Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[Jay53]

Jay53,
That actually is somewhat amazing to me (astonishing actually since it’s such a clear prophecy) that there is not the acknowledgement (unless I’m missing something) that Isaiah 22:22-23 is a direct prophecy about the mission of Jesus Christ, and that is confirmed by John in Revelation 3:7. Oh, well–I guess Isaiah foresaw something Catholics are withheld from seeing.

What in the world are you talking about? I think you are missing something. Did you even read the links I provided?

Christ didn’t change Simon’s name to Peter in the sense that Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (which became his covenant name) and in the sense that Saul’s name was changed to Paul. Christ refers to Simon as “Simon’” just as often as “Peter”, and Mark 3:16 says “Simon he surnamed Peter” which matches the name he is often called, “Simon Peter” in many, many places in the New Testament. We don’t read “Saul Paul” or “Abram Abraham”.

The surname Peter is a description that matched Simon’s personality, it would seem from reading the New Testament. It also makes sense that Christ would add the distinction for ease of communicating since there is the other “Simon the Canaanite” among the Twelve.

So you believe there is no real significance to the name change. If your explanation is plausible, then why didn’t Jesus given other such name changes to match the other apostles’ personalities? And why didn’t Jesus change the name of either of the James’ who were also his apostles if it was a matter of “distinction for communicating”?

As far as Christ being the “Cornerstone”, I certainly have seen the words on the page, but then when I read words like “vicar” and terms that seem to express that a priest or a bishop is a stand-in for Christ in the actual process of repentance, then I don’t sense the relationship that I see the Bible expressing so very often as the one-to-one relationship between an individual and the living Christ. It becomes a point of confusion for me in looking from the outside. That confusion is only added to by the statement so often made that Peter is “the rock”, especially by reference to Matthew 16:18 which followed Peter’s clear attestation that Christ was the Anointed One whose coming fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies and one of those prominent prophecies is that Christ is the Corner Stone, whom the builders rejected. Peter would absolutely have no question in his mind that Christ is the Rock.

I truly don’t understand why the term “vicar” upsets you so much. It is clear from the beliefs of Catholics that Jesus/God is the focus of our worship. He is truly present in the Eucharist at Mass. “Vicar” simply means representative. The Pope is God’s representative on Earth, just as St. Peter (and the other apostles) was (were) after Jesus’ ascended.

The statement of Peter being “the rock” is simply acknowledgment that Christ founded His Church on Earth and made Peter the head of it. The line of succession of the Catholic Church stems from that. There is clearly no “replacing Christ” with the Pope or any other such nonsense. You cannot possibly, really believe that Catholics put more faith in the pope than in Jesus Christ.

Also, Christ clearly gave the apostles (and their successors) the power to forgive sins.
(John 20:21-23)

So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”

And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

If you read the writings of the Early Church as well, you will see that this was, in fact, practiced by the Early Church. It is not something “made up” as part of the “apostasy”.

I will argue until my dying day that Jesus’ priests have the power to forgive sins through Reconciliation in the Catholic Church. It is clear from Scripture that they were given this power. I’ve mentioned this to you before that I have experienced this firsthand. Whatever arguments anyone wants to make against the Catholic Church, i.e. infant baptism, etc etc., Reconciliation and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist are THE 2 things that I KNOW without a doubt are true. That’s why I’m Catholic!!

 

[ParkerD]

What in the world are you talking about? I think you are missing something. Did you even read the links I provided?

So you believe there is no real significance to the name change. If your explanation is plausible, then why didn’t Jesus given other such name changes to match the other apostles’ personalities? And why didn’t Jesus change the name of either of the James’ who were also his apostles if it was a matter of “distinction for communicating”?

Jay53,
In answer to the “name change” question in addition to what I already wrote about “Abraham” and “Paul” (which were indeed name changes, but not Simon to Peter), please be aware of the following passages:

Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

This is talking about one of the “James”, and it is an application of the same principle I had mentioned–“distinction for communicating” as well as “match the personality”.

