LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavierlives
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RebeccaJ said:
Happens however they like. My nephew was sealed (in this life) to his step-father, not his biological father. His biological father is his legal parent. All legal records would never show anyone that he didn’t want to spend eternity sealed to his biological father. (My nephew made this choice as an adult.)

So, LDS do whatever they like for their ancestors, including making leaps to lines that aren’t theirs. Take a look an ancestry.com sometime. Mine has me hooked up to every royal line that ever existed in Europe, POPES included. Yet, I can trace it only so far back with real evidence, then all of the sudden, jump to a line that has royal lineage. It is like mormonism, all made up!
Click to expand...
I’m waiting for Michael Jackson’s papers to be revealed.
 
Xavierlives said:
Well whether it was Hilter or Luther, I’m sure both would oppose inclusion in the practice.

But it does raise an interesting question. If Catholic priests don’t marry, then how would their “lineage” track them down to baptize them? Does this happen for aunts and uncles and whatnot?
Click to expand...
Xavierlives,
These are good questions. One thinking about how this all works ought to pull out the Bible and read Malachi 4:1 and verses 5-6. If one thinks about a “root” as being an ancestral line, and a “branch” as being a descendant line, then one can understand that as a person becomes connected to their ancestors in a spiritual yearning that those ancestors may enjoy the blessings of the gospel, then they will seek after having them receive the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost–the most important gift they can ever receive beyond the gift of the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His atoning grace through repentance and forgiveness. One will enlarge their love to include thinking about the children and grandchildren of their direct ancestors, and thinking about how those direct line ancestors would want their children and grandchildren to have the blessing of sanctification through the Holy Ghost. (But the difficulty comes in trying to figure out who those ancestors and their children and grandchildren are, and sometimes even professional genealogists draw wrong conclusions or make conjectures that are incorrect.)

Turning the “heart of the children to their fathers” is important enough that Malachi ended his writing on those words, and God inspired those who compiled the Bible to end the Old Testament with those words. Those who chose not to have children and thus have no descendants for whom the “heart of the children” turn to their fathers, may not have read much in Malachi or it would seem they would have figured out that God places an emphasis on fathers and children and hearts turning toward the one and the other.
 
ParkerD said:
Xavierlives,
These are good questions. One thinking about how this all works ought to pull out the Bible and read Malachi 4:1 and verses 5-6. If one thinks about a “root” as being an ancestral line, and a “branch” as being a descendant line, then one can understand that as a person becomes connected to their ancestors in a spiritual yearning that those ancestors may enjoy the blessings of the gospel, then they will seek after having them receive the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost–the most important gift they can ever receive beyond the gift of the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His atoning grace through repentance and forgiveness. One will enlarge their love to include thinking about the children and grandchildren of their direct ancestors, and thinking about how those direct line ancestors would want their children and grandchildren to have the blessing of sanctification through the Holy Ghost. (But the difficulty comes in trying to figure out who those ancestors and their children and grandchildren are, and sometimes even professional genealogists draw wrong conclusions or make conjectures that are incorrect.)

Turning the “heart of the children to their fathers” is important enough that Malachi ended his writing on those words, and God inspired those who compiled the Bible to end the Old Testament with those words. Those who chose not to have children and thus have no descendants for whom the “heart of the children” turn to their fathers, may not have read much in Malachi or it would seem they would have figured out that God places an emphasis on fathers and children and hearts turning toward the one and the other.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that you mention Malachi 4, because most would view this to be the completion of Christ and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Overall, I find the genealogy to be interesting, I don’t find it to be anything more than a novelty.
 
Xavierlives said:
I find it interesting that you mention Malachi 4, because most would view this to be the completion of Christ and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Overall, I find the genealogy to be interesting, I don’t find it to be anything more than a novelty.
Click to expand...
Luke 1:13-17
Matthew 17:10-13
 
RebeccaJ said:
My Bible has Malachi 3&4 all together, in 3…so I’m thinking, what 4?

wikipedia says:

Interpretations

The book of Malachi is divided into three chapters in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint and four chapters in the Latin Vulgate. The fourth chapter in the Vulgate consists of the remainder of the third chapter starting at verse 3:19.
Click to expand...
Hmm… well my protestant version has Chapter 4, verses 1-6.

I’m not sure where it is in your version, but we were talking about “that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”

Which I was saying was a reference to the destruction of the temple records.
 
