Where Is The Serious Mormon Theology?

[Mudcat]

That's great to hear, because I tried on numerous occasions to get Bowman to comment on that and he just plain would not.

I think when I have a little time, I would like to start a thread with you maybe discussing the similarities between an Evangelical altar call and Moroni's Promise- there are common elements: an invitation, an initial expression of faith perhaps at first with no belief, and then a spiritual confirmation that one's course is "right".

Sure, I think it would be a good idea, hopefully we could address the differences in both, as well. For the record, my initial testimony was not an "altar call" type setting.. I mean I wasn't in church at the time, no preacher was there, etc. so I can only speak from second hand accounts in that respect. But think we are essentially talking about the same thing, despite that.

Bowman wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole; related of course is the question of how you know the Bible is indeed scripture and the Word of God, and not just a bunch of legends written down by the ancients, compiled and/or corrupted by a bunch of Catholic monks.

Very interested in how at least some EV's see that!

I can't speak to Bowman's unwillingness to engage. Likely he has his reasons and feels they are good.

But I certainly don't mind, discussing this issue of the veracity of the Bible as the word of God. It's a fascinating topic, IMO. Though we might want to reserve that for a different thread. From experience, this topic takes a lot of side trails in discussions between EV and LDS. First derail is typically the closure of the Biblical canon.. usually followed by a protracted discussion on Matthew 16:18. But I don't mind giving you a condensed sort of answer on my thinking about it, right now.

I know that the Bible is word of God, because it seems to fulfill the claims it makes that the word of God should fulfill. Sure the Bible is a book of books, but the neat thing about it, is that the Bible actually claims to do something. I think examining these functions is a good starting place.

In Romans 10:17 we are told, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Paul is most certainly talking about "faith in Christ" when he says "faith".

In that respect, has the Bible and does the Bible lead people to faith in Christ? I would say that it does. In that respect the Bible must be the word of God, because it functions as the "word of God" seems to be depicted as functioning.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[LeSellers]

But I certainly don't mind, discussing this issue of the veracity of the Bible as the word of God. It's a fascinating topic, IMO. Though we might want to reserve that for a different thread. From experience, this topic takes a lot of side trails in discussions between EV and LDS. First derail is typically the closure of the Biblical canon.. usually followed by a protracted discussion on Matthew 16:18.

Odd, because Matt 16:13~19, 20, is all about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Restoration of the Priesthood. It has nothing at all to do with the Bible, and certainly nothing to do with the politically motivated intervention of closing the canon.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

But I certainly don't mind, discussing this issue of the veracity of the Bible as the word of God. It's a fascinating topic, IMO. Though we might want to reserve that for a different thread. From experience, this topic takes a lot of side trails in discussions between EV and LDS. First derail is typically the closure of the Biblical canon.. usually followed by a protracted discussion on Matthew 16:18. But I don't mind giving you a condensed sort of answer on my thinking about it, right now.

Cool! But of course we are not going to agree on Matthew 16:18- I don't even agree with most LDS on that one. I see it as being about work for the dead and the fact that Christ and the church have the "keys to Hades":

Revelation 1:18

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The gates of hell cannot prevail because Christ has the key to the gates, and his church is the only one which can do work for the dead. That's how I see it.

I know that the Bible is word of God, because it seems to fulfill the claims it makes that the word of God should fulfill. Sure the Bible is a book of books, but the neat thing about it, is that the Bible actually claims to do something. I think examining these functions is a good starting place.

But that argument is circular imo- it makes the claims and then fulfills them - how do you know the claims are right to begin with?

In Romans 10:17 we are told, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Paul is most certainly talking about "faith in Christ" when he says "faith".

But I think you see "hearing the word of God" as synonymous with "reading the Bible", and I see it as "hearing God's voice" in a spiritual experience telling you that it is all true.

In that respect, has the Bible and does the Bible lead people to faith in Christ? I would say that it does. In that respect the Bible must be the word of God, because it functions as the "word of God" seems to be depicted as functioning.

