LDS restoration

[SeekerOfTruth7]

There are a lot of good reasons to reject Mormonism.

So true.

God Bless

 

[exiled1]

So it is the LDS position that every single Christian of the early church deliberately turned away, and therefore He withdrew His blessings? I think “deliberately” is key in what you are saying, because many, many early Christians probably followed the leaders, as they had no world wide web to help them.
It really seems…not right…that the Savior did such a poor job preaching the Gospel and establishing the church that it fell into apostasy so quickly.
You don’t think so?

 

[Chris-Wa1]

It really seems…not right…that the Savior did such a poor job preaching the Gospel and establishing the church that it fell into apostasy so quickly.

You’re really onto something there, but most Mormons mentally just can’t go there because their entire religion, their entire way of life, is built on the premise of the great apostacy. It is a false premise, but they can’t see it because they don’t want to. To acknowledge that would be to admit that their entire religion is a fraud.

 

[gazelam]

So it is the LDS position that every single Christian of the early church deliberately turned away, and therefore He withdrew His blessings? I think “deliberately” is key in what you are saying, because many, many early Christians probably followed the leaders, as they had no world wide web to help them.

No. One Latter-day Saint leader (John Taylor) made to following observation:

There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. There were men who could tell the destiny of the human family, and the events which would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time until the final winding-up scene. There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness…

Please see the entry on Apostasy in the semi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

In a nutshell, the reason Latter-day Saints practice vicarious baptism and believe that the Gospel will be taught in the afterlife is because a very large part of the human family will not have had the opportunity in this life to hear and accept the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It really seems…not right…that the Savior did such a poor job preaching the Gospel and establishing the church that it fell into apostasy so quickly.
You don’t think so?

Per the parable of the sower, some gospel seeds fall on fertile ground, some fall on rocky ground, and some seeds are choked by thorns. The problem isn’t with the Sower or the seeds, but rather with the ground where the seeds fell. I believe that is no better sower of seeds than Christ.

At this link you can download an essay titled “The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme” by Latter-day Saint scholar Hugh Nibley if you want some thinking from the Latter-day Saint ivory tower.

I hope this helps…

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. There were men who could tell the destiny of the human family, and the events which would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time until the final winding-up scene. There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world.

Can you give us an example?

Per the parable of the sower, some gospel seeds fall on fertile ground, some fall on rocky ground, and some seeds are choked by thorns. The problem isn’t with the Sower or the seeds, but rather with the ground where the seeds fell. I believe that is no better sower of seeds than Christ.

This doesn’t answer the OP’s question. Do you think that Jesus and His Apostles did far less and worse than Joseph Smith did in the “restoration” since their Church, in your opinion, lasted not even a hundred years and Smith’s has lasted nearly two hundred years?
The parable has no relation to an apostasy and and a worldwide falling away from the Church. It is merely speaking of those who will have faith and the different outcomes of that faith depending on ones ground, or heart in general, not an apostasy to destroy the entire church and turn it into an “abomination” as Smith said.

 

[exiled1]

I will try to read those links this afternoon. At this moment I have no bible in front of me, but there is that well known story of Lot (?), who keeps pressing God on whether He will destroy a city (is it Sodom and Gomorrah?) if there are buy 50-40-30-10-1 righteous person left. God says He will spare the city for the sake of the one. Now clearly we know there was no one righteous because the city was destroyed, but what we can know is that such mercy would follow for all of us.
If there were some faithful men who could see God and know, I have two further questions:
1-why didn’t God spare for their sakes? By withdrawing, these men would have no access to the saving ordinances that LDS require for exaltation, correct?
2-are there any writings from these men? Where is there evidence that they existed and that (presumably) they tried to save people and bring them back? Apostles wrote letters…only some of which are included in the canon of Scripture, but there are more, I think. Letters exist from other early church fathers, which ones support LDS history, specifically?
While I do not believe in vicarious baptism, I have no beef with it. If I could believe a great apostasy occurred and the LDS church was true, I wouldn’t question practices.

 

[gazelam]

So belief that all intelligence’s are eternal? I wholeheartedly believe that Cyril would call that heretical as well as Arianism. No case for that belief in orthodox Christianity, only in “latter-day revelation” does something like that appear.
"I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed." (2 Maccabees 7:8)

I just came across an interesting tidbit about this verse which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In the Latin Vulgate this verse is rendered:

peto nate aspicias in caelum et terram et ad omnia quae in eis sunt et intellegas quia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus et hominum genus

However, there is a new Latin translation (Nova Vulgata) published by the Vatican in 1979. In this newer version 2 Maccabees 7:28 is rendered:

Peto, nate, ut aspicias ad caelum et terram et quae in ipsis sunt, universa videns intellegas quia non ex his, quae erant, fecit illa Deus; et hominum genus ita fit.

I don’t know Latin, but I can see that the phrase “ex nihilo” is not in the updated translation.

 

[gazelam]

But using Aquinas’ arguments before this, which you should read before you try to refute what he said here, he says:
On the contrary, It is said (Romans 11:36): “Of Him, and by Him, and in Him are all things.”

