• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
snowflake

Great apostasy

94 posts in this topic

Johnny Cake had an excellent comment in another thread, so Johnny I hope you don't mind I borrow your statement.

"Anyone who believes that the "following" that the man Jesus of Nazareth had and Paul continued has any resemblance or connection to the church that Joseph Smith founded hasn't done their homework. Unless you believe that Burger King is the restoration of McDonalds....because they both serve hamburgers, sell soft drinks and fries.  I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the one is in any way like the other...with the exception of the LDS church cooping some of the titles given to some of the followers of Jesus such as apostle, bishop, elder etc"

I would completely agree with Johnny Cake's statement, there is absolutely no "restoration" if you compare today's mainstream Salt Lake version of LDS church to the NT church. What am I missing about this restoration claim?

1

Share this post


Link to post

The spirit.

How could it possibly be the same after 2000 years of culture and philosophy and language?

 

1

Share this post


Link to post

Some out there call the LDS church, the church of Joseph Smith. And the first time I heard that it sounded very anti. But when you think about it. Joseph took a premise, and added to it. And molded the church to reflect a church that has answers finally.

1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Johnny Cake had an excellent comment in another thread, so Johnny I hope you don't mind I borrow your statement.

"Anyone who believes that the "following" that the man Jesus of Nazareth had and Paul continued has any resemblance or connection to the church that Joseph Smith founded hasn't done their homework. Unless you believe that Burger King is the restoration of McDonalds....because they both serve hamburgers, sell soft drinks and fries.  I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the one is in any way like the other...with the exception of the LDS church cooping some of the titles given to some of the followers of Jesus such as apostle, bishop, elder etc"

I would completely agree with Johnny Cake's statement, there is absolutely no "restoration" if you compare today's mainstream Salt Lake version of LDS church to the NT church. What am I missing about this restoration claim?

Ummm...I purposely deleted that post...but if you want to resurrect it...I'm fine with that..I think <_<...I just don't want to be the one who gets in trouble :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Some out there call the LDS church, the church of Joseph Smith. And the first time I heard that it sounded very anti. But when you think about it. Joseph took a premise, and added to it. And molded the church to reflect a church that has answers finally.

That is called "make it up as you go". As his predecessor Apostle Paul liberally changed the Christianity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That is called "make it up as you go". As his predecessor Apostle Paul liberally changed the Christianity.

I think the word you are looking for is "revelation".

2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I would completely agree with Johnny Cake's statement, there is absolutely no "restoration" if you compare today's mainstream Salt Lake version of LDS church to the NT church. What am I missing about this restoration claim?

The form vs the doctrine.

The restoration was of doctrine and authority.  Not everything is supposed to look the same.

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The form vs the doctrine.

The restoration was of doctrine and authority.  Not everything is supposed to look the same.

But both doctrine and authority changed from the time of Jesus (how authority is interpreted)  The LDS view of authority is a post hoc creation made by Joseph Smith...even he evolved the concept during his own life time, altered revelations, inserted biblical characters into his stories and kind of made stuff up as he went along

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But both doctrine and authority changed from the time of Jesus (how authority is interpreted)  The LDS view of authority is a post hoc creation made by Joseph Smith...even he evolved the concept during his own life time, altered revelations, inserted biblical characters into his stories and kind of made stuff up as he went along

Sorry, I don't believe nor agree with that.  I see the pattern of restoration and revelation, not improvisation.  Others disagree with me and that's fine.

In the end in matters of faith we all see what we are looking for.  The absolute truth of a matter of faith is impossible to prove or disprove and always has been.
I see elements of the temple and priesthood and ordinances all through the New Testament.  Traditions Christians say that those items mean something else and that I am misinterpreting them.
In the end our paradigm determines what we see when we look at the time of Jesus and the Church he established.  And no amount of evidence can remove that paradigm on either side.  (That's what keeps our debates entertaining and this board going).

1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Johnny Cake had an excellent comment in another thread, so Johnny I hope you don't mind I borrow your statement.

"Anyone who believes that the "following" that the man Jesus of Nazareth had and Paul continued has any resemblance or connection to the church that Joseph Smith founded hasn't done their homework. Unless you believe that Burger King is the restoration of McDonalds....because they both serve hamburgers, sell soft drinks and fries.  I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the one is in any way like the other...with the exception of the LDS church cooping some of the titles given to some of the followers of Jesus such as apostle, bishop, elder etc"

I would completely agree with Johnny Cake's statement, there is absolutely no "restoration" if you compare today's mainstream Salt Lake version of LDS church to the NT church. What am I missing about this restoration claim?

He just does not understand what he is talking about.

1. The church has a very specific organization for a very specific purpose.

Ephesians  4  [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

2. But the critical characteristic of the church lies in the priesthood authority and the keys to administer that authority.

