Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LDS Guy 1986

Is the doctrine of the Rapture Biblical?

Rapture  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the teaching of the rapture Biblical in your opinion?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      27
    • Unsure
      0
    • Don't know
      0


Recommended Posts

First off if you read what I wrote (again) you would have noticed that I said it was Revelation 4, where I quoted Jesus calling John up there.

Second, It says what it says, and after that, there's no mention of the church, as being judged along with the rest of the world.

So the Church was raptured in approximately 60 to 70 AD, and it consisted solely of the Apostle John is what your saying?

Cause the coming up in Revelation 4 already happened almost 2000 years ago it isn't a prophesy of an event to come.

Like I said if you going to make wild claims and take the scripture out of context then at least do it in a believable way.

Share this post


Link to post

But there innocence also makes them unable to choose Christ either so they can't be raptured since only those "elect Christians" who have faith in Christ can be raptured. Where is the verse for children being raptured?

Jesus said, unless you become as little children, you cannot come unto me. All innocent people (children included) will be raptured.

Share this post


Link to post

Joseph Smith was also sealed to men and children, does that make him gay and a pedophile also?

In the early days of the church many families would go and get sealed to the prophet or to an apostle, if the head of the household didn't hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. You understand that sealings are not only done for marriage, men are sealed to there fathers and mothers, children sealed to there parents. In the early days of the Church there were many families that were sealed to prophets and apostles because there head didn't hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, as the Melchizedek Priesthood became more accessible among the men of the Church this practice faded away into obscurity.

So of course Smith had married Women sealed to him, he also had married men sealed to him and children from those marraiges sealed to him. What never happened though was Smith never slept with any of these women because they were not his wives they were married to there husbands, married men and women being sealed to high church leaders had nothing to do with polygamy and everything to so with early beliefs of the Saints and lack of Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the early days of the Church.

Added by Edit:

When you test the fruit of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by studying, pondering, and praying about the Book of Mormon, and find if that fruit is good or bad, then and only then will I entertain your accusations of Smith. Until then I cannot in good conscience allow a man to imperil his soul further by continuing to bear false witness against an innocent man.

Your "prophet" (so called) married/sealed himself to 11 women who are already married at the time.

I look at his life his actions.

As Jesus said, in Matt.12:33

Share this post


Link to post

So the Church was raptured in approximately 60 to 70 AD, and it consisted solely of the Apostle John is what your saying?

Cause the coming up in Revelation 4 already happened almost 2000 years ago it isn't a prophesy of an event to come.

Like I said if you going to make wild claims and take the scripture out of context then at least do it in a believable way.

Where did I say any of this?

You claim that the rapture isn't in Revelation or Biblical.

First, it clearly is in the Bible, and taught in many places.

Second, I'm pointing to a passage in Revelation 4 that uses the same words as used in Thess. 4. which shows that the rapture *could* be seen there, as the church isn't condemned with the rest of the world.

Of course it's a vision for John, and of course I'm not implying that the rapture occurred already.

Share this post


Link to post
Jesus said, unless you become as little children, you cannot come unto me. All innocent people (children included) will be raptured.

There are no innocents, not even children, because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God", doncha know? At least that's what the evangelicals I have heard weigh in on the subject claim. So, according to evangelical theory, no one will be "raptured" as no one qualifies.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Your "prophet" (so called) married/sealed himself to 11 women who are already married at the time.

I look at his life his actions.

As Jesus said, in Matt.12:33

Share this post


Link to post
I believe that if a prophet is from God they won't take other mens [sic] wives, a clear violation of the ten commandments.

The commandment in question is "thou shalt not commit adultery." It does not say, "thou shalt not be sealed to another man's wife." There is a major difference, one which you have not shown any indication of understanding. So, CFR that Joseph Smith ever "committed adultery" with any of the women to whom he was sealed who were married (not sealed) to other men. If he did not, and he didn't, then your accusation is false.

LDS historian Todd Compton shows in his excellent "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," of Smith's 33 well-documented "plural wives," at least 11 of them

had legal husbands at the time of their "sealing" to Smith.

So what? The "sealing" (and please note that my use of quotation marks is legitimate, while yours are merely "scare" quotes) did not constitute "marriage" in the sense that you'd like us to accept. There were documented cases of what some have termed "dynastic" sealings (e.g., Helen Marr Kimball) where the purpose of the sealing was to establish a Priesthood link between the women's families and Joseph Smith. Most of us Saints (by far the majority who have studied the issue at all) acknowledge that the depth of the sealing power was not well understood by prophets and apostles, much less us lay-folk for decades after the power and ordinances were revealed and restored. That's how they had "adoptions" of men by other men, which was exactly the same principle as the sealings of the women you note to Joseph.

