Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[Robert F. Smith]

So we essentially agree on the 'lost books' issue. We don't need to have those lost books as long as we get the doctrine through some other source, like maybe the NT epistles.

Or like maybe revelation via the Holy Spirit of Truth?  Why would you depend on the NT epistles, when their interpretation is so varied among men?  Denominationalism should be an embarrassment to you.  Moreover, you are vaunting human judgment over that of the Holy Spirit.  Why do you make human judgment infallible?  It so obviously is not.

 

If God will always speak to man just like He did in the Old Testament, how do you interpret Hebrews 1:1-2? Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. It looks like the author was saying God used to speak through prophets, BUT that has changed now that Christ has come and spoken to us.

That Christ was sent to us and made heir of all things does not in any way exclude the Holy Spirit, which Christ himself sent to the Early Christian Church to sustain it (or didn't you bother to read Luke 24:49, and Acts 1:2,5, 2:1-36, which emphasize that the Holy Spirit was already promised in the OT [Joel 3:1-5 = Acts 2:17-21, which repeatedly invokes the Holy Spirit at a time when you falsely claim that it cannot be present].

 

No, that doesn't mean God isn't doing anything. Hebrews goes on to make a very strong case that Christ is our High Priest and is vastly superior to all priests before him. He daily intercedes for our needs and sent the Spirit to guide us. There are other ways God can interact with us other than speaking through prophets.

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here, first denying and then affirming the Holy Spirit.  As though the burden of the prophets hasn't always been to urge us to learn the truth via the Holy Spirit, which was the method used by Joseph Smith in following James 1:5-6.

 

Plus, it's hard to take these LDS claims of consistency seriously when the clams of the Great Apostasy is anything but consistent with the Bible. Yes, God was very consistent with people in the Old Testament. When people rebelled, God let pagan forces rise up against them. But when people called out for help, God usually responded within a generation. There was some variation in how long it took, but it never got even close to 1700 years. People in the 2nd and 3rd century were dying for their faith. Surely they called out to God for help. Why didn't God follow His consistent pattern and do something about it?

The Bible is replete with God's efforts to appeal to us to follow his prophets and his Son, but he is not a control freak and allows free agency to all his children, who have repeatedly apostatized throughout history.  Or didn't you read the Bible?

If your claims said God restored the church in the 3rd or 4th century, it would make a lot more sense. I've heard people say God couldn't restore the church because it wouldn't have survived. How is that consistent with the Old Testament? A god who can't restore and protect his church is not the God of the Bible. What's the point of talking about God's consistency in how He speaks to people if you ignore the consistency of how He responds to and protects people?

The biggest problem with your flawed interpretation of the Bible is that it does not comport with what most NT scholars agree is a form of Primitive Christianity which is not practiced by any of the mainstream "Christian" churches today, and that the belief of that early form of Christianity was that Christ would return very soon.

 

It isn't only the Mormons who preach the Great Apostasy, but also the Campbellites, Puritans, and others, who feverently sought a restoration of Primitive Christianity.  It was very apparent to the best scholars of that day that a true restoration was needed.  Joseph was not alone in that respect.  Indeed, it is the contention of the anti-Mormons that Joseph got all his ideas from his contemporaries.  Hint, hint . . . Where might his contemporaries have gotten that idea?

 

[Freedom]

Okay, 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23.

 

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.

 

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

 

Those verses make it sound like Paul is teaching a relativistic, pragmatic philosophy. Since all things are lawful, then we have the freedom to sleep around, get drunk and live our lives however we want as long as we're not being dominated by those things or hurting anyone. Right? Paul says "All things are lawful," without directly condemning the idea, so it must be a good idea as long as we're not dominated by it.

 

So where are those books? Why hasn't any LDS prophet restored a book of Jesus teaching the apostles about baptism for the dead, 3 separate heavenly kingdoms, the pre-existence, marriage sealing in the temple, etc.? Yes, the Book of Mormon has Jesus in it, but most of His teachings there are, as you put it, "a rehash of stuff they'd already covered in the recorded gospels." How can the LDS church have the restored gospel without restoring those lost books?

 

I think we actually agree on this: We don't need a transcript of everything Jesus said and did every minute He was on earth as long as we have scripture teaching us the doctrines He taught. It's coming off as hypocritical for you to claim all other churches are in apostasy without those lost books when your "restored" church doesn't have those lost books either.

 

See above response to JLHPROF. If those lost books are so crucial to having the right beliefs, why haven't they been restored?

 

I'm not denying Paul used an 'if-then' statement. I'm saying his use of a 3rd person, plural form of the word for 'baptized' indicates using 'they' in an English translation is valid. Again, how else would you translate 3rd person plural? If Paul was talking about his own church and his own beliefs when he mentioned the doctrine, he would have used a 1st person plural.

What do you think the Book of Mormon, Pearl of great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are if not the restoration of the teachings from these lost books? It is not the books, but the teachings that are important. If Jesus taught all that needed to be taught, why not just record all of Jesus's teachings rather than having Paul write more books? 

You are trying to make it a third person but it was not, and your argument is an argument from silence. it is an if-then construct and you cannot get around it. If you would stop with your strawman arguments and get down to the simple concept that Gods doctrines were lost and are now restored, you would get over the need to have specific books. If the books are so important, where are the books that Abraham read from?

[carbon dioxide]

What do you think the Book of Mormon, Pearl of great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are if not the restoration of the teachings from these lost books? It is not the books, but the teachings that are important. If Jesus taught all that needed to be taught, why not just record all of Jesus's teachings rather than having Paul write more books? 

 

It is clear that 3000 Jews in Acts 2 did not need the writings of Paul or even the gospel writings to be baptized.  Perhaps most of the New Testament is just extra stuff that we don't need. 

[NotaMormon]

Or like maybe revelation via the Holy Spirit of Truth?  Why would you depend on the NT epistles, when their interpretation is so varied among men?  Denominationalism should be an embarrassment to you.  Moreover, you are vaunting human judgment over that of the Holy Spirit.  Why do you make human judgment infallible?  It so obviously is not.

Of course, the Holy Spirit plays a very important role in how we find and know what truth is. I'm just saying the role of the Spirit shouldn't take priority over testing by scripture. Putting such a big emphasis on the role of the spirit would be like deciding to marry someone simply because you like talking with them. Of course, a marriage won't work if you don't like talking to each other, but there are bigger issues to be concerned about. It doesn't matter how much you like talking to each other if you disagree on basic doctrinal issues. Why can't we apply at least the same level of criticism to what faith we're married to?

 

Just look at how the apostles taught the gospel in Acts. They didn't call people to pray to know the gospel was true. When they were warning about false teachers, they didn't call people to pray to know the difference between truth and false teaching. Yes, 2 Peter talks about using the Spirit to interpret scripture. But if someone is teaching so many doctrines that aren't taught in the Bible, then it shouldn't be considered scripture at all. Do you think the apostles expected people to spend months or years praying about everyone who claimed to have "new scripture"?

 

Why should I be embarrassed when someone who has nothing to do with me abuses the Bible? Just because Catholics are wrong doesn't automatically mean Protestants are also wrong. There were false teachers and various interpretations when the apostles were alive, but there was still a true church. So as long as we're following the Gospel we see them teach in the New Testament, without reading our own agenda into it, why can't we also be a true church?

 

That Christ was sent to us and made heir of all things does not in any way exclude the Holy Spirit, which Christ himself sent to the Early Christian Church to sustain it (or didn't you bother to read Luke 24:49, and Acts 1:2,5, 2:1-36, which emphasize that the Holy Spirit was already promised in the OT [Joel 3:1-5 = Acts 2:17-21, which repeatedly invokes the Holy Spirit at a time when you falsely claim that it cannot be present].

Like I said, I'm not excluding the Spirit. I'm just not assuming He has the role of our primary method of discerning truth from false teachers when the apostles neither acted like He did or taught so.

 

What? No, I never claimed the Spirit couldn't be present. What are you talking about?

