LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[Xavierlives]

What do you mean by “good to go”?

Well I think according to the Mormons, since Hitler is now baptized in the Mormon church, he is capable of accepting Christ’s message (where ever he is hanging out) and then he would be eligible to move up and higher into heaven.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavier,
One thing is to perform the baptism ordinance for someone, but it is up to that person to accept or reject the baptism. In addition, the dead person will have the same spirit when it leaves the physical world.

So do you think Hitler would look at what is in store for himself as, well as mass murderer, and choose the consequences?

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavier,
The HC means History of the Church, but that is only listed as reference. In other words, the D & C 7 that I pasted on post 1200 contains the details and refers to HC. What I pasted is the content of D & C 7.

Xavier,

John 21:23 probably got Joseph Smith thinking about if John was alive, so he asked the Lord, and this is the revelation he received:

**THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 7 **

Ahh… I wasn’t sure what this was referencing. then I saw:

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they inquired through the Urim and Thummim as to whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried in the flesh or had died. The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself.** HC 1: 35–36. **

and was all confused about this:

1–3, John the Beloved shall live until the Lord comes; 4–8, Peter, James, and John hold gospel keys.
1 And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
4 And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom.
5 I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done.
6 Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.
7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.
8 Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired.

Ok. it is all cleared up. Now I can read the D&C (which, by the way, everytime I open it, I find something interesting).

 

[paul_c]

Paul,
Ecclesiasticus and Maccabee are considered apocripha by Jewish, Protestants and Mormons. Having similar phrases or expressions does not make a book cannonical, you can find the same on many apocripha. I don’t see evidence that the these books were preached by the apostles. Again, I don’t see evidence of revelation or prophets during the 500 years.

This is not a very compelling argument. You can’t say there was no scripture written for 500 years because you discount all the scripture written in that period. As for the Jews disavowing the Septugint and hence the 7 deuterocanonical books, well, they also exclude the entire new testament. And it is not a common position of all Jews. All three groups you listed discount these books because they don’t agree with their theology, yet tehy have always been in the Bible Canon.

 

[Answersplease]

Paul,
Ecclesiasticus and Maccabee are considered apocripha by Jewish, Protestants and Mormons.

The ancient Jews at the time of Jesus Christ did not have an approved canon of scripture.

There were various competing sects of Jews, like the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[paul_c]

I’m not sure when the facilitators will close this thread, but I do want to make one more point. Th Mormon position on the Apostasy appears to be two fold.

1. The Catholic Church Apostasized, maybe as early as the Apostolic Age
2. Joseph Smith was sent to reform the Church to what Christ originally intended.

But lets look at the facts:

The Catholic Church, the one that supposedly apostasized, still uses the same scripture that was used in 70AD. It still recognizes the same leadership hierarchy and it can demonstrate continuity of leadership and doctrine back the the Apostolic Age.

The Mormon church, the one that claims it returned to the original roots of Christianity, has done so by radically changing all facets of the faith. It has added whole tracts of scripture that were not known by the Apostles and altered and amended the scripture the original bible. It’s hierearchical structure can be traced back all the way to Joseph Smith in 1830 but no further. Many of its doctrines are truly innovative, not known to the Apostles. Plural marriage, eternal marriage, identifying God with the Archangel Michael. The denial of original sin. The use of water in “the sacrifice” rather than wine in the eucharist and the denial of the real presence. The physical nature of God, who was a man before he was the eternal God. The temple ordinances. It can be clearly demonstrated that none of the chruch fathers knew or practiced these doctrines. In fact, they are described by the LDS as new revelations so they know that these are not apostolic. While there is a claim that the Mormon church was a reformation, in fact, it can clearly be shown that it is an innovation, born of the revelations of men like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I know the claim will be that these new revelations were known but not shared by the Apostles. But this rings hollow. What would be God’s motivation to withhold the saving nature of these doctrines for 1800 years, if they were indeed true. Why would Jesus have died for our sins in 30 AD instead of 1830, if the intent was not to save anyone until then.

So, truly, which church has apostasized?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Can a dead person beleive, commit sin or repent?

The Catholic and Mormon understanding of the nature of God and Man and of the afterlife are so incredibly different.

 

[Xavierlives]

Answersplease:
I’m not sure who you were quoting in the last box, but you are somewhat correct.

The Jews had differing views on what was included in their canon. But we do see Jesus using the Septuagint which in a very basic form was a type of canonization process. This use is one of the reasons many Christians use it as a basis for those books. If it was good enough for Christ then it was good enough for Christians.

As for the Pharisees and the Sadduces, these were two different sects that interpreted the basic established canon. These people would stand in the court and wax theologic about the meaning of the scripture.

 

[ParkerD]

What do you mean by “good to go”?

