LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[evanfaust]

And you still haven’t explained anything about this “heavenly mother” or given any evidence that the Apostles believed in anything resembling that doctrine. Saying that the Apostles knew this and just didn’t divulge it is not even a slightly convincing argument. I agree that they said that not everything was written, but I don’t believe they ever said there were doctrines or Truths that should not be divulged. Some evidence of that would be appreciated.

Jay53
There is more evidence, but I am going to show some from the Jewish religion.

According to Zohar Levíticus 68a-b “When the holy souls come down from heaven to the earth and when the virtuous from the world leave from the presence of the King and the Matrona, few are those that sometimes remain before the King; and, in whom the King care to look. Thus, as we have said, at the time God breathed the spirit in all the celestial hosts, they came into existence, but some were kept until the Holy One, blessed be He, sends them down, and these have dominion above as well as underneath.”

You can also read Zohar Genesis 245b to find more reference to the “Matrona” = heavenly mother.

See also this website:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hebrew_Goddess

 

[evanfaust]

See this is the thing, why won’t he come right out and say either Jesus lied or not. He refuses to play it straight with me but dances around it. We know the if the Holy Spirit did indeed abandon the Church then Jesus lied. Which we both know is impossible. Jesus would never lie to us. But he refuses to play it straight with us. And I do not know why. Why beat around the bush either say it, or agree with us. But he won;t. Because I believe deep down inside he knows he is wrong.

Rinnie,
I think it is obvious that Jesus did not lie! Jesus does not lie! The problem is with the way you interpret the words of Christ!

 

[evanfaust]

. Saying that the Apostles knew this and just didn’t divulge it is not even a slightly convincing argument. I agree that they said that not everything was written, but I don’t believe they ever said there were doctrines or Truths that should not be divulged. Some evidence of that would be appreciated.

Jay53
I am not saying what was specifically hidden…but they are many truths that are not in the Bible and they were not even written. So, for you to reject the new revelations given the modern prophets is to deny that God can still reveal new truths.

See the evidences I am presenting below…this is an excerpt from an article from John Tvedtnes,

Paul wrote of the “hidden wisdom” that was not available to all and that could be gotten only through the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; cf. Colossians 2:2-3). Peter concurred with this view when, after noting the revelation he received from God in company with James and John on the mount of transfiguration, he adds that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:16-21). Paul also noted that it was “not lawful” for him to reveal some of the things he learned in his heavenly vision (2 Corinthians 12:4), reminding us that the “new name” mentioned in Revelation 2:17 is known only to the individual who receives the stone in which it is written.

 Tertullian, one of the “Church Fathers” who flourished around A.D. 200, wrote, “We believe that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, but that they did not transmit everything they knew, and were not willing to reveal everything to everybody.  They did not preach everywhere nor promiscuously . . . but taught one thing in public and another in secret: some things about the resurrection they taught to everyone, but some things they taught only to a few” (De Praescriptionibus, 25-26).

John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople (died A.D. 407) declared, “Paul did not divulge all his revelations, but concealed the greater part of them; and though he did not tell everything, neither was he silent about everything, lest he leave an opening for the teaching of false apostles” (De Laudibus Sancti Pauli Apostoli Homilia 5). Paul himself confirms this idea in his correspondence with the Corinthians: “I . . . could not speak unto you as unto spiritual . . . I have fed you with milk, and not with meat” (1 Corinthians 3:1-2).

