Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[The Nehor]

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?

A better question is why he would defend a true doctrine (resurrection) with one he believed to be false or pagan or whatever. When is the last time a Christian defended the reality of the Virgin Birth by citing the Koran? That is the equivalent of what Paul would have been doing.

[Bobbieaware]

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.

The "day of this life," spoken of in the Book of Mormon, is the time between birth on earth and the final judgement. Men are given the opportunity to learn and live the gospel after death in the spirit world, but be judged according to the same judgment they would have received if they had embraced the gospel in the flesh. Perfectly reasonable and fair. A plan truly worthy of a fair-minded and compassionate God. No need for any of the guesswork perplexity, and mystification when one contemplates the plan of the Non-LDS God.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[NotaMormon]

A better question is why he would defend a true doctrine (resurrection) with one he believed to be false or pagan or whatever. When is the last time a Christian defended the reality of the Virgin Birth by citing the Koran? That is the equivalent of what Paul would have been doing.

Say you were talking to a Muslim and he claimed God/Allah wouldn't use angels to reveal doctrine like Joseph Smith claimed. You would probably give a standard response mentioning various Bible and Book of Mormon verses. But it would also be a good point to mention that Muhammad claimed to receive he Koran from an angel. Of course, you don't actually believe an angel gave Muhammad the Koran, but it could still be useful to mention the Islamic belief to defend your own. That may not be your style of witnessing, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid point to make.

 

The "day of this life," spoken of in the Book of Mormon, is the time between birth on earth and the final judgement. Men are given the opportunity to learn and live the gospel after death in the spirit world, but be judged according to the same judgment they would have received if they had embraced the gospel in the flesh. Perfectly reasonable and fair. A plan truly worthy of a fair-minded and compassionate God. No need for any of the guesswork perplexity, and mystification when one contemplates the plan of the Non-LDS God.

Why do people keep dodging this question? 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.

 

From what I've heard about the LDS story of the pre-mortal existence and the plan of salvation, an important part of the test was having a veil over us so we don't remember and dealing with sin temptation. Will that be true in the next test? Will we still have to deal with the veil and temptation?

Edited March 24, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Vance]

So how can we know what the truth is?

 

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

  6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

[Vance]

Secondly, are the Book of Mormon witnesses really reliable?

 

Yes.

 

All 3 witnesses recanted their testimony at least once later in life.

No, they did not.  Not one of them denied the witness they gave of the Book of Mormon.  Your source is wrong.

[The Nehor]

Say you were talking to a Muslim and he claimed God/Allah wouldn't use angels to reveal doctrine like Joseph Smith claimed. You would probably give a standard response mentioning various Bible and Book of Mormon verses. But it would also be a good point to mention that Muhammad claimed to receive he Koran from an angel. Of course, you don't actually believe an angel gave Muhammad the Koran, but it could still be useful to mention the Islamic belief to defend your own. That may not be your style of witnessing, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid point to make.

 

Why do people keep dodging this question? 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.

 

From what I've heard about the LDS story of the pre-mortal existence and the plan of salvation, an important part of the test was having a veil over us so we don't remember and dealing with sin temptation. Will that be true in the next test? Will we still have to deal with the veil and temptation?

No, as an ex-missionary I can tell you that would be a terrible point to make. They would ask about or assume that I believed Muhammed was a prophet. If it was a good idea the rest of the Christian world would be quoting the Book of Mormon to support the Bible even if they do not believe it. They do not. Mostly because they are not stupid. Neither was Paul.

The idea that the early Christians were wonderfully faithful is true in individual cases but not generally. Read some of Paul's letters where he has to rebuke the saints regularly for their follies and false doctrines. He has to pound the atonement into their heads or they believe their works alone will save them. He basically insults some of them saying that he is glad he did not baptize them because they were going off the rails. John's letter to the seven churches predicts a gloomy future for the churches and short-term defeat and victory only to come much later after the martyrs die. I think the most stunning indictment of the church's survival are Paul's consolation where he is glad he fought the good fight and kept the faith. A fairly selfish benediction unless that is all he had. No prayers for the success of the future church or promises of growth or gladness in laying the foundation of Christianity. Instead we have either a self-centered man or one who figured the lights were going out with him.

