will post it again
Yes, I am an attorney. And you have not proven anything, let alone make a compelling case for anything.
You’re not paying attention. Your claim is that the Bible does not say that prophets are no no longer needed, and that in fact they existed after Christ. However, even if we accept your notion that prophets existed after Christ, there is still the question of whether they are needed, or necessary.
You claim that we argue from a position of silence on the matter, but so do you. You cannot point to a single place in the Bible wherein we are told that prophets are absolutely necessary. Your only attempt at making the claim is that the rejection of the apostles is a rejection of Christ Himself. But this does not affect the necessity of apostles or prophets in the slightest.
I, and others, have given you quote after quote that Jesus is all we need. This supports much more strongly that prima facie statement than does your idea that the lack of a clear statement (the argument from silence point you make) allows for your prophet to lead today (which, by the way, is precisely what you are going for here).
How, then, is a prophet needed? You are church was founded upon a restoring of the orginal church, are you not? If the restored version had a prophet, then so must the original have had a prophet. If this is not so, then the original has been altered rather than completely restored.
If you say that it is by choice that you follow a prophet now, then that raises a number of other issues.
We have all said rather unequivocally that you don’t get it. You accuse of going down rabbit trails but really don’t see that it is you who lead us there. (That pesky plank in your own eye…)
You have become so focused on making your point that yo fail to see the bigger picture here. It is about much more than just merely whether we think apostles or prophets existed after Christ. Do you get at least that much?
FOF,
There’s a reason I don’t respond to anything you write. I’ve been at this, I think it’s over five years now on this blog, and I’ve learned that you don’t directly engage Mormons such as yourself. What I do is get a sense of the flow of the thread and then make my comments accordingly. In the past I’d confront Mormons of your ilk directly and finally realized that with your type, it’s a total waste of time. It’s a waste of time because your ability to process information in any sort of meaningful way has been distorted by the cult-like thinking that Mormonism produces. I just won’t get sucked in. I write for the Mormon lurkers who are here questioning Mormonism and who will eventually work their way out of the sect. Dr. Walter Martin said it best when he said, “Mormons are able to think rationally in every other phase of their life, but not when it comes to their religion.”
What’s interesting is that this blog’s posters are mainly former LDS members. They’ve got your number. They’ve been where you’re at with one exception. They never lost their ability to ask questions, seek information and come to logical conclusions. You’re still stuck on a very basic level of Mormon brain-lock and until it gets bumped you’ll be stuck at the LDS testimony level.
Stick around though. You provide a great contrast.
Hey FOF
You say,
Were Old Testament prophets “mediators” because others could not have the Holy Spirit?
The Bible plainly says,
quote:
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
(John 7:38-39)
end quote:
I say,
Did you get that??? People could not receive the Holy Spirit until Jesus was glorified. That is the point.
People stand estranged from God therefore God the Spirit can not dwell in them perpetually until Jesus stands as a mediator by his blood and removes the sin that hinders his presence. That is the gift of the New Covenant. God pours out his Spirit out on all his children.
God at times prefigured this gift in the OC but such glimpses were fleeting and limited like the rays of daylight seen before the dawn.
quote:
“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
(Acts 2:17-18)
end quote:
Not a one or few prophets but everyone with the spirit and everyone prophesying
You say,
How about I say you are blaspheming God by criticizing the Book of Mormon. How does that work for ya? Is that a debate winner?
I say,
Do you think we are having a debate?? That is not what is happening at all. What is happening is you are hearing the Gospel proclaimed plainly and clearly and just like the pharisees you are rejecting it and clinging to the very shadow it was established to replace. If you could explain why someone would possibly do that absent spiritual blindness I’m all ears.
As far as claiming that I blaspheme because I reject a book that does not meet the qualifications of Scripture. I count such a charge a badge of honor.
quote:
Peace
I take nothing you say personally FOF. I’m a rock. If you feel the need to apologize for anything, I accept it in the spirit that it was given. Do you know that I have gone back (I can do so easily) and read every single post you have ever written? There are 42 pages of them. I studied them all. And you know, I liked you better back in 2008. From your posts, I know you have gone to school and have a post-doctorate. I admire that.
I have showed where you have misused the Biblical text, on numerous occasions. What you do, is wave your hand at that. You offer little but your own opinions in rebuttal. Nothing in terms of substance for the plethora of quotes that prove that you have done so.
Again, untrue. And I’ll show you why when I analyze your supposed “examples”.
Do you realize what you just said? “It simply says at that point in time that God communicated through prophets BEFORE Christ.” Exactly. And then read about Guardians and Trustees and you will complete the picture. I find it very, very interesting that the Mormon First President is called a “trustee”.
Once again you have proved my point by focusing on ONE ASPECT of my argument. You TOTALLY IGNORE THE REST OF IT. I NEVER SAID that there is “no role for those that PROPHECY and are CALLED PROPHETS because of it. What I SAID, is that there is no role for GUARDIANS who are called PROPHETS. Read my posts about this and then SHOW ME, where I’m wrong. SHOW ME by THE BIBLE, not by your opinion. Please show by the Bible how Mormons define PROPHETS. Show me where they are defined in the NEW TESTAMENT as the ONE AND ONLY SPOKESMAN FOR GOD and the CHURCH. I dare you to.
