Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Zemah]

What's wrong with 1001?

[freakin a man]

What's wrong with 1001?

Nothing except 1002 is one better.

[Bernard Gui]

Been a follower of Jesus Christ for 37 years, wherever I've been, at any given time.

So, I've got 23 years on you. A Mormon/Latter-day Saint is also a

follower of Jesus. You have no monopoly on that. And I've known many,

many more Mormons than you have. Not a one of them worships Joseph.

I've seen a great deal of Joseph Smith worship, as I've described above.

Your eyes have deceived you. I only worship God and Jesus. I have never

met a Mormon who worships Joseph Smith in the commonly used meanings of that word:

"worship: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also an act of expressing such reverence; a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual." Webster's on-line dictionary

You may change the meaning of worship if you wish, but it does not

help your argument or your credibility.

Then I believe they serve two masters.

Then your belief is wrong.

Mormons do a great deal more then memorialize his name.

Mormons do a great deal more than admire Joseph Smith.

So what? We do not worship him.

I believe such a practice is just as wrong as what LDS do. Some people pray for dead people, others pray to dead people. Doesn't make it right.

Mormons neither pray to nor for dead people.

Whatever. I believe from everything I've seen, heard, read and watched, that Mormons worship Joseph Smith.

Whatever? You insist on believing a lie you have invented? Whatever!

I don't care about the ratio. One hymn of praise to Joseph Smith, doesn't lesson the fact that the very nature of that one hymn is the worship of Joseph Smith. And, that's what matters.

No, it doesn't matter. Actually, there are 7 hymns that reference the prophet and his role in the Restoration. Over 300 are about the Savior.

That's an excellent ratio. When LDS sing hymns about Joseph Smith,

they are not worshipping him. Correct words to use would be

to commemorate, to give thanks to God for, to remember, to praise,

to admire. During the worship part of our service, ie., the sacrament,

there are no hymns to Joseph, only and exclusively to Jesus. You may

persist in your misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misleading,

but you have been corrected. Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith.

That may very well be. But, I doubt they carry on the form of worship of those OT patriarchs, which LDS carry on for Joseph Smith.

Really?

Well, let's see. They set a place at their tables for one of the prophets, no?

From the Jewish Encyclopedia on Moses:

Moses' Preexistence.

The end of the great lawgiver especially was surrounded with legends. "While, after having taken leave of the people, he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua on Mount Nebo, a cloud suddenly stood over him, and he disappeared, though he wrote in Scripture that he died, which was done from fear that people might say that because of his extraordinary virtue he had been turned into a divinity" ("Ant." iv. 8,

[Mark Beesley]

You may change the meaning of worship if you wish, but it does not help your argument or your credibility.

Ask Bob if he worships his wife . . .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bob, I don't believe I said you you teach people not to pray. I said we know who it is who teaches people not to pray. Here's the exact quote:

That would be Satan, Lucifer, the ole Devil.

He has taught you not to pray about the Book of Mormon, not to pray about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to pray about Joseph Smith. That is teaching people not to pray, and you have hearkened unto him.

So, tell us Bob, since you claim that you don't pray about these things because the Bible does not specifically tell you to pray about such things, what specifically does the Bible tell you to pray about? Chapter and verse please.

Note: Someone else may have to pose the question to Bob since Bob won't respond to me directly, only if someone else quotes me.

I see this is the case. I truely dont want to come across as rude, But Bob, can you answere this question here: "

So, tell us Bob, since you claim that you don't pray about these things because the Bible does not specifically tell you to pray about such things, what specifically does the Bible tell you to pray about? Chapter and verse please."

[Bob Betts]

I see this is the case. I truely dont want to come across as rude, But Bob, can you answere this question here: "So, tell us Bob, since you claim that you don't pray about these things because the Bible does not specifically tell you to pray about such things, what specifically does the Bible tell you to pray about? Chapter and verse please."

Matt. 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Luke 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

James 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray.

James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[Paul Ray]

Paul: Do you acknowledge the fact that people have various interpretations of scripture that conflict with each other?

Bob: Yes. Mostly because they don't know how to interpret scripture, thus the multiple conflicts.

And pray tell, how do YOU think we should interpret the scriptures?

... just in case there are some of us who don't know your way already?

Paul: I ask God to tell me how to interpret scripture and then I believe what God tells me.

Is my way any different than your way of understanding the scriptures?

Bob: Entirely different. If you don't know what "exegesis" and "hermeneutics" are, I recommmend you take the time to learn. It will radically change how you interpret scripture.

Okay, I did the the research, and I even did it that way myself once upon a time.

