Could the Mormon Church be the true church of Christ

[Bill_Pick]

The LDS do not believe that Joseph Smith founded a new religious group as did other men and women in Protestantism. They claim their church to be the only true church on earth and refer to it as the “restored” church of Jesus Christ.

Soon after the death of the last Apostle, John, the true church Jesus founded in Palestine is supposed to have fallen away from His doctrines, the members having apostasized.

The gods took it off this earth. Some 1,500 years later it was restored here through Smith. Joseph, then, is not the founder of Mormonism, but only an instrument used by the gods to reinstate the church once more among mankind. LDS refer to this falling away of the members of the original church as the “Great or Total Apostasy.”

 

[Derwin_James]

Who Am I: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” HINT: Son of God? The WORD?

If there was such an “apostasy” for 1500 years, then how can the gates of Hades not prevail against it? It would seem that the gates of Hades did overcome it: for 1500 years. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Mormons on these forums have posted that St. John did not die, but was “translated”.

As for a Mormon apostasy, there are several “sects” of Mormonism. Some accuse the others of apostasizing from the Gospel. LDS will argue that Joseph Smith’s prophesy that the temple will be built is still yet to come, even though the prophesy states that the generation will not pass before the temple is built (that was over 150 years ago). They state that some of that generation was “translated”. The problem is,the Church of Christ owns the property where the temple is to be built. The Church of Christ is one of those Churches claiming there was a Mormon apostasy.

 

[ckempston]

The LDS do not believe that Joseph Smith founded a new religious group as did other men and women in Protestantism. They claim their church to be the only true church on earth and refer to it as the “restored” church of Jesus Christ.

Soon after the death of the last Apostle, John, the true church Jesus founded in Palestine is supposed to have fallen away from His doctrines, the members having apostasized.

The gods took it off this earth. Some 1,500 years later it was restored here through Smith. Joseph, then, is not the founder of Mormonism, but only an instrument used by the gods to reinstate the church once more among mankind. LDS refer to this falling away of the members of the original church as the “Great or Total Apostasy.”

Well, for the sake of argument, the Restoration Movement in the early 1800s beat Joseph Smith to the punch on “restoring” the church of Jesus Christ. Practically any Protestant enomination could argue the same thing. It’s nothing but a semantical argument.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The short answer is NO.

 

[Tmaque]

I would say this. The LDS Church “could” be the true church of Jesus Christ if he hadn’t promised to be with the early church “until the end of time”(last verse in Matthew), AND if the Catholic Church had lost it’s authority, changed doctrine, abondoned it’s earthly mission. If the Catholic Church did not abandon it’s mission then the LDS Church is false by default. Mormon’s can’t demonstrate this “apostasy” in any effective way and we have Christ’s promise as well. So, it “could” if the circumstances were different, but it’s not. Just like, the sky could be pink if water vapor reflected red light, but…it doesn’t.

 

[dianaiad]

Who Am I: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” HINT: Son of God? The WORD?

If there was such an “apostasy” for 1500 years, then how can the gates of Hades not prevail against it? It would seem that the gates of Hades did overcome it: for 1500 years. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

Actually, we believe that this verse is taken a bit out of context: you have forgotten the preceding verses, 16 and 17: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: *for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. * (emphasis mine)
THEN we get "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

First, we believe that the “rock” referred to is not Peter himself, but the revelation that allowed Peter to know Who Christ was. The name was a ‘pun’ referring both to Peter the apostle (as his name) but mostly to the revelation; it is THAT upon which Christ built His church. Not upon Peter the man.

After all, if THAT were true, the church would have disappeared upon Peter’s death. Since you claim that it did not, then it wasn’t Peter the man upon which the church was built, was it? It was something else—and the only something else mentioned was revelation.

Ok…now we get to the ‘gates of hell’ not prevailing. Well, they didn’t, did they? Here we are. “Prevailing” means that one actually wins everything at the end of it, not that they lasted a long time.

It doesn’t matter how long the castle holds against a siege–if it finally falls, no matter how long it lasts, it did not prevail.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, for the sake of argument, the Restoration Movement in the early 1800s beat Joseph Smith to the punch on “restoring” the church of Jesus Christ. Practically any Protestant enomination could argue the same thing. It’s nothing but a semantical argument.

