Kingdom With No End or General Apostasy

[coolrok7]

Coolrok's game is fun to play from a Jewish perspective, using only the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

This is not a game being played by me. Its a serious discussion where people's eternal status is being discussed concerning what is believed.

Jews today are not in the New Covenant of Jesus' blood (under the Old Covenant of animals blood that cannot cleanse them from their sin) and therefore are out of God's will for the Jews which is to believe Jesus which they don't which is rather shay ground to be on. Mormons through the so-called "restoration" are being lied to by another of Satan's lies and in my view are on the same shaky ground as well.

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188)

Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 16:46)

It doesn't stand the test.

As I asked Tacenda concerning her understanding of what the verses she quoted are saying, it appears in her comment to bluebell, she's apparently answered it or at least that is what can get from what she stated. If one stays in the Biblical context I don't see that one can come to that conclusion but that is what the warnings of Jesus and the apostles are all about.

Edited September 26, 2012 by coolrok7

[volgadon]

This is not a game being played by me. Its a serious discussion where people's eternal status is being discussed concerning what is believed.

Jews today are not in the New Covenant of Jesus' blood (under the Old Covenant of animals blood that cannot cleanse them from their sin) and therefore are out of God's will for the Jews which is to believe Jesus which they don't which is rather shay ground to be on. Mormons through the so-called "restoration" are being lied to by another of Satan's lies and in my view are on the same shaky ground as well.

It doesn't stand the test.

As I asked Tacenda concerning her understanding of what the verses she quoted are saying, it appears in her comment to bluebell, she's apparently answered it or at least that is what can get from what she stated. If one stays in the Biblical context I don't see that one can come to that conclusion but that is what the warnings of Jesus and the apostles are all about.

Where do you get all that if you stay strictly within the context of the Old Testament?

[coolrok7]

Because Christianity in the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophetical teaching concerning Yeshua

[Maidservant]

A general point I would like to make about seeking answers from ANY Christian group other than, say, Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox or Coptic, etc.

How can they justify the Restoration *they* have made with the Christian religion?

Their manner of worship and of engaging with the Bible (etc etc etc) is a recent historical development, just as is Joseph Smith's movement, historically speaking. The difference is that Joseph is at least CLAIMING to have received direct authority from heavenly Father and Jesus Christ themselves, as directing that movement. And then, of course, we have to personally deal with that claim and determine how we take that.

But other Christian developments cannot and do not claim this. There is no prophet, or claimed prophet, driving or leading their developments and restorations (with some exceptions, i.e. Ellen White). So who is responsible for their recent development, and where is there institutional authority for speaking on the scriptures at all for offering guidance to the world of Christianity (obviously, we all personally can speak on them as we wish and can hopefully encourage one another)? If they have a leader or leaders who are in charge of their church, and they admit that they are NOT prophets--then who are they? We will listen to a person or group of people who admit they are not prophets, but not the man or men who at least claim and offer hope that there ARE prophets on the earth today to guide us?

So if they are saying they are NOT a restoration in comparison to Joseph Smith, I think they are mistaken. They are a restoration also. But are they the restoration with authority? And of course you can ask that question of Joseph Smith too, but other Christian organizations are not free from that brush, as they imagine.

Matt 16:18 And I also say unto thee, That thou Peter, and upon this rock I will build this church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Ephesians 3:21 To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

Luke 1:32-33 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom would have no end."

1 Kings 19:13-18 God has always been capable of keeping His followers from being wiped out and He promised to do so.

Are any of these scriptures false or in need of further explanations? Thoughts?

All of these scriptures are true. Can the gates of hell prevail against revelation (=rock)? No. Do God's words pass away? No, they do not. Is Christ's church ever without glory? No. Always with it. Has Christ's kingdom ever failed? No, when present, it does not fail, and he has always been God on the earth (even if the priesthood was missing from earth for a time). Has God always protected his sincere followers? Of course, and that has nothing to do with any particular religion either.

It is obvious that many, many, many sincere people have lived in all times and places of the earth who have served God and even brought about God's kingdom on earth in their circle of influence (and not only Christians). How about St. Francis of Assissi? I am sure God created him to be his servant.

God's influence was not missing on the earth, especially for those who sought him sincerely.

What has been missing (or is claimed to have been missing) was the true priesthood order (of families). Yay, we have that now!

do I leave or do I stay?

