John's Apostasy?

[intra]

One priesthood holder does not make "the gospel".

one Christ brought this whole gospel to mankind. 

[intra]

One priesthood holder does not make "the gospel".

 

exactly one priest is the gospel: the Lord Jesus Christ, and all things are made by Him. 

do you not know? 

[mfbukowski]

Bob Betts, is that you?

Dang, Your're good!

And post two says exactly what I just said http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/28580-universal-apostasy-or-not/?p=1208272129

 

Generally speaking, priesthood WAS no longer on the earth.

"presiding priesthood authority" is what was gone. Ministering isn't the same thing as presiding.

 

Edited January 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

exactly one priest is the gospel: the Lord Jesus Christ, and all things are made by Him.

do you not know?

That sounds about as clear as the Trinity, three people in one substance. No clue what any of that means. Edited January 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[intra]

"presiding priesthood authority" ? 

who presides over the church? who has the preeminence? 

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,

the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
(Colossians 1:18) 

Christ presides over His church, and He is high priest forever, living forever. 
he said this in the hearing of John: 

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me:

because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
(John 14:18-20) 

John knows that John is in Christ, and Christ is in John. 
John knows that Christ is the priestly authority. 

if Christ dwells in John, and John dwells on the earth, and Christ is the eternally presiding authority, how is it that there is no priestly authority found? 

 

[intra]

are you saying that John, last living eyewitness of Christ in the flesh, a called Apostle, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' -- this John had no priestly authority? 

[Stargazer]

and if the LDS has the pure gospel, why are there already a dozen different sects of her too, after only one century? 

where then is the pure gospel found? is it found anywhere but in Christ Himself? 

amen, the Lord ministers among us, and His hand is not shortened! 

 

So you are admitting that apostasy is possible.  So, if having schisms and breakaways is a feature of a true religion, then having such does not disqualify a religion from being true.  That's progress!

 

It's arguable quibble, though.  It appears that apostasy is always possible, since God permits us the freedom to choose.  That hasn't changed.

 

You keep using these stock phrases as if using them actually means something.  "His hand is not shortened," you say.  Actually, you'd do better to refer to His arm.  One doesn't shorten hands.

 

Anyway, God's arm is not shortened, but even God permits man to commit sin and go his own way, if that is what he insists upon doing.  Once, long ago, God sent a flood to destroy man off the face of the earth.  Except for a few, whom he saved by commanding the construction of a boat.  This was necessary because of extensive apostasy.  And it happened among the Israelites, too, and God permitted other nations to come conquer them, and thus occurred the Lost Tribes, who did not come back to Palestine when they had the opportunity.  It was even predicted by Paul the Apostle that there would be an apostasy of the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3):

 

 

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

Now, if Paul was a prophet, should his prediction not come true?  The scripture clearly states that the second coming must be preceded by a falling away.  You might want to argue as to the extent of it, and when it would be repaired, but it was predicted by an authority.  So to claim that one occurred is clearly biblical.

 

So, if there was a falling away, when was the restoration?  Or is the falling away still to come?

[mfbukowski]

I can't stand this, I get too angry. I am out.

[Stargazer]

o look! another hair! 

i have not seen it written that John was commanded to be discreet. the passage quoted earlier in the thread prophesied that some would be among the Jews and Gentiles but not recognized -- it did not command  John. is that written elsewhere? i would like to see. 

"to be discreet" is not tantamount to "to not exist on the earth." if the Lord has a remnant, the Lord has a remnant. Elijah complained that He alone served God, and the Lord rebuked him. so too, Sodom was not without a righteous man until Lot was taken out of her. this does not answer how the gospel of Christ was not extant, if John was. 

 

Well, this command was referenced in the Book of Mormon.  Which you don't believe.  I won't insist upon it, then, but perhaps you could consider the following.

 

Assume for the sake of argument that John was to tarry in the flesh until Jesus's return, as it says in the Gospel of John.  Then was he supposed to walk around in front of the world, never dying, unable to be killed?  He clearly didn't, so if he actually tarried, then he must have done so quietly and discreetly.  And if so, then he must have had a command to be discreet. 

 

I actually agree with the blue statement of yours above.  And as I said in another post, it is not that the gospel was not extant, it was that it was not in its pure or full state.  Paul the Apostle and John the Revelator were both writing to the various branches of the church in order to try to bring them back from the brink of apostasy.  And once the apostles were gone, the authority to perform valid ordinances was lost as well.  Heresy became quite rampant.

[mfbukowski]

Clearly the question has been answered, there is no need to carry on because "someone is wrong on the internet".

This reminds me of the street preachers at conferences

[Stargazer]

at what point did John lose the authority to act in God's name? when did John lose many points of doctrine? how did John become corrupt? now we are back at the beginning, justifying my original post. thanks for that, but aren't you saying John was either corrupt (apostate) or that John was no longer ministering on the earth?

Well, the minute I think I got your attention, it becomes obvious that I never had it. I was speaking of the Gospel and how its understanding became corrupt among mortal men, and how those mortal men lost the authority to administer its ordinances. What you have written here equates John with the Gospel? How could John be the Gospel? Your original post isn't justified, so don't thank me. You've just turned logic on its head and declared victory.

 

• At what point did John lose the authority to act in God's name? I never said he did. I said that the authority to administer valid gospel ordinances was lost among the general run of Christianity.
• When did John lose points of the doctrine? He didn't lose anything. I said that the full knowledge of the gospel was lost among the general run of Christianity (they surely argued about nearly every point of it, at least). Of course there remained many important doctrines -- they couldn't destroy it all -- but much was lost from among men. 
• How did John become corrupt? He didn't. The mortal leaders of the Churches became corrupt, and corrupted the true knowledge of Christ.

