If the church was in hiding ...

[placido]

Placido,
I didn’t say that Jesus said John wouldn’t die. I said that He said John would tarry on earth until the Second Coming of Christ.

No ways. Here is what you said on page 16 post #239:

John didn’t die, by the way.

And on page 17 post #254:

It needn’t be breaking news that John did not experience physical death.

And on page 18 post # 265:

The NIV you quoted says “remain alive until I return…” That means John wouldn’t die at the normal age when a person dies. He would “remain alive” until Christ returns … John’s death hasn’t yet occurred, since Christ hasn’t returned yet.

You see, there is no need to discuss what “tarry” means because you said clearly “John did not die” and “John won’t die until Jesus returns”. I hope you are a sincere person who is sincerely wrong and forgetful. Otherwise I will have to conclude you are dishonest.

Placido

 

[ParkerD]

No ways. Here is what you said on page 16 post #239:

And on page 17 post #254:

And on page 18 post # 265:

You see, there is no need to discuss what “tarry” means because you said clearly “John did not die” and “John won’t die until Jesus returns”. I hope you are a sincere person who is sincerely wrong and forgetful. Otherwise I will have to conclude you are dishonest.

Placido

Placido,
Maybe you haven’t understood what I have been consistently saying. “Tarry till I come” means stay on the earth without experiencing death “till I come”, meaning until the Second Coming of Christ. That has not happened yet.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Maybe you haven’t understood what I have been consistently saying.

If any thing, what you have said consistently is this:

1. John didn’t die, by the way.
2. John did not experience physical death.
3. John wouldn’t die … He would “remain alive” until Christ returns.
4. John’s death hasn’t yet occurred, since Christ hasn’t returned yet.

“Tarry till I come” means stay on the earth without experiencing death “till I come”, meaning until the Second Coming of Christ. That has not happened yet.

But Jesus DID NOT SAY John should “tarry” till He comes. I can’t understand how you are unable to read and understand a text that is so clear.
John 21:23 “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus SAID NOT unto him, He shall not die; BUT, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?”

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
I didn’t say Titus was a seventy, I said he might have been a seventy.

And he might not have been a seventy. That cuts both ways but you are biased and inclined to the possibility of him being a “seventy” because that is what suits your arguments.

The epistle shows that he had less authority than Paul and more authority than bishops, so whatever that office was, then whatever it was called is what it was.

Sort of an archbishop, a metropolitan or a patriarch (a bishop with authority over other bishops).

placido

 

[ParkerD]

And he might not have been a seventy. That cuts both ways but you are biased and inclined to the possibility of him being a “seventy” because that is what suits your arguments.

Sort of an archbishop, a metropolitan or a patriarch (a bishop with authority over other bishops).

placido

Placido,
OK–those could be right.

 

[ParkerD]

If any thing, what you have said consistently is this:

1. John didn’t die, by the way.
2. John did not experience physical death.
3. John wouldn’t die … He would “remain alive” until Christ returns.
4. John’s death hasn’t yet occurred, since Christ hasn’t returned yet.

But Jesus DID NOT SAY John should “tarry” till He comes. I can’t understand how you are unable to read and understand a text that is so clear.
John 21:23 “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus SAID NOT unto him, He shall not die; BUT, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?”

placido

Placido,
Once again we seem not to be communicating. Jesus and Peter were having a conversation. Jesus told Peter,
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.

OK–so Peter had just been told he was going to be girded and carried “whither he wouldest not”, meaning he was going to be put somewhere he didn’t want to be, and we find out in verse 19 what that really meant.

So the subject is “what is going to happen to us after Thou hast ascended into heaven.”

Peter is curious. He has overheard Jesus telling John something about the same subject. Then, Jesus, responding to Peter’s curiosity, says about John the following:

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Verse 23 says (paraphrasing), “Jesus said not that John would not die. What he did say was that John would tarry till Jesus comes again to earth.” The word “but” is the counter-point to the word “not.” Not this, but that. This is common grammar.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Once again we seem not to be communicating. Jesus and Peter were having a conversation. Jesus told Peter, 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.

Okay, proceed.

OK–so Peter had just been told he was going to be girded and carried “whither he wouldest not”, meaning he was going to be put somewhere he didn’t want to be, and we find out in verse 19 what that really meant.
So the subject is “what is going to happen to us after Thou hast ascended into heaven.”