As long as you feel that it is worthwhile to be a visiting teacher, then stay. THAT is the gospel.

Galatians Chapter 1:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto nother gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an aangel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Interestingly enough, if I recall correctly, this passage is only to be understood in terms of reading the ENTIRE Galations letter (i.e. all the chapters), and it's pretty much Paul calling Peter on the carpet. Those two were always a bit at testosterone-induced loggerheads. So it is not to be applied generally, nor is it talking about apostasy. It's about when otherwise people who are part of the church, but teach something wrong (see Galatians 2).

[oh! BTW, My wife recently pointed how the story of Jesus sounded very much like that of Mithras. Should i loose faith...?]

Not to mention a re-bake of the Egyptian religion. But oh well .

[volgadon]

Because Christianity in the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophetical teaching concerning Yeshua

Stop dodging the question.

You want us to lay aside our beliefs to look only at the Bible, you do the same leaving out the New Testament. Otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.

[Saints Alive]

Mormons through the so-called "restoration" are being lied to by another of Satan's lies and in my view are on the same shaky ground as well.

And thats where you lose both my respect and attention... have a nice day.

[Vance]

It doesn't stand the test.

Ah, but it does. The fact that you can't see it is irrelevant.

[MormonMason]

No bluebell, the resurrection proves that Jesus had power over the death that He came to die and defeat the lies of Satan, not the so-called "restoration"!

The gates of Hades did not prevail against Jesus because...? Where are the gates of Hades? What is their purpose? When did Jesus actually face the gates of Hades? Could the gates of Hades keep Jesus inside Hades?

The Church is his bride. The Church is symbolized by a woman. Where are the gates of Hades? How did one enter Hades in the days of Jesus before the resurrection? When and how would the Church face the gates of Hades unless she were to enter into the same place as her Lord and spiritual husband?

Evangelicals often have an unfortunate tendency not to think on these things. So, think on these things a bit.

Edited September 26, 2012 by MormonMason

[bluebell]

No bluebell, the resurrection proves that Jesus had power over the death that He came to die and defeat the lies of Satan, not the so-called "restoration"!

I never claimed that the resurrection proved the restoration.

I simply compared how Christ's death did not mean that death prevailed anymore than the apostasy means that hades prevailed over the church.

The realities of the resurrection prove death did not win against Christ, just like the realities of the restoration prove that hades did not win against the church.

[MormonMason]

To follow up with what Bluebell and I are suggesting:

Christ met the gates of Hades in death. The gates of Hades did not prevail against Christ because he was resurrected and now lives forever.

The Church was to meet the gates of Hades in order that they might attempt to prevail against her. The way that one meets the gates of Hades is to die. The restoration of the Church is the Church's resurrection and its death is the apostasy.

Satan could not prevail against Jesus. The gates of Hades could not prevail against Jesus. If they had he still would be dead. Likewise, the idea of apostasy and restoration is consonant with the teaching of Jesus. Just because Evangelicals do not wish to consider the full ramifications of the text and follow its logical conclusion does not mean that those ramifications are untrue or have no basis in fact.

[coolrok7]

I had a simple question for Tacenda before all the rest since then.

I can't answer every one at once.

[MormonMason]

I had a simple question for Tacenda before all the rest since then.

I can't answer every one at once.

I am not asking you to answer. I am asking you to think, consider, ponder, and answer the questions for yourself. Failing that, I would suggest prayer. We then can give consideration to yet another symbolism regarding the woman who is the Church and the passage concerning her being driven into the wilderness to be nourished for a length of time as a result of the dragon persecuting her.

[coolrok7]

I am not asking you to answer. I am asking you to think, consider, ponder, and answer the questions for yourself. Failing that, I would suggest prayer. We then can give consideration to yet another symbolism regarding the woman who is the Church and the passage concerning her being driven into the wilderness to be nourished for a length of time as a result of the dragon persecuting her.

As if I hadn't done any of these things. You're not the only one making the comments. Prayer is fine for certain things (like seeking wisdom from God which is the application of knowledge). When God has already answered most if not all of these questions you don't have to ask Him in which He already answered.

Warning: if you resort to using Satan again you will be thread banned.

[Vance]

As if I hadn't done any of these things. You're not the only one making the comments. Prayer is fine for certain things (like seeking wisdom from God which is the application of knowledge). When God has already answered most if not all of these questions you don't have to ask Him in which He already answered.

