Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Dale]

They only see the early church as having the authority of the priesthood of believers. And only Jesus to them ever held the Melchizedec priesthood. This is as much priesthood as they see the church as ever having the right to claim.

They don't think Catholic authority is anything they need to have. They don't think the Catholic church ever had the authority of a ministerial priesthood. They think such a priesthood is an product of apostasy.

[Zemah]

They only see the early church as having the authority of the priesthood of believers. And only Jesus to them ever held the Melchizedec priesthood. This is as much priesthood as they see the church as ever having the right to claim.

They don't think Catholic authority is anything they need to have. They don't think the Catholic church ever had the authority of a ministerial priesthood. They think such a priesthood is an product of apostasy.

I heard as much from the Concerned Christians folks. Especially about Christ being "the only one that could hold the Melchizedek Priesthood". They would use Hebrews as their proof. But they never answered my question that since Hebrews speaks of a "priesthood" (meaning plural), than isn't it really a body of priests. Jesus Christ being at its head.

I just read your bio. I see you are a Community of Christ convert. Do they claim the Melchizedek priesthood?

Thanks for your replies,

Zemah

[Dale]

I am just a lay member. In the Community of Christ not as many adult man, or woman holds the priesthood. Many members don't have a priesthood calling. We have the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood. We have women's ordination.

Melchizedek abide's a priest continually. (Hebrews 7:3) That would make two priest's holding that priesthood not just one. Though since it's not clearly taught in Hebrews it would be an up-hill battle trying to convince Evangelicals that more than those two ever held that priesthood.

I found Paul Trask's tracts against the Restored priesthood a stating the key Evangelical objection's well. For the one question they may not answer they can raise a bunch more for you. I don't find the argument's in my tracts as persuasive as they were to the writer. But this objection's are the one's that need to be answered on Concerned Christians if you want to even possibly persuade any of them.

http://www.help4rlds.com/Tracts.htm

I am not sure a priesthood of two individuals might not be called priesthood. Perhap's the term would better fit a priesthood with many priests in it. But the priesthood of believers has many priests in it.

FAIR is not alway's great apologetic's when it come's to these issues. I find Catholic Answers is better at handling Evangelical proof texts used against ministerial priesthood than FAIR. Other than a bit of their review of the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith presentation on priesthood i don't see them as researching the issue.

[owl]

I'm ready to start Page 26 and Just fnished the revelations stuff.

I don't have any burning in the bosom about any of my guesses, but it seems to me thet the beast is like the great and abominable church. It is no specific organization, but is made up of all who choose to follow satan rather than Christ.

The ten horns of the beast remind me of the ten toes of the statue in the dream interpreted by Daniel. (I can't spell Nebu....) The ten toes represented ten kings.

It does seem to me that, if the beast is to force everyone to have a mark in order to do business, it is likely to have something to do with corrupt government.

Just a few rambling thoughts that occur to me as I wonder about possible meanings of the vision.

[owl]

Still catching up on page 26, but checking the current stuff occasionally.

Melchizedek abide's a priest continually. (Hebrews 7:3) That would make two priest's holding that priesthood not just one. Though since it's not clearly taught in Hebrews it would be an up-hill battle trying to convince Evangelicals that more than those two ever held that priesthood.

I have heard some people believe Melchizedec, King of Salem/peace, referred to God. I'm not sure which God, Elohim the King or Jehova/Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

[owl]

Bob,

If youâ??d be so kind and edit your #487 so that the quotes line up, Iâ??d appreciate it. Make sure that the quotes begin with [(open bracket) quote (closed bracket)]; and end [(open bracket) /quote (closed bracket)].

With the long posts, itâ??s really hard to keep track of who said what, and what point youâ??re trying to make. Not to mention, itâ??s a bit rough on the eyes. Thanks.

I agree, but I know Bob went back and tried and could not make it work on #487 and a couple others. He does quite well on most of the long posts.

