LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[Javl]

JAVL,

You didn’t explain why if the Bible says the scattering would be throughout the earth, you think that prophecy should be ignored.

As for the Jews, of course they think there was no scattering, since that would mean they had fulfilled the prophecy that they were going to go off having false gods and that because they would do that, there would be a scattering of Israel but also a gathering in the latter days–the end times in which we live.

I challenge you to do the math and figure out how many descendants of the twelve tribes there should be at this point on the earth, and then figure out if the Jews really can account for them all, and really have a record of all of the descendants of every tribe of the house of Israel, wherever they went on the earth.

Parker; now you are getting picayune. I never said that there was no scattering of the Jews or that Bible prophecy should be ignored. I only said that it is not as you and the LDS claim. It has never happened as you and the LDS describe. The Bible, history, logic, reason, science, etc. all refute your claim.

There were never any “lost Jewish tribes” as claimed and there were never any Jewish tribes in the western hemisphere before it was “discovered” by the Norsemen. There were never any “marvelous cities”, etc. as described in the BoM, or any other thing as claimed for the simple reason that none of the assertions, and claims, can be supported by any type of proof, and most likely never will.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Javl]

(name removed by moderator);7357812:

I believe that Jesus Christ is a member of the Godhead that consists of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
There are differences from Catholic belief, but Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same.

The problem that exists between us is that the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that you accept and believe in is not the same that we belive in. Your Trinity consists of three separate Gods ( re: 1st commandment of the decalog ) who were once human and are now exalted.

The Trinity, Father Son, and Holy Spirit that we belive in is ONE GOD who has no beginning and has always been, and is beyond space and time. We abide by the 1st commandment of the decalog.

Because of this difference there will always be contention between us.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Stephen168]

Kathleen,
That is a very good question. It is clear that Christ did allow His own apostles to have successors–namely, other apostles such as Paul and Barnabas. So you can find your answer straight from the New Testament.

Barnabas and Paul were never one of the Twelve. Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths.
Mormon Apostles are inventions of man; Joseph Smith.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker; now you are getting picayune. I never said that there was no scattering of the Jews or that Bible prophecy should be ignored. I only said that it is not as you and the LDS claim. It has never happened as you and the LDS describe. The Bible, history, logic, reason, science, etc. all refute your claim.

There were never any “lost Jewish tribes” as claimed and there were never any Jewish tribes in the western hemisphere before it was “discovered” by the Norsemen. There were never any “marvelous cities”, etc. as described in the BoM, or any other thing as claimed for the simple reason that none of the assertions, and claims, can be supported by any type of proof, and most likely never will.

Shalom haMeshiach

JAVL,

The LDS say there was a scattering of Israel, including of small groups such as the Nephite group and the Mulekite group. The Book of Mormon does not present a “lost Jewish tribe”, at all. It talks about a small group–two intermarried families and another small group who didn’t know about each other.

So perhaps you have had a wrong impression if you thought the Book of Mormon was talking about a “lost Jewish tribe”–it wasn’t.

If you’re saying there is no such thing as old cities in ancient America, then I think many people in Mexico and South America and certainly archeologists would completely disagree with you. Some would disagree that there were no settlements in North America. What did you think they needed to have, a signpost saying, “Zarahemla”?

 

[KathleenGee]

Has the Mormon Church ever consulted with Jewish scholars?

 

[KathleenGee]

I think it a very good question to ask why the Mormon founders could have successors but the Apostles couldn’t.

 

[ParkerD]

I think it a very good question to ask why the Mormon founders could have successors but the Apostles couldn’t.

Kathleen,
Perhaps you have missed the answers I posted to your question:

Again,
That is a very good question. It is clear that Christ did allow His own apostles to have successors–namely, other apostles such as Paul and Barnabas. So you can find your answer straight from the New Testament.

Paul was an apostle, called by the other apostles to be a new apostle, so he was a successor to evidently James who had been killed before Paul was called as an apostle–the first apostle killed. Thus there were twelve apostles again after Paul was called.

