LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[mfbukowski]

a) The mormon church cannot fail.
b) The mormon church will not fail.

What is the difference?

Seriously?

“Cannot” means it is not possible that it will fail, in principle. The possibility of it’s failure does not even remotely exist. It is logically impossible.

“Will not” means that it IS POSSIBLE in principle that it could fail, if we messed up, but in fact we will not mess up.

It is the difference between me knowing what my kid will do in a situation and him not being able to do otherwise.

It is free will vs determinism.

Either it is up to us to get there on our own, or us getting there despite what we do,

 

[mfbukowski]

Maybe you should get you and ParkerD on the same page. He says this prophecy is saying your church won’t fail, and has argued other times that it cannot. You are saying it can. Me, I think it is a false religion, so whatever way you want to twist scripture around in order to prop up a false religion is up to you. It would just be an interesting novelty if you could agree on which way to twist.

Uh oh, you’re in trouble now. You are the one who’s twisting

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.

He is making the exact same point I am, and I didn’t even realize it while I let you bring me down the garden path.

He is saying God knows what will happen- not that he causes it to happen, and he adds the “checks and balances” which I agree with whole heartedly.

We were never on “different pages” at all.

You and Paul are on the same page I guess. If you can’t argue the point, distort it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Seriously?

“Cannot” means it is not possible that it will fail, in principle. The possibility of it’s failure does not even remotely exist. It is logically impossible.

“Will not” means that it IS POSSIBLE in principle that it could fail, if we messed up, but in fact we will not mess up.

It is the difference between me knowing what my kid will do in a situation and him not being able to do otherwise.

It is free will vs determinism.

Either it is up to us to get there on our own, or us getting there despite what we do,

:shrug:don’t get it

 

[zaffiroborant]

Which websites do those names stand for?

Further Light and Knowledge, New Order Mormon and Faces East

 

[mfbukowski]

:shrug:don’t get it

It’s the difference between having the ability to do something vs predicting that you will do it.

Just because I can punch somebody doesn’t mean I will do it.

The church CAN fail, but the prophecy says just won’t.

Does that help?

If it could not possibly fail, it couldn’t fail regardless of what happened.

It would lack the “ability” to fail.

If we were talking about running a race, it would have no legs and be in a wheel chair. It would not have the ability to fail.

Using the same analogy, in the other case, the church would be a well trained athlete who was totally capable of winning the race if he wanted to, but instead he decided to sit in the chair and not participate in the race, and we knew that he would not get out of the chair.

We would say “He could win, but he won’t”

I am saying the church could fail, but it won’t.

The other point of view says that it could not fail even if it tried to.

If you can’t do something, you are not free, you are not in control of yourself.

So that would mean that the people in the church were not free or couldn’t control their own ability to make choices which would make the church fail.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Xavierlives]

It’s the difference between having the ability to do something vs predicting that you will do it.

Just because I can punch somebody doesn’t mean I will do it.

The church CAN fail, but the prophecy says just won’t.

Does that help?

If it could not possibly fail, it couldn’t fail regardless of what happened.

It would lack the “ability” to fail.

If we were talking about running a race, it would have no legs and be in a wheel chair. It would not have the ability to fail.

Using the same analogy, in the other case, the church would be a well trained athlete who was totally capable of winning the race if he wanted to, but instead he decided to sit in the chair and not participate in the race, and we knew that he would not get out of the chair.

We would say “He could win, but he won’t”

I am saying the church could fail, but it won’t.

The other point of view says that it could not fail even if it tried to.

If you can’t do something, you are not free, you are not in control of yourself.

So that would mean that the people in the church were not free or couldn’t control their own ability to make choices which would make the church fail.

Does that make it clearer?

But if Jesus said no man has seen the Father but Him. Then Joseph Smith said he saw both the Father and the Son, then there is a failure. The Mormon Church recognizes this event as the single most important moment to your faith. Then you, as a Mormon are expected to testify to this failure. Why? Because this divergence sets your faith apart from Christianity. It contradicts Christ. Your testimony contradicts Christ.

