Mormon bible justification

[FightingFat]

2 Thes. 2:1-3

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

This passage has been quoted me by a Mormon. To show the bible speaks of a ‘possible’ apostacy maybe? to justify the restoration?

How should we interpret this passage of Thessilonians?

 

[flameburns623]

In “Pierced By a Sword”, Catholic novelist Bud McFarlane indicates he thinks the apostasy will occur at some future time near the return of Christ. For the most part though I think Catholics are partial-preterists who think that all or most all such prophecies happened in the first few centuries AD: the rise of the Nicolaitians, the Gnostics, and such. That there is to be an apostasy is NOT normally understood by anyone–Protestant or Catholic–as indicating that the Church will cease to exist, only that many will fall away from it. This however is exactly what Mormons believe: the Christian Church ceased entirely to exist for something close to eighteen-hundred years, until it was restored by Jesus via Joseph Smith.

Hope this helps!

 

[The_Barrister]

Catholic eschatology subscribes to the belief that there will be an apostasy with schisms brought about by false prophets.

Luke 17:26 and 18:8 and Matthew 24:12 tell us that there will be a falling away from faith or charity.

Regardless of what preceeds the end, we will still not know when it will be until it actually occurs. CCC 1040 (“Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming.”).

More here.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

In “Pierced By a Sword”, Catholic novelist Bud McFarlane indicates he thinks the apostasy will occur at some future time near the return of Christ. For the most part though I think Catholics are partial-preterists who think that all or most all such prophecies happened in the first few centuries AD: the rise of the Nicolaitians, the Gnostics, and such. That there is to be an apostasy is NOT normally understood by anyone–Protestant or Catholic–as indicating that the Church will cease to exist, only that many will fall away from it. This however is exactly what Mormons believe: the Christian Church ceased entirely to exist for something close to eighteen-hundred years, until it was restored by Jesus via Joseph Smith.

Hope this helps!

The true church of Jesus Christ did not cease to exist. Instead, it was driven into the wilderness by the wickedness of men and replaced by the Catholic church. It’s all in the book of Revelation. But after 1260 years, the true church emerged from the wilderness and is still being persecuted by men according to their precepts.

 

[hlgomez]

The true church of Jesus Christ did not cease to exist. Instead, it was driven into the wilderness by the wickedness of men and replaced by the Catholic church. It’s all in the book of Revelation. But after 1260 years, the true church emerged from the wilderness and is still being persecuted by men according to their precepts.

Rod od iron,

Who told you that? By what authority did you interpret that passage in the revelation?

Pio

 

[rod_of_iron]

hlgomez:

Rod od iron,

Who told you that? By what authority did you interpret that passage in the revelation?

Pio

What do you mean, “by what authority”? I read the scirptures and interpret them as the Holy Spirit leads me toward all truth. In Revelation, 2 women are mentioned. The first one is clothed with the sun. The second is the woman upon the scarlet beast. Every time I’ve seen the word “woman” mentioned in prophecy, it refers to a church. In Revelation, the second woman drives the first woman into the wilderness for 1260 prophetic days (i.e. 1260 years). If the women represent churches, as I have no doubt they do, the first church is replaced by the second one. Perhaps, this cannot be legitimately called an apostasy, because the church that was driven into the wilderness did not change. The second church just substituted itself for the first church and convinced everyone that it was indeed the first church. But Revelation shows differently.

 

[Chief]

rod of iron:

What do you mean, “by what authority”? I read the scirptures and interpret them as the Holy Spirit leads me toward all truth. In Revelation, 2 women are mentioned. The first one is clothed with the sun. The second is the woman upon the scarlet beast. Every time I’ve seen the word “woman” mentioned in prophecy, it refers to a church. In Revelation, the second woman drives the first woman into the wilderness for 1260 prophetic days (i.e. 1260 years). If the women represent churches, as I have no doubt they do, the first church is replaced by the second one. Perhaps, this cannot be legitimately called an apostasy, because the church that was driven into the wilderness did not change. The second church just substituted itself for the first church and convinced everyone that it was indeed the first church. But Revelation shows differently.