Again, seems circular.

Unquestionably it leads people to Jesus Christ- but how do you know that who it leads you to- Jesus Christ- is the savior of mankind, and God himself?

In my opinion- you need an outside external "testimony" that it is the person Jesus of Nazareth who is/was the savior, and not Mithras or Zoroaster or Baha'u'llah.

I think most Christians never question that- but I know I sure did. Of all the world religions- how do you know which set of scriptures is the "Word of God" or are they all?

IMO you can only know that by revelation- an intuitive "zap" of some kind which tells you.

[cksalmon]

Odd, because Matt 16:13~19, 20, is all about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Restoration of the Priesthood.

Which is well and good, of course, from an LDS perspective, but there's nothing in the text you've cited about that.

What source of doctrine would you cite as establishing the proper interpretation of Matthew 16.13-19,20?

Now, to be clear, you are saying that, here, the Gospel writer of this particular passage is speaking of the Restoration of the LDS-approved Priesthood, some 1800 years later, in the 19th C, right?

This passage:

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Mat 16:13-20 ESV)

[Frankxfer]

I am new here. This being my first post. But I have been in apologetics for a while. If I might add a thought about the proof of God.

I know that God wishes us to seek Him by faith so there will not be steps of data to follow which will lead to Him. The best we can hope for is some unproven history that energizes our built in truth meter. That bridge (of scripture) leads to a spiritual communication which supplies all the proof you need. But this inward proof is not available for others. We can talk about it but until someone takes that leap of faith they are on the shore pondering and not taking any action.

I have a pretty good understanding of science and know that at both ends of the investigation leads to total unknowns. At the big end in astrophysics the observations have lead to dark energy and dark mass. which of course have not been observed. At the small end of quantum mechanics the background energy and nature of small particles clouds any real understanding and a deterministic universe can not be proven or disproven.

Anyway your questions seem like good ones. I am new to the LDS faith and have a pretty good background in the Bible.

[Franktalk]

It was just pointed out to me that I had a prior handle. Oops, I will use Franktalk instead of frankxfer. Sorry about that.

[LeSellers]

What source of doctrine would you cite as establishing the proper interpretation of Matthew 16.13-19,20?

Now, to be clear, you are saying that, here, the Gospel writer of this particular passage is speaking of the Restoration of the LDS-approved Priesthood, some 1800 years later, in the 19th C, right?

You have brought up a good passage [Matthew 16:13~19], but I am afraid that you misunderstand it. Before we start, please look at the entire passage, because it is important to know the context before we discuss the portion you refer to:

(AV) Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Greek (with word-for-word translation): 13. ᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων· τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; (coming And Jesus into the parts of Caesarea of Philip he questioned the followers of him, saying, Whom me do say men to be, the Son of Man?) 14. οἱ δὲ εἶπον· οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ ᾿Ιερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. (they And said, Some {say}, John the Immerser. others {say} And Elijah. others {say} And Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.) 15. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; (He says to them, you But, whom me do you say to be?) 16. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπε· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. (answering And Simon Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of God the living!) 17. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέ σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.(And answering Jesus said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah because flesh and blood not did reveal {this} to you, but the Father of me in the heavens.) 18. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. (I also And to you say, - You are Peter, and upon this bedrock I will build of me the assembly and {the} gates of Hades not will be strong against her.) 19. καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth will be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth will be, having been loosed in the heavens.)

We must look at who said what and why he said it. Peter responded to Christ’s question “Whom say ye (the apostles) that I am? After he finishes, Christ tells Peter, “blessed art thou”, not because of the words, but because of their source: “My Father which is in heaven”. In other words, Peter had just received a revelation. He then continues by telling Peter that He will build His church on “this rock”. Here some confusion enters in: The problem is that Christ had changed Simon’s name to “Cephas” (in Aramaic) which means “rock”. The Greek form of this word is “Petra” (πέτρα, which is a feminine noun). To make it masculine, the NT writers changed it to “Petros” (Πέτρος) which doesn’t really mean “rock”, but could be a diminutive, maybe “pebble” or “small stone”.