So look how far we have come. And the Truth is still in the Catholic Church. After over 2000 years it is still here. And as strong as ever. Still leading people into the fullness of the faith, Still being led by the power of the Holy spirit.

So we see my dear friends in order to say that the First Church failed would indeed say that our Dear Lord Jesus Christ failed, and lied to us. Has never happened nor ever will.

These words ring true today as they have over 2000 years ago. The words our dear Lord said to his Apostles. Go and make disciples of all nations. I will be with you until the end of time!😃

May we all as Christians take this moment to thank our dear Lord for keeping his promise. But we must remember we have indeed a Father that keeps his promises!👍
 
Xavierlives said:
I find it interesting that you mention Malachi 4, because most would view this to be the completion of Christ and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Overall, I find the genealogy to be interesting, I don’t find it to be anything more than a novelty.
Click to expand...
Xavierlives,
Since Rinnie felt impressed to revive this thread for a bit more, then I suppose I should respond to your earlier comment about Malachi 4 and Elijah the Prophet.

John the Baptist (a Jew) was “an Elias” in that he fulfilled Isaiah 40:3 and prepared the way for Christ to teach the new covenant gospel, which included the concepts of repentance and baptism which John also taught. But John was not Elijah resurrected, and never implied that he was that prophet, Elijah, nor the Elias who lived at the time of Elijah. (see John 1:21)

Anyone who does not see the conditions described and prophesied in Malachi 3 and 4 as those attendant the Second Coming of Christ is simply not conversant with the Biblical prophesies of the conditions that will prevail at the time of His Second Coming. The Second Coming is the “great and dreadful day of the Lord.” It will be great for those who are prepared and looking for His coming, and dreadful for those who fear His coming. See Matthew 24 for a good summary of the conditions that we should be looking for in order that we all may be among those who “be ye also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” (v. 44)

Peace to all, and may it be so for each of you.
 
John the Baptist denied he was Elijah. Jesus taught differently, more than once.

Matthew 11

10 This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way before you.’ 11 Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force. 13 All the prophets and the law prophesied up to the time of John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come.

…so, mormons don’t accept what Jesus teaches.
 
RebeccaJ said:
John the Baptist denied he was Elijah. Jesus taught differently, more than once.

Matthew 11

10 This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way before you.’ 11 Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force. 13 All the prophets and the law prophesied up to the time of John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come.

…so, mormons don’t accept what Jesus teaches.
Click to expand...
RebeccaJ,
You may have forgotten to check the Douay-Rheims Bible before you made such an accusation. Here is a refresher from that translation:

Gospel According to Saint Matthew
| Chapter 11 |
John sends his disciples to Christ, who upbraids the Jews for their incredulity, and calls to him such as are sensible of their burdens.

1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he passed from thence, to teach and preach in their cities. 2 Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: 3 Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another? 4 And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. 5 The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them.

6 And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me. 7 And when they went their way, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? 8 But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings. 9 But what went you out to see? a prophet? yea I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 For this is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.

6 “Scandalized in me”… That is, who shall not take occasion of scandal or offence from my humility, and the disgraceful death of the cross which I shall endure.

11 Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John: 14 And if you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come. 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

12 “Suffereth violence”… It is not to be obtained but by main force, by using violence upon ourselves, by mortification and penance, and resisting our perverse inclinations.

14 “He is Elias”… Not in person, but in spirit. St. Luke 1. 17.

But I suppose when you stand before the judge at the day of judgment, you can let Him know that the translation of the Bible you were given by the people you trusted and upheld had the kinds of changes that you preferred over the original text, and so you went with those changes and felt justified in every particular belief the changes supported, never mind the original teaching of Christ.
 
ParkerD said:
RebeccaJ,
You may have forgotten to check the Douay-Rheims Bible before you made such an accusation. Here is a refresher from that translation:

Gospel According to Saint Matthew
| Chapter 11 |
John sends his disciples to Christ, who upbraids the Jews for their incredulity, and calls to him such as are sensible of their burdens.

1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he passed from thence, to teach and preach in their cities. 2 Now when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: 3 Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another? 4 And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. 5 The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them.

6 And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me. 7 And when they went their way, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? 8 But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings. 9 But what went you out to see? a prophet? yea I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 For this is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.