 The author of Clementine Homilies 19.20 credits the apostle Peter with saying, “We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, ‘Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.’  Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.  But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but our statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths.”16 

 Origen, a Christian scholar of the third century A.D., wrote of the mysteries the Christians kept hidden from the world (Contra Celsum 1.1, 3, 7).  Clement of Alexandria also wrote of the mysteries found in Christianity (Stromata  5.10.63; Clementine Homilies, 19.20).  The fourth-century writer Saint Basil also mentioned the mysterious rites practiced in Christianity (On the Spirit 27, 29).  A number of other early Christian documents speak of secret teachings and practices.  Such LDS temple rites as baptism for the dead, prayer circles, handclasps, and new names are frequently mentioned in early Christian pseudepigrapha.17

 

[evanfaust]

You do realize, Evan, that this is your personal interpretation (or perhaps the Mormon interpretation) of this reading. It is inconsistent with what the Catholic church has understood for 2000 years. The Holy spirit would not abandon the Church Christ founded. Do you really think Christ failed and that he needed Joseph Smith to bail him out be restarting Christianity the “right” way?

PaulC,

Christ did not fail! Your interpretation failed! Everything is done in God’s time, not man’s time. You just have a wish that the church that continued without any interruption. But you know very well that there is tremendous difference between Catholics an the Church in the first century. The spirit withdrew, but not permanently! It is now back with the restored church. You understand the “end” in this verse as the end of the world at the second comming of Christ, but the “end” in this particular scripture refers to the dispensation they were living in.

 

[evanfaust]

no evan you are wrong. I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD THERE SHALL BE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.!! We are not gods evan we are sinners,

Rinnie,
Read the following explanation about the scripture you quoted:

Isaiah 44:6 reads:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read “no God beside me” or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect.

For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:

“Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.”

These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zepheniah depicts Ninevah in Zeph. 2:15 as saying:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities. Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring “there is no God beside me.” There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme.

Read the entire explanation:
en.fairmormon.org/%22No_God_beside_me%22

 

[JMJ4]

Xavierlives,
We have a fundamental difference, but thanks for a good chuckle. The scriptures are clear that blessings from God are promised by Him. He “chose” the principles for us to live by because He knew they would make us the happiest, then as we “choose” to live by those principles we are indeed just as happy as He promised we would be.

You wrote of a “change” in the principles and the blessings, and therein is the essence of the question to be answered by both praying and listening to the communicator of truth (the Holy Spirit), and by reading the exact words (in the original language if it were possible, but if not in as best a translation as we can trust) in the Bible that communicate the principles and the blessings. You think “we” have changed the principles and the blessings, but all we have really done is say there are covenants that are available for a “covenant people” to receive and live by, and they are very clear covenants contained in the Bible, with very clear promises and blessings (Remember, a covenant is two-way, like a contract).

Yet even as we LDS also live by every other principle (the common ones) and perceive the blessings that are abundantly given, someone will say “you can’t be really being blessed, because you don’t believe as I believe” and if so then I say to such a person, “you have no idea what you’re talking about–read the Bible, for goodness sake!”

But I suggest you won’t get it. Perhaps there is some self-justification going on (I do sense that in your last sentence). Obviously, Christ was the servant of all, so the obvious rejoinder that He didn’t intend for humankind to become joint heirs with Him since that would mean they would be rulers as promised by John in the Book of Revelation rather than being “servants”, just doesn’t understand why Christ said He was the servant of all, yet He is the Son of God and inherits a throne. You see, to be a joint heir with Him is to indeed be a servant–a joyful servant doing creative service forever and ever, in the most significant way possible.

It is a self-justification for someone to say “that’s prideful”. Meekness means exercising self-mastery and humility all at the same time, and it brings power that can come in no other way than being other-centered at all times. This is what Christ has promised can be possible for humankind, but only through Him because His grace allows that kind of lifting up to something that would otherwise be unthinkable and impossible.

As to “definitions”, you sound like a little bit like a “school-boy” with such a remark. The definitions are as plain as day. They are not difficult. They have been made difficult, perhaps, by those who have created a hodge-podge of meanings out of simple texts. One can read, think, grasp the simple direct meaning of the actual words, and learn what the Lord was saying and the apostles were saying.

Peace to you and all.

ParkerD- What did Xavierlives say to make you "chuckle?’

You sound so condescending in your posts.

Why?

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD- What did Xavierlives say to make you "chuckle?’