The actual number of “twelve” apostles had a certainty about it, as noted when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot. So you have your answer–the reason the LDS can have successors to the apostles is because they understand the church Christ organized, and they were given the authority to actually call new modern apostles–twelve in number, and to replace one when one dies, by calling another man as an apostle.

 

[Stephen168]

I think it a very good question to ask why the Mormon founders could have successors but the Apostles couldn’t.

The Apostles had successors; Bishops. Apostles were never meant to continue according to scripture but as the Apostles died, If they were also Bishops (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem), they were replaced by Bishops.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes Matthias was drawn by lots to replace Judas…I was naming apostles off of my old head.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes Matthias was drawn by lots to replace Judas…I was naming apostles off of my old head.

Yes, Judas was replaced because of his Apostasy not because he died. The only time one of the Twelve was replaced.

 

[flyonthewall]

We believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, each are individually divine. They are unified in purpose, testimony and authority, and thus are one God.
Though each is a God, it is not substance/nature/being that unites them, but purpose, testimony and authority.

Now as I understand the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are also looked upon as each divine and each God, but they are not 3 Gods, but one.
[/quote]

 

[Javl]

JAVL,

The LDS say there was a scattering of Israel, including of small groups such as the Nephite group and the Mulekite group. The Book of Mormon does not present a “lost Jewish tribe”, at all. It talks about a small group–two intermarried families and another small group who didn’t know about each other.

My apologies. I misunderstood. But as far as I know about Judaism and its history, much of which I have studied in synagogue and schul, there have been no such groups such as Nephites and Mulekites. It’s either extended families or tribes.

So perhaps you have had a wrong impression if you thought the Book of Mormon was talking about a “lost Jewish tribe”–it wasn’t.

Again, my apologies for misunderstanding.

If you’re saying there is no such thing as old cities in ancient America, then I think many people in Mexico and South America and certainly archeologists would completely disagree with you. Some would disagree that there were no settlements in North America. What did you think they needed to have, a signpost saying, “Zarahemla”?

You know which "cities I am talking about. I am talking about the “cities” as described in the BoM. I do not mean the Inca, Aztec, Toltec, Mayan, etc. cities, of which there is ample evidence.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[RebeccaJ]

Stephen,
“Without exception”? Where is that source quote?

Oh come now ParkerD, you are going to ask Stephen about a statement I made?

No exception, as in, the exceptions Mormons come up with today. Smith never said, “Lamanites are scattered around here and there, interbred a long time ago, but I’m not really sure where the descendants of Laman are.”, and you know this is a fact. Why pretend Smith taught something he didn’t?

Your D&C has Smith telling people to cross a river to teach the Lamanites. Surely, that is p(name removed by moderator)ointing at least one tribe for you to focus on and come up with some sort of evidence that they are descended from middle eastern Jews.

But no, instead you are like children who change the rules of the game as it is played, in order that the outcome always favors what you want it to be. It is dishonest. Other notice the cheating ParkerD, and aren’t going to pretend along with you.

The final resort of this foolishness is to claim persecution when called on the carpet for the deceptions and dishonestly.

All in all, something stinks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

(name removed by moderator);7357812:

I believe that Jesus Christ is a member of the Godhead that consists of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
There are differences from Catholic belief, but Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same.

When was this godhead formed, by who or what, and have all three always been members of it?

No, they are not the same, at all.

God the Father is spirit. Jesus is God Incarnate. The Holy Spirit is spirit.

These are not the beliefs of Mormonism.

WHO a person worships defines what they believe. You are not worshiping the same God that I am. This is a fact.

 

[ParkerD]

Oh come now ParkerD, you are going to ask Stephen about a statement I made?

RJ,
As I assume you have been aware, I don’t read your posts by the choice offered in the system design for this website. Stephen said “exactly” in quoting what you had said, which means for Stephen to say that he knew the source just as well as you.

No exception, as in, the exceptions Mormons come up with today. Smith never said, “Lamanites are scattered around here and there, interbred a long time ago, but I’m not really sure where the descendants of Laman are.”, and you know this is a fact. Why pretend Smith taught something he didn’t?