 

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here, first denying and then affirming the Holy Spirit.  As though the burden of the prophets hasn't always been to urge us to learn the truth via the Holy Spirit, which was the method used by Joseph Smith in following James 1:5-6.

James was writing to people who were already following the true gospel. There's no indication false teachers is a topic at all in the text. So why do you assume those verses can be applied to the issue of false teachers?

 

Yes, there are many apostasies in the Old Testament. That's what I just said. I'm not denying that they happened at all. But none of those apostasies lasted anywhere near 1700 years.

 

The Bible is replete with God's efforts to appeal to us to follow his prophets and his Son, but he is not a control freak and allows free agency to all his children, who have repeatedly apostatized throughout history.  Or didn't you read the Bible?

 

Have you studied Judges at all? Where was Samson's free agency in this passage:

 

Judges 14:1-4

Samson went down to Timnah, and at Timnah he saw one of the daughters of the Philistines. ² Then he came up and told his father and mother, “I saw one of the daughters of the Philistines at Timnah. Now get her for me as my wife.” ³ But his father and mother said to him, “Is there not a woman among the daughters of your relatives, or among all our people, that you must go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes.”

⁴ His father and mother did not know that it was from the Lord, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines ruled over Israel.

 

That was a very dark time for Israel. They liked being ruled by the Philistines and would rather tie up Samson, God's chosen deliverer, and give him to the Philistines than follow God. Samson wasn't a good guy. He was addicted to sex, violence and danger. He knew his strength was from God, but ignored all of God's laws anyway. There was no redeeming quality in Israel at the time. If it was up to their agency, they would have ignored God and just become Philistine. But God said NO. He subverted Samson's agency to drive a wedge between Israel and the Philistines. Of course, God didn't force Samson to do the right thing. Samson clearly chose to do the wrong thing, but God directed that bad behavior to fulfill His will. If God was willing to do all that to preserve such a rebellious nation, why wouldn't He do enough to preserve His church?

 

Plus, the early church wasn't rebelling against God like that. They certainly made mistakes, but there were still many people willing to die for God. Their free agency wanted to follow God. Why would God ignore their free agency and let the church get lost so quickly? Some people clearly wanted to follow God, but they couldn't fully follow God because the church wouldn't be restored for 1700 years? How was God respecting their free agency?

Edited March 21, 2015 by NotaMormon

[NotaMormon]

What do you think the Book of Mormon, Pearl of great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are if not the restoration of the teachings from these lost books? It is not the books, but the teachings that are important. If Jesus taught all that needed to be taught, why not just record all of Jesus's teachings rather than having Paul write more books? 

You are trying to make it a third person but it was not, and your argument is an argument from silence. it is an if-then construct and you cannot get around it. If you would stop with your strawman arguments and get down to the simple concept that Gods doctrines were lost and are now restored, you would get over the need to have specific books. If the books are so important, where are the books that Abraham read from?

THANK YOU! That's exactly what I've been saying. So many of you mention lost books the Bible talks about. But we agree that it is not the books, but the teachings that are important. Either those lost books didn't have any important teachings, or the teachings are taught better in the books we do have. We agree on that concept. So there's no point in mentioning lost books.

 

The four Gospels and Acts are written as eyewitness statements. They obviously have other doctrinal goals, but they also function as eyewitness statements. Many of the gospel sermons in Acts are supported by an apostles saying 'we were witnesses of these things.' That lends a lot of credibility to the whole story. If the whole New Testament was written by one guy, Jesus, then it would be harder to take seriously as a real historical event.

 

Plus, the different authors give us various perspectives on the gospel. Matthew, Mark and John give us a very personal look at what Christ was like. Luke compiled his books like a reporter. Peter was a fisherman and Paul was a pharisee, so they come at the gospel from very different angles.

[Bobbieaware]

It is clear that 3000 Jews in Acts 2 did not need the writings of Paul or even the gospel writings to be baptized. Per

haps most of the New Testament is just extra stuff that we don't need.

And so with your post we get down to the essence of the debate. Has it ever dawned on non-LDS Christians that the Church of Jesus Christ, as it existed during the apostolic era, functioned just fine without the supposedly "perfect," "complete" and "inerrant" Bible that we have today? And did it ever dawn on them that the Church of the apostolic era was built upon the foundation of living apostles and prophets, not on the compiled writings of dead prophets?

How did the apostolic era Church of Christ function without the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. The answer is simple: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul were all alive, and by virtue of being living apostles and/or prophets the church was led by the spirit of revelation, not by the writings of deceased prophets.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Freedom]

So it comes down to you having to prove that these other books are not needed and that there is nothing in them that is of value. This is something you cannot prove so you have no evidence to support your premise. Clearly these other books existed, you are just going on the premise that they are not needed. If this is so, then why are the writing of Paul needed? How do you know that these books are not just extra books that we can dismiss. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course, the Holy Spirit plays a very important role in how we find and know what truth is. I'm just saying the role of the Spirit shouldn't take priority over testing by scripture. Putting such a big emphasis on the role of the spirit would be like deciding to marry someone simply because you like talking with them. Of course, a marriage won't work if you don't like talking to each other, but there are bigger issues to be concerned about. It doesn't matter how much you like talking to each other if you disagree on basic doctrinal issues. Why can't we apply at least the same level of criticism to what faith we're married to?

You clearly disagree with Jesus when he praises Peter precisely for not bringing to bear his secular understanding, but rather his spiritual understanding of who Jesus really is -- directly from the Father (I cited the Scripture, but you apparently thought it not worth reading).  The reason for rampant denominationalism is that you (and others like you) put your stock in secular reading and understanding of Scripture above all else.  That and the absurd priesthood of the believer make it impossible to remain humble enough to ask God -- who does not appreciate your private interpretations of Scripture, but prefers Holy Spirit interpretations and unity in the Body of Christ.

 

Just look at how the apostles taught the gospel in Acts. They didn't call people to pray to know the gospel was true. When they were warning about false teachers, they didn't call people to pray to know the difference between truth and false teaching. Yes, 2 Peter talks about using the Spirit to interpret scripture. But if someone is teaching so many doctrines that aren't taught in the Bible, then it shouldn't be considered scripture at all. Do you think the apostles expected people to spend months or years praying about everyone who claimed to have "new scripture"?

 

Why should I be embarrassed when someone who has nothing to do with me abuses the Bible? Just because Catholics are wrong doesn't automatically mean Protestants are also wrong. There were false teachers and various interpretations when the apostles were alive, but there was still a true church. So as long as we're following the Gospel we see them teach in the New Testament, without reading our own agenda into it, why can't we also be a true church?

You miss the point:  The Gospel must first be proclaimed or preached (the kerygma) before anyone has anything to pray about.  And everyone reads his own agenda into Scripture.  That is unavoidable.  Only via the Holy Spirit (which is primary) can we obtain a witness of the truth or falsity of what we have heard.

 

Like I said, I'm not excluding the Spirit. I'm just not assuming He has the role of our primary method of discerning truth from false teachers when the apostles neither acted like He did or taught so.

 

What? No, I never claimed the Spirit couldn't be present. What are you talking about?

You quoted Hebrews on Jesus as High Priest to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit.  Go back and read your own words, to which I was responding.

 

James was writing to people who were already following the true gospel. There's no indication false teachers is a topic at all in the text. So why do you assume those verses can be applied to the issue of false teachers?

False.  James was all inclusive -- all questions can be answered in this way.

 

Yes, there are many apostasies in the Old Testament. That's what I just said. I'm not denying that they happened at all. But none of those apostasies lasted anywhere near 1700 years.

False.  The latest Exile of the Jews lasted 2,000 years, and it has only become apparent that that Exile is at an end within the past half-century.  What was the reason for that Exile?  Apostasy.  That is the doctrine of the rabbis themselves.  You seem to have no sense of historical perspective.

 

 

Have you studied Judges at all? Where was Samson's free agency in this passage:

 

Judges 14:1-4

.....................................................................