The Bible only offers a consistant truth not a failure. You cannot cross the chasm from truth to falsehood and say, I make that bridge with faith. If the Mormon faith was true, then there would not be an inconsistancy between Joseph Smith’s testimony and the Bible. You wouldn’t need that faith to build a bridge.

So hasn’t the Mormon church already failed? (you don’t have to answer that).

 

[TheosisM]

But if Jesus said no man has seen the Father but Him. Then Joseph Smith said he saw both the Father and the Son, then there is a failure. The Mormon Church recognizes this event as the single most important moment to your faith. Then you, as a Mormon are expected to testify to this failure. Why? Because this divergence sets your faith apart from Christianity. It contradicts Christ. Your testimony contradicts Christ.

The Bible only offers a consistant truth not a failure. You cannot cross the chasm from truth to falsehood and say, I make that bridge with faith. If the Mormon faith was true, then there would not be an inconsistancy between Joseph Smith’s testimony and the Bible. You wouldn’t need that faith to build a bridge.

So hasn’t the Mormon church already failed? (you don’t have to answer that).

Interesting question. I googled it, and found this answer:
**
"Despite the many times the Bible reports of people who have seen God, there is one scripture which says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) This scripture is sometimes used to try to discredit the Mormon teaching that Joseph Smith saw God. However, if we look at chapter 6 of the same book, we discover an explanation of this statement: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 46:6) In other words, to see God, you must be spiritual and worthy to do so. Joseph Smith taught that the first scripture, John 1:8, is properly translated to be that you can only see God when quickened by the Spirit. Jesus offered additional insight into this topic when he taught: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)

God has shown Himself to only a select few people over the course of history, but He has shown Himself at times when it was important, to those who were worthy."**

jesus.christ.org/1137/doesnt-the-bible-say-no-one-has-seen-god

 

[ParkerD]

Interesting question. I googled it, and found this answer:
**
"Despite the many times the Bible reports of people who have seen God, there is one scripture which says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) This scripture is sometimes used to try to discredit the Mormon teaching that Joseph Smith saw God. However, if we look at chapter 6 of the same book, we discover an explanation of this statement: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 46:6) In other words, to see God, you must be spiritual and worthy to do so. Joseph Smith taught that the first scripture, John 1:8, is properly translated to be that you can only see God when quickened by the Spirit. Jesus offered additional insight into this topic when he taught: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)

God has shown Himself to only a select few people over the course of history, but He has shown Himself at times when it was important, to those who were worthy."**

jesus.christ.org/1137/doesnt-the-bible-say-no-one-has-seen-god

TheosisM,
Thank you! You are one of a kind–a remarkable person. May God give you much happiness in your life.

 

[Xavierlives]

Interesting question. I googled it, and found this answer:
**
"Despite the many times the Bible reports of people who have seen God, there is one scripture which says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) This scripture is sometimes used to try to discredit the Mormon teaching that Joseph Smith saw God. However, if we look at chapter 6 of the same book, we discover an explanation of this statement: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 46:6) In other words, to see God, you must be spiritual and worthy to do so. Joseph Smith taught that the first scripture, John 1:8, is properly translated to be that you can only see God when quickened by the Spirit. Jesus offered additional insight into this topic when he taught: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)

God has shown Himself to only a select few people over the course of history, but He has shown Himself at times when it was important, to those who were worthy."**

jesus.christ.org/1137/doesnt-the-bible-say-no-one-has-seen-god

And the problem with this this analysis is found in the quote: Joseph Smith taught that the first scripture, John 1:8 [sic], is properly translated to be that you can only see God when quickened by the Spirit. If you are going to look the truth, you cannot look through a distorted lens to find it. Joseph Smith is the person being tested here for the veracity of his statements. He can’t turn around and say, “well I’d to also like to redefine John 1:18 to fit my testimony.” Joseph Smith’s testimony must stand on its own and not violate the Bible.

They are better served when they quote out the scriptures like Gen 32:30; Exo. 24:9-10; and Judges 13:22, because at least these are examples of others seeing God. Of course every instance of seeing God in physical form is the witness seeing Christ. Abraham is a great example of where Christ mentions the meeting in John 8:56. The problem they recognize with that is… err the baggage of seeing God and Jesus. They can’t hem and haw around around that.