Continue, I am listening.

Peter is curious. He has overheard Jesus telling John something about the same subject.

That is an outright lie. In the entire John chapter 21 Jesus did not speak to John separately – not even in the preceding chapter. So, what you said above is misleading, a blatant fabrication

Then, Jesus, responding to Peter’s curiosity, says about John the following:
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

I hope you will be honest enough and admit that Jesus simply asked a question. Even the writer himself clarified that “Jesus did no say …” but you persist in saying “He did say”.

Verse 23 says (paraphrasing), “Jesus said not that John would not die. What he did say was that John would tarry till Jesus comes again to earth.” The word “but” is the counter-point to the word “not.” Not this, but that. This is common grammar.

Is that a “paraphrase” or a naked attempt to distort Scriptures? 2 Peter 3:16 is appropriate here because you (like the ignorant and the unstable) are distorting Scriptures to your own destruction.
Verses 22 to 23 do not need your paraphrase. They are clear enough: NIV: Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the RUMOR spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus DID NOT SAY that he would not die; he ONLY SAID, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
NAB: Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.” So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus HAD NOT TOLD him that he would not die, JUST “What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)”
NRSV: Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ So the RUMOR spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus DID NOT SAY to him that he would not die, BUT, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’
That is a pity you would rather continue spreading the rumor.
Now, back to the topic.
If John was to remain on earth till Jesus returns, where was he while the church was in hiding for more than 1 700 years?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Okay, proceed.

Continue, I am listening.

That is an outright lie. In the entire John chapter 21 Jesus did not speak to John separately – not even in the preceding chapter. So, what you said above is misleading, a blatant fabrication

I hope you will be honest enough and admit that Jesus simply asked a question. Even the writer himself clarified that “Jesus did no say …” but you persist in saying “He did say”.

Is that a “paraphrase” or a naked attempt to distort Scriptures? 2 Peter 3:16 is appropriate here because you (like the ignorant and the unstable) are distorting Scriptures to your own destruction.
Verses 22 to 23 do not need your paraphrase. They are clear enough: NIV: Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the RUMOR spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus DID NOT SAY that he would not die; he ONLY SAID, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
NAB: Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.” So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus HAD NOT TOLD him that he would not die, JUST “What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)”
NRSV: Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ So the RUMOR spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus DID NOT SAY to him that he would not die, BUT, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’
That is a pity you would rather continue spreading the rumor.
Now, back to the topic.
If John was to remain on earth till Jesus returns, where was he while the church was in hiding for more than 1 700 years?

placido

Placido,
Please help me understand what you think was meant by the following phrases:

"he ONLY SAID, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
NAB: Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”

 

[fbl9]

Placido,
Please help me understand what you think was meant by the following phrases:

"he ONLY SAID, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
NAB: Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”

Please do note the word “if” …Had Jesus said “i want him to stay alive” you might have something but as it is you still have not proof…
Jesus was saying to St.Peter that St.John’s fate did not matter to St.Peter, what St.Peter ought to have been wondering/caring about was only following Jesus.

I know you have your hands full with placido but perhaps if you have the chance would you tell me what need there was for Joseph Smith if the immortals where actually the true church…could not they lead the people instead?And is there any proof of the existance of these immortals? Whom are these immortals?

 

[fbl9]

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?

Click on the blue arrow and it will lead you to where this post is then you can go from there to where you posted about these immortals

 

[placido]

Placido,
Please help me understand what you think was meant by the following phrases:
"he ONLY SAID, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
NAB: Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”

Firstly, please note the questions marks. They too have a meaning. Jesus did not declare the alleged immortality of John; He asked and one can not base doctrine on a question.
Secondly, that is a serious error to isolate part of the text and then try to depend on that part alone. Working with the whole text would be much better (and I will write the words you have chosen to ignore in capital letters):
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” BECAUSE OF THIS, THE RUMOR SPREAD among the brothers that this disciple would not die. BUT JESUS DID NOT SAY THAT HE [John] WOULD NOT DIE; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
Unfortunately, you are still spreading the RUMOR.

placido

 

[placido]

Please do note the word “if” …Had Jesus said “i want him to stay alive” you might have something but as it is you still have not proof…
Jesus was saying to St.Peter that St.John’s fate did not matter to St.Peter, what St.Peter ought to have been wondering/caring about was only following Jesus.