Christ could have meant that He was building His Church upon Peter, the mortal man, Simon, which is not particularly valuable to your point, since Peter was mortal and would not live more than another sixty years or so. But if not “Peter”, what? Knowing the rock upon which Christ was to found His church is critical to our understanding of the passage. So, let’s look into the verses here and see what they can tell us:

Check out the very verse we’re speaking of, v 18: There is not much wiggle room here, it has to be something closely connected with Peter and that revelation he’d just had. Could it be that the “rock” is the rock of revelation? What could be more stable, more long-lived? Paul tells us that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];” Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the church, and they receive revelation from God. Something to consider.

Now look at verse 19. “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” Peter was the one Christ gave the keys of the kingdom unto. He didn’t give them to all of the Twelve, but to Peter alone (He said “thee” [σοι], singular). So, Peter is the one in charge. (He later gave them to all the Apostles, but that’s a different part of the story. See Matt 18:18.)

“Cephas” (“Peter” in Aramaic) still means “rock”, so what if Christ were saying that the “rock” He was going to build His church on was not “Peter”, the individual, but Peter receiving revelation because he’s the chief among the Apostles? In other words, “Peter” represented the leader of the Church, and any man who receives that calling, as long as he received revelation, would be the foundation of the church. This is, of course, in line with Ephesians 2:19~20: 19. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”

This is purely Biblical. Don’t anyone come back and tell me that I used some “Mormon” scripture.

We still haven’t responded to the rest of the verse, though, so let’s get into that now.

That last phrase “... and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” is a really tricky one. There are three words we must define in order to understand it. The first is “Hell”. The word that whoever-translated-Matthew’s-work-into-Greek used was “hades” (`). “Hades” is not the “hell” we usually think of when we hear the word. Hades is just a place where dead people go. If Christ had meant “hell”, Matthew’s translator would have written “gehenna” (γέεννα). So, the place Christ was speaking of is not the kingdom of Satan, but merely the tomb, the grave, i.e., death.

The 1897 Bible Dictionary gives us:

Hades – that which is out of sight, a Greek word used to denote the state or place of the dead. All the dead alike go into this place. To be buried, to go down to the grave, to descend into hades, are equivalent expressions. In the LXX, this word is the usual rendering of the Hebrew sheol*, the common receptacle of the departed (Gen. 42:38; Ps. 139:8; Hos. 13:14; Isa. 14:9). This term is of comparatively rare occurrence in the Greek New Testament. Our Lord speaks of Capernaum as being “brought down to hell” (hades), i.e., simply to the lowest debasement, (Matt. 11:23) In Acts 2:27-31 Peter quotes the LXX version of Ps. 16:8-11, plainly for the purpose of proving our Lord’s resurrection from the dead. David was left in the place of the dead, and his body saw corruption. Not so with Christ. According to ancient prophecy (Ps. 30:3) he was recalled to life.

* Sheol – (Heb., “the all-demanding world” = Gr. Hades, “the unknown region”), the invisible world of departed souls. [No indication of punishment]

The other two important words here are “gates” and “prevail” (in Greek κατισχύω “be strong against”). We really have to discuss them together because “prevail” can have so many meanings. The only one that interests us is the one that relates to “gates”.

I am a retired military officer, and I know something about the technologies of warfare. Anciently, cities (which were essentially synonymous with “kingdoms”) were surrounded by a wall for protection against marauding armies. Walls have a big disadvantage during peacetime, though: They’re designed to be impenetrable. When they discovered this, people invented the gate. It was a great answer because, when open, it allowed traffic into and out of the city. Closed, it disallowed that passage – that is if it “prevailed.”