[owl]

Still catching up.

and we indeed see that the early Christian Church changed the doctrines wholesale.

I don't see that.

Bob, you are wearing blinders on this one, refusing to see. Perhaps you have never read any comparison the teachings of the ECF with those of the the Catholic Church and of its protestant successors. BC's list

The heresies of the trinity, creation ex nihilo, traducianism (aka original sin) sola fide, sola scirptura, OSAS, etc. etc. were not extant in the early Christian church and certainly not the Bible and yet these are the doctrines which nonLDS Christianity has created and preserved.

show that after greek philosophy infected the church the doctrines changed. The creeds which deny the ECF' understanding of the nature of God are abominations which deny that God is our father in any real sense and deny that we can progress to be like him are the result of philosphy infection.

Bob,

Have you ever had a 'burning in the bosom' witness of any biblical truth?

I have been impressed that you sincerely are trying to understand the original intent of the authors of our scriptures, but try looking for the burning in the bosom to aid in your decision as to which interpretation of the grammar of the Bible is correct. And remember that the tenses may have been present in the original, but, in most cases, the punctuation was not.

[Dale]

Owl i heard something like that. It comes from the fact his geneology is not recorded. So he is said to be without Faither, or mother, or a beginning. Unless i am wrong his death is not even recorded. So without dying he can't lose his priesthood. Was he translated? It's been so long since i persued the information i am sure i am scrambling the information. Not all Evangelical's buy into the idea, but some do. One Evangelical i read said Paul argues from silence when making his argument. So not all think Melchizedek was Jesus, or God i forget what they think exactly.

I also heard some deny he was a High Priest. Though to me Melchizedek is treated as the equivelant of a High Priest. The term would be anachronistic to Melchizedike's day as High Priest's wasn't a term in common use until the law was instituted. I look to i think Psalm 110:104. I don't have my Bible handy. If Jesus was just a priest after his order how can you be just a priest and turn into a High Priest? If Jesus was called to be a priest that's more than being just a priest.

----------

Bob is pretty good at citing from Mormon writing's. Perhap's he could demonstrate his similar ability to cite from early Christian writings. I would like it demonstrated the Evangelical orthodoxy fit well with a number of early Christian writer's. Where are all the citation's affirming grace alone for example? It's one thing to cite ambiguous grace passages from the Bible that are hard to read. But it's another thing to demonstrate that that certain individuals were preserver's of orthodoxy until the church was reformed.

Certainly Evangelical thinking is that in order to be a Christian church you must have certain essential doctrine's in common. To wander from those doctrine's to far would make you a non-Christian cultist. Some have even argued Catholic's are not Christian. I seem to recall a CARM article that said that. But i don't see many articles from Evangelicals that go that far. So i think most Evangelical's think Catholic's are apostate, but not in error so much to lose status as Christian's. In non-essential areas churches are thought to have much freedom to disagree with each other.

[Bob Betts]

You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets. You have a hymn praising Joseph Smith. You have pictures of Joseph Smith hanging everywhere. There are busts of Joseph Smith in the LDS Museum west of Temple Square. You have a larger than life, full-length statue of Joseph Smith in the lobby of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building east of Temple Square. You (LDS) treat Joseph Smith more as a savior, than just a mouthpiece of God. If the treatment of Smith isn't worship (by definition), then it sure LOOKS remarkably like it. It's apparent you have a very different perspective on God's "mouthpieces."

Help me out. If God uses mouthpieces (prophets) and by following the prophets words wich are Gods words. how then do you not follow a prophets words but follow Gods? You do a whole lot more than just follow Smith's words. You have a different perspective on prophets. Shall I post Kimball's Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophets and we'll see together how your church treats LDS prophets as more than just mouthpieces with messages from God?

Sure. Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message. There is nothing in the Bible about following prophets or anyone else, save the Prophet, Jesus Christ.