The veil will be gone and temptation will largely end with the final binding of the devil.

[mfbukowski]

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.

omigosh.

i am actually giving Bobbiewaware rep points.

clearly the end is near 

[mfbukowski]

Without literacy, printing, and the ability to preserve the correct doctrines by illiterate people who could not read expensive manuscripts in foreign languages, I think it was inevitable that the details of the Gospel would be lost.

 

God does not interfere with the agency of men and we all have the ability to make mistakes.  Remember God knew that his plan was perfect and that all who lived during that time would have the ability in the afterlife to hear the true gospel anyway.  Not a single soul was lost because of the Apostasy.   There was no need to keep it on the earth in its entirety

 

To preserve it for 2000 years by interfering with the agency of men who had the freedom "to get it wrong", was just not necessary.

 

BUT- what was most important was to get a "preliminary" gospel out throughout the world so that at least the name of Jesus Christ would not be forgotten, so that the idea of the atonement and forgiveness of sins would be known throughout the world.  And THAT creedal "Christianity" did, and we should be thankful for that.

 

They kept most of the "milk" but lost the "meat" which was easy for God to restore.

Edited March 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

Why do people keep dodging this question? 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.

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

I don't see how your finding fault with God does us any good or advances the discussion.  Many people have given up on God solely due to the Holocaust of Jews by the Nazis, but is that the correct test of an authentic God?  You seem to be allowing your preconceptions to overwhelm your sense of logic and history.

 

Perhaps you would like to write a book on Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, but that title is already taken.  The bottom line is that God does things in his own good time, and not according to our fallible demands.  Meantime, this life is a test, a real test, not an Alice in Wonderland jaunt through the park.  Pretending doesn't get it.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Rather than pontificate on those questions, I would direct your attention to the best, detailed descriptions of that Apostasy:

 

Hugh Nibley, "The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme," Church History, 20 (June 1961):131-154 (available online at http://twochurchesonly.com/supmat/02/nibley/nibley_the_passing_of_the_primitive_church_-_forty_variations_on_an_unpopular_theme.pdf).  This was not a Mormon journal, and Nibley was quickly attacked by Hans J. Hillerbrand, and was defended by a great non-Mormon scholar, Robert M. Grant.  To date, no adequate reply to Nibley has been published.

Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 15 (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret, 2005).  Systematic history of Christianity through the rise of Roman Catholicism.

[Freedom]

Say you were talking to a Muslim and he claimed God/Allah wouldn't use angels to reveal doctrine like Joseph Smith claimed. You would probably give a standard response mentioning various Bible and Book of Mormon verses. But it would also be a good point to mention that Muhammad claimed to receive he Koran from an angel. Of course, you don't actually believe an angel gave Muhammad the Koran, but it could still be useful to mention the Islamic belief to defend your own. That may not be your style of witnessing, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid point to make.

 

Why do people keep dodging this question? 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.

 

From what I've heard about the LDS story of the pre-mortal existence and the plan of salvation, an important part of the test was having a veil over us so we don't remember and dealing with sin temptation. Will that be true in the next test? Will we still have to deal with the veil and temptation?

This is ironic. So your argument is that God would always have his gospel available for everyone at all times, yet you reject the Book of Mormon which is an example of God providing his gospel for everyone. What about the chinese during the time of the early church, did they have the gospel? What about the people of south Africa in 133 AD. Did they have the gospel? What books did they use? What about the Inuit? You are presenting arguments that contradict your own position. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

You're equivocating again.  My point is that Jesus explicitly saw the higher value in spiritual testimony, while you give it second tier status.

 

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

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

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?

I have no problem with your examples, and I can supply many more besides of normative Christian testimony of the Spirit -- which suddenly takes a back seat as soon as Mormonism comes up for discussion.  I attribute that partly to hypocrisy of such so-called "christians," but also to their unscriptural dependence upon human logic and sola scriptura to settle all questions.  You need to own that failure of setting proper priorities.

