Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[lax16]

from fairlds.org
from fairlds.org

Notice how Paul entreated Timothy to do his duty as an evangelist, but indicated that the Church in general would forsake the faith. In the same letter Paul intimated that “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1:15)–and Asia Minor was exactly where most of the Christian converts lived.3

Now that we know Paul wasn’t referring to every Christian in Asia Minor, let’s look at what was going on in Asia Minor during the times of the early Church.

from catholicencyclopedia.com

St. Paul visited **many parts of Asia Minor and established there the first Christian **churches; in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Acts there is a vivid and circumstantial description of all the chief phases of his Apostolic activity…

** St. John travelled much throughout Asia Minor **and has always been credited with the first establishment of many of its episcopal sees; **the story **of the re-conversion of the young robber, touchingly told in the “**Quis Dives” **of Clement of Alexandria **exhibits the popular concept of St. John in the mind of the average Christian of Asia Minor about the year 200. **It is **in Asia Minor **that **synods, or frequent assemblies of **Christian bishops, first meet us as a working ecclesiastical institution; even in remote and uncouth Cappadocia they were not infrequent in the third century. It was therefore fitting that when **the first general council of the Catholic Church was held **](525) it should be called together at Nicæa (Isnik) in western Asia Minor, amid a population long stanchly Christian. Of the (traditional) 318 bishops who attended that council about one hundred were from Asia Minor; the semi-barbarous Isauria sent fourteen city bishops and four rural bishops (chorepiscopi), while remote Cilicia sent nine city bishops and one rural bishop.

Indeed, the episcopal system of Asia Minor seems to have been almost completed by this time. (Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Asia Minor, in Histor. Geogr. of Asia Minor, London, 1890, 104-426.) In any case, there were in that territory in the fifth century some 450 Catholic episcopal sees. The institution of rural bishops (chorepiscopi) appears first in Asia Minor (Council of Ancyra, 314) and seems to be the origin of the later parochial system. **It **is in Asia Minor that arose, or were fought out, nearly all the great ecclesiastical conflicts of the early Christian period.

The Church History of Eusebius, first published before 325, exhibits the Christian bishops of Asia Minor during the second and third centuries in conflict with semi-Oriental philosophic heresies like Gnosticism, that developed under the leadership of keen critical rationalists like Marcion of Sinope on the Black Sea, while the germs of the great christological heresies, e.g. Sabellianism, were first nourished on the same soil. Here, too, met the famous councils that overthrew these heresies (Nicæa in 325, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451). Internal reform of the Christian ]Church was first undertaken ]from Asia Minor, where Montanus, a native of Phrygia, began the rigorist movement known as Montanism, and denounced the growing…

evanfaust - there is no way anyone who reads about early church history is going to believe that all of the Christians in Asia Minor turned away from Christianity.

Really, the article you linked from fairlds.org is absolutely ridculous.

Can you give me something better to comment on?

 

[Palaiologos]

Hello, I hope you don’t mind me jumping in on this thread, I’m new to CAF (at least with regards to posting). I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but it gets tiresome to see the same incorrect arguments and distortions put forward time and again.

The article at fairlds.org/Restoring_the…ch/chap02.html is so riddled with errors about the early church it is hard to know where to start. Take, for example, the quotes from Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians which only serve to weaken the case for a total apostasy. The picture usually painted of the great apostasy is local churches floundering in the dark without any authoritative leadership or guidance. But here we have a clear case of the Church (significantly the church at Rome) correcting an episode of rebellion in a local church. Schism was not permitted to continue indefinitely. The intervention must have been successful because in the second century the Corinthian church was considered to be fully orthodox, in fact they (as well as other churches) would read Clement’s letter in the liturgy as if it were scripture. The rebels lost, the proper authority won.

Even more damaging to the apostasy hypothesis is the quote included about the succession of bishops

“Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate . . . . For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry”

Note that the apostles did not say ‘Only apostles can ordain bishops, wait for the quorum of the twelve to decide about matters of succession’, they gave the power to do that to the bishops they ordained (and Clement should know what the apostles taught since he himself was taught by them). In the epistle Clement also clearly lays out how God’s message is delivered to us: God sent Jesus Christ, Christ sent the apostles, the apostles ordained bishops, those bishops would be followed by other bishops, and so on. There is a reason why we have no record of groups in the early years of the Church that claimed to have twelve apostles, it’s because the original apostles did not teach that the church had to always have twelve living apostles. If they did you would expect to see at least some people claiming to have the true church because they have twelve apostles. We do, though, see many of the heretics claiming to have bishops and presbyters (like Marcion). In contrast, since the necessity of apostles and prophets was clearly and repeatedly taught by Joseph Smith, every group coming out of the Latter Day Saints movement have their apostles, etc.