Jason David BeDuhn states:

All is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration. The other is assumed. In one case, Paul takes the trouble to make this perfectly clear. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul catches himself saying that God will make all things subject to Christ. He stops and clarifies that of course when he says all things he doesnt mean that God himself will be subject to Christ, but all other things will be, with Christ himself subject to God. There can be no legitimate objection to other in Colossians 1 because here, too, Paul clearly does not mean to include God or Christ in his phrase all things, when God is implied in the subject, and Christ the explicit agent, of the act of creation of these all things. But since Paul uses all things appositively (that is, interchangeably) with creation, we must still reckon with Christs place as the first-born of creation, and so the first-born of all things.
Similar uses of all in expressions of hyperbole are not hard to find. In Luke 21:29, Jesus speaks of the fig-tree and all the trees. The fig-tree is obviously a tree, and the ancients knew it has a tree. The phrase actually means the fig-tree and all other trees, just as the NW, NAB, and TEV have it (the LB similarly: the fig-tree, or any other tree)…
Another example cant be seen in Luke 11:42 where Jesus speaks of Pharisees tithing mint and rue and every herb. Since mint and rue are both herbs, and were thought to be so by the cultures from which the Bible comes, the phrase every herb must mean every other herb (NW) or all the other herbs (TEV) or all other kinds of …herb (NIV)

Jason David DeBuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (Latham: University Press of America, 2003), 84-85

Obviously, Colossians 1:20 doesnt mean that Satan and wicked men will be reconciled to Christ.

Colossians 1:20 (KJV) And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

This argument has no bearing on what we were discussing. I am discussing the english translation which comes from the greek. The Greek shows creation out of nothing.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

All is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration.

Just because it can be used as hyperbole doesn’t mean it always is. I would argue Romans 11:36 is not hyperbole.
Second, I like how you conveniently ignore the rest of Aquinas arguements and just focus on one bit. Please answer the rest of what he said in his

I answer that, It must be said that every being in any way existing is from God. For whatever is found in anything by participation, must be caused in it by that to which it belongs essentially, as iron becomes ignited by fire. Now it has been shown above (I:3:4) when treating of the divine simplicity that God is the essentially self-subsisting Being; and also it was shown (I:11:4) that subsisting being must be one; as, if whiteness were self-subsisting, it would be one, since whiteness is multiplied by its recipients. Therefore all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation. Therefore it must be that all things which are diversified by the diverse participation of being, so as to be more or less perfect, are caused by one First Being, Who possesses being most perfectly.

Please study this and provide a meaningful response instead of quoting a Beduhn and his book, which by the way many Greek scholars have issues with or have commented on their issues with his book. And I as well have issues with some of his conclusions. So, again stay with the argument Aquinas presented and answer that accordingly. Thank you.

 

[Crocus]

I don’t know Latin, but I can see that the phrase “ex nihilo” is not in the updated translation.

Peto, nate, ut aspicias ad caelum et terram et quae in ipsis sunt, universa videns intellegas quia non ex his, quae erant, fecit illa Deus; et hominum genus ita fit.

“because it is not of those things which were”

Meaning is same as “quia ex nihilo”

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

I don’t know Latin, but I can see that the phrase “ex nihilo” is not in the updated translation.

Peto, nate, ut aspicias ad caelum et terram et quae in ipsis sunt, universa videns intellegas quia non ex his, quae erant, fecit illa Deus; et hominum genus ita fit.

“because it is not of those things which were”

Meaning is same as “quia ex nihilo”

The Nova Vulgata version is rendered this way by Google translate:

I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth and all that is in them, because they do not understand that when he saw all of these things, which were, God made them; and the race of men, so it happens.

“out of nothing” is not part of the full translation.

It is part of the old Latin Vulgate:

I ask you, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is in them, and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:

(Again I ain’t a Latin scholar nor do I play one on TV. I quick search on line doesn’t seem to produce a Nova Vulgata/English Bible translation. If you know of one let me know.)

 

[GKMotley]

Crocus is correct.

 

[whatistrue]

rendered this way by Google translate:

So you are going to accept Google Translate before an actual person who knows the language?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I just shook my head when he posted it and then his response haha

 

[gazelam]

Crocus is correct.

gazelam:

rendered this way by Google translate:

So you are going to accept Google Translate before an actual person who knows the language?

So what’s the giveaway here there’s someone (assume you’re referring to @Crocus) who knows Latin? Crocus’ response can be obtained from Google Translate also.

 

[Crocus]

It is not me who knows latin, maybe GKMotley, I defer to his endorsement, though firstly to the Church. Trusting the Church translation to be true, I too used google translate though with caution, expecting it to say the same as the older translation.

And it does! Interesting fact, gt may return alternates at subsequent enquiries, such as the following, which also mean the same as “ex nihilo,” “out of nothing.” :woman_shrugging:t2:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Key takeaway, use gt with caution, and trust the Church.

 

[GKMotley]

The one who really knows Latin is (not me) my offspring. BA in Latin/Roman studies, phi beta kappa, summa cum laude, lots of other stuff to make a parent proud, 5 years a magistra. But not available.

But yes, if you isolate “non ex his quae erant”, what do you get?

Now what?

 

[GKMotley]

Yep. So it seems.

 

[Stephen168]

I just came across an interesting tidbit about this verse which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

2 Maccabees was written in Greek and has been translated in the King James Version as:

“I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.”