Xavierlives,
This comment reflects a complete lack of understanding, which is unfortunate. Everyone in the spirit world has the same frame of mind they had in life unless they become repentant, and they will become repentant if they are in “hell” suffering for their sins, but they will suffer for every sin they ever committed, and it will indeed be as painful as described in the scriptures. It was a complete waste of time that someone played the joke of having ordinance work done for him about whom you wrote in scoffing, but if this is how you need to become aware of the doctrine of restoration–(suggest you could read Alma 34-42 and D & C 137 and 138), then I suppose that is one way to realize what is really being taught by the doctrine.

We get in the next life what we lived for in this life, period. Those who did not have a fair opportunity to have sufficient knowledge and the ordinances of salvation and covenant-making, will have those opportunities, but those who did and rejected them will not have that made up to them in the spirit world. There is no moving from one kingdom of glory to another, and the sons of perdition who knowingly chose against the Holy Spirit and against Christ, will be in “hell” forever and ever.

 

[Xavierlives]

I’m not sure when the facilitators will close this thread, but I do want to make one more point. Th Mormon position on the Apostasy appears to be two fold.

1. The Catholic Church Apostasized, maybe as early as the Apostolic Age
2. Joseph Smith was sent to reform the Church to what Christ originally intended.

But lets look at the facts:

The Catholic Church, the one that supposedly apostasized, still uses the same scripture that was used in 70AD. It still recognizes the same leadership hierarchy and it can demonstrate continuity of leadership and doctrine back the the Apostolic Age.

The Mormon church, the one that claims it returned to the original roots of Christianity, has done so by radically changing all facets of the faith. It has added whole tracts of scripture that were not known by the Apostles and altered and amended the scripture the original bible. It’s hierearchical structure can be traced back all the way to Joseph Smith in 1830 but no further. Many of its doctrines are truly innovative, not known to the Apostles. Plural marriage, eternal marriage, identifying God with the Archangel Michael. The denial of original sin. The use of water in “the sacrifice” rather than wine in the eucharist and the denial of the real presence. The physical nature of God, who was a man before he was the eternal God. The temple ordinances. It can be clearly demonstrated that none of the chruch fathers knew or practiced these doctrines. In fact, they are described by the LDS as new revelations so they know that these are not apostolic. While there is a claim that the Mormon church was a reformation, in fact, it can clearly be shown that it is an innovation, born of the revelations of men like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I know the claim will be that these new revelations were known but not shared by the Apostles. But this rings hollow. What would be God’s motivation to withhold the saving nature of these doctrines for 1800 years, if they were indeed true. Why would Jesus have died for our sins in 30 AD instead of 1830, if the intent was not to save anyone until then.

So, truly, which church has apostasized?

And it is started with the notion that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus, both in human form (contrary to Jesus’ teaching in John 1:18; 4:24; 6:46). This same man committed adultery, even according to Mormon standards, taking 30 wives (and wives of other men) and having sex with them. Then he wrote into Mormon scripture that plural marriage was acceptable.

If you expose a false prophet by showing his false lifestyle then you expose his words as false as well.

 

[rinnie]

Holy smokes. Are you guys still at it, i can’t believe this is still going on.

God bless all of you!:d

 

[Xavierlives]

Holy smokes. Are you guys still at it, i can’t believe this is still going on.

God bless all of you!:d

We see the checkered flag though!

 

[TheosisM]

I’m not sure when the facilitators will close this thread, but I do want to make one more point. Th Mormon position on the Apostasy appears to be two fold.

1. The Catholic Church Apostasized, maybe as early as the Apostolic Age
2. Joseph Smith was sent to reform the Church to what Christ originally intended.

Just a clarification: The Mormon position on the Apostasy is not that the Catholic Church apostatized, even though that of course is how it looks from the Catholic perspective, since Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ. I’m sure that an Eastern Orthodox would say that the Mormon position is that the Orthodox Church apostatized.

However the Mormon position is that the original church of Jesus Christ apostatized, and evolved into what became the Catholic Church/Orthodox Church.

And it isn’t really that Joseph Smith was sent to reform the Church, since that implies that he was reforming something that was still there (a la Luther). Instead, they believe that God restored the original church through Smith and others.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
This comment reflects a complete lack of understanding, which is unfortunate. Everyone in the spirit world has the same frame of mind they had in life unless they become repentant, and they will become repentant if they are in “hell” suffering for their sins, but they will suffer for every sin they ever committed, and it will indeed be as painful as described in the scriptures. It was a complete waste of time that someone played the joke of having ordinance work done for him about whom you wrote in scoffing, but if this is how you need to become aware of the doctrine of restoration–(suggest you could read Alma 34-42 and D & C 137 and 138), then I suppose that is one way to realize what is really being taught by the doctrine.

