J
Janderich
Guest
So a prophet in some situations can kill wicked men and still be justified before the Lord? I of course disagree about Joseph Smith.
- Status
T
twopekinguys
Guest
First, it is my understanding that mormons believe that the Apostle John is/was destined to walk the Earth for eternity. Therefore, he is not dead, and the claim that priestly authority was lost would be flat out false.
See the history of your church, volume 1, page 36. Let me save you some time, and quote it for you.
"1. And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
2. And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
3. And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shall prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people." (emphasis mine)
Second, it is in Volume VII, pages 100-103, not volume Vi. Since you evidently have a limited knowledge of your own church’s history, I will quote it for you.
“He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.” (emphasis mine)
Kind of hard to dispute your own church history isn’t it?
Simply put, your own church disproves what it claims. The priesthood was not lost because John still walks the Earth, and smith was not a martyr.
Pretty straight forward don’t ya think?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
If you read on, part of that testimony was provided by “Elder” Reed Blake. Are you saying a mormon elder provided incorrect information to your church to make smith look bad?
Way to throw one of your own under the bus.
ETA: You realize nobody had smartphones back then, and there wasn’t any video right?
Most people were alot more honest back then as opposed to today, and the odds weigh greatly in the favor of those relaying the information.
J
Janderich
Guest
twopekinguys, This is not about throwing anyone under the bus, it is about finding the truth. When so many false statements are thrown around for various reasons we must dig deeper than, “I was informed…”.
J
Janderich
Guest
Oh boy… You stated in post #95, “You might want to review your own “history of the church”. It is in volume 6 where “elder Reed Blake” testified that in fact smith did shoot back at the carthage jail, and in fact did kill at least one, and possibly two people.” I then asked you for a reference regarding this statement in volume 6. Do you see that you are arguing against yourself? It actually makes you look petty and argumentative.
J
Janderich
Guest
As suspected, you continue to ignore my question about Elijah. Will you answer? Was Elijah a prophet of God?
I do appreciate that Jharek has engaged the question.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
So your official church history has false statements?
Watch out, here comes the express!!!
J
Janderich
Guest
Sigh… You know, you don’t need to always accuse people.So your official church history has false statements?
Watch out, here comes the express!!!
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Nice diversion. Care to address the Apostle John issue that you are so deftly trying to avoid?
One thing many of us here have found to be consistent. When someone such as yourself cannot adequately defend your position, you attack the individual.
Also, do you want me to point out again how you made a statement, then decided to add a qualifier to it later?
If you want an even more definitive answer on the Reed Blake issue, try reading his book 24 hours to martyrdom. It is available at deseret. That is a trusted mormon source isn’t it?
Remember, it isn’t up to us to educate you on your own church’s history.
Again, care to address the Apostle John question?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Where is the accusation?
You have heard that you shouldn’t bear false witness right?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
No need for me to address it, Jharek is doing quite well.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
You did see where I corrected myself on which volume it was right?
J
Janderich
Guest
The doctrine of translation is a power which belongs to the Melchizedek priesthood. These translated individuals are reserved to be ministers of the gospel. They do not lead the church for the have entered a different sphere and are called to a different work. We read of the three Nephites, “And he [Jesus] said unto them: what will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father? And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak the thing which they desired. And he said unto them; Behold I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews desired of me. …for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand” (3 Ne 28:4-5,9). This is exactly as I stated in my early posts. Apostolic succession vanished from the earth. This does not mean that John died, it simply means that priesthood authority was lost to men in the this Telestial state. Again, no contradiction.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Seems lds.org disagrees with you a bit.
“Doctrine and Covenants 7:1–3, 6. John the Beloved was translated and will continue to minister to the righteous on earth until the Second Coming.”
If he is in a “different sphere” and doing a “different work”, how is he ministering to the righteous on Earth until the second coming?
You’re also overlooking something in my previous post. “And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.”
If he has been give power over death, that means he lives. There is nothing in there talking about him being “translated”.
Now, if you want to say that this so called translated being is visible to us on Earth, then you still have 2 issues. 1. He didn’t die, and 2. He is still walking the Earth. Simply put, those two factors still disprove your assertion that the priesthood was lost.
I also found this little bit on lds. org.
"Ask students: What do we know about translated beings? Show a picture of a crowd and ask: If you saw a translated being in a crowd of ordinary people, do you think you could tell the translated individual from the others?
Explain that following His Resurrection, Jesus spoke of John the Beloved’s future on the earth. Have students read John 21:20–23 and choose one of the following explanations of the Savior’s words:
Code:
1. John would die like everyone else.
2. **John would live on the earth until the Savior’s Second Coming.**Link
T
twopekinguys
Guest
But your earlier statement was that the authority left after the death of the last Apostle.
You do believe John was an Apsotle right? You believe he still walks the Earth right?
Therefore, the authority could not have been lost.
J
Janderich
Guest
Yes I am saying a translated being can be visible to us on earth. When I say a different sphere I mean the body is in a higher state free from disease and physical pain among other blessings. They are not called to lead, they are called to minister. This does not disprove my assertion that the priesthood was lost to men remaining in this Telestial state, for it was.
J
Janderich
Guest
I wrote, “Apostolic succession vanished from the earth with the deaths of the apostles a long time ago…” I guess you could argue that I should have said, “Apostolic succession vanished from the earth with the deaths of the apostles and the translation of John a long time ago…” But again, that is not the point. The point is that priesthood held by the apostles was removed.
By the way, I see you again dodged my question about Elijah. I love how I’m called on the carpet when I do not answer every last question even if they veer in all directions from the original post, but when I ask one question to a large audience, I get no discussion.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The problem I see with your question about Elijah, is one where violence against a person or group of persons is claimed as justifiable because “Elijah did it”. It is a zealots stance, that is irrational, and can’t be defended. YOU would need to provide evidence that Smith is in the same class as Elijah. Saying both killed people does not make Smith a prophet. Lots of people have killed others for a lot of reasons, including in the name of God.
Personally, I think you aren’t seeing anyone address your question about Elijah because everyone is being polite. Let me be the one to let you know, charitably, that your question looks like religious cuckoo.
Personally, I think you aren’t seeing anyone address your question about Elijah because everyone is being polite. Let me be the one to let you know, charitably, that your question looks like religious cuckoo.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I believe that if one is called to live life according to the Old Testament
there would be truth to what you say.
However those called to the New Testament of the Lord
Jesus Christ one would have to reject the preference
for OT behavior with Joseph Smith and LDS
in general. God called all to a NEW covenant with Him
in Christ not a rehash of the Old. Therefore most
of Smiths actions snd the current teachings of the
Mormon Church are the very antithesis of what OUR
Lord asks of Christians.
- Status