See also Luke 6:15 where Christ also called the other Simon “Simon called Zelotes”.

As far as having read the links, I did indeed although not every word of the second link since it was talking about a lot more things than this passage in Isaiah.

I will ask the question again if you would like to respond:

–Was Christ being referred to as the holder of the key of David by Isaiah?

I think the other points are too emotional to probe into.

Have a good day.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Policies change. Doctrines ALWAYS remain the same. It has been true since the beginning of time with Adam.

Why would it break your heart to think of Jesus as your elder brother? After all He IS the Son of God. We are children of God. That makes us siblings!

I was an LDS missionary who served in Honduras. No is disouting what you say about what the LDS Church teaches now. However, it is no secret that Joseph changed over time as to what y’all should believe. For example, in Lectures on Faith, Chapter 5, Joseph taught that while Jesus had a body of flesh and bones, God was a taberbacle of Spirit. It was not until later that it was taught that God also had flesh and bones.

 

[lax16]

Hi Parker - I am still wondering though if someone has to recognize JS as a “prophet and seer of the Lord to be a Mormon?” On LDS websites, JS has been called:

founder of the CoJCoLDS
true prophet
martyr
1st prophet of the Restoration
Prophet and seer of the Lord
a “testator”
disciple and witness of Jesus Christ
powerful witness of Christ
Apostle of Jesus Christ

Interestingly, the word **founder **comes from foundation
foundation - a basis upon which something stands or is supported, the permanent support of an institution, a body or ground upon which something is built up or overlaid
Sounds a lot like being a “cornerstone” wouldn’t you agree?

In fact, many of the titles given to Joseph Smith could be given to Peter (except for seer and testator), wouldn’t you agree?

Would you say that these are attributes one would have to accept about Joseph Smith in order to be LDS?

You are correct in suggesting a new thread. Thank you for doing that and let me know where to find the examples requested.

Parker - I am re-posting my questions. I know sometimes these get buried.

 

[lax16]

I was an LDS missionary who served in Honduras. No is disouting what you say about what the LDS Church teaches now. However, it is no secret that Joseph changed over time as to what y’all should believe. For example, in Lectures on Faith, Chapter 5, Joseph taught that while Jesus had a body of flesh and bones, God was a taberbacle of Spirit. It was not until later that it was taught that God also had flesh and bones.

atticus - chris is MIA

 

[Arandur]

Lax16,
I would doubt that a person could be a faithful and active member of the LDS church for very long who did not have a testimony that Joseph Smith was called as a true prophet by God, but their testimony would be founded in Jesus Christ and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and would be confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit to their heart, mind and soul.

This is the kind of weak and poor, dangerous discernment that has led to the fragmentation of religions and doctrines. For Christians of thousands of sects, even Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists in their own schisms, have all claimed some variation of this formula (formula being "God/the Divine has revealed this or that to me, given me sure testimony of it in my mind, heart, and soul).

Many can and do claim it, while only further wounding unity with greater division. Can they all be correct?

Nope. Not at all. Therefore, this formula is obviously false. It is disproven by history and our current state of affairs. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that solely relying on such a formula draws people away from God, for it has caused diversity of sects and doctrines, not unity and assurance of one Truth. To rely on such formula is to open oneself to your own pride and, also, to the wiles of the Devil, who knows well how to easily use such people for his own purposes, for he is the master of lies and the origin of pride.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I have stated that what I differ with is the understanding gleaned from the verse you are very familiar with, Matthew 16:18.

You seem to have studied the Bible a great deal, I assume. Three questions:

–Was Christ being referred to as the holder of the key of David by Isaiah?

Which passage? Isaiah 22: 20-23?

You must understand that the Scriptures have multifaceted meanings. The simple way we Catholics refer to it is that Scripture often tells us one thing AND another at the same time–the “Both-And” formula, not the “Either/Or.” This is something that many non-Catholics get lost one, thinking they can force the Scriptures to mean only that thing they themselves want them to mean (and essentially declare for themselves “infallibly”).