Sigh. Here is another STRAW MAN. The HOLY SPIRIT was active in the OLD TESTAMENT. But was the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT given to EVERYONE then? NO. (THANKS FMM, for the quote from Jesus on that). That is why we read,
If they already had the Holy Spirit and everything was all well and good, why would God say this to Ezekiel? Because of the LAW. The Law was the taskmaster to bring people to Christ. Christ fulfilled the law, and revealed the ROYAL LAW, which gave all men access to the Holy Spirit.
Why if there was no limiting of the Spirit, did Joel say,
You of course ignore my quote from Galatians which says,
The LAW that was given by PROPHETS. They were the “guardians” and “trustees” who gave the law. What does this have to do with the Holy Spirit? Everything.
Because we are SONS now, (through Christ) NOT BEFORE CHRIST, God SENT THE SPIRIT OF HIS SON INTO OUR HEARTS…” This could not happen until AFTER JESUS. That is why we do not need “Guardians”, (the LAW and the PROPHETS) which you totally ignore. You then go on with your strawman argument:
The Holy Spirit could not be present when Christ was present? Really? Where does it say that in the scriptures?
25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, 28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God …
And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”
What scriptures are you reading FOF? Jesus himself said,
Was the Holy Spirit present at Jesus baptism? And his disciples … how could they know Him, if they did not already have Him? You don’t understand the difference of the Holy Spirit being IN YOU verses DWELLING WITH YOU. How do you not see these simple things? Jesus had the Holy Spirit with Him for his entire life. He IS God, after all.
I’m not confused at all, it is YOU FOF, who are confused. You don’t understand how the Spirit worked in OT times, and how it was dispensed AFTER Christ came. You ignore or are unaware of all the PROPHETS who spoke of this, that AFTER CHRIST CAME, “God would pour out his Spirit on ALL MEN”. This comes in conjunction with the ROYAL LAW, not the rules and regulations of the Law and the PROPHETS, which Mormons still cling to like rats to a sinking ship.
ONCE AND FOR ALL FOF, NO ONE has said that there wouldn’t be any more people who PROPHESY. Those are what PROPHETS are. You keep harping about PROPHETS without BIBLICALLY DEFINING THEM. Tell us what you mean by PROPHET. You have not done so. Is this on purpose? And this is just like you FOF. To use the Bible for a STRAWMAN argument, but NOT to refute what it says about PROPHETS. Again, what is a PROPHET, FOF? And where does the Bible say that the CHURCH OF CHRIST was to be led by ONE LONE PROPHET? Where is it, FOF? Can you even stick to the topic and answer this question without making up a strawman argument?
Smack forhead! You are now doing what you said I was doing, which is “ trying to insert things into the text that simply are not there.” We KNOW what is there, the qualifications for being a special Witness to Jesus. There can be no others that would qualify PER THE BIBLE. You are arguing that it was logical for them to choose someone who was MATURE in the Gospel, but THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS, FOF. It says that the person MUST be someone who ACTUALLY WITNESSED THE RESURRECTION and was WITH JESUS FROM THE BEGINNING. You are trying to rewrite the Bible. And you are bad at it.
Smack! Oh FOF, you really have comprehension problems. Here is what the Bible actually says,
First Peter says, one of these – a person who had “been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.” They also had to be a witness TO THE RESURRECTION. So who nominated? THEY NOMINATED. Not PETER nominated. To do what? To take over THIS apostolic Ministry. Notice that? THIS ONE. The one defined by Peter’s criteria of a WITNESS to JESUS MINISTRY AND RESURRECTION from the BEGINNING TO THE ASCENSION. If there was one apostolic ministry, there were others. Like Paul’s to the Gentiles. THIS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY (that Peter spoke of) had rigid criteria.
Why don’t you read what is written before you commit to an argument? You do this all the time. Then you complain that I don’t know, or understand what I’m talking about. This gives you ZERO credibility as someone who can judge correctly. This is also why I say you don’t take the Bible seriously, because you simply MAKE UP what you want it to say, instead of what it ACTUALLY SAYS.
And what OTHER APOSTLES who were MEMBERS OF THE 12? Where does the Bible say ANYWHERE that MORE were added to the 12 that Jesus Chose as his special witnesses? Nowhere.
Of course, others were called APOSTLES, because they were chosen as MESSENGERS to certain people, like PAUL to the GENTILES. Paul was described in more than one place as “an apostle to the Gentiles”, and he also self describes himself this way. It is you, again, who are adding things to the text that is not there.
Nice try at some fancy rhetoric, but No I’m not. I know EXACTLY what it means to ORDAIN. It means to PRESCRIBE, or APPOINT. See Strongs if you don’t believe my Greek Translation. You are grasping at straws with this, and I’ve had more than one Mormon Apologist admit defeat when I showed them from the Bible that they didn’t know what they were talking about.
The origin of the word ordain is as follows:
Middle English: ordeinen, from Anglo-French ordener, ordeiner, from Late Latin ordinare, from Latin, to put in order, appoint, from ordin-, ordo order First Known Use: 14th century.
