LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth

[RebeccaJ]

Yep! The LDS claims that according to Paul, etc. that the Church has apostacized Paul and others did not mention Church, but individuals. The LDS evidently cannot tell the difference. therefore, Jesus has not kept His word and has lied to us. So let’s pack up our belongings and go home!.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

John 6

67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the Words of eternal life.

I’m already home, and took me a long time to get here. I’m not packing up and going anywhere!

 

[Peter_John]

Examning your specific choice of words more closely:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does indeed teach the Book of Mormon,

I agree. I said it does not follow the Book of Mormon

and the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that Jesus is “all that matters” …

Note that you further qualify this statement with an assumption. As an unqualified statement, the Book of Mormon does teach that Jesus is all that matters

… in the sense that this would mean there is not a need for prophets and apostles in the midst of also believing in personal revelation such as the vision of the tree of life that both Lehi and Nephi received.

This constitutes your assumption: The belief in personal revelation is actually inherent to Christianity.

Prophets and apostles are called of God to lead people to Christ through their teachings and example. They also are able, by revelation and by visiting places throughout the world, to discern when there is a need for warning or

Apostles/Prophets or Popes/Bishops, the name matters less than the role. Their purpose is to keep the Body of Christ on course toward actualizing Christ in our lives – they do not supercede our personal relationship with Christ, they reinforce it, and that is what should be most important to them. We acknowledge our Ecclesiastical leaders (whether you as a Mormon or myself as a Catholic) because we perceive them as more fully succeeding in putting Christ first in their lives, therefore, Jesus is still what it is all about, and all that matters.

when there is a need for helping the people in a particular place who may have brought some ceremony into their practices that represents a change from the simplicity of the gospel, and needs to be changed back to that simplicity.

What is so simple about Mormonism? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot even assert its claim to authority without delineating feats of historic gymnastics to refute existing claims. You do not even consider baptism permanent, as those excommunicated get rebaptized when they repent

(a very sacrilegous concept to Catholics, rebaptism: Catholics are so committed to the idea of “one baptism” that almost any denomination’s baptism is considered valid, and converts already baptized are merely confirmed as Catholics – The Holy See takes great care in deciding whether or not to acknowledge a baptism as valid, and did not rule on Mormon baptism until 2001)

Confession can be a complex process involving more than a dozen people hearing it, and later any of them could just be regular members of the congregation. The LDS Plan of salvation requires a complex flowchart.

Try this for simple: God created everything out of nothing. He created men, who failed to trust him and lost communion with Him. He so desired this to be restored that He reached out through time and as men responded favorably to him he drew them closer, until in Christ He revealed himself fully, and left the Church to hold his followers together, and the Eucharist to change their nature. You are created when you are conceived. Baptism makes you a child of god, and Confirmation affirms your commitment to your baptism. You remain in communion with the Body of Christ, the Church, through the Eucharist, and repentance and forgiveness becomes part of an ongoing process, as you continually reconcile yourself through confession. When you die there is immediate judgment over whether you are bound for heaven or hell. If you are bound for heaven but not ready to go, there is a waiting period for more purification.
This all depends on the Grace of God, and the Grace of God is sufficient to cover things like Children who die without baptism, or people who live their whole life without it but still have souls dedicated to truth.

That is pretty simple. Many LDS doctrines that came in after the Book of Mormon complicate things so as to diminish the grace of God.

But certainly a person is better off believing in Christ than not believing in Him at all, so long as this leads to repentance and forgiveness and love of others, and He is central to the plan of salvation as taught in the Book of Mormon

and the Plan of salvation as taught in the Book of Mormon is not completely consistent with the plan of salvation as taught by the LDS Church. Take my challeng, and just read the Book of Mormon as an independent book.

as well as in the New Testament. Those doctrines do matter most in the gospel, and are only possible through Him in their fullest expression.

First, their fullest expression is in the Eucharist. What you call the sacrament was never intended as a mere symbol, according to the New Testament. The question is, if the authority was never removed from Earth, what need is there for any testimony other than the New Testament. When was the authority removed from Earth?