You sound so condescending in your posts.

Why?

JMJ4,
He talked about a “danger” and about “rewriting what the Bible means” and about “exploded into something bizarre”. Those words brought a chuckle to my mind, because of the irony of the words in view of the overall idea that I had tried to convey, which is that a person will receive after this life, exactly what they have lived to receive by what they did in life, with Christ and His atoning grace at the center of such an idea and ultimate blessing.

My intent has been to try and stimulate real thinking beyond the level that one has been taught, and yeah I guess I don’t know how to do that without sounding “condescending”, because I am trying to convey that there is a loss that is a real loss, but that it’s a choice that a person who becomes aware of an opportunity makes (either seek to figure out if the possibility is there, or choose to ignore that the Bible makes plain that such is the opportunity in plain language).

Ultimately, I guess it’s because so many times the push-back “against” the LDS are the beliefs that humankind can have eternal marriage in heaven and that part of that concept of heaven includes “eternal progression” including being a “joint heir” with Christ on a throne (i.e. becoming like Him), which are so plainly taught in the Bible. It gets frustrating when instead of dealing with the ideas themselves by looking at the text of the Bible itself, I see a push-back that includes the words “danger” and “re-writing” and “bizarre”.

Sorry about the answer coming across as condescending. I guess I am being defensive when I do that. Sorry.

 

[Answersplease]

Well the way I understand the story, it goes like this: The men know their wives “secret name” so that when the time comes, he can call up them. Say he doesn’t like wife number 3 with the name Sarah, well he can… err… just not call her and they are no longer sealed.

I don’t know if she becomes a free agent at that point or what.

(color added to original text)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#cite_ref-143

Jerald and Sandra Tanner point to comments by certain church leaders as evidence that women are subject to different rules regarding entry into heaven. They claim that 19th-century leader Erastus Snow preached: “No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant”.

[144]

[144] ^ “UTLM web site describing LDS treatment of women”. utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-04.

 

[ParkerD]

Xavierlives,
I see that you are joking again, but since it is important that others understand rather than misunderstand as you evidently do, this is for the others reading:

Jay53 was correct. The passage as rendered in Matthew is clearer than in Luke.

The notion that “God is required to honor it” is silly. The Holy Spirit honors truthfulness and truth and goodness–not sloppy thinking. Not one LDS marriage in a temple will be sealed in heaven if those entering into the covenant do not honor their covenant–of course. How difficult is that to understand?

God does have a very simple plan. It involves receiving the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can be one’s guide in life, and seeking marriage as a part of what God gave as a gift and a privilege to Adam and Eve. This is not very complicated at all. Simple plan–simple to live by and honor.

To those reading the thread:
Sorry about the exchange that went off on a tangent about “fear” words. Above is a re-post of my earlier response to Xavierlives after he had posted the comment that Answersplease added here again.

Have a good day.

 

[paul_c]

PaulC,

Christ did not fail! Your interpretation failed! Everything is done in God’s time, not man’s time. You just have a wish that the church that continued without any interruption. But you know very well that there is tremendous difference between Catholics an the Church in the first century. The spirit withdrew, but not permanently! It is now back with the restored church. You understand the “end” in this verse as the end of the world at the second comming of Christ, but the “end” in this particular scripture refers to the dispensation they were living in.

Don’t speak for me. I do not accept that Catholic Doctrines have changed since the truth was revealed by Christ to the Apostles. It is you that beleive that and you have been deceieved. The truths the church teaches are eternal and it knows how to interpret the scripture it wrote.

How can you possibly justify a view that the entire Catholic Church turned from God? You have no proof of such an illogical event. Only the “insight” provided by Joseph Smith, who we have demonstrated is hugely non-credible. The fact is, the Catholic church did not turn from God. It grew, despite official and brutal persecution from the Roman empire, from 3000 converts at Pentecost to ~20Million members (1/3 of the entire Roman Empire) by the time of the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Are you going to have us beleive that this happened without the hand of God? Are you really going to say that all those martyrs died for a lie? And are you really going to claim that a church that had apostacized was still able to compile the Bible Canon in 382 AD that you recognize as inerrant?