Good point there.

I know you have your hands full with placido but perhaps if you have the chance would you tell me what need there was for Joseph Smith if the immortals where actually the true church…could not they lead the people instead?And is there any proof of the existance of these immortals? Whom are these immortals?

Good questions but, as experience has shown, Parker shall find his way around them. Don’t forget that he believes in continuing revelation. The “holy spirit” can reveal any thing to him at any time, but what it persistently “fails to reveal” is the whereabouts of John and other immortals. Parker said that is so that people won’t believe, meaning: the “holy spirit” doesn’t want people to believe.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Please do note the word “if” …Had Jesus said “i want him to stay alive” you might have something but as it is you still have not proof…
Jesus was saying to St.Peter that St.John’s fate did not matter to St.Peter, what St.Peter ought to have been wondering/caring about was only following Jesus.

I know you have your hands full with placido but perhaps if you have the chance would you tell me what need there was for Joseph Smith if the immortals where actually the true church…could not they lead the people instead?And is there any proof of the existance of these immortals? Whom are these immortals?

FBL9,
Hello to you. First, “immortals” is not a correct word to describe John and the three Nephite disciples of Christ who also wanted to remain on earth rather than die at the normal life span. They will eventually die and be resurrected, so if that is what you mean, then we are all “immortal” since we will all die and be resurrected and live forever after that.

Their bodies were changed to a condition where they would no longer get older during the period of time until the time of the Second Coming of Christ. That, of course, seems impossible to human concepts of how the body works, but if one accepts that Christ really is all powerful, then one would have to acknowledge that this kind of thing is possible.

We don’t know which names of the three Nephite disciples are the ones among twelve Nephite disciples whose names are recorded in the Book of Mormon, who had this distinction.

The Book of Mormon records that “if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.” (3 Nephi 28:30)

As to your question about “proof”, I have a real experience described by my great great grandmother and also by several others of her neighbors who were living at the time in northwest Georgia (the state). She would never have allowed LDS missionaries to enter her home and would never have listened to their message at all since she was from a strong Baptist background, had it not been that a kindly, distinguished looking man showed up in her back yard one day while she was outside walking to her well. He told her that if she and her husband (he having already felt inclined to protect the young missionaries who were being threatened by a group in their community with violence against them) would do as her husband had felt inclined, and give the missionaries protection, it would be a blessing to their family. She obeyed the man’s advice, and her family felt blessed because they did give the missionaries protection. She told her family and posterity that the man was gone when she began walking toward her home and then looked back. She had never seen him before and never saw him again.

Others in that particular place in Georgia have similar accounts in their families as well, of a visit by a kindly man who advised that they should protect or listen to the “Mormon missionaries” and their family would be blessed. He was never seen by them again. I have heard of this from two of the descendants of those people.

You’re probably going to say “that sounds like a tall tale.” I don’t blame you at all. But I am familiar with the woman’s family line who was my great great grandmother, and I have no doubt that she would not have joined the Mormon Church, would not have listened to Mormon missionaries, without having first had a change of heart brought on by hearing from someone whom she had no reason to doubt was telling her the truth. This was in 1876, and it really happened. She later moved to Utah from Georgia with her husband and children. She left her parents and siblings who lived nearby where she lived, and moved to Utah where she had no relatives and they would be leaving their farm and starting a new life. Her maiden name was Nancy Elizabeth Duke, and her parents were Green R. Duke and Nancy Emmaline Sharp. The place was Floyd County, Georgia.

 

[placido]

FBL9,
Hello to you. First, “immortals” is not a correct word to describe John and the three Nephite disciples of Christ who also wanted to remain on earth rather than die at the normal life span. They will eventually die and be resurrected,

I will demonstrate that you are abusing words and playing games with us, in fact insulting our intelligence. Brother Parker, “immortal” means not able to die. If something or someone is “immortal”, then that thing or that person can not die.

Their bodies were changed to a condition where they would no longer get older during the period of time until the time of the Second Coming of Christ. That, of course, seems impossible to human concepts of how the body works, but if one accepts that Christ really is all powerful, then one would have to acknowledge that this kind of thing is possible.

In post # 115 you said this:

“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.” (my emphasis)

As every body here can see, that was Parker doing what he can do best, that is: contradict himself.
Those that in post #115 “were no longer mortal”, in post #353 they simply “would no longer get older”.