You're very welcome. Thank you for the very courteous questions, without having to relentlessly accuse me of "strawmen" and "obfuscation" in every post, as some are want to do.

Hmmm

Lets see here. You feel we worship JS becuase we have a statue of him.

Is that what I said? No. After I made the statement, "You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets," I listed four reasons for making that allegation (five, if I include the Memorial Building itself. It is a true statement, in view of how OT prophets were not known to be glorified in any similar mannor (not songs of praise, nor commemorative buildings, nor carvings).

So any time some one has a statue or a picture of some one do you equate that with worship?

Again, take everthing I said as the whole/big picture, rather than attempt to belittle what I said, by taking them one at a time. I built a case on several issues, which add up to the true statement I made, "You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets."

From my view, Bob, I could say you worship the cross not Jesus. People have crosses everywere. Now I dont think that is what you do, so lets not go down that road.

There may be a very few, lacking biblical knowledge and wisdom, who might worship the cross. They should be corrected for it. Paul and Peter made a very big deal of the importance and significance of the cross, while not making the two crossed beams objects of worship, in and of themselves. So, it cannot be said that knowledgable, mainstream, Bible-only Christians worship the cross. But, I stand by my accusation that the way Joseph Smith is treated, is unlike any other OT prophet was ever treated by Jews or Christians.

I dont worship JS. I revere him but that is it.

I'm not singling out you or anyone else. I'm saying that the CoJCoLDS promotes the worship of Joseph Smith via hymn, pictures, sculptures, statues, or whatever. He is given a pre-eminence far beyond anything given to any mere man in the Bible.

Do I worship my kids becuase I have pictures of them? No. Do I worship Beethoven becuase I have a little bust of him on my piano? No. So do you see?

There's no comparison between your kids pictures or a bust of Beethoven, and how Joseph Smith is viewed as the the most important "prophet" in the history of man and the church, allegedly sent by God to restore the true gospel and priesthood authority and keys.

Also lets look here. "You (LDS) treat Joseph Smith more as a savior, than just a mouthpiece of God." How do we do this? Im now more confused. (sorry) JS is not my savior, only Jesus is. Were are you getting this from. Ok I shouldnt have asked. You listed a few things that "looked" like we worship JS but we dont so its a non issue.

Well, it can be a non-issue for you as you wish. I was giving my perspective on what I've observed, using the examples I used. I've also been to the VC and watched,

Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration.

It glorified Joseph Smith and made him out to be some spiritual giant that he wasn't. I went to the 200th Birthday Celebration concert at Grady Gammage theater in Tempe, AZ., a couple of years ago. I sat, as everyone else stood at the end, to sing "Praise to the Man." I don't see any difference between that and when I stand up in Church to sing praises to the Lord.

Bob, how is this diffrent? " Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message." Please elaborate. Can you follow the message from God with out following a prophet? I really want to know this great mystery. If so how, if not why not?

I'm not sure how to elaborate further than what I said. If somebody came to me and said, "I have a message for you from the Lord," and I believed he was a true prophet of God, I would listen to the Lord's message. What further need do I have of that prophet, once he's delivered God's message to me? While I adhere to the message, am I supposted to follow that prophet around for some reason? Is he supposed to further lead me for some reason? Show me one example in the Bible, where a prophet was expected to both deliver God's message, and also lead the people? I've already demonstrated from scripture that the Lord led Moses and the Israelites by a pillar of fire at night and a pillar of cloud by day. I know of no prophet who was more than a messenger (mouth-piece) of God, by leading a bunch of them around, and expecting them to be obedient to the prophet. Th idea was to be obedient to God and follow Him, not any man.

[Lightbearer]

Bob, If following a prophet or an apostle is the same as worshiping them, then by extention are YOU worshipping the Bible by your devotion to it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmmm

Lets see here. You feel we worship JS becuase we have a statue of him.Is that what I said? No. After I made the statement, "You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets," I

Bob

Do you really want to know how the OT people treated the prohpets? THose that believed, vs those that didnt.