One does not even need to dive into the Book of Mormon to see any other failures. You only need to look at the original testimony.

 

[Answersplease]

Interesting question. I googled it, and found this answer:
**
"Despite the many times the Bible reports of people who have seen God, there is one scripture which says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) This scripture is sometimes used to try to discredit the Mormon teaching that Joseph Smith saw God. However, if we look at chapter 6 of the same book, we discover an explanation of this statement: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 46:6) In other words, to see God, you must be spiritual and worthy to do so. Joseph Smith taught that the first scripture, John 1:8, is properly translated to be that you can only see God when quickened by the Spirit. Jesus offered additional insight into this topic when he taught: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)

God has shown Himself to only a select few people over the course of history, but He has shown Himself at times when it was important, to those who were worthy."**

jesus.christ.org/1137/doesnt-the-bible-say-no-one-has-seen-god

Why do you present a Biblical interpretation in defense of a Mormon principle, but you do not at the same time present the Christian or Messianic Jew interpretation of those same verses?

By being too “helpful” you may lead those weak in their faith astray.
Please at least give the general Christian or Messianic Jew interpretation as well as the Mormon interpretation.

Jesus Christ is refering to Himself in John 6:46.
Only Jesus Christ has seen the Father.

John 6:44
“…the Father who sent me…”

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God…

Clearly the subject of that Biblical passage is Jesus Christ Himself:

John 6:43

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered.

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

John 6:47
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

John 6:48
I am the bread of life.

John 6:49
Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.

John 6:50
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

And if only worthy people could see The Father,

then was Joseph Smith worthy and Moses not worthy?

 

[Xavierlives]

And if only worthy people could see The Father,

then was Joseph Smith worthy and Moses not worthy?

And Moses saw Christ.

 

[Answersplease]

Interesting question. I googled it, and found this answer:
**
"Despite the many times the Bible reports of people who have seen God, there is one scripture which says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) This scripture is sometimes used to try to discredit the Mormon teaching that Joseph Smith saw God. However, if we look at chapter 6 of the same book, we discover an explanation of this statement: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 46:6) In other words, to see God, you must be spiritual and worthy to do so. Joseph Smith taught that the first scripture, John 1:8, is properly translated to be that you can only see God when quickened by the Spirit. Jesus offered additional insight into this topic when he taught: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)

God has shown Himself to only a select few people over the course of history, but He has shown Himself at times when it was important, to those who were worthy."**

jesus.christ.org/1137/doesnt-the-bible-say-no-one-has-seen-god

Jesus Christ is refering to Himself in John 6:46.
Only Jesus Christ has seen the Father.

John 6:44
“…the Father who sent me…”

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God…

Clearly the subject of that Biblical passage is Jesus Christ Himself:

John 6:43

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered.

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

John 6:47
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

John 6:48
I am the bread of life.

John 6:49
Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.

John 6:50
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
And if worthy people could see The Father,

then was Joseph Smith worthy and Moses not worthy?

Here’s your problem.

Joseph Smith claimed to be able to read the Kinderhook plates, which were bogus forgeries meant to fool him.

Joseph Smith had sex with the wives of other men.

Do you deny either of these points?

 

[ParkerD]

And the problem with this this analysis is found in the quote: Joseph Smith taught that the first scripture, John 1:8 [sic], is properly translated to be that you can only see God when quickened by the Spirit. If you are going to look the truth, you cannot look through a distorted lens to find it. Joseph Smith is the person being tested here for the veracity of his statements. He can’t turn around and say, “well I’d to also like to redefine John 1:18 to fit my testimony.” Joseph Smith’s testimony must stand on its own and not violate the Bible.

They are better served when they quote out the scriptures like Gen 32:30; Exo. 24:9-10; and Judges 13:22, because at least these are examples of others seeing God. Of course every instance of seeing God in physical form is the witness seeing Christ. Abraham is a great example of where Christ mentions the meeting in John 8:56. The problem they recognize with that is… err the baggage of seeing God and Jesus. They can’t hem and haw around around that.