 

[Answersplease]

I also know that the women in Utah have the highest use of Prozac…they are held to such high level of perfection and if they do wrong, their husband will not allow them entrance into heaven…

 

[paul_c]

Rinnie,
Read the following explanation about the scripture you quoted:

Isaiah 44:6 reads:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read “no God beside me” or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect.

For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:

“Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.”

These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zepheniah depicts Ninevah in Zeph. 2:15 as saying:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities. Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring “there is no God beside me.” There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme.

Read the entire explanation:
en.fairmormon.org/%22No_God_beside_me%22

Evan, do you REALLY believe this argument yourself? Don’t you see how far you have to twist the truth to give the appearance that Mormon doctrine is true? And if you are spreading thoughts you know or suspect to be untrue, what does that make you?

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
We have a fundamental difference, but thanks for a good chuckle. The scriptures are clear that blessings from God are promised by Him. He “chose” the principles for us to live by because He knew they would make us the happiest, then as we “choose” to live by those principles we are indeed just as happy as He promised we would be.

But our difference is your faith seeks exaltation while I seek only glory for God. You can try to talk a good talk about being meek, but when your faith plans on occupying some elevated place in heaven so in reality that faith is seeking to steal God’s glory. Christ did not say, he is going to prepare a place for those who basically do good. He then didn’t say, I am going to prepare a higher place, and yet a higher place. He said, I am going to prepare a singular place. (I can feel the Mormon spin coming on this one—“Because he didn’t talk about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist” or “he was talking specifically to those people who would be occupying one of the levels.” I do not desire any elevated status. I seek no status. I seek to give all glory to God. Any blessings are only a result of Him and further glorify Him.

You wrote of a “change” in the principles and the blessings, and therein is the essence of the question to be answered by both praying and listening to the communicator of truth (the Holy Spirit), and by reading the exact words (in the original language if it were possible, but if not in as best a translation as we can trust) in the Bible that communicate the principles and the blessings. You think “we” have changed the principles and the blessings, but all we have really done is say there are covenants that are available for a “covenant people” to receive and live by, and they are very clear covenants contained in the Bible, with very clear promises and blessings (Remember, a covenant is two-way, like a contract).

But the last covenant people already existed. You cannot usurp that covenant. Moreover, you cannot force God into a covenant.

Yet even as we LDS also live by every other principle (the common ones) and perceive the blessings that are abundantly given, someone will say “you can’t be really being blessed, because you don’t believe as I believe” and if so then I say to such a person, “you have no idea what you’re talking about–read the Bible, for goodness sake!”

Maybe doing as the Bible says will be enough.

But I suggest you won’t get it. Perhaps there is some self-justification going on (I do sense that in your last sentence). Obviously, Christ was the servant of all, so the obvious rejoinder that He didn’t intend for humankind to become joint heirs with Him since that would mean they would be rulers as promised by John in the Book of Revelation rather than being “servants”, just doesn’t understand why Christ said He was the servant of all, yet He is the Son of God and inherits a throne. You see, to be a joint heir with Him is to indeed be a servant–a joyful servant doing creative service forever and ever, in the most significant way possible.

I’m not sure what you see as self-justification. I am not saying what my role is in heaven. I do not know. I do not care. I’ve said multiple times, I will be content just to be in heaven. I am happy as a servant now, I will be happy to be a servant then. As a joint-heir, I am giving God the glory. Christ moved from Son of Man to a Son of God and gave God the glory the entire time. That is the glory we give the Father. Christ did it because the Father was in him. We do it because Christ is in us.

It is a self-justification for someone to say “that’s prideful”. Meekness means exercising self-mastery and humility all at the same time, and it brings power that can come in no other way than being other-centered at all times. This is what Christ has promised can be possible for humankind, but only through Him because His grace allows that kind of lifting up to something that would otherwise be unthinkable and impossible.