In many senses, any time the Temple, the Kingdom, the Priesthood, and the powers (inc keys) of the Davidic Kingship are referred, these are a type and shadow of Christ, who fulfills all of these things in their truest form. So yes, of course, any time the Keys are spoken of they refer also to Christ, since he is the true owner of them.

Isaiah 22 refers most immediately to the situation at hand–the appointment of Eliakim. This is a shadow for the future, and teaches us something about how the Kingdom is set up–with a sort of “prime minister.”

–Did Christ give the key of David to Peter? If so, where in the Bible do you get that understanding, explicitly? When will or did Peter give it back for the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation explicit statement about the key of David not being held by a man?

As Jay has explained, Jesus is the owner of the Keys. When he gives them, he still retains that ultimate authority, so he is always described accurately as being the holder of the Keys (at all times).

However, he can surely give those Keys, or lesser keys (as in the keys given to the other apostles), to anyone he wishes at any time, effectively investing in them some authority. This does not take anything from his own authority or glory. It is used for the administration of his Kingdom. There are many keys (offices, powers) exercised in a kingdom, but typically one minister, one representative, is given a power of appeal or arbitration over the others, lest the other ministers come in conflict. This is how Christ’s Kingdom works

You think it works differently?

–Why didn’t Peter say that he himself was the rock to whom the Savior was referring when He used a description that obviously showed that He was referring back to Old Testament prophecies about the “Anointed One” being the Rock and Foundation and Chief Corner Stone of the church? In other words, when Peter wrote his epistle, why did he refer back to Christ rather than to himself if that were going to become so vitally important to the church?

Just as Christ always effectively holds the Keys, so too is Christ always also the cornerstone and rock (as well as many other things). Yet as I spoke before, since we are all to become like Christ, and he has chosen to let us share in his glory and in the administration of his Kingdom, it is only natural that we can also have similar titles in image and likeness. Thus we are grafted in, and part of the Body of Christ. Some, with special offices, have special roles reserved that others do not have. Hence, the Apostles are the Foundation, and Peter is the Rock.

As far as the name change of Peter, this was very special. Look at the words in context, direct in their meaning: “And so I say to you, YOU ARE ROCK, and ON THIS ROCK, I WILL BUILD MY Church.”

Christ titles him Rock and then immediately refers to him when talking about how he chooses to build his Church. Who are we to question his choice?

This is, of course, reinforced by the many ways in which Peter has acted and been recognized as leader of the Apostles.

I really find it quite odd that Smithians have such a problem with the idea of the Petrine Office when they believe in a Prophet to whom they attribute greater powers.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, but that’s a document seen only through the prism of the Mormon faith, based solely on a Mormon perspective/interpretation.

With all due respect, if you are asking about what someone thinks about a religious doctrine or practice, and want to know where that someone is ‘coming from,’ then you MUST use their ‘prism.’

After all, would you consider that someone looking through the prism of, say…Jack Chick…would be getting an accurate picture of Catholicism?

If you wish to know about Catholicism, you need to look at it through a ‘Catholic prism.’ If you don’t, you will never gain an understanding of Catholics–or their beliefs as they see them. The same thing goes for any other faith, including Mormons.

So, that this 'document [is] seen only through the prism of the Mormon faith, based solely on a Mormon perspective/interpretation" is a good thing, if you are asking the questions about what Mormons think about something.

…unless of course you want to get your information about Mormonism from Ed Decker, or from Catholicism from Jack Chick.

 

[dianaiad]

Basically, this article is nonsense:

For instance, “…modalists have typically been stuck with the scriptures they inherited. On the other hand, Joseph Smith not only produced new scripture, but felt so comfortable in his prophetic calling that he actually revised the Bible! …So why, if the Prophet wished to promote a modalistic theology, did he leave anti-modalistic passages in the Bible unrevised and reinforce those same passages in the Book of Mormon?”