We get in the next life what we lived for in this life, period. Those who did not have a fair opportunity to have sufficient knowledge and the ordinances of salvation and covenant-making, will have those opportunities, but those who did and rejected them will not have that made up to them in the spirit world. There is no moving from one kingdom of glory to another, and the sons of perdition who knowingly chose against the Holy Spirit and against Christ, will be in “hell” forever and ever.

I think my knowledge is a little better than you give credit. I do understand judgment. I do understand Christ’s redemption. I understand God’s mercy. The problem is, I also understand that you get but one opportunity in life to make the correct choices. Some people make that choice early in life and they have the opportunity to work for God their lifetime. Some people make their choice while knocking on death’s door. Everything I have heard about Hitler is he made no such conversion.

So then what benefit is gained from baptizing Hitler? Would it not be for the exact redemption that you preach? Is it not the idea that, someone who did not hear the Mormon message (as Hitler did not likely hear) can now hear the message and make a choice? Then he would then have to make some movement from a station to a Mormon exalted state. Who knows, maybe he has befriended Joseph Smith by now.

Our baptism of the dead is really of baptism of someone alive but dead to this world, anytime someone is baptized it is that baptism of death. Just as Christ was put into the grave, we put people under the water. And as Christ was resurrected, the newly baptized are brought from the death and are resurrected. As Christ also did in his baptism, our baptism is a public statement. It is something every new Christian should do to show friends, families, and witnesses. Is it a requirement? No. We only need to look at who the Catholics call Dismas. We can call the Good Thief. Christ said to this man, who showed amazing clarity of mind and understand of situation, that he would be with Christ in Paradise. This man understood God’s plan and showed amazing faith while staring at the grave. To say that this man is incomplete in his salvation would be yet another clear misunderstanding of God’s plan for salvation. This man did all that was required of him. In his death, his recorded actions witness to people. His actions ring clear to more prisoners than any other.

So for the Mormons to think that someone is incomplete and requiring “other physical works” slaps Christ in the face and says to Him, Your work is incomplete. Now Joseph Smith needs to complete it for you. I say to you, Christ’s work is complete. He is in full Glory of God.

 

[Xavierlives]

Just a clarification: The Mormon position on the Apostasy is not that the Catholic Church apostatized, even though that of course is how it looks from the Catholic perspective, since Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ. I’m sure that an Eastern Orthodox would say that the Mormon position is that the Orthodox Church apostatized.

However the Mormon position is that the original church of Jesus Christ apostatized, and evolved into what became the Catholic Church/Orthodox Church.

And it isn’t really that Joseph Smith was sent to reform the Church, since that implies that he was reforming something that was still there (a la Luther). Instead, they believe that God restored the original church through Smith and others.

I think the Mormons view Joseph Smith’s actions to be restoration not reformation.

 

[paul_c]

I think the Mormons view Joseph Smith’s actions to be restoration not reformation.

Fair enough. I don’t think the distinction changes anything I said.

 

[Xavierlives]

Fair enough. I don’t think the distinction changes anything I said.

I didn’t think much would change. I just thought I would point it out.

I don’t think the church needed reformation or restoration to the magnitude or amplitude that the Mormons say.

 

[evanfaust]

But lets look at the facts:

The Catholic Church, the one that supposedly apostasized, still uses the same scripture that was used in 70AD. It still recognizes the same leadership hierarchy and it can demonstrate continuity of leadership and doctrine back the the Apostolic Age.

Paul,
Well, the Jewish also can trace their history back to Abraham, and yet the Lord bypassed them when he established his Church with 12 apostles. They don’t have prophets anymore; they just use their old scriptures. Why would not God bypass the Catholics too, since his church apostatized? A historical continuation does not guarantee that God has always been with that organization. That is called apostasy! The power of it is removed and those who continue in that organization think that they are the still alive; when in reality they are dead!

As far as the cannon of scripture, that has been modified! Study the history of the cannon of scripture and you will see.

 

[paul_c]

I didn’t think much would change. I just thought I would point it out.

I don’t think the church needed reformation or restoration to the magnitude or amplitude that the Mormons say.

Well, the simple fact is that Joseph Smith didn’t restore the church, he changed it completely, adding new scripture and new doctrine and disavowing basic Crhistian doctrine like the trinity, the real presence, etc. While Joseph Smith claimed that the original church changed its doctrine and beliefs, a charge that he or his followers could not prove, without a doubt, the Mormon church has huge changes in doctrine from the Apostolic faith, which they claim is through divine revelation, a claim that they also can not prove.

 

[sablouwho]

Paul,
Well, the Jewish also can trace their history back to Abraham, and yet the Lord bypassed them when he established his Church with 12 apostles.

As someone who is both Jewish and Christian, this comment makes utterly no sense to me. The apostles were Jewish. God did not bypass the Jews when he established Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. The early church was made up of Jews.