We don’t know which names of the three Nephite disciples are the ones among twelve Nephite disciples whose names are recorded in the Book of Mormon, who had this distinction.

The Book of Mormon is extra-Biblical, in the same class as the writings of Ellen G. White and Mohammed’s Koran. If you really want fruitful discussion here, leave those writings out of the equation because we don’t accept them as God-breathed.

The Book of Mormon records that “if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.” (3 Nephi 28:30)

Same answer as above.

As to your question about “proof”, I have a real experience described by my great great grandmother and also by several others of her neighbors who were living at the time in northwest Georgia (the state). She would never have allowed LDS missionaries to enter her home and would never have listened to their message at all since she was from a strong Baptist background, had it not been that a kindly, distinguished looking man showed up in her back yard one day while she was outside walking to her well. He told her that if she and her husband (he having already felt inclined to protect the young missionaries who were being threatened by a group in their community with violence against them) would do as her husband had felt inclined, and give the missionaries protection, it would be a blessing to their family. She obeyed the man’s advice, and her family felt blessed because they did give the missionaries protection. She told her family and posterity that the man was gone when she began walking toward her home and then looked back. She had never seen him before and never saw him again.
Others in that particular place in Georgia have similar accounts in their families as well, of a visit by a kindly man who advised that they should protect or listen to the “Mormon missionaries” and their family would be blessed. He was never seen by them again. I have heard of this from two of the descendants of those people.

Even the specific serpent that appeared to Eve was never seen in the Garden of Eden again – and it was charming too.

You’re probably going to say “that sounds like a tall tale.”

No. That sounds more like “the father of all lies” (John 8:44) doing what he does best: DECEIVE.

I don’t blame you at all. But I am familiar with the woman’s family line who was my great great grandmother, and I have no doubt that she would not have joined the Mormon Church, would not have listened to Mormon missionaries, without having first had a change of heart brought on by hearing from someone whom she had no reason to doubt was telling her the truth. This was in 1876, and it really happened. She later moved to Utah from Georgia with her husband and children. She left her parents and siblings who lived nearby where she lived, and moved to Utah where she had no relatives and they would be leaving their farm and starting a new life. Her maiden name was Nancy Elizabeth Duke, and her parents were Green R. Duke and Nancy Emmaline Sharp. The place was Floyd County, Georgia.

If you replace “the Mormon Church” in your story with the name of any other church, you will soon find that the story is a common one. People leaving Catholicism after they were visited by Baptist missionaries; people leaving the Lutheran church after they met Pentecostal preachers; people leaving the Adventist church after listening to Catholic evangelists, etc. If only truth can bring about those changes, then we have so many truths.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

I will demonstrate that you are abusing words and playing games with us, in fact insulting our intelligence. Brother Parker, “immortal” means not able to die. If something or someone is “immortal”, then that thing or that person can not die.

In post # 115 you said this:

“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.” (my emphasis)

As every body here can see, that was Parker doing what he can do best, that is: contradict himself.
Those that in post #115 “were no longer mortal”, in post #353 they simply “would no longer get older”.

The Book of Mormon is extra-Biblical, in the same class as the writings of Ellen G. White and Mohammed’s Koran. If you really want fruitful discussion here, leave those writings out of the equation because we don’t accept them as God-breathed.

Same answer as above.

Even the specific serpent that appeared to Eve was never seen in the Garden of Eden again – and it was charming too.

No. That sounds more like “the father of all lies” (John 8:44) doing what he does best: DECEIVE.

If you replace “the Mormon Church” in your story with the name of any other church, you will soon find that the story is a common one. People leaving Catholicism after they were visited by Baptist missionaries; people leaving the Lutheran church after they met Pentecostal preachers; people leaving the Adventist church after listening to Catholic evangelists, etc. If only truth can bring about those changes, then we have so many truths.

placido

Placido,
I understand why one such as yourself would think in terms of two possible conditions of the body–either mortal or immortal. But I don’t think that way because I am familiar with the use of another term: “translated” being. That word would not make sense to someone who has not heard of this condition of the body before.