The more modern narrow view of the word is what Mormons use: to invest officially (by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority. There are many instances in the Bible where the broader meaning of the word is used, like setting forth, or ordering, or appointing. (Num. 28:6). (1 Chron. 17:9) (1 Kings 12:32, 33). (2 Chron. 23:18; 29:27). (Is. 26:12) (1 Cor. 7:17) (1 Cor. 9:14)
Like the Hebrew word yatsar, (the ex-nihilo argument) we see only the narrow definition used, the one that ‘fits’ Mormon thinking. This is what FOF is trying to do with the word “prophet”, and “apostle” but it doesn’t work at all.
This leaves less than a dozen passages in which the KJV uses the word “ordained” with reference to human beings being appointed. The kings of Judah had “ordained” idolatrous priests to burn incense in the high places (2 Kings 23:5; 2 Chron. 11:15). David and Samuel “ordained” gatekeepers (1 Chron. 9:22). Jesus “ordained” twelve to travel with him and preach (Mark 3:14). He chose and “ordained” them to bring forth fruit (John 15:16). Peter said that one of the disciples needed to be “ordained” to be a witness to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 1:22). The apostles “ordained” elders in every church (Acts 14:23). Paul was “ordained” a preacher, apostle, and teacher (1 Tim. 2:7). Paul told Titus to “ordain” elders in every city (Titus 1:5). The high priest in the Mosaic covenant was “ordained” to offer gifts and sacrifices on behalf of other people (Heb. 5:1; 8:3). As with all of the other thirty texts cited above, the word “appointed” fits naturally in all these occurrences (and that is how modern translations almost uniformly render them). Read my entire argument here, from 2011.
Smack! Another straw man. Who said Paul wasn’t a TRUE APOSTLE? He just wasn’t one of the 12! In Acts Chapter 13, we read,
Barnabas here (and Saul/Paul), were called a “prophet” and a “teacher”. So were they an Apostle or Prophet or Teacher? The correct answer was that they were all three, because he had those GIFTS of the SPIRIT, and they did not become “apostles” until they were SENT to Antioch. In this instance, they had hands laid on them for that specific WORK, as messengers to the Gentiles. It says nothing about a “priesthood ordination”.
This does not argue for them being members of THE Quorum of 12, but only being apostles in that they were SENT FROM GOD on specific missions. That was THEIR MINISTRY, different from the one that the Special 12 had. Paul could not be one of THOSE APOSTLES, because he had not been with Jesus FROM THE BEGINNING. Neither had Timothy and many of the others you mention. So they did not qualify for THAT MINISTRY.
The word Apostle simply means “one who is sent”. A Missionary. There is nothing in the Bible that says that there were more than 12 original WITNESS Apostles or that any more after Matthias were added to that Special Quorum, or that there would be after Judas was replaced. Paul himself claims:
Of the Gentiles. A messenger to the Gentiles. And if there were so many Apostles, why did John only mention the Special 12 in the Book of Revelation in relation to the New Jerusalem:
This shows that those APOSTLES were a special group. Why? Because they were part of the foundation of the Church. Special Witnesses to the Messiah. Where are all the other special Apostles names? Why aren’t they mentioned? This does not support your argument, FOF.
What if YOU believed? What if? That is evidence of nothing, only wishful thinking. Your own “apostles” won’t say! Why not? Are they embarrassed, or do they not want to get caught in a lie? Jesus said,
How do YOU test them, FOF? You can BELIEVE anything you want. But here, Jesus says that we must TEST THEM. They must PROVE themselves. They have not, but have proved that they don’t follow the Bible. So they fail that TEST.
Actually, my argument about succession is a logical one, because NO ONE could fulfill the requirements of being one of the original WITNESS Quorum of 12 Disciples. You have not proven at all that anyone else could qualify. In fact, you had to rewrite the text to make your argument work, and so it was doomed to fail. Nice try, but it IS in the text buddy.
You will have to do better than this FOF if you want others to buy what you are selling. From what I can deduce, you know very little about these matters, and can’t even quote the Bible correctly about it. What does that say about your credibility, FOF?
@Faithoffathers
You have said:
Test 1:
It’s important to determine whether any of the NT scriptures came through ‘prophets’. NO. (Perhaps you can argue for Hebrews, but even if this were the case, it’s in the minority).
Test 2:
Were any of the apostles called prophets? NO.
Test 3:
Did any of the prophets lead the apostles in the NT church? NO.
therefore, Test 4:
Were the prophets needed as they were in the Old Testament (this is the context of Lynn’s comment – Luke 16:16,NASB)? NO.
Unfortunately, it appears that Fof has misunderstood, misquoted Lynn Wilder(out of context). Can you prove from Scripture that the NT church was led by a prophet?
This is actually an incorrect reading and misappropriation of this verse: (Matthew 10:40,NASB).
Why?
1. Jesus never sent prophets to do the work of an evangelist, he sent apostles.
2. The reward of a prophet applies to anyone who gives the message (e.g. the average Christian believer). This is not grounds for validating a prophet leading apostles.
3. We do not need to accept prophets to accept Christ.
If you accept a prophet (not a false prophet, or one who teaches a gospel of a prophet leading apostles) you will receive a prophet’s reward. (Matt. 10:41,NASB)
“He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.
