If the church was in hiding ...

[placido]

a second thought, is it not the mormon church still in hiding? let’s be realistic. where is his church usually located? is it not in hidden places.

It is practically still in hiding. Where I am it is unheard of. Only a few of us who frequent the internet are aware of its existence. If Mormons are the true and pure church, and the true and pure gospel has to reach all four corners of the world before the second coming, then the second coming is many, many, many years away.

placido

 

[fbl9]

John was still on the earth. So also were three other disciples of Christ, and perhaps others from the house of Israel who were so righteous and desirous of helping bring the gospel to people on earth that they asked Christ to be given the power to stay on the earth and not die. So the “church” was where they were, but was not among the people generally and was not where civilizations were, so it was “in the wilderness,” and only had four or five or six people in it on earth, and those people were no longer mortal.

Can you give us the names of these immortal persons? There has to be some kind of record of such a thing.Whom did these “immortals” teach?
If such persons existed why the need for Joseph Smith?

 

[placido]

now, Parker tell me how 12 Apostles could go into the whole world and teach? how long do you think they lived? do you think that the world has ended already?

He believes apostle John is still alive and must have travelled the whole world several times the past 2 000 years. I will have to check the Guinness Book of Records to see if he is listed as the oldest living person - 2 000 years old.

placido

 

[TheQuestioner]

Not just that, but I hope you realize that most of the apostles after years evangelism settled in certain locations themselves, and stayed put. Peter in Rome, John in Jerusalem, Mark in Egypt, Thomas in India, Andrew in Armenia. The rest (except John) were martyred while acting as overseer (bishop) of locations they were visiting.

Brother Parker,

Come to think of it, how could Thomas who was all the way in India or Andrew who was all the way in Armenia take control of the Church if they were the last living apostles, as you believe the next living apostle should assume leadership of the Church and they were in the far corners of the Roman Empire, instead of such the dead apostles being replaced by their apostles (apostolic succession)?

And on that not, wouldn’t the fact that Joseph Smith had John, James and Peter (is that right?) lay their hand on him and give him authority count as apostolic succession in the same way the apostles laid their hands on their apostles and since apostle is not an office but a title of honor used to indicate that the 12 were the first few followers of Christ?

 

[ParkerD]

I think part of Parker problems is he believes the Book of Mormons more then he does the Bible,a good question, parker do you believe the BOM more then the Bible or do you think the BOM is superior to the christian bible

Bill Pick, Placido, Questioner, Wisdom Seeker and others,
Thank you for your patience. Yesterday, my morning began with needing to rush to a hospital emergency room to assist with my Dad who has had problems with Parkinson’s and lately with dizziness causing falls. (I helped with getting him back home OK.) Then, it was off to a large family reunion for all day. That evening, my wife and I drove two of our daughters off to college for fall semester, returning home early this morning. Busy, but good busy!

Bill,
To answer your question here, I cherish both and treasure both and read and study both, but I honestly place more importance on the Bible than on the Book of Mormon as far as importance in my personal life and importance (certainly) to mankind. The Ezekiel passage I had cited earlier in this thread (Ezekiel 37:15-27) shows that both volumes, the Bible (stick of Judah) and the Book of Mormon (stick of Ephraim and his fellows) are to be joined together and cherished together. I cherish both together–both testify of Christ and His saving grace and gospel covenant message to all mankind.

All the other comments and questions require longer answers, and I will get to them at some point but will be busy for quite some time now today, so I apologize for not getting back to each of you promptly, but have a good day, and may each of you discern God’s blessings in your life today.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Bill Pick, Placido, Questioner, Wisdom Seeker and others,
Thank you for your patience. Yesterday, my morning began with needing to rush to a hospital emergency room to assist with my Dad who has had problems with Parkinson’s and lately with dizziness causing falls. (I helped with getting him back home OK.) Then, it was off to a large family reunion for all day. That evening, my wife and I drove two of our daughters off to college for fall semester, returning home early this morning. Busy, but good busy!

Bill,
To answer your question here, I cherish both and treasure both and read and study both, but I honestly place more importance on the Bible than on the Book of Mormon as far as importance in my personal life and importance (certainly) to mankind. The Ezekiel passage I had cited earlier in this thread (Ezekiel 37:15-27) shows that both volumes, the Bible (stick of Judah) and the Book of Mormon (stick of Ephraim and his fellows) are to be joined together and cherished together. I cherish both together–both testify of Christ and His saving grace and gospel covenant message to all mankind.

All the other comments and questions require longer answers, and I will get to them at some point but will be busy for quite some time now today, so I apologize for not getting back to each of you promptly, but have a good day, and may each of you discern God’s blessings in your life today.

really good news that your dad is ok. good to have you back.