Saul probably said the same thing.

[MormonMason]

As if I hadn't done any of these things. You're not the only one making the comments. Prayer is fine for certain things (like seeking wisdom from God which is the application of knowledge). When God has already answered most if not all of these questions you don't have to ask Him in which He already answered.

No, it is obvious that you haven't thought these scriptures through to their logical conclusion. The bride's actions parallel those of her Master. That is how the gates of Hades would even be able to attempt to prevail over her. You only face those gates in death. Jesus faced them. Jesus prevailed rather than the other way.

Now, what of the Church? How do the gates even attempt to prevail against the Church if the Church does not first go to where they can be faced? Death is the path to Hades, which is the realm of the dead. The gates attempt to keep those who enter therein from leaving. Thus, when the Church dies and faces the gates of Hades, the gates thereof cannot prevail against her. They can no more hold her than they could her Master.

Edited September 26, 2012 by MormonMason

[bluebell]

Saul probably said the same thing.

[coolrok7]

I had entered the thread at post #113 in a question to Tacenda concerning how she opened the thread op (after observing the comments that had been made up to that point). I then asked 2 simple questions (concerning the Biblical Scripture she quoted):

(coolrok7)

Tacenda, you’ve heard the Mormon side of the discussion. Without the Mormon input and just the Scripture itself what do you think it is saying? . . .

(Tacenda)

I think it says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says until I get the Mormon view.

(coolrok7)

So where does that put you if I might ask?

Saints Alive commented (my questions were relevant for clarification to the person responsible for the thread in which my inquiry to her was based on “until I get the Mormon view” statement):

that's quite irrelevant, without context and cultural understanding you can read a lot of things into the bible that aren't there

I would agree as this can be done, the goal is to read out from what is there (exegesis not eisegesis- read into).

Bluebell, your response to Tacenda (athiests are wrong to begin with):

The scriptures teach that death would have no power over Christ, yet He did die. I have read some atheists thoughts on those verses, where they declare that His death on the cross proves how wrong He was.

Believers know that HIs resurrection proves the truth of His statements though. His momentary death had no lasting impact and that (the fact that it was momentary) is why the scriptures are true when they say that He conquored it.

Likewise, the apostasy was also only momentary. The gates of hell did not prevail against the church just because the devil was ahead for a few minutes in the game. The restoration proves he lost The restoration proves that the gates of hell did not prevail against the church.

Only someone who doesn't understand what the restoration is (like cookrok), would think that the apostasy has to mean that satan won (which is what 'prevail' means-to win).

This led to other comments concerning what I had stated in response to others. I was then accused of different things which happens often to me here, because I’m defending beliefs that are often mischaracterized and misrepresented by Mormon General Authorities, Church members, missionaries in their discussions, in their proselytizing efforts.

The point you made bluebell made was not accurate as I do understand what the claimed “restoration” is (for Mormons) which I don’t believe is a Biblical teaching but a Mormon scriptural twist of what is actually taught. I responded in this way:

No bluebell, the resurrection proves that Jesus had power over the death that He came to die and defeat the lies of Satan, not the so-called "restoration"!

To which you responded (it was to your second point that I was referring to):

I never claimed that the resurrection proved the restoration.

I simply compared how Christ's death did not mean that death prevailed anymore than the apostasy means that hades prevailed over the church.

The realities of the resurrection prove death did not win against Christ, just like the realities of the restoration prove that hades did not win against the church.

For contrast from a Mormon proselytizing pamphlet and an earlier missionary teaching manual:

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place—a religion that professed to be Jesus Christ’s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiah’s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

The realization that the Lord’s true church was not only vulnerable, but destructible, comes as a shock to many people. But if wicked men were able to put to death the Messiah himself, is it so strange that they should have power to destroy his church? (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.11)

A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS (August 1961)

TEACHING THE INVESTIGATOR- Our hope in teaching the Gospel is to convert people and baptize them. . . . (p.3)

BASIC CONCLUSIONS*

1. We need a prophet today.

2. The Father and the Son have bodies.

3. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

4. The church must be the same as it

was at the time of the Savior.

5. Apostles and prophets are necessary in the

Church today.

6. The priesthood is necessary to act for God.

7. There is no priesthood today without

apostles.