1. What authority has been given to Joseph Smith to “produce” new scripture and/or “revise” the Bible?

The same Authority that gave permission to the prophets of both the Old and the New Testament to do so. It is, in fact, THE question that all others beg–the answer to which settles all the others, as well. If JS had that authority, then he had it…and what he did with it answers the questions. If he didn’t have it, he didn’t, and it doesn’t matter what he did.

1. Doesn’t anyone think it’s odd to read anti-modalistic passages AND modalistic passages in the same “scriptures”?

No more than it does to read ‘anti-modalistic’ and ‘modalistic’ passages in the Bible. After all, the modalists got it somewhere, didn’t they?

1. Don’t Mormons find it strange that there are no definitive statements of doctrine and that doctrine can change from one prophet to another? It’s very easy to have a “true” religion if there are no statements of belief that can be examined.

Actually we don’t have a problem with this at all. In fact, when WE look at the religions around us, Catholicism, Protestantism and all, we see a lot of change from one group to another, and within the history of all those groups…and from where we sit, you are doing it without any excuse at all. In fact, y’all proclaim rather loudly that there has been no public revelation for close to 2000 years to allow any of the changes or alterations in doctrine that we perceive. What doctrine/idea is ‘true,’ out there? Which of you is ‘right’ in whatever belief that you hold?

WE, on the other hand, understand that God still guides His people through public revelation, through prophets. This means that yes, policies change, and doctrine gets clarified, but WE have a fundamental reason for seeing change.

What’s yours?

 

[dianaiad]

Again, what the LDS believe and what the mainline Christians believe of God are two entirely different things. God is one. No flesh and bones. three distinct persons with one Divime Nature. God IS from all eternity, He did not “develop” as did the LDS “God”. The “God” the LDS “worship” and the God we mainline Christians worship are not the same. No matter how hard the LDS tries, the two cannot be reconciled, regardless of whatever is written in the BOM and other LDS literature. The LDS may say that their teaching is not modalism, but no matter how you slice it, it is!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

My friend, if I went to the Douay-Rheims and pointed to certain scriptures that mean what I think they mean, and insisted that because of my interpretation, Catholics actually TEACH this, you would be, quite rightly, pissed off.

It’s not what WE believe Catholics teach. It’s what YOU believe Catholics teach that counts. It doesn’t matter what Pope said what or when. What counts is what YOU believe.

I have been told this over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

And over again.

With great verve.

In no uncertain terms.

In more or less insulting language.

…and I accept it, believe it or not.

So here’s the thing: double standards are not acceptable. Mormons believe what we tell you we believe. Period. It doesn’t matter how you interpret stuff—how you interpret stuff is how you interpret stuff; through your filters. That’s fine, if we are talking about your beliefs, but we are here talking about OURS…

And we are the ones who get to tell you what they are.

You can, of course, insist upon your pov in this. However, when you do so, you are suddenly talking to yourself and dealing with a strawman Mormonism that Mormons do not recognize, because, well…it’s not us.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m sorry, but I do not accept that explanation.

I’m about to be uncomfortably blunt again

In sum, it doesn’t matter whether you accept it or not. Javi, you are not a Mormon…you view all this from a different perspective and through a different lens. Of course you will not accept it, as a reason for YOU to change your beliefs.

However, we aren’t talking about your beliefs. We are talking about ours, and why we believe as we do. For you to sit there and tell us that we believe and teach something different from what we believe and teach because YOU interpret something differently is…the proper term is not polite.

What we believe is what we believe. The reasons we believe as we do are what we say they are. We aren’t attempting to convince you that what we believe is TRUE…we are simply telling you what we believe to be true, and why we believe it.

So, you don’t get to say 'I can’t accept" our reasons as the reasons we believe as we do. You can say 'I can’t accept it…" as a reason for YOU to disbelieve, but that is an entirely different thing.