I tell you right now those that didnt believe probably killed these men. Hmmm That sounds familiar doesnt it?

[Bob Betts]

I don't believe the priesthood authority of Christ ever left the earth, because He has always been here, as He promised the disciples.

But you have yet to show that any believing disciples remained and continued to teach and impart, especially in the Ephesians 4:11-14 sense which requires living apostles and prophets to be in the Church and in light of universal apostasy verses.

1) There are no universal apostasy verses in the Bible. 2) Eph. 4:11-14 says nothing about requiring living apostles and prophets to always be in the Church. It says "He gave some, Apostles; and some, prophets;..." but never says that once they died, they must be replaced by living ones. The Church was built, and still is built, upon the OT prophets, and the Apostles of the Apostlic age (Acts). The Apostles deaths did not change the fact that the foundation had been built. Nothing is ever said in the NT, about the foundation of the Apostles, needing to always be replaced by living ones, to maintain the foundation already established.

You neglected to say anything about the fact that the priesthood authority and keys never left the earth, since Christ claimed to be with us always, even to the end of the earth. He being the source of the priesthood and keys, how can your church claim that the priesthood authority and keys were removed from the earth with the deaths of the Apostles?

Prime historical evidence is also found in the fact that no ECF ever taught anything like modern nonLDS christianity in the Catholic and especially in the Protestant sense.

You must not have received my memo that I never defend, refute or address anything ever said by ECFs or reformers. I'm a biblicist only. They had their opinions, right and wrong. Their opinions were not canonized. I discuss the Bible's canon.

[consiglieri]

Hmmm

Lets see here. You feel we worship JS becuase we have a statue of him.Is that what I said? No. After I made the statement, "You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets," I listed four reasons for making that allegation (five, if I include the Memorial Building itself. It is a true statement, in view of how OT prophets were not known to be glorified in any similar mannor (not songs of praise, nor commemorative buildings, nor carvings).

Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands.

Keep on trying, Bob.

All the Best!

--Cognoscenti (Italian for "The One Who Must Not Be Acknowledged")

[LifeOnaPlate]

You must not have received my memo that I never defend, refute or address anything ever said by ECFs or reformers. I'm a biblicist only. They had their opinions, right and wrong. Their opinions were not canonized. I discuss the Bible's canon.

But the ECF's prepared and selected the Biblical texts, and you accept their word on that alone. So indirectly, yes, you should answer for them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmmm

Again, take everthing I said as the whole/big picture, rather than attempt to belittle what I said, by taking them one at a time. I built a case on several issues, which add up to the true statement I made, "You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets."

This is just it, it is your interpretation. see below.

There may be a very few, lacking biblical knowledge and wisdom, who might worship the cross. They should be corrected for it. Paul and Peter made a very big deal of the importance and significance of the cross, while not making the two crossed beams objects of worship, in and of themselves. So, it cannot be said that knowledgable, mainstream, Bible-only Christians worship the cross. But, I stand by my accusation that the way Joseph Smith is treated, is unlike any other OT prophet was ever treated by Jews or Christians.

I agree but this is the point just because something looks like that is was is going on doesnt mean that is what is going on. Please extend us the same curtousy.

I'm not singling out you or anyone else. I'm saying that the CoJCoLDS promotes the worship of Joseph Smith via hymn, pictures, sculptures, statues, or whatever. He is given a pre-eminence far beyond anything given to any mere man in the Bible.

Dont know what to tell you here that hasnt been discussed. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

There's no comparison between your kids pictures or a bust of Beethoven, and how Joseph Smith is viewed as the the most important "prophet" in the history of man and the church, allegedly sent by God to restore the true gospel and priesthood authority and keys.

THis is the problem Bob, No one has claimed, "Joseph Smith is viewed as the the most important "prophet" in the history of man and the church" Christ is the most important and you know this. Why do you distort the truth.

