P
- Status
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Ok, just something that hit me that I don’t think I have asked before. I know I have thought it but don’t recall asking. (Maybe I have just forgotten the answer)
The Mormons really push this idea that we see in the Bible that God uses prophets, therefore “doesn’t it make sense that he would continue to use prophets?” (I think that is pretty close to what all of my Mormon guests have said).
If God was to use prophets today as he used them thousands of years ago, then:
The Mormons really push this idea that we see in the Bible that God uses prophets, therefore “doesn’t it make sense that he would continue to use prophets?” (I think that is pretty close to what all of my Mormon guests have said).
If God was to use prophets today as he used them thousands of years ago, then:
- Why is there only one at a time? There were times when multiple prophets were alive and doing God’s work.
- Why is there an apparent succession? It seems like God “calls them up” as needed.
- If we look at a timeline, the Gap between prophets (if we count Jesus and John the Baptist) is 1800 years. That would be equivilent to before Moses. Does that make sense?
- If God set the path right with JS, then why is another prophet needed? We don’t see a series of other prophets succeeding Moses (as a prophet leader).
- If Christ came to set us free from the law, why would God want to add laws right back into the mix?
- If Christ set the Church up and we see the proper format in the Bible, why can’t we just use the Bible to get us back on track in times of apostacy?
S
soren1
Guest
You have listed so many proof-texts that it is it difficult to respond to the whole. I would be more persuaded if you could just make one verse stick, rather than list many, not all of which even deal with the topics at hand. I will begin with the first one.
The restoration of all things refers to the renewing of heaven and earth in the second coming of Christ, as seen in Rev 21:5: “And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.” While you are correct that a total restoration implies a previous total loss, you make an unwarranted assumption that the loss of all things occurs in the Church after the time when Peter is speaking. In fact, all things were lost at the time when Adam fell.
That Peter is not referring to the Church as such can be seen from his claim that the restoration was “spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began,” and yet Paul and Peter both write elsewhere that the mystery of the church was not disclosed to past generations. (cf. Col 1:25-27; 1 Pet 1:10-12)
The Catholic Church bases its authority on a twofold source: Scripture and Tradition, both of which originate in divine inspiration. The Scriptures are written by prophets, and tradition (which includes sacraments as well as authority structures) is derived from the Apostles. On this basis alone, it is difficult to see why this text should be a problem for Catholics.
It is very important to be note that “built” here translates a passive Greek participle in the perfect tense, which would be more accurately rendered as “having been built.” What the perfect tense indicates in Greek is an action that has been completed in the past but whose effects continue in the present. It is therefore consistent with this text to say that the work of the prophets and apostles was a complete act of revelation, which achieved the building of the Church, and that the Church remains complete in itself by virtue of that past action – which is just what we should expect if Catholicism were true. You are wrong, therefore to assume that to be a foundation Apostleship must be an “ongoing position.” Rather, the effects of the work of Prophets and Apostle must be ongoing.
Your objection about the church being built on the foundation of bishops ignores the fact that bishops derive their authority by descent from the Apostles, whose formal capacity in the Church was one of Bishop. “Apostle” is not an office in the Church per se, but is personal designation of someone who received his episcopacy as a direct witness of the resurrected Christ.
A Melchizedek priest is someone who holds the priesthood by right of kingship. That is what Ps. 110 is about. Melchizedek, David, and Christ are priests of the same order because they are all kings. If Jesus confers the priesthood upon someone, he does not confer his unique kingship. The person receiving the priesthood from him therefore has a different priesthood inasmuch as it is derivative from Christ’s. As King, Christ holds his priesthood uniquely in a non-derivative way, although others may share in it by derivation from him.
The Old Testament is non favorable to polygamy, including (and especially) in the case of the patriarchs. That Abraham practices polygamy does not imply that polygamy is therefore a virtue. He takes Hagar as a wife out of unbelief – or rather from compliance with his wife’s unbelief that he can have a son in her advanced age. The result is a tragedy, with Hagar and Isaac left in the wild, and God enforces circumcision upon Abraham as a mortification to atone for it. To justify polygamy as the “Law of Abraham” as the early Mormons did is to miss the point of the whole story.