The references to epistles of Ignatius of Antioch are also misleading. Yes, Ignatius warned repeatedly about being loyal to your bishop and avoiding heresies, but don’t we hear the same things said in LDS general conference about following the prophet and staying away from the false teachings of men? In some of the letters Ignatius explicitly says that he has seen or heard of no actual dissension in their church, he is just warning them in advance. The FAIR article states that Ignatius chastises some of the Magnesians in his letter to them: “It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him”. This gives the impression that the church there was on the verge of apostasy or rebellion. But Ignatius was referring to heretics who were holding their own separate meetings. In fact Ignatius also says in the same epistle things like: ‘In pointing these things out to you my brothers, it is not that I know of any of you actually being affected in this way, it is simply that I am anxious in all humility to warn you in good time of the pitfalls of this shallow teaching’ and ‘For you, as I know so well, are wholly free from pride, having Jesus Christ within you’ and ‘When I hear of the disciplined way of life your Christian love has taught you, it gave me so much pleasure that I decided to address a few word to you’ and ‘I am still unfit to bear comparison with any one of you’ and ‘Knowing how amply filled with God you are, I have been brief in these exhortations’.

The article also states: “In one passage Ignatius wrote, "Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria , which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it . . . ." This fits very nicely with the LDS theory that the Church was in the process of shutting down at the time, and the true “succession” was about to end”. Of course, Ignatius is only referring to the fact that since he is being taken to Rome to be martyred for his testimony of Jesus, he is necessarily unable to conduct his normal duties as bishop. We know that when word of his death reached Antioch another man was ordained to the bishopric there (his name was Hero) and that there has been a line of bishops of Antioch up to the present day. The FAIR author also left out the end of the sentence: ‘Jesus Christ alone will have oversight of it, He and your love’. This comes from the letter addressed to the church at Rome, which church Ignatius also tells us ‘presides in love’ and ‘has the presidency’. So one could interpret this as saying that until the new bishop is chosen, the Roman church (along with Christ) will have the ‘oversight’ of the church at Antioch.

 

[Palaiologos]

Just a few more things from the FAIR article. There is a quote from Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In that quote he is referring to heretics who were trying to undermine the doctrine of Christ’s divinity that came out of the council of Nicaea. We have his lectures for catechumens, and it’s easy to see from reading them that he was an orthodox catholic Christian who believed in the Trinity, the real presence, etc. In those lectures Cyril also gives us some useful advice for recognizing the true church of Christ:

‘And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is, for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord, nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.’

He also tell us:

‘It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.’

And one more quote from the article: “No wonder the second century Christian writer Hegesippus could theorize that "the Church remained a ‘pure virgin’ in the Apostles’ day (until the reign of Trajan [A.D. 98-117]) and was then corrupted by heresies.” Now I’ve seen this quote many times, but as usual it is missing its context. For we have the following that is also reported by Eusebius:

‘Hegesippus in five short works that have come into my hands has left a very full account of his own beliefs. In them he describes how when travelling as far as Rome he mixed with a number of bishops and found the same doctrine among them all. Listen to what he appends to some remarks about Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians. “The Corinthian church continued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were refreshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter and he by Eleutherus. In every line of bishops and in every city things accord with the preaching of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord”’

Hegesippus was a Catholic Christian. Eusebius in the fourth century finds his beliefs wholly orthodox. Hegesippus lists the corrupting heresies as coming from those outside the Catholic faith: Marcionites, Valentians, etc. Ironically, Mormons often look to these very same Gnostics for support for some of their doctrines, like baptism for the dead, ‘bridal chambers’, plurality of gods, etc.

So yes, there have always been heresies and heretics trying to destroy Christ’s Church, both from within and without. This will continue until the second coming. We are, after all, engaged in a war with the evil one. The question is whether Christ protects and preserves His Body and Bride in spite of Satan’s continual attacks.

 

[lax16]

Hello, I hope you don’t mind me jumping in on this thread, I’m new to CAF (at least with regards to posting). I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but it gets tiresome to see the same incorrect arguments and distortions put forward time and again.

The article at fairlds.org/Restoring_the…ch/chap02.html is so riddled with errors about the early church it is hard to know where to start. Take, for example, the quotes from Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians which only serve to weaken the case for a total apostasy. The picture usually painted of the great apostasy is local churches floundering in the dark without any authoritative leadership or guidance. But here we have a clear case of the Church (significantly the church at Rome) correcting an episode of rebellion in a local church. Schism was not permitted to continue indefinitely. The intervention must have been successful because in the second century the Corinthian church was considered to be fully orthodox, in fact they (as well as other churches) would read Clement’s letter in the liturgy as if it were scripture. The rebels lost, the proper authority won.