If this were talking only about a prophet to lead the church, it would say that specifically. It just mentions a prophet’s reward and a righteous man’s reward. If we are to accept your interpretation, then we must also have a righteous man as an office. You should then call Prophet Monson, seer, revelator, prophet and righteous man.
Have you considered the office of Righteous Man Monson?
Where is your logic?
grindael
FOF has done post-doc work? Well if that’s true, it confirms what Dr. Walter Martin said as I referenced above: “Mormons can think rationally in all parts of their lives except when it comes to their religion”.
But then, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on college campuses as both a student, undergrad and grad and as a teacher and I’ve run into a lot of professors who are more than a couple of bubbles off of plumb.
Typically, the highlight of doing graduate work is doing research and providing referenced documentation and statistical analysis to support your research findings. Then again, there’s a lot of bad research that makes it past the goal keepers.
If FOF was trying to defend a research paper by displaying the type of approach he uses here on MC he’d be laughed off the panel.
But here’s the deal, he’s bought into Mormonism emotionally and he’s trying to justify that mind-set by any means possible. That’s why we get all of these nonsense techniques of his. I don’t know who the guy thinks he’s fooling. It certainly isn’t any of us.
Thanks again grindael . It’s hard to believe that Fof F would accuse anyone of trying to
make their ” theory work” , but has done just to those here . This is the very thing that
Mormon leaders have done to try and shoehorn how their church is organized and run
into the picture of the original church established by Jesus through His apostles 2000
ago , and then allegedly restored and run by Mormon apostles . Does’nt work .
MJP,
you said to Fof F , ” Your church was founded upon a restoring of the original church
are you not ? If the restored version had a prophet then so must the original have had
a prophet . If this is not so , then the original has been altered rather than completely
restored . ”
Well said . Sadly, because of the slick advertising by Mormon leaders this fact is not
easily recognized by many people who become interested in the Mormon church
through it’s public venues .
Mormons claim Joesph built was a church . However , it was not the original church
Jesus established through His apostles — restored . The Mormon ” restored ” church
is really only a ” revised ” church , not the same exact one Jesus’ apostles served in
2000 years ago . Good counterfeits are successful because they appear close to the
original , this works with counterfeit gospels , and it works with what Mormon leaders
have created and call the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints .
This issue with prophets is only one example of how Mormon leaders have altered the
true church organization we see in the New Testament . We’ll keep reminding Fof F that
when Lynn said that , ” A prophet is no longer needed ” , that she was addressing the
very claim of Mormonism that puts one man ( “a ” prophet ) at the top of the church
organization . The N.T. endorses no such thing .
[ The one man as a prophet at the top is only the start of the damage /altering that
Mormon leaders have done with the N.T. picture of Jesus’ church because this man
who is the mouthpiece of God on earth is also the king over God’s earthly kingdom —
under Jesus who is the Eternal King . )
I pray God will open the eyes of the Mormon people to see how they have been
detoured by imitation apostles into embracing a imitation gospel .
The Walking Strawman strikes again. Because I tied a gift of the Spirit to Prophets, now I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit operated in the Old Testament. Wow. How do you arrive at these weird and freaky conclusions, FOF? It really troubles me how your mind works. Only YOU would conclude this. Do you know anything about the LAW? What did you HAVE to do, to be free from sin under the LAW? How did the Holy Spirit work back then? Here is a good example of what I am talking about,
Why didn’t the Lord do this? And why did he say that he WOULD do this, after Christ came? What was the criteria for Moses choosing Joshua?
How did the OT Prophets work?
Why didn’t the Spirit communicate DIRECTLY with them instead of through prophets? David wrote,
And Zachariah,
Why did Jesus say,
The Israelites did not obey the COMPLETE Law, therefore they did not have the Holy Spirit in great numbers. Why? Because the Law kills the Spirit. It was an impossible Gospel. (Like Mormonism today) Only a chosen few did, as God directed. Paul wrote,
Do you now understand GRACE here? BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT YOU CAN PUT TO DEATH THE SINS YOUR BODY COMMITS. The Holy Spirit is EVERYTHING! As Paul further explained,
If the Spirit “gave life’ under the LAW, why then, the need for Christ? We would not need Him. Why does Paul state that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life if they had the Holy Spirit in abundance? What did Christ mean when he said to his disciples that “you know him, because he dwells with you and WILL BE in you? What is “the Ministry of the Spirit”? Why does Paul call the Law & The Prophets “The Ministry of Death”? if they had the Holy Spirit in abundance? What happened when Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit? Why would he do this if He was already dwelling with them? If God was still operating through PROPHETS, why is there such a contrast in Paul’s mind? Why is the Ministry of the Spirit “more glorious”? Wasn’t it there all along according to you? The Ministry of Righteousness EXCEEDS MUCH MORE in GLORY!