 

[Peter_John]

Before posting on this topic I read every post. Im confused. So everything that of Lord Jesus said is a lie? And this Prophet Joe Smith is right? Im trying really hard to understand this. Everything ive been taught about from the last 2,000 years is a lie. And this religion that has been around no more than 200 years has it all figured out? Well, I guess ill have to pray on this for spiritual guidance. God Bless.

Mormons beleive that sometime shortly after Christ’s resurrection so many true Christians were killed off or diverted by heresy that the authority to act in God’s name disappeared from the Earth. God called a new prophet, they claim, in 1820, and in 1830 through that prophet He restored the same Church that has been lost.

Personally, I find this view – particularly the revision of existing scripture and addition of new scripture – more consistent with Islam than with the rest of Christianity. I consider both Islam and Mormonism as Christian heresies rather than independent religions.

The LDS scholar and apologist puts the LDS position into a simple perspective: Instead of asking if Mormons are Christian, the real question is “Are Christian’s Mormon”, emphasizing the belief that the Teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sets the true standard for expression of Christianity.

 

[ParkerD]

Examining your specific choice of words more closely:

I agree. I said it does not follow the Book of Mormon

Note that you further qualify this statement with an assumption. As an unqualified statement, the Book of Mormon does teach that Jesus is all that matters
This constitutes your assumption: The belief in personal revelation is actually inherent to Christianity.
Apostles/Prophets or Popes/Bishops, the name matters less than the role. Their purpose is to keep the Body of Christ on course toward actualizing Christ in our lives – they do not supercede our personal relationship with Christ, they reinforce it, and that is what should be most important to them. We acknowledge our Ecclesiastical leaders (whether you as a Mormon or myself as a Catholic) because we perceive them as more fully succeeding in putting Christ first in their lives, therefore, Jesus is still what it is all about, and all that matters.
What is so simple about Mormonism? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot even assert its claim to authority without delineating feats of historic gymnastics to refute existing claims. You do not even consider baptism permanent, as those excommunicated get rebaptized when they repent

Confession can be a complex process involving more than a dozen people hearing it, and later any of them could just be regular members of the congregation. The LDS Plan of salvation requires a complex flowchart.

Try this for simple: God created everything out of nothing. He created men, who failed to trust him and lost communion with Him. He so desired this to be restored that He reached out through time and as men responded favorably to him he drew them closer, until in Christ He revealed himself fully, and left the Church to hold his followers together, and the Eucharist to change their nature. You are created when you are conceived. Baptism makes you a child of god, and Confirmation affirms your commitment to your baptism. You remain in communion with the Body of Christ, the Church, through the Eucharist, and repentance and forgiveness becomes part of an ongoing process, as you continually reconcile yourself through confession. When you die there is immediate judgment over whether you are bound for heaven or hell. If you are bound for heaven but not ready to go, there is a waiting period for more purification.
This all depends on the Grace of God, and the Grace of God is sufficient to cover things like Children who die without baptism, or people who live their whole life without it but still have souls dedicated to truth.

That is pretty simple. Many LDS doctrines that came in after the Book of Mormon complicate things so as to diminish the grace of God.

and the Plan of salvation as taught in the Book of Mormon is not completely consistent with the plan of salvation as taught by the LDS Church. Take my challenge, and just read the Book of Mormon as an independent book.
First, their fullest expression is in the Eucharist. What you call the sacrament was never intended as a mere symbol, according to the New Testament. The question is, if the authority was never removed from Earth, what need is there for any testimony other than the New Testament. When was the authority removed from Earth?

Peter John,

I think I’m not going to go through a point by point conversation on the topics you brought up. Rather, I should explain some background that you don’t have about myself.

Number of times I’ve read the King James Bible cover to cover: 5
Number of times I’ve read the important chapters of the King James Bible: 8 (I teach a class on the Old and New Testaments about every other year.)
Number of times I’ve read the Book of Mormon cover to cover: about 48 (teach it every four years, in Sunday School adult classes).

Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are a “part of me”. It would be impossible for me to read either book in the way you suggested, since because they are a part of me, where I go, they go–in my thoughts and in my heart. I love both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and feel like I don’t need to have them explained to me, but am willing to explain them to others when questions come up.

Finally, as a simple statement about this life, we truly do receive what we want from God. We ask for it with all our hearts, and we receive what we ask for.

The young man who asked about what he should do to inherit eternal life was told that if he “would be perfect”, to do a difficult thing for him to do as you know–sell all he had and follow Christ.

We are asked to do difficult things in this life. But ultimately, when it all comes to the end of our lives, we will have received what we wanted and asked for and lived for.

I love you and all the other posters in this forum, and wish you well. We want different things, and that’s OK.

 

[1stOrderKoC]

ParkerD. You sure have done alot of reading. Good for you. But the KJV of the bible is missing 7 books correct? If this in fact is true, how could you have a full understanding of the bible if it is missing books. Which would lead me to this passage from the Bible.

Revelation Chapter 22, Verse 18-19
18:I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19: and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

Peace be to you friend!

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,
Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are a “part of me”. It would be impossible for me to read either book in the way you suggested, since because they are a part of me, where I go, they go–in my thoughts and in my heart. I love both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and feel like I don’t need to have them explained to me, but am willing to explain them to others when questions come up.

That is consistent with reading the Book of Mormon in its integrity. Moroni’s promise includes praying about the truth of the Bible as “these things”, as it refers to reflectin on things outside the scope of the Book of Mormon. It would be the perspective that the earliest Mormons had, without the external Biblical commentary or reference to the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price?

I understand how much you cherish it. Statements like, “Condemn me not because of mine imperfections, neither my father because of his imperfetions, neither them who have written before him. Rather , give thanks unto God that he has made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”

Have you ever read the Bible considering that it constitutes the word of God regardles of translation errors, or considering that it may have been translated correctly? Have your read the Bible in context with the plain and precious parts that the protestants removed? When was the last time you read the Book of Mormon as if for the first time without reference to the lesson manuals which have informed your teaching and understanding, just for exactly what it says? Putting what you have been taight to believe out of your mind can be challenging, but it presents an entirely different and fresh experience.

For all that, there is nothing true in the Book of Mormon that is not already in the Bible, so if the Priesthood authority was never removed the Book of Mormon is wholly unnecessary, and therefore – as it serves to draw people from the authority that has never left – a red herring with some oither purpose than it claims altogether.

So, its existence is not evidence that there was an apostasy, but a reason to determine for sure when it happened. When did it happen? The narrowest I’ve suggested so far is after Clement and Ignatius of Antioch but before the conversion of Constantine.

That leaves a roughly 200 year window to examine for evidence of apostasy, which should not be that hard. That evidence has to be that the leaders broke with established practices of their predecessors, or that some heresy reverted the entire Church. Or, you can find some other organization which was destroyed which included all the LDS teachings maintained to have been needed, with none of the teachings Mormons reject.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD. You sure have done alot of reading. Good for you. But the KJV of the bible is missing 7 books correct? If this in fact is true, how could you have a full understanding of the bible if it is missing books. Which would lead me to this passage from the Bible.

Revelation Chapter 22, Verse 18-19
18:I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19: and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

Peace be to you friend!

Hello to you, First Order Knights of Columbus,

I have read some of the “missing 7 books”, and found them interesting but feel that I can see why they were not considered “on a par” with the rest of the Bible, since they don’t really reflect the writings or teachings of a prophet who was receiving then-current revelation from God. But I don’t mind if someone uses them as a reference, so long as they don’t do it exclusively for the point they’re trying to make.

As far as Revelation 22:18-19, the person who translated the verse as you presented it, already “added to it” by changing the meaning. If someone is going to dwell on those verses as a major point they are making, then they had best find the precise original text in the precise original language–otherwise, they are dealing with something where the meaning has depended upon the translator.

If you look up the KJV translation and quote it in response to this comment, then I’ll respond about the meaning, which is quite a simple meaning in context of the book of Revelation.