Well, it can be a non-issue for you as you wish. I was giving my perspective on what I've observed, using the examples I used. I've also been to the VC and watched, It glorified Joseph Smith and made him out to be some spiritual giant that he wasn't. I went to the 200th Birthday Celebration concert at Grady Gammage theater in Tempe, AZ., a couple of years ago. I sat, as everyone else stood at the end, to sing "Praise to the Man." I don't see any difference between that and when I stand up in Church to sing praises to the Lord.

I'm not sure how to elaborate further than what I said. If somebody came to me and said, "I have a message for you from the Lord," and I believed he was a true prophet of God, I would listen to the Lord's message. What further need do I have of that prophet, once he's delivered God's message to me? While I adhere to the message, am I supposted to follow that prophet around for some reason? Is he supposed to further lead me for some reason? Show me one example in the Bible, where a prophet was expected to both deliver God's message, and also lead the people? I've already demonstrated from scripture that the Lord led Moses and the Israelites by a pillar of fire at night and a pillar of cloud by day. I know of no prophet who was more than a messenger (mouth-piece) of God, by leading a bunch of them around, and expecting them to be obedient to the prophet. Th idea was to be obedient to God and follow Him, not any man.

you said, "I have a message for you from the Lord," and I believed he was a true prophet of God, I would listen to the Lord's message. What further need do I have of that prophet, once he's delivered God's message to me?" Well do prphets give thier message all at once? Did Isaiah write everything down in 1 day?

Bob I think you know were this is going. Just admit that you have to heed the prophets words becuase they are the words of Christ. It would be the only way to head Christs words is to obey the men he sent. Bob We are talking past each other.

" I know of no prophet who was more than a messenger (mouth-piece) of God, by leading a bunch of them around, and expecting them to be obedient to the prophet. The idea was to be obedient to God and follow Him, not any man."

Tell me how is this possible? When the people in Noahs day didnt follow his words, ( they were the words of God) what happened? There is no way around it, the poeple of Isreal followed Moses in the strictest sence of the word follow. I just do see your point of view what so ever. Again we will just agree to disagree.

[Paul Ray]

Bob,

Just for clarification, would you please give us a condensed summary of what you think we (LDS) believe regarding a Great Apostasy and how we believe it happened?

I'd just like to see what you have learned about our (LDS) beliefs after more than 900 posts in this thread.

And btw, just in case you think there is no unity among us (LDS) on this issue, I'll now suggest that you learn what our Lord's apostles have taught us in this day and age, personally, just as you would learn from Paul and Peter and James and John and all of our Lord's other earlier apostles.

Thank you, and may God be with you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands.

Keep on trying, Bob.

All the Best!

--Cognoscenti (Italian for "The One Who Must Not Be Acknowledged")

Bob,

Have you read the Songs of Solomon? What do you think of those? Are those inspired? Why or why not? If not why are they in the Bible? If they are care to elabort on how they talk about Christ or the plan ov salvation?

[Bob Betts]

Okay. Here we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "Church." The Church is both universal (all true believers in Christ around the world), and local (Corinth, Galatia, Rome Ephesus, etc.). Not one central organization controlling everything. Christ's Apostles didn't ever have everything under control, as you see from reading the epistles.

I agree the Church was/is both universal (including all true believers in Christ around the world) and local, and I agree that our Lord's apostles never had everything under control, as I have seen from reading the scriptures. I believe that was their goal, though, in writing those letters and personally visiting them to try to correct them. The fact that they didn't keep them all under control (or unified) is known as apostasy.

The fact that the Apostle's were correcting errors, in their letters to the Churches, does not mean that people were leaving the faith, which is what "apostasy" means. You're making an incorrect assumption based on a misapplication of the word "apostasy."

That is the reason there were/are so many divisions in all of Christendom.