The allowance of exceptional marriage practices in the old covenant was due a leniency in the Old Law in view of man’s hardness of heart. Christ makes this point about divorce in Matt 19, saying that “from the beginning it was not so.” (19:8) By invoking “the beginning,” he means that in the perfection of man’s creation as found in Eden, before sin entered the world, in the true normative model for how marriage is to be understood in the New Covenant. This is a monogamous form of marriage, in which “the *twain *shall be one flesh,” and it is with regard to it that Jesus says, “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt 19:6) The question that matters here is not “Is polygamy allowable?” but “Is polygamy allowable in the New Covenant?” Even if the answer to the first wuestion is “yes,” the answer to the second is, “no.”
J
jake23
Guest
Its real simple, the catholic church did not fail! The cult say allot of silly things and should simply be disregarded
S
soren1
Guest
If you think the claims of the other side should be disregarded, what are you doing at an apologetics website? It doesn’t matter what you think the merits of another person’s beliefs are. The arguments of the other side are important, because even if they are not persuasive to you, they are often persuasive to somebody else, who has a soul like yours. For the sake of others, even the silliest arguments deserve as much attention as the best ones. Every claim that we leave unanswered is barrier to the gospel that we leave standing. The whole point of apologetics is to knock those barriers down.
E
evanfaust
Guest
Jay53,
**The Lord has made clear the importance of marriage and establishing a family. **
*Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.*1 Cor 11:11
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Gen 2:18
God is the literal father of our spirits.
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of fspirits, and live? Heb 12:9
We are offspring of God.
*“For in him we alive, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto bgold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s cdevice.” * Act 17:29
**We are part of the family of God. **
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; Eph 2:19
This other translation uses the term “God’s family”. Family is comprised of Father, Mother and Children.
That is why you are no longer foreigners and outsiders but citizens together with God’s people and members of God’s family. Eph 2:19
In Jewish kabbalistic teachings, the Matrona is God’s heavenly spouse. To find more evidence, see the book below.
Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt, “Does God Have a Wife? Review of Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel,” FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 81–118
This article from FAIR also provides a litle more about this subject.
en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Heavenly_Mother#endnote_asherah
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
These are talking about creation. God is not created, He is the Creator. Nothing in these verses implies in any way that God is married.
He is your Creator. You are a CREATURE. He is not.
All this only shows mormons do not understand Baptism, where we become a member of the family of Christ and Heirs to His Kingdom. There is no indication in any of these passages that we become one with any other than God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
And I am still a bit confused as to how you brought the Blessed Virgin Mary into this.
J
Jay53
Guest
Nothing in your post or quotes of scripture suggest that God is married to a “Heavenly Mother”. Are you actually going to suggest to me that the Jewish people and early Christians, including the apostles, subscribed to this belief? If so, I’d like to see some evidence, please.
Additional questions this leads me to are:
Who created this “Heavenly Mother”? If God is the Creator of all things, did He also create this “Heavenly Mother” for Himself?
Is she equal to God? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
Is she equal to Jesus? If so, in what way? If not, why not - and is she greater or lesser than Jesus as a god (in the Mormon perspective)?
E
evanfaust
Guest
Soren1,
I am making no assumptions. The loss of all things includes the church, the priesthood and the true doctrines. Please see Rev 13:4 and Daniel 7:21 and 2 Tess 2:3-4, Rev 12:4-6.
The Saints are the members of the Church of Jesus Christ
*As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them *Dan 7:21
This one is even more convincing…The Beast has power to conquer the Saints rule the earth without the power of God for 1800 years to rule the earth as has been mentioned here in a sarcastic way.
He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. Rev 13:7
The Book of Revelations goes even further to say that the Chruch will flee to the desert.