I now think it's best to ask God to simply tell me how to understand the scriptures, rather than trying to figure out how to interpret them all by myself and/or by just accepting what other people (other than God) tell me concerning how they think I should interpret the scriptures.

Bob: I don't agree with your way because it will rarely lead us to the same interpretation.

I disagree.

I believe it will lead us to the same interpretation(s) as God's interpretation(s), if we are both learning from God directly.

Bob: When God spoke through the prophets, Christ and the Apostles, he had one thing in mind...one intention...one intended meaning. Every verse has an intended meaning, which God knows. He never intended for everyone to arrive at different meanings. One verse is not supposed to mean one thing to one person, and something different to another person. God said what He meant and meant what He said.

I agree with most of that, except for my belief which God has given me concerning how there are sometimes various ways to correctly interpret certain scriptures.

The goal in exegesis is to find out what He meant.

That may be the goal, but it doesn't work out very well for most people.

Take a look at how many people interpret the Bbile in various ways that conflict with each other, based on what they think the scriptures are really saying.

Better to just ask God and let God tell us, IMO.

Paul: You and I don't even agree about the definition of apostasy, and apostates.

Bob: Part of exegesis is to get the definitions of terms from the original languages of the Bible, so that we are on the same page with defined terms.

I've been talking English with you for quite a while now and you still don't seem to understand what I'm saying... and I doubt it would get any better for us if I started speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek.

... based on the Greek definition of grace, I automatically know that the LDS definition of grace is the opposite of the Greek definition. If you were to conform your thinking to the Greek definition of grace, it would entirely change your view of grace, and you would understand that the LDS definition is entirely wrong. It would change your entire perspective on the doctrine of grace, which has led a lot of LDS to quit the LDS church, after they learned what a difference there is.

I believe you are exaggerating, again, and I know better than to try to prove that to you.

... but just for kicks, what do YOU believe is the Greek definition of grace?

Paul: Who and/or what is it that could help us to be in total agreement?

Bob: I don't know of a person or thing that could accomplish that. One of us would have to go through a complete change of thinking. Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

I believe God can accomplish that, but I believe you would have to talk with him and actually hear from him, personally, for him to be able to do that for you.

I believe I am learning from God directly, already, and that God will never force you to believe anything.

[Mark Beesley]

Matt. 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Luke 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

James 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray.

James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Thanks for the response Bob. So, it appears that there are a number things that we are told we can pray for. Do you think the list is exhaustive, or are the scriptures illustrative?

If we can pray for our daily bread, can we pray for other things?

If we can pray for wisdom, can we pray for knowledge?

How about the scripture that says, "Ask and ye shall received." Is there any good thing that is exempted from the things we can ask for?

Are there any scriptures that specify anything specific that we should not pray for?

Thanks!

[Mark Beesley]

When God spoke through the prophets, Christ and the Apostles, he had one thing in mind...one intention...one intended meaning. Every verse has an intended meaning, which God knows. He never intended for everyone to arrive at different meanings. One verse is not supposed to mean one thing to one person, and something different to another person. God said what He meant and meant what He said.

I agree with all that.

Don't you think though that there is the possibility that scriptures might have dual meanings? Is the Gospel really a one-size-fits-all proposition?

[Paul Ray]

Paul: I agree with all that.

Don't you think though that there is the possibility that scriptures might have dual meanings? Is the Gospel really a one-size-fits-all proposition?

Yes. See my edited post up above.

I sometimes have a hard time thinking of everything all at once even with God's help.

[Mark Beesley]

Yes. See my edited post up above.

I sometimes have a hard time thinking of everything all at once by myself.

Great minds think alike.

[Paul Ray]

Great minds think alike.

I like it that mine gets "renewed" from time to time.

[Bob Betts]

To bind or loose sins, as Peter could? Heck no.

Didn't.

Bob,

You are a funny man. You have admitted that it is an argument from silence reguarding marriage, one way or the other, it is true. You cannot argue your side anymore than I could argue my side, surlely you see this. Ill play it your way. The scriptures do not say anything about binding sin, were do you get this?

Context. Matt. 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

I at least claim to have modern revelation claimed to be given to me by a prohpet of God. Yours on the other hand was given to you by whom? I thought no more scripture could be revealed.

It can't. You failed to read verse 18 in context.

Peter was given the authority to bind and loose things on this earth. If anything since it isnt clear it would be the power to bind and loose all things,

ALL things? Do you think Peter had the power to bind or loose an individual's salvation? How about the power to bind or loose the HS? What about people's personal lives, since marriage is pretty personal? Did he have the power to bind or loose who they marry, the number of children they have, where they live, what gifts they have in the Church, their callings, how much they tithe, when they get up in the morning and when they go to bed at night, their secular occupation? What all do you assume Peter had the power to bind and loose?

thise would include marrage and sins (witch doesnt even make sense to me) but Ill give you the benfit of the doubt here.