Matt 16 [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Among other things, these two critical aspects of Christ's church were restored when Christ called Joseph Smith as a living prophet

 

Edited by cdowis
1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I don't believe nor agree with that.  I see the pattern of restoration and revelation, not improvisation.  Others disagree with me and that's fine.

In the end in matters of faith we all see what we are looking for.  The absolute truth of a matter of faith is impossible to prove or disprove and always has been.
I see elements of the temple and priesthood and ordinances all through the New Testament.  Traditions Christians say that those items mean something else and that I am misinterpreting them.
In the end our paradigm determines what we see when we look at the time of Jesus and the Church he established.  And no amount of evidence can remove that paradigm on either side.  (That's what keeps our debates entertaining and this board going).

I recommend you read Quinn's "Origins of Power"  Quinn is a believer, but he is also unafraid of the implications of the deficiencies to support the churches claims to authority found in the historical record

0

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But both doctrine and authority changed from the time of Jesus (how authority is interpreted)  The LDS view of authority is a post hoc creation made by Joseph Smith...even he evolved the concept during his own life time, altered revelations, inserted biblical characters into his stories and kind of made stuff up as he went along

Let's just choose polygamy and polyandry as an example of doctrines.

Where were they a part of Christ's original doctrine that needed to be restored? (With the force of threatening Joseph's life if he didn't restore them.)

Edited by JulieM
2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

I recommend you read Quinn's "Origins of Power"  Quinn is a believer, but he is also unafraid of the implications of the deficiencies to support the churches claims to authority found in the historical record

Read it years ago.
But you are missing the point.  An appeal to historical records that show differences in form do not prove differences in substance.

For example, in the OT God commanded animal sacrifice.  In the NT God put an end to that (for now) with the sacrifice of his Son.
The principle of sacrifice and shedding of blood as payment for sin remains constant, even if the form has changed.

So the early Christians didn't build temples and we do and our temples differ greatly from the OT temples in form.
The doctrinal underpinnings of the temple ceremonies are seen all through the OT, NT and today.
 

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Let's just choose polygamy and polyandry as an example of doctrines.

Where were they a part of Christ's original doctrine that needed to be restored? (With the force of threatening Joseph's life of he didn't restore them.)

Polyandry is not and never was a doctrine of the gospel.  There is no doctrine allowing for it.  What we call polyandry today only involves the division between man's version of marriage and God's version of marriage that overlapped in a few people's lives.  There is no gospel principle of polyandry (other than Levirate style of marriage).

As for polygamy, absence of a prior command from God in no way precludes polygamy being a law of God.  God included rules for how to live polygamy in the Law of Moses.  Clearly he had an opinion on the practice.  God told David he would give him Saul's wives.  Clearly he had no problem with a man marrying into polygamy.  God chose Abraham, Jacob, Moses, all polygamists, to lead his people and never once rebuked them for the practice.

And while we cannot prove conclusively, I 100% believe that Christ was a polygamist, being married to at least Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene and possibly others.
So where were they a part of Christ's original doctrine?  Christ's teachings on marriage are so limited we have no idea what his doctrine on marriage is.  We know that he disapproved of divorce and taught that there were no marriages to be performed after the resurrection.  That's all the record we have.  Surely if polygamy was a problem he would have condemned it at some point since it existed in the society of the time.  Not a peep.

Obedience to God is a requirement of a prophet.  Yes, Joseph's life was threatened.  So was Jonah's when he disobeyed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And while we cannot prove conclusively, I 100% believe that Christ was a polygamist, being married to at least Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene and possibly others.
So where were they a part of Christ's original doctrine?  Christ's teachings on marriage are so limited we have no idea what his doctrine on marriage is.  We know that he disapproved of divorce and taught that there were no marriages to be performed after the resurrection.  That's all the record we have.  Surely if polygamy was a problem he would have condemned it at some point since it existed in the society of the time.  Not a peep.

You state that Christ's teachings on marriage were "limited", so you really can't claim that he surely would have "condemned" polygamy if it was a problem. 

Also not having a problem with polygamy, and it being one of Christ's original gospel principles that had to be restored are two different scenarios.

Polygamy was not a commandment prior to what Joseph claimed (that we have a record of), correct?

 

Edited by JulieM
0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You state that Christ's teachings on marriage were "limited", so you really can't claim that he surely would have "condemned" polygamy if it was a problem.

Also not having a problem with polygamy, and it being one of Christ's original gospel principles that had to be restored are two different scenarios.

Polygamy was not a commandment prior to what Joseph claimed (that we have s record of), correct?

As I've said before we have to look at WHY Joseph was commanded.

In the days of Moses was there a cultural taboo against polygamy?  Was it considered bad or undesirable in that society?
How about Adam's day?  Abraham's day? Or even Christ's day?