8. I agree the Church must be like this today.

9. There was a complete apostasy and my church

is false.

10. I will be baptized as I come to believe the

restoration.

11. There was a complete restoration of the priesthood

and the true church.

12. I will study, pray, and attend church to

meet a specific baptismal date.

* Conclusions given in bold face at end of each section (p.9) (a Mr. Brown as a member of the Christian Assembly Church is used as a sounding board for these discussions as they used to be called)

Jesus says differently in His trial before Pilate:

Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (John 19:10-11)

You had stated, “The restoration proves that the gates of hell did not prevail against the church.” I disagreed concerning the “so-called restoration”. My whole point was to argue the proof of the Biblical teaching concerning the resurrection validating Jesus and His message of salvation contrary to the claims of Satan (just like he lied to Adam and Eve).

The reason why I objected is the following. Paul in reference to the, “fullness of the time” (meaning it was Gods time for the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus as it relates to our salvation, not Joseph Smith):

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)

The Holy Spirit, according to Paul, says that “some will fall away from the faith” as contrasted with the Mormon teaching of “complete” “total” apostasy:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1 2, 6)

3. There was a complete apostasy affecting both Catholic and Protestant churches. . . .2. There was a total apostasy affecting the Catholic and Protestant churches. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, pp.32, 58)

[bluebell]

Bluebell, your response to Tacenda (athiests are wrong to begin with):

You've proven again that you don't understand what i said. The resurrection doesn't prove the restoration. It can be used as an analogy to help us understand it though.

(I didn't read any other part of your post than what was addressed to me as it's just too long and likely filled with the same things you've been repeating for years here, i think it's funny that you can't see that just as you automatically dismiss atheists arguments because 'they are wrong to begin with', most of your arguments, from my point of view, could be just as easily dismissed for the same reason.)

Edited October 3, 2012 by bluebell

[coolrok7]

I understood what you had stated below even if it didn't come across that I did. My comment concerning the "so-called restoration" is that I don't see the Bible teaching "restoration"(which takes place at Jesus' Second Coming) in the Mormon context/understanding of Joseph Smith and his "calling" as Mormons view him:

Believers know that HIs resurrection proves the truth of His statements though. His momentary death had no lasting impact and that (the fact that it was momentary) is why the scriptures are true when they say that He conquored it.

Likewise, the apostasy was also only momentary. The gates of hell did not prevail against the church just because the devil was ahead for a few minutes in the game. The restoration proves he lost The restoration proves that the gates of hell did not prevail against the church.

The atheist comment was just that based on my years of dialouging with them and their misguided views of the Biblical teaching as well.

You've proven again that you don't understand what i said. The resurrection doesn't prove the restoration. It can be used as an analogy to help us understand it though.

It appears you didn't read my response to your comment, I was referring to the, "restoration proves the gates of hell" comment not your comment on the resurrection.

It also appears to me that your close-minded of anything I say in defense of my beliefs that Mormons (you included) are always accusing me of.

Edited October 3, 2012 by coolrok7

[Arbiter]

According to the anti's, in those scriptures! Atleast those are the ones they used for proof.

Okay, now I get it. They're trying to prove to you, with those verses, that the Church's position that there was a great apostasy, which is the reason the Church gives for the need for a modern day prophet, is wrong. They're saying since there was no apostasy, no need for prophet to restore the gospel. Right?

None of those scriptures prove there was never an apostasy. What they do is they tend to support the notion that there wasn't one. Alone like that, as "proof" -- they aren't. None of them say: "there was never a period of time when a lot of people lost sight of the teachings of Jesus." Which is all an apostasy is, for Christians anyway. And of course, there most certainly was a time like that. They call it the Dark Ages. Does the historical fact of the Dark Ages prove those scriptures, and therefore the Bible, are wrong? Of course not.

I especially wouldn't rely Kings if I were them, to prove much of anything except how bloodthirsty and corrupt and generally rotten the people in Kings & Chronicles were. You can actually use Kings & Chronicles yourself, to "prove" to them that slaughter and genocide are lovely things, clearly commended by God merely because they're in the Bible. Those two books are more useful in nailing anyone in the "inerrancy" crowd who's giving you grief than any others I can think of. The hideous things in them -- in scripture in other words -- are some of the best evidence I can think of for the need for ongoing revelation.