If you have the impression from your reading of the scriptures that the “father of all lies” can appear to people as a kindly, distinguished looking old gentleman and deceive them, then there ought to be millions of such personal history stories in the world, or billions. It would be his “best trick”. We simply have a different understanding of the kinds of power that the “father of all lies” has been allowed to have. Besides which, a person on the receiving end can distinguish when they are being deceived because of what it leads to. The “father of all lies” does not fight against himself, and if people were acting in a threatening and violent way toward someone else, then I would have thought that it would be obvious to you “whose side they were on.” My great great grandparents protected some innocent people from mob violence. You have said they were the ones who were deceived. Go figure.

 

[placido]

Placido,
I understand why one such as yourself would think in terms of two possible conditions of the body–either mortal or immortal. But I don’t think that way because I am familiar with the use of another term: “translated” being.

Brother Parker, you can run as fast as you can but you will never get away as long as you are on this thread; there is simply no place for you to hide.
By assuming I am not familiar with the term “translated being” you made the blunder of the century and used phrases like “no longer mortal” and “would no longer get older” in a misleading way since that is (apparently) not what you really meant.

That word would not make sense to someone who has not heard of this condition of the body before.

And who told you that I never heard of “this condition” before? I may disagree with what you say, but that does in no way mean I have no knowledge of what the LDS church taught you. I can promise you, you will be surprised one day to find out how much I know about the teachings of your church.

If you have the impression from your reading of the scriptures that the “father of all lies” can appear to people as a kindly, distinguished looking old gentleman and deceive them, then there ought to be millions of such personal history stories in the world, or billions.

If he can appear like a serpent or even like an angel from God, why not appear like “a kindly, distinguished looking gentleman” if that is what suits his purpose, at that time and place?

It would be his “best trick”.

And that really is.

We simply have a different understanding of the kinds of power that the “father of all lies” has been allowed to have.

You mean he is allowed to appear like an angel from God, but he is definitely not allowed to appear like a man? That is strange.

Besides which, a person on the receiving end can distinguish when they are being deceived because of what it leads to.

Tell that to Mohammed – he strongly believed that was Archangel Gabriel that appeared to him to dictate the Koran.

The “father of all lies” does not fight against himself,

That is exactly how he wants you to think … that is part of his tricks.

and if people were acting in a threatening and violent way toward someone else, then I would have thought that it would be obvious to you “whose side they were on.”

Yes, but don’t forget that the devil as the father of chaos and confusion can be driving power behind both sides … just to cause further confusion.

My great great grandparents protected some innocent people from mob violence. You have said they were the ones who were deceived. Go figure.

Brother Parker, do you really believe deep in your heart that a person deceived by the devil can not defend innocent people even if that would best serve the strategic interests of the evil one?
If you believe that protecting innocent people is the ONLY sign of not being wrong, then you miles away from the reality.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Brother Parker, you can run as fast as you can but you will never get away as long as you are on this thread; there is simply no place for you to hide.
By assuming I am not familiar with the term “translated being” you made the blunder of the century and used phrases like “no longer mortal” and “would no longer get older” in a misleading way since that is (apparently) not what you really meant.

And who told you that I never heard of “this condition” before? I may disagree with what you say, but that does in no way mean I have no knowledge of what the LDS church taught you. I can promise you, you will be surprised one day to find out how much I know about the teachings of your church.

If he can appear like a serpent or even like an angel from God, why not appear like “a kindly, distinguished looking gentleman” if that is what suits his purpose, at that time and place?

And that really is.

You mean he is allowed to appear like an angel from God, but he is definitely not allowed to appear like a man? That is strange.

Tell that to Mohammed – he strongly believed that was Archangel Gabriel that appeared to him to dictate the Koran.

That is exactly how he wants you to think … that is part of his tricks.

Yes, but don’t forget that the devil as the father of chaos and confusion can be driving power behind both sides … just to cause further confusion.

Brother Parker, do you really believe deep in your heart that a person deceived by the devil can not defend innocent people even if that would best serve the strategic interests of the evil one?
If you believe that protecting innocent people is the ONLY sign of not being wrong, then you miles away from the reality.

placido

Placido,
People make choices in their lives to do good things, or to do bad things. The “father of all lies” leads people to do bad things, not good things. It is pretty simple. Christ leads people to do good things, not bad things. Again, it is pretty simple.

You might read Luke 11:14-23.

By the way, sorry I made the assumption that you would not be familiar with the term “translated being”. If I had known you were familiar with the term, I would have used it right off the bat.

