Another Gospel

[Robert_in_SD]

Zakuska:

By making a choice they are forbbiding themselves to marry. The only reason for a man to leave his parents is for marriage. And the only reason to leave marriage is due to a death. (No Divorce was allowed)

Gen. 2: 24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matt. 19: 5
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mark 10: 7
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Eph. 5: 31
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Again, the LDS on this thread have avoided the primary issue that they raised - the Great Apostacy - and moved into the the attack on a celibate priesthood.

First, the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. The church upholds the dignity of marriage as a sacrament that symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church. (Eph. 5:21-33.) If anything, I would say that the Catholic and LDS Churches together uphold the institution more than any other christian church. For different reasons we both recognize marriage as a holy institution initiated by God.

As a matter of discipline (not doctrine) priests in the latin rite of the Church are required to renounce sex for the sake of the Kingdom of God. No one is ever forced by the Church to become an ordained priest. It is a willing choice made by the individual. Jesus praises those who would freely renounce sex for the Kingdom of God. (Mt. 19:12.)

St. Paul’s denunciation of those who forbid marriage applies to those groups who rejected marriage *entirely * as though it were evil in itself. Paul is warning against a false spirituality that holds any part of God’s creation - including marriage - to be evil (1 Tim 4:1-4.)

St. Paul is obviously not condemning celibacy as he himself was single and therefore celibate. (1 Cor 7:8.) St. Paul even strongly recommends celibacy for those who would devote themselves to the ministry:

[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (RSV;CE 1 Cor 7:32-35.)

Since St. Paul only highly recommended celibacy, but did not command it, the Church requirs celibacy of her priests as a discipline (as opposed to a doctrine) - for which there have been exceptions made on many occasions. Married Anglican priests have, on occasion, become Catholic priests while continuing to be married. So, the Catholic position on celibacy is most consistent with Scripture, unlike the LDS position that seems to command marriage for all of its bishops - contrary to St. Paul’s strong exhortations.

Why is it that the LDS Church has so few - if any - unmarried bishops notwithstanding St. Paul’s *strong recommendation * that one be unmarried and celibate to participate at such a level of ministry? (1 Cor 7:32-35.)

But again, LDS Church doctrines cannot be declared with any sense of authority until the Church establishes itself as the one true restored Church, and it cannot do that until it establishes the truth of the Great Apostasy which - as a matter of history - never occurred.

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zakuska:

Its specualted that Paul was a widower.

Marriage was good enough for Peter why not the current pope?

You seriously need an answer to that question?
Because the current pope excersised free agency and entered into the priesthood, and made a vow of celibacy, Peter was already married when he was given the Papacy by Christ and did not require the pre-requisite of marriage or celibacy for the office of bishop, he let these men choose one or the other as long they fell within the guidlines for the pre-requisites stated in 1 Tim.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Zakuska:

Yes I love this verse in Galations… however one must ask ones self.

Rev 14
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

If the earth ahs (sic) the Gosepl why does an angel have to come back with it from heaven?

Again, your comment presupposes a Great Apostasy rather than relying upon the Scripture passage to prove it. The context of the Scripture passage does not suggest or even require one to infer a need for a restoration of the Gospel. There is no reason why God’s angelic creatures cannot also proclaim the Gospel while the Church on earth is simultaneously engaged in the same process. It is only your presupposition - that there was no true Church - that calls for an interpretation that this angel is “restoring” a “lost” Gospel by “returning” it to the Earth. Re-read the entire chapter. Nothing in the passage suggests that the Gospel was lost to the Earth prior to the angel’s declaration. You are reading your own interpretation into this text.

One final thought. Assuming for the sake of argument that your interpretation of this passage is correct and the Gospel is nowhere on the Earth at the end times so it must be literally returned by an angel, then the Gospel is not in the LDS Church either, unless you also believe that the end times started in the early 1800s when Joseph Smith received the golden tablets from Moroni. In other words this flawed argument cuts both ways. If there is no true Gospel on Earth at the end times, then there is no true Gospel in either the Catholic or the LDS church, or any other church on Earth for that matter.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

Its specualted that Paul was a widower.

Marriage was good enough for Peter why not the current pope?

Peter was most likely a widower too. Peter’s wife is never mentioned in Scripture, the only way we know he was once married is the references to his monther-in-law in Matthew 8 and Luke 4.

 

[Zakuska]

Robert,

It is a prequisite for LDS to be married to be a bishop. It is also another Prequisite that they never have been divorced. Usually Bishops are chosen who are empty nesters who have raised their families. So they can give good advice to those who are raising their families.

Was it not frounded upon by the Lord to not practice what you preach?

You also have not dealt with the fact that the prior was Pauls opinion. The latter was a direct explicit saying from the Lord.