My anti-Mormon evangelicals took, and still take, offense at Joseph Smith's claim that God told him that all the churches he'd been looking at, really all the churches in the world, were wrong. That their ministers were servants of the devil. Let's face it, it's a pretty nervy claim. But it could still be a true one. They can't prove it wasn't true just because it was nervy though, no matter how many vague verses they come up with that they are sure proves that, and you can't prove it was no matter how many better verses you come up with.

This is what the Pharisees always did to Jesus. They tried to trip Him up, exactly like these folks all do, with any Mormon they can find. If I were you, I would say something like you understand how someone might be offended by a claim that God asked him to restore His church because all the other churches were in error and their ministers were all servants of the devil, and then I'd go home and find all those times (red-letter Bible will be indispensable) when the Pharisees cornered Jesus, also with verses from the Bible, that they too were just positive would expose him for the fraud they were so sure he was, and just sort of drink in how beautifully Jesus handled it. You'll find that he just basically refused to argue with them. There's more though, and it's more important. He refused to argue with them with dignity and confidence. That's what I love to remind myself of, when I'm about to lose my temper with people whose mission is simply to make me wrong. That you can let people think they won an unwinnable fight with your self-respect intact.

[Tacenda]

Okay, now I get it. They're trying to prove to you, with those verses, that the Church's position that there was a great apostasy, which is the reason the Church gives for the need for a modern day prophet, is wrong. They're saying since there was no apostasy, no need for prophet to restore the gospel. Right?

None of those scriptures prove there was never an apostasy. What they do is they tend to support the notion that there wasn't one. Alone like that, as "proof" -- they aren't. None of them say: "there was never a period of time when a lot of people lost sight of the teachings of Jesus." Which is all an apostasy is, for Christians anyway. And of course, there most certainly was a time like that. They call it the Dark Ages. Does the historical fact of the Dark Ages prove those scriptures, and therefore the Bible, are wrong? Of course not.

I especially wouldn't rely Kings if I were them, to prove much of anything except how bloodthirsty and corrupt and generally rotten the people in Kings & Chronicles were. You can actually use Kings & Chronicles yourself, to "prove" to them that slaughter and genocide are lovely things, clearly commended by God merely because they're in the Bible. Those two books are more useful in nailing anyone in the "inerrancy" crowd who's giving you grief than any others I can think of. The hideous things in them -- in scripture in other words -- are some of the best evidence I can think of for the need for ongoing revelation.

My anti-Mormon evangelicals took, and still take, offense at Joseph Smith's claim that God told him that all the churches he'd been looking at, really all the churches in the world, were wrong. That their ministers were servants of the devil. Let's face it, it's a pretty nervy claim. But it could still be a true one. They can't prove it wasn't true just because it was nervy though, no matter how many vague verses they come up with that they are sure proves that, and you can't prove it was no matter how many better verses you come up with.

This is what the Pharisees always did to Jesus. They tried to trip Him up, exactly like these folks all do, with any Mormon they can find. If I were you, I would say something like you understand how someone might be offended by a claim that God asked him to restore His church because all the other churches were in error and their ministers were all servants of the devil, and then I'd go home and find all those times (red-letter Bible will be indispensable) when the Pharisees cornered Jesus, also with verses from the Bible, that they too were just positive would expose him for the fraud they were so sure he was, and just sort of drink in how beautifully Jesus handled it. You'll find that he just basically refused to argue with them. There's more though, and it's more important. He refused to argue with them with dignity and confidence. That's what I love to remind myself of, when I'm about to lose my temper with people whose mission is simply to make me wrong. That you can let people think they won an unwinnable fight with your self-respect intact.

I think their beef is that we shouldn't be so upset that they're coming after us when we have 50,000 missionaries saying they are wrong and join the LDS church.

[williamsmith]

Matt 16:18 And I also say unto thee, That thou Peter, and upon this rock I will build this church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As explained previously, the "rock" is Revelation, not Peter.

Also, revelation has never ceased, only the authorized Church. The gates of Hell will never ultimately prevail against Christ, revelation, or the Church. The Church being in the wilderness for a time doesn't mean revelation was prevailed against, nor even the Church. The Gates of Hell you should note is also "spiritual" in nature referring to a different dimension, thus that means what it prevails against must be spiritual also in nature, and that you can bet concerning Christ, Revelation etc. would never be prevailed against.