Then Paul nails it: Their minds were blinded. Moses put a veil over his face so that the Israelites could not look steadily AT THE END OF WHAT WAS PASSING AWAY. (The Law & The Prophets) The SAME VEIL remains unlifted IN THE READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, because the VEIL is taken away IN CHRIST! Even today, when reading Moses a VEIL lies on the heart. But when one turns towards the LORD (Christ Jesus) that veil is ripped away. And why? BECAUSE THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT, and where the SPIRIT is, is LIBERTY. Now, with unveiled faces, we see as in a mirror the glory of the LORD, because BY THE SPIRIT we are transformed into that image from GLORY TO GLORY by the SPIRIT OF THE LORD.
Was this possible under the Law and the PROPHETS? Not at all. Why then, would anyone want to GO BACK TO THAT? WHY? Whose plan would that be? The Bible is so clear and simple and precise in what it says about this. What are Mormon “Prophets” and Regulations but ugly remnants of the past, of the law that kills! Why do Mormons constantly appeal to the OLD TESTAMENT when they want to bolster their argument for prophets? Because they still live behind the veil. You are living in the past.
We must look ahead, not behind. Christ is in front of us. The Law and the Prophets are behind us. They were fulfilled and severed by the Great High Priest, who made Himself a sin-offering for us, and entered the Heavenly Sanctuary by the virtue of His INDESTRUCTIBLE LIFE. That is why there is only ONE High Priest. Anyone else who claims this, commits blasphemy, because they step in the way of the Great Mediator.
Mormon “prophets” can’t give us what we already have! From humble beginnings, the WAY has become a global phenomenon. We have progressed past the need for men to act as mediators, protectors and guides. We no longer need that. We have THE HOLY SPIRIT, which gives light and life. No matter where you are, when two or three are gathered, HE IS THERE. The body of Christ is ALL of the little flocks gathered in His Name around the world. The SIMPLE GOSPEL is this,
Then does James further remarks make sense:
What does James say here. Did you miss it? Speak and do as those who will be judged by the LAW OF LIBERTY! What is that? Paul told us above. “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” We are not judged by the regulations we don’t keep, we are judged by not doing what the Holy Spirit directs us to do. And what is that? All of the things that keep us “unspotted from the world”. Those are our “works” given to us not by MEN, but by the HOLY SPIRIT. Not BLANKET REGULATIONS that KILL, but individual GIFTS that lift us up in liberty.
The Pure Gospel of Jesus is beautiful and uncomplicated. Men complicate it and turn it into something that is ugly and full of death.
@Faithoffathers
I really respect your opinion and am happy that you’re engaging with the forum. I find that you do not support your ‘doctrine’ with proper proof/exegesis.
But I’m still happy to discuss with you.
God bless you grindael for your work. You consistently prove over and over what is truth without conjecture. You simply use the words of the bible. Arguing with fof is always pointless because he uses those same words but applies completely different Mormon definitions to them. This allows him to come to conclusions that are miles apart from actual truth that is staring right at him.
What struck me from your last post is how obvious it is that Mormonism has never “restored” Christs church (or gospel). Mormonism, in it’s own temples, has LITERALLY RESTORED A VEIL SEPARATING MAN FROM GOD! A step backwards indeed. Mormons love the Old Testament because it mirrors everything they do! That pesky New Testament thingy screws up everything that Mormons hold dear.
Christ tore apart the veil in the temple at his death. Mormons go and put one back up.
grindael said
Mormon “prophets” can’t give us what we already have! From humble beginnings, the WAY has become a global phenomenon. We have progressed past the need for men to act as mediators, protectors and guides. We no longer need that. We have THE HOLY SPIRIT, which gives light and life. No matter where you are, when two or three are gathered, HE IS THERE. The body of Christ is ALL of the little flocks gathered in His Name around the world. The SIMPLE GOSPEL is this,
I say,
I have a question for FOF, Putting aside the beautiful truth of this statement would you find such a New Covenant to be appealing? Would you if you could live in a world where the Holy Spirit gives light and life and speaks to you directly with out the need for a hierarchy of middle men standing between you and God?
Would you if it were true thank God that he could now at last truly be with you when you meet in groups of two or three or would you long for the old days when he required an official mouth piece to communicate his will to you?
Would you if it were true love the fact that you were to be judged by the perfect Law of Liberty or would you wish to be under the old law that could not give life?
I ask these things in all seriousness. Because I can not for the life of me understand how anyone would not see the beauty of what grindael has been sharing and know in their bones it is the very truth of God. We all have a place in side of us that longs to be able to commune with God face to face with out the need for a middleman.
I would honestly say that if the gospel you have been hearing here were not true I would be crushed. A gospel without the New Covenant is not good news at all.
Peace
grindael,
You wrote:
“Because I tied a gift of the Spirit to Prophets, now I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit operated in the Old Testament.”
I’m serious when I say I think we’ve uncovered/identified a spiritual disability that effects Mormons; especially Mormons of a certain type. It’s main characteristic is an inability to read and understand what the (Christian) poster has written.
I’ve seen this time and again in the years that I’ve been active here on MC. When the topic is say, God’s grace and how we lead our lives after coming to Christ in faith, Mormons will insist that Christians believe that they can sin with impunity without any consequences once they are saved. So we will write in a very straight forward manner regarding this misunderstanding, providing Biblical references and the Mormon will come back and say, “Well how come Christians believe that once they are saved they can sin as much as they want?”