One does not even need to dive into the Book of Mormon to see any other failures. You only need to look at the original testimony.

Xavierlives,
It is good to read the Bible. It is better to read the Bible and allow the text to come to life, to really teach and change the person who reads it.

When one reads John 1:18 and sees the word “man”, they should also read John 1:10-13 and be absolutely certain they know what the apostle John and the “preparer of the way”–John the Baptist–were talking about in this whole passage.

The word “man” as used in John 1:18 ties directly to the phrase “the world knew him not” and is placed as a contrast to the phrase, “to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Those whom John is describing as those who become the “sons of God” are those who have been changed from their carnal, sinful, worldly and natural state through the Holy Spirit so that they are in a position to be brought into God’s presence–raised up into God’s presence by the Redeemer and Savior of mortal men and women. So a “man” living as a “man” in his carnal and natural and sinful state, has not seen God at any time, because a natural man rejects God and the things of God.

John the Apostle and John the Baptist were declaring through these testimonies that those who rejected Christ did so because they were living as natural and carnal man, and were not “born of God” such that they were not in a position that their hearts had been changed, because if their hearts had been changed, they would have recognized the son of God just as John the Baptist recognized the son of God.

This contrast between a carnal, natural “man” and a “son of God” is given several times in the Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. One can read, for example, 1 Corinthians 2:11 and the whole chapter there, and find that a natural “man” knows not the “things of God”. Those who have the “spirit of the world” (v, 12) will naturally reject the “things of God.” But it is to their loss.

Becoming a “son of God” is offered by God through Christ, who is the Redeemer and the perfect Advocate before the Father. But they will need to accept being changed by Him and by the Holy Spirit. If changed, then they will see everything with new eyes. Only through Christ and the Holy Spirit can they see with new eyes.

Answerplease,
John 6:44-47 conveys the same message as John 1:10-18. See above, but if possible, see with new eyes, or it would be well to seek those new eyes by seeking a change of heart and a spiritual rebirth. But do as you wish. It is a choice each person has, and it is theirs to make. By the way, thanks for addressing Dianaiad recently in such a kindly and thoughtful way.

Peace to all. Have a good day.

 

[JMJ4]

ParkerD -

Hello. According to the pamphlet entitled The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ handed to me by Mormon missionaries, apostasy is defined on page 18 as:

“When individuals, the Church, or entire nations forsake or abandon the gospel of Jesus Christ. Apostasy results in division, confusion, and loss of priesthood authority, or the right to act in the name of God.”

Page 4 discusses apostasy further:

“Because of apostasy, people lose knowledge of the gospel. Priesthood authority is taken from among them.”

Page 8:

“Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christs and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed and priesthood authority - including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church- was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasty.”

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD -

Hello. According to the pamphlet entitled The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ handed to me by Mormon missionaries, apostasy is defined on page 18 as:

“When individuals, the Church, or entire nations forsake or abandon the gospel of Jesus Christ. Apostasy results in division, confusion, and loss of priesthood authority, or the right to act in the name of God.”

Page 4 discusses apostasy further:

“Because of apostasy, people lose knowledge of the gospel. Priesthood authority is taken from among them.”

Page 8:

“Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christs and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed and priesthood authority - including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church- was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasty.”

Hi, JMJ4,

Thanks for citing that reference to add clarity. Here, also, is a section from the “newsroom” section of lds.org that adds clarity:

The fact that the original church of Jesus Christ would eventually fall into a state of apostasy was foretold by ancient prophets and by the apostles in Christ’s day.

Although Latter-day Saints believe that divine authority was lost in the ancient church after the death of the apostles and required a restoration by divine intervention, they do not dismiss or diminish the validity of other people’s religious experiences:

Much of the true doctrine taught by Jesus Christ is found in churches today.
Members of other churches who accept Jesus Christ and try to live by the principles he taught are entitled to divine guidance and inspiration in their lives.
Faithful Christians who are not Latter-day Saints still go to heaven, and those who live according to all the truth and light they have will open themselves to further light in the hereafter.