And, contrary to popular myth, none of those women were estranged from their legal husbands, so Smith didn't take them into his household to provide for them.

Since at least one (whose name escapes me at the moment) was estranged, your statement is false.

But since there is no evidence that the "sealings" you pretend to lament were "marriages" in any classical sense, your argument is moot ab initio.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

There are no innocents, not even children, because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God", doncha know? At least that's what the evangelicals I have heard weigh in on the subject claim. So, according to evangelical theory, no one will be "raptured" as no one qualifies.

Lehi

So now you're arguing based on what evangelicals have said to you?

Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post

So now you're arguing based on what evangelicals have said to you?

Oh well.

It's called playing the devil's advocate, you present the oppositions opinion, people do it all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

Like I explained to you need to understand that eternal marriage and sealing is not always the same thing, he was sealed to 6 married women on top of his 24 wives he was also sealed to many men and children also, just like every Mormon family is sealed to men, women, and children that goes back several generations. Your point is moot because you are not listening, sealing DOES NOT equal marriage. Smith was never married to the men he is sealed to nor the children he is sealed to, but when he is sealed to married women all of a sudden that sealing changes to a marriage?

What is your evidence that these women were his wives? Do you have the Family Bible with there names written in there? Do you have the Church records that record them as his legal spouse?, or are you simply taking something out of context to support your sinful false witness against an innocent man because you do not want to actually test his fruit, The Book of Mormon?

I guarantee you the Book of Mormon will not force anything on you, if you are correct you will read the Book discover it is false and simply have legitimate evidence to support your claim. As long as you continue bearing false witness (since you claim Smith is false without testing his fruits the Book of Mormon) you are sinning and putting your soul in danger.

You do not know his

Based on the Wives of Joseph Smith he married 11 that were already married to other men at the time. Then Brigham Young did the same.

If you think it's only 6, then it's still a clear violation of the 10th commandment.

By the his fruits of his life you will know him.

Share this post


Link to post

The commandment in question is "thou shalt not commit adultery." It does not say, "thou shalt not be sealed to another man's wife." There is a major difference, one which you have not shown any indication of understanding. So, CFR that Joseph Smith ever "committed adultery" with any of the women to whom he was sealed who were married (not sealed) to other men. If he did not, and he didn't, then your accusation is false.

So what? The "sealing" (and please note that my use of quotation marks is legitimate, while yours are merely "scare" quotes) did not constitute "marriage" in the sense that you'd like us to accept. There were documented cases of what some have termed "dynastic" sealings (e.g., Helen Marr Kimball) where the purpose of the sealing was to establish a Priesthood link between the women's families and Joseph Smith. Most of us Saints (by far the majority who have studied the issue at all) acknowledge that the depth of the sealing power was not well understood by prophets and apostles, much less us lay-folk for decades after the power and ordinances were revealed and restored. That's how they had "adoptions" of men by other men, which was exactly the same principle as the sealings of the women you note to Joseph.

Since at least one (whose name escapes me at the moment) was estranged, your statement is false.

But since there is no evidence that the "sealings" you pretend to lament were "marriages" in any classical sense, your argument is moot ab initio.

Lehi

the violation is with the 10th commandment, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

Share this post


Link to post

the violation is with the 10th commandment, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

He didn't covet anyone's wife thou as I explined before, where is your proof that he desired these women?

A sealing is just that a ceremony that seals someone to another person, unless they were legally married the sealing has no marital relations to it.

Just like a man being sealed to his son has no marital relationship to it, it binds a father to his son.

Sealing does not equal marriage and it does not equal coveting.

You need to back up your ridiculous claims that your pastor told you if you want to be taken serious here.

Share this post


Link to post

Based on the Wives of Joseph Smith he married 11 that were already married to other men at the time. Then Brigham Young did the same.

If you think it's only 6, then it's still a clear violation of the 10th commandment.

By the his fruits of his life you will know him.

I am done here you didn't read my post, and you refuse to stop bearing false witness against a man without testing his fruits.

Come back when you read the Book of Mormon and they I will listen to you.

Share this post


Link to post

Mormonism also teaches "rapture":

D&C 88
:

95 And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled;

96
And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.

97
And they who have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar of heaven

Share this post


Link to post

Mormonism also teaches "rapture":

D&C 88
:

95 And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled;

96
And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.

97
And they who have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar of heaven

Share this post


Link to post

Actually Mormonism has a lot to say about the Second Coming. Here are some highlights, which are by no means exhaustive:

D&C 29
:

11 For I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand.

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the earth shall quake, and they shall come forth

Share this post


Link to post

This is not a rapture, this is the Morning of the First Resurrection, this happens AFTER the tribulation, and we are not swept up to be saved from the tribulation. We are caught up to herald in the return of our Lord and King Jesus Christ, and I would have it no other way.

