X
Xavierlives
Guest
Moreover, scour the OT and tell me where the prophets say that Elias will return (to fulfill the Matt quote).
I’d start with Romans 11:2-3 and 1Ki 19:8-19.
- Status
I’d start with Romans 11:2-3 and 1Ki 19:8-19.
Z
zerinus
Guest
In theory yes, it could fail; the reason why we believe it won’t is because it has been prophesied that it won’t. I will show you an interesting scripture. In the early days of the Church, when the principle of baptisms for the dead was revealed, the Lord commanded the saints to build a temple for that purpose; and He also told them that in the meantime, while the temple was being built, they could perform their baptisms for the dead outside the temple. That was a one-time exception to the rule that the Lord made while the temple was being built; after which no such exception should be allowed. He also told them that He would give them sufficient time to build the temple; and if they failed to build it after the allotted time, it would have serious consequences for the Church:
D&C 124:
32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.
33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;
The most important lesson we learn from these verses is the importance with which the Lord views temple work for the dead. The most important work of the Church is saving the living; and next to that comes saving the dead. If it failed in that, it would fail as a Church. But a more serious question would be, if the Church had failed then, would God’s purposes have failed? Would the Restoration have failed? Would the prophecies have failed? I don’t think so. Only they would have failed; but God’s purposes would have succeeded—with a different group of people if need be. God would have found Himself another people, in a different time and place, who would have been able to make it successful. The Restoration had to take place—if not with those people, then with some others. Another related question should be, Would it be possible for the Church to fail now? In theory I suppose yes; but after overcoming so many obstacles, surviving through it period of greatest weakness, living on to build so many temples, redeeming so many dead, fulfilling so many prophecies, and being greatly strengthened to become a world-wide Church; the likelihood of its failing now I would say is near zero.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
So would the Mormons ever consider stopping baptism of the dead? Or are you trying to say this would lead to the failure?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
M
mfbukowski
Guest
What the quote says is that the baptisms would not be acceptable.
It is irrelevant as to whether or not the church would continue them, if they did, it would be an apostate church offering unacceptable baptisms.
This quote itself shows conditions under which the church would become unacceptable to God, therefore it is possible for the church to BECOME unacceptable.
So please answer my question.
Am I wrong that it was possible for the Catholic church to apostasize, and to say otherwise would imply no freedom of choice?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
It says he would not reject his PEOPLE. God does not reject his children.Moreover, scour the OT and tell me where the prophets say that Elias will return (to fulfill the Matt quote).
I’d start with Romans 11:2-3 and 1Ki 19:8-19.
He may reject their worship, as with those who worship idols etc.
He always loves his children. BIG DIFFERENCE
You are not getting it still in relation to Matt 17.
Why does it need a prophecy? I will yell to get your attention if I have to
IT SAYS THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST WAS ELIAS
Ok? got that? Douay-Rheims and everything-- go back and check the quote
Edit: Emphasis added
12 But I say to you, that Elias is already come, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they had a mind. So also the Son of man shall suffer from them. 13 Then the disciples understood, that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
M
mfbukowski
Guest
T
TheosisM
Guest
I think that the Mormon belief is that yes, their church can still fail, but it has been prophesied that it won’t. It still has the capacity to fail, just like the early Church, but one of their prophecies says that this will not happen.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Lets try again.
Elias (the Greek name for Elijah) is quoted in Romans 11:2-3 says 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
And we remember from 1 Kings 19:10 that Elijah says10And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
So… a man named Elijah says the same thing a man named Elias, who is never mentioned in the old testament but his name means Elijah in Greek and only appears after the Septuagint.
And you still deny.
If you can’t see the little things of the Bible, I don’t know how you can expect to see the big things.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Well if I only have one answer, then why ask the question of me?
X
Xavierlives
Guest
So why does this seem to lack charity?
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Hmm… sounds like the warcry of the Catholic Church… Gates of hell shall not prevail.
