Logic and Reason - Alma, Paul, President Nelson

[theplains]

On 10/26/2019 at 12:01 AM, mfbukowski said:

Doesn't look to me like the gates are exactly "prevailing" against Christ, nor do they prevail against his church, just as he told Peter.

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."

This depicts a church that cannot be destroyed.  That's why I disagree with the depiction given in the
1997 Gospel Principles. See earlier post just one above.   Fortunately that statement was removed
in the current version.

Jim

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."

This depicts a church that cannot be destroyed.  That's why I disagree with the depiction given in the
1997 Gospel Principles. See earlier post just one above.   Fortunately that statement was removed
in the current version.

Jim

And it was not destroyed. The woman was taken away into heaven to flee the dragon’s wrath. Now it came back to Earth.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

On 10/24/2019 at 2:18 AM, InCognitus said:

I think the Gospel Principles manual says something slightly different than that.

As mentioned in the 1997 version:

"The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and 
more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete.
The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great 
Apostasy."

When I said the Gospel Principles manual says something slightly different than that, I was referring to the context of what was "destroyed" as it is said in the 1997 edition.  As you can see from your quote (from what I put in bold), the "destruction" in that context had to do with the organization of the apostles and prophets.  There were also true teachings that were either lost or contested by various groups, and confusion resulted (and persists today).

The 2009 edition says essentially the same thing, and again it's clear that it is talking about the organization of the apostles and prophets.  It also references the loss of priesthood keys.  Compare the paragraph titled "Apostasy from the True Church" on page 105 of the 1997 edition to the paragraph by the same name on pages 91-92 of the 2009 edition:

Quote

Throughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. This happened while the Apostles were still alive and supervising the young, growing Church. Some members taught ideas from their old pagan or Jewish beliefs instead of the simple truths taught by Jesus. Some rebelled openly. In addition, there was persecution from outside the Church. Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed or otherwise taken from the earth. Because of wickedness and apostasy, the apostolic authority and priesthood keys were also taken from the earth. The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.

So you can call it "destruction" or "dissolution" of the organization, but the end result is the same:  The God chosen and inspired leaders of the church were removed by evil men (just as Paul prophesied), and without the organization that Jesus established (of apostles and prophets, etc.), the Christians who were left (after the faithful were martyred) became as "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:11-14)  Isn't that what we see in general Christianity today?   Or do you believe all have come to a unity of the faith and we no longer need the apostles and prophets and the organization established by Jesus discussed in those verses in Ephesians?

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe that the kingdom of the 10 toes is a future revival of the Roman Empire; partly strongly,
partly weak.  Some have referenced this as the same kingdom of Revelation 17:12-14.

So you do not believe that the kingdom of God has come yet (the stone cut out of the mountain without hands)?   I'm trying to understand.  And if the feet and toes of iron and clay are to be a future revival of the Roman Empire, then isn't there a rather large gap of time between the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, when no kingdom existed that fits with what is in Daniel's vision?   I understand that vision to be describing types of kingdoms in a continued sequence of events through time (from the time of king Nebuchadnezzar onward).  And of the legs of iron (Rome), it says "the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken." (Dan 2:41-42)  I understand that to be the kingdoms and governments that came about after the decline of the Roman Empire that continue to this day in the European nations and elsewhere.  They all (and we) have been influenced by Rome in language and law, and in many ways (iron mixed with clay).  The kingdom of God is to roll forth at the time of these nations, and I see that to have been kicked off with the restoration of the gospel and reestablishment of the organization of apostles and prophets, the priesthood, and priesthood keys.  And that is the kingdom that shall never be destroyed or left to another people.

3 hours ago, theplains said:

2 Thessalonians 2:7 - "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth 
will let, until he be taken out of the way.
 
2 Thessalonians 2:8 - "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume 
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming"

The man of sin is not referenced in verse 7, but iniquity is always there; caused by Satan. I believe
this man of sin will be revealed in the future when the Holy Spirit is taken away (v. 7).  The Holy
Spirit is the restraining influence.  The man of sin will deceive people with "all power and signs and
lying wonders."  He will be destroyed at the Second Coming.

The ESV translates it this way:  "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.   And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming."   It's the same word for "lawless[ness]" in both verses.   So my understanding is that it's talking about exactly the same thing, and it was already begun by Satan during Paul's lifetime.  

Thanks for your input on that.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."

This depicts a church that cannot be destroyed.

I'm sure you saw my posts addressing this verse, and from mfbukowski.  In light of that discussion, what do you believe are the "gates of Hades" mentioned in this verse that shall not prevail against the church?  And how could this mean that the church would never fall into apostasy?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."

This depicts a church that cannot be destroyed.  That's why I disagree with the depiction given in the
1997 Gospel Principles. See earlier post just one above.   Fortunately that statement was removed
in the current version.

Jim

No, it does not say that!  It doesn't say it would OR would not be destroyed- it says that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, not that it could never be destroyed.  As I said earlier, Christ held the "keys to the gates of hell"- remember the paintings?

The keys were transferred to the church, but later the church was not "destroyed"- clearly- but the church lost that authority because work for the dead was stopped.  Baptism for the dead etc ended up being prayers for souls in Purgatory- the doctrine was changed.