 

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.

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

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?

I don't mind anyone using the brain God gave them, but I strenuously object to the heresy of denying the power of the Holy Spirit as the primary source of knowledge.  Mormons are as logical as anyone, and are quite well educated, but do not ever give short shrift to the Holy Spirit.

 

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?

Finding fault with God for his own timetable and decision-making seems to be your preferred plan.  I would advise against it, but to each his own.

 

 

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?

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

A lot of human life just doesn't seem fair, but are you going to continue to blame God?  Or are the Mormons the culprits?  Sounds like a blame game to me.  I would advise instead that you face reality squarely and unflinchingly.  I realize that most people prefer not to do that.  Too painful . . .

[NotaMormon]

I don't see how your finding fault with God does us any good or advances the discussion.  Many people have given up on God solely due to the Holocaust of Jews by the Nazis, but is that the correct test of an authentic God?  You seem to be allowing your preconceptions to overwhelm your sense of logic and history.

 

Perhaps you would like to write a book on Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, but that title is already taken.  The bottom line is that God does things in his own good time, and not according to our fallible demands.  Meantime, this life is a test, a real test, not an Alice in Wonderland jaunt through the park.  Pretending doesn't get it.

I'm not finding fault with God. I'm finding fault with LDS claims about God. The God of the Bible, the one authentic God, showed He was perfectly willing to supernaturally protect and preserve His people, even if it meant interfering with their free will. He showed He responded to His people when they called out to Him for help. Yet when LDS claim God let the church fall away so quickly and didn't restore it for 1700 years despite people calling out to Him, I'm just supposed to accept it? Why?

 

What logic says God had to wait 1700 years to restore the church? I've heard some people bring up the lack of religious freedom or a printing press, but that sounds like the logic of the world. God's logic says He's not hindered by those human limitations.

 

It still doesn't answer the question. 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.

 

This is ironic. So your argument is that God would always have his gospel available for everyone at all times, yet you reject the Book of Mormon which is an example of God providing his gospel for everyone. What about the chinese during the time of the early church, did they have the gospel? What about the people of south Africa in 133 AD. Did they have the gospel? What books did they use? What about the Inuit? You are presenting arguments that contradict your own position. 

Yes. God is all knowing and all powerful, right? Wouldn't you agree? So if He knew someone in China during the early church would have responded to the Gospel, isn't He smart enough to figure out a way to either get the Gospel to them or bring them to the Gospel? Why wouldn't God be smart and powerful enough to figure it out?

 

I have no problem with your examples, and I can supply many more besides of normative Christian testimony of the Spirit -- which suddenly takes a back seat as soon as Mormonism comes up for discussion.  I attribute that partly to hypocrisy of such so-called "christians," but also to their unscriptural dependence upon human logic and sola scriptura to settle all questions.  You need to own that failure of setting proper priorities.

You didn't answer the question. Since people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences, how can we know what the truth is?

 

I don't mind anyone using the brain God gave them, but I strenuously object to the heresy of denying the power of the Holy Spirit as the primary source of knowledge.  Mormons are as logical as anyone, and are quite well educated, but do not ever give short shrift to the Holy Spirit.

Was Paul denying the power of the Holy Spirit? Is there anything in Acts 17 to suggest Paul was teaching the Jews and Greeks to seek the Holy Spirit as he primary source of knowledge? Or what about Acts as a whole? Is there any indication the apostles were teaching the 'Holy Spirit as the primary source of knowledge' along with their gospel preaching? I'm not giving short shrift to the Holy Spirit. I'm only following the examples the apostles give in Acts. Can you find any examples of Gospel preaching that support your point?

 

Finding fault with God for his own timetable and decision-making seems to be your preferred plan.  I would advise against it, but to each his own.

I have no problem with God's timetable. The timetable that God talks about in the Bible involved "some" and "many" people in the church following false teachers. You could interpret those passages as saying the whole church would fall away, but I would advise against eisigesis.

[Anakin7]

Will ye also go away ?.