If you read verse 18 in context, it might make sense. Since marriage is not given a word of mention in the context, anywhere in scripture, where binding and loosing is stated, why would I naturally assume marriage is something that Peter would bind or loose. It's an arbitrary assertion. If we're going to assert things, then perhaps Peter had the power to loose himself and other brethren from persecution and the chains of imprisonment, while binding his captors and persecutors. But, that didn't happen. So, why just marriage, according to your religion? What else does your church say he had the power to bind or loose?

Why cant you accpet this. You dont even want to try to see eye to eye on anything. In case you wonder I tried in this very post. let me post it again just in case you missed it. "If anything since it isnt clear it would be the power to bind and loose all things, thise would include marrage and sins (witch doesnt even make sense to me) but Ill give you the benfit of the doubt here."

Well, I assure you I don't do it on purpose. I've read the two passages on binding and loosing, and the passage where Jesus addresses the issue of resurrection when it comes to which brother she would be married. I simply don't find anything in context, related to binding and loosing of marriages. If the Matt. 16 and 18 passages just hinted at marriage, I would be forced to agree with you. They don't, so I can't.

[Hick Preacher]

Ask Bob if he worships his wife . . .

Actually at least one of Joseph Smith's wives called him 'our God'.

Some early Mormons considered Joseph Smith to be the Holy Ghost incarnate.

[Zemah]

Nothing except 1002 is one better.

But I made the top of the page.

[Mark Beesley]

Actually at least one of Joseph Smith's wives called him 'our God'.

Some early Mormons considered Joseph Smith to be the Holy Ghost incarnate.

Hi Hick! How ya been?

Yeah, them mid-19th Century Saints has some pretty wild ideas, huh?

Now then, us 21st Century Mormons, we ain't got none of them crazy notions. No siree. We know Joseph Smith couldn'ta been the Holy Ghost 'cause the Holy Ghost is a woman, right girls?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bob,

You are a funny man. You have admitted that it is an argument from silence reguarding marriage, one way or the other, it is true. You cannot argue your side anymore than I could argue my side, surlely you see this. Ill play it your way. The scriptures do not say anything about binding sin, were do you get this?Context. Matt. 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

It can't. You failed to read verse 18 in context.

THanks for the reply. I like context too. lets look a little closer shall we. I like that Christ can bind anything that we shall ask. Thanks for bringing this up. bold part added by me. BTW I failed in no such way to read verse 18 in context.

ALL things? Do you think Peter had the power to bind or loose an individual's salvation? How about the power to bind or loose the HS? What about people's personal lives, since marriage is pretty personal? Did he have the power to bind or loose who they marry, the number of children they have, where they live, what gifts they have in the Church, their callings, how much they tithe, when they get up in the morning and when they go to bed at night, their secular occupation? What all do you assume Peter had the power to bind and loose?

Bob, I honestly dont even know were to go with this. Do you think Peter can do all of those things? What all do you assume Peter had the authority to do.

If you read verse 18 in context, it might make sense. Since marriage is not given a word of mention in the context, anywhere in scripture, where binding and loosing is stated, why would I naturally assume marriage is something that Peter would bind or loose. It's an arbitrary assertion. If we're going to assert things, then perhaps Peter had the power to loose himself and other brethren from persecution and the chains of imprisonment, while binding his captors and persecutors. But, that didn't happen. So, why just marriage, according to your religion? What else does your church say he had the power to bind or loose?

Bob once again we can argue about what this binding and sealing power really does. The Bible doesnt say. It just says "any thing that they shall ask" Also I can use your logic here, were do you get Christ is talking about binding sin. He never uses those words, the context that you claim is there cant be found. All we know is that what so ever, this implies anything, that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. If Christ was talking about binding a mans sins then why didnt he say I give you power to bind a mans sins?

Well, I assure you I don't do it on purpose. I've read the two passages on binding and loosing, and the passage where Jesus addresses the issue of resurrection when it comes to which brother she would be married. I simply don't find anything in context, related to binding and loosing of marriages. If the Matt. 16 and 18 passages just hinted at marriage, I would be forced to agree with you. They don't, so I can't.

1st off we have gone way off topic but I dont see this as a problem as it does pertain to the preisthood.

ok Jesus tells the scribes that they do err, that they know not thte law and the scriptures. What scripture was Jesus talking about here. I know the law of Moses, but what did Jesus mean. This is in refrence to the 7 brothers that had 1 wife. Also the phrase: they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. is not the same thing as saying they are niether married nor are given in marriage. The way it is phrased is taking about a future event. In other words if you havent been married by the time the ressurection has occurred, it is to late an you will be as the angels of heaven.