Plus, the early church wasn't rebelling against God like that. They certainly made mistakes, but there were still many people willing to die for God. Their free agency wanted to follow God. Why would God ignore their free agency and let the church get lost so quickly? Some people clearly wanted to follow God, but they couldn't fully follow God because the church wouldn't be restored for 1700 years? How was God respecting their free agency?

 

Free agency does not obviate the consequences.  Indeed, law requires that there be consequences, not that God be a control freak in some sick Calvinistic fashion (God's sovereignty being absolute and destructive of free choice).  Whether Sampson or early members of the Christian Church, all are subject to the legal and practical consequences of their free choices.  They don't receive a get-out-of-jail-free card by being a member of some special group.  Indeed, by being given more light and knowledge, more is required of them.

 

Members of the 2nd century Christian Church began an apostasy which took quite some time to completely alienate God and to end the priesthood power to act on his behalf.  This was done by a variety of powerful figures and was assented to by the masses.  While there were always sincere and genuine followers of Christ in every age, the authority of the Church as an organization had been lost.  Directionless, that organization sought to punish and terrorize authentic believers, seeking for all possible secular power.  That lost authority and doctrine had to be restored, and fallible humans were the agents of that restoration -- and they continue to be.

[NotaMormon]

So it comes down to you having to prove that these other books are not needed and that there is nothing in them that is of value. This is something you cannot prove so you have no evidence to support your premise. Clearly these other books existed, you are just going on the premise that they are not needed. If this is so, then why are the writing of Paul needed? How do you know that these books are not just extra books that we can dismiss. 

But you can't prove the books did have value either, so you have no evidence to support your premise that doctrines needed to be restored. Of course other books existed. That proves nothing. Writing extensive letters was obviously a common practice of the time, but that doesn't mean we're missing doctrines they taught just because we don't have every letter they wrote.

 

Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus to bring the gospel to the gentiles.

 

You clearly disagree with Jesus when he praises Peter precisely for not bringing to bear his secular understanding, but rather his spiritual understanding of who Jesus really is -- directly from the Father (I cited the Scripture, but you apparently thought it not worth reading).  The reason for rampant denominationalism is that you (and others like you) put your stock in secular reading and understanding of Scripture above all else.  That and the absurd priesthood of the believer make it impossible to remain humble enough to ask God -- who does not appreciate your private interpretations of Scripture, but prefers Holy Spirit interpretations and unity in the Body of Christ.

Jesus didn't tell Peter to pray to know the truth. He didn't tell Peter to seek a witness from the Spirit. No, it just says God revealed the truth to Peter.

 

Whether you admit it or not, LDS isn't the only denomination that prays, seeks guidance from the Spirit, etc. You could find plenty of people in most denominations who would say just as sincerely as you that the Holy Spirit has revealed the truth of their beliefs. Why is your witness from the Spirit better or more reliable than theirs? Since so many people claim to have guidance from the Spirit, yet still disagree on so much, how do we know what the truth is?

 

Yes, having overconfidence in our ability to understand scripture can lead to bad interpretations. But at the same time, having overconfidence in our ability to recognize guidance from the Spirit can also lead to bad interpretations. Or are your interactions with the Spirit infallible? Is it possible for you to get a false positive when you're asking the Spirit a question? How do you tell the difference between the truth and a false positive?

 

False.  James was all inclusive -- all questions can be answered in this way.

Do you have anything to support that claim? James was writing to the twelve tribes, not the world in general. He referred to his audience as "brothers" and implied they already had faith. There's no indication people outside the faith were part of his audience.

 

Plus, James talked about seeking wisdom, not knowledge. Someone seeking basic info about what the true gospel is would be 'seeking knowledge.' Someone seeking wisdom is wondering how to apply the knowledge they already have.

 

False.  The latest Exile of the Jews lasted 2,000 years, and it has only become apparent that that Exile is at an end within the past half-century.  What was the reason for that Exile?  Apostasy.  That is the doctrine of the rabbis themselves.  You seem to have no sense of historical perspective.

Exile is not the same thing as apostasy. Multiple prophets in the OT were receiving revelation while in exile. Was Israel still in apostasy while there was an active prophet of God on the earth?  Again, none of the apostasies in the OT lasted anywhere near 1700 years.

 

Free agency does not obviate the consequences.  Indeed, law requires that there be consequences, not that God be a control freak in some sick Calvinistic fashion (God's sovereignty being absolute and destructive of free choice).  Whether Sampson or early members of the Christian Church, all are subject to the legal and practical consequences of their free choices.  They don't receive a get-out-of-jail-free card by being a member of some special group.  Indeed, by being given more light and knowledge, more is required of them.

 

Members of the 2nd century Christian Church began an apostasy which took quite some time to completely alienate God and to end the priesthood power to act on his behalf.  This was done by a variety of powerful figures and was assented to by the masses.  While there were always sincere and genuine followers of Christ in every age, the authority of the Church as an organization had been lost.  Directionless, that organization sought to punish and terrorize authentic believers, seeking for all possible secular power.  That lost authority and doctrine had to be restored, and fallible humans were the agents of that restoration -- and they continue to be.

Yes, Judges shows there still are consequences. Samson probably wouldn't have died so soon if he wasn't sleeping with a pagan woman who betrayed him. That doesn't answer my question. Did Samson have free will when he demanded his parents get a Philistine for him as a wife? What does verse 14:4 mean when it says "it was from the Lord"?

 

Since there were sincere and genuine followers of Christ 1000 and 1500 years ago, why didn't God restore the church 1000 or 1500 years ago? God certainly wouldn't have been violating their free agency since they actually wanted to follow Him. Since the people were willing, the only reason it wouldn't have been restored was if God was either unable or unwilling to restore and protect the church. What other explanation could there be? I've heard some LDS say it couldn't be restored because there wasn't religious freedom yet. What kind of weak god is that? There was no freedom of religion during the OT, but that didn't stop God from delivering and protecting them many times.

 

The idea that God would have to wait 1700 years to deliver people who were calling out to Him for help isn't even close to consistent with the Bible.

Edited March 22, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................

.....................................................No, it just says God revealed the truth to Peter.

False.  It doesn't just say that.  You left out the key phrase:  "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but"   You just can't stand it that Jesus himself compares two forms of knowing, the secular and the spiritual, and thinks the spiritual the more important -- while you state emphatically that the spiritual is less important.  Perhaps for the same reason that evangelicals have such great distrust of Pentecostalism in general.

 

Whether you admit it or not, LDS isn't the only denomination that prays, seeks guidance from the Spirit, etc. You could find plenty of people in most denominations who would say just as sincerely as you that the Holy Spirit has revealed the truth of their beliefs. Why is your witness from the Spirit better or more reliable than theirs? Since so many people claim to have guidance from the Spirit, yet still disagree on so much, how do we know what the truth is?

That is simply not true, and your own denigration of spiritual knowing previously was a dead giveaway.  The Holy Spirit is given short shrift in most denominations, while secular reasoning in the reading and interpretation of Scripture is given top billing (sola scriptura).  I have had a very intelligent Presbyterian Minister ask how "a feeling" could tell anyone anything.  Such anti-biblical prejudice should have no place in biblical religion.

 

Yes, having overconfidence in our ability to understand scripture can lead to bad interpretations. But at the same time, having overconfidence in our ability to recognize guidance from the Spirit can also lead to bad interpretations. Or are your interactions with the Spirit infallible? Is it possible for you to get a false positive when you're asking the Spirit a question? How do you tell the difference between the truth and a false positive?

Those of little faith will always imagine that the Spirit will lead them less well than their own secular powers of reason, when the opposite is the case.  The real dilemma comes in striking a balance in using both in tandem.  After all God gave you a brain, why not use it, and seek confirmation via the Holy Spirit.  Like that Presbyterian Minister (the late Wesley P. Walters), you appear to believe that the things of the Spirit are mere "feelings," and not to be given much notice.

 

Do you have anything to support that claim? James was writing to the twelve tribes, not the world in general. He referred to his audience as "brothers" and implied they already had faith. There's no indication people outside the faith were part of his audience.