Even more damaging to the apostasy hypothesis is the quote included about the succession of bishops

“Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate . . . . For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry”

Note that the apostles did not say ‘Only apostles can ordain bishops, wait for the quorum of the twelve to decide about matters of succession’, they gave the power to do that to the bishops they ordained (and Clement should know what the apostles taught since he himself was taught by them). In the epistle Clement also clearly lays out how God’s message is delivered to us: God sent Jesus Christ, Christ sent the apostles, the apostles ordained bishops, those bishops would be followed by other bishops, and so on. There is a reason why we have no record of groups in the early years of the Church that claimed to have twelve apostles, it’s because the original apostles did not teach that the church had to always have twelve living apostles. If they did you would expect to see at least some people claiming to have the true church because they have twelve apostles. We do, though, see many of the heretics claiming to have bishops and presbyters (like Marcion). In contrast, since the necessity of apostles and prophets was clearly and repeatedly taught by Joseph Smith, every group coming out of the Latter Day Saints movement have their apostles, etc.

The references to epistles of Ignatius of Antioch are also misleading. Yes, Ignatius warned repeatedly about being loyal to your bishop and avoiding heresies, but don’t we hear the same things said in LDS general conference about following the prophet and staying away from the false teachings of men? In some of the letters Ignatius explicitly says that he has seen or heard of no actual dissension in their church, he is just warning them in advance. The FAIR article states that Ignatius chastises some of the Magnesians in his letter to them: “It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him”. This gives the impression that the church there was on the verge of apostasy or rebellion. But Ignatius was referring to heretics who were holding their own separate meetings. In fact Ignatius also says in the same epistle things like: ‘In pointing these things out to you my brothers, it is not that I know of any of you actually being affected in this way, it is simply that I am anxious in all humility to warn you in good time of the pitfalls of this shallow teaching’ and ‘For you, as I know so well, are wholly free from pride, having Jesus Christ within you’ and ‘When I hear of the disciplined way of life your Christian love has taught you, it gave me so much pleasure that I decided to address a few word to you’ and ‘I am still unfit to bear comparison with any one of you’ and ‘Knowing how amply filled with God you are, I have been brief in these exhortations’.

The article also states: “In one passage Ignatius wrote, "Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria , which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it . . . ." This fits very nicely with the LDS theory that the Church was in the process of shutting down at the time, and the true “succession” was about to end”. Of course, Ignatius is only referring to the fact that since he is being taken to Rome to be martyred for his testimony of Jesus, he is necessarily unable to conduct his normal duties as bishop. We know that when word of his death reached Antioch another man was ordained to the bishopric there (his name was Hero) and that there has been a line of bishops of Antioch up to the present day. The FAIR author also left out the end of the sentence: ‘Jesus Christ alone will have oversight of it, He and your love’. This comes from the letter addressed to the church at Rome, which church Ignatius also tells us ‘presides in love’ and ‘has the presidency’. So one could interpret this as saying that until the new bishop is chosen, the Roman church (along with Christ) will have the ‘oversight’ of the church at Antioch.

:thumbsup:Awesome post!

 

[lax16]

Just a few more things from the FAIR article. There is a quote from Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In that quote he is referring to heretics who were trying to undermine the doctrine of Christ’s divinity that came out of the council of Nicaea. We have his lectures for catechumens, and it’s easy to see from reading them that he was an orthodox catholic Christian who believed in the Trinity, the real presence, etc. In those lectures Cyril also gives us some useful advice for recognizing the true church of Christ:

‘And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is, for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord, nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.’

He also tell us:

‘It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.’

And one more quote from the article: “No wonder the second century Christian writer Hegesippus could theorize that "the Church remained a ‘pure virgin’ in the Apostles’ day (until the reign of Trajan [A.D. 98-117]) and was then corrupted by heresies.” Now I’ve seen this quote many times, but as usual it is missing its context. For we have the following that is also reported by Eusebius:

‘Hegesippus in five short works that have come into my hands has left a very full account of his own beliefs. In them he describes how when travelling as far as Rome he mixed with a number of bishops and found the same doctrine among them all. Listen to what he appends to some remarks about Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians. “The Corinthian church continued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were refreshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter and he by Eleutherus. In every line of bishops and in every city things accord with the preaching of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord”’

Hegesippus was a Catholic Christian. Eusebius in the fourth century finds his beliefs wholly orthodox. Hegesippus lists the corrupting heresies as coming from those outside the Catholic faith: Marcionites, Valentians, etc. Ironically, Mormons often look to these very same Gnostics for support for some of their doctrines, like baptism for the dead, ‘bridal chambers’, plurality of gods, etc.

So yes, there have always been heresies and heretics trying to destroy Christ’s Church, both from within and without. This will continue until the second coming. We are, after all, engaged in a war with the evil one. The question is whether Christ protects and preserves His Body and Bride in spite of Satan’s continual attacks.

:thumbsup:Terrific!

 

[AtticusFinch]

one of the things that has always baffled is me is that Mormons MUST believe that somehow, the Apostles and their successors were the only people in history who did not know how to ordain to keep the chain going. In the OT, they knew. They brought on successors all the time. And then, somehow, the Apostles and their successors completely forgot how to, then, suddenly, in the 1800s, people rememebred how again when the LDS Church started.