The “divine intervention” noted above was clearly prophesied by the Apostle John in Revelation 14:6-7, by means of an angel from heaven. But note all the points in the above statement, including that divine guidance and inspiration go forth in the world among many wonderful people of many faiths “who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and try to live by the principles He taught.”

Have a wonderful day.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
It is good to read the Bible. It is better to read the Bible and allow the text to come to life, to really teach and change the person who reads it.

When one reads John 1:18 and sees the word “man”, they should also read John 1:10-13 and be absolutely certain they know what the apostle John and the “preparer of the way”–John the Baptist–were talking about in this whole passage.

The word “man” as used in John 1:18 ties directly to the phrase “the world knew him not” and is placed as a contrast to the phrase, “to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Those whom John is describing as those who become the “sons of God” are those who have been changed from their carnal, sinful, worldly and natural state through the Holy Spirit so that they are in a position to be brought into God’s presence–raised up into God’s presence by the Redeemer and Savior of mortal men and women. So a “man” living as a “man” in his carnal and natural and sinful state, has not seen God at any time, because a natural man rejects God and the things of God.

John the Apostle and John the Baptist were declaring through these testimonies that those who rejected Christ did so because they were living as natural and carnal man, and were not “born of God” such that they were not in a position that their hearts had been changed, because if their hearts had been changed, they would have recognized the son of God just as John the Baptist recognized the son of God.

This contrast between a carnal, natural “man” and a “son of God” is given several times in the Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. One can read, for example, 1 Corinthians 2:11 and the whole chapter there, and find that a natural “man” knows not the “things of God”. Those who have the “spirit of the world” (v, 12) will naturally reject the “things of God.” But it is to their loss.

Becoming a “son of God” is offered by God through Christ, who is the Redeemer and the perfect Advocate before the Father. But they will need to accept being changed by Him and by the Holy Spirit. If changed, then they will see everything with new eyes. Only through Christ and the Holy Spirit can they see with new eyes.

Answerplease,
John 6:44-47 conveys the same message as John 1:10-18. See above, but if possible, see with new eyes, or it would be well to seek those new eyes by seeking a change of heart and a spiritual rebirth. But do as you wish. It is a choice each person has, and it is theirs to make. By the way, thanks for addressing Dianaiad recently in such a kindly and thoughtful way.

Peace to all. Have a good day.

Hello Parker,

You are right, it is never a bad day when you are reading your Bible. I appreciate you looking at the Book of John, but I’d like to just point out a little problem with your analysis. You mention 10-13 as a discussion of John the Baptist, but starting in John 1:14 we see the reference to “the Word was made Flesh” which is obviously drawing upon Christ. It then ties in John the Baptist as a witness to Jesus and Jesus as a witness to God, and with Jesus being the only one who has seen God in v. 18. (Also mentioned by Christ in John 6:46).

But moreover, v.18 is pretty clear on the message. It is an entire sentence and it says:No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

We also see in John 4:24 that God is Spirit and this is again witnessed by Christ’s words.

So within a few short chapters of John we see, God is Spirit (but Joseph Smith said he saw God in Flesh) and that only Christ has seen the Father, As testified by Christ (John 6:46) and John 1:18.

If you think a detailed discussion of the moments someone in the OT “appears” to have seen God would help, I’ll be happy to go through those as well, but it will end up with things like
Gen. 17:1-4-- Abraham saw Christ (as testified in Johm 8:56)
Gen. 32:30 – Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hosea 12:4)
Exo. 33:11 – Moses spoke with Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Hello Parker,

You are right, it is never a bad day when you are reading your Bible. I appreciate you looking at the Book of John, but I’d like to just point out a little problem with your analysis. You mention 10-13 as a discussion of John the Baptist, but starting in John 1:14 we see the reference to “the Word was made Flesh” which is obviously drawing upon Christ. It then ties in John the Baptist as a witness to Jesus and Jesus as a witness to God, and with Jesus being the only one who has seen God in v. 18. (Also mentioned by Christ in John 6:46).