Why are you so afraid to allow James' words to apply to anyone?  After all, Jesus himself preached to seek and knock, and you shall find and it shall be opened to you.  Once the preaching of the Gospel (kerygma) has taken place, how else might it be confirmed?  One may take a step by step approach, as advised in Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon.  Why would it matter whether the preaching was to Israel, or to the Gentiles?  You yourself claim that Jesus commanded Paul to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.  Why wouldn't James' advice apply equally well to the Gentiles?

 

Plus, James talked about seeking wisdom, not knowledge. Someone seeking basic info about what the true gospel is would be 'seeking knowledge.' Someone seeking wisdom is wondering how to apply the knowledge they already have.

You're equivocating now, and playing semantic games.  At least Martin Luther accepted James at face value, and rejected the ideas contained in his letter.  You might be as forthright here.

 

Exile is not the same thing as apostasy. Multiple prophets in the OT were receiving revelation while in exile. Was Israel still in apostasy while there was an active prophet of God on the earth?  Again, none of the apostasies in the OT lasted anywhere near 1700 years.

Now you are moving the goal posts, and second-guessing God.  Of course Israel did not listen to the prophets, which is why they were sent into Exile.  The fact that a prophet is around does not mean that the religious establishment favors him in some way.  Indeed, they may kill him as the Zedekiah administration in Judah did.  The same applies to his function in Exile itself.

 

................................................................................  

Since there were sincere and genuine followers of Christ 1000 and 1500 years ago, why didn't God restore the church 1000 or 1500 years ago? God certainly wouldn't have been violating their free agency since they actually wanted to follow Him. Since the people were willing, the only reason it wouldn't have been restored was if God was either unable or unwilling to restore and protect the church. What other explanation could there be? I've heard some LDS say it couldn't be restored because there wasn't religious freedom yet. What kind of weak god is that? There was no freedom of religion during the OT, but that didn't stop God from delivering and protecting them many times.

Yeh, after centuries in Egypt, God finally decides to help out.  Why did he wait so long?  What was the mind of God on that matter?  An even-handed appraisal should condemn that God as much as it condemns the Mormon God for waiting so long to deliver his people or to restore the correct faith.  It just doesn't seem fair, does it?  You can rationalize it all you want, and you are limited only by your imagination.  I can think of a host of logical reasons why God waited until Joseph Smith Jr to do his Restoration, but does such speculation have salvific value?  Probably not.

 

The idea that God would have to wait 1700 years to deliver people who were calling out to Him for help isn't even close to consistent with the Bible.

Then you clearly reject the Bible and biblical religion.  You desperately need historical perspective, and are dead set against allowing it to interpose itself.

[Spammer]

 

Members of the 2nd century Christian Church began an apostasy which took quite some time to completely alienate God and to end the priesthood power to act on his behalf.  This was done by a variety of powerful figures and was assented to by the masses. 

Hi Robert, are you saying those who started the apostasy have been identified?  Which 2nd century members and which powerful figures are you thinking of?

[Bobbieaware]

Okay, 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23.

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

Those verses make it sound like Paul is teaching a relativistic, pragmatic philosophy. Since all things are lawful, then we have the freedom to sleep around, get drunk and live our lives however we want as long as we're not being dominated by those things or hurting anyone. Right? Paul says "All things are lawful," without directly condemning the idea, so it must be a good idea as long as we're not dominated by it.

So where are those books? Why hasn't any LDS prophet restored a book of Jesus teaching the apostles about baptism for the dead, 3 separate heavenly kingdoms, the pre-existence, marriage sealing in the temple, etc.? Yes, the Book of Mormon has Jesus in it, but most of His teachings there are, as you put it, "a rehash of stuff they'd already covered in the recorded gospels." How can the LDS church have the restored gospel without restoring those lost books?

I think we actually agree on this: We don't need a transcript of everything Jesus said and did every minute He was on earth as long as we have scripture teaching us the doctrines He taught. It's coming off as hypocritical for you to claim all other churches are in apostasy without those lost books when your "restored" church doesn't have those lost books either.

See above response to JLHPROF. If those lost books are so crucial to having the right beliefs, why haven't they been restored?

I'm not denying Paul used an 'if-then' statement. I'm saying his use of a 3rd person, plural form of the word for 'baptized' indicates using 'they' in an English translation is valid. Again, how else would you translate 3rd person plural? If Paul was talking about his own church and his own beliefs when he mentioned the doctrine, he would have used a 1st person plural.

Paul also said that charity "believeth all things," and by that I'm perfectly sure he didn't mean child abuse or false, spiritually ineffectual pagan practices are approved of God.

Go back and read Paul's statement on baptism for the dead again in context. It"s utterly absurd to imagine that right in the middle of all his powerful gospel reasoning that Paul would suddenly "jump the rails" of gospel logic and throw in an offhanded, non-sequitur reference to a false religious practice to somehow "prove" there is going to be a literal bodily resurrection. The actual reason why Paul brought up baptism for the dead is because, according to Peter, the saints of that day believed the gospel -- including faith in Christ and the necessity water baptism -- was preached to the dead. As Paul said, if men only have a hope in Christ in this life, they are most miserable.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[NotaMormon]

False.  It doesn't just say that.  You left out the key phrase:  "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but"   You just can't stand it that Jesus himself compares two forms of knowing, the secular and the spiritual, and thinks the spiritual the more important -- while you state emphatically that the spiritual is less important.  Perhaps for the same reason that evangelicals have such great distrust of Pentecostalism in general.

Yes, that's what I meant by 'God revealed the truth to Peter.' That doesn't mean Jesus was telling Peter to seek a witness from the Spirit to know the truth.

 

That is simply not true, and your own denigration of spiritual knowing previously was a dead giveaway.  The Holy Spirit is given short shrift in most denominations, while secular reasoning in the reading and interpretation of Scripture is given top billing (sola scriptura).  I have had a very intelligent Presbyterian Minister ask how "a feeling" could tell anyone anything.  Such anti-biblical prejudice should have no place in biblical religion.

 

Those of little faith will always imagine that the Spirit will lead them less well than their own secular powers of reason, when the opposite is the case.  The real dilemma comes in striking a balance in using both in tandem.  After all God gave you a brain, why not use it, and seek confirmation via the Holy Spirit.  Like that Presbyterian Minister (the late Wesley P. Walters), you appear to believe that the things of the Spirit are mere "feelings," and not to be given much notice.

I recently heard of a Presbyterian Minister who came out as an atheist, yet still calls himself a "proud minister."http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/03/17/im-a-presbyterian-minister-who-doesnt-believe-in-god-2/ Presbyterians don't speak for all non-LDS denominations. The denomination obviously has some problems, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said earlier is true. LDS isn't the only denomination that prays and seeks guidance from God/the Spirit.

 

http://www.wordsoftestimony.com/my-spiritual-journey/

He was discouraged from belief because "there were so many religions." He had a rough childhood. "Before I was miserable and empty and I didn’t know why. But I prayed to God and he heard me and showed me my problem." He met a Christian friend and started going to church. "I didn’t understand everything but I knew God was drawing me. Up until then I believed that the Bible was of man, but God convinced me that though man penned it, He himself was the author of it."

 

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/DW83_Kelly_Carroll.aspx

She was abused by her father and step father, and couldn't believe God could love her. But God pursued her anyway. After a dream/vision, she knew God loved her. She spent a year praying, fasting and seeking God. After a breakthrough, she wrote a book on the power of prayer and fasting, Full on Empty.

 

http://www.cbn.com/tv/3527070794001

He grew up a Catholic, but rejected it for new age spirituality. One day he decided to reconsider Jesus, so he spent a day reading the Bible and praying a lot like the prayer in Moroni 10 (2:33 in the video). He met a Christian while hitchhiking later that day and knew it was a sign from God.

