94 replies to this topic

[Vance]

Palerider, on 08 November 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

Which will occur at Christ's coming......show me where it says differently. Show me something Biblical that sets a pre-millenium timeline for that restitution.

Rev 14 indicates that the gospel will be restored prior to the great destruction preceding the second coming.

[Rob Bowman]

WalkerW,

If I have established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth, I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread. There are other considerations that, as you say, go beyond the exegesis of these texts, and those must also be examined.

Thanks again.

WalkerW, on 07 November 2010 - 10:20 PM, said:

I don't see a problem with your interpretation of Eph. 2:20. Quite plausible. Funny enough, I don't think your interpretation would necessarily conflict with LDS theology. Eph. 2:20 just wouldn't be a proof text for current apostles and prophets.

However, regarding Eph. 3:5: true, it does refer to a specific revelation. However, the purpose of the apostles and prophets is made known: revelation. Books like John's Revelation indicates that there were subsequent revelations. We then have to ask as to whether this revelatory role was ever supposed to cease. Eph. 2:20 and 3:5 merely demonstrate that the apostles and prophets are foundational to the Christian church and were at the time of the letter receiving revelation. The New Testament model is that of revelatory apostles. Was this supposed to be the norm?

But this line of argumentation gets away from the exegesis of Eph. 2:20 and 3:5 alone.

[Ahab]

Rob Bowman, on 06 November 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

...We do not need apostles and prophets living on the earth today for the church to rest on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Indeed, as I have explained, Paul’s usage of the term themelios suggests that they function as the “foundation” in the sense that those who come after the apostles and prophets build on what they started. What matters is how we build on that foundation (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10).

What matters is who is building on that foundation, and what authority we/they have to build on it.

You may call them something else, Rob, but I think you basically accept the same idea we (LDS) accept when you answer:

Who are the leaders on this Earth who are appointed and authorized by God to lead other Christians, as well as the non-Christians (for lack of a better term)?

[Zakuska]

I see a pattern...

Quote

Moses had a governing body of twelve elders, one from each tribe.

"These are those that were numbered . . . and the princes of Israel, being twelve men: each one was for the house of his fathers." Numbers 1:44

This order continued after Moses.

"Now therefore take you twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, out of every tribe a man." Joshua 3:12

The calling of twelve men seems to exist in the Old Testament, and they possible like unto the early Christian Apostles.

Also a body of Seventies

"AND he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off." (Ex. 24: 1)

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: (Ex. 24: 9)


"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. (Num. 11: 16)

"And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle." (Num. 11: 24)

The Word "Sanhedran" actually means Seventies.

So if God never changes... why all of a sudden has the church been stripped of its skeleton and is lying on the ground, a blob of flesh and sinues lacking the power of God?

Edited by Zakuska, 08 November 2010 - 01:24 PM.

[Ahab]

Zakuska, on 08 November 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

I see a pattern...


So if God never changes... why all of a sudden has the church been stripped of its skeleton and is lying on the ground, a blob of flesh and sinues lacking the power of God?

I think Rob's point is that our Lord's apostles and prophets of the past are still our Lord's prophets and apostles today, regardless of the fact that they're dead and don't say anything else other than what they said (or more specifically, wrote down) in the past.

We (LDS) agree on that point, but we also accept our Lord's apostles and prophets who are speaking (and writing stuff down) today, rather than being limited to only our Lord's apostles and prophets of the past.

In short, we (LDS) accept MORE from our Lord than people who limit themselves to accepting only what they believe our Lord's prophets and apostles said in the past.

Edited by Ahab, 08 November 2010 - 01:31 PM.

[Palerider]

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

Rev 14 indicates that the gospel will be restored prior to the great destruction preceding the second coming.

If you're seriously going to attempt to timeline Revelations then look at what occurs in verse 1 of Revelations 14, BEFORE the angel flies.

Edited by Palerider, 08 November 2010 - 01:30 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Sky,

You wrote:

Sky, on 07 November 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

Regardless of the scripture in Ephesians, is there anybody out there who honestly does not want to believe in modern prophets and apostles and in an authorized Priesthood organization?  It’s hard for me to understand how anybody would not welcome that.  It’s a very attractive and compelling aspect of Mormonism for me.

Speaking for myself, I don't base my beliefs on what ideas I find attractive. The issue is not what I want to believe, but what I ought to believe.

You wrote:
  

Quote

Of course, one thing that we can learn from the scriptures is there has been a pattern throughout history of people rejecting the living prophets.  It’s unfortunate that all too many people today are doomed to make that same mistake.

Another thing we can learn from the Scriptures is that there has been a pattern throughout history of people following false prophets (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22; 1 Kings 18:19-25, 40; 22:6-13, 22-23; 2 Kings 10:19; 2 Chron. 18:5-12, 21-22; Isa. 9:15; Jer. 2:8; 5:13, 31; 6:13; 8:10; 14:13-15; 23:11-16, 21, 25-26, 30-34; etc.; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13:2-4, 9; 22:28; Micah 3:5-6; Zeph. 3:4; Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1-6; Rev. 2:2; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). It's unfortunate that all too many people today make that same mistake.

[Zakuska]

Palerider, on 08 November 2010 - 01:30 PM, said:

If you're seriously going to attempt to timeline Revelations then look at what occurs in verse 1 of Revelations 14, BEFORE the angel flies.

Did not Christ stand on Mt. Zion and seal 144000 out of the tribes of Israel on the day of Pentacost and shortly after?

[Palerider]

Zakuska, on 08 November 2010 - 01:38 PM, said:

Did not Christ stand on Mt. Zion and seal 144000 out of the tribes of Israel on the day of Pentacost and shortly after?

Show me THAT one in scripture! I'd love to see it.