Gates were an ancient “weapons system”, albeit a defensive one. Think about it. Have you ever seen or heard of “gates” attacking anything or anyone? Get out your copy of Beauty and the Beast. In the second to last scene, Gaston leads the villagers to the Beast’s castle, and they cut down a tree for use as a battering ram. This was a common example (although B&tB uses a crude one) of another ancient weapons system. These rams were used against gates and other doors. The Beast’s castle door did not “prevail” against the villagers’ battering ram, though. Because it did not prevail, the villagers got through.

So, Christ’s words: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” tell us something very important. The church will be attacking death, and it will be the church that will prevail, not the “gates of hell”.

This raises two very important, even if obvious, questions: Why and how will the church of Jesus Christ attack the gates of death?

Peter himself answers the “how?”:

(AV) 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Read verse 19 again: “He [Christ] went [in His spirit] and preached to the [disobedient] spirits in prison.” But this was Christ, not the Church. If we follow our Master, and we do, it will be the righteous members of Christ’s church who will continue this work after they have died.

But why? If everyone who has died without accepting Christ will be condemned to eternal death, why should He have bothered (and why will we do the same as He did)?

Peter, the chief Apostle, again answers our query. Speaking of the wicked in the world:

(AV) 1 Peter 4:4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with [them] to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of [you]: 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Notice, it is not to condemn them, but so they could be judged and to let them “live according to God” that the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached unto them. If we go back to Peter’s earlier passage, it continues speaking of the Noachian flood that baptized the earth:

(AV) 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

He says that it is baptism that saves us. He explains that baptism is more than just bathing (“putting away the filth of the flesh”) but it cleanses us so we can answer a good conscious toward God.

If these disobedient spirits are to live, they must also be baptized. But that seems to require the impossible. Are there baptismal fonts in heaven? No, or so Paul intimates when he refers to the way these people can be baptized:

(AV) 1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Now, if the Church of Jesus Christ will prevail against the gates of hell, and it does so by preaching to the spirits in the prison, and baptizes its own members on behalf of the dead, and if your church does not do these things, whose church is following the Apostolic counsel found in the Bible, and whose church is not following the words of Christ when He said, “... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?

Lehi

[Mudcat]

Odd, because Matt 16:13~19, 20, is all about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Restoration of the Priesthood. It has nothing at all to do with the Bible, and certainly nothing to do with the politically motivated intervention of closing the canon.

Underline mine, Lehi. Come on, it's in the Bible, how can it have nothing to do with it? You statement bears about as much weight with me as me stating the "Moroni Challenge" has nothing to do with the BoM to you.

But I know you are being dramatic..... to some extent, at least.

Hopefully Bukowski will start a thread that is more relative to the subject.

In that regard, I will reserve comment for the appropriate water balloon showdown later.

[Franktalk]

LeSellers,

Nice post. The fact that the Father chose Peter to communicate spirit to spirit is the main subject. It is that more sure communication which the world and evil spirits can't break. But within seconds it seems that Peter allowed another communication to effect him. For he ends up doing the bidding of Satan by opposing the death of Christ. Since Peter had not received the Holy Ghost he was not able to sort out what was going on. We find out in 1 John about the sure way of the witness on the earth.

1 John 5:7-8 (King James Version)

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I find it very telling that on earth the Word is not the witness. We need the more sure witness of spirit to spirit communication. After all we are a spirit and the senses of the body are not to be trusted. Having someone perform miracles in front of you is not a sure path to truth. When Satan's power is loosed his chosen will be able to do many wonders. So wonders and miracles can be a stumbling block.

[Mudcat]

Cool! But of course we are not going to agree on Matthew 16:18- I don't even agree with most LDS on that one. I see it as being about work for the dead and the fact that Christ and the church have the "keys to Hades":

The gates of hell cannot prevail because Christ has the key to the gates, and his church is the only one which can do work for the dead. That's how I see it.

That is an interesting take Bukowski. At some point, you ought to start a thread on that. I am wondering how such a position would stand under the scrutiny of other LDS.

But that argument is circular imo- it makes the claims and then fulfills them - how do you know the claims are right to begin with?

