For JWs and LDS

[RAR]

Why do the LDS and JWs put so much significance in a relatively few obscure Bible passages that allude to a Great Apostasy and not fear the strong exhortations of Paul about being wary of false prophets?

To clarify, Paul warned us many times about false prophets and wolves in sheeps clothing, but the allusions to apostasy are obscure and don’t imply a total erosion of the church. In their shoes, if I was one of those hearing Charles Taze Russell or Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, I would have been very wary of them. It seems much safer to be skeptical of “new” teachings or prophets than to believe that a restoration is needed because the entire church previously fell into apostasy. The Bible seems very clear on this.

 

[BDawg]

Why do the LDS and JWs put so much significance in a relatively few obscure Bible passages that allude to a Great Apostasy and not fear the strong exhortations of Paul about being wary of false prophets?

Hi RAR,

I’m a Mormon, so I can’t speak for JWs. However, I think you might be interested in reading a debate between a Mormon and a Catholic ex-Mormon about whether there was an apostasy, or not, and whether the Pope or the Mormon prophet holds the keys of Peter. Here’s the URL:

geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html

It’s an interesting read.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Why do the LDS and JWs put so much significance in a relatively few obscure Bible passages that allude to a Great Apostasy and not fear the strong exhortations of Paul about being wary of false prophets?

I think it’s because they aren’t grounded in Christian history. It seems that they don’t even know that in the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope, save one, was martyred.

I particularly like the quote of the Roman Emperor Decius (249-251 A.D.), “I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than another bishop of Rome”. (Christian History, Issue 27 entitled “Persecution in the Early Church” (volume IX, Number 3), p. 22. The Romans certainly knew who the head of the Christian Church was even if some "Johnny-Come-Lately"s do not.

 

[BDawg]

I think it’s because they aren’t grounded in Christian history. It seems that they don’t even know that in the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope, save one, was martyred.

Hi A,

That debate I linked is chock full of early Christian history, on both sides. You ought to give it a read.

 

[RAR]

Thank you BDawg - but that wasn’t really my question. The point of my post deals at the heart with the Bible.

I’m familiar with the story of the “learned member of the Catholic Church,” I was told it within the first week of my moving to Utah… I’ll read the rest of the debate later. Perhaps, I’ll get back to you on it. Another debate you might find interesting is between Patrick Madrid and a member of the LDS church (I’m sorry, I don’t remember his name).

But to the heart of my question, isn’t it careless to take the obscure verses on the apostasy ahead of Paul’s warnings of false prophets? The latter seems much more imminent. It would seem unwise to me to put such faith in men.

RAR

 

[BDawg]

Thank you BDawg - but that wasn’t really my question. The point of my post deals at the heart with the Bible.

I’m familiar with the story of the “learned member of the Catholic Church,” I was told it within the first week of my moving to Utah… I’ll read the rest of the debate later. Perhaps, I’ll get back to you on it. Another debate you might find interesting is between Patrick Madrid and a member of the LDS church (I’m sorry, I don’t remember his name).

But to the heart of my question, isn’t it careless to take the obscure verses on the apostasy ahead of Paul’s warnings of false prophets? The later seems much more imminent. It would seem unwise to me to put such faith in men.

RAR

Hi RAR,

I talked online with Pat Madrid before. He seems like a very fine gentleman. I think I read (or at least heard of) his debate before, but I don’t remember it. If you have a URL, I would appreciate it.

Anyway, before we get to your question, I think we have to ask whether there should be prophets around in the Church today. If not, then everyone who claims to be a prophet should be rejected. If so, then I guess we just have to buck up and try to figure out who is a true or false prophet, and your question is sort of beside the point.

That’s why something like that debate might be useful for you. It addresses the issue of whether there ought to be prophets leading the Church today.

I totally agree that you have to be careful about false prophets, though.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Hi A,

That debate I linked is chock full of early Christian history, on both sides. You ought to give it a read.

I have way back when. I’m not impressed with Barry Bickmore. Besides it’s not about debate points.

 

[BDawg]

I have way back when. I’m not impressed with Barry Bickmore. Besides it’s not about debate points.