Not quite.

While you are correct about there being more than one church that is 'Restorationist," there is a pretty big, and real, difference between Restorationists and Reformationists, or “Protestants.”

…and don’t dismiss differences in word meanings as mere ‘semantics.’ After all, the fact that words mean things is the whole point of communication.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, we believe that this verse is taken a bit out of context: you have forgotten the preceding verses, 16 and 17: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: *for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. * (emphasis mine)
THEN we get "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

First, we believe that the “rock” referred to is not Peter himself, but the revelation that allowed Peter to know Who Christ was. The name was a ‘pun’ referring both to Peter the apostle (as his name) but mostly to the revelation; it is THAT upon which Christ built His church. Not upon Peter the man.

After all, if THAT were true, the church would have disappeared upon Peter’s death. Since you claim that it did not, then it wasn’t Peter the man upon which the church was built, was it? It was something else—and the only something else mentioned was revelation.

Ok…now we get to the ‘gates of hell’ not prevailing. Well, they didn’t, did they? Here we are. “Prevailing” means that one actually wins everything at the end of it, not that they lasted a long time.

It doesn’t matter how long the castle holds against a siege–if it finally falls, no matter how long it lasts, it did not prevail.

The incident in Matthew took place at Caesarea Philippi, so named by Herod Philip. However, it was originally Panion, the city of Pan…dedicated to the Greek god Pan. The mountain where Christ was transfigured was above the spot where there remains, to this day, a site honoring Pan, who was, at that time, considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. Pan’s essence was sexual and leaned toward depravity, i.e., to Christians, it represents the power of evil. (Remember that with the exchange immediately following Christ’s proclamation!) The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs.

Why this spot? Why, of all the places to which Jesus journeyed, would he choose (and don’t think it wasn’t chosen!) a place so antithetical to the Kingdom of God? Obviously, because Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom. And even the gates of hell (a site so named in a niche in the same mountain, which some claim to be the “abyss”) will not prevail over that Kingdom!

But the Kingdom is to be established in the “now” of time, in order for man to live a life of genuine holiness through which he may enter into the eternal Kingdom. Hence, a kingdom needs a King – the King of Kings. However, when the King, established by God through David, is absent from the physical kingdom, it cannot be left unattended. Hence, the keeper of the keys, the “prime minister” or “vicar”, is charged with the full authority of the king over all his lands, peoples, and possessions. He can make law or repeal it. He can make any decisions the King would make. And he is responsible to the King for every action he takes.

The “short” form of my position on Matthew 16:

1. The “petros/petra” issue would not have occurred, since Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, wherein there is ONE word form: Kepha.
2. A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.
3. The keeper of the keys is not simply noted in Isaiah. 1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys. The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.
4. The throne of David was considered by Jews to be the throne of God. (Ref. 1Chron 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.
5. The keeper of the keys is, therefore, the Lord’s vicar, who occupies the earthly throne until Christ returns.

 

[Erich]

First, we believe that the “rock” referred to is not Peter himself, but the revelation that allowed Peter to know Who Christ was. The name was a ‘pun’ referring both to Peter the apostle (as his name) but mostly to the revelation; it is THAT upon which Christ built His church. Not upon Peter the man.

From Petros vs. Petra

Petros and petra are two different words in Greek. They are similar because they are cognates (just as “president” and “presider” are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and * petra* is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

The point the article is making is that in Attic Greek there was a slight difference in meaning between the two, but in Koine Greek (the dialect of the New Testament) they were synonyms. A place to look this up is D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew 16 in the Expositors Bible Commentary. He makes this point very well, and he is a highly-respected Evangelical Bible scholar.

and from Peter the Rock

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

 

[ckempston]

Not quite.

While you are correct about there being more than one church that is 'Restorationist," there is a pretty big, and real, difference between Restorationists and Reformationists, or “Protestants.”

…and don’t dismiss differences in word meanings as mere ‘semantics.’ After all, the fact that words mean things is the whole point of communication.