Bob, your logic is a 2 way sword here. You claim becuase it doesnt spacifically state that the binding power is talking about marriage it also cant be stated that it is not talking about marriage.

[Hick Preacher]

mbeesley- and how are you?

I am just getting older everyday-- trying to keep young by discussing eternal life with LDS folks--\\

Now then, us 21st Century Mormons, we ain't got none of them crazy notions. No siree. We know Joseph Smith couldn'ta been the Holy Ghost 'cause the Holy Ghost is a woman, right girls?

My boss is a woman named Joey--- Are you sure JS was not a woman?

[Doctor Steuss]

Luke 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

Bless you Bob.

[Dale]

With regards to eternal marriage the only objections i have to to it is Jesus statements on the subject. But Jesus was basing his objections to it based on the law of Moses. Since the law and its rule's have been abolished Jesus could have later learned stuff about eternal marriage that corrected Moses imperfrect revelation. The law lost it's status as the top written authority when the law was fulfilled. Of course it would become necessary to accept D.&C. 132 as scripture though.

Would Matthew 18:15-20 mean that you would need the consent of the three to enter heaven? Let's say the individual was kicked out of the church. Would they need to get the consent of the church to go to heaven? If it took the church to bind on earth and in heaven it seem's to me the church would have to loose, or undo the action on earth. It might be similar to a statement about needing Joseph Smith's consent to get to heaven. Would we need Peter's consent to enter heaven if we became the publican and heathen man of the scripture.

This one baptist lady involved in outreach to Mormons told me such a sinner was probably never saved to begin with.

The Mormon idea of Celestial law is rather pretty cool. It's a law of grace. It's not the cold hard law. (James 2:10) In LDS belief person's that break Celestial law they can still be saved from the final hell. (outer darkness) That's certiainly not a type of salvation that the person earned.(Ephesians 2:8-9) About the only thing in Mormonism that's by grace coupled with Gospel obedience is the Celestial kingdom, and exaltation.

In my Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith book Floyd Mcelveen found a long quotation about all the things LDS had to do to merit exaltation. And then he added a "Whew!" to a sentence. But Jesus said in Matthew 19:26 something about for man nothing is possible, but for God all things are possible. It's supposed to be a "whew!" so unsaved persons like Floyd Mcelveen, and the rich young man can run away sorrowful. Celestial law is not supposed to work based on man's own efforts. 2 Nephi 25:23 is very clear works are insufficient for salvation. Critics misinterpret it inspite of the fact it was given in an Old Testament context to try and make it conflict with the Bible. (Deut. 27:26) Nobody in Old testament times were saved until they got done doing all they can do.

One scripture popular in outreach to Mormons is Moroni 10:32. The part about "denying yourself of all ungodliness" bothers critic's. They think that how can by grace then can we be perfected in Christ? Lets God do for what to us is impossible. (Matthew 19:16-30; Hebrews 10:14) The part about "love God with all your might, mind and strenght," is based on Deut 6:5. Deut. 6:5 coupled with Deut. 27:26 is clear that all mean's all. And that would mean denying yourself of all ungodliness. I think God ought to be allowed the credit for being able to accomplish a mission impossible. Celestial law has been described as mission impossible by LDS critics.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Matt. 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 9:38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Luke 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

James 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray.

James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Bob, With every thing you have listed here, witch isnt much, is this all I can pray for? Actually I take back my comment of not being much, but it seems that you have left one out.

Matt 7:8 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. This verse seems to indicate that what soever I ask (meaning anything) it shall be granted unto you.

Obsviously there seems to be some qualifications to this but what are they? Does the Bible, Gods only word, tell us? If I ask God for a million dollars, is He going to give to me? Why or why not?

[Paul Ray]

Do you think Peter had the power to bind or loose an individual's salvation?

In a sense, yes, I do.

I believe he had the power to tell people how to be saved, as well as how to be damned, while giving them everything that was necessary.

How about the power to bind or loose the HS?

In a sense, yes, I do.

I believe he had the power to give the gift of the Holy Ghost to people, as well as the power to take it away.

What about people's personal lives, since marriage is pretty personal? Did he have the power to bind or loose who they marry...

In a sense, yes, he did.

I believe he had the power of God to seal a man and a woman together as husband and wife for all of eternity, as well as the power of God to loose, or unbind, their marriage.

... the number of children they have...

Okay now you're just being silly, IMO.

Just kidding.

But yes, I believe he did, to some extent.

... where they live...

Yes, I believe he had the power to tell people where to move, and live.

... what gifts they have in the Church, their callings...

Yes, in a sense, to some degree.

... how much they tithe...