 

In His Debt?Grace

       Anakin7

[Bobbieaware]

I'm not finding fault with God. I'm finding fault with LDS claims about God. The God of the Bible, the one authentic God, showed He was perfectly willing to supernaturally protect and preserve His people, even if it meant interfering with their free will. He showed He responded to His people when they called out to Him for help. Yet when LDS claim God let the church fall away so quickly and didn't restore it for 1700 years despite people calling out to Him, I'm just supposed to accept it? Why?

What logic says God had to wait 1700 years to restore the church? I've heard some people bring up the lack of religious freedom or a printing press, but that sounds like the logic of the world. God's logic says He's not hindered by those human limitations.

It still doesn't answer the question. 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.

Yes. God is all knowing and all powerful, right? Wouldn't you agree? So if He knew someone in China during the early church would have responded to the Gospel, isn't He smart enough to figure out a way to either get the Gospel to them or bring them to the Gospel? Why wouldn't God be smart and powerful enough to figure it out?

You didn't answer the question. Since people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experienuces, how can we know what the truth is?

Was Paul denying the power of the Holy Spirit? Is there anything in Acts 17 to suggest Paul was teaching the Jews and Greeks to seek the Holy Spirit as he primary source of knowledge? Or what about Acts as a whole? Is there any indication the apostles were teaching the 'Holy Spirit as the primary source of knowledge' along with their gospel preaching? I'm not giving short shrift to the Holy Spirit. I'm only following the examples the apostles give in Acts. Can you find any examples of Gospel preaching that support your point?

I have no problem with God's timetable. The timetable that God talks about in the Bible involved "some" and "many" people in the church following false teachers. You could interpret those passages as saying the whole church would fall away, but I would advise against eisigesis.

There is no adequate substitute for actually hearing the word of God preached by an authorized teacher of the gospel.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom THEY HAVE NOT HEARD? and how shall they hear WITHOUT A PREACHER?

15 And how shall they preach, EXCEPT THEY SENT? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10)

The Latter-day Saints know the only way the "great commission" of the Savior to preach the gospel TO EVERY CREATURE can be effectively fulfilled is to literally do exactly as the Lord commanded, that is literally preach the gospel to EVRY CREATURE. The Latter-day Saints know there will not be a single human being at the final judgement who will have to raise his or her hand and say, "why didn't I get the chance to properly hear the gospel of a Jesus Christ so that I could have the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel by my own free willful?"

Just as Paul said, the only way someone can have a fair opportunity to accept or reject the gospel is if a preacher who is ordained of God is sent to preach the message of God's peace to them. And so it will be. There won't be a single soul who will not have ample opportunity to accept the gospel by exercising faith in Christ and receiving a remission of sins by repentance. If you're honest with yourself, you'll have to admit this wonderfully just and fair method of gospel propagation is a lot better than your vague, "uncertain signal" method of spreading the good news, if indeed such a "non-method" of gospel propagation can indeed be called a method.

You're never going to be able to convince a Latter-day Saint with a vibrant testimony of the restored gospel that the highly imperfect, capricious, unjust and unfair gospel you believe in -- something unworthy of a perfectly loving, just and merciful God -- is something worth leaving the LDS church over. With your God's way of doing things, he may as well not even bother to spread the gospel message, since it's already known who is and who is not going to be saved. Why not just spare everyone all the trials and heartaches associated with the gospel and just save whomever would be saved if they had the opportunity to receive the gospel.

Questions: Since God surely has the power and wisdom to be able to make sure the gospel is spread in the way understood and believed by the LDS church, why wouldn't he do it that way? Did not God endow all of us with free will? So why would he not give every man and woman the precious opportunity to exercise that free will in the most important decision they will ever make in all of eternity? Speaking of free will, Paul says someone cannot believe and exercise faith in a God without actually hearing the gospel taught by an authorized preacher.