P
ParkerD
Guest
TheosisM,
I have enjoyed your posts and the thought behind them. Thanks.
I appreciate your having remembered that I posted a comment about “checks and balances”, specifically regarding the twelve apostles, the First Presidency, and that LDS members exercise an action of sustaining each year, such that if a member were to know of a specific case where a leader was off on a tangent or had forfeited their own right to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit due to a grave sin, then that member could bring the matter to the attention of other leaders within the “checks and balances” of leadership. On a few occasions in the past, an apostle has been dropped from the quorum of the Twelve Apostles due to various reasons which amounted to either a grave sin they had committed or to seeking to lead others off on a tangent.
The prophecy about the restored church not going off on a tangent is in Daniel, as others have noted before–Daniel 2:44. (A Biblical scripture, not a “Mormon scripture”.) That would be able to be prophesied, of course, because God knows the end from the beginning and knows the hearts of all people and has already seen the history of the world in advance of it happening. That does not mean He causes men to act in a certain way–He just knows what they will do, what they will choose, and what is in their hearts. The “checks and balances” within LDS leadership quorums is very important in that the very process of discussion and consideration of needs among the members throughout the earth by the leadership of the church, provides a situation in which the guidance of the Holy Spirit can flourish–not in a vacuum or with the thoughts and ideas of a single person seeking inspiration, but through counsel among several people with different backgrounds and hence different insights and perspectives.
The early church had checks and balances in place as shown in Acts and in the epistles, but as I have noted before at some point the Holy Spirit did not inspire the selection of replacement apostles for the quorum of the twelve to continue its vital function, and John was aware that was happening as he had his vision of the church going “into the wilderness” (Revelation 12:14). He still wrote important encouragement to the members of the church, but his major focus in his vision was on the ultimate triumph of Christ’s mission over the attempts by the “dragon” and the “beast” and “Babylon” to vanquish truth and goodness on the earth.
God had a purpose in allowing the drifting in doctrine that occurred after John went into the wilderness and the other apostles had already died. To have kept the doctrine pure was humanly possible, and it is not a case where God willed that a doctrinal drift occur–but He could certainly allow it to occur, and would have had a purpose in that allowance.
Tradition as a predominant characteristic of authority weakens freedom to choose, because it provides the expectation that conformity will be based heavily on “following tradition” rather than on “seeking truth and light” for its own sake. The doctrinal drift allowed greater free choice among humankind as to what truths they would choose to live by, and how earnestly they would seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their own personal life and to “open the door” (Rev. 3:20) where Christ will knock as each person seeks to listen to His voice and His knocking and His shepherding influence. It means yielding the heart with earnestness and faith and charity. It also means that each person can gain (or lose) the influence of the Holy Spirit and of Christ’s guidance regardless of what church they belong to, and if they follow the guidance, they will be led on an upward path toward becoming a better person and a happier person.
Thanks, all who have responded to my posts. Peace to each of you.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I lurk over there, same with FLAK, NOM and FE.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Helmuths charity light.
I believe in Gods promises, I just believe that to achieve the “economic wellness” you describe (and I don’t believe that’s the point of the Gospel) will take more than:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
I think it will take what was put forth in Leviticus and reiterated by Matthew, Mark, Luke, James and Paul. It demands more of us than what is set out in Malachi.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Oh my gosh, you people are driving me nuts!
I know they are the same name. That is irrelevant. The point is that in Matt 27, JESUS SAYS THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST IS ELIAS. The name “Elias” therefore is a title, unless Jesus was confused, which I strongly doubt.
I have about had it here. You can say the same thing again and again and nobody gets it. I don’t expect you to agree, just to understand English and respond as if we are speaking the same language.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Thanks
It seems like you are the only one around here who actually reads the posts. There may be prophecies, but I am not aware of them. Remember, they would have to be in the standard works to qualify, not a statement by a leader which was not canonized scripture
I suppose I will stay as long as there is at least one person to talk to!
Maybe the answer is that I will respond only to those posters who actually care to interact.
- Status