 

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Naeem_Fazal080409.aspx

He grew up a devout, conservative Muslim. He started to question his faith after his brother converted to Christianity. He prayed "I don’t know who’s up there. If You’re real, show me." He had a demonic encounter, so he called out to Jesus for help. “I said, ‘Jesus,  I don’t know who You are. I can’t call You the Lord of my life. I can’t call You Savior. I can’t call You any of these things, because at this moment, I’m afraid. I’m scared. I need help. If You will help me, then I will give You my whole life.’ The next moment I found myself sitting on my bed with my eyes open, starting into this presence. I can’t even explain it. It was the presence of Jesus. This peace was so aggressive. It invaded every single thing, every part of me. I felt like it communicated to me saying, ‘Your life is not your own.’ And I believed it.”

 

I'm not denying the fact that many LDS have had powerful spiritual experiences. But people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. So how can we know what the truth is?

 

Why are you so afraid to allow James' words to apply to anyone?  After all, Jesus himself preached to seek and knock, and you shall find and it shall be opened to you.  Once the preaching of the Gospel (kerygma) has taken place, how else might it be confirmed?  One may take a step by step approach, as advised in Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon.  Why would it matter whether the preaching was to Israel, or to the Gentiles?  You yourself claim that Jesus commanded Paul to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.  Why wouldn't James' advice apply equally well to the Gentiles?

It's not about fear. It's about following what the apostles actually said, not reading our own assumptions into their teaching. None of the Apostles told nonbelievers to pray to know the gospel is true. Yes, the gospel starts by preaching (kerygma) it, but like I said earlier, none of the aposltes in Acts take the next step of saying 'pray to know this gospel is true.' Just look at Paul's custom of preaching.

 

Acts 17:1-4

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

 

Paul spent 3 weeks reasoning from the Scriptures. He was probably also praying that the Spirit would soften their hearts to the gospel, but there's no indication he told people to pray and seek a witness from the Spirit. Yet you're looking down on my belief system because I emphasize reasoning from the Scriptures? Who is really following Paul's example here?

 

Now you are moving the goal posts, and second-guessing God.  Of course Israel did not listen to the prophets, which is why they were sent into Exile.  The fact that a prophet is around does not mean that the religious establishment favors him in some way.  Indeed, they may kill him as the Zedekiah administration in Judah did.  The same applies to his function in Exile itself.

Daniel was a prophet during an exile. He may have been ignored, but that doesn't change the fact that God had a prophet on the earth and people had the option to follow that prophet. God was clearly protecting Daniel. I'm not second guessing God. I'm second guessing people who say the church needs a prophet, but God let people who were sincerely trying to follow Him wait 1600 years for a prophet. If there were people trying to follow God, why didn't God raise a prophet?

 

 

Yeh, after centuries in Egypt, God finally decides to help out.  Why did he wait so long?  What was the mind of God on that matter?  An even-handed appraisal should condemn that God as much as it condemns the Mormon God for waiting so long to deliver his people or to restore the correct faith.  It just doesn't seem fair, does it?  You can rationalize it all you want, and you are limited only by your imagination.  I can think of a host of logical reasons why God waited until Joseph Smith Jr to do his Restoration, but does such speculation have salvific value?  Probably not.

There's a big difference between delivering people from persecution and restoring correct faith. Israel was enslaved, but that doesn't mean they lost their faith. Israel was in a similar situation to the early church. They both had the option of holding onto their faith in the face of harsh persecution. Did sincere believers in the early church even have the option of following the true gospel? Or did God remove the option from the earth because some people followed false teachers? It just doesn't seem fair that sincere people couldn't truly follow God for 1700 years, does it?

 

Go back and read Paul's statement on baptism for the dead again in context. It"s utterly absurd to imagine that right in the middle of all his powerful gospel reasoning that Paul would suddenly "jump the rails" of gospel logic and throw in an offhanded, non-sequitur reference to a false religious practice to somehow "prove" there is going to be a literal bodily resurrection. The actual reason why Paul brought up baptism for the dead is because, according to Peter, the saints of that day believed the gospel -- including faith in Christ and the necessity water baptism -- was preached to the dead. As Paul said, if men only have a hope in Christ in this life, they are most miserable.

I never said verse 29 was Paul trying to prove the resurrection. I have read and reread the context. Verses 3-11 are Paul's proof. 12-28 is Paul appealing to God's wisdom. Since proof and God's wisdom is covered, Paul takes a bit of time to appeal to their pagan logic in verse 29. That approach continues in verse 32. "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" is obviously not part of the gospel. So did Paul "jump the rails" when he used pagan logic to make a point about the gospel? Or was it just part of Paul's method of preaching?

Edited March 23, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Vance]

Yes, that's what I meant by 'God revealed the truth to Peter.' That doesn't mean Jesus was telling Peter to seek a witness from the Spirit to know the truth.

 

I recently heard of a Presbyterian Minister who came out as an atheist, yet still calls himself a "proud minister."http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/03/17/im-a-presbyterian-minister-who-doesnt-believe-in-god-2/ The denomination obviously has some problems, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said earlier is true. LDS isn't the only denomination that prays and seeks guidance from God/the Spirit.

Really?

 

And this is supposed to score points for your argument?

 

Really?

 

Then do these stories score points against your argument?

 

http://www.charismanews.com/us/34772-pastor-isaac-hunter-admits-to-adultery-with-former-staffer

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/lkl.ted.haggard/index.html?_s=PM:US

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/frontpage/2008/01/22/Minister-admits-affair-quits-St-Paul-s.html

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/08/indiana-megachurch-pastor-fired-over-affair-with-teenage-girl/1#.VQ9mBeGjsQM

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500149.html

 

See what happens when your faulty logic is used against you?

[Bobbieaware]

Yes, that's what I meant by 'God revealed the truth to Peter.' That doesn't mean Jesus was telling Peter to seek a witness from the Spirit to know the truth.

 

I recently heard of a Presbyterian Minister who came out as an atheist, yet still calls himself a "proud minister."http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/03/17/im-a-presbyterian-minister-who-doesnt-believe-in-god-2/ The denomination obviously has some problems, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said earlier is true. LDS isn't the only denomination that prays and seeks guidance from God/the Spirit.

 

http://www.wordsoftestimony.com/my-spiritual-journey/

He was discouraged from belief because "there were so many religions." He had a rough childhood. "Before I was miserable and empty and I didn’t know why. But I prayed to God and he heard me and showed me my problem." He met a Christian friend and started going to church. "I didn’t understand everything but I knew God was drawing me. Up until then I believed that the Bible was of man, but God convinced me that though man penned it, He himself was the author of it."

 

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/DW83_Kelly_Carroll.aspx

She was abused by her father and step father, and couldn't believe God could love her. But God pursued her anyway. After a dream/vision, she knew God loved her. She spent a year praying, fasting and seeking God. After a breakthrough, she wrote a book on the power of prayer and fasting, Full on Empty.

 

http://www.cbn.com/tv/3527070794001

He grew up a Catholic, but rejected it for new age spirituality. One day he decided to reconsider Jesus, so he spent a day reading the Bible and praying a lot like the prayer in Moroni 10 (2:33 in the video). He met a Christian while hitchhiking later that day and knew it was a sign from God.

 

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Naeem_Fazal080409.aspx

He grew up a devout, conservative Muslim. He started to question his faith after his brother converted to Christianity. He prayed "I don’t know who’s up there. If You’re real, show me." He had a demonic encounter, so he called out to Jesus for help. “I said, ‘Jesus,  I don’t know who You are. I can’t call You the Lord of my life. I can’t call You Savior. I can’t call You any of these things, because at this moment, I’m afraid. I’m scared. I need help. If You will help me, then I will give You my whole life.’ The next moment I found myself sitting on my bed with my eyes open, starting into this presence. I can’t even explain it. It was the presence of Jesus. This peace was so aggressive. It invaded every single thing, every part of me. I felt like it communicated to me saying, ‘Your life is not your own.’ And I believed it.”

 

I'm not denying the fact that many LDS have had powerful spiritual experiences. But people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. So how can we know what the truth is?

 

It's not about fear. It's about following what the apostles actually said, not reading our own assumptions into their teaching. None of the Apostles told nonbelievers to pray to know the gospel is true. Yes, the gospel starts by preaching (kerygma) it, but like I said earlier, none of the aposltes in Acts take the next step of saying 'pray to know this gospel is true.' Just look at Paul's custom of preaching.