I rejoice every day with the sure knowledge that every living soul will have ample opportunity to receive the gospel, and this wonderful knowledge fills my soul with praise and honor every time I pray to my God. To each his own.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Spammer]

Rather than pontificate on those questions, I would direct your attention to the best, detailed descriptions of that Apostasy:

 

Hugh Nibley, "The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme," Church History, 20 (June 1961):131-154 (available online at http://twochurchesonly.com/supmat/02/nibley/nibley_the_passing_of_the_primitive_church_-_forty_variations_on_an_unpopular_theme.pdf).  This was not a Mormon journal, and Nibley was quickly attacked by Hans J. Hillerbrand, and was defended by a great non-Mormon scholar, Robert M. Grant.  To date, no adequate reply to Nibley has been published.

Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 15 (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret, 2005).  Systematic history of Christianity through the rise of Roman Catholicism.

 

Thanks.  I'll check it out.  

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

The key for truth is Acts 17:11

 

http://i.imgur.com/U86wAqx.jpg

[JLHPROF]

The key for truth is Acts 17:11

 

http://i.imgur.com/U86wAqx.jpg

 

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

 

Agreed.

But people interpret "scripture" differently.

 

In fact, if you take that verse in context it is referring to the established OT of the time, not Christian NT.

I wonder if they would have accepted the addition of new books of scripture?

[UtahTexan]

I'm not finding fault with God. I'm finding fault with LDS claims about God. The God of the Bible, the one authentic God, showed He was perfectly willing to supernaturally protect and preserve His people, even if it meant interfering with their free will. He showed He responded to His people when they called out to Him for help. Yet when LDS claim God let the church fall away so quickly and didn't restore it for 1700 years despite people calling out to Him, I'm just supposed to accept it? Why?

 

What logic says God had to wait 1700 years to restore the church? I've heard some people bring up the lack of religious freedom or a printing press, but that sounds like the logic of the world. God's logic says He's not hindered by those human limitations.

 

It still doesn't answer the question. 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.

 

Yes. God is all knowing and all powerful, right? Wouldn't you agree? So if He knew someone in China during the early church would have responded to the Gospel, isn't He smart enough to figure out a way to either get the Gospel to them or bring them to the Gospel? Why wouldn't God be smart and powerful enough to figure it out?

 

You didn't answer the question. Since people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences, how can we know what the truth is?

 

Was Paul denying the power of the Holy Spirit? Is there anything in Acts 17 to suggest Paul was teaching the Jews and Greeks to seek the Holy Spirit as he primary source of knowledge? Or what about Acts as a whole? Is there any indication the apostles were teaching the 'Holy Spirit as the primary source of knowledge' along with their gospel preaching? I'm not giving short shrift to the Holy Spirit. I'm only following the examples the apostles give in Acts. Can you find any examples of Gospel preaching that support your point?

 

I have no problem with God's timetable. The timetable that God talks about in the Bible involved "some" and "many" people in the church following false teachers. You could interpret those passages as saying the whole church would fall away, but I would advise against eisigesis.

 

Gosh....1700 years seem like a long time for you?

 

It took over 2000 years for God to Send Jesus, despite the constant prayers for Him....was that too long for you, too?  God was still present those 1700 years......the authority and full truth was not.  

 

Do you think your time is God's time?  Do you feel the authority to question God?

 

If the time is not something you think is reasonable, then it MUST be false?

 

Why is that?

[NotaMormon]

Gosh....1700 years seem like a long time for you?

 

It took over 2000 years for God to Send Jesus, despite the constant prayers for Him....was that too long for you, too?  God was still present those 1700 years......the authority and full truth was not.  

 

Do you think your time is God's time?  Do you feel the authority to question God?

 

If the time is not something you think is reasonable, then it MUST be false?

 

Why is that?

Right, if we start at Adam, it took God at least 4000 years to send Jesus. But everyone during those 4000 years could have been fully following God if they wanted to. There's no indication God removed His core teachings from the earth at any time.

 

What about people during the 1700 years who sincerely wanted to follow God? Did they have the option to fully follow God's plan? How was God respecting their agency if they wanted to follow the Gospel, but couldn't because it wouldn't be restored for 1000 years?

 

Yes, I know they will all have the option to follow the Gospel in the next life. Since everyone will hear the Gospel in the next life, why should people today join the Mormon church at all? Since they could get the same rewards if they accept the gospel in the next life, why shouldn't they just stay a Catholic/Protestant/Muslim and receive the true Gospel in the next life? If there are any extra blessings for joining the church in this life, then why didn't God give people during those 1700 years the chance to experience those blessings?