Uh huh. A tithe is 10%.

... when they get up in the morning and when they go to bed at night...

Yes, kinda like:

We'll be having a meeting tomorrow at 6:30 am, sharp. Be there or be square.

... their secular occupation?

You mean like the power of hiring and firing people?

Yes, I believe he had a power kinda like that.

What all do you assume Peter had the power to bind and loose?

Whatever it was, whatever he bound and/or loosed on Earth would also be bound and/or loosed in heaven... and I'm not assuming anything because my belief is backed up with the scriptures and what God has told me, personally.

If you read verse 18 in context, it might make sense. Since marriage is not given a word of mention in the context, anywhere in scripture, where binding and loosing is stated, why would I naturally assume marriage is something that Peter would bind or loose.

Why would you assume there would necessarily be a limit to what Peter could do with the keys of the kingdom of heaven that God gave to Peter to use, though?

Do you realize we're talking about the actual power of God, here?

It's an arbitrary assertion. If we're going to assert things, then perhaps Peter had the power to loose himself and other brethren from persecution and the chains of imprisonment, while binding his captors and persecutors. But, that didn't happen. So, why just marriage, according to your religion?

It's NOT just marriage, according to our religious beliefs that God has given us.

What else does your church say he had the power to bind or loose?

First try wrapping your mind around the idea that WHATEVER it was that Peter bound and/or loosed on Earth would also be bound and/or loosed in heaven, and then expand upon that thought while realizing that we are talking about the keys of the kingdom of heaven that God gave to Peter to use.

There is a reason Peter is often thought of as having the keys to the pearly gates of heaven, you know.

Whoever he lets in, gets in, and whoever he keeps out, stays out, unless they also have their own set of keys of the kingdom that Peter can not take away, or loose.

I've read the two passages on binding and loosing, and the passage where Jesus addresses the issue of resurrection when it comes to which brother she would be married. I simply don't find anything in context, related to binding and loosing of marriages. If the Matt. 16 and 18 passages just hinted at marriage, I would be forced to agree with you. They don't, so I can't.

You're going beyond scripture to state that they keys of the kingdom of heaven have limitations, though.

Where are you getting your support for that idea?

I think you're simply sharing your personal opinion... and everybody has one of those.

[Bob Betts]

Part of the definition of grace, from scripture.lds.org is, "However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, â??It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can doâ? (2 Ne. 25: 23). How can you say that this definition means that grace cannot be earned and is free, when it so obviously states that "grace canNOT suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient," and takes affect "after all you can do"?

Yes, if a man say in His heart, "Jesus save me," He will. THEN comes the life of service to God, through Christ in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Bob, you just said the same thing there. Grace will take over and work,

If that's what you got out of what I said, then either I communicated very poorly, or you listened very poorly. I said nothing remotely to "grace will take over and work." Grace is not something that takes over and works. If I string two passages together about grace (Eph. 2:8-9) and mercy (Rom 9:15-16, 18), "grace" is God's mercy to grant salvation, on whomever He chooses to have mercy and compassion.

the free gift of Grace, but only if we work towards living a perfect life.

This isn't what I said either. Nor is it so stated in the scriptures. There's no "if" in Eph. 2:8-9 or 2 Tim 1:9. Salvation is never of works as those two and other passages make crystal clear. But, works are of salvation. That is, if we're saved, we'll do good works. Salvation itself is free. Works cannot earn anyone salvation.

Please tell me how saying Grace cannot work if we believe we must earn it (to which I will say you keep saying that we must earn it though NO WHERE in the scriptures does it say it must be earned, you are the one implying that), then saying not but two sentences later, that accepting Christ and turning over a new leaf to become a better person are not the same thing?

You've put so many words in my mouth which I never said, I don't know where to begin. Let me try to illustrate the difference between the Bible and the BoM, to show the stark difference between what you and I believe:

Eph. 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

2 Neph 25:23b "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

Break it down: what are the similarities?

Eph. 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved"

2 Nephi 25:23 "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved"

That ends the similarities.

2 Nephi 25:23 ends with "after all we can do," while Eph. 2:8 continues "through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

So, while 2 Nephi's description of salvation "by grace" doesn't take affect until after the individual has first done all they can do, implying it must be earned, the Apostle Paul's description of salvation "by grace" is by faith, not of ourselves and not of works.

Again, in the BoM, he/she must do all they can do before he/she can be saved by grace.

In the Bible, he/she must have faith (trust God) so that they can be saved by grace, because salvation by grace is not of ourselves, nor of our works. This theme is repeated in 2 Tim. 1:9 and John 1:12-13, just to highlight a couple of passages.

Grace will work if we live a life of charity as Christ did, but will not if we don't.