No.  In any of those societies polygamy was a part of the culture.  If a member of the Church in the days of Moses had three wives the laws were in place to ensure it was lived righteously.  No command was needed because they were already living it.

But in the days of Joseph Smith it was considered evil, wicked, taboo, outrageous etc.  Just like today.  It takes an absolute command from God to get people past their false traditions.  And only in this dispensation has the false tradition of monogamy become the only viable option for most.

2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You state that Christ's teachings on marriage were "limited", so you really can't claim that he surely would have "condemned" polygamy if it was a problem. 

Also not having a problem with polygamy, and it being one of Christ's original gospel principles that had to be restored are two different scenarios.

Polygamy was not a commandment prior to what Joseph claimed (that we have a record of), correct?

 

How can you state with any assurance that "Polygamy was not a commandment prior to what Joseph claimed ...".

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As I've said before we have to look at WHY Joseph was commanded.

In the days of Moses was there a cultural taboo against polygamy?  Was it considered bad or undesirable in that society?
How about Adam's day?  Abraham's day? Or even Christ's day?

No.  In any of those societies polygamy was a part of the culture.  If a member of the Church in the days of Moses had three wives the laws were in place to ensure it was lived righteously.  No command was needed because they were already living it.

But in the days of Joseph Smith it was considered evil, wicked, taboo, outrageous etc.  Just like today.  It takes an absolute command from God to get people past their false traditions.  And only in this dispensation has the false tradition of monogamy become the only viable option for most.

Maybe.  But as far as I can see, there is no evidence that polygamy was a gospel principle taught by Christ.  If it was that important, I'd imagine there would be a record of him teaching and commanding it, IMO.

We don't even know if Christ lived polygamy himself or required it of his disciples as part of living the gospel.

I believe it was a man made idea or lifestyle, and still is.  I can't believe it's a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ (or from God).  I know you disagree!

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

How can you state with any assurance that "Polygamy was not a commandment prior to what Joseph claimed ...".

Well, I stated that we have no record of it being commanded prior to Joseph's claims.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Maybe.  But as far as I can see, there is no evidence that polygamy was a gospel principle taught by Christ.  If it was that important, I'd imagine there would be a record of him teaching and commanding it, IMO.

We don't even know if Christ lived polygamy himself or required it of his disciples as part of living the gospel.

I believe it was a man made idea or lifestyle, and still is.  I can't believe it's a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ (or from God).  I know you disagree!

Do you really think the Bible contains all the Jesus taught?

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe.  But as far as I can see, there is no evidence that polygamy was a gospel principle taught by Christ.  If it was that important, I'd imagine there would be a record of him teaching and commanding it, IMO.

We don't even know if Christ lived polygamy himself or required it of his disciples as part of living the gospel.

I believe it was a man made idea or lifestyle, and still is.  I can't believe it's a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ (or from God).  I know you disagree!

Jesus' prohibition on remarriage after divorce rules out polygamy as well. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Do you really think the Bible contains all the Jesus taught?

Nope (and I didn't state that, but nice apologetic tactic).

I stated that we have no record that states polygamy was a principle of the original gospel of Jesus Christ.

Can you provide a reference for where there is a record of it?

Edited by JulieM
0

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Read it years ago.
But you are missing the point.  An appeal to historical records that show differences in form do not prove differences in substance.

For example, in the OT God commanded animal sacrifice.  In the NT God put an end to that (for now) with the sacrifice of his Son.
The principle of sacrifice and shedding of blood as payment for sin remains constant, even if the form has changed.

So the early Christians didn't build temples and we do and our temples differ greatly from the OT temples in form.
The doctrinal underpinnings of the temple ceremonies are seen all through the OT, NT and today.
 

Not according to this article: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/AnimalSacrificesFuture.pdf

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Read it years ago.
But you are missing the point.  An appeal to historical records that show differences in form do not prove differences in substance.

For example, in the OT God commanded animal sacrifice.  In the NT God put an end to that (for now) with the sacrifice of his Son.
The principle of sacrifice and shedding of blood as payment for sin remains constant, even if the form has changed.

So the early Christians didn't build temples and we do and our temples differ greatly from the OT temples in form.
The doctrinal underpinnings of the temple ceremonies are seen all through the OT, NT and today.
 

Maybe you're already aware of this. Wow...no words. Jesus can't even win.

0

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Gray said:

Jesus' prohibition on remarriage after divorce rules out polygamy as well. 

No, actually it doesn't.

Matthew 19: 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

He is speaking of the lack of validity in divorce.  In other words, if you divorce and remarry except for fornication you are committing adultery because the divorce is meaningless.
Oddly enough, this would make a large number of LDS Church members adulterers.

2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.