:byzsoc:

 

[TheQuestioner]

Bill Pick, Placido, Questioner, Wisdom Seeker and others,
Thank you for your patience. Yesterday, my morning began with needing to rush to a hospital emergency room to assist with my Dad who has had problems with Parkinson’s and lately with dizziness causing falls. (I helped with getting him back home OK.) Then, it was off to a large family reunion for all day. That evening, my wife and I drove two of our daughters off to college for fall semester, returning home early this morning. Busy, but good busy!

Bill,
To answer your question here, I cherish both and treasure both and read and study both, but I honestly place more importance on the Bible than on the Book of Mormon as far as importance in my personal life and importance (certainly) to mankind. The Ezekiel passage I had cited earlier in this thread (Ezekiel 37:15-27) shows that both volumes, the Bible (stick of Judah) and the Book of Mormon (stick of Ephraim and his fellows) are to be joined together and cherished together. I cherish both together–both testify of Christ and His saving grace and gospel covenant message to all mankind.

All the other comments and questions require longer answers, and I will get to them at some point but will be busy for quite some time now today, so I apologize for not getting back to each of you promptly, but have a good day, and may each of you discern God’s blessings in your life today.

I will be praying for you and your father.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill Pick, Placido, Questioner, Wisdom Seeker and others,
Thank you for your patience. Yesterday, my morning began with needing to rush to a hospital emergency room to assist with my Dad who has had problems with Parkinson’s and lately with dizziness causing falls. (I helped with getting him back home OK.) Then, it was off to a large family reunion for all day. That evening, my wife and I drove two of our daughters off to college for fall semester, returning home early this morning. Busy, but good busy!

Bill,
To answer your question here, I cherish both and treasure both and read and study both, but I honestly place more importance on the Bible than on the Book of Mormon as far as importance in my personal life and importance (certainly) to mankind. The Ezekiel passage I had cited earlier in this thread (Ezekiel 37:15-27) shows that both volumes, the Bible (stick of Judah) and the Book of Mormon (stick of Ephraim and his fellows) are to be joined together and cherished together. I cherish both together–both testify of Christ and His saving grace and gospel covenant message to all mankind.

All the other comments and questions require longer answers, and I will get to them at some point but will be busy for quite some time now today, so I apologize for not getting back to each of you promptly, but have a good day, and may each of you discern God’s blessings in your life today.

I understand about your Father,I pray he will be OK

 

[ParkerD]

really good news that your dad is ok. good to have you back.

Wisdom Seeker, Questioner, and Bill Pick,
Thank you sincerely for your kind thoughts, and your prayers in behalf of my Dad. I do appreciate these kindnesses offered by each of you.

 

[ParkerD]

And yes … apparently we have no option but to believe what Parker declares infallibly.

placido

Placido,
It would be completely contrary to what I think and hope is “your option” if I thought you had to “believe what Parker declares infallibly.” Not only do I not think that, I would sincerely hope that anyone who reads my responses here would seek their own understanding and desire to receive the real “infallible witness” promised by God, which is the infallible witness offered directly to each person by the Holy Spirit after they sincerely research using the Bible itself (not other writings, unless it were the “stick of Ephraim” (or Joseph) which is also the declared witness of prophets of God who have lived on earth), and then using sincere personal prayer to ask God about the messages of the prophets and the message of Christ. I know that any person on earth can do that, who is of age to read and think independently and pray sincerely. That doesn’t mean they would “change churches”, but it means they would be walking on a path of being guided by the Holy Spirit in their studies and thinking, and be on a path toward being sanctified and changed in their heart as Christ taught.

 

[ParkerD]

Problem is, every time you respond to what I said, you seem to forget that what I said was a response to something you said earlier. Do you still remember what prompted my response? Do you still remember what you said?
You said bishops don’t move, they stay put, while apostles were visiting areas. In response I gave you the practical example of my bishop, that proves you are wrong, but instead of addressing what I said you resort to fiction writing about what some imaginary bishop should have thought.

placido

Placido,
My response was taking into account that what you see a “bishop” doing today is not what a “bishop” was doing in the original Church when the term was used in the New Testament. Those bishops were indeed “overseers”, but they did that by staying in one place unlike the apostles who traveled to different places. The elders (except the apostles who also called themselves elders to show that they weren’t “better” than anyone else), also stayed in one place after being called. They were to “feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof… being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2)

Bishops were to “take care of the church of God” (1 Timothy 3:5) and be “apt to teach”.