Thanks for the wish of peace, and likewise to you, kind friend.

 

[SteveVH]

The evidence is relative to the question of whether authority was removed from the Earth in the first place. To say the authority was removed from the Earth because in 1844 God manifested that the Latter-day Saints should follow Brigham Young is circular reasoning.

If the authority had not been taken away this would only indicate that a number of memebers of heretical organization perceived who the next person to lead that organization would be.

The easiest way to address the main question of this discussion is to start with a time, work backward, and see when you can affirm the Apostolic succession is broken. I will suggest that we start with the Great Schism (I will some of the more specificity oriented contributors to this discussion provide the year),

The reason I suggest this is that an argument of this as evidence of Apostasy has no bearing coming from a Mormon, since the method of resolution is objectively the same. That is, the people respectively decided which of the contending factions they would follow and did so. For the LDS position to be true, the alleged Great Apostasy would have to have preceded CAtholicism’s Great Schism by some great time.

How far before that do you suggest we look?

I believe the Great Schism took place in 1054 AD. It has been stated over and over again, by Momon posters in more than a few threads, that the Apostasy took place upon the death of the last Apostle. However, the fact that they accept the Bible as Scripture and accept that the canon of the Bible was determined by the CC, it is unclear as to exactly what was lost. Certainly all truth could not have been lost and they had better hope that the CC was led by the Holy Spirit or they have no reason to believe the Bible is the word of God. When faced with this question, the common answer is that “priesthood authority” was lost due to the Apostasy, but not all truth. It gets rather hazy when it comes to the logic of accepting a canon proposed by an apostate church as Scripture.

Can a Mormon poster please clear this up once and for all?

Thanks.

 

[pablope]

That is consistent with reading the Book of Mormon in its integrity. Moroni’s promise includes praying about the truth of the Bible as “these things”, as it refers to reflectin on things outside the scope of the Book of Mormon. It would be the perspective that the earliest Mormons had, without the external Biblical commentary or reference to the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price?

That leaves a roughly 200 year window to examine for evidence of apostasy, which should not be that hard. That evidence has to be that the leaders broke with established practices of their predecessors, or that some heresy reverted the entire Church. Or, you can find some other organization which was destroyed which included all the LDS teachings maintained to have been needed, with none of the teachings Mormons reject.

Hi Peter J…thank you for a very informative post.

With a 200 year window, it should make it easy for any LDS, in particular, Fly, to provide the evidence needed to prove an apostasy.

 

[1stOrderKoC]

As per your request ParkerD I am quoting Revelations 22:18-19 from my wifes old KJV bible (She has since converted to the Catholic Church)

18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Duet. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6
19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Ex. 32:33

Im not seeing any difference from the New American Bible and the KJV of the Bible. Only the way the words are spoken. Seems to say the same thing Parker

 

[ParkerD]

Hello, again, Peter and John and also 1st Order K of C,

I just wanted to let you both know that I had noticed Peter and John’s post after mine, then now I see your most recent one, 1st Order, and I have several things going on this evening so it will be several hours before I am able to respond.

Peace, and good evening, all.

 

[SteveVH]

I have read some of the “missing 7 books”, and found them interesting but feel that I can see why they were not considered “on a par” with the rest of the Bible, since they don’t really reflect the writings or teachings of a prophet who was receiving then-current revelation from God. But I don’t mind if someone uses them as a reference, so long as they don’t do it exclusively for the point they’re trying to make.

As far as Revelation 22:18-19, the person who translated the verse as you presented it, already “added to it” by changing the meaning. If someone is going to dwell on those verses as a major point they are making, then they had best find the precise original text in the precise original language–otherwise, they are dealing with something where the meaning has depended upon the translator.

If you look up the KJV translation and quote it in response to this comment, then I’ll respond about the meaning, which is quite a simple meaning in context of the book of Revelation.

Thanks for the wish of peace, and likewise to you, kind friend.