The woman (Church) fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. Rev 12:6
The Apostle is sayng that the second coming of Christ will not happen until an apostasy takes place.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. II Tess 2:3
E
evanfaust
Guest
Rebecca says
He is your Creator. You are a CREATURE. He is not
Evanfaust comments
I am God’s child and so are you! He is my father and yours…We are much more than simple creatures!
Jesus said to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brothers, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17
He is your Creator. You are a CREATURE. He is not
Evanfaust comments
I am God’s child and so are you! He is my father and yours…We are much more than simple creatures!
Jesus said to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brothers, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17
E
evanfaust
Guest
PaulC,Neither do I accept your point of view. I have been there Paul. I used to be Catholic since I was a baby, and I woke up! You are trying to show inconsistencies, but they exist only in your mind. I have spent considerable amount of time studying the LDS faifth. Come to the true church of Jesus Christ Paul. There is still time!
Paul Says
There’s nothing prophetic in Joseph Smith admitting that people won’t believe him. He experienced that first hand. Afterall, he was claiming to be able to find treasure through seer stones at the time. A con game for which he as arrested and convicted.
Paul…When Moroni appeared to Joseph and made this prophecy, he told his family initially, and they believed him completely, because he was a truthful boy! You will not find a more honest and sincere family than that of Joseph. Get the facts Paul! I have done more than enough research on this man and his family. I have read Joseph’s biography by his own mother and many others.
E
evanfaust
Guest
If God was to use prophets today as he used them thousands of years ago, then:
1. Why is there only one at a time? There were times when multiple prophets were alive and doing God’s work.
Xavier, anyone in the church can have visions, or even make prophecies in his own jurisdiction. In fact, that is the way the church is governed today. We have Bishops, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Seventies, Apostles…they all are prophets. They are all entitled to revelations and even visions.
2. Why is there an apparent succession? It seems like God “calls them up” as needed.
There would always have been prophets in the past if they had not rejected and killed them. Luke 13:34
3 Why did your first prophet change the faith, as opposed to every other one directed his people back to their faith. It seems that only Jesus was the one authorized to change the faith, make anew covenant, set things on the path.
Joseph restored the faith and everything else from the past. This is the Dispensation of fulness of times, where everything is restored. This is the last dispensation before the comming of Christ.
4. If we look at a timeline, the Gap between prophets (if we count Jesus and John the Baptist) is 1800 years. That would be equivilent to before Moses. Does that make sense?
The same happened between Malachi and Jesus…a gap of 500 years without prophets or revelation.
1. Why is there only one at a time? There were times when multiple prophets were alive and doing God’s work.
Xavier, anyone in the church can have visions, or even make prophecies in his own jurisdiction. In fact, that is the way the church is governed today. We have Bishops, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Seventies, Apostles…they all are prophets. They are all entitled to revelations and even visions.
2. Why is there an apparent succession? It seems like God “calls them up” as needed.
There would always have been prophets in the past if they had not rejected and killed them. Luke 13:34
3 Why did your first prophet change the faith, as opposed to every other one directed his people back to their faith. It seems that only Jesus was the one authorized to change the faith, make anew covenant, set things on the path.
Joseph restored the faith and everything else from the past. This is the Dispensation of fulness of times, where everything is restored. This is the last dispensation before the comming of Christ.
4. If we look at a timeline, the Gap between prophets (if we count Jesus and John the Baptist) is 1800 years. That would be equivilent to before Moses. Does that make sense?
The same happened between Malachi and Jesus…a gap of 500 years without prophets or revelation.
- If God set the path right with JS, then why is another prophet needed? We don’t see a series of other prophets succeeding Moses (as a prophet leader).
See answer 2
E
evanfaust
Guest
Paul…Mary was engaged with Joseph, when she was found pregnant of Jesus. The father was God the Father through the Holly Ghost, and she even married Joseph and had children with him later. Now, let me ask you. Was there adultery here? Was God married to Mary? If he was not, was there adultery while she was already promised to another man? Even if he was married was there a violation? We are talking about a woman and two man having children with this woman. A woman and two husbands? Does it sound familiar?