 

Acts 17:1-4

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

 

Paul spent 3 weeks reasoning from the Scriptures. He was probably also praying that the Spirit would soften their hearts to the gospel, but there's no indication he told people to pray and seek a witness from the Spirit. Yet you're looking down on my belief system because I emphasize reasoning from the Scriptures? Who is really following Paul's example here?

 

Daniel was a prophet during an exile. He may have been ignored, but that doesn't change the fact that God had a prophet on the earth and people had the option to follow that prophet. God was clearly protecting Daniel. I'm not second guessing God. I'm second guessing people who say the church needs a prophet, but God let people who were sincerely trying to follow Him wait 1600 years for a prophet. If there were people trying to follow God, why didn't God raise a prophet?

 

 

There's a big difference between delivering people from persecution and restoring correct faith. Israel was enslaved, but that doesn't mean they lost their faith. Israel was in a similar situation to the early church. They both had the option of holding onto their faith in the face of harsh persecution. Did sincere believers in the early church even have the option of following the true gospel? Or did God remove the option from the earth because some people followed false teachers? It just doesn't seem fair that sincere people couldn't truly follow God for 1700 years, does it?

 

I never said verse 29 was Paul trying to prove the resurrection. I have read and reread the context. Verses 3-11 are Paul's proof. 12-28 is Paul appealing to God's wisdom. Since proof and God's wisdom is covered, Paul takes a bit of time to appeal to their pagan logic in verse 29. That approach continues in verse 32. "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" is obviously not part of the gospel. So did Paul "jump the rails" when he used pagan logic to make a point about the gospel? Or was it just part of Paul's method of preaching?

Paul was clearly still trying to establish the reality to the bodily resurrection, which is why in the verse in question he said, "IF THE DEAD RISE NOT AT ALL, why are they then baptized for the dead?" This fact is patently obvious and you're just grasping at straws.

[NotaMormon]

Really?

Did you read the quote I was responding to? I was just mentioning that as a way of saying I know Presbyterians have some complicated issues. They don't speak for non-LDS denominations on multiple issues.

 

Did you read any of the links I posted right after that? I'm not denying the fact that many LDS have had powerful spiritual experiences. But people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. So how can we know what the truth is?

 

Paul was clearly still trying to establish the reality to the bodily resurrection, which is why in the verse in question he said, "IF THE DEAD RISE NOT AT ALL, why are they then baptized for the dead?" This fact is patently obvious and you're just grasping at straws.

Yes, bodily resurrection is the subject of the whole chapter. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying Paul didn't agree with every philosophy and practice he mentioned. Why would he quote “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”? What does that have to do with bodily resurrection? Did he actually agree with that philosophy? How does it fit in the passage?

Edited March 23, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Avatar4321]

I saw some discussion on how to determine I'd a book of scripture has value.

You determine it by studying it, applying it and then listening to the spirit.

[Bobbieaware]

Paul was simply saying that if, as the heretics in the Corinthian church were teaching, there is no bodily resurrection of the dead, then it logically follows that that there is no Christ and there is no salvation. So the Corinthian heretics might as well enjoy this life as best they can because if they're correct in their belief there will be nothing worthwhile waiting for them beyond the grave. In the context of 1Corinthians 15, this is a perfectly logical and valid statement for Paul to make because he was trying to get the Corinthian heretics to understand that without the resurrection of the body there is no hope for the future and no life beyond this one.

Meanwhile, Paul brings up the practice of baptism for the dead in the same chapter precisely because such baptisms were being performed only on the belief THAT THERE WILL BE A BODILY RESURRECTION into eternal life. Paul's sarcasm of "eat drink and be merry" was aimed at those WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE BODILY RESURRECTION, while he pointed to the practice of baptism for the dead because the practice was predicated upon the belief by THAT THERE WILL BE A BODILY RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. It's utter nonsense to believe that in the midst of his intensively prosecuted refutation of the "no bodily resurrection heresy" Paul would resort to pointing to supposedly damnable and false practice by apostates to prove the resurrection of the body is a true doctrine of Christ.

Did you read the quote I was responding to? I was just mentioning that as a way of saying I know Presbyterians have some complicated issues. They don't speak for non-LDS denominations on multiple issues.

Did you read any of the links I posted right after that? I'm not denying the fact that many LDS have had powerful spiritual experiences. But people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. So how can we know what the truth is?

Yes, bodily resurrection is the subject of the whole chapter. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying Paul didn't agree with every philosophy and practice he mentioned. Why would he quote “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”? What does that have to do with bodily resurrection? Did he actually agree with that philosophy? How does it fit in the passage?

Paul was simply saying that if, as the heretics in the Corinthian church were teaching, there is no bodily resurrection of the dead, then it logically follows that that there is no Christ and there is no salvation, so the Corinthian heretics might as well enjoy this life as best they can because if they're correct in their belief there will be nothing worthwhile waiting for them beyond the grave. In the context of 1Corinthians 15, this is a perfectly logical and valid statement for Paul to make because he was trying to get the Corinthian heretics to understand that without the resurrection of the body there is no hope for the future and no life beyond this one.

Meanwhile, Paul brings up the practice of baptism for the dead in the same chapter precisely because such baptisms were being performed only the belief THAT THERE WILL BE A BODILY RESURRECTION into eternal life. Paul's sarcasm of "eat drink and be merry" was aimed at those WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE BODILY RESURRECTION, while he pointed to the practice of baptism for the dead because the practice was predicated upon the belief by THAT THERE WILL BE A BODILY RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. It's utter nonsense to believe that in the midst of his intensively prosecuted refutation of the "no bodily resurrection heresy" Paul would resort to pointing to supposedly damnable and false practice by apostates to prove the resurrection of the body is a true doctrine of Christ.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

And so with your post we get down to the essence of the debate. Has it ever dawned on non-LDS Christians that the Church of Jesus Christ, as it existed during the apostolic era, functioned just fine without the supposedly "perfect," "complete" and "inerrant" Bible that we have today? And did it ever dawn on them that the Church of the apostolic era was built upon the foundation of living apostles and prophets, not on the compiled writings of dead prophets?

How did the apostolic era Church of Christ function without the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. The answer is simple: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul were all alive, and by virtue of being living apostles and/or prophets the church was led by the spirit of revelation, not by the writings of deceased prophets.

Bravo- excellent point.

[NotaMormon]

Meanwhile, Paul brings up the practice of baptism for the dead in the same chapter precisely because such baptisms were being performed only the belief THAT THERE WILL BE A BODILY RESURRECTION into eternal life. Paul's sarcasm of "eat drink and be merry" was aimed at those WHO DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE BODILY RESURRECTION, while he pointed to the practice of baptism for the dead because the practice was predicated upon the belief by THAT THERE WILL BE A BODILY RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. It's utter nonsense to believe that in the midst of his intensively prosecuted refutation of the "no bodily resurrection heresy" Paul would resort to pointing to supposedly damnable and false practice by apostates to prove the resurrection of the body is a true doctrine of Christ.

Yes, I agree that the practice of baptism for the dead is predicated on the belief that there will be a bodily resurrection of the dead. I'm not disputing that. The question is whether or not Paul himself endorsed the practice.

 

Why would Paul use a 3rd person, plural term to refer to a practice that he was involved in on some level? When someone is talking about something they are involved in, they use 1st person words, like "we." But when someone is talking about something other people are involved in, they use 3rd person words, like "they." So doesn't the fact that Paul's term for 'baptized' in the passage is 3rd person plural mean anything? If having "they" in the passage really is the correct translation, would that change your interpretation at all?

 

Isn't the philosophy of "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" a damnable and false teaching? Paul still mentioned it to make a point.

 

Again, I never said verse 29 was Paul trying to prove the resurrection of the dead. Verses 3-11 are Paul's proof of the concept. Regardless of who's interpretation is right, verse 29 is just a short, vague comment. The issue is how much we can or should read into the comment.