No. I am saying a faith that seeks personal exaltation is after the wrong goal. There is no pride in that statement. Your faith does teach this and this is a part that conflicts with the Bible.

As to “definitions”, you sound like a little bit like a “school-boy” with such a remark. The definitions are as plain as day. They are not difficult. They have been made difficult, perhaps, by those who have created a hodge-podge of meanings out of simple texts. One can read, think, grasp the simple direct meaning of the actual words, and learn what the Lord was saying and the apostles were saying.

Hmm… I’m not sure whether I like being called a school boy or not. My comments about definitions deal with the language in which we communicate. Your faith is consistently changing the meaning behind the Bible. The Bible does not require redefining to somehow clarify the meaning. The beauty that Mormons ignore is multiple translations of the Bible. Christ used two translations while he taught. Does this mean one is superior than the other? While I don’t read Greek, I have a basic understanding of Latin, so that is one resource. I also have the variety of English translations to read. But my primary source is the KJV. With all of that said, we see a change in the Bible from Mormons. I’ve heard numerous times, “Joseph Smith translated it to mean this.” But what is really happening is not a translation but an interpretation. It is a modification.

Peace to you and all.

And to you.

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,
I hope you are well, and aren’t too buried in snow, and are staying warm. (I have relatives in Washington DC who have had it pretty cold–no power–due to the breaking branches in the snow.)

You’ve mentioned the same idea to me a few times, so I guess it’s OK if I respond.

Jesus, of course, told the truth always. He didn’t promise that the Holy Spirit would stay with the church, per se, but with the people who didn’t abandon Him–who lived to keep the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is something to keep with you, not assume you have and then go merrily on your way doing whatever you (that is, anyone who seeks the Spirit) chooses to do.

We make choices every day, and those choices lead in a direction, and if the Holy Spirit has guided our choice then it will have truly been a wonderful decision we have made to follow that guidance. Then, tomorrow or the next day or the next, we face a new decision–a new opportunity to have the Holy Spirit guide our decisions and actions, or not. But we are in the driver’s seat–not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not force decisions upon us. Christ leads without force, and so does the Holy Spirit.

Have a peaceful night, and a wonderful day tomorrow, with much love in your heart.

Hi Parker. Oh you would not believe. Over 2 FEET, thats the first time. It finally quit. My daughter still has no elec. Shes been out since Fri. I got in mon. But I was lucky we have a coal/wood stove in the cellar, wood stove in the family room, and 2 propane ventless. SO we are warm.

Okay Parker here it is. Jesus promised his Apostles that he would send the advocate the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to lead them until he came again in glory. Now he said he would never leave us orphans.

The RCC is the Perpetual Church
Is 9:6-7 Of Christs government there will be NO END
Dan 2:44 Gods Kingdom shall stand forever
Dan 7:14 His Kinddom shall not be destroyed
Eph 3:21 to him glory in the CHURCH to all nations forever and ever
Luke 1:32 no end to Christs Kingdom
Matt Jesus was the wise man who built his house on rock
Mt 13:24 Let wheat and weeds grow together until they harvest
Matt Gate of hell will never prevail against Christs CHurch
Jn 14:16 THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL BE WITH YOU ALWAYS
Mt 28:19 I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS

authoritative Church
Mt 28:18 Matt delegates ALL POWER to the Apostles
Jn 20:23 power to forgive sin
l cor 11:23 Power to offer sacrifice the Eucharist
luke 10:16 power to speak with Christs voice
Mt 18:18 Power to delegate
Mt 18:17 Power to disciline

Apostolic CHurch
Eph. One body one Spirit called to be one hope
Col the peace into which you were called in one body
Mt l6:18 Upon this rock I will build my CHurch
Mt 18:17 tell it TO THE CHURCH if he refuse to listen even the Church…( The church must be visible.