So we back-up and come at it from another angle, again supplying Biblical references and the Mormon will say, “Oh yea, well than why do Christians believe that once they are saved they can sin as much as they want.”
It’s not only infuriating, frustrating and exasperating but it leads us to conclude that the Mormon is simply a liar and a troll. This has some real implications for evangelism and outreach to certain types of Mormons. They just keep believing what they’ve been told and repeat it over and over despite the evidence to the contrary.
I’d like to have FOF in front of me, have him read one of your posts line by line, deconstruct it, and then have him tell me what he just read (just the words) and then what they mean. Again, I’m serious about this. Because if a Mormon can’t even repeat what he’s read and apply an accurate meaning to it, there’s not a whole lot of hope short of a Damascus experience.
Some of you who have done street evangelism with Mormons, do you run into this? If you do then we know that it occurs with both a written and verbal presentation.
I’ve been interested in this topic of the mind-set of the true believer, I think, ever since I’ve been involved with this outreach ministry to Mormons. I’ve been totally baffled by the thinking processes I observed in our hard core TBMs. Frankly, I just didn’t get it. That’s led me on a quest to examine what exactly is going on emotionally and neurologically with these true believers. The reason for my interest is because it has implications for evangelism and outreach to Mormons (as I mentioned in my above post).
This has a lot to do with our discussion about “prophets” and “prophesy” and what people are willing to invest in emotionally and support the belief system with their time and treasure.
So, right on schedule, I came across this article from which I will provide excerpts.
“A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger.
Festinger and several of his colleagues had infiltrated the Seekers, a small Chicago-area cult whose members thought they were communicating with aliens—including one, “Sananda,” who they believed was the astral incarnation of Jesus Christ. The group was led by Dorothy Martin, a Dianetics devotee who transcribed the interstellar messages through automatic writing.
Through her, the aliens had given the precise date of an Earth-rending cataclysm: December 21, 1954. Some of Martin’s followers quit their jobs and sold their property, expecting to be rescued by a flying saucer when the continent split asunder and a new sea swallowed much of the United States. The disciples even went so far as to remove brassieres and rip zippers out of their trousers—the metal, they believed, would pose a danger on the spacecraft.
Festinger and his team were with the cult when the prophecy failed. First, the “boys upstairs” (as the aliens were sometimes called) did not show up and rescue the Seekers. Then December 21 arrived without incident. It was the moment Festinger had been waiting for: How would people so emotionally invested in a belief system react, now that it had been soundly refuted?
At first, the group struggled for an explanation. But then rationalization set in. A new message arrived, announcing that they’d all been spared at the last minute. Festinger summarized the extraterrestrials’ new pronouncement: “The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction.” Their willingness to believe in the prophecy had saved Earth from the prophecy!
From that day forward, the Seekers, previously shy of the press and indifferent toward evangelizing, began to proselytize. “Their sense of urgency was enormous,” wrote Festinger. The devastation of all they had believed had made them even more certain of their beliefs.
In the annals of denial, it doesn’t get much more extreme than the Seekers. They lost their jobs, the press mocked them, and there were efforts to keep them away from impressionable young minds. But while Martin’s space cult might lie at on the far end of the spectrum of human self-delusion, there’s plenty to go around.
And since Festinger’s day, an array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions.
This tendency toward so-called “motivated reasoning” ………………..
It’s a “basic human survival skill,” explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
We’re not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn’t take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
In other words, when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing.
That’s a lot of jargon, but we all understand these mechanisms when it comes to interpersonal relationships. If I don’t want to believe that my spouse is being unfaithful, or that my child is a bully, I can go to great lengths to explain away behavior that seems obvious to everybody else—everybody who isn’t too emotionally invested to accept it, anyway. That’s not to suggest that we aren’t also motivated to perceive the world accurately—we are. Or that we never change our minds—we do.
It’s just that we have other important goals besides accuracy—including identity affirmation and protecting one’s sense of self—and often those make us highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should.
@Faithoffathers
Jesus said, “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt. 24:24,NASB)
What quality of signs and wonders did Jesus label? Great
Sometimes LDS members know about the divergence from Biblical truths, but can’t explain the signs and wonders that have happened in their life. Jesus warns that even false Christs and prophets will perform ‘great’ signs and wonders.
Using a miracle is a poor barometer to judge whether doctrine is true. This is the warning from Jesus.
That verse is followed by this one (I think this is also awesome):
“Behold, I have told you in advance.” (Matt. 24:25,NASB)
As most of us have said at one time or another, falcon most recently, there’s little point in coming here hoping to change apologists minds, that as far as I’m concerned is as much a waste of time as an apologist coming in here to change Christian minds.
All of us have experienced the frustration of being completely ignored after presenting irrefutable evidence for Christian doctrine; Grindael in particular has shown week in & week out that the LDS position on most, if not all, major doctrinal issues cannot be supported either by scripture or history.
Christ miraculously healed the blind man in the temple & it will take a similar miracle to heal the spiritually blind. The best we can hope for is to show ‘lurkers’ who come here to read & learn about Biblical Christianity just how deceptive & misleading LDS apologetics really are.