Second I did not lauch into an attacking the celebacy… I specificaly gave examples of where Apostasy appeared in the Bible… when the beast overcame the saints and killed them.

As a matter of discipline (not doctrine) priests in the latin rite of the Church are required to renounce sex for the sake of the Kingdom of God. No one is ever forced by the Church to become an ordained priest. It is a willing choice made by the individual. Jesus praises those who would freely renounce sex for the Kingdom of God. (Mt. 19:12.)

Whats funny is this is in the section on eternal marriage where the Savior renounces Divorce. But again Marriage comes first and then empty nester are praised for fuffilling this obligation and wroking in the Kingdom.

 

[tkdnick]

Zakuska:

Its specualted that Paul was a widower.

Marriage was good enough for Peter why not the current pope?

Most agree that Peter was a widower, not a married man.

 

[Zakuska]

Yes he had fuffilled his obligation of Marriage so he didn’t need to marry again. But he had been married once. Thus he met the Prereq.

 

[Zakuska]

Robert in SD:

Again, your comment presupposes a Great Apostasy rather than relying upon the Scripture passage to prove it. The context of the Scripture passage does not suggest or even require one to infer a need for a restoration of the Gospel. There is no reason why God’s angelic creatures cannot also proclaim the Gospel while the Church on earth is simultaneously engaged in the same process. It is only your presupposition - that there was no true Church - that calls for an interpretation that this angel is “restoring” a “lost” Gospel by “returning” it to the Earth. Re-read the entire chapter. Nothing in the passage suggests that the Gospel was lost to the Earth prior to the angel’s declaration. You are reading your own interpretation into this text.

One final thought. Assuming for the sake of argument that your interpretation of this passage is correct and the Gospel is nowhere on the Earth at the end times so it must be literally returned by an angel, then the Gospel is not in the LDS Church either, unless you also believe that the end times started in the early 1800s when Joseph Smith received the golden tablets from Moroni. In other words this flawed argument cuts both ways. If there is no true Gospel on Earth at the end times, then there is no true Gospel in either the Catholic or the LDS church, or any other church on Earth for that matter.

Actually its not because the Agel has come to preach the Gospel and pronounce Judgment. Just as Daniel was given 490 years for his repentance. The Gentiles where given 1260. nearly 3 times as long.

Second Mormons Claim the Angel in Rev 14:6 is the Angel Moroni who brought Back the Gospel to preach. Don’t forget what happens after this Angel comes… the Harvest… prior to the second coming. So the earth loses the Gospel, the Angel brings it back. The earth is harvested and then the Lord comes.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

Yes he had fuffilled his obligation of Marriage so he didn’t need to marry again. But he had been married once. Thus he met the Prereq.

Only Peter can definitively be said to have had been married at one point. Where else do you see it even alluded that any of the other apostles were at any point in their lives married?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Zakuska:

Actually its not because the Agel has come to preach the Gospel and pronounce Judgment. Just as Daniel was given 490 years for his repentance. The Gentiles where given 1260. nearly 3 times as long.

I have no idea what you are referencing here? Nevertheless, your earlier point was that the angel of Rev. 14 is restoring the Gospel to an Earth where the Gospel no longer exists. But you have not shown - scripturally or otherwise - that that has ever been the case. Instead you are citing this passage as a restoration of the Gospel by an angel where the text does not speak of any need for such a restoration. You are presuming the Apostasy as support for your interpretation. Read the text. Show me where the angel in Rev. 14 is “restoring” a “lost” gospel to the Earth.

Zakuska:

Second Mormons Claim the Angel in Rev 14:6 is the Angel Moroni who brought *Back * [italics added] the Gospel to preach. Don’t forget what happens after this Angel comes… the Harvest… prior to the second coming. So the earth loses the Gospel, the Angel brings it back. The earth is harvested and then the Lord comes.

Where does it say in Rev. 14 that the Earth loses the Gospel? This is your presumption when reading the passage. It is not supported by the text. Indeed your interpretation runs counter to Christ’s promise in Mt. 16:13-16.

[13] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
[14] And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
[15] He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
[16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (RSV:CE Mt 16-13-18.)

A final note: I did not know that LDS believed that the angel of Rev. 14 is Moroni. That’s very interesting. But the premise seems flawed because Rev. 14 does not speak of the loss of the Gospel from the Earth, nor does it speak of the need for a restoration, nor does it anywhere say that the angel is “restoring” the Gospel to the world. Nor does the scripture speak of a private proclamation of the Gospel to a man who would found a new Church based upon a restored Gospel. Instead, the angel in Rev. 14 is making a direct proclamation to all upon the Earth, in a manner that does not suggest a new church. In most cases where the “Church” is personified, especially in Revelation, the Church is not personified as an angel, but as a woman. See Rev 12:1-2. So, I do not believe the argument can be made that the angel is both messenger and the personification of the LDS church, as it would need to be to make sense of the LDS interpretation.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

The truth that you are ignoring is that modern Christendom is an apostate institution that has distorted the true gospel of Jesus Christ to “another gospel”. The purpose of the Restoration has been to restore the original gospel as originally preached by Paul and he fellow Apostles.