6 “Scandalized in me”… That is, who shall not take occasion of scandal or offence from my humility, and the disgraceful death of the cross which I shall endure.

11 Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John: 14 And if you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come. 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

12 “Suffereth violence”… It is not to be obtained but by main force, by using violence upon ourselves, by mortification and penance, and resisting our perverse inclinations.

14 “He is Elias”… Not in person, but in spirit. St. Luke 1. 17.

But I suppose when you stand before the judge at the day of judgment, you can let Him know that the translation of the Bible you were given by the people you trusted and upheld had the kinds of changes that you preferred over the original text, and so you went with those changes and felt justified in every particular belief the changes supported, never mind the original teaching of Christ.
Click to expand...
How is the Douay-Rheims changing something from the “original text” here?
 
TheosisM said:
How is the Douay-Rheims changing something from the “original text” here?
Click to expand...
TheosisM,
If you check the assertion that included the accusation, you will note that the verse 14 that was quoted says “14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come.”

Those words are not from the Douay-Rheims translation. The Douay-Rheims has the text and the note for verse 14 as my follow-up post noted, available online.

The change is substantial, and substantive. It is an example of what one is talking about when one talks about the kinds of drifting changes that have occurred over time from the roots of Biblical beliefs taught by Christ and the apostles, and have been done either deliberately by people who should have known better or accidentally by people who didn’t know any better, but have been done nonetheless.
 
ParkerD said:
TheosisM,
If you check Rebecca’s assertion, you will note that the verse 14 she quoted says “14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come.”

She was not quoting the Douay-Rheims. The Douay-Rheims has the text and the note for verse 14 as I found it on the internet.

The change is substantial, and substantive. It is an example of what one is talking about when one talks about the kinds of drifting changes that have occurred over time from the roots of Biblical beliefs taught by Christ and the apostles, and have been done either deliberately by people who should have known better or accidentally by people who didn’t know any better, but have been done nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I’m confused.

Did she say that she was quoting from the DR? Catholics have multiple “Catholic versions” of the Bible, the DR being only one. She was quoting from the NAB, which is also a Catholic translation (and the one used in our churches in the USA). The Douay-Rheims translation of the verse says the same thing as the NAB (and the KJV) (noting that “Elias” in the KJV/DR is the hellenized form of Elijah).

The commentary on verse 14, which I assume comes from this website, is not part of the Douay-Rheims translation at all, nor is it part of the Latin Vulgate. It is someone’s commentary on that verse.

So I don’t see what “change” is being disputed…
 
TheosisM said:
I’m confused.

Did she say that she was quoting from the DR? Catholics have multiple “Catholic versions” of the Bible, the DR being only one. She was quoting from the NAB, which is also a Catholic translation (and the one used in our churches in the USA). The Douay-Rheims translation of the verse says the same thing as the NAB (and the KJV) (noting that “Elias” in the KJV/DR is the hellenized form of Elijah).

The commentary on verse 14, which I assume comes from this website, is not part of the Douay-Rheims translation at all, nor is it part of the Latin Vulgate. It is someone’s commentary on that verse.

So I don’t see what “change” is being disputed…
Click to expand...
TheosisM,
I respectfully disagree about whether the change from the word “Elias” to the word “Elijah” in Matthew 11:14 “says the same thing”. (The NAB has the word as “Elijah”). The change, if one is unfamiliar with the earlier DR text and if one does not do research about the subject of Elijah and Elias and the potential confusion because of the Greek being the same word for the two names, can lead to the conclusion that John the Baptist completely fulfilled the prophesy of Malachi in Malachi 4:5 (or in other words, the second to last verse in the Old Testament).

I can see why that conclusion is drawn by using only the text in Matthew 11, but John the Baptist himself said he was not Elias or “that prophet” (John 1:21-23). Luke 1:17 conveys that John the Baptist would have the “spirit and power of Elias” but not that he would be the actual return of Elijah the Prophet who had been taken up into heaven on a chariot.

The Jews understood that the prophesy about Elijah’s return was intended to mean a literal fulfillment of the return of that prophet, Elijah, who was taken into heaven (2 Kings 2:11-12). They have consistently maintained this understanding over the centuries.

Malachi 3-4 is talking primarily about the Second Coming of Christ when it speaks of the “day of his coming” and the “day of the Lord”. That is why it is referred to as a day that “shall burn them up” (4:1) and a day of “judgment” (3:5).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top