Titus evidently had the authority to ordain elders and bishops, as Paul addressed him talking about his duties to “set in order the things that are wanting” in Crete, and “ordain elders in every city.” (Titus 1:5) These elders were apparently the bishops who were to be “the steward of God,… sober, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (1:9)

 

[ParkerD]

a second thought, is it not the mormon church still in hiding? let’s be realistic. where is his church usually located? is it not in hidden places.

is it not lead by prophets? where is that in the Bible? where does it say that Church jesus built was going to be lead by a prophet?

if Jesus chose 12 man to preach the Gospel, where does this prophet fit in the history of the Church?

**
Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.**

Wisdom Seeker,
The Mormon Church is growing in many places in the world, but that is neither here nor there as to whether “it is in hidden places.” It is among people who are real people.

Peter was a prophet. John was a prophet. Both had the gift of prophecy and gift of revelation, and were prophets. This was not unusual–the Old Testament of course shows that prophets are called to guide the people.

Why does is it seem so unusual to you that “another angel having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth” would appear to a prophet who could then teach the people the pure doctrines? (Rev. 14:6) This makes total sense, especially in light of all the Old Testament prophecies about God’s covenant people (the house of Israel) in the latter days being restored into the true fold of God instead of having false prophets and teachers.

 

[NDN]

I am currently involved in an email discussion with a fellow who has asserted that the Baptists pre date the Church, and had been in hiding for centuries from the Catholics to escape their persecution. He has yet to name any of the early baptist fathers from the 1st thru the 5th century. I think he really believes this, and refuses any thing that doesn’t agree with their theory that Constantine was the 1 man who started the Catholic Church. He also tells me he is a former Catholic, who read the bible for himself and discovered our errors. How to reason with this?

 

[placido]

Placido,
It would be completely contrary to what I think and hope is “your option” if I thought you had to “believe what Parker declares infallibly.” Not only do I not think that, I would sincerely hope that anyone who reads my responses here would seek their own understanding and desire to receive the real “infallible witness” promised by God, which is the infallible witness offered directly to each person by the Holy Spirit after they sincerely research using the Bible itself (not other writings, unless it were the “stick of Ephraim” (or Joseph) which is also the declared witness of prophets of God who have lived on earth), and then using sincere personal prayer to ask God about the messages of the prophets and the message of Christ. I know that any person on earth can do that, who is of age to read and think independently and pray sincerely. That doesn’t mean they would “change churches”, but it means they would be walking on a path of being guided by the Holy Spirit in their studies and thinking, and be on a path toward being sanctified and changed in their heart as Christ taught.

You mean, I am free to ignore all you said above, including your misidentification of the “stick of Ephraim”, because it is not infallible.
Good.

placido

 

[fbl9]

I am currently involved in an email discussion with a fellow who has asserted that the Baptists pre date the Church, and had been in hiding for centuries from the Catholics to escape their persecution. He has yet to name any of the early baptist fathers from the 1st thru the 5th century. I think he really believes this, and refuses any thing that doesn’t agree with their theory that Constantine was the 1 man who started the Catholic Church. He also tells me he is a former Catholic, who read the bible for himself and discovered our errors. How to reason with this?

I myself have yet to find the baptist church in the bible…I sure did find the Catholic church in the bible though.
Perhaps he is not really reading the bible but what his teachers have read into the bible.
That is odd that there are no writings or sign of the baptists in those early centuries…Ask him just how many “believers” the catholic church has put to death,then ask him to do the math ,number of deaths per yr of Catholic persecution.Carefully note just how yrs he uses.

 

[ParkerD]

now, Parker tell me how 12 Apostles could go into the whole world and teach? how long do you think they lived? do you think that the world has ended already?

called to preserve the pure doctrines! what doctrines? parker, do you know what pure Doctrines the Apostles were to preserve?
if you make statements, you are required to explain them.

Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.

Wisdom Seeker,

The pure doctrines the apostles were to preserve were among other things, the following doctrines as evidenced in the New Testament:

1. That Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament, including that He fulfills Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 61:1-2 and will fulfill Isaiah 11 during the Millenium when He returns again to earth. That He was crucified and atoned for the sins of all humankind, so that all may repent and no longer suffer for their own sins after they have repented. That He was resurrected with a perfect physical body, and lives today.
2. That Christ is the rock and chief corner stone of His church, and no one else has that role or anything like that role.
3. That each member of the church is equally important in the eyes of God, and each member will have duties that are needed in the church.
4. That a hearer who hears the message of the mission of Jesus Christ and believes, will repent of their sins and desire to be baptized and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) soon after their baptism, and that baptism is the beginning of their entry into the new covenant gospel. That the Holy Spirit will lead them toward sanctification.
5. That money is not involved in receiving the ordinances of baptism or the gift of the Holy Spirit.
6. That the Holy Spirit guides each member, not just the leaders, and that if the leaders are unrighteous they can lose the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads the members to hidden knowledge and wisdom that God wants them to have, if they seek this knowledge and wisdom, and it is something they should seek.
7. That leaders with the Holy Spirit will have true prophets among them who will bear pure witness of the life and mission of Jesus Christ, and will teach His pure message of salvation and redemption through having the second birth and keeping the covenants of the gospel throughout life.
8. That love for God and love for one’s neighbors are at the heart of the gospel message, and the fruits of the gospel come as one practices love, forgiveness, faith, gratitude, kindness, obedience to the commandments, and having a Godly walk and conversation.
9. That God’s plan includes that as many as will hear and receive the “voice of the Good Shepherd” will follow His voice which leads to growth throughout their lives, and leads in heaven to being a joint heir with Christ and being a son of God (for the men).
10. That every one of the prophecies in the Bible will be fulfilled, including that the house of Israel including the tribe of Judah and the ten tribes will no longer be considered “orphans” because they will have the new covenant gospel among them and will know who they are–descendants of Abraham and Jacob (Israel).
11. That although Adams’ fall brought death into this world, Christ’s mission on earth made it so that every single person who ever lives will be resurrected and that every single person who ever lives can receive the message of salvation and of healing through the atonement of Christ. Every single person can have an infallible personal witness through the Holy Spirit of their testimony of Jesus Christ, that He loves them and will change their heart if they come unto Him.
12. That men and women are created (born into this world) with physical bodies in the image of God, just as Jesus was born into the world in the image of God, and that men and women are asked to become “one” with Them through the grace offered by Jesus Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

You mean, I am free to ignore all you said above, including your misidentification of the “stick of Ephraim”, because it is not infallible.
Good.

placido

Placido,
One can do whatever one wishes to do, freely I hope. If one chooses not to think sincerely and independent of any former teaching, and pray about Biblical prophesies as they read them, then the Holy Spirit will probably not teach them anything about those and they will be left on their own to interpret the prophesies however they want to interpret them. If one does not seek, they will not find. If one does not ask, they will not receive.

 

[placido]

Placido,
My response was taking into account that what you see a “bishop” doing today is not what a “bishop” was doing in the original Church when the term was used in the New Testament. Those bishops were indeed “overseers”, but they did that by staying in one place unlike the apostles who traveled to different places.

Brother Parker, why is it that you never admit being wrong? Can’t you see you are wrong when you say New Testament bishops stayed put in one place?
Titus was a bishop. You can’t deny this. Titus visited every town in his area to ordain priests. You can’t deny this. You know tha what Titus did is exactly what bishops do today.

The elders (except the apostles who also called themselves elders to show that they weren’t “better” than anyone else), also stayed in one place after being called. They were to “feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof… being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2)

Yes, the elders (presbyters, priests) do just that, overseeing parishes and doing missinary work.

Bishops were to “take care of the church of God” (1 Timothy 3:5) and be “apt to teach”.

Yes. That is what bishops do.

Titus evidently had the authority to ordain elders and bishops, as Paul addressed him talking about his duties to “set in order the things that are wanting” in Crete, and “ordain elders in every city.” (Titus 1:5) These elders were apparently the bishops who were to be “the steward of God,… sober, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (1:9)

But Titus was himself a bishop and he went to every town in his area. You can not deny that. So, bishops did not stay put.
And tell me: does your church have bishops like the New testament Church or do you have “the President of the Church” who is assisted by two counsellors? Why are you not opposed to this “change”?

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
One can do whatever one wishes to do, freely I hope. If one chooses not to think sincerely and independent of any former teaching, and pray about Biblical prophesies as they read them, then the Holy Spirit will probably not teach them anything about those and they will be left on their own to interpret the prophesies however they want to interpret them. If one does not seek, they will not find. If one does not ask, they will not receive.

The problem is that you believe you think sincerely and independent of any former teaching (including the writtings of Joseph Smith?) but those who diagree with you don’t think sicerely and are not independent; you prayed about the Biblical prophesies and read them, but those that disagree with you never prayed about Biblical prophesies and never read them, that is why the Holy Spirit never teach them and you have to step in. You become “vicarius spiritus sancti”.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

“The end of marriage in heaven” would never and will never make sense to me. Marriage is not just to produce children, although that is a good thing. Marriage is for companionship and for “completing” each other because without each other, one is “incomplete”. Marriage was “meet” for Adam and Eve, because it was a good thing for them, a necessary thing. God would not take away a good and necessary and completing union that enobles man and woman and helps them learn an intimate (I am not talking physical) relationship with love and understanding and with Christ intertwined within that relationship. But if bishops and priests don’t know anything about that from their own lives, then of course they’re not going to teach about it and of course they’re going to say marriage goes away in heaven.