The only information about divisions within the early Church, is predicated on what the Apostles said to those Churches that they wrote to. Beyond that, you cannot draw extended conclusions about how divisions occurred, then or now. What are the reasons for the divisions within Mormondom. There are about 200 LDS divisions, all claiming to be right and true. All claim the others are apostate. When you have your own divisions figured out, let me know.

Bob: Since the reformation, the Church gradually broke up into denominations and independent Churches.

It happened way before the Reformation. There were many groups that broke away from what was the early church going way back to the first part of the first century.

CFR

Bob: What you claim as Smith's dilemma over which Church was true, you view as a choice of which denomination was true.

Yes, pretty much. I agree with that.

Bob: Fact is, the Church landscape had radically changed in Smith's day, from the days of the early Church of the apostolic age.

There were more divisions in Joseph's day than there were when the first apostate group was formed, but it was basically the same thing that had happened earlier with other apostates from our Lord's church.

Bob: Knowing what I know NOW, if I had been living in Smith's day, I would have done then what I've done today: attend the local Church which I best see as adhereing to the NT doctrines as I best understand them, and the one which most closely tries to live it on a personal level and in the community.

Would you really lean on your own understanding, without asking God to direct your path, personally?

I don't ask for directions from God, when He's already given them. From the teachings and doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles, I know what to look for in a local Church, regarding their teachings and doctrines. As I'm investigating those, I would look at their style of worship. I would also look at their youth programs, missions outreaches, involvement in the community, both home and abroad. Based on these factors (and a few other details), if they were biblically sound, I would consult with my wife, and we would then prayerfully decide if this local Church is where we would want to plant ourselves.

Without relying on God, everyone can come up with their own opinion(s) for how they think things once were and should be.

My life is a continuous practice of relying on God. I have absolute faith that God is ultimately leading my life, on a daily basis.

Bob: I won't go into why I think Smith chose to start his own.

Okay, but just try to realize that we (LDS) believe God told Joseph that God would restore his true church through Joseph.

I do realize that that's what you believe.

Bob: So, to answer your question, I can't answer your question. Because, 1) I don't know what each denomination or independent Church was like in Smith's day, and 2) I don't believe that Churches need to be led by alleged living prophets and apostles, as in the early Church.

Okay, but just try to realize that we do because we believe God revealed that to Joseph.

Yes, I do realize that, as well.

Bob: The foundation was laid by the OT prophets and the early Church Apostles, and according to Paul in Ephesians, does not need to be relaid, with ongoing living Apostles or prophets.

That's not what Paul said, exactly.

I think you're interpreting the scriptures to suit your own personal beliefs.

... instead of allowing God to tell you how to interpret the scriptures.

Okay, but try to realize that I believe the same exact thing about you.

Bob: I look at the authority stucture of any given local Protestant Church today, and if it serves Christ and the community with true believers who love God and their neighbor, understanding the biblical nature of God as triune and one, and that salvation is by grace through faith alone, as taught from our extremely well-preserved Biblical canon, then it is a successful body of Christ, being used of, and bringing glory to God.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions, but let me first make sure I understand what you're saying.

How could I be making assumptions about what I believe, as I understand the Bible.

Are you saying you determine whether or not an organization is an organization of God by looking at who the organization is serving, and the beliefs of that organization?

1) I don't look at the local Church as an organization. I look at it as an organized organizm. The Church is not a business, though it must operate under certain business guidelines, according to the law. But, I look at the local Church as a body of believers (a living organizm), some of whom function in their gifts in leadership (shepherds, elders, deacons, etc.), some who are teachers, some who are administrators, etc. 2) I determine whether or not a local Church is of God by observing how it is serving Christ and the cummunity, as true believers who love God and their neighbor, as I said. I also would look at their doctrinal beliefs about God and salvation, and also how they view the Bible. There are certain "cardinal" beliefs which are not negotiable, just like in Mormonism.