Restating the arguments of your opponents in such a way as to reverse their meanings is not generally considered valid argumentation.  Are you actually capable of honest discussion, or is this a fair sample of how you roll?

[Stargazer]

are you saying that John, last living eyewitness of Christ in the flesh, a called Apostle, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' -- this John had no priestly authority? 

 

To restate what should be obvious, nobody said this.

 

But would you say it?  That John had no priestly authority?  Because when you wrote this:

exactly one priest is the gospel: the Lord Jesus Christ, and all things are made by Him.

do you not know?

It seems that it is you who is saying that John the Beloved had no priestly authority.

Which is it?

[Crypto]

intra, you didn't even seem to consider what I wrote, let alone what many others have stated.
I paraphrase:

 

 

Do you believe that in the times of Noah that there was apostasy?

 Do you believe in old testament times circa Noah that God had priests?

 

I leave with you these bible verses for your consideration
2 Peter:

 

 

 

2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Have fun discussing these topics, I only occasionally stop by this place

[Duncan]

Honestly, I think most LDS view the idea that John is still around as more of a myth.  He doesn't even get the respect of a canon of urban myth like the Three Nephites do.  He's just a footnote.

 

at a zone conference in 1998 in my mission one of the Seventy told us some 3 Nephite and John the Revelator stories, are they true and how he knows I have no idea but he had everyone awake if nothing else!!!

[teddyaware]

at what point did John lose the authority to act in God's name? when did John lose many points of doctrine? how did John become corrupt? now we are back at the beginning, justifying my original post. thanks for that, but aren't you saying John was either corrupt (apostate) or that John was no longer ministering on the earth? 

 

i'll relent and try again.

 

I strongly suggest you become a student of Mormonism, from an LDS point of view, (not from an anti-Mormon point of view), by reading authoritative LDS authors before you continue to miss point after obvious LDS doctrinal point and end up being viewed here only as an unreasonable anti-Mormon zealot. It becomes maddening after a while because you do not adhere to the spirit of true dialogue and respect,  and appeari to be unwilling to concede even the possibility that a single point of LDS doctrine actually makes sense and appears to harmonize with the Bible. It's likely you're comporting yourself in this way out of fear that your doctrinal house of cards will come crashing down if you concede a single LDS point. You are doing yourself and your cause no favors when you speak as if you know what you're talking about when it comes to the LDS faith, when in actuality you don't.

 

To your point: A universally understood principle within the LDS church is that having priesthood authority doesn't give the holder of that priesthood authority (in this case John) cart blanch to do whatever he wants, wherever he wants and whenever he wants. According to LDS lines and keys of priesthood authority, a priesthood holder with authority cannot ACT in that authority unless his priesthood superior (in this case that would be Christ) COMMANDS the priesthood holder to fulfill a particular priesthood assignment.

 

Your ignorance of Mormonism is extremely frustrating to deal with. Again, please study the LDS Church from the LDS point of of view before you loose all credibility on this board. 

Edited January 13, 2015 by teddyaware

[Calm]

A good starting place is the online Gospel Principles manual.

It is one sign of a sincere learner (even one trying to correct what they see as false beliefs) to actually try and understand the point of view of those they are preaching to, thus they don't just search for gotcha quotes, but study the entire faith.

Also to accept correction of misunderstanding of someone else's belief instead of persisting in some claim that a believer denies is an accurate representation.

Edited January 13, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

none of you are answering the question. 

if John had the gospel of Christ, and John was ministering that very gospel on the earth, how can you say the gospel was not found anywhere on the earth? was it not found in John? 

 

Gee I dunno, I think you got us on this one. There is no possible explication for it. You found the smoking gun.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

are you saying that John, last living eyewitness of Christ in the flesh, a called Apostle, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' -- this John had no priestly authority? 

Yes, that is it. You have it now.

[The Nehor]

And the troll falls into the rookie mistake of endlessly repeating himself and descends into rote chanting which he imagines is witnessing or testifying or something. Really dumb move. He now admits that his initial question was meaningless because he is here to bring us the true gospel and lead us out of our sins.

Unfortunately he is like the foolish person who built his house upon the sand. He reveals his allegiance by his source of teaching methods. His primary method is to attempt to trick people and make them cross themselves in their words. In the New Testament this form of discourse was used regularly around Jesus by his hecklers.

So our troll unknowingly proudly waves Satan's flag and imagines he is on the side of the Angels. Truly he is caught in the deceptions of the devil. Please join me in pitying our ineffectual and dim witted troll in his pathetic and lamentable state.

Edited January 13, 2015 by The Nehor

[ERayR]

And the troll falls into the rookie mistake of endlessly repeating himself and descends into rote chanting which he imagines is witnessing or testifying or something. Really dumb move. He now admits that his initial was meaningless because he is here to bring us the true gospel and lead us out of our sins.

Unfortunately he is like the foolish person who built his house upon the sand. He reveals his allegiance by his source of teaching methods. His primary method is to attempt to trick people and make them cross themselves in their words. In the New Testament this form of discourse was used regularly around Jesus by his hecklers.

So our troll unknowingly proudly waves Satan's flag and imagines he is on the side of the Angels. Truly he is caught in the deceptions of the devil. Please join me in pitying our ineffectual and dim witted troll in his pathetic and lamentable state.

 

It is getting old and boring isn't it.

 

Sounds like time to close the thread. Hopefully, Intra will clean up his/her act.