That is hogwash. The Apostles knew. They knew they were starting something that needed to go on. They knew it would go on, else why teach at all? They traveled starting Churches. Of COURSE they knew how to ordain and keep it going.

And so it was.

The LDS line of authority of a priesthood holder is very very short. It has pretty good stuff from today till the 1820s, then it skips from the 1820s back to 33 AD

A Catholic Priest can show a line of authority unbroken from today back to Christ. There is no 2000-year gap.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A “great apostasy” is a conspiracy theory, that is based on an idea that the Apostles were completely derelict in their duties. They walked, talked, and were taught by JESUS CHRIST. But didn’t bother to do as He instructed them AFTER the completely jaw dropping miracle of His RESURRECTION. They didn’t bother to ensure that the Church Christ founded would continue? Seriously.

It is astounding that anyone could believe such a thing. Especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that it has, and does.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ chose them. They followed Him and all His manner. They chose their successors. There were those in the same company as the successors but were not chosen to be bishops or presbyters. They taught early doctrine. But were not consecrated by the laying of hands by the Apostles.

The laying on of hands to ordain has never been broken for 2,000 years.

In the USA, 97 to 98% of the Catholic priests are not pathological. Some say the deviants are even less than that. The secular society has the greatest sex abuse but it detracts by attacking celibacy as if it is the cause of pathological behavior.

Nevertheless, this past year has seen the greatest number of converts enter the Church. The trials are purifying and strengthening as well.

Now is the time for the desert to bloom.

 

[Javl]

Might I also add that in the theology of Mormonism , both the Melchizedek and Aaronic orders are considered to be but one priesthood ( Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 84, verse 17 ) and through the authority of the priesthood alone, they maintain “laymen speak and act in the name of the Lord for the salvation of humanity”.

But, in the 7th chapter of Hebrews, as any careful exegesis will reveal, is the fact that Jesus Christ who is “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” ( v17 ) has , by virtue of His sacrifice upon the cross, changed the priesthood of Aaron ( v12 ), instituting in its place His own priesthood of the Melchizedek order.

Christ was not of the tribe of Levi and not of the priesthood of Aaron: he was of the tribe of Judah, yet His priesthood is infinitely superior to that of Aaron. It is quite evident that the Levitical priesthood could not evolve into the Melchizedek priesthood, but that it passed away as symbolized by the tearing of the veil leading to the Holy of Holies at the crucifixion ( Mat 27:51 ).

Our Lord’s priesthood is not dependent upon its continuation from father to son, as the Aaronic was through the Levitical order, something which was necessitated by virtue of the fact that all men die; hence its transference. Hebrews tells us that Jesus Christ “arose after the similitude of Melchizedek”. He is “another priest” who is made “not after the law of carnal commandment” but after the power of imperishable life. He was not consecrated a priest as were the Levites from father to son, but His priesthood is after the order of endless being. His is an infinite priesthood because He is eternal. All this should refute the Mormon claims to the perpetuity of the Aaronic priesthood and even more so in refuting the Mormon concept of the Melchizedek priesthood, which the Mormons also claim to have recieved. ( Please read Hebrews ).

PAX DOPMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[mmsiciliana]

MMSiciliana,
If you’re saying that no one in the world is happy except Catholics, then I strongly disagree. The teachings of Christ and His gospel bring happiness as those teachings are lived. The happiness comes from living the teachings. There is a cause and effect relationship. Jesus taught this principle.

But yet, to inherit what the book of Revelation talks about, is to inherit more than earthly happiness.

A “new gospel” means “changed doctrines of the gospel.”

Changed doctrines would be such things as–well, do you really want to know? I really dislike getting into that kind of discussion, because it leads merely to no new insights for anyone. You have, I would imagine, read discussions about the kinds of doctrinal changes that mean the gospel was “added to” or in other words, “changed.”

Have a good day.

I didn’t say that no one in this world is happy except Catholics. I said the fullness of the faith is found in Catholicism. Only Catholicism can trace its beginning to Jesus Christ Himself (The Orthodox Church can also, but they broke off from Catholicism). Mormons can only trace their beginning to Joseph Smith. The Catholic Church still teaches what the early Church fathers taught, and what the Apostles taught, and what Jesus Himself taught. Mormons cannot make that claim.

 

[mmsiciliana]

lax16,

The evidences are so vast that it is hard to decide where to start. But, I will post this link for your own reading, which addresses the apostasy from many angles.

Please read!