You should be happy to recommend the debate, then, if Bickmore is such a patsy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormon tactic #464: Don’t answer direct questions, instead, answer the question you think should have been asked.

 

[BDawg]

Mormon tactic #464: Don’t answer direct questions, instead, answer the question you think should have been asked.

So do you have a problem with the question I suggested as a preliminary? Don’t you think it’s fair to say that one ought to ask whether there should be prophets at all, before asking whether it’s worth the risk to accept anyone as a prophet?

Honestly, Rebecca, I don’t see how what I said could be construed as some kind of sinister sales tactic.

Example: Someone asks whether it’s worth the risk to go to a car dealership, when everyone knows that car salesmen are pushy. I reply that first you need to ask whether you need a car, before addressing that question.

 

[RAR]

BDawg,

Thank you once again, but you still haven’t answered my question, only re-directed. I understand you sincerely feel that the question of whether or not there should be prophets in the world today is a legitimate point, but… it’s kind of my thread, ya know. Okay, that was a little tongue in cheek. What I mean is that I posed the question, I’m not responding to your thread. And incidentally, I make it very clear when LDS or JWs come to my door that we will have a “conversation” and that if they don’t answer my questions, I’ll thank them and we will say goodbye. Unfortunately, I rarely have missionary visitors of any sort who are interested in really dialoguing.

Besides your question is speculative, whereas I’m coming from common ground.

Are you interested in dialoguing?

RAR

p.s. Thanks for sticking around on the thread A. And I’m sure your daughter will come home. Keep praying. Incidentally, I wonder if we met once… parking lot outside of St. Francis in Orem?

 

[RebeccaJ]

So do you have a problem with the question I suggested as a preliminary? Don’t you think it’s fair to say that one ought to ask whether there should be prophets at all, before asking whether it’s worth the risk to accept anyone as a prophet?

Honestly, Rebecca, I don’t see how what I said could be construed as some kind of sinister sales tactic.

Example: Someone asks whether it’s worth the risk to go to a car dealership, when everyone knows that car salesmen are pushy. I reply that first you need to ask whether you need a car, before addressing that question.

The OP wasn’t asking about prophets. The question is, how it is that you believe Christ was wrong in his statement to Peter?

 

[RAR]

Mormon tactic #464: Don’t answer direct questions, instead, answer the question you think should have been asked.

Funny, I just saw this… I was in the middle of my reply. Anyway, BDawg, I like the analogy, but I don’t think it fits… see my reply about speculation.

RAR

 

[BDawg]

BDawg,

Thank you once again, but you still haven’t answered my question, only re-directed. I understand you sincerely feel that the question of whether or not there should be prophets in the world today is a legitimate point, but… it’s kind of my thread, ya know. Okay, that was a little tongue in cheek. What I mean is that I posed the question, I’m not responding to your thread. And incidentally, I make it very clear when LDS or JWs come to my door that we will have a “conversation” and that if they don’t answer my questions, I’ll thank them and we will say goodbye. Unfortunately, I rarely have missionary visitors of any sort who are interested in really dialoguing.

Besides your question is speculative, whereas I’m coming from common ground.

Are you interested in dialoguing?

Hi RAR,

I honestly thought I was answering your question. Let me rephrase to make it more clear…

I believe that the Bible is pretty clear that there ought to be apostles and prophets in the Church, until we all come to the unity of the faith (which obviously hasn’t happened, yet.) See Ephesians 4:11-14. Therefore, I think it is my duty to figure out who these people are, if they exist, and follow them. I understand that there is a risk of following false prophets, and so I think I should be careful.

Is that more to the point?

 

[RAR]

Yes better, thank you, but still not all the way.

Why do you put so much significance in the references to apostasy in the Bible, when we are so explicitly warned about false prophets? What immediately comes to my mind is that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and has lead members of the Church into apostasy.

This would seem to follow from Jesus and Paul’s warnings.

RAR

 

[RAR]

Hi RAR,

I honestly thought I was answering your question. Let me rephrase to make it more clear…

I believe that the Bible is pretty clear that there ought to be apostles and prophets in the Church, until we all come to the unity of the faith (which obviously hasn’t happened, yet.) See Ephesians 4:11-14. Therefore, I think it is my duty to figure out who these people are, if they exist, and follow them. I understand that there is a risk of following false prophets, and so I think I should be careful.