The fact it fulfills it's claims is meritorious.

But, take Ginsu knives for example, their commercials claims you could slice a tin can into with them, then you could finely slice a tomato. If you bought one based on those claims. And the knives did what was said of them. What problem would their be?

Sure there is circularity to my statement. So what? So is Moroni 10:4, in regards to the BoM.

I see no good reason for pointing out "circularity" as a criticism of my position when yours can't bear the same scrutiny a bit better.

That being said, I think we should wait for you to kick off a thread when you have time, to pursue it.

[LeSellers]

Come on, it's in the Bible, how can it have nothing to do with it? You statement bears about as much weight with me as me stating the "Moroni Challenge" has nothing to do with the BoM to you.

But I know you are being dramatic..... to some extent, at least.

Not too dramatic. Christ's prophecy of the Restoration in Matt 16:13~19 is not about the Bible, it's about the Restoration and about how His Church will work for the Salvation of those in Peter's "Spirit Prison".

Christ did not mean, as I pointed out, that there would be no total apostasy. He meant what He said: His Church (through the Priesthood) would free those in Spirit Prison. See Doc&Cov 138.

Lehi

[Palerider]

Not too dramatic. Christ's prophecy of the Restoration in Matt 16:13~19 is not about the Bible, it's about the Restoration and about how His Church will work for the Salvation of those in Peter's "Spirit Prison".

Christ did not mean, as I pointed out, that there would be no total apostasy. He meant what He said: His Church (through the Priesthood) would free those in Spirit Prison. See Doc&Cov 138.

Lehi

There is another option you may have overlooked. Ask yourself (again) what the conversation is about. "Who do men say that I am?". The Savior says "Blessed art thou....flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Revelation is a critical element of God's work with man but the "Rock" being discussed here is that Jesus is the Christ, not that revelation is the rock. Revelation can and mostly does,operate on an individual basis. Many people have the testimony of Jesus through revelation without a "living prophet" as a mediator between them and the Father. The fact that Jesus is the Christ is what shall not be prevailed against. This scripture has zero to do with the restoration of the LDS faith.

[Mudcat]

LeSellers,

Nice post. The fact that the Father chose Peter to communicate spirit to spirit is the main subject. It is that more sure communication which the world and evil spirits can't break. But within seconds it seems that Peter allowed another communication to effect him. For he ends up doing the bidding of Satan by opposing the death of Christ. Since Peter had not received the Holy Ghost he was not able to sort out what was going on. We find out in 1 John about the sure way of the witness on the earth.

1 John 5:7-8 (King James Version)

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I find it very telling that on earth the Word is not the witness. We need the more sure witness of spirit to spirit communication. After all we are a spirit and the senses of the body are not to be trusted. Having someone perform miracles in front of you is not a sure path to truth. When Satan's power is loosed his chosen will be able to do many wonders. So wonders and miracles can be a stumbling block.

Hi Frank,

Welcome to forum. I can't speak for Lehi.

However, the impetus of your statement is based upon verse 7. It is interesting, because this verse is likely a later addition to the text. It's called the Comma Johanneum.

This section more likely read something like..

For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

You might find the Wiki article I linked fairly interesting.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[cksalmon]

You have brought up a good passage [Matthew 16:13~19], but I am afraid that you misunderstand it.

It's possible.

Christ could have meant that He was building His Church upon Peter, the mortal man, Simon, which is not particularly valuable to your point, since Peter was mortal and would not live more than another sixty years or so.

That's the RCC perspective, but not mine. Of course, that's not quite the RCC perspective, but it's close enough to it to distinguish it from my own.

But if not “Peter”, what?

Indeed. The right question.

Knowing the rock upon which Christ was to found His church is critical to our understanding of the passage.

I agree completely.

So, let’s look into the verses here and see what they can tell us:

Check out the very verse we’re speaking of, v 18: There is not much wiggle room here, it has to be something closely connected with Peter and that revelation he’d just had.

I agree completely.