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

The "Word" is Eternal, of course it will not pass away.

Ephesians 3:21 To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

"Him" being God, yes all Glory to him and Christ in all generations. Yes, of course all God's glory belongs to him, no matter the generation. Has nothing to do with the authorized Church being on the earth. Further, there are many known apostasies of the Church in Biblical history, thus this verse can't be even more claimed to apply to that idea because it would have to debunk the other apostasies. For example, there was one when Christ came. The "authorized" Church was no longer the authorized Church, it was in apostasy, so Christ created a new one. There were good and faithful Jews, but that's not the authorized Church. Likewise, there being good and faithful "Christians" doesn't mean they are of the authorized Church.

Luke 1:32-33 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom would have no end."

What's interesting about this verse is that it entirely debunks the Evangelical "Trinity".

But, other than that, again, Christ's Kingdom being referred to here is spiritual or eternal in nature, it's not referring to a physical authorized church on the earth.

1 Kings 19:13-18 God has always been capable of keeping His followers from being wiped out and He promised to do so.

Again, there were faithful Jews in Christ's time, but that doesn't mean they were the authorized Church of God.

Further, Christ and the Apostles in Mark 9 makes a distinction between believers and the authorized authority of the Church. Though in that instance he is warning the Apostles that even though other believers are not with them, having their authority, they are still his children.

Are any of these scriptures false or in need of further explanations? Thoughts?

When it concerns the fullness of truth there is always need of additional facts and information to know the actual correct interpretation and usage of the Word of God. As you hopefully have seen, the interpretation and use of these scriptures to support their particular interpretation is not an accurate usage nor interpretation.

[coolrok7]

The Christian belief is based on Biblical teaching concerning faith in the truth as put forth in the Word of God concerning Jesus.

When Jesus left the angels there with the disciples said that He would return in the same way they saw Him go (in the clouds which was literal). In between this and the Second Coming certain conditions/events would transpire.

Paul stated in Timothy that the Holy Spirit said that, some" would fall away from the faith". He elaborates more in 2 Thessalonians where the apostasy comes first (generally at first since the first century but culminating in a great apostasy of massive deception just prior to Jesus returning) and then the man of sin (responsible for the deception from the beginning) will be revealed by the brightness of Jesus' appearing.

Peter talks about the new heavens and the new earth in 2 Peter 3 wherein there is a destruction of the present heavens and earth with a recreation of it into paradise lost but without the consequences meted out because of sin which included the earth as well being under a curse.

Those who reject the Biblical message in its entirety (including those that distort it) will go to be with the fallen angelic beings in hell into eternal punishment, those who followed after Satan's lies. Satan himself being under punishment as well, not ruling there as some seem to think (Matthew 25/Revelation 20).

Apostasy will always happen as there will be those who fall away once having a taste of the truth so to speak. The "some" doesn't mean "complete" "total" as taught in Mormonism which is the supposed basis for the "restoration" (restitution of all things as Peter states in Acts 3).

This will be accomplished at the Second Coming of Jesus as that which was lost in the fall (Adam and Eve being kicked out of the garden, or paradise) in which the things lost will be restored at the return of Jesus (Judgment day) where all believers inherit what Jesus said He was going to prepare for them that believe.

Edited October 3, 2012 by coolrok7

[MiserereNobis]

I think their beef is that we shouldn't be so upset that they're coming after us when we have 50,000 missionaries saying they are wrong and join the LDS church.

This is good for LDS to consider. You are converting people from one faith to another by saying their current faith is apostate. You have to accept that religions will fight back against that.

[williamsmith]

This is good for LDS to consider. You are converting people from one faith to another by saying their current faith is apostate. You have to accept that religions will fight back against that.

But that's not what we do, that's what our enemies say we do.

We simply present a more perfect message and ask them to bring what they have and let us add unto it.

The "fact" of all others being in some form of apostasy or not having the fullness of the truth is only a fact.

We don't go around saying others are wicked and evil and you must leave them. We preach the restitution, not damnation.

Further, if fighting against other christians is a good thing simply because they don't hold the same truths as us, why aren't we doing it? It's because we are taught to contend against no church save it be the church of the devil D&C. It's because Christ taught to not contend against any other believer not with you, for they also were his Mark. Why is it you all that have all the "ministry's" against everyone you don't like? Insecurity?