If so, how do you determine who that organization is serving, and what the beliefs of that organization should be?

I referred specifically to serving Christ, in what I said above. And, the Bible is my absolute truth guide to knowing what all true Churches of God should believe.

Based on what you keep saying, you seem to be relying on your interpretation of the Bible, and the Bible only.

Do you agree that is pretty much what you are doing?

Yes, the Bible only. But, I don't believe that my interpretation is just MY interpretation. There are about a billion professing born-again Christians in the world, some experienced apologists, others not, who would agree with the interpretation of the Bible regarding the triune nature of one God, and a day of salvation for every person chosen of God, by grace through faith alone, and not by any works of man to save himself (in other words, the complete sufficiency of Christ's atonement, by His shed blood and death for all sins, on the cross).

We (LDS) are telling you that that isn't enough to know what God has told us, personally.

And, I would respond by saying that the Bible is the reliable, inspired Word of God, personally given by God to everyone who will read it and obey it, telling us all we need to know about all things relevant (in God's eyes) to Christ, man, and salvation.

You're basically limiting yourself to what you believe God has revealed to other people in the past, without accepting anything additional from God, personally.

I don't feel the least bit deprived by God, having a book of 66 books by God, covering about 4-5 thousand years of HIStory, containing prophecies of the first and second comings of Christ, containing the entire gospel of Jesus Christ, expounded on by His Apostles, telling me exactly what I do and don't need to do to be saved both now, and in the end.

If that's all you want, fine, but we (LDS) have more.

You think you do. But, that could only be if Smith was who he claimed to be. I have more than enough evidence from his own writings, to be 100% convinced that he was not anything he claimed to be.

Bob: Yes, well, I've read a photo-copy of Smith's 1832 diary account of that alleged event, and what's in IT is not at all like what you all consider the official version, in the PoGP.

I see many similarities.

1) different reasons for going to the grove, in both accounts; 2) one personage instead of two, in the diary account; 3) entirely different dialogue between Smith and the Lord, in the two accounts. The dissimilarities are stark, almost as if it wasn't the same "vision" being recounted.

Back later.

[consiglieri]

CFR

You could begin with Professor Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities.

Among those groups of early Christians would be the Ebionites (whom many scholars feel were the original Christians), and going into the second century the Gnostic Christians and the Marcionites.

The Ebionites appear to have been Christians who believed that following the law of Moses was still necessary, and against whom Paul spent much of his time railing in Galatians and Romans. Paul was, in turn, considered a heretic by the Ebionites.

The Bible itself is clear that there were competing and conflicting versions of Christianity during the time of its authors, and many of the epistle-writers wrote to dispel what they felt was early Christian heresy, John even going so far as to call them anti-Christ. "They went out from us, but were not of us."

"Even of your own selves (the leaders of the Ephesian church) shall wolves arise not sparing the flock," as Paul put it in Acts.

How plain does it have to be?

I'll go back to being ignored now.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

Bob,

I'd just like to know whether or not you truly understand what we (LDS) believe.

I keep addressing certain points you make, as do other people, and I keep getting the feeling you aren't really listening to me or us... and it has nothing to do with whether or not you personally believe our beliefs.

I'd just like to know that you understand our beliefs, and at this point, you really don't seem as though you really do.

So do me a favor, as I have asked you previously.

Please give us a concise summary of what you believe are our (LDS) beliefs on this issue.

And again, I'm not asking for your personal opinion of our (LDS) beliefs.

I'd just like to know if you understand what our official LDS beliefs really are.

... and if ever in doubt, you can find out by learning from our Lord's modern apostles.

[owl]

From this post regarding whether prophets were to be followed, I selected a couple quotes, the first of which I consolidated.

We're to listen to them, assuming they're true nabi/prophets/mouthpieces of God. God revealed His messages to the "mouthpieces of God"... [The children of Israel]...were condemned for not obeying the message, which were delivered by His mouthpieces.