But moreover, v.18 is pretty clear on the message. It is an entire sentence and it says:No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

We also see in John 4:24 that God is Spirit and this is again witnessed by Christ’s words.

So within a few short chapters of John we see, God is Spirit (but Joseph Smith said he saw God in Flesh) and that only Christ has seen the Father, As testified by Christ (John 6:46) and John 1:18.

If you think a detailed discussion of the moments someone in the OT “appears” to have seen God would help, I’ll be happy to go through those as well, but it will end up with things like
Gen. 17:1-4-- Abraham saw Christ (as testified in Johm 8:56)
Gen. 32:30 – Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hosea 12:4)
Exo. 33:11 – Moses spoke with Christ.

Xavierlives,
This is a case where we are not going to agree, but I have appreciated you expressing your point of view. Of course God is Spirit. He is a spiritual Being, just as a “son of God” becomes a spiritual being who has been changed from his carnal and fallen state. Those who are changed by the Holy Spirit are spiritual beings. They are no longer natural, carnal beings. That is what the “second birth” and “sanctification by the Holy Spirit” are all about. But I suggest you are not going to see that in the way you are reading the Bible. You have your mind already made up–how can the Spirit teach you anything since you have already made up your mind what every passage means?

But you will do well and be as happy as you wish by living the gospel as best you can and keeping the commandments as best you can. God bless you in that, and God bless your family as you do so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Does that make it clearer?

Yes, this “prophecy” is meaningless. It can never be true or never be false. Thus, not really prophetic. Just words to make people feel good I suppose.

 

[rinnie]

We also believe we are led by Christ.

But that is not the point. You are either missing it or ignoring it. I suspect the latter.

The church (both) is made up of imperfect people.

How does Christ lead the church? Through people or not?

People are sinners and have the option to follow Christ or not.

How can he lead it if not through people? It makes no sense.

Absolutely NOT. The RCC is not led by People. It is led by the HOLY SPRIIT. What part of that can you not comprehend. Jesus Christ said I am sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. You deny the Power of the Holy Spirit which is plain to see. That is why you feel that people lead the church.

If you could accept the Teaching of Jesus Christ and admit that he send the Advocate the Holy Spirit you would see that the leaders if the Church are not leading the Church, they are being led by the Holy Spirit. They have no power, only what is given to them by God.

You just claim that your church is being led by the Power of the Holy Spirit. It is a claim that has been proven to be false many of times. Because the Holy Spirit has only one truth that has been given from above from God from the beginning of time.

You claim to have this power which you cannot have because you do not accept the Holy Spirit as one in being with God.

Answer my question do you agree that the Holy Spirit is one in Being with God?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

ParkerD -

Hello. According to the pamphlet entitled The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ handed to me by Mormon missionaries, apostasy is defined on page 18 as:

“When individuals, the Church, or entire nations forsake or abandon the gospel of Jesus Christ. Apostasy results in division, confusion, and loss of priesthood authority, or the right to act in the name of God.”

Page 4 discusses apostasy further:

“Because of apostasy, people lose knowledge of the gospel. [SIGN]Priesthood authority is taken from among them.”[/SIGN]Page 8:

“Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christs and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed and priesthood authority - including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church- was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasty.”

Thank- you for this info. Which clearly proves my Point. Priesthood authority has never been taken away from a Priest in the CC and never will be. In the RCC the Priest and Bishops and Pope still have the authority to forgive sin, participate in all of the sacraments just like the time of Jesus Christ. That is not only a fact it is still practiced today.

Just because the RCC has this authority does not mean God took away our free will to deny or follow his word.

No one can every say that the CHurch failed because it never has. People fail, the Church will not. Because people choose to walk away from the Church in no way takes the authority given to the Church. If authority meant all would accept the truth, then Jesus Christ would not have died on the cross. He had all of the authority in the world.

Jesus was here as a living Man and taught the word of God. He had all Authority given to him from above as he stated. Because of free will many rejected his word. If people rejecting the RCC means the Church failed then you would have to agree that Jesus Christ also failed. But he did not fail, and neither did the Church. They are one In being!