My question was the use of the specific words “no exceptions”–meaning not one exception, which Joseph Smith certainly never said. (I don’t know why the use of the demeaning word “interbred”? Strange way to talk about people. People have a heritage, an ancestry that includes many ancestral lines. It is a wonderful thing. )

Your D&C has Smith telling people to cross a river to teach the Lamanites. Surely, that is p(name removed by moderator)ointing at least one tribe for you to focus on and come up with some sort of evidence that they are descended from middle eastern Jews.

It appears that you aren’t familiar with the actual ancestry described. Lehi nor Sariah were “middle eastern Jews”. The Lamanites became primarily a nomadic people–which means they would become intermarried among many, many peoples or “tribes”. The ancient American peoples were also continuously at war among other tribes, and took prisoners which also contributed to intermarriages. There is not a pure ancestral line within that kind of an ancestry.

The comment about the “rules of the game” does bring to mind what religion seems to mean to some people–but not to me. It is not a game for me. I delight in the Book of Mormon, as do my children. We finished reading it again together as a family tonight, it just so happens. By the way, the Book of Mormon is very clear that there would be other groups in ancient America than just the Lamanites and Nephites. That is in the actual book.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, read this:

lds.org/ensign/1975/12/mingled-destinies-the-lamanites-and-the-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

“rules of the game” is an idiom, my metaphorical use of it was in describing your, and other member’s of the LDS church, behavior. I was not describing Catholicism, or in the larger sense Truth, as Truth would not be described in such a manner now, would it?

Truth is something you don’t have and so far I’m thinking you wouldn’t recognize it if it dropped on your head.

 

[pablope]

Barnabas and Paul were never one of the Twelve. Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths.
Mormon Apostles are inventions of man; Joseph Smith.

May I add some more…

St Paul, before going an building churches, went to Jerusalem confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18)…and “to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2).” While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James. Thus, before we went on his mission, he obtained approval and was ordained and laid hands on by Church leaders (Acts 11 to 15). So here, Paul is ordained as a successor apostle or bishop. In the churches Paul and Barnabas founded, they established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters and bishops (Titus and Timothy are the well known) in each town (Acts 14:23).
So there is the succession passed on down by the apostles.

 

[pablope]

(name removed by moderator);7358180:

We believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, each are individually divine. They are unified in purpose, testimony and authority, and thus are one God.
Though each is a God, it is not substance/nature/being that unites them, but purpose, testimony and authority.

Now as I understand the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are also looked upon as each divine and each God, but they are not 3 Gods, but one.

May I respectfully request for you to quote directly what the Mormon church says about the Trinity, the official statement, so to speak, for all to see.

 

[ParkerD]

May I add some more…

St Paul, before going an building churches, went to Jerusalem confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18)…and “to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2).” While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James. Thus, before we went on his mission, he obtained approval and was ordained and laid hands on by Church leaders (Acts 11 to 15). So here, Paul is ordained as a successor apostle or bishop. In the churches Paul and Barnabas founded, they established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters and bishops (Titus and Timothy are the well known) in each town (Acts 14:23).
So there is the succession passed on down by the apostles.

Pablope,

I suppose you understand that “James the Lord’s brother”, who was an apostle at the time described in Galatians 1:19, is a different James than the James (the brother of John) who was killed as recorded in Acts 12:2.

The apostles certainly did ordain presbyters and bishops, but those were different positions than the position of an apostle. Paul was not automatically an apostle after he had had his vision on the way to Damascus. He was only described as an apostle after a period of time, but yet had begun to preach, so the sequence was his conversion, his call to preach, then later his call to be an apostle.

Apostleship authority is different than the authority of presbyters or of the seventy or of bishops. The apostles clearly had a presiding authority, and used their presiding authority when they visited different “churches” or gatherings of the members.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

The apostles certainly did ordain presbyters and bishops, but those were different positions than the position of an apostle. Paul was not automatically an apostle after he had had his vision on the way to Damascus. He was only described as an apostle after a period of time, but yet had begun to preach, so the sequence was his conversion, his call to preach, then later his call to be an apostle.