Edited March 23, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

NotaMormon asked: . But people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. So how can we know what the truth is?

 

Well, there are these 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets available for use.  And many Biblical Scriptures that offer guidelines for actions and attitudes that help guide a person to truth.  And examples of mistakes to avoid,which I found all boil down to simply saying, "It can't be right because it's different than I currently think or want."  We could use those.  Or we could ignore their presence and potential and simply do what we have always done and live with the typical result. 

 

Just so we don't have a thread Titled Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets that never even tries to make full use of the range of tests, here is this to consider:

 

A Preliminary Test of Joseph Smith

 

Those familiar with even Joseph Smith's 1838 testimony, as published in the Pearl of Great Price, the Articles of Faith, and the Book of Mormon should see much that indicates that his claims should be taken seriously in light of the Bible tests.

Claims a True Prophet must make

 

He recounts his first vision of deity

He reports that he has been visited by an angel and called by God for a work.

His most important claims come with witnesses, not just people he convinced, but people who have seen what he had seen. This includes the three witnesses of the angel and the plates, the eight formal witnesses of the plates, other informal witnesses, and the important shared visions with Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery.

He reports ordinations to the priesthood following the pattern of Aaron.

Teaching of Christ

 

He testifies that Jesus is the Christ, that he came in the flesh., that he will judge all men.

He talks about faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism.

He affirms the need for apostles and prophets.

He affirms the Bible witness in his use of the Bible, his prayers, his identification with Paul, his fulfillment of the Bible prophecy of the sealed book.

Character of Teaching

 

He teaches belief in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and that these constitute in unity One God.

He teaches the need for faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

He restores knowledge of the covenants and ordinances. (See D&C 1)

He teaches about the heavenly council.

His revelations teach us to expect trials, and that our sufferings can be “consecrated to our gain” (2 Nephi 2:2).

Personal Character

 

He lived his life in the face of constant, often violent, and ultimately fatal opposition, demonstrating that he learned by experience (D&C 3, D&C 121-2, and D&C 135) to fear God more than men.

He led by example, including working with his own hands, facing danger, placing himself in danger rather expending his followers for his benefit.

He freely admitted his own personal weakness, even including, in his official history, his involvement in money digging.

Evidences provided

 

He reports a prophecy, now unambiguously fulfilled, that his name should be had for good and evil among all nations.

He produced the Book of Mormon

He admits his own personal weakness, including his celebrated money digging. He provides accounts and revelations of the secrets of the divine council in 1 Nephi 1:, Moses 4:1-4, Abraham 3:19-28, and DC 76:.

Many of his prophecies have been fulfilled.

He provides knowledge about the ordinances and covenants.

He provides insights opening understanding of the scriptures.

He makes impressive predictions about the Book of Mormon (such as D&C 3) and in the Book of Mormon.

Many of the objections raised against him and against the Book of Mormon have been superseded by later events and discoveries. A recent example has been the recent collapse of the claims for DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon.

He teaches by example and precept that we should pray to find the truth for ourselves.

In comparison with the Biblical standard, all of this invites further consideration. Not only does Joseph Smith impress compared to the Biblical standard, but I have found no rival candidates that come close. This does not prove his claims, nor exhaust the testing that can and should be done. It should invite us to take Joseph Smith seriously, to consider his works, such as the Book of Mormon, to explore the testimony of the witnesses, to try living the gospel, to carefully compare LDS teaching with the scriptures, and to pray.

[Bobbieaware]

Yes, I agree that the practice of baptism for the dead is predicated on the belief that there will be a bodily resurrection of the dead. I'm not disputing that. The question is whether or not Paul himself endorsed the practice.

Why would Paul use a 3rd person, plural term to refer to a practice that he was involved in on some level? When someone is talking about something they are involved in, they use 1st person words, like "we." But when someone is talking about something other people are involved in, they use 3rd person words, like "they." So doesn't the fact that Paul's term for 'baptized' in the passage is 3rd person plural mean anything? If having "they" in the passage really is the correct translation, would that change your interpretation at all?

Isn't the philosophy of "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" a damnable and false teaching? Paul still mentioned it to make a point.

Again, I never said verse 29 was Paul trying to prove the resurrection of the dead. Verses 3-11 are Paul's proof of the concept. Regardless of who's interpretation is right, verse 29 is just a short, vague comment. The issue is how much we can or should read into the comment.

You don't know why Paul said what he said because you have no prophet who can tell you why Paul said what he said. It's all nothing more than guesswork on your part.

What you believe is an offhanded remark seems a lot less so when one understands that the gospel -- which includes faith in the Lord a Jesus Christ, repentance, water baptism, and the reception of the gift of Holy Ghost -- is preached to the dead. Two times in his first general epistle Peter testifies that the gospel of Christ is preached to the dead, even including those wicked souls who died in the great flood. Also, when one factors in Jesus' famous dictum that "he who believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved, but he who believeth not shall be damned," it becomes clearer why the ancient church practiced baptism for the dead. I don't know about you, but I'm thrilled to know God loves his sons and daughters so much that he continues the great program of missionary work to bring souls unto Christ in the realm of the departed dead. Now that's a God of love I can actually believe in!

And I'm sure if you're being genuinely honest with yourself you must admit with all the knowledge and facts at his instant command, it seems singularly strange that in a great debate on what is true and what is not true Paul would approvingly point to untrue, heretical practices in defense of a critically important true gospel principle. Paul is so much better a preacher of the gospel than having to stoop to such and unsound and utterly unconvincing rhetorical devise. Can't you just see the Corinthian saints scratching their heads and saying to themselves, "Paul wants us to believe in a literal bodily resurrection because some apostates believe in the literal bodily resurrection? Say what? Paul wants us to believe in the resurrection, so he points to another group of apostates to convince the resurrection deniers among us that there will be a resurrection? Pathetic!"

One day you'll realize faulty logic is only necessary when one is trying to defend the indefensible.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[NotaMormon]

NotaMormon asked: . But people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. So how can we know what the truth is?

 

Well, there are these 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets available for use.  And many Biblical Scriptures that offer guidelines for actions and attitudes that help guide a person to truth.  And examples of mistakes to avoid,which I found all boil down to simply saying, "It can't be right because it's different than I currently think or want."  We could use those.  Or we could ignore their presence and potential and simply do what we have always done and live with the typical result. 

 

Just so we don't have a thread Titled Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets that never even tries to make full use of the range of tests, here is this to consider:

Most of those keys are things anyone could easily claim about themselves. They could claim to be chosen and ordained by God. They could teach repentance, one Lord, one faith, etc., but then add on their own false teaching.

 

You mention witnesses, but then you quote Matt. 18:16. Look at the verse with a little context, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." Jesus was talking about how to deal with a fellow believer who sins against you. How could that possibly be applied to the issue of testing a prophet or teacher?

 

Secondly, are the Book of Mormon witnesses really reliable? All 3 witnesses recanted their testimony at least once later in life. Even if they did change their story back, does that really mean they're reliable? What if the 12 apostles suddenly denied Jesus rose from the dead in public, only to ask people to ignore their denials and accept their testimony once again? You can't trust people who change their story like that. Even when Harris and Whitmer were supporting the church, they said they saw the plates with "eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes" (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173).

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx

Chapter 6 is an odd witness statement. " . . . you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates." If the plates were physical, tangible objects, why couldn't they just look at them? Smith obviously already trusted them. Why not just show them the plates? The Bible doesn't have any comparable event where someone needed to go through some ritual to look at scrolls of scripture.

 

Having read the account, Harris statement make sense. "I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state. ...In about three days I went into the woods to pray that I might see the plates. While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates." (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71). A four were praying for a long time in the woods, but didn't see the plates. Harris offered to leave because he thought he was hindering the other three, and a few minutes later they did see the plates. Smith caught up to Harris and they started praying again. Harris was "fervently engaged in prayer . . . that he also might realize the same blessings (History, p. 55)."