You missed the point. The point was that the claim of Joseph Smith to “restore” the church of Christ was nothing new. The Restoration Movement specifically claimed to “restore first century Christianity.”

 

[dianaiad]

You missed the point. The point was that the claim of Joseph Smith to “restore” the church of Christ was nothing new. The Restoration Movement specifically claimed to “restore first century Christianity.”

No, I didn’t miss the point. I acknowledged it when I mentioned that there were/are several restorationist churches. If you were attempting to get a rise out of me by pointing out that there were other Restorationist movements, well…I’m sorry to disappoint you. I agree. There were.

Lessee…the Christadelphians…begun in 1848.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses…begun around 1870.
The Seventh Day Adventists, who evolved from the Millerites, whose leader started to preach his ideas in 1831.
The Stone/Campbell movement, about 1832…

All the other Restorationist denominations are offshoots of Mormonism or one of the above.

Please note that your claim that the CoJCoLDS was 'Nothing new" might then be a little off, since the CoJCoLDS was officially organized in 1830. No other proponent of Restorationism (as opposed to Reformationist) even began preaching until the following year.

Perhaps you should have taken ‘yes’ for an answer, hmmn?

My point was that simply dismissing the difference between the claims of Restorationist churches and Reformation beliefs as merely ‘semantic’ is missing the point: there is a difference, and semantics is what defines differences in meaning.

 

[ckempston]

No, I didn’t miss the point. I acknowledged it when I mentioned that there were/are several restorationist churches. If you were attempting to get a rise out of me by pointing out that there were other Restorationist movements, well…I’m sorry to disappoint you. I agree. There were.

Lessee…the Christadelphians…begun in 1848.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses…begun around 1870.
The Seventh Day Adventists, who evolved from the Millerites, whose leader started to preach his ideas in 1831.
The Stone/Campbell movement, about 1832…

All the other Restorationist denominations are offshoots of Mormonism or one of the above.

Please note that your claim that the CoJCoLDS was 'Nothing new" might then be a little off, since the CoJCoLDS was officially organized in 1830. No other proponent of Restorationism (as opposed to Reformationist) even began preaching until the following year.

Perhaps you should have taken ‘yes’ for an answer, hmmn?

My point was that simply dismissing the difference between the claims of Restorationist churches and Reformation beliefs as merely ‘semantic’ is missing the point: there is a difference, and semantics is what defines differences in meaning.

Buddy, your dates on the Stone and Campbell movements aren’t even right. If you can’t get dates correct, you can’t be expected to be taken seriously.

 

[ricko]

Actually, we believe that this verse is taken a bit out of context:

Actually it is not out of context

First, we believe that the “rock” referred to is not Peter himself, but the revelation that allowed Peter to know Who Christ was. The name was a ‘pun’ referring both to Peter the apostle (as his name) but mostly to the revelation; it is THAT upon which Christ built His church. Not upon Peter the man.

The “Rock” is Peter, the verse makes that clear. “…you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church”. No amount of twisting will change what it says.

After all, if THAT were true, the church would have disappeared upon Peter’s death. Since you claim that it did not, then it wasn’t Peter the man upon which the church was built, was it? It was something else—and the only something else mentioned was revelation.

No, the Church would not have disappeared upon Peter’s death. Jesus not only appointed Peter as the Rock of the Church but he established the position that Peter was to hold. Peter would die but the position was taken by another. When Henry Ford died, his company did not die with him. If the Ford Motor Company can survive the death of its founder how much more can the Church established by Christ survive the death of its earthly founder, Peter?

Ok…now we get to the ‘gates of hell’ not prevailing. Well, they didn’t, did they? Here we are. “Prevailing” means that one actually wins everything at the end of it, not that they lasted a long time.

It doesn’t matter how long the castle holds against a siege–if it finally falls, no matter how long it lasts, it did not prevail.

Actually that is not what prevail means. That’s the Mormon definition to futher twist the meaning of scripture.
Jesus established a church, that is rock solid (pun intended). He established it for all time, until the end of the world. Scripture, which has been quoted to you many times, has made that clear. He promised the continued existance of His Church and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide it for all time. All in scripture.