The Church that Jesus founded on Peter did not need restoration.

Since you are Catholic, you of course do not think it needed to be restored. So? We aren’t talking about why you don’t think it needed restoring. We are talking about why we believe that it did.

Jesus said that it would last forever without change. He said that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” and that He would be with it always. He also said that the Holy Spirit would guide and protect it. As proof, the Catholic Church has lasted for 2000 years teaching the same truths that Jesus and the Apostles taught, and it cannot be proven otherwise.

We think it can. We interpret those scriptures differently, and we believe that you are wrong. We are talking about OUR beliefs in this thread. I have no problems accepting that you believe what you wrote, above. You need to learn to accept that we believe what we say we do.

I would much rather believe Jesus’ word than that of a man who claims to have had a personal revelation from God to restore Jesus’ Church ( and Joseph Smith is not the only one, there have been many others down through the ages. ). For if I accept the man’s word for it, I am calling Jesus a liar. Doing so would destroy my faith in God and any so-called religions. Who, then, could I trust? Who, then, could I believe?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

We do not believe that any of this is 'calling Jesus a liar." Quite the contrary. We believe that Christ called prophets and gave them revelation, and there is absolutely no indication anywhere that this should stop. There is quite a bit of warning in the NT about apostasy…and whadda ya know, we believe that there was, indeed, an apostasy.

As to Christ being with us…of course He has been. Everyone has been able to have a personal relationship with Him. As to the gates of Hell prevailing…well, they haven’t, have they? Whether you believe that the church never fell away, or that it was restored, it means that the gates of hell have not prevailed, for here we are. Either way, the situation has been covered.

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

And I’m still looking for an answer as to how the LDS can possibly believe that their god is so puny that his church, founded by Jesus, who the LDS say is divine; and is therefore a god, fell into apostasy and their god then needed to call on Joseph Smith to resurrect it. Is Joseph Smith now a greater god than Jesus?

How can the Catholics believe that their god is so puny that He would allow so many heresies…put down, in some cases, in rather violent manners…and would allow Protestantism to arise?

As to your question about Joseph Smith…if we believe that Joseph Smith is greater than Jesus, then by the VERY same reasoning, you believe that Peter, James, John, Luke, Paul and others are also greater than He.

The answer, of course, is free will. It’s not that God is puny…after all, He DID warn us about apostasy. It is that God has allowed us free will. If we can’t actually exercise it, it’s not free will, is it?

 

[lax16]

How can the Catholics believe that their god is so puny that He would allow so many heresies…put down, in some cases, in rather violent manners…and would allow Protestantism to arise?

Please explain this comment.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;6600409:

How can the Catholics believe that their god is so puny that He would allow so many heresies…put down, in some cases, in rather violent manners…and would allow Protestantism to arise?

Please explain this comment.

The comment was a direct response to this:

mmsiciliana:

And I’m still looking for an answer as to how the LDS can possibly believe that their god is so puny that his church, founded by Jesus, who the LDS say is divine; and is therefore a god, fell into apostasy and their god then needed to call on Joseph Smith to resurrect it. Is Joseph Smith now a greater god than Jesus?

I believe that explains the comment, as does the context from which you extracted the portion you are demanding an explanation about. Since the Mormons do NOT believe that God is at all puny, nor do we believe that Joseph Smith is a “greater god than Jesus,” then the least one can say about mmisiliana is that s/he was begging the question…and my response to him/her showed exactly how absurd the charge was. I figured that responding as I did indicated to him/her just how insulting and absurd a statement came from his/her keyboard.

In fact, I find it…interesting, if unfortunately typical, that there is an instant and indignant demand that I explain MY comments, but nobody has called mmsiciliana on the insulting and over-the-top claims in THAT post. I take it that the acceptance quotient of insult depends entirely on the target, as usual?

If you are talking about my statement that Catholics have sometimes squashed heretics in a violent manner… well…do you really want to go there, lax?