Christ was recognized as the son of Joseph, the carpenter and not the Son of Heavenly Father before the unbelievers. Now, try to explain that situation to an unbeliever! What do you think was going to be the reaction? Before you go on accusing Joseph of adultery, think of the similar situations in the scriptures.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
So you’re saying God had sex with Mary?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Xavierlives,
Good evening or good morning to you, as the case may be when you read this. I hope you are well.
- Agreed that sometimes there were multiple prophets; there are fifteen “prophets, seers, and revelators” sustained as such on the earth today, and they go to various places in the world as well as speak on telecasts that are broadcast throughout the world to the members and their friends or to television or computer-linked audiences who look for the broadcast.
- Yes, there is a succession that is orderly by design. This allows both a seasoning time (preparatory time like before Moses actually became a “prophet”) and a proving, polishing time.
- It is the same new covenant gospel established by Christ that is found in the LDS church, and it is based distinctly and directly on revelation from God, so any changes in practice are because God revealed the change be brought about. If Joseph Smith had merely been trying to copy the New Testament church, he would have done differently, but being guided directly by God and the Holy Spirit, They directed the changes for the particular will of the Lord at the time.
- Yes, given that the world needed to be ready (which took a very long time and had many preliminary events), including a place in the world where a church guided by revelation could actually be established without getting completely obliterated by governments or non-freedom-oriented individuals.
- Joshua succeeded Moses with a very visible pattern of having been called by God.
- Christ sets free from the “law” in two ways: from the law of Moses, because it has been fulfilled; and because that elaborate law was given because the people weren’t ready to live by higher covenants. A higher covenant gospel has been given to the world because part of the world is ready to live by those higher covenants, and really begin to fulfill 1 Corinthians 2:9-10. Commandments and covenants are not restrictive at all–they lead to greater blessings, the kind of blessings Paul promised and John promised and Christ promised.
- That would have been the pattern if the Jews (including their leaders) had accepted Christ and the new covenant gospel, but what happened shows that such an eventuality is well-nigh impossible given the temperament of most leaders and most people. Leaders prefer to keep their own status quo including their status quo organization.
Have a good day, and peace to all.
E
evanfaust
Guest
Jay53
Read my comments again including the link, and if you still have questions I will be glad to address them.
S
sablouwho
Guest
Evan, there are plenty of people who were born into one religion but “woke up” at some point and converted to another. While it is very clear that your conversion from Catholic to LDS has been very meaningful and fulfilling for you, I submit that all this specific testimony about being a former Catholic turned Mormon demonstrates is that you changed from one religion to another, and that you are fulfilled in the latter whereas you were not in the former.
Problem is, it is all too easy to find a former LDS who is now Catholic and they will say the same thing, that they “woke up.”
Ditto for a Jew who becomes Christian (such as myself), or for that matter the opposite–there are Christians who become Jews.
And yet what these converts seem to share is a sense of getting truth in their new religion that they didn’t have in the one they were born into. That in itself doesn’t really demonstrate anything except that people change religions and that their needs are better met in their new religion than in their old one.
Any convert from religion A to religion B is going to say this…
As far as “there is still time”. Since LDS theology includes proxy baptisms and missionaries in spirit prison, yeah, it seems like there is a lot of time indeed. So why the pressure for Paul to “get it” now?
Not everyone who reads quality LDS apologetics gains a testimony … even those who did it sincerely. I know this from personal experience.
J
Jay53
Guest
I have and they do not address my questions at all - nor do they agree with Apostolic teaching.
P
paul_c
Guest
You must be kidding. God was not married to Mary. Mary was ever virgin. She had no other children.
Trying to use this to justify Joseph Smith’s adultery is going no where. How can you believe that God would pick as his Prophet, a convicted con man, bank fraud, and a serial adulterer, who promised families they would become gods if they let him have sex with their wives and daughters?
P
paul_c
Guest
Sure, God is everyone’s father as the creator. That doesn’t mean that he is a physical being
- Status