[Robert F. Smith]

Right, if we start at Adam, it took God at least 4000 years to send Jesus. But everyone during those 4000 years could have been fully following God if they wanted to. There's no indication God removed His core teachings from the earth at any time.

Empty assertions, with no historical fact to back it up.

 

What about people during the 1700 years who sincerely wanted to follow God? Did they have the option to fully follow God's plan? How was God respecting their agency if they wanted to follow the Gospel, but couldn't because it wouldn't be restored for 1000 years?

Most people on this planet lived in Asia during that period, and there is no evidence that they or people on other continents (most of Africa, the Western Hemisphere, Australia, etc.) had an opportunity to hear the Gospel preached.  Most of humanity has never heard it preached.  Your reckless condemnation of God for that oversight speaks volumes about the kind of empty religion you espouse.

 

Yes, I know they will all have the option to follow the Gospel in the next life. Since everyone will hear the Gospel in the next life, why should people today join the Mormon church at all? Since they could get the same rewards if they accept the gospel in the next life, why shouldn't they just stay a Catholic/Protestant/Muslim and receive the true Gospel in the next life? If there are any extra blessings for joining the church in this life, then why didn't God give people during those 1700 years the chance to experience those blessings?

There are no "extra blessings" for accepting the Gospel in this life (where do you get these sick notions?).  The same reward awaits all those who accept the Gospel, whether in the morning or the afternoon, whether in this life or the next.  The price has already been paid by our Savior.  All who come to this Earth are here to be tested and to gain experience.  Their performance is measured on the fair basis which only God can apply; as stated by St. Paul:  They who have not the Law are a law unto themselves.

 

You spend an inordinate amount of time and space straining out gnats and swallowing camels.  Your priorities are backwards.

[Vance]

Since everyone will hear the Gospel in the next life, why should people today join the Mormon church at all?

Why delay the blessings of the Gospel?

 

Since they could get the same rewards if they accept the gospel in the next life, why shouldn't they just stay a Catholic/Protestant/Muslim and receive the true Gospel in the next life?

Why reject the Gospel in this life?  Why not get the blessings of the Gospel in this life as well?

 

If there are any extra blessings for joining the church in this life, then why didn't God give people during those 1700 years the chance to experience those blessings?

Why should God force people to accept something that they rejected?

[NotaMormon]

Empty assertions, with no historical fact to back it up.

Do you have any historical facts to contradict what I said? There's plenty of passages in the OT of God protecting and preserving His people. Are those not historical facts?

You still haven't answered the questions. 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.

Since people in other faiths have also had powerful spiritual experiences, how can we know what the truth is?

Most people on this planet lived in Asia during that period, and there is no evidence that they or people on other continents (most of Africa, the Western Hemisphere, Australia, etc.) had an opportunity to hear the Gospel preached. Most of humanity has never heard it preached. Your reckless condemnation of God for that oversight speaks volumes about the kind of empty religion you espouse.

Do you agree that God exists outside of time? Do you agree that God is all powerful and all knowing? If so, why is it unreasonable to believe that if God knew someone would respond to His message, He would have either made sure they got to the message or the message got to them? Just because someone hasn't heard the Gospel doesn't mean God doesn't know how they would respond if they heard it.

There are no "extra blessings" for accepting the Gospel in this life.

So why should any Catholic, Protestant or Muslim convert to the LDS church? Why not avoid the complications from a change like that and just receive the Gospel in the next life?

Why should God force people to accept something that they rejected?

If the apostasy happened in the 1st century, then it was the early church rejecting the Gospel. What does that have to do with people who lived 100 or 1000 years later? Since the Gospel was already gone, they never had a chance to accept or reject it while on earth. Many of those later people sincerely wanted to follow God. Why would God wait so much longer when there were people who wanted to follow Him?

Why delay the blessings of the Gospel?

Why reject the Gospel in this life? Why not get the blessings of the Gospel in this life as well?