See my Dear friend in Christ you have to make all of that scripture go away. And you can’t.

 

[Xavierlives]

JMJ4,
He talked about a “danger” and about “rewriting what the Bible means” and about “exploded into something bizarre”. Those words brought a chuckle to my mind, because of the irony of the words in view of the overall idea that I had tried to convey, which is that a person will receive after this life, exactly what they have lived to receive by what they did in life, with Christ and His atoning grace at the center of such an idea and ultimate blessing.

My intent has been to try and stimulate real thinking beyond the level that one has been taught, and yeah I guess I don’t know how to do that without sounding “condescending”, because I am trying to convey that there is a loss that is a real loss, but that it’s a choice that a person who becomes aware of an opportunity makes (either seek to figure out if the possibility is there, or choose to ignore that the Bible makes plain that such is the opportunity in plain language).

Ultimately, I guess it’s because so many times the push-back “against” the LDS are the beliefs that humankind can have eternal marriage in heaven and that part of that concept of heaven includes “eternal progression” including being a “joint heir” with Christ on a throne (i.e. becoming like Him), which are so plainly taught in the Bible. It gets frustrating when instead of dealing with the ideas themselves by looking at the text of the Bible itself, I see a push-back that includes the words “danger” and “re-writing” and “bizarre”.

Sorry about the answer coming across as condescending. I guess I am being defensive when I do that. Sorry.

On this thread and other others we have used the term covenant and contract. And I am not trying to bring lawyerly things into the mix, but something needs to be addressed and I can’t think of a good way to bring about the discussion without bringing in the law. Granted, our humanly law does not compare to God’s, but here we go:

In our system we have what is called a unilateral contract. In the very basic concept, acceptance is not seen until performance of the contract is completed. This is the craziest type of contract bacause of the burden it could potentially place on the offeror.

But here is an example:

Bill gates says: I will give $10,000 dollars to anyone who shows up in Times Square looking like Abe Lincoln on 02/12/10 at 12:00 EST. Bill shows up with 20 armored trucks loaded with money.

Does Bill know how many will show up?
Who gets to be the arbitor of what is Lincoln looks like?
Can I bring a baby and argue, this is what Lincoln looked like when he was born?
Can I wear a bag of soil and say, well this is what he looks like now?
Can I show up and say to Bill, I am expecting this $12,000, because that is what $10,000 will be worth when I am ready to use it?
What if I tell my family and friends, Bill Gates is going to pay you $30,000 if you show up looking like George Washington?

The answer to many of these questions rely directly on Bill. Bill is the master of his Contract and he gets to sort it all out.

God is similarly situated. He is the master of the contract. You can’t add or subtract to that contract and then expect God to fulfill your changes. God told us what the arrangement is, no we need to perform.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I think it is obvious that Jesus did not lie! Jesus does not lie! The problem is with the way you interpret the words of Christ!

Thank-you Evan you finally answered. Now we are getting somewhere. Now we will have to work on my problem I guess

But we are making progress my dear friend

 

[evanfaust]

Paul C
Evan, do you REALLY believe this argument yourself? Don’t you see how far you have to twist the truth to give the appearance that Mormon doctrine is true? And if you are spreading thoughts you know or suspect to be untrue, what does that make you?

Paul C,

I endorse the argument 100%. When studying the scriptures we have to cross reference with other verses. We have to consider similar expressions! We have to look into the context! We have to look at the culture! We have to consider the “Hebraism”, etc.

Did you read the entire argument? I mean, the link I provided? I hope you did! The expression “none else beside me” denotes supremacy and not exclusivity. That is the point of the argument. Especially when you read other parts of the Bible and see expressions like “God of gods”, which implies the existence of other gods.

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”I Cor 8:5-6

We believe in what Paul said, we recognize the existence of other gods, but for us there is only one God.