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/

From: fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

"Paul spoke of this apostasy (“falling away”) when he told the elders at Ephesus that “after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30) Thus the Church would be under attack both from without (persecution) and from within (heresy). Indeed, Paul had serious concerns about the Church’s stability when he wrote to Timothy that the saints would turn away from sound doctrine:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (2 Timothy 4:3-5)

Notice how Paul entreated Timothy to do his duty as an evangelist, but indicated that the Church in general would forsake the faith. In the same letter Paul intimated that “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1:15)–and Asia Minor was exactly where most of the Christian converts lived.3

Peter also warned the saints that “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2 Peter 2:1-2)"

Peter and Paul did not predict a general apostasy; they predicted what Joseph Smith and his followers would do. Joseph Smith is a grievous wolf who has entered in amongst the flock and by persuading others to believe his fairy tale, has spoken “perverse things” and drawn other would-be followers of Christ to follow himself instead. The time came when Joseph Smith could not endure sound doctrine but turned others against the true Gospel and turned them towards a fairy tale–a fable. Joseph Smith was a false teacher who brought in damnable heresies–that God the Father was once a HUMAN BEING just like us and that by following the Mormon religion, a man can somehow attain the nature of God. Joseph Smith denies Christ and Mormons speak evil of the truth when they claim it is not the truth.

 

[mmsiciliana]

lax16,

The evidences are so vast that it is hard to decide where to start. But, I will post this link for your own reading, which addresses the apostasy from many angles.

Please read!

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/

From:fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

Jude, the brother of Jesus, wrote a general epistle to combat the many false teachers who had crept into the Church:

It was needful for me to . . . exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

And who were the ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness? How about polygamists? Can’t get much more lascivious than that…

 

[mmsiciliana]

lax16,

The evidences are so vast that it is hard to decide where to start. But, I will post this link for your own reading, which addresses the apostasy from many angles.

Please read!

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/

These are not “evidences.” Even the author calls it a theory:

From: fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

"This fits very nicely with the LDS theory that the Church was in the process of shutting down at the time, and the true “succession” was about to end, especially when one remembers that Ignatius insisted that “Apart from [the bishops, deacons, and presbyters], there is no Church.” "

Yes, Ignatius insisted that outside of the bishops, deacons and presbyters, the Greek word for priests, there is no Church. That hardly means the Church was in the “process of shutting down.”

 

[I_Fortuna]

There was another book called “View of the Hebrews” by Ethan Smith published in 1823.
Ethan Smith was a pastor for the Congregationalist Church in Vermont. He did extensive research throughout America regarding the indian people. He spoke with many indian tribes. He firmly believes the American Indians to be a lost branch of the tribes of Israel. He believes their language evolved from Hebrew. He has some incredible evidence to back this up. Read the book here:

books.google.com/books?id=thFZYLuCY_4C&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Again, here is another evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

This really interesting. I came to this conclusion independently years ago. I believe it is true as well. I grew up with a Mormon girl who lived across the street. I used to beg my mom to go to temple with her but she only allowed me to go a couple of times. I generally love Mormons because they are kind and try hard to be good people.

I have been a Catholic for 2 years. I decided to become Catholic instead of Mormon as I believe in the Trinity and have personal habits that are not in line with the Mormon Church, i.e. I like the occasional glass of wine and a cup of coffee now and again.

This is actually quite funny as my friend used to come over and drink coca cola with me and her mom used to come and borrow one when the kids were ill.

Anyway This discussion is very good and I hope to read more from you.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I don’t have time to answer all your questions in the post above, right now. I assume I can get to it this weekend.

Fair enough. I don’t always have time to answer things, especially when topics heat up and I get overextended with responses.

For now, I disagree that it would be “making yourself God” to take a very basic scripture and figure out the meaning, particularly when it is quoted by another prophet (the apostle John) and thus the meaning is amplified.

Placing one’s own personal interpretation of Scripture up as an absolute, absent the appropriate authority of the Spirit guaranteed through an authoritative teaching body (the Church), is exactly what has lead to the many divisions of Christianity. It is a false method, one warned against in the Scriptures themselves. It is an example of pride, making oneself God by declaring one’s own interpretation as truth.

And I have not seen where John or anyone else has interpreted that passage the same way, reading so much into one short passage to the exclusion of its immediate context and excluding all other meanings rather than recognizing the deep, “both/and,” multi-layered nature of Scripture.

I would say that that passage in Isaiah does indeed contain revealed truth. It is also there for the reading and the getting at that revealed truth, in the way I noted by relating the two passages with each other from Isaiah and Revelation. There is no evidence that Peter believed he was holding the key of David, nor of course could he possibly be appointed by Christ to suffer the atonement which is what the Isaiah passage is primarily about when it declares about “a nail in a sure place”. Nor does John infer at all that Peter is the holder of the key of David, nor that Peter opens and shuts the gates of hell.

Of course Scripture contains truth. Peter was given the “Keys of the Kingdom.” This is the same as the Key of David. It takes nothing from a king’s (Christ’s) glory to delegate authority, nor does it put that king under the delegate’s authority. Isaiah is not primarily focused on the atonement of Christ in ch. 20. Unless you think Eliakim, the immediate referent of the passage, was our atoning savior.