Did the sincere believers during those 1700 years have a chance to experience the blessings of the Gospel during their life on earth? How was God respecting their agency? Edited March 24, 2015 by NotaMormon

[The Nehor]

Right, if we start at Adam, it took God at least 4000 years to send Jesus. But everyone during those 4000 years could have been fully following God if they wanted to. There's no indication God removed His core teachings from the earth at any time.

 

What about people during the 1700 years who sincerely wanted to follow God? Did they have the option to fully follow God's plan? How was God respecting their agency if they wanted to follow the Gospel, but couldn't because it wouldn't be restored for 1000 years?

 

Yes, I know they will all have the option to follow the Gospel in the next life. Since everyone will hear the Gospel in the next life, why should people today join the Mormon church at all? Since they could get the same rewards if they accept the gospel in the next life, why shouldn't they just stay a Catholic/Protestant/Muslim and receive the true Gospel in the next life? If there are any extra blessings for joining the church in this life, then why didn't God give people during those 1700 years the chance to experience those blessings?

 

Really, so in 2000 BC the Chinese had an opportunity to hear the gospel if they sought it? Icelanders? Subsaharan Africans? Indians? Probably not without quite a trek. In fact if you take the Bible as the only gospel truth around you really only had a chance if you were lucky and met the patriarchs and later only if you were around Israel and/or Judah and met an Israelite. Don't pretend that your way offers the gospel to everyone. It didn't unless you happened to be a European from about the fifth century on. In your version you were royally screwed if you lived in the Americas before Columbus.

 

There are blessings for living the gospel in this life. Happiness for one. As to waiting.....why? Because you are afraid of the truth and the sacrifices it might require? Because it would be hard? Better to let sleeping dogs lie and hope God does not blame you for any harm you do by not embracing the truth? I would not hold out much hope that such a timid weakling would accept the gospel in the next life in any case.

 

Some never got the opportunity. I don't know why. A lot of it probably has to do with what we qualified for in Premortality but that is no sure indicator. God knows what is best. The LDS faith does offer hope for those who never got the chance. Other faiths generally do not.

[The Nehor]

Do you agree that God exists outside of time? Do you agree that God is all powerful and all knowing? If so, why is it unreasonable to believe that if God knew someone would respond to His message, He would have either made sure they got to the message or the message got to them? Just because someone hasn't heard the Gospel doesn't mean God doesn't know how they would respond if they heard it.

So why should any Catholic, Protestant or Muslim convert to the LDS church? Why not avoid the complications from a change like that and just receive the Gospel in the next life?

 

That is a facile argument. You can use the same logic to say that God who knows all could make sure those who were going to be damned anyways would live during the years of the apostasy. You cut apart your own accusation.

 

As to waiting to the next life: Maybe because hopefully said Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims have courage and are not a bunch of cowards. C.S. Lewis calls out this sadsack behavior better then I can though he does it in a more general Christian sense:

 

"Can't you live a good life without believing in Christianity?' This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, 'I don't care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I'm not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more like what the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I'm interested in is leading a good life. I'm going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.' Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts -to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."

 

If the LDS faith is true one should follow it. If it is not you should not. Choosing a religion based solely on what happens to be most pleasing to you personally or what you happen to like is cowardice. If Azathoth were the true power in the Universe I would want to know even though it would be horrifying.

 

But why not in the next life? Well, if you do not accept and live the true gospel you are doing less good then you could have done. You could have led others to the truth, lifted up your fellow men, blessed them in ways you could not otherwise do, counseled them with pure doctrine but you decided not to because it was too much trouble and you figured God would forgive your sloth and indolence. How could anyone be that selfish and live with themselves? I would hate myself. Most of us know people who knowingly live lies to avoid complications and responsibilities and all of the ones I have met have been uniformly shrunken miserable people.

 

If you insist on being practical and only concerned with your own eternal well-being (at this point you are damned anyways of course) gospel teaching is clear that those who reject the gospel in this life after being given a fair chance (and we do not know what that entails for each individual) and accepts it in the next life they receive a lesser glory.