We don’t direct our prayer to anyone else except God the father? How about you? Do you direct your prayer to Mary or any of the “canonized Saints.” That would be worshiping somebody else. I hope you don’t do that!

 

[evanfaust]

Thank-you Evan you finally answered. Now we are getting somewhere. Now we will have to work on my problem I guess

But we are making progress my dear friend

Great Rinnie! I am glad we are!

 

[paul_c]

Paul C
Evan, do you REALLY believe this argument yourself? Don’t you see how far you have to twist the truth to give the appearance that Mormon doctrine is true? And if you are spreading thoughts you know or suspect to be untrue, what does that make you?

Paul C,

I endorse the argument 100%. When studying the scriptures we have to cross reference with other verses. We have to consider similar expressions! We have to look into the context! We have to look at the culture! We have to consider the “Hebraism”, etc.

Did you read the entire argument? I mean, the link I provided? I hope you did! The expression “none else beside me” denotes supremacy and not exclusivity. That is the point of the argument. Especially when you read other parts of the Bible and see expressions like “God of gods”, which implies the existence of other gods.

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”I Cor 8:5-6

We believe in what Paul said, we recognize the existence of other gods, but for us there is only one God.

We don’t direct our prayer to anyone else except God the father? How about you? Do you direct your prayer to Mary or any of the “canonized Saints.” That would be worshiping somebody else. I hope you don’t do that!

Evan, this argument is exceptionally weak. Paul was recognizing that there were multiple gods in both Greek and Roman mythology but knew that there was really only one God. That’s what he’s saying here in clear language. Just because he acknowledged that the greeks prayed to Zeus doesn’t mean, as you imply here, that he agreed that Zeus was a real god. In fact, he says that for us there is only one God, the father, from whom all things came.

And note, this passage is yet another indictment of Mormonism, which claims that matter was always in existence and not created by God. As you can see, that Mormon belief is contradicted by the bible statement you just quoted. Take that to heart. Its one of many examples of Joseph Smith making up false doctrines that are easily contradicted by scripture.

 

[paul_c]

JMJ4,
He talked about a “danger” and about “rewriting what the Bible means” and about “exploded into something bizarre”. Those words brought a chuckle to my mind, because of the irony of the words in view of the overall idea that I had tried to convey, which is that a person will receive after this life, exactly what they have lived to receive by what they did in life, with Christ and His atoning grace at the center of such an idea and ultimate blessing.

My intent has been to try and stimulate real thinking beyond the level that one has been taught, and yeah I guess I don’t know how to do that without sounding “condescending”, because I am trying to convey that there is a loss that is a real loss, but that it’s a choice that a person who becomes aware of an opportunity makes (either seek to figure out if the possibility is there, or choose to ignore that the Bible makes plain that such is the opportunity in plain language).

Ultimately, I guess it’s because so many times the push-back “against” the LDS are the beliefs that humankind can have eternal marriage in heaven and that part of that concept of heaven includes “eternal progression” including being a “joint heir” with Christ on a throne (i.e. becoming like Him), which are so plainly taught in the Bible. It gets frustrating when instead of dealing with the ideas themselves by looking at the text of the Bible itself, I see a push-back that includes the words “danger” and “re-writing” and “bizarre”.

Sorry about the answer coming across as condescending. I guess I am being defensive when I do that. Sorry.

The pushback against the LDS is that it agressively proselytizes with doctrines that are anti-Christian and in error. Your claim that eternal marriage in heaven is plainly taught in the bible is a flat out lie. Here’s what Jesus says about it in Matthew 22:
23 On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. 1hey put this question to him,
24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27 Finally the woman died.
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
29 Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.
31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you 18 by God,
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

This is one of several areas of LDS doctrinal errors that I have pointed out to you and Evan over the last two days. How long will you persist in claiming that Joseph Smith was an actual prophet of God when it is so easy to show how he distorted the truth for his own personal gain. Did you really think you were going to come on to Catholic Answers forum and simply spread these doctinal errors without being challenged?