Following prophets was not a biblical concept or practice. Adhering to the messages of God, delivered by His mouthpieces, WAS a biblical concept and practice.

I think every Mormon would agree that, to us, the phrase 'follow the prophet' means 'do what the prophet tells us that God wants us to do'. So if we were to expand our short-hand to read, 'follow Christs instructions given through his prophet', would you find the exhortation OK?

BTW, the Bible speaks of no OT-like prophets, since Christ.

Would you agree that whether he was called prophet or apostle, after Christ's ascension Peter was God's mouthpiece here on earth?

[owl]

I'm up to page 28, and I have seen a few of my ideas posted before I did.

On Bob's post about agency, unrighteousness, and destruction.

First, God allows us agency because we could not progress without it. If we were automatons marching to God's will with no power of choice, what reward would we deserve? God would be doing all the work.

Second, Agency operates within the limits of physical and spiritual law. Jump into the air, fall back down. We may think we can choose to fly without an airplane, but gravity will not allow it. We may think we can choose to sin and be happy. We cannot. Wickedness never was happiness

Third, God seldom interferes with our choices or their consequences.

The simple scheme is this:

Righteousness yields blessings.

Start choosing unrighteousnes, quit getting blessings. (The rain will fall on wicked and righteous alike. Some physical blessing may continue for a time, but spiritual blessinngs will cease.)

Enough people choose wickedness, prophets deliver message, repent or be destroyed.

Repent, no destruction.

Continue wicked, sayonara.

God usually does not interfere until wickedness begins to overpower the righteous. When he finally does send destruction, it is more than merited.

However, the destruction promised by God is not caused by God. It was peoples choice. Repent and live, continue wicked be destroyed. Entirely human choice within the constraints God decreed.

[owl]

Ephesians 2:4-7 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Who makes us alive, then saves us by His grace? Read verse 5. Can we make ourselves alive? Absolutely not. Look at the above verses, and tell me precisely what it says that we do. All I see is what GOD did. Don't you?

Bob, remember these Ephesians were already members of the Church. They had been baptised and had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost thus qualifying themselves to take advantage of God's free gift of grace.

[owl]

You must not have received my memo that I never defend, refute or address anything ever said by ECFs or reformers. I'm a biblicist only. They had their opinions, right and wrong. Their opinions were not canonized. I discuss the Bible's canon.

Bob,

I know it would be expecting a lot to ask you to be as well acquainted with the ECF as you are seeking to make yourself with the LDS beliefs.

However, would you agree that those who were there listening to everything the apostles said as well as reading the few things they wrote were probably better judges of what the apostles meant by their writings than what any individual or council 300 years after Christ would believe?

What the ECF's considered scripture might be a more correct list than what any individual or council 300 years after Christ would choose.

And would you agree that since the ECF had personally listened to the apostles and had their true teachings written on their hearts, their beliefs are certainly more likely to be accurate than the beliefs of someone just reading what the apostate councils of the later "catholic fathers" left us of the apostles' and prophets' writings?

You do not accept catholic authority now. Why would you think catholics then would not edit the scriptures to conform to their possibly incorrect beliefs?

Would not the catholic councils have incentive to eliminate anything that conflicted with the catholic modification of the apostles and ECF teachings?

Other than LDS, if you could find the church today whose teachings adhered most closely the teachings of the ECF, wouldn't you think it wise to associate with that church rather than any other that had fewer ECF beliefs?

[owl]

But the ECF's prepared and selected the Biblical texts, and you accept their word on that alone. So indirectly, yes, you should answer for them.

I personally would limit the phrase Early Christian Fathers to those who were early enough to have been acquainted with the apostles. I would give much less credence to later writers, because the further the writer is in time from the establishment of the gospel teachings, the more modifications will have crept in.

While the ECF (up to circa 100 AD) may have copied some of the texts, the selection of the biblical canon was done much later.