That's not at all what Christ and His Apostles taught. Again, the grace of God is not something that "works if we" perform for God. Again, grace is that act of God's mercy and compassion which He bestows on those unworthy ones, which He chooses to bestow it upon.

Grace will not work if we just say once "Jesus save me" and do nothing else.

And, this is a total misunderstanding of what I'm saying, and what scripture is saying. Mouthing words without humble repentence, followed by a life of doing nothing is not the Gospel that Christ or His Apostles or I am preaching. To the contrary, once the gift of salvation is bestowed on a person, through no effort of their own ("not of ourselves, not of works, it is the gift of God"), then the person will want to obey Christ out of gratitude, and do the works of the Father, which He prepared beforehand, that they should walk in (Eph. 2:10). But, if the salvation must be earned by works, it is no longer a gift and certainly not free (Rom. 11:6).

Your words above say the same thing as 2 Nephi, you just don't want to see that.

I hope I have just adequately explained myself and the scriptures, to show you that I am saying nothing like what Mormonism believes and teaches. Not even close.

I amend my post:

You say that anyone can say "Jesus save me" and Christ will come into that person's life and they will follow Christ. Where's the agency?

The agency is given by God, to begin with, in order to choose to receive Christ:

John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" If someone receives Christ into their life as Lord and Savior, THEN what does God do? He THEN gives them the power to become one of His children. That's what it says. I don't see how there could be an argument with that. And, those which ARE born, according to verse 13 are born, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. So, our spiritual birth is of God and not us, consistent with John 3:15-17:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. What's the requirement to recieve eternal life? Belief in Christ.

We have to choose to be like Christ every step of the way,

Yes, after we've been save. And, still, we choose to be like Christ in His strength, not ours. Without Him we can do absolutely nothing. He is our source of all things, even our right choices: John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

that is the works we speak of.

No, we're definitely not on the same page regarding salvation, works and grace. I'm at least smart enough to see and hear the complete differences between what you and I believe.

Christ will not walk this life for us,

Actually, He will. I've already quoted John 15:5. Add to that, 2 Cor. 6:16: And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And, Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being;

but He'll sure show us where to walk.

He'll do that, too.

Work is required otherwise agency cannot exist.

Agency is from God, as well. We have no agency apart from Him. We hap zip apart from Him. See Acts 17:28, John 15:5 and 2 Cor. 6:16 again.

Works are indeed required. But, they're not even our works: Eph. 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Just saying that phrase doesn't mean you will no longer fall in sin, it will always happen,

And, who amongst my side said otherwise?

the point is to try your best not to do them and get picked up by Christ when you fall. Keep treading the muddy waters looking for the rod mate.

This could not be any further from the biblical truth. Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

We can't keep from sinning by doing our best. We can only keep from sinning by walking in the Spirit of Christ. If we walk in the Spirit we won't sin. So, from this passage, we know that the ONLY way to conquer our sinful flesh, is by being in the Spirit. Which is consistent with the other passages I just quoted: Acts 17:28, John 15:5 and 2 Cor. 6:16... 1) He walks in us, 2) in Him we live, move and exist, and 3) apart from Him we can do nothing.

[Dale]

Bob i previously interpreted 2 Nephi 25:23 in my other post. I responded to the basic counter cult argument. And i just edited my comment regarding it. Are you in the business of dialogue because you are sincerely interested and want to know the answers, or not?

Ephesians 2:8,9 "Not of Works" can included works if we fail to do them can damn any of us. What's left to damn any of us if breaking no good work that God commanded us cannot effect our salvation? (James 2:10)

[Bob Betts]

Bob: I never said we have NO agency. But I did rebutt PacMan on his claim that God never infringes on our agency. I suppose it's all in how you want to look at it.

Well, I'm a biblical-truth seeker. I try to stay away from being simply opinionated. I want to know and tell objective truth. So, IMO, this issue is not just about how I want to look at it.

I see it as God giving us the power to make choices and then holding us accountable for the choices we make and/or made.

I agree with you. I also see it (biblically) that our agency came from God to begin with, and His agency can change or manipulate or otherwise control our agency. That's the power of His agency to make choices which override our agency.

I know God is also involved in giving us choices to choose from, but if we obey God it is because we have chosen to obey God rather than because God saying something like:

"You must choose to obey me, and you can't choose to disobey me, ever."

Jonah is one perfect example of why you are incorrect. Jonah did NOT want to go to Ninevah, and did NOT want to deliver God's message to the Ninevites. God force him. He had no choice. His attempt to exercise his agency and run from Ninevah and from prophesying, was forcibly stopped by God.

I believe God gives us the power to choose from our available choices.