 

[ParkerD]

Fair enough. I don’t always have time to answer things, especially when topics heat up and I get overextended with responses.

Placing one’s own personal interpretation of Scripture up as an absolute, absent the appropriate authority of the Spirit guaranteed through an authoritative teaching body (the Church), is exactly what has lead to the many divisions of Christianity. It is a false method, one warned against in the Scriptures themselves. It is an example of pride, making oneself God by declaring one’s own interpretation as truth.

And I have not seen where John or anyone else has interpreted that passage the same way, reading so much into one short passage to the exclusion of its immediate context and excluding all other meanings rather than recognizing the deep, “both/and,” multi-layered nature of Scripture.

Of course Scripture contains truth. Peter was given the “Keys of the Kingdom.” This is the same as the Key of David. It takes nothing from a king’s (Christ’s) glory to delegate authority, nor does it put that king under the delegate’s authority. Isaiah is not primarily focused on the atonement of Christ in ch. 20. Unless you think Eliakim, the immediate referent of the passage, was our atoning savior.

Arandur,
I have started three other threads as a result of this thread, in order to answer questions or present information that came up as questions and not have this thread go off on too many tangents. Since the above topic has to do with the Key of David and I started a thread on that subject specifically, I’ll go ahead and answer using that thread.

 

[evanfaust]

evanfaust;6609536:

AtticusFinch,

How about the Story of Paul in the New Testament? Have you thought about that? Dr. John Tvedtness comments on the different versions of Paul’s story, responding to a criticism on the versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.

Yep. I have actually studied it. The account about Paul was written by Luke. We have no clue who told Luke. Mighta been Paul, mighta been someone else. What we DO know, is that most of the versions of the first vision were either written, or dictated by Joseph. Big difference. I am surprised you did not realize that. But, the Luke story is the first one that comes out of an LDS mouth when Joseph’s versions come up. Also, there are TWO versions of Paul, there are at least NINE of Joseph

"
For the most part, the differences between the stories are not serious enough to cast doubt on the event, despite the fact that they are more marked than the differences in Joseph Smith’s accounts of his vision.

And no, they are not more marked. As I have stated, the differences in Joseph’s 9 versions is his age, where he was, how many personages, angels or not, devil or not, what was said, etc. To say there are more marked differences in Luke is intellectually dishonest. You are better than that

AtticusFinch,

The same goes to you: Intellectual Honesty please! The other versions of Joseph Smith’s first vision are not scripture and they mainly differ in additional details like Paul’s Vision.

I know the First Vision to be true! Joseph Smith was a truthful boy and remained truthful throughout his life. I studied Joseph Smith and I know his character. I don’t think the first of vision is true, I KNOW it to be true! There is a big difference! I know it by the power of God, who made it known to me.

I had a very powerful spiritual manifestation and confirmation of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church; and every time I tell or write that story I seem to leave some details off. I seem to never be able to capture exactly what I felt and what I experienced.

The only way for you to know for sure is to ask God and He will tell you if Joseph had a first vision or not. He will tell you whether Joseph was a prophet of God or not. If you are truly and sincerely interested in knowing I know He will tell you. But, I don’t really think you want to know…You already made up your mind because you don’t think it is worth it. To me was worth it…because it was my salvation that was at risk. I am glad I received that confirmation! Joseph Smith and the restored gospel is a force for good for mankind and whether people accept our message or not, our message is to keep God’s commandments, to help one another, to serve our fellowman. This is a message of hope, love and happiness.

President Hinckley said it very eloquently and better than anyone:

"I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life."
—Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, October 1984

For more detail of the First Vision I recommend you read this material.

en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision_accounts

 

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch;6610332:

AtticusFinch,

The same goes to you: Intellectual Honesty please! The other versions of Joseph Smith’s first vision are not scripture and they mainly differ in additional details like Paul’s Vision.

That is simply untrue. Please! I beg you to be honest. Luke has TWO stories about Paul. TWO. And we do not even know who told Luke the story. Whereas, with Joseph, we KNOW who told the story. It was Joseph. Every time. And differences in how many people were there, who was there, what was said, how old he was, etc, are NOT slight additional details. They are MAJOR differences. He lied. And when you lie, you have trouble remembering what you lied about, so the story changes

.

I know the First Vision to be true!

No, you don’t. That is another untruth. You BELIEVE it to be true. The only way you can “know” is if you actually witnessed it. You didn’t. You can onlt believe it is true.

Joseph Smith was a truthful boy and remained truthful throughout his life.

No, he wasn;t. He told people he could find trasure with looking stones. He was convicted for that. He lied about that. He was a con artist. He cheated people in the bank scandle then ran from the debt, never paying it off. He said there were people on the moon dressed like quakers. He was NOT truthful.