Are you aware that Christ himself considered the deuterocanonical books as Scripture? And while I realize that the KJV is the official translation used by the LDS, it has its own translation problems in certain areas. I would agree that overall it is better than most. That being said, it doesn’t seem real fair to limit discussion to only the KJV because it’s translation is more favorable to your argument.

But since you obviously have an answer, based upn the KJV, why don’t you just give that answer. What do you believe Revelation 22:18-19 is saying?

Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

That is consistent with reading the Book of Mormon in its integrity. Moroni’s promise includes praying about the truth of the Bible as “these things”, as it refers to reflectin on things outside the scope of the Book of Mormon. It would be the perspective that the earliest Mormons had, without the external Biblical commentary or reference to the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price?

I understand how much you cherish it. Statements like, “Condemn me not because of mine imperfections, neither my father because of his imperfetions, neither them who have written before him. Rather , give thanks unto God that he has made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”

(1) Have you ever read the Bible considering that it constitutes the word of God regardless of translation errors, or considering that it may have been translated correctly? (2) Have you read the Bible in context with the plain and precious parts that the Protestants removed? (3) When was the last time you read the Book of Mormon as if for the first time without reference to the lesson manuals which have informed your teaching and understanding, just for exactly what it says? Putting what you have been taught to believe out of your mind can be challenging, but it presents an entirely different and fresh experience.

…

So, its existence is not evidence that there was an apostasy, but a reason to determine for sure when it happened. (4) When did it happen? The narrowest I’ve suggested so far is after Clement and Ignatius of Antioch but before the conversion of Constantine.

That leaves a roughly 200 year window to examine for evidence of apostasy, which should not be that hard. That evidence has to be that the leaders broke with established practices of their predecessors, or that some heresy reverted the entire Church. Or, you can find some other organization which was destroyed which included all the LDS teachings maintained to have been needed, with none of the teachings Mormons reject.

Peter John,

Here are answers to your specific questions:

(1) I always read the Bible as though it was translated correctly, and enjoy it as such. I also look at cross reference passages that may clarify a particular passage. I also enjoy looking at earlier Greek texts and their transliteration, when I have a question about a particular meaning of a word or phrase.

The idea of “translated correctly” should not be so troubling to anyone who uses any modern translation as compared with the Douay-Rheims, since those have distinctly different word usages.

(2) I’ve read several of the “7 other books”, and am fine that they are studied by some people, but as I noted before I don’t think they are “on a par” with what I consider the canonized books found in the KJV, because they weren’t original prophetic writings from the lips or writings of a prophet at the time of the writing.

(3) I always read the Book of Mormon for exactly what it says. I used to read other reference materials, and do read the lesson manuals, but when I am reading the Book of Mormon I focus solely on reading its text exclusive of other commentaries. I find that to be the best way to get its depth.

(4) You tell me when a bishop of Rome was designated as the leader of the church on earth after Peter, and that will be the exact point in time when an apostasy had occurred, since John was the real leader after Peter’s death. I have never seen anyone say exactly when that designation occurred, so that would be up to someone who knows from your history.

 

[ParkerD]

As per your request ParkerD I am quoting Revelations 22:18-19 from my wifes old KJV bible (She has since converted to the Catholic Church)

18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Duet. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6
19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Ex. 32:33

Im not seeing any difference from the New American Bible and the KJV of the Bible. Only the way the words are spoken. Seems to say the same thing Parker

Hi, again, 1st Order K of C,

I think there are distinctly different meanings in the two translations. The words “these things” refer directly back to the preceding phrase, “the words of the prophecy of this book” which means the book of Revelation. If, for example, someone says that there can be no angel who will fulfill Revelation 14:6 because the “angel is not named” (???), then such a person has taken away from the meaning of the prophecy of the book of Revelation.

If anyone lessens the meaning of “he that overcometh shall inherit all things” (Revelation 21:7), then they have taken away from the meaning of the prophecy John was told to give to the world.

If anyone takes the words of Revelation 3:7 and makes the meaning into something other than Christ having the key of David (“he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth”; ) then they have taken away from the meaning of the clear prophecy John was told to give to the world.