But to take the Morning of the First Resurrection and say that it is the rapture is baloney, IMO.

The two teachings cannot be further apart.

Well it is a "rapture" of sorts, but not the one that Evangelicals believe in. It is the same rapture that Paul teaches in Thessalonians. The idea that the saints will be "caught up" at some stage to meet the Lord in the cloud at the Second Coming is both biblical and confirmed in LDS scripture. It is all the additional false associations that the Evans add to it that makes it wrong. I am not supporting that idea. I am merely supporting what is taught in the Bible and the D&C.

Share this post


Link to post

I am done here you didn't read my post, and you refuse to stop bearing false witness against a man without testing his fruits.

Come back when you read the Book of Mormon and they I will listen to you.

I'm guessing they aren't really Joseph Smith's wives then, since he wasn't married to them?

Share this post


Link to post

Well it is a "rapture" of sorts, but not the one that Evangelicals believe in. It is the same rapture that Paul teaches in Thessalonians. The idea that the saints will be "caught up" at some stage to meet the Lord in the cloud at the Second Coming is both biblical and confirmed in LDS scripture. It is all the additional false associations that the Evans add to it that makes it wrong. I am not supporting that idea. I am merely supporting what is taught in the Bible and the D&C.

Many Evangelicals believe the rapture will occur after the tribulation. Rapture simply means "caught up".

The last Walter Martin was a Post Trib rapture believer, for example.

Share this post


Link to post

Well it is a "rapture" of sorts, but not the one that Evangelicals believe in. It is the same rapture that Paul teaches in Thessalonians. The idea that the saints will be "caught up" at some stage to meet the Lord in the cloud at the Second Coming is both biblical and confirmed in LDS scripture. It is all the additional false associations that the Evans add to it that makes it wrong. I am not supporting that idea. I am merely supporting what is taught in the Bible and the D&C.

I agree philosophically with you, but the non biblical term Rapture has too much false implementations attached to it because the rapture is widely accepted as an escape from the tribulation. I do not use the term rapture, because of this.

Share this post


Link to post

Many Evangelicals believe the rapture will occur after the tribulation. Rapture simply means "caught up".

The last Walter Martin was a Post Trib rapture believer, for example.

So if you can't even get your own doctrine straight, why should we listen to you?

Share this post


Link to post

Many Evangelicals believe the rapture will occur after the tribulation. Rapture simply means "caught up".

I agree that rapture simply means "caught up;" but if so, why all the fuss about "rapture" at all?

The last Walter Martin was a Post Trib rapture believer, for example.

In the LDS scripture rapture is associated with the Second Coming. It takes place at the second coming. As Jesus returns in the cloud, and the holy angels with Him, the righteous dead are resurrected and "caught up" to meet Him in the cloud; and the living saints are also "caught up" into the cloud, and Jesus will then descend to earth with this great company. The scripture suggests that the saints who are thus caught up may actually be translated so that they become immortal. But whether it is post-trib or pre-trib seems an irrelevant distraction. I don't see any merit in the discussion of that particular issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree philosophically with you, but the non biblical term Rapture has too much false implementations attached to it because the rapture is widely accepted as an escape from the tribulation. I do not use the term rapture, because of this.

I agree. I just wanted to point out that the idea of the saints being "caught up" is a valid teaching that is affirmed in LDS scripture.

Share this post


Link to post

So if you can't even get your own doctrine straight, why should we listen to you?

For as long as I've been a christian there hasn't been 100% agreement on this issue. Do a google search on Pre-trib, Mid-trib, Post-trib and you'll likely see the debate unfold.

Where scripture is vague, the doctrine is debated. I happen to be a pre-triber, Walter for example, was a post-triber. No biggie.

I agree that rapture simply means "caught up;" but if so, why all the fuss about "rapture" at all?

In the LDS scripture rapture is associated with the Second Coming. It takes place at the second coming. As Jesus returns in the cloud, and the holy angels with Him, the righteous dead are resurrected and "caught up" to meet Him in the cloud; and the living saints are also "caught up" into the cloud, and Jesus will then descend to earth with this great company. The scripture suggests that the saints who are thus caught up may actually be translated so that they become immortal. But whether it is post-trib or pre-trib seems an irrelevant distraction. I don't see any merit in the discussion of that particular issue.

I'm not sure there's a lot of fuss about it, actually. We are approaching the last days, and things are getting exciting.

What you see as an irrelevant distraction, I find to be an interesting debate.

I agree. I just wanted to point out that the idea of the saints being "caught up" is a valid teaching that is affirmed in LDS scripture.

And the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
DinosaurRapture.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×