Is that more to the point?

And yes, I’m fine with all of this, but I have to point out that you say above, “there ought to be apostles and prophets in the Church.” I agree, but prophets don’t re-write existing theology, they supplement it, and to re-write theology would not be working “in the Church.”

I just know that Galatians (1:8?) ring very clear for me when it says, “let anyone who preaches a gospel other than what I have preached to you be anathema.” (I paraphrase)

With this in mind, if anyone would come to me with a “gospel” like Charles Taze Russell’s or Joseph Smith’s I would confidently say, “Get behind me Satan.”

I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way either, I just believe very strongly in Jesus and Paul’s warnings.

RAR

 

[AMDGtoo]

Another debate you might find interesting is between Patrick Madrid and a member of the LDS church (I’m sorry, I don’t remember his name).

Couldn’t remember the name either, so I did a quick search–found about four:

these two are from the ewtn library:

1. Mormon Missionaries: My First Encounter
2. In Search of “The Great Apostasy”

then there are these two that are available in tapes

1. The First “Catholic/Mormon” Dialogue
   it’s with Elder Gary Coleman
2. The Second “Catholic/Mormon” Dialogue
   it’s with Elder Frank Bradshaw

 

[zerinus]

Yes better, thank you, but still not all the way.

Why do you put so much significance in the references to apostasy in the Bible, when we are so explicitly warned about false prophets? What immediately comes to my mind is that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and has lead members of the Church into apostasy.

This would seem to follow from Jesus and Paul’s warnings.

RAR

The problem with answering that question is that the logic of it is disjointed. I don’t see a direct link between the biblical predictions of an Apostasy, and the predictions of false prophets. The two concepts are independent of each other. Whether an Apostasy occured or not is not dependent on whether there are false prophets or not; and whether there are false prophets or not does not have any bearing on whether an Apostasy occured or not. There has to be connection between the two for one to be able to answer that question. I see no such connection. Can you explain?

zerinus

 

[RAR]

The problem with answering that question is that the logic of it is disjointed. I don’t see a direct link between the biblical predictions of an Apostasy, and the predictions of false prophets. The two concepts are independent of each other. Whether an Apostasy occured or not is not dependent on whether there are false prophets or not; and whether there are false prophets or not does not have any bearing on whether an Apostasy occured or not. There has to be connection between the two for one to be able to answer that question. I see no such connection. Can you explain?

zerinus

It might have been more clear in my opening post…

I see what you’re saying, I’ll explain. I think a connection can be intuited and that they can, in fact, go hand in hand.

Let me back up, my original thought was that when faced with both concepts, if I were alive in the days of Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell or anyone else teaching something contrary, I would rather safely heed the false prophet warnings than risk belief in Joseph Smith’s vision of the abominable churches and need of restoration or Russell’s Bible Scholars and their “ever progressing light” of revelation.

I mentioned the verses on the apostasy because without apostasy there is no need for the message of Smith or Russell (a true prophet does not teach something contrary).

So, I feel the verses on apostasy are being given more importance than those of the false prophet warnings among the LDS and JWs.

If I imagine myself at that time, I think I would have told each of them to get back to the Mass.

RAR

 

[teancum79]

It might have been more clear in my opening post…

I see what you’re saying, I’ll explain. I think a connection can be intuited and that they can, in fact, go hand in hand.

Let me back up, my original thought was that when faced with both concepts, if I were alive in the days of Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell or anyone else teaching something contrary, I would rather safely heed the false prophet warnings than risk belief in Joseph Smith’s vision of the abominable churches and need of restoration or Russell’s Bible Scholars and their “ever progressing light” of revelation.

I mentioned the verses on the apostasy because without apostasy there is no need for the message of Smith or Russell (a true prophet does not teach something contrary).

So, I feel the verses on apostasy are being given more importance than those of the false prophet warnings among the LDS and JWs.

If I imagine myself at that time, I think I would have told each of them to get back to the Mass.

RAR

Question lets say you lived back in the days of Peter and Paul. Would you risk following after a false god contrary to Moses warning just because some people claimed a man rose from the dead and did a few miracles?