Wishing peace, again, to you and your family.

 

[ParkerD]

To SteveVH and Lax16 and whomever:

I have had the impression since I started adding to this thread, that I should add another analogy, so here goes:

A salmon or other types of fish or swimming mammals have an instinctive draw that beckons them at the appropriate time for spawning or for having their young.

Picture a salmon swimming up-river, jumping up water rapids to the next smooth place in the river, and so forth moving all the way upstream until the salmon has found its “home” and it finally feels that it can rest.

For me, the gospel is like that, in that some people feel there is “something missing” until they find the “something missing”. Other people feel “at rest” in a smooth place to their liking, where there are certainly many nourishing aspects of the gospel. They can share in those nourishing aspects, and will certainly be blessed as they live the teachings of the gospel within the frame of reference that they find meets their needs and desires.

The Bible, in and of itself and if taught well, meets the needs and desires of many, many people, and was treasured by many people who received much light as they participated in bringing it to the world.

I’m going to leave it at that. Peace to all.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Here are answers to your specific questions:

(1) I always read the Bible as though it was translated correctly, and enjoy it as such. I also look at cross reference passages that may clarify a particular passage. I also enjoy looking at earlier Greek texts and their transliteration, when I have a question about a particular meaning of a word or phrase. .

So you disagree with the LDS teaching that the Bible is only true as far as it has been translated correctly?

The idea of “translated correctly” should not be so troubling to anyone who uses any modern translation as compared with the Douay-Rheims, since those have distinctly different word usages…

American Catholics are actually encouraged to read the New American Bible by the United States College of Catholic Bishops. This edition was not, like the DR a literal translation from Latin, but a new translation from the source manuscripts. Non-Catholic scholars were intentionally included in its translation. AS Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit works through the translators and worked through the editors, I only take issue with translations that paraphrase and seel gender neutral language.

(2) I’ve read several of the “7 other books”, and am fine that they are studied by some people, but as I noted before I don’t think they are “on a par” with what I consider the canonized books found in the KJV, because they weren’t original prophetic writings from the lips or writings of a prophet at the time of the writing.

So you have not read them all. Your perception of par relates directly to understanding their purpose.

(3) I always read the Book of Mormon for exactly what it says. I used to read other reference materials, and do read the lesson manuals, but when I am reading the Book of Mormon I focus solely on reading its text exclusive of other commentaries. I find that to be the best way to get its depth…

If you say so

(4) You tell me when a bishop of Rome was designated as the leader of the church on earth after Peter, and that will be the exact point in time when an apostasy had occurred, since John was the real leader after Peter’s death. I have never seen anyone say exactly when that designation occurred, so that would be up to someone who knows from your history.

It does not matter, based on LDS reasoning of Apostolic succession. Hyrum Smith was the last designated successor to Joseph Smith, according to your own Doctrine and Covenants, and he died first. The majority of the people chose to accept the 12 as the governing body. Where does it say John was the head of the Church? You are basing that on the LDS interpretation that the Senior Apostle becomes the head of the Church, a concept which is neither in early Christian tradition or in the New Testament.

It also does not matter if the authority was not taken away. So,…

The question is: When did the Apsotasy take place? What group that contemporary Christians would consider heretical taught the same doctrines as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches today?

 

[Peter_John]

Hi, again, 1st Order K of C,

I think there are distinctly different meanings in the two translations. The words “these things” refer directly back to the preceding phrase, “the words of the prophecy of this book” which means the book of Revelation. If, for example, someone says that there can be no angel who will fulfill Revelation 14:6 because the “angel is not named” (???), then such a person has taken away from the meaning of the prophecy of the book of Revelation.

If anyone lessens the meaning of “he that overcometh shall inherit all things” (Revelation 21:7), then they have taken away from the meaning of the prophecy John was told to give to the world.

If anyone takes the words of Revelation 3:7 and makes the meaning into something other than Christ having the key of David (“he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth”; ) then they have taken away from the meaning of the clear prophecy John was told to give to the world.

Wishing peace, again, to you and your family.