 

[kikkichan]

I don’t know, I think Stone/Cambell dates are about right. They were both alive and jawing 'bout stuff round then. It can’t be far off!
-kc

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t know, I think Stone/Cambell dates are about right. They were both alive and jawing 'bout stuff round then. It can’t be far off!
-kc

The dates cannot be right. Sidney Rigdon was a Campellite preacher. He was kicked out of the Campellites prior to 1826 over disagreements with Campbell over certain doctrines.

Every one of those doctrines is prominently featured in the Book of Mormon, which Sidney Rigdon wrote.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

**There was no apostasy! If there was an apostasy that would mean Jesus’ body would have been disemboweled! We, his church, make up Jesus’ body. Jesus’ body can not be broken into pieces, especially for 1800 years. If there was an apostasy what would that say about who Jesus was? Like I asked before, do you think Jesus just left us hanging for 1800 years and expected us to just “wing” it until JS comes along? I’ll answer that for you with a question, what kind of God would God be if he only gave Peter the authority and no one else after Peter’s death? That does not make since at all!!! How can anyone even argue with that… To disagree with that would be to call Jesus a liar. Jesus IS THE Truth!!! All of His Body Is the Truth…We are His Body! There is nothing else to it…It is what it is! We are the only church with the apostolic authority dating to Peter. If the Mormon church can produce some evidence, than maybe they would have an argumentnt, but they can’t… Oh yea, I’m glad some of us took Jesus’ warnings of false prophets seriously! I’m sorry for getting so blunt, but it is ridiculousus to keep taking scripture completely out of context! Anyone can take a story and morph it into what they want it to mean! **

 

[RebeccaJ]

The dates cannot be right. Sidney Rigdon was a Campellite preacher. He was kicked out of the Campellites prior to 1826 over disagreements with Campbell over certain doctrines.

Every one of those doctrines is prominently featured in the Book of Mormon, which Sidney Rigdon wrote.

The almighty wiki says 1801 for Stone, 1809 for Campbell, united together as Stone-Campbell in 1832.

 

[dianaiad]

Buddy, your dates on the Stone and Campbell movements aren’t even right. If you can’t get dates correct, you can’t be expected to be taken seriously.

Excuse me, but the generally accepted date of the Stone/Campbell merger is either December 31, 1831, or January 1, 1832. Before that time The separate movements played with the idea of ‘restoration’ vs. ‘reformation,’ but one of the principle factors of the Restoration idea is divine help in such restoration. Neither Stone nor Campbell (father or son) claimed any such thing until they merged, and they didn’t mention that angle much after the merger.

In fact, the only reason I included the Stone/Campbell movement with the Restorationists is because it uses the word. The other belief systems all claim a divine revelation; The Stone/Campbellites did not, and do not. They are, in fact, the epitome of sola scripturians. I think that the idea of an actual revelation would send 'em all running to the hills.

Very fast. In fact, it was a televangelist from this movement that gave me one of those pivotal memory moments. Like the space shuttle explosion, 9/11 and the assassination of President Kennedy, where you remember everything about that moment from what you were wearing, what you were doing, everything…having this guy hold up the bible and say 'If Jesus Christ Himself came down and told me that this book was incorrect, I would turn my back on Him and hold to the book!"

Nope. “Restorationist” because they claim the name, perhaps, but in what they taught and the way they taught it? Not really different from many of those groups in the 'Great Awakening" that spoke about reforming things.

 

[mangy_dog]

The LDS do not believe that Joseph Smith founded a new religious group as did other men and women in Protestantism. They claim their church to be the only true church on earth and refer to it as the “restored” church of Jesus Christ.

Soon after the death of the last Apostle, John, the true church Jesus founded in Palestine is supposed to have fallen away from His doctrines, the members having apostasized.

The gods took it off this earth. Some 1,500 years later it was restored here through Smith. Joseph, then, is not the founder of Mormonism, but only an instrument used by the gods to reinstate the church once more among mankind. LDS refer to this falling away of the members of the original church as the “Great or Total Apostasy.”

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. One God!

Mormon shmormon! It is all a polytheistic, ufological mish mash of false doctrines taylor made for the “new age”. One of the many luciferian takes on the great delusion.

Don’t worry, I won’t be back.