Albegensians, for instance? The Spanish Inquisition? Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake for believing in Copernicanism and other heresies, not to mention the execution of Cayetano Ripoli, who was executed at an auto de fey by the Spanish Inquisition in 1826?

History is what it is, lax. People are who they are, and God allows us to screw up. He allows us to believe incorrect things and do what we want, even when what we want to do is horrific.

If He did not, then you may as well throw the whole concept of free will out the window, and blame Him for all things. Of course, many Christians do just that, anyway…

Diana

 

[AtticusFinch]

I’m about to be uncomfortably blunt again

In sum, it doesn’t matter whether you accept it or not. Javi, you are not a Mormon…you view all this from a different perspective and through a different lens. Of course you will not accept it, as a reason for YOU to change your beliefs.

However, we aren’t talking about your beliefs. We are talking about ours, and why we believe as we do. For you to sit there and tell us that we believe and teach something different from what we believe and teach because YOU interpret something differently is…the proper term is not polite.

What we believe is what we believe. The reasons we believe as we do are what we say they are. We aren’t attempting to convince you that what we believe is TRUE…we are simply telling you what we believe to be true, and why we believe it.

So, you don’t get to say 'I can’t accept" our reasons as the reasons we believe as we do. You can say 'I can’t accept it…" as a reason for YOU to disbelieve, but that is an entirely different thing.

Since you are Catholic, you of course do not think it needed to be restored. So? We aren’t talking about why you don’t think it needed restoring. We are talking about why we believe that it did.

We think it can. We interpret those scriptures differently, and we believe that you are wrong. We are talking about OUR beliefs in this thread. I have no problems accepting that you believe what you wrote, above. You need to learn to accept that we believe what we say we do.

We do not believe that any of this is 'calling Jesus a liar." Quite the contrary. We believe that Christ called prophets and gave them revelation, and there is absolutely no indication anywhere that this should stop. There is quite a bit of warning in the NT about apostasy…and whadda ya know, we believe that there was, indeed, an apostasy.

As to Christ being with us…of course He has been. Everyone has been able to have a personal relationship with Him. As to the gates of Hell prevailing…well, they haven’t, have they? Whether you believe that the church never fell away, or that it was restored, it means that the gates of hell have not prevailed, for here we are. Either way, the situation has been covered.

Diana

Actually, to be LDS is to believe that Jesus was not only a liar, but was very weak and very cruel. I can’t fathom belonging to a Church which has such a low opinion of Christ

 

[lax16]

lax16;6600606:

dianaiad;6600409:

How can the Catholics believe that their god is so puny that He would allow so many heresies…put down, in some cases, in rather violent manners…and would allow Protestantism to arise?

The comment was a direct response to this:

I believe that explains the comment, as does the context from which you extracted the portion you are demanding an explanation about. Since the Mormons do NOT believe that God is at all puny, nor do we believe that Joseph Smith is a “greater god than Jesus,” then the least one can say about mmisiliana is that s/he was begging the question…and my response to him/her showed exactly how absurd the charge was. I figured that responding as I did indicated to him/her just how insulting and absurd a statement came from his/her keyboard.

In fact, I find it…interesting, if unfortunately typical, **that there is an instant and indignant **

demand that I explain MY comments, but nobody has called mmsiciliana on the insulting and over-the-top claims in THAT post. I take it that the acceptance quotient of insult depends entirely on the target, as usual?

If you are talking about my statement that Catholics have sometimes squashed heretics in a violent manner… well…do you really want to go there, lax?

Diana

Diana - I did not **demand **an instant response. I asked for clarification on your statement because I didn’t understand your comments.

I am not condoning any insults from anyone to anyone. I didn’t want to comment on any of the posts until I understood what you meant.

Actually, I would like to hear comments from you and anyone else regarding “Catholics squashing heretics in a violent manner.” I know it is being covered somewhat on another thread regarding the Inquisition, but I welcome your comments, as always.