 

Spending a long time engaged in intense prayer can leave someone open to a self-induced entranced state. Of course, there's nothing wrong with long, intense prayers, but like I said before, people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. They're not a reliable test of truth. Jesus didn't hide from people when He rose again. Thomas was doubting, but Jesus didn't say anything like 'You must rely on my word, with full purpose of heart, pray for an extended period, and then you can touch me to know it's true.' No, Jesus just appeared to him.

 

"So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

 

So Thomas stubbornly did not believe until he touched Jesus, which is not the pattern of the 3 witnesses. Smith implied they had to believe before they saw the evidence.

 

You don't know why Paul said what he said because you have no prophet who can tell you why Paul said what he said. It's all nothing more than guesswork on your part.

What you believe is an offhanded remark seems a lot less so when one understands that the gospel -- which includes faith in the Lord a Jesus Christ, repentance, water baptism, and the reception of the gift of Holy Ghost -- is preached to the dead. Two times in his first general epistle Peter testifies that the gospel of Christ is preached to the dead, even including those wicked souls who died in the great flood. Also, when one factors in Jesus' famous dictum that "he who believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved, but he who believeth not shall be damned," it becomes clearer why the ancient church practiced baptism for the dead. I don't know about you, but I'm thrilled to know God loves his sons and daughters so much that he continues the great program of missionary work to bring souls unto Christ in the realm of the departed dead. Now that's a God of love I can actually believe in!

And I'm sure if you're being genuinely honest with yourself you must admit with all the knowledge and facts at his instant command, it seems singularly strange that in a great debate on what is true and what is not true Paul would approvingly point to untrue, heretical practices in defense of a critically important true gospel principle. Paul is so much better a preacher of the gospel than having to stoop to such and unsound and utterly unconvincing rhetorical devise. Can't you just see the Corinthian saints scratching their heads and saying to themselves, "Paul wants us to believe in a literal bodily resurrection because some apostates believe in the literal bodily resurrection? Say what? Paul wants us to believe in the resurrection, so he points to another group of apostates to convince the resurrection deniers among us that there will be a resurrection? Pathetic!"

One day you'll realize faulty logic is only necessary when one is trying to defend the indefensible.

There's a big difference between 'the gospel was preached to the dead' and 'the gospel is preached to the dead.' http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/q-and-a/id/1597/isnt-the-gospel-preached-to-the-dead

Edited March 23, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Bobbieaware]

Most of those keys are things anyone could easily claim about themselves. They could claim to be chosen and ordained by God. They could teach repentance, one Lord, one faith, etc., but then add on their own false teaching.

You mention witnesses, but then you quote Matt. 18:16. Look at the verse with a little context, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." Jesus was talking about how to deal with a fellow believer who sins against you. How could that possibly be applied to the issue of testing a prophet or teacher?

Secondly, are the Book of Mormon witnesses really reliable? All 3 witnesses recanted their testimony at least once later in life. Even if they did change their story back, does that really mean they're reliable? What if the 12 apostles suddenly denied Jesus rose from the dead in public, only to ask people to ignore their denials and accept their testimony once again? You can't trust people who change their story like that. Even when Harris and Whitmer were supporting the church, they said they saw the plates with "eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes" (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173).

https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx

Chapter 6 is an odd witness statement. " . . . you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates." If the plates were physical, tangible objects, why couldn't they just look at them? Smith obviously already trusted them. Why not just show them the plates? The Bible doesn't have any comparable event where someone needed to go through some ritual to look at scrolls of scripture.

Having read the account, Harris statement make sense. "I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state. ...In about three days I went into the woods to pray that I might see the plates. While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates." (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71). A four were praying for a long time in the woods, but didn't see the plates. Harris offered to leave because he thought he was hindering the other three, and a few minutes later they did see the plates. Smith caught up to Harris and they started praying again. Harris was "fervently engaged in prayer . . . that he also might realize the same blessings (History, p. 55)."

Spending a long time engaged in intense prayer can leave someone open to a self-induced entranced state. Of course, there's nothing wrong with long, intense prayers, but like I said before, people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences. They're not a reliable test of truth. Jesus didn't hide from people when He rose again. Thomas was doubting, but Jesus didn't say anything like 'You must rely on my word, with full purpose of heart, pray for an extended period, and then you can touch me to know it's true.' No, Jesus just appeared to him.

"So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

So Thomas stubbornly did not believe until he touched Jesus, which is not the pattern of the 3 witnesses. Smith implied they had to believe before they saw the evidence.

There's a big difference between 'the gospel was preached to the dead' and 'the gospel is preached to the dead.' http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/q-and-a/id/1597/isnt-the-gospel-preached-to-the-dead

Here again, though you don't believe in living prophets, you act as if you are one by virtue of unprophetic guesswork and supposition.

If some people want to believe in a God who inexplicably (after all, he is supposed to be the embodiment of perfect love; isn't he?) gives up so hastily and easily and on his own creation (even though they are supposedly made in his image), abandoning them to the inexpressible horrors of hell forever without extending the common courtesy of providing enough time to allow his children to learn from their mistakes and repent, that's their right. I'll go on believing in a God of true mercy and perfect love; even a God who cares enough for his children that he graciously grants them ample opportunites to learn the truth and repent before the final judgement. The Latter-day Saints believe in a God who possesses an infinite and eternal capacity to show love, demonstrate compassion and exhibit perfect charity. Throughout the whole of my youth, I was never comfortable with the idea of worshipping the heartless God of incomprehensible cruelty, and never found a God I could actually believe in until I found the truly just and merciful God of the Latter-day Saints. To each his own.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[NotaMormon]

Here again, though you don't believe in living prophets, you act as if you are one by virtue of unprophetic guesswork and supposition.

If some people want to believe in a God who inexplicably (after all, he is supposed to be the embodiment of perfect love; isn't he?) gives up so hastily and easily and on his own creation (even though they are supposedly made in his image), abandoning them to the inexpressible horrors of hell forever without extending the common courtesy of providing enough time to allow his children to learn from their mistakes and repent, that's their right. I'll go on believing in a God of true mercy and perfect love, a God who cares enough for his children that he graciously grants them ample opportunites to learn the truth and repent before the final judgement. The Latter-day Saints believe in a God who possesses an infinite and eternal capacity to show love, demonstrate compassion and exhibit perfect charity. Throughout the whole of my youth, I was never comfortable with the idea of worshipping the heartless God of incomprehensible cruelty, and never found a God I could actually believe in until I found the truly just and merciful God of the Latter-day Saints. To each his own.

God exists outside of time and He knows us better than we know ourselves. It may seem like God would be unfair if people who've never heard the gospel go to hell. But that idea assumes it was impossible for them to have heard the gospel, which isn't true. Nothing is impossible for God. He knows who would and wouldn't respond to the gospel before they even hear it. If someone in a remote amazon village would have responded to the gospel, God would have either found a way to bring the gospel to them or bring them to the gospel.

 

Plus, the doctrine of receiving the gospel after someone dies is another confusing mixed message. I keep hearing from LDS that this life is a crucial test, it's our 'time to prepare to meet God.' But it sounds like everyone who didn't pass the test during this life, can still take the test after they die and still have time to prepare to meet God. If someone doesn't even try to pass the test during this life, but passes it during the next life and still ends up with the same reward as those who actually passes it here, then this test doesn't mean much. It sounds like it would be better to just let people wait till the next life when it will be more clear what the gospel is.

 

However, if those who only pass the test in the next life can't get the same reward, that's even worse. That would mean millions of people between the early church and 1830 who sincerely wanted to follow God have no way to receive the full reward. What kind of compassionate God would set up this elaborate test, let so many people go through physical and emotional turmoil trying to follow Him, but not give them the chance to fully follow His plan to get the full reward?

 

Why can't someone give me a straight answer on this? People were willing to die for God. They wanted to follow Him. So why didn't He restore and protect the church in their time? He wouldn't have been violating their agency if they wanted to follow Him.

 

Either this test here on earth is unnecessary and people can just pass the test in the next life or this test is necessary and millions of people never got the chance to pass it.