Ideally, if we walk in the Spirit, there will only ever be one choice . . . the will of the Father. Did Jesus have lots of choices during His ministry? No, not even Jesus had freedom of will (agency): John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

So, what's our available choice, if we want to be of the family of Christ? Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Bob: I realize you're trying to help me understand your church. But, according to D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28, John and the three Nephites DID receive the priesthood authority and keys of Christ's ministry. So, they must have been qualified.

... qualified to do what, exactly?

Give the priesthood keys of God to people who weren't worthy to receive them?

No, they couldn't choose to do that. They might have been able to go through the motions usually associated with giving the keys, such as placing their hands upon someone's head, but our Lord would not have allowed the keys to pass to people who weren't worthy to receive them... and if the apostles had tried, our Lord would have removed the keys he had given to them.

In my thinking, this argument has become moot. I've since shifted my focus to the fact that Christ promised the disciples, Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. For, me, this promise cinches the argument that priesthood authority and keys could have been taken from the earth. Since Christ is and always was here, controlling that authority and keys, they were never taken from the earth.

Our Lord has ALL authority, and he will never lose it, and that power includes the power to penalize people for the choices they make.

I agree with you. And, that also means He can change or manipulate or otherwise control our agency. Therefore, we don't control our own agency. Any choice we make, right or wrong, He's in complete control over. We either do the will of the Father, or we don't. If we don't, there may or may not be immediate consequences. Either way, God is in complete control, and infringes on man's agency whenever it's His will.

Bob: Are you telling me, then, that no one must have been qualified to receive the keys of the Kingdom from the Apostles before the Apostles were eventually all martyred, halting the succession of Apostles?

No, I'm saying that is one of the possible reasons why the keys weren't passed on to other people.

It is also possible that the apostles couldn't get together in a sufficient number to act as a quorum in appointing successors... perhaps because they were prevented from traveling, for some reason.

And it is also possible that our Lord decided it was better to wait until a better time for his kingdom to be on the Earth, rather than allowing all of his righteous followers to be killed by those who weren't willing to grant religious freedom to other people.

All guess-work. That's not good enough for me.

Scripture is my source. Jesus has always been here (Matt. 28:20). The authority and keys were not taken from the earth.

We simply know that the Church did become apostate, for some reason or reasons, because God has told us that it did.

But, not a completely apostate. There has always been a remnant, and Christ has always been here, holding the priesthood authority and keys (Matt. 28:20).

Bob: Well, Christ had them, and he was still here after the deaths of the Apostles, still being the Cornerstone of the Church and the Head of the Church.

Yes, our Lord had them, but everybody else who had them was either killed or translated and it is obvious, at least to us, that they didn't pass them on to anybody to re-organize the Church after the first century A.D. in the East and after the fourth century in the West until they were given to Joseph Smith.

You know my answer to this. See my two previous responces.

Bob: Plus there were plenty of Bishops around. Are you saying that Christ couldn't have passed on His Kingdom keys to the Bishops? If not, why not?

Yes, he could have. Our Lord could have done anything to accomplish his righteous purposes.

We are simply telling you what he has told us he did.

So be it. I can only disagree. I don't believe God told you that.

Paul: They must be given to people by the people who have them and are authorized to give them to other people.

Bob: That would be Christ, if no one else.

Yesâ?¦ and not someone or some people who simply presumed to have our Lordâ??s authority.

But, since the Lord had the authority and keys, and promised to be with us to the end of the world, the authority and keys were never taken from the earth.

Paul: So, it could still conceivably happen today if nobody qualified to receive the keys of the kingdom OR the apostles were no longer authorized to pass them on to other people.

Bob: Why, did Christ's Spirit leave?

No, but just because God is here among us doesnâ??t mean we can presume to act with Godâ??s authority.

But, because Christ is (and has been) here, it cannot be correctly claimed by your church that the authority and keys were taken from the earth.

Paul: God can't force anybody to choose to receive his blessings which are predicated upon principles of righteousness.

Bob: This is a LDS principle, not a biblical one.

â?¦ in your opinion. Perhaps it would have been better to simply say that God wonâ??t.

Okay, I'm trying to figure in my mind, a scenario in which a person would choose not to receive the blessings of God. The biggest blessing one could receive is salvation. No one is saved because they deserve to be, because no one is righteous before they're saved (Christ doesn't save anyone who already thinks they are righteous, He came to save sinners). So, the blessing of salvation is not predicated on the newly saved person's righteousness. God sends blessings and trials to the righteous as well as the unrighteous, according to Matt. 5:45 for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. So, no, blessings are not always predicated on righteousness.

Bob: What about the blessing of receiving the free gift of salvation by faith. THAT'S not predicated on one's own righteousness. Everyone that Christ saves by His grace, is an undeserved blessing, not predicated on righteousness.