I would tell you to cut back on the coffee, but…

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
In answer to the “name change” question in addition to what I already wrote about “Abraham” and “Paul” (which were indeed name changes, but not Simon to Peter), please be aware of the following passages:

Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

This is talking about one of the “James”, and it is an application of the same principle I had mentioned–“distinction for communicating” as well as “match the personality”.

See also Luke 6:15 where Christ also called the other Simon “Simon called Zelotes”.

OK. You are certainly entitled to your own interpretation. I obviously don’t agree with it, particularly given the discourse occurring when Jesus gives Simon the name “Peter”. Jesus also frequently refers to Peter as “Simon, son of John”, which would be (I think) enough of a distinction for communicating. But I certainly appreciate you explaining the LDS view which is what I asked for.

As far as having read the links, I did indeed although not every word of the second link since it was talking about a lot more things than this passage in Isaiah.

I will ask the question again if you would like to respond:

–Was Christ being referred to as the holder of the key of David by Isaiah?

Yes. Jesus is God and He is the Ultimate Holder of all keys.

The first quote and link was the more important of the two that I gave you. I thought it did a very good job of explaining the Scripture. I still don’t know what you are trying to say or allude to, so I don’t think any more of my comments will help you.

Please read Arandur’s Post #243. S/he also gives a good explanation so maybe that will help you.

I think the other points are too emotional to probe into.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I am actually curious as to how you interpret John 20:21-23. For me, it has a very clear meaning, but obviously you don’t agree or you would be Catholic. So I would be interested to know how you/LDS view that Scripture.

Have a good day.

You too.

 

[Arandur]

How can the Catholics believe that their god is so puny that He would allow so many heresies…put down, in some cases, in rather violent manners…and would allow Protestantism to arise?

This makes no sense to me. God maintained His True Church, the one Christ himself established, died for, made his own Body.

You believe the Body (which is by definition a physical presence on earth) died out, that heresy conquered the Church. These are two exact opposites, as far as I can see. In the first, God keeps His promises and is powerful enough to preserve that which He divinely instituted and made a part of His own being.

In the second, he is an oathbreaker who let his own body be killed and defeated by the obviously-more-powerful Adversary.

As to your question about Joseph Smith…if we believe that Joseph Smith is greater than Jesus, then by the VERY same reasoning, you believe that Peter, James, John, Luke, Paul and others are also greater than He.

Again, this makes no sense to me. The Apostles all apparently failed; Christ’s work through them failed.

And now you say that Joseph Smith comes along and succeeds where they failed? Where Christ failed in the past?

That’s making Smith greater than Christ. Indeed, Smith himself claimed this when he boasted that his followers remained faithful when even Jesus’ (by Smith’s estimation) did not. What rank and obvious blasphemy.

The answer, of course, is free will. It’s not that God is puny…after all, He DID warn us about apostasy. It is that God has allowed us free will. If we can’t actually exercise it, it’s not free will, is it?

Yes, He warned us about false prophets and gospels like Smith. Instead, He told us to stick with what Christ gave us through the Apostles. He could not rightly tell us to stick to that Gospel if He did not intend to preserve that Gospel through the power of the Spirit in and through the Divine Institution of the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, could He? If that original Gospel as preached by the Apostles was not trustworthy and would not be preserved, then nothing else could be; His words telling us to stick to it would only sow confusion if His Word had failed like Smith claims.

We surely have free will and there surely are apostasies. But never total. Nowhere is it said that the Church would fail into total apostasy. Just as nowhere does it say in Scripture that there would be another or greater prophet than Jesus, or that there would always be such a new prophet with greater revelation to add to Jesus’s insufficient revelation who should always be the leader of the Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

For whatever reason, LDS believe that Jesus could not bear the sins of the Church. Why else point to them as “reasons” that He left His bride?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - I am re-posting my questions. I know sometimes these get buried.

Lax16,
I will respond to your question on the other thread, as it is off topic for this thread.