Could it be that the “rock” is the rock of revelation? What could be more stable, more long-lived? Paul tells us that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];” Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the church, and they receive revelation from God. Something to consider.

I would bring it closer still. No, not revelation in a generic sense; the rock is this specific revelation: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat 16:16 ESV)

I agree that context is determinative of our interpretation. So, with you, I'd encourage us to read the context. The discussion begins with Jesus asking who people said that he was. It culminates with this revelation given to Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." The realization that Christ is the Jewish Messiah, the Son of the Living God, is the rock upon which the Church is built.

I find it interesting (and not in a pejorative, leading manner) that RC's and Protestants both recognize that the rock is something very specific and that LDS (or, at least you) hold the rock to be something more generic and non-specific: revelation generally speaking.

Now look at verse 19. “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” Peter was the one Christ gave the keys of the kingdom unto. He didn’t give them to all of the Twelve, but to Peter alone (He said “thee” [σοι], singular). So, Peter is the one in charge. (He later gave them to all the Apostles, but that’s a different part of the story. See Matt 18:18.)

Not so fast. I'm familiar with the Greek. Can you show me where Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter specifically and not to a plurality of disciples? That is a very important point. I grant your point above in terms of the grammar of that passage, but I'm looking for the actual giving of the keys to Peter singularly. It's an issue that is generally elided by those arguing for Petrine primacy. You write that he later gave them to all the Apostles, but that that's something different. Where is the original giving to Peter alone?

[Franktalk]

Hi Frank,

Welcome to forum. I can't speak for Lehi.

However, the impetus of your statement is based upon verse 7. It is interesting, because this verse is likely a later addition to the text. It's called the Comma Johanneum.

This section more likely read something like..

For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

You might find the Wiki article I linked fairly interesting.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

But there are other scriptures which follow this same reasoning. Like the Word can be a stumbling block. The Holy Ghost guides you to all truth. What is clear is that spirit to spirit communication is the true witness. If indeed miracles made one a true believer then all of Israel would have followed Christ and He would have received His proper reception at the gate to Jerusalem. So by example we know that the opposite is true. That physical evidence is not the true witness. And in the end times when the powers of Satan are released then he too will perform wonders that almost fool the elect. So we are warned not to trust wonders but find out what is the truth of all things.

I have to ask about the title for this thread, it seems to imply that Mormons don't take Theology serious? I find that odd. Because scripture itself is a bridge to a direct relationship with Christ and the Holy Ghost. If that is true then from what I have seen the LDS have received that message and have established a relationship or are in the process. Few members that I have come across just occupy a seat at the meeting once a week. It may be true that some members don't have all of the scripture down but that is not the important part of us being here. If one dies and knows Christ this is a good thing, but if someone dies and does not know Christ but knows scripture it can't be all that good. I sure don't want to have Christ say He does not know me. There are obvious verses which describe this very thing.

Frank

[Mudcat]

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the response.

But there are other scriptures which follow this same reasoning. Like the Word can be a stumbling block. The Holy Ghost guides you to all truth. What is clear is that spirit to spirit communication is the true witness. If indeed miracles made one a true believer then all of Israel would have followed Christ and He would have received His proper reception at the gate to Jerusalem. So by example we know that the opposite is true. That physical evidence is not the true witness. And in the end times when the powers of Satan are released then he too will perform wonders that almost fool the elect. So we are warned not to trust wonders but find out what is the truth of all things.

I appreciate you addressing my concern and I agree with you have said here and I am enjoyed your response.

I have to ask about the title for this thread, it seems to imply that Mormons don't take Theology serious?

I see it a bit differently. I wasn't the OP, but my conclusion is that the OP was actually an attention getting statement to suggest that LDS don't have theology.

In one sense I agree with that. In orthodoxy and orthopraxy LDS are subject to a divine command theory, in that respect. The religion itself is not theological.

But in another sense, maybe a greater sense.. at least to me, I have never met an LDS that wasn't "Theological".

Respectfully,

Mudcat