So on that note I would like to put to any lurkers who have read this far, this question that FofF has so far refused to answer,
“Is it God or man who chooses & calls a prophet?”
The answer is obvious a Christian will say God, the LDS, using the man made corporate law of succession has no option but to say ‘man’
If you answered ‘God’ to the first question ask yourself this second question
Would you prefer to be led by Christ, the one who laid down his life for you, or do you choose to be led by a man falsely claiming to speak for God?
If you are a member of the Mormon church answer the questions honestly & then pray for the courage to walk away from the false self-appointed prophets of the LDS.
Arguing with Mormons on doctrine may seem pointless, EXCEPT for the fact that it displays to all lurkers what Mormons believe (or rather what the Mormons THINK the lds church teaches).
This is helpful for lurkers that have read the issues and are on the fence because once they start to question the whitewashed history they WILL begin to question the doctrine. Continually restating what is Christian doctrine is extremely helpful for those on the fence as it shows how ridiculous and convoluted Mormon doctrine is. It will also help those lurkers who are considering atheism as they leave the lds inc.
The information and testimonies of Christian believers on here has certainly helped me in my quest for truth as I am sure it is doing for others out there.
As far as arguing doctrine with a true blue Mormon one on one in real life? Now that’s pretty much a guaranteed waste of time. At least here it’s a group discussion and we can all see what’s what.
In the OP above, Lynn references a speech made by “Apostle” and First Presidency Member Dieter Uchtdorf. In this speech he seems to be admitting to some “mistakes” that he blames on members and leaders of the Church that supposedly cause people to leave, and that,
This folks, is what we call stacking the deck. Have you ever seen that show on National Geographic Channel called “Brain Games”? Well, one way to imprint something on a persons mind (whether it be true or not) is to say it first and upfront. They gave an example of this on a show I saw. They had two identical twins apply for a job. They went in, and gave the same script. But they didn’t give the script in the same order. It went something like this, “If you hire me you will find that I’m a go getter, I’m truthful, but I’m also obsessively emotional, or something like that. Well, when the twins both get interviewed, one gives it in the order written above, and the other reverses it, using the negative trait first. Every time, the one that used the order with the positive trait first, got the job. The other did not, even though they had the same resume, clothing, look, etc.
Here we see Uchtdorf employing the same tactic. Say sometimes we assume they have been OFFENDED, LAZY, SINFUL. Now, what are most people going to take away from that? That people who leave the church are one of those three things. When you hear TBM’s repeating this (as they do here over and over again) you now know where it comes from. Why mention those things at all which are really NOT the reasons that the overwhelming majority of people leave the church? You know why. Uchtdorf has to use dishonest tactics to sway his audience. And he keeps doing it…
Oh my! Can you whitewash this any better? First, he stacks the deck again, saying the Church has a 200 year UNINTERRUPTED LINE OF INSPIRED, HONORABLE AND DIVINE EVENTS! Really? How does the OP’s topic fit into this, the Priesthood Ban? How does racism fit into this? How does unequality and condoning of slavery fit into this? As something done to “cause people to question”? Are you kidding me?
What is Mr. Uchtdorf getting at here? WHAT mistakes? False doctrine? Folklore? Funny how those who stand up in front of the world will not admit to any of it. Could he be more obscure? I don’t think so. Contrast Uchtdorf’s statements with what “Apostle” Charles Penrose said,
REMEMBER, his words are SCRIPTURE. What a caricature of the Christian man’s faith! But we learn something instructive here. Penrose said that all they need is “apostles” who could write their own scriptures, that they don’t need books. What is the mantra of the church TODAY? Slow backing away from that idea. Penrose says that Church is perfect, it’s leaders bring forth the word of God by the HOLY GHOST. Where in this, is there room for DOCTRINAL MISTAKES? That is what we are speaking of here, and the reason that the majority of people leave the Church. You see the diversion by Uchtdorf, don’t you?
But let’s go deeper and analyze what “Apostle” Francis M. Lyman said:
Common Consent? Really? Does anyone’s vote matter? No. Do they record their votes? No. So the Mormon Church is NOT run by “common consent”, it is run by dictators. Again, we have PERFECT church and PERFECT DOCTRINE, because these men don’t speak “by their own strength, nor in their own wisdom”. We have it right here folks. So what is all this about MISTAKES? WHAT MISTAKES? How can it happen, with all those “apostles” right there to correct any? Then we have J. Reuben Clark,
Everyone else operates according to “their own wisdom”, but NOT the “prophet”. That means NO ROOM FOR DOCTRINAL ERRORS, folks. If YOU don’t follow him, YOU are “on a road that could lead to apostasy”. So if you are NOT a racist, you are on the road to Apostasy. Racism is part of the Mormon God’s plan. Clark even says, WE MAY NOT TEACH FALSE DOCTRINE. How in the world did they all then believe in what they now call “folklore”? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Mark E. Peterson tells us all about False Doctrine:
There you have it folks, some of the many, many quotes about how perfect the Mormon leadership is when communicating DOCTRINE to the Church, which is PERFECT and error free. You can rest assured that none of these guys would ever teach FOLKLORE! Or promote it for 148 years, or make any DOCTRINAL MISTAKES. So what in the world is Uchtdorf talking about? Who knows? He is so vague and obscure that there is no way to tell. With all this in mind, let’s finish analyzing the rest of what he had to say:
Huh? What mistakes? He doesn’t say, even at this point. But Uchtdorf assures us that the “eternal truths” found in the Mormon Church are “not tarnished, diminished or destroyed.”. Really? Really? The racist Priesthood Ban doesn’t tarnish, diminish or destroy in any way? Wow. So Racism was ok. It was an “eternal truth”, right?