Or was the purpose of the “Restoration” just one more slick attempt by Satan to attack the church that Christ established and would never abandon–the church which is his very bride? What more perfect scheme than to claim that the true church disappeared for 1700 years, but here it is now restored? Funny how in the bible has no predictions of a total apostacy, yet there are plenty of warnings of false prophets who will come to lead men astray.

How could Christ’s church ever totally apostacize? The church is his very bride, and He is the bridegroom. Would Christ let such a thing happen? Never. The church, though made of up of sinners, is protected by the Holy Spirit. It has survived 2000 years of attack from within and without, yet will never perish.

 

[arieh0310]

Chris-WA:

How could Christ’s church ever totally apostacize? The church is his very bride, and He is the bridegroom. Would Christ let such a thing happen? Never. The church, though made of up of sinners, is protected by the Holy Spirit. It has survived 2000 years of attack from within and without, yet will never perish.

Well put. LDS theology seems to make God out to be a serial screw-up. Oops, Judaism didn’t work, oops, Christianity didn’t work, ah ha, Mormonism will work. When will we have another “prophet” proclaiming another oops.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

arieh0310:

Well put. LDS theology seems to make God out to be a serial screw-up. Oops, Judaism didn’t work, oops, Christianity didn’t work, ah ha, Mormonism will work. When will we have another “prophet” proclaiming another oops.

There are several iterations of the LDS church in addition to the original that is HQ’d in SLC. E.G. - Oops the LDS church screwed up when it banned polygamy. Yes, the “oops”-es continue in the finest of Protestant tradition.

 

[edmondhall]

So, zakuska, the total apostasy is the consequence of bishops reamining celibate?!

Seriously, if there is a total break between the gospel, as Paul preached it, and the Catholic Church, then you should be able to point to something where the Catholic Church explicitly contradicts that gospel. What does the Catholic Church teach that contradicts the gospel?

Or does your judgment of an apostasy simply rest on different interpretations of Scripture? In other words, you have your interpretation I have mine. Did the the total apostasy occur because those immoral ignoramuses like Augustine and Aquinas failed to interpret Scripture correctly?

 

[edmondhall]

How could Christ’s church ever totally apostacize? The church is his very bride, and He is the bridegroom. Would Christ let such a thing happen? Never. The church, though made of up of sinners, is protected by the Holy Spirit.

I’ve posed this question before on the fairboards. Usually I get one of three responses. 1. Silence. 2. It’s Scriptural–the contorted ‘how can the gates prevail if you’re behind them’ type of reply. 3. ‘Christ’s church actually prevailed–it’s been restored–so He really didn’t fail His bride after all.’

 

[edmondhall]

Seriously, if there is a total break between the gospel, as Paul preached it, and the Catholic Church, then you should be able to point to something where the Catholic Church explicitly contradicts that gospel. What does the Catholic Church teach that contradicts the gospel?

I’ll turn the question around to illustrate what I’m asking. If Catholics regard LDS as apostate, then we should be able to find explicit contradictions with the gospel.

1. Polygamy/plural marriages in heaven. This seems to contradict NT teaching–I Cor 7:2–“But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband”
2. Eucharist as symbolic. This seems to contradict many Scriptures–such as “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29. I’m not aware of any Scripture that explicitly teaches that the Eucharist is merely symbolic “take and eat, this symbolizes my body??”
3. Let’s mention other LDS teachings from Joseph Smith which are contrary to the gospel. What’s the Scriptural basis for previously denying the priesthood to Blacks? That seems to contradict Acts 10:34 “God is not one to show partiality” Is there a Scriptural basis for claims that God the Father has flesh and bones and Jesus has a ‘brother’ in Lucifer?

My point is this: if the Catholic church has apostocized, indicate which teachings contradict the NT. Then we can have a discussion.

 

[Zakuska]

You missed the context completely. Phewt. Right over your head as usuaul. You also missed all the sacred geometria. But no worries that will come with time.

Chapter 12 is the time of Chirst when he is caught up to heaven in a cloud at his acension.

Everyone knows chapter 13… the AntiChrist comes and has his way with the Church killing it.

7** And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them:** and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

What does it mean to be “overcome” or Prevailed against?

Chapter 14 is the Dawn of the Restoration and prepearation for the Second Coming.