If the Holy Spirit lead you to that conclusion, why doesn’t He lead ME to that same truth. Does He only lead some people to truth? How does one know if He is leading THEM to truth or lie? I think THAT is the jist of the question that was asked of you here.
You claim that EVERY TIME you see the word woman, in prophecy, it refers to a church. Every time. Was Jesus born of a ‘church’ through the power of the Holy Spirit, or was He born to a woman? Is it the offspring of a ‘church’ that will strike at the head of teh serpent, or teh offspring of a woman? I suppose I could go on, but I think I make my point here. Even if th ereference is to churches here, on what text do you base your assumption that the harlot is the Catholic Church?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rod of iron:

The true church of Jesus Christ did not cease to exist. Instead, it was driven into the wilderness by the wickedness of men and replaced by the Catholic church. It’s all in the book of Revelation. But after 1260 years, the true church emerged from the wilderness and is still being persecuted by men according to their precepts.

Dear Rod;

With all due respect, it seems to me that you’ve been reading too many Jack Chick tracts.

Can you be sure that it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding your interpretation of Revelation? Or is it possible your personal conclusion is just the acceptance of a tradition started by men who were filled with prejudice and fear towards Catholics?

And did you ever stop to think that if it was the Holy Spirit that guided your interpretation, then why don’t all Christians who seek God’s Truth sincerely derive the same “Divine” interpretation that you received from that particular passage of Revelation? How can you know that your interpretation is correct and others interpretations are incorrect? Don’t we need more than just your personal interpretation to be convinced?

Your unsupported comment and “because I feel it’s true” proofs only support my understanding of the Mormon faith - i.e. that it relies only upon emotion, not upon reason. I just can’t take it seriously, although I do believe you are sincere in your beliefs and feel you can’t possibly be wrong.

My question to you - Are there any scholarly Mormon documents that support your total apostacy claim? If so, could you please cite them for me.

 

[banjo]

rod of iron:

What do you mean, “by what authority”? I read the scirptures and interpret them as the Holy Spirit leads me toward all truth.QUOTE]

 

[banjo]

banjo:

rod of iron:

What do you mean, “by what authority”? I read the scirptures and interpret them as the Holy Spirit leads me toward all truth.QUOTE]

I cannot imagine Christ entrusting the continuation of his message to such a hap-hazard method. Indeed, the evidence of scripture shows that he didn’t; rather, he established an authoritative teaching church from which we get the NT, i.e. the Catholic Church. I make no implication that Rod of Iron is “clownish” but the following quote from Martin Luther supports my contention…Quote…“There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be (name removed by moderator)ired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

 

[rfk]

In my mind, the quickest way to refute Mormanism is Matthew 16:17-18.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Now, Joseph Smith claimed the great apostasy foretold in the Bible had destroyed Christ’s Church within a generation of two. Jesus Christ actually had to come physically visit the America’s to start the Church again. It then lay dormant until 1820.

That directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matthew. Jesus built his Church on Peter, not the Americas, and promised it would survive.

So, either Jesus is wrong or Joseph Smith is wrong. Since Joseph Smith is dead and corrupted in the grave, I know which authority I’ll choose.

 

[flameburns623]

rfk:

In my mind, the quickest way to refute Mormanism is Matthew 16:17-18.

Now, Joseph Smith claimed the great apostasy foretold in the Bible had destroyed Christ’s Church within a generation of two. Jesus Christ actually had to come physically visit the America’s to start the Church again. It then lay dormant until 1820.

That directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matthew. Jesus built his Church on Peter, not the Americas, and promised it would survive.

So, either Jesus is wrong or Joseph Smith is wrong. Since Joseph Smith is dead and corrupted in the grave, I know which authority I’ll choose.

Mormons understand the passage as saying that it was by the FAITH of Peter that he received the revelation of Christ, and that it was upon the rock of faith that revelation would continue and the church remain. When faith was lost from the earth in the second and third generations of Christians, the Church was lost. It then had to be restored to humankind agan by the faithful boy Joseph Smith, who then received the Keys of the Priesthood at the hands of John the Baptist and Peter James and John.

Mormon claims don’t rest upon the body of Joseph Smith but upon his exegesis of the scripture passage you cite, and upon his visionary claims.

We should note that Rod of Iron has elsewhere acknowledged NOT being a member of the major body of the LDS Church, nor of the Reorganized Church of LDS, but of one of the smaller sects. His beliefs would reflect those of the sect to which he belongs, which might not coincide with those of the main LDS body. I am a former LDS of the main organization. See “The Great Apostasy” by James Talmage (a well known classic writer and early apologist for Mormonism) for confirmation and elaboration of what I just outlined.

 

[Count_Chocula]

Odds are Protestantism is the apostasy of Christ talked about in the Bible. If all of us were taken back to oh say the year 400 only the Catholics would not be heretics.

Of which group Mormons belong.