 

[wisdomseeker]

FBL9,
Hello to you. First, “immortals” is not a correct word to describe John and the three Nephite disciples of Christ who also wanted to remain on earth rather than die at the normal life span. They will eventually die and be resurrected, so if that is what you mean, then we are all “immortal” since we will all die and be resurrected and live forever after that.

Their bodies were changed to a condition where they would no longer get older during the period of time until the time of the Second Coming of Christ. That, of course, seems impossible to human concepts of how the body works, but if one accepts that Christ really is all powerful, then one would have to acknowledge that this kind of thing is possible.

We don’t know which names of the three Nephite disciples are the ones among twelve Nephite disciples whose names are recorded in the Book of Mormon, who had this distinction.

The Book of Mormon records that “if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.” (3 Nephi 28:30)

As to your question about “proof”, I have a real experience described by my great great grandmother and also by several others of her neighbors who were living at the time in northwest Georgia (the state). She would never have allowed LDS missionaries to enter her home and would never have listened to their message at all since she was from a strong Baptist background, had it not been that a kindly, distinguished looking man showed up in her back yard one day while she was outside walking to her well. He told her that if she and her husband (he having already felt inclined to protect the young missionaries who were being threatened by a group in their community with violence against them) would do as her husband had felt inclined, and give the missionaries protection, it would be a blessing to their family. She obeyed the man’s advice, and her family felt blessed because they did give the missionaries protection. She told her family and posterity that the man was gone when she began walking toward her home and then looked back. She had never seen him before and never saw him again.

Others in that particular place in Georgia have similar accounts in their families as well, of a visit by a kindly man who advised that they should protect or listen to the “Mormon missionaries” and their family would be blessed. He was never seen by them again. I have heard of this from two of the descendants of those people.

You’re probably going to say “that sounds like a tall tale.” I don’t blame you at all. But I am familiar with the woman’s family line who was my great great grandmother, and I have no doubt that she would not have joined the Mormon Church, would not have listened to Mormon missionaries, without having first had a change of heart brought on by hearing from someone whom she had no reason to doubt was telling her the truth. This was in 1876, and it really happened. She later moved to Utah from Georgia with her husband and children. She left her parents and siblings who lived nearby where she lived, and moved to Utah where she had no relatives and they would be leaving their farm and starting a new life. Her maiden name was Nancy Elizabeth Duke, and her parents were Green R. Duke and Nancy Emmaline Sharp. The place was Floyd County, Georgia.

i am amazed by these statements of yours. you believe these things but you dont believe that Jesus kept His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. that His Church is still here. you know the One that gave you the Bible and you claim that she cannot enterpret it.

 

[placido]

Placido,
People make choices in their lives to do good things, or to do bad things.

Yes.

The “father of all lies” leads people to do bad things, not good things.

He can also lead people to do seemingly “good things” if that serves him well in the long run. Atheists can do charity work; pagans can be opposed to abortion and murder, etc.

It is pretty simple. Christ leads people to do good things, not bad things. Again, it is pretty simple.

Yes, but some seemingly “good deeds” can serve the devil by misleading people on the long run.

You might read Luke 11:14-23.

Yes, but I read it without forgetting Matthew 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
As you can see, prophesying, performing miracles and driving out demons (seemingly “good deeds”) can be done even by “evildoers”.

By the way, sorry I made the assumption that you would not be familiar with the term “translated being”. If I had known you were familiar with the term, I would have used it right off the bat.

That is as good as saying, “when Parker assumes someone is ignorant, Parker tells lies; when Parker knows that the person is familiar with the LDS teachings, Parker speaks the truth”.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Placido,
People use words other people are familiar with when they are trying to explain a concept that may be unfamiliar to those other people. How difficult would it have been for you to say, “Parker, I am familiar with the fact that the LDS belief is that John was a translated being”? But no, that wouldn’t have served your purpose. We have not been having an honest conversation, I agree with that, because I didn’t use a term I thought you wouldn’t be familiar with and you withheld the fact that you were already familiar with the whole concept of “translated beings” in “LDS lingo” and that John was one of those.

Christ was talking about hypocrisy, such as portraying one characteristic (honesty or sincere love for neighbor) when deep-down acting in a deceptive or misleading or non-loving, self-serving way.

We differ profoundly if you think only members of the Catholic church do good in the world.
I don’t think that way at all about my church versus the rest of the world. I am sincerely grateful for all the good that is done in the world by whomever does the good that they do.