1. Ok…so marriage is not to produce children but for companionship? It completes and ennobles a man and woman…which part of “companionship, and ennobling” actually require marriage? As there will be no physical intimacy (sex) in heaven and you can have companionship and enobling in without marraige it follows that marraige would not be needed. You can still have that deep friendship and companionship but all you would really need is God and you would not need to be married for such. Because of the recent introduction of contraceptives in marraige life, marraige no longer became about providing a stable environment for children and completeness of God’s plan (in heaven we will have these anyway) but exclusively about companionship. If this is the case there is no reason homosexuals cannot get married. See what is wrong with this view of marraige? Anyway, its easy to point the blame on the bishops about marraige being abolished in the New Kingdom but fact of the matter is if you want to complain about it to bishops then you should take it up with Bishops Matthew and Luke, who both taught through the gospels they wrote that marraige will be abolished. Remember that during those times clergy were not banned from being married. So to link this teaching to bishops and priests holds no water.

Luke was not a first-hand witness of Christ’s ministry and teachings. He wrote what he had been taught about Christ’s ministry, and wrote beautifully, but as far as I’m concerned, the differences in the passages where he is describing what Christ said versus where Matthew and Mark are describing what Christ said, mean that he got the wording a bit wrong, but that’s OK–we have other witnesses who wrote about that event.

1. No no, you cannot do this. You cannot accept the Gospel of Luke as scripture and use it for correction and then at the same time try to discredit the person who wrote it. Just because it does not say what you want it to say does not mean that the writer or his writing was somehow less capable as the other writers were. Either it is scripture or not, either he got the wording just right or not. If he got the wording wrong and his scripture was not guided by the Holy Spirit and not God-breathed then it throws into question the entire gospel. If he can get the wording wrong here then where else could he have gotten it wrong? No, he did not get the wording wrong, rather you are having a hard time with this teaching and instead of conforming your will to God you are starting to deny the teaching and scripture outright. Do not be prideful, conform your will to God. If you start to do deny scripture here you will create a snowball effect and end up picking and choosing.

What you have written here is according to you. When John wrote “he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”, he was providing hidden meaning that could only be understood if the person reading has the Spirit and is spiritually attuned to understand.

To share Christ’s love and authority is to be like Christ. To be like Christ is to be like God the Father. To be like God the Father is to be a “son of God”, an inheritor of what God wants a son or a daughter to inherit. God is full of joy and love. He wants to share those qualities. They cannot be fully experienced without experiencing the kind of life God experiences. The joy and love would not be the same. It would be less.

1. But none of this implies godhood. Remember that God is not a title but a being. As such, since no one can become like the one God in from then we will not become gods. But we can be like him in character and joy and love. None of this requires godhood to be attainable. If God wants to do this for us he will. And we will all share in that joy and love if we win this race. That is Christ’s throne, love, and that is what he means when we will share in it. That is what is meant by joint-throne.

Christ taught the parable where faithful stewards “enter into the joy of thy Lord.” This is a simple concept. “Glorified” in Romans 8:30 means exactly what the word means–to have glory through Christ having redeemed and justified and the Holy Spirit having sanctified that person who is “gorified”.

1. And how does this imply godhood?

Hi, Questioner,

1. We seem to differ about the companionship and “completion” aspects of marriage. Two men could never share a “completeness” because they do not have the contrasting personalities and qualities that, when combined, bring “completeness.” They might have friendship that is intimate in their relationship, but I am talking about one bringing into the marriage the qualities that help the other person fulfill their own best self and progress in fulfilling their own best self. To say that God creates a union on earth so sacred as marriage, only to dissolve that union in eternity, is completely contrary to logic and is refuted by the scripture, “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
2. Luke, Matthew, and Mark were describing the same exact event, but used different language with different meanings. If you are saying Luke was exactly correct, then you are saying Matthew and Mark were incorrect. Both versions cannot be completely correct, because they aren’t the same. One can learn from the scriptures by comparing differences such as those, without some kind of fear that if one thinks every word may not be completely accurate, they will lose their faith in the whole Bible.
3. I simply disagree. The words say what they say. You might say John didn’t know what he was saying, but I know by the Holy Spirit that he wrote exactly what he was asked by the Spirit to write.
4. To enter into the joy of the Lord is to receive a fullness of joy like Christ received by His divine inheritance, and Christ wants us to share in that fullness of joy. It is a simple concept.