The church was never destroyed either- just key doctrines and understandings and the authority was lost.   If it had been "destroyed" no one would have heard the name of Jesus for 1800 years and no one would know what Joseph was even talking about when he spoke of this man called "Jesus the Christ".

So much of the church survived- scriptures survived, the idea of the atonement survived, and many practices and ceremonies even survived.   Key doctrine and authority was lost- but the church itself survived!

And remember the words were spoken in Aramaic, and then quoted years later by presumably Matthew (?) who was not an apostle and and not an eyewitness to the event, and written in Greek.  Then 1600 years later this allegedly "correct" words were thawed out and written in English, and the above is the result.

Clearly the way it is written is ambiguous or we would not be talking about it today.  As you quoted it above, the meaning is not clear!!

So if THAT is not clear who knows what words Christ actually said to Peter 1800 years ago in Aramaic?

Why is it so ambiguous today if it is supposedly perfectly "God breathed"?

 

[Meadowchik]

Using the assurances of adherents as an assurance that future adherents won't apostatise seems a bit circular. Perhaps the more faithful approach is to acknowledge the constant vulnerability of people, especially those in positions of power, and to instead endeavour to be loyal to more transcendental values.

[theplains]

On 10/30/2019 at 8:19 PM, The Nehor said:

And it was not destroyed. The woman was taken away into heaven to flee the dragon’s wrath. Now it came back to Earth.

Where does it say the woman was taken into heaven?

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 10/30/2019 at 11:29 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm sure you saw my posts addressing this verse, and from mfbukowski.  In light of that discussion, what do you believe are the "gates of Hades" mentioned in this verse that shall not prevail against the church?  And how could this mean that the church would never fall into apostasy?

I think the gates of hades could be a figurative depiction of Satan's control and influence and that the
church of Christ is advancing/growing and Satan cannot destroy it (unlike what GP said in the 1997
version).

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 10/31/2019 at 1:16 AM, mfbukowski said:

And remember the words were spoken in Aramaic, and then quoted years later by presumably Matthew (?) who was not an apostle and and not an eyewitness to the event, and written in Greek.  Then 1600 years later this allegedly "correct" words were thawed out and written in English, and the above is the result.

Clearly the way it is written is ambiguous or we would not be talking about it today.  As you quoted it above, the meaning is not clear!!

So if THAT is not clear who knows what words Christ actually said to Peter 1800 years ago in Aramaic?

Why is it so ambiguous today if it is supposedly perfectly "God breathed"?

The LDS Church issued a slightly modified version of the scriptures in 2013.

https://mormonbible.org/holy-bible/bible-study/lds-church-releases-new-edition-of-english-scriptures

In Alma 12:31,the 2013 version has:

"Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to
things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil ...

The earlier version has Gods.

Is there a theological/doctrinal change by switching Gods to gods?

Thanks,
Jim

[InCognitus]

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

I think the gates of hades could be a figurative depiction of Satan's control and influence and that the
church of Christ is advancing/growing and Satan cannot destroy it (unlike what GP said in the 1997
version).

What does "Hades" have to do with Satan?   Nothing that I can find (here's a Wiki example:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hades)

And there is this from Strongs:

  ᾅδης, hádēs ; g86
From     α {g1} (as a negative particle) and εἴδω {g1492}
Mean     properly unseen, i.e., “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls
KJV     grave, hell
TGL     11
(Α ᾅδης–ᾅδης TGL)
 

Where do you find any connection between Satan's control and influence, and Hades?

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church issued a slightly modified version of the scriptures in 2013.

https://mormonbible.org/holy-bible/bible-study/lds-church-releases-new-edition-of-english-scriptures

In Alma 12:31,the 2013 version has:

"Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to
things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil ...

The earlier version has Gods.

Is there a theological/doctrinal change by switching Gods to gods?

This was already discussed and answered in this thread:   http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72205-becoming-gods/?do=findComment&comment=1209928646

 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church issued a slightly modified version of the scriptures in 2013.

https://mormonbible.org/holy-bible/bible-study/lds-church-releases-new-edition-of-english-scriptures

In Alma 12:31,the 2013 version has:

"Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to
things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil ...

The earlier version has Gods.

Is there a theological/doctrinal change by switching Gods to gods?

Thanks,
Jim

Well I think "AS" in the wording makes it clear we are not talking about being fully God, but just somewhat like, or "as" God.  I see that change as a simple clarification, with no theological implications intended. Just knowing good from Evil is a very minor similarity to God, yes but in order to be "like" God one needs to know good from evil.!

So it is one godly attribute among an infinite number of attributes that one needs to actually be God.

It's a good change and kind of a subtle nuance.!

[theplains]

On 11/7/2019 at 8:00 PM, InCognitus said:

What does "Hades" have to do with Satan?   Nothing that I can find (here's a Wiki example:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hades)

And there is this from Strongs:

  ᾅδης, hádēs ; g86
From     α {g1} (as a negative particle) and εἴδω {g1492}
Mean     properly unseen, i.e., “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls
KJV     grave, hell
TGL     11
(Α ᾅδης–ᾅδης TGL)
 

Where do you find any connection between Satan's control and influence, and Hades?

Hope https://www.gotquestions.org/gates-of-hell.html shows my point of view.

Thanks,
Jim