1 AND I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

Again if the Earth had the Gospel there would be no reason for an Angel to come from heaven with it to preach, had it not alreadfy been preached to the whole earth by the Apostles?

Could this be a final Dispensation of the Gospel?

Matthew 16:18 first where are the “gates of Hades”…?

They are at Sheol or the place of the dead. Christ is promising Peter that death will not prevail against the church. Implicilty impling that the Church would infact die. This is highlighted by the fact that this is when he began preaching his ressurection according to Matthew.

21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

 

[Zakuska]

1. Polygamy/plural marriages in heaven. This seems to contradict NT teaching–I Cor 7:2–“But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband”

So God must be a sinner then…

2 Sam 12
7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

He gave David at least 10 wives.

1. Eucharist as symbolic. This seems to contradict many Scriptures–such as “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29. I’m not aware of any Scripture that explicitly teaches that the Eucharist is merely symbolic “take and eat, this symbolizes my body??”

So what Did Christ cut a slab of celulite of his gut and have them eat it? Im unaware of any Magical change in the symbols of his Atonment. You are also Forgetting that when the veil was rent the Shewbread and drink offerings that the priests ate in the temple came out of the temple, and where offered to the world. Was all that bread that David ate actually bits and pieces of Christ?

1. Let’s mention other LDS teachings from Joseph Smith which are contrary to the gospel. What’s the Scriptural basis for previously denying the priesthood to Blacks?

Actually JS gave the Priesthood to blacks. BY denyed it because the people in general where not ready to live it. It was one of the sticks of dynamite that Got JS lynched by a mob.

Kind of like the Law being add to Moses and Israel because of transgression. The Ban was a school master until the time came rip that the Lord was ready to remove the blight from the children of light.

Is there a Scriptural basis for claims that God the Father has flesh and bones and Jesus has a ‘brother’ in Lucifer?

Lucifer and Christ brother I already explained. We are all a family and lucifer before he fell was a son of the morning. Thus he was Christs brother before he fell.

Gods body? First answer this…

2 Cor. 3: 17
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

1 Cor. 15: 45
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

No check out Luke…

Luke 24
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Why is Paul contradicting Luke? Do Spirits have bodies of Flesh and bones or Not? The Bible cant seem to make up its mind!

In context the Luke passage is talking of another type of Spirit all together. In English we call that a Ghost. Ghosts (Disembodied Spirits) Don’t have bodies. But God the Father is no Ghost. But the Holy Ghost is or he could not dwell within you.

Theres also the little matter of the Dr. Raymond Brown - Catholic theologian on the misinterpretation of John 4:24.

I got the Raymond Brown reference from Eugene Seaich’s book : Anchient Text andMormonism page 26 para #1 which says in resgards to John 4:24 -

" This is not an essentian definition of GOD, but a description of GOD’S dealing with men; it means that GOD is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit [xiv 16] which begets them anew".

Seaich also points out that :

“There are in fact two other such descriptions in John’s writtings, " GOD is light” " 1 John 1:5, GOD is "Love"1 John 4:8, thou no one has argued that GOD is a light or a species of Love. In short,one must worship the Father through the spirit which he has given to the Church John 14:16, there being no hint that he himself is “a spirit”.

If Im not mistaken… the cealing of the sisteen depicts Gods glorious body!

 

[ben_dy]

Zakuska:

You missed the context completely. Phewt. Right over your head as usuaul. You also missed all the sacred geometria. But no worries that will come with time.

It seems that your appeal to “sacred geometrica” is an incorrect usage of ‘gematria’ and, as such, I think it does your cause little good to appeal to gematria, gammarah, kabbalah, or even the more ‘popular’ Talmudic commentaries. Attempting to ‘trump’ your debating partner with gnosticism is not going to acheive much at all.

Maintaining that you have gnostic knowledge with comments such as “above your head” simply isn’t going to fly on this board - not many dueling tzaddik’s around here and if you wish to establish yourself as such, you’ll have to offer some proof that’s not above “above ‘our’ heads”.

 

[majick275]

Why do people insist on viewing Revelations as something written only of and for the future without bothering to look at it’s historical context.

Just as pauls letters were written to the members of the church in HIS day but still provide wisdom for ours, Revelations addressed the Christians in John’s time but still gives us guidance today.

Apocalyptic writing is found in abundance in the Old testament and in may cases has multiple meanings. (kind of like parables) Much of it was warning Israel of Babylon and Persia and persecutions if they didn’t behave. They also provided hope for an end to the tribulations.

Revelations was written in the time of severe roman pesecutions and provided a similar warning to endure in faith and promised an eventual end. Much of what is written in it applied to the time it was written in but still provides divine principles that we should apply today.