and yet we do not see in the bible an example of God “abandoning” the earth for almost 2000 years. what we see is a continuity of Gods church throughout with calls to repentance and reforms being integrated quickly.
There is no “individual” that is referred to. It is the personification of wisdom in the feminine. Not an uncommon literary device. If you think this passage supports an argument for some female deity, you are simply wrong in your literalistic interpretation here. The context does not support your claim. The whole of scripture runs contrary to the claim. Hebrew and Christian tradition run contrary to the claim.
Would you please provide a quote from scripture that supports this claim.
I did not say that The Word (Jesus) and the Father were not two separate people. I said they were both God. They are both the one God as is the Holy Spirit God. The text makes it clear that “In the beginning” was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. You read into the text the qualification that the Word was made by God. But that contradicts the text. The Word was not made by God. The Word was God. The text is literally stating that there are two persons present, and that they were both present in the beginning, and that both are God (not gods or “a” God and another “God.” This language is entirely consistent with the trinitarian dogmas that have been rejected by the LDS Church.
If you think the text was altered, what is your evidence that it has been altered from the original? Is there historical evidence of the early Christians being up in arms about a change in scripture that so strongly speaks of the divinity of Christ?
He’s not going to himself. He’s going to the Father. I agree that Father and Son are two different persons. Where we disagree is on the nature of that relationship.
Again, we are not in disagreement about the fact that the Father and the Son are two different persons.
Great. I’d like to hear the LDS point of view in as clear a manner as can be stated.
Contribute what you can, neighbor. That’s all any of us can ask.
I understand that JS *says *that he received the priesthood from Peter, James and John. The claim that JS makes is not in dispute (although his veracity is). Why I reject his claim is that JS (and the LDS faith in general) cannot support the claim that the priesthood needed to be restored in such a way. So, to baldly state that JS received the priesthood from Peter, James & John without first evidencing why JS could not receive the authority of the ministerial priesthood from the NY Catholic Diocese in Albany sort of runs you into a dead end.
There are many christian communities that are a “few degrees off course” so to speak, and the Catholic Church recognizes their rite of baptism and their right to call themselves Christian. And to their credit these other communities have kept the scriptures faithfully (for the most part) and some (like the Orthodox churches) still maintain the apostolic succession that allows their other sacrament to maintain validity. One can go to a baptist Church and hear the word of God proclaimed from the pulpit in much the same sense that an LDS sunday service would proceed. So, how can you say that such churches are so far “off course” as to have been completely apostatized. Apostacy requires the complete rejection of christian teaching and that has clearly not happened even in some of the more “extravagant” protestant communities.
No. This is the point of my post. I don’t know what you believe the GA is. My understanding of apostacy is that it is a Christian’s total rejection of the Christian faith. So, if you are contending that the “Great Apostacy” was something less than the total rejection of the Christian faith by the early Church, then you will have to explain why you are departing from the common usage of the word.
Yes.
As I tell my brother, who is a member of the LDS church… We may both be wrong, but we can’t both be right.
I would really appreciate your definition, and am looking forward to receiving it when you are ready.guanophore:
That’s a good question and I don’t think it has been answered well yet - though I haven’t read all the posts from those contributing to the topic. I intend to spend some time this week crafting a considered response.
I think you misunderstand. You are assuming that it is necessary for LDS to “justify” the Restoration that is the foundation of their church. However, as we can see, it cannot be demonstrated that there every was a Great Apostasy. However, I don’ t think this is a problem for LDS, since it has been demonstrated here that “it is a matter of faith” not proof. Therefore, an LDS can accept this premise a priori with no historical evidence, and move on. It is similar to the recent postulation that “Sola Scriptura assumes a canon”. There need be no investigation or acceptance, then, of how the canon developed. Facts are really irrelevant.
While this is true, it is not necessary. As long as the adherants to LDS accept in faith that this is the case, then they need no other basis.
You are taking a rational approach…
I am interested in seeing the same, and I thank you for asking the question. Even though I have yet to see anything substantial about this supposed Great Apostasy, I have learned a lot from reading this thread.
Maybe you need a burning in the bosom?
You are the one asserting something contrary to the scriptural and historical record. If you will not be informed by history and scripture, it is unlikely that I will say anything that will be of use.
The biggest problem with LDS theology is that it has God progressing from a man to Godhood. That’s not just something new and different, it is something completely contrary to the Old Testament and the New Testament, therefore, it is not just different, it is a different gospel entirely.
What does Constantine have to do with Orthodoxy?
I think we are in agreement that Constantine’s Edict of Milan allowed the Council of Nicea to occur. However, orthodoxy existed prior to that, so you have not answered my question, what does Constantine have to do with Orthodoxy?
I agree, it is not a worthy accusation against our Lord. If He was a weakling, then His promise that the gates of hell not prevailing was worthless. If He is a liar, then His promise to send the Spirit who would remind them of all that He had taught, and lead them into all Truth is worthless. These promises have nothing to do with my opinion. Either Jesus made the promises or He didn’t. Either He had the love and power to fulfill them, or He didn’t.
Great! Thanks. Now at least we can agree on what we are talking about. So, from my point of view, it seems that, in order to fall away or defect, then one needs to be embracing the Truth in the first place. If one is in rebellion, then one has to identify an authority.
What I think we are in disagreement about is the nature of the Truth from which they fell, and who exactly fell. You have asserted that Christianity was factious from the beginning. Apostasy does not have to occur in order for there to be factions.
Ok, for the sake of discussion, let us agree on this point, even though other posts you have made indicate to the contrary. Even if the Bible was written prior to the “apostasy”, the books were collected, preserved, canonized and promulgated by the supposed apostasized. Why would they do all this, if their beliefs were contrary to what is written?
"guanophore:
This was an important element for my enrichment. Prior to this thread, I did not understand anything about what the LDS believed about “the Great Apostasy”. Now I am clear that it is a “matter of faith” that cannot be proven, and has no basis in scripture or history.
I look forward.:coffeeread:
**Gabriel of 12;
I notice that you merely claim it rather than demonstrate it.
Let me see if I got this straight:
Forgive me I was merely stating facts, did not mean for you to take it as an insult. My question was not to proselytize in any way. Do you or Mormons desire to know Jesus? as do all Christians. Peter denied my founder Jesus 3x’s, Yet he walked on water with Jesus, you see taking the bad with good is called “Truth”.
Learning is always a good thing. Like you, I’m still waiting for a scintilla of evidence.
I get a great burning in the bosom at every mass; especially when I receive the Eucharist.Maybe you need a burning in the bosom?
Golly, in this case I guess we never know for sure when there is an authority.
:clapping: Seems like another inconsistency for the LDS church to explain here too. Thanks Mac.
Mormons believe you have to be worthy of God’s authority and blessings. If you are in apostasy you are not worthy of either, and so God does withdraw.