Heh, youâ??re still trying to address that other issue in this thread, huh?

Iâ??m simply saying that God wonâ??t force anybody to do anythingâ?¦ he gives us the choice to do whatever we can do.

That's not at all taught, nor consistent in the Bible, as I've already pointed out.

Paul: The keys of the power of God will never be given to wicked and/or apostate people.

Bob: Not before He grants them salvation, that's true.

Right, not before then, and not even after then..

Nobody can claim to have the keys of the power of the God simply because they want them. God must actually give them to people, either personally or through authorized servants.

And, no LDS can definitiely say that no one was given such authority after the deaths of the Apostles. But, I CAN say with absolute authority, that the authority and keys were not taken from the earth, since Christ was here, as he promised the disciples, even 'til the end of the world.

Paul: People actually have to do something to qualify to be worthy to receive God's blessings, because God won't give His power to people who would misuse it and/or use it unrighteously.

Bob: But, God knows ahead of time, who will and who won't, doesn't He?

This continuous statement from you about qualifying to be worthy to receive God's blessings: when am I ever worthy of God's blessings. If God waited for me to be worthy, I'd receive NO blessings. Blessings from God are based on His grace, just like the here-and-now blessing of salvation, granted to all believers. It's undeserved. I have no righteousness in myself. Christ is my imputed righteousness.

You are qualified to receive Godâ??s blessings when God says you are qualified, either personally or through his authorized servants.

I guess it's time to CFR. Where in the Bible do you find such a belief? And, what's an "authorized servant"? All true believers in Christ are His authorized servants. Is this another LDS belief, like "nobody's truly baptized until their baptized by the proper LDS authority"? So, do I now have to be authorized by your church to even serve my Lord? Sorry, Paul, I serve Christ every day. And, I don't need your church's permission to do so.

But simply being qualified doesnâ??t automatically mean you will have them. God must actually give you his blessing(s)â?¦ and you shouldnâ??t presume you have them simply because you really, really want them.

I gotta tell ya, I hardly ever think about wanting blessings from God. Blessings come in all packages from God, including trials. I just walk in the Spirit every day, and take whatever my Lord sees fit to dish out to me. I thoroughly trust Him for whatever comes my way, moment by moment. So, whether He wants to make all of my circumstances in life go as smooth as silk or as hard as I can take (Job comes to mind), or simply wants to call me home with my very next breath, I don't care. I'm His to do whatever He wishes (not my will, but His), or to be put in the grave. I've already had more blessings in life than I ever imagined, since I deserve none. I don't seek blessings. God gives according to His mercy and compassion. Not according to our qualifications or righteousness or worthiness. No one is qualified or righteous or worthy, unless He makes them so.

Paul: There you go blaming God again for the fact that other people chose to NOT follow God.

Bob: No. I'm saying that it's the logical conclusion of what PacMan has been telling me, about how God could have told John to appoint additional Apostles, after each was martyred, but He didn't. So, logically, who is responsible for the end of the succession of Apostles? John who was not allowed by God to do so? Or, God for not allowing John to do so.

In your perspective, it is God who is responsible for not allowing other people to receive the keys of the kingdom.

Keep in mind that I don't really believe that God was responsible, at all, since I don't believe that your LDS story of an apostasy of authority and keys, being taken from the earth, has any basis in truth or reality, any more than the BoM. It's what most believe to be one of the many myths of Mormonsim.

And that is actually true, to a certain point. But it really isnâ??t so much a matter of God not allowing it, at least not necessarily, as much as the world they lived in not allowing it because the world would have either killed the succeeding apostles just like they killed the apostles and/or the followers would not have followed the true apostles the way the apostles were telling them to follow them simply because they thought they had a better way to do things, in their perspective.

What makes your argument of little sense to me is, that the same world that would have killed the succeeding Apostles, is the same world that Christ came to, which as a whole, didn't accept Him, and ultimately killed Him. That didn't stop the omniscient God from sending Christ to the world at that particular time, anyway. It has nothing to do with the way the world was at that time. Name any other time in human world history, when the condition(s) of the world would have actually been condusive to the coming of Christ, the formation of His Church, and the continuance of Apostolic leadership. I can't think of such a time. Regardless, God's timing is perfect. God was not caught by surprise by how the world treated His Christ and his disciples. If the world's condition then, is supposed to be the measure of why God wouldn't allow an ongoing succession of Apostles, then God's timing was way off when He sent Christ to the unbelieving society of Jerusalem, in the midst of the Roman Empire. Even God's own chosen race (the Israelites) "received Him not (John 1:11)." So, early biblical Church history doesn't support your explanations.