[Vance]

Palerider, on 08 November 2010 - 01:30 PM, said:

If you're seriously going to attempt to timeline Revelations then look at what occurs in verse 1 of Revelations 14, BEFORE the angel flies.

Rev 7 and 8 indicate clearly that those 144K are "sealed" PRIOR to the second coming.  Of course for them to be "sealed" they would need the gospel.  So your complaint is unfounded.

Edited to add; Also I would suggest that Mal 4:5-6 clearly show that the work of "turn(ing) the heart of the fathers to the children", MUST occur "before the great and dreadful day of the Lord".

Also, Jesus Himself prophesied of an Elias coming first to restore.
Matt 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
  12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Also Jesus Himself prophesied the gospel be preached BEFORE the end.
Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Edited by Vance, 08 November 2010 - 02:07 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Palerider and Vance,

I'd appreciate it, pardners, if you would be a mite careful not to hijack this here train and take it down a different track.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

If I have established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth, I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread.

Actually, you haven't done any such thing.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 02:05 PM, said:

Palerider and Vance,

I'd appreciate it, pardners, if you would be a mite careful not to hijack this here train and take it down a different track.

Well, since your whole line of attack has been rendered useless, perhaps some additional benefit can be experienced here.

Besides, I was answering a question that isn't totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have.

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Actually, you haven't done any such thing.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 08 November 2010 - 02:21 PM.

[mrmendoza]

Palerider, on 08 November 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

Which will occur at Christ's coming......show me where it says differently. Show me something Biblical that sets a pre-millenium timeline for that restitution.

The problem here is that, once again you're only willing to accept one part of what the Lord has given us as your only frame of reference. But consider this,

Quote

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET
ISAIAH
CHAPTER 7

10  Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
  11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
  12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
  13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
  14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
  15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
  16 For before the child shall know to refuse the bRezin the cking of Syria, and  evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Now if you were a Jewish Rabi, you would not be making this out to be a prophecy that would not be fulfiled over a thousand years later! Why would the Lords prophet be telling an evil king something that far reaching, when if you read the preceeding verses, you would see that Ahaz was worried about  Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it! yet Matthew says

Quote

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
  21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
  22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
  23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Making the prophecy applicable to the birth of the Savior. But of course a Jewish rabi would not accept the NT at all! In many cases prophecy , or the understanding of it is very elusive until after it comes to pass, and then, it seem that only those see its application to their lifetimes are willing to accept that it has happened! Then they write the books that show its fulfillment. Thus you have the NT writers vrs the OT at least in the minds of those who don't accept Jesus as the prophicied Messiah. So it is today, we have declared a new dispensation, new revelation, new scriptures, the "restitution of all things" has begun! (Not done, just begun!) There is no absolute Biblical timeline for it but those with eyes to see it, see it! Well does Isaiah say

Quote

chap.29;13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their bmouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have dremoved their heart far from me, and their ffear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
  14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

You and Rob are pretty smart. You've done a lot of homework, but while you're spending a lot of time debating the words of the dead prophets of old, we have embraced the teachings of all the prophets, both the old as well as the modern prophets of today! And for all of Robs efforts to prove what was before, we're moving on!
Mike

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

Vance,

At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have.

I am going to have to CFR that.  I haven't seen anyone agree that you have "If I have established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth,. . . "

Edited by Vance, 08 November 2010 - 02:46 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

This is silly. See post #42, to which you were supposedly responding above, where I quoted WalkerW as saying, "I don't see a problem with your interpretation of Eph. 2:20. Quite  plausible. Funny enough, I don't think your interpretation would  necessarily conflict with LDS theology. Eph. 2:20 just wouldn't be a  proof text for current apostles and prophets."

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 02:42 PM, said:

I am going to have to CFR that.  I haven't seen anyone agree that you have "If I have established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth,. . . "

[Rob Bowman]

Mike,

You wrote:

mrmendoza, on 08 November 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

You and Rob are pretty smart. You've done a lot of homework, but while you're spending a lot of time debating the words of the dead prophets of old, we have embraced the teachings of all the prophets, both the old as well as the modern prophets of today! And for all of Robs efforts to prove what was before, we're moving on!

The issue, again, is whether these alleged modern prophets really do speak for God. One cannot simply assume that they do. If we were to discuss the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Tayloy, Wilford Woodruff, etc., or even Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, or Gordon B. Hinckley, we would still be discussing "dead prophets." Unless you wish to limit discussion to the prophetic pronouncements of President Monson, which won't give us very much to discuss, we're going to have to discuss the words of "dead prophets," whether true, false, or alleged.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 08 November 2010 - 03:22 PM, said:

Vance,

This is silly. See post #42, to which you were supposedly responding above, where I quoted WalkerW as saying, "I don't see a problem with your interpretation of Eph. 2:20. Quite  plausible. Funny enough, I don't think your interpretation would  necessarily conflict with LDS theology. Eph. 2:20 just wouldn't be a  proof text for current apostles and prophets."

Yes it is silly!

Silly for you to claim that an admission of "plausibility" for a small portion of your OP (and not the most important portion at that) as "At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have" . . . "established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth, I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread."

I am beginning to think that you easily delude yourself.

Edited by Vance, 08 November 2010 - 03:44 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have no more patience for this sort of argument from you--evidence, perhaps, of my incomplete sanctification.

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 03:42 PM, said:

Yes it is silly!

Silly for you to claim that an admission of "plausibility" for a small portion of your OP (and not the most important portion at that) as "At least a couple of Mormons participating in this thread seem to think I have" . . . "established that the Ephesians texts are not solid proof texts for the LDS doctrine that the church must always have living apostles and prophets on the earth, I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread."

I am beginning to think that you easily delude yourself.