We’re not perfect, but we are perfect. So how does RACIST FOLKLORE get dubbed “A commandment of the Lord” as George Albert Smith and David O. McKay said it was? how does that happen? No answers here folks, merely an I don’t know, but how could they not know, when EVERY DECISION OF SIGNIFICANCE AFFECTING THE CHURCH OR IT’S MEMBERS IS MADE BY EARNESTLY SEEKING THE INSPIRATION, GUIDANCE & APPROBATION (APPROVAL) OF GOD. What an oxymoron that is. I see sheep, but smell a wolf.
So, standing on the sandy soil of Mormon Racism will give you FAITH, because even though we have no answers from Mormon “prophets” it is true? Are you kidding me?
Again, we are here assured that Mormon Racism is “the pure doctrine of Christ”. Need I say more?
“Hold Fast” to Racism? Lying? Greed? Sexual sin? This is what he is telling you folks. Follow the “prophet” even if he leads you astray… but he won’t, because we really believe in racism, lying, self aggrandizement, and you should too, as long as you stay at the bottom and we get paid. Come join with this? Only at your eternal peril.
JohnnyBoy.
Well that is encouraging, and very insightful.
How about this?
My buddy Andy Watson, who use to post here and has written articles for MC, has also done a lot of work with the JW clan. He was telling me that it’s a fool’s errand to try and reason with a JW from the Bible. He said the most effective way to approach them, is to try and destroy their faith and confidence in the Watch Tower organization. He would do this by going back through the documented history of the sect exposing the JW to information they previously had no knowledge of. Once the JW begins to doubt the organization and their supposed representation as God’s voice on earth, then the dam begins to spring some leaks.
In some ways, it’s the same with Mormons. Once a member begins to question the organization and its leaders, then they are ready to consider that quite possibly, the “one true church” is flawed along with the leadership.
grindael ……
has given us a good perspective on that with his latest post. The Mormon leaders try to have it both ways being perfect but not perfect. I believe this is called cognitive dissonance and is unfortunately the mind set that Mormons become comfortable.
Lynn has said that her Mormon shelf just got too heavy and finally collapsed. If a person has some integrity, they can’t look at the LDS organization and its leaders as perfect, flawed, but perfect. It just won’t work.
johnnyboy
You seem to think I am saying that to present an argument on MRM is a waste of time. I was not & never have said that. Many times I have said exactly what Falcon said in an earlier post, I come in here in the hope that I may influence the lurkers. I said it’s a waste of time trying to convince apologists & so it is.
Please notice that I specifically addressed any lurkers who may have been, well, lurking. 🙂
grindael- you said, “The Holy Spirit could not be present when Christ was present? Really? Where does it say that in the scriptures?”
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” John 16:7
A note to all talking about methodology or my blindness or my inability to see what you are saying- We all have bias. I do. You do. Nobody is without bias. None of us are intellectually perfect. I certainly am not. That being said, I have spent years upon years in extremely rigorous surgical training and research which included a very consistent and hefty amount of presenting data and research to other surgeons and researchers. Standing in front of panels of surgeons every week to defend my thought processes, decision making, and outcomes of those clinical and research decisions taught me a great deal about logic, research, data, and evidence. I have spent years in basic science labs (in case you don’t know what that means- it is research on the cellular, sub-cellular, and molecular level) and conducting clinical research and have presented at numerous national and international surgical meetings. I have published research in numerous very respected mainstream medical, surgical, and basic science journals. Of all the articles published by researchers in peer reviewed medical and surgical journals, only 5-10% of the conclusions in the published articles are valid and supported by the included data. That is not a result of the authors and researchers being dumb or lazy. It is a result of making premature conclusions or connecting dots when it is not warranted. Random chance and bias also play a role. This background informs my approach and perspective on religious faith and my own search for truth.
The reason for telling you this is to explain my reason for being here and my approach to our discussions. I recognize that you are all very passionate about your faith and religion and you feel the strong desire to share what you think you know about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc. But from my perspective, very rarely are your conclusions that you post supported by the evidence you provide. And if you notice, I almost always will try to address some fundamental assumptions and primary conclusions in your arguments that are not supported or are false. And this is a very common method of debate and discussion.
Also from my perspective, I would say that a very small percentage of the Biblical passages that are posted here actually say what you claim those passages mean. All too often, people are inserting things into the text that are not there. Repeating the same passage and insisting it means something over and over does not change the faulty interpretation.
I would not post this if the claim from the critics is that they simply want to examine our faith and religion from an objective, dispassionate, and evidence-based approach. I rarely, if ever, see that approach here, and it is quite obvious. And that is the reason I post responses here- to offer an alternative perspective and point out what I think are fundamental flaws of logic and evaluation of evidence.