I studied Joseph Smith and I know his character.

I have studied him, too. Both as a member and as a non-member. I have read several books about including Rough Stone Rolling. I have read his Journal. I have read his writings.

I don’t think the first of vision is true, I KNOW it to be true! There is a big difference! I know it by the power of God, who made it known to me.

No, you BELIEVE it to be true.

I had a very powerful spiritual manifestation and confirmation of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church; and every time I tell or write that story I seem to leave some details off. I seem to never be able to capture exactly what I felt and what I experienced.

Ya know, if I tell a story about my graduation from law school, I am likely to leave a few details out now and then. I doubt I would have differences like how old I was, or who gave me my diploma, or what of my friends were there…but I might skip a detail now and then. But, if GOD visited me, and spoke to me. I believe I would never forget how old I was, who was present, or what was said to me.

The only way for you to know for sure is to ask God and He will tell you if Joseph had a first vision or not. He will tell you whether Joseph was a prophet of God or not. If you are truly and sincerely interested in knowing I know He will tell you. But, I don’t really think you want to know…You already made up your mind because you don’t think it is worth it. To me was worth it…because it was my salvation that was at risk. I am glad I received that confirmation! Joseph Smith and the restored gospel is a force for good for mankind and whether people accept our message or not, our message is to keep God’s commandments, to help one another, to serve our fellowman. This is a message of hope, love and happiness.

You assume too much. First, I was LDS. I loved the Church. I found out things about the Church and went inactive. Things happened and I left the Church. Recently, I wanted to go back. I felt called to go back. I bought a new Triple and attended Sac Meetings. I carried around General Conferences on my Iphone and listened to them. I would go to the temple (though I could not go “into” the temple, I could sit in the foyer) and read and prayed. I studied. I read, and I prayed. I was wanting to get baptized again. I wanted to go to my missionary reunion. I really wanted it to be true. I prayed all the time. The Answer was the same every time. Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the Book of Mormon was not true. I did not like answer. I kept trying. I had missionaries give me blessings. I tried so hard for it to be true. But God was very clear. The Catholic Church was the Church Christ started and the LDS Church was not true. I finally gave up and listened to God. I got the message from God that I was fooled once before, but that the LDS Church was not a true church.

President Hinckley said it very eloquently and better than anyone:

"I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life."
—Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, October 1984

First, I am not surprised Hinckley said that. First, if he WAS concerned, he would have been out of a nice job and a nice house and all the praise and stuff he received. Second, I am surprised that an alleged prophet does not see the differences between four people giving 4 different versions and 1 person giving nine different versions. I had alwaus given him more credit than that. Finally, I lost respect for Gordon B. Hinnckley when he was dishonest about Mark Hoffman.

For more detail of the First Vision I recommend you read this material.

en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision_accounts

I have already read that. Nothiong is more humorous than LDS apologetics trying to explain away stuff.

 

[ParkerD]

Fair enough. I don’t always have time to answer things, especially when topics heat up and I get overextended with responses.

Placing one’s own personal interpretation of Scripture up as an absolute, absent the appropriate authority of the Spirit guaranteed through an authoritative teaching body (the Church), is exactly what has lead to the many divisions of Christianity. It is a false method, one warned against in the Scriptures themselves. It is an example of pride, making oneself God by declaring one’s own interpretation as truth.

And I have not seen where John or anyone else has interpreted that passage the same way, reading so much into one short passage to the exclusion of its immediate context and excluding all other meanings rather than recognizing the deep, “both/and,” multi-layered nature of Scripture.

Of course Scripture contains truth. Peter was given the “Keys of the Kingdom.” This is the same as the Key of David. It takes nothing from a king’s (Christ’s) glory to delegate authority, nor does it put that king under the delegate’s authority. Isaiah is not primarily focused on the atonement of Christ in ch. 20. Unless you think Eliakim, the immediate referent of the passage, was our atoning savior.

Arandur, (Since no one showed up on the other thread, here is your answer):
The method you described in gaining an understanding of the Bible, leads of course to everyone in the world having to “accede” to the Pope and the College of Cardinals and say that they are the only ones who can really say what the Bible means. This gives them exactly the kind of power that it would seem the leaders at the time of the Nicene counsel perceived was necessary in order to take hold of the church doctrine and not keep having schisms.

The idea that any reading of the Bible that doesn’t accept what the early fathers had to say or what the pope has to say, is “prideful” is absolutely foreign to the Biblical teachings about seeking revealed knowledge. (See 1 Corinthians 2 and 3).

No wonder Luther pulled away from that kind of doctrinal infallibility as a foundation for gaining knowledge of the Bible. It is exactly why John had the vision he had that there was going to be a departure of the church into the wilderness, and that the dragon would be making war with those seeking to keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 12:16-17)

Having a testimony of Jesus is the focal point of the Bible. The idea that the words “a nail in a sure place” is not talking about the crucifixion, when placed in conjunction with the key of David when it is known that Christ fulfills Davidic prophecies, is still amazing to me that any student of the Bible doesn’t see the connection. It doesn’t mean I have pride. It means I can read and put some verses together and see their connection.