I generally agree with this statement, with one caveat. Under the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as mediator in the redaction of the Bible, it could well be God’s intent for that verse to be exactly where it is – and there is little dispute that Revelation was the last book written, even of the Bible had yet to be compiled.

 

[Peter_John]

Hello to you, First Order Knights of Columbus,

I have read some of the “missing 7 books”, and found them interesting but feel that I can see why they were not considered “on a par” with the rest of the Bible, since they don’t really reflect the writings or teachings of a prophet who was receiving then-current revelation from God.

Most of the Old testament is not from Prophets receiveing then current Revelation from God. While the Torah reflects the Teachings and ministry of Moses, most scholars agree that it was largely written after the fact. The historical books were not written by prophets at all, and neither was most of the poetry.

But I don’t mind if someone uses them as a reference, so long as they don’t do it exclusively for the point they’re trying to make.

That’s too bad, because Maccabees I uniquely tells of work being done for the dead, which should interst Mormons.

 

[Peter_John]

It has been stated over and over again, by Momon posters in more than a few threads, that the Apostasy took place upon the death of the last Apostle. However, the fact that they accept the Bible as Scripture …

The Death of the Last Apostle is also inconsistent with LDS doctrine. The closest I have seen anything come to that is “shortly after”, but without historic claim to back it up. The evidence usually entails circular reasoning to known practice not being consistent with LDS beliefs, therefore the Apostasy must have already happened.

Mormons only accept the Bible as scripture as far as it has been translated correctly. The LDS edition of the King James Bible is full of footnotes indicating Joseph Smith’s transliteration of what the Bible was supposed to say. They also have tow books in The Pearl of Great Price called the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham which they believe give more accurate accounts of parts of Genesis.

I find it interesting that LDS leaders never question if the work of greek philosophers, which they often cite, were translated correctly, and the same monks translated and preserved those records through the Dark Ages as tranlsated and preserved the Biblical manuscripts.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) So you disagree with the LDS teaching that the Bible is only true as far as it has been translated correctly?

(2) So you have not read them all. Your perception of par relates directly to understanding their purpose.

(3) It does not matter, based on LDS reasoning of Apostolic succession. Hyrum Smith was the last designated successor to Joseph Smith, according to your own Doctrine and Covenants, and he died first. The majority of the people chose to accept the 12 as the governing body. Where does it say John was the head of the Church? You are basing that on the LDS interpretation that the Senior Apostle becomes the head of the Church, a concept which is neither in early Christian tradition or in the New Testament.

(4) It also does not matter if the authority was not taken away. So,…

The question is: When did the Apostasy take place? What group that contemporary Christians would consider heretical taught the same doctrines as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches today?

Peter John,
Hi again,

(1) The exact phrase from the words of Joseph Smith are “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;”

In other words, the only drawback from saying the Bible is the word of God precisely and exactly, is that there was a translation process that could potentially introduce changes from being precisely and exactly the “word of God”. That does not make it “not true”. It only makes it “less than perfectly true in every single word and phrase”. It also means that “sola scriptora” would not be what the LDS would teach about the Bible, but yet the LDS use and love the Bible as the word of God.

(2) Yes, I think it would be important to figure out their purpose when they were written by those who wrote them.

(3) I disagree that Hyrum was the “designated successor” to Joseph Smith, and certainly the Lord knew they would both be killed at the same time, and this was a “two witnesses sealing their testimony” situation.

It does not need to say “John was the head of the church”. John was one of the Twelve, and the Twelve were the designated leaders of the church on the earth. They all had callings as leaders–not just Peter.

(4) It would matter to me, even if the Holy Spirit weren’t involved to certify truth.

Your last question is a completely useless question. Of course there would not be a group that was identifiable in history who had the “same doctrines” as the LDS church. It was a splintering effect, and changes were generally gradual although it seems the two changes most influenced by the “remnant believers in circumcision” were evidently quite immediate changes (i.e. the beliefs in the Eucharist as described by Catholics and in infant baptism and a non-immersion baptism ).

Again, peace to you.