The “Keys of the Kingdom” is not the same as the “key of David.” You can say it is the same, the early fathers can say it is the same (to their advantage, of course)–but the Bible does not equate the two sets of keys.

Christ couldn’t delegate the atonement. Just because Peter was crucified also doesn’t mean he was taking upon himself our sins. (I assume you know that.)

I assume you are aware that the name “Eliakim” means “God shall cause to arise.” This goes right along with John’s vision about the key of David. We can arise in resurrection and can arise in a new birth because of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice and His resurrection and triumph over death.

Note in Revelation 3:5 that the vision John has shows that the Person who is talking and saying “I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” in that verse is the same Person who is “he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;”

This is not a reference to Peter. It is a clear reference to Christ as the One who said “I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:17-18)

The Key of David is the same thing as the “keys of hell and of death”. This is why the opening and shutting can’t be done by a “man”. It can only be done by Christ, who suffered the atonement and crucifixion so He could open those gates with His key–the Key of David, which was laid “upon his shoulder” and the “government” will be “committed into his hand.” (Isaiah 22:21)

Those words I just cited ought to bring immediately to mind the passage a student of the Bible ought to love–“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom,…” (Isaiah 9:6, 7)

Peace to you and all. Have a good day.

 

[evanfaust]

I have already read that. Nothiong is more humorous than LDS apologetics trying to explain away stuff.

AtticusFinch,

The same goes to you: Intellectual Honesty please! The other versions of Joseph Smith’s first vision are not scripture and they mainly differ in additional details like Paul’s Vision.

That is simply untrue. Please! I beg you to be honest. Luke has TWO stories about Paul. TWO. And we do not even know who told Luke the story. Whereas, with Joseph, we KNOW who told the story. It was Joseph. Every time. And differences in how many people were there, who was there, what was said, how old he was, etc, are NOT slight additional details. They are MAJOR differences. He lied. And when you lie, you have trouble remembering what you lied about, so the story changes.

**But it was Luke (ONE person) recording all the discrepancies. One person recording a story presenting many inconsistencies. That just tells me that even the person who had the experience may choose to record certain aspects of the experiences or may use different terms to describe what he saw or heard. That person may even make mistakes telling the story. No prophet is perfect; the only perfect man to step on the earth was Jesus Christ. You interpret these variances as lies, I don’t see lies and many more millions do not see them as lies. An Atheist may also say that the variances in the 4 gospels are also evidence of lies and even the discrepancies in Paul’s story to be lies. Do you think they are right? **

I know the First Vision to be true!

No, you don’t. That is another untruth. You BELIEVE it to be true. The only way you can “know” is if you actually witnessed it. You didn’t. You can onlt believe it is true.
You don’t tell me what I know. Evidently you never experienced a strong manifestation of the spirit as I did. Otherwise you would not doubt my words. You don’t have to be there to know something. Do you have to go to Japan to know that Japan exists? Do you have to die to know you will die? When Daniel interpreted the King’s dream, do you think he just had a belief or did he really know what the King dream was all about? How did he come to know that? Wasn’t it by the power of the Spirit of God?

Joseph Smith was a truthful boy and remained truthful throughout his life.

No, he wasn;t. He told people he could find trasure with looking stones. He was convicted for that. He lied about that. He was a con artist. He cheated people in the bank scandle then ran from the debt, never paying it off. He said there were people on the moon dressed like quakers. He was NOT truthful.

Joseph lost about 100 thousand of his own money in that investment (more than anyone else). Joseph was a prophet and not a business man. He made many mistakes as a business man. He was deceived and the people who invested with him were deceived. If you study what really happened you will understand he was much of a victim like every one else. Joseph never claimed to find treasury, he actually was employed as a treasure hunter for about a month. He even tried to convince his employer that this would lead to nothing. You probably read a twisted version of the truth, but that does not surprise me.

I studied Joseph Smith and I know his character.

I have studied him, too. Both as a member and as a non-member. I have read several books about including Rough Stone Rolling. I have read his Journal. I have read his writings.

We both have read many books on Joseph and yet we arrive to very different conclusions. I feel as if I know him personally. He is a man of God! I have no question in my mind. To me his is one of the greatest men to live on earth.

I don’t think the first of vision is true, I KNOW it to be true! There is a big difference! I know it by the power of God, who made it known to me.

No, you BELIEVE it to be true.

I already responded this question. Yes, I insist I know it to be true. Don’t you think I would rather have an easy life joining any other religion? Being a good Mormon is the most demanding religion there is. I don’t think I need to explain that to you, since you are an ex member of the church.