Mormons: When did the Great Apostasy occur?

[SteveVH]

And see that is the big problem. If what is being said is the truth it would be shown to us. It would be clear to us. God said he would never leave us Orphans.

To leave the Church that is promised to us is leaving us Orphans. Is saying the Holy Spirit that Christ sent to us in his Spirit was nothing but a lie.

But then to turn it around we HAVE the word of God telling us to stay away from false prophets that tell us these things. We have the warning from God that they would indeed come and try to turn us away from the Holy Spirit that is leading his Church.

How can this be ignored? I just cannot understand it. Do they not see when they are saying that the Church failed they are saying the Holy Spirit failed. How can it honestly be seen any other way?

IMO, I think it all boils down to a lack of understanding of what the Church is; i.e. a divine institution, with Christ as its head, the Holy Spirit as its soul, and its Body comprised of sinners in need of salvation. Its success is guaranteed by Christ himself. It is HIS Church, not the church of man. That is why it can never fail.

Their argument is that Christ kept His promises but man left the truth and went into apostasy anyway. This flies in the face of those very promises. The gates of hell will not prevail because evil has already been defeated. It is the difference between having Christ as your founder and having Joseph Smith as your founder. Mormons must accept and believe the claims of a man. We have the words and the promises of God himself.

 

[rinnie]

IMO, I think it all boils down to a lack of understanding of what the Church is; i.e. a divine institution, with Christ as its head, the Holy Spirit as its soul, and its Body comprised of sinners in need of salvation. Its success is guaranteed by Christ himself. It is HIS Church, not the church of man. That is why it can never fail.

Their argument is that Christ kept His promises but man left the truth and went into apostasy anyway. This flies in the face of those very promises. The gates of hell will not prevail because evil has already been defeated. It is the difference between having Christ as your founder and having Joseph Smith as your founder. Mormons must accept and believe the claims of a man. We have the words and the promises of God himself.

So anotherwards when we fall into sin God fails That is not the word of God. Actually God knows man will fail. That is the whole reason of sending his Son to take away the sins fo the world. That is the whole purpose of him leaving us the Sacraments that are only found in the Church.

So that when Man does fail he can be forgiven. Again Christ could never leave his Church and keep his promise to never leave it. Christ never said that Man would not sin or fail, Chirst said his Church would never fail.

Again what you are saying (I understand its not your belief) does not make any sense. Gods words were clear. I AM WITH YOU UNTIL THE END OF AGE. Not the leaders who he chooses to speak through.

Joseph Smith is saying then because we sin God failed. How can that be? Then if this is true why did he leave Apostles who also are not sinless. Then the Church would have failed at Pentecost. Again the words that Christ said are the truth. You either accept them or you do not. He said it WON"T happen. He never said Man would never sin.

If so they need to show me that scripture. And why would he leave us the Sacraments if we were never to sin.

 

[SteveVH]

So anotherwards when we fall into sin God fails That is not the word of God. Actually God knows man will fail. That is the whole reason of sending his Son to take away the sins fo the world. That is the whole purpose of him leaving us the Sacraments that are only found in the Church.

So that when Man does fail he can be forgiven. Again Christ could never leave his Church and keep his promise to never leave it. Christ never said that Man would not sin or fail, Chirst said his Church would never fail.

Again what you are saying (I understand its not your belief) does not make any sense. Gods words were clear. I AM WITH YOU UNTIL THE END OF AGE. Not the leaders who he chooses to speak through.

Joseph Smith is saying then because we sin God failed. How can that be? Then if this is true why did he leave Apostles who also are not sinless. Then the Church would have failed at Pentecost. Again the words that Christ said are the truth. You either accept them or you do not. He said it WON"T happen. He never said Man would never sin.

If so they need to show me that scripture. And why would he leave us the Sacraments if we were never to sin.

You’re way too logical.

 

[TheExorcist]

So then when he said you are Peter and to YOU I GIVE the keys to the kingdom. what do we do with these words of Christ and how does they fit into the Church failing?

Mormons believe that both of those incidents (Matt 16, Christ giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and Matt 17, the Transfiguration) were both the bestowal of keys. At the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah also appeared. Mormons believe they had keys to bestow to Peter, James and John as well. Mormons also claim that something similar happened in the Kirtland Temple shortly before the organization of the church.

 

[rinnie]

Mormons believe that both of those incidents (Matt 16, Christ giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and Matt 17, the Transfiguration) were both the bestowal of keys. At the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah also appeared. Mormons believe they had keys to bestow to Peter, James and John as well. Mormons also claim that something similar happened in the Kirtland Temple shortly before the organization of the church.

Now what the mormons believe is not what Christ said. Christ did not say that Peter James and John were given the keys. Christ said YOU are Peter and to YOU. No Peter James and John I give to each of you the Keys to the kingdom. He said to you Peter. So right there are they not adding to scripture?

ANd here is another problem, why did the word of God leave all of this information out? Would that not be saying that Jesus did not reveal everything to us? That Jesus did not fulfill scripture?

Next and the most important question how did they get the keys off of Peter. Because the RCC can prove that they were passed down. Why does the RCC not have 3 Popes?

I mean no disrespect but isn’t this trying to explain one thing after another and not being able to at least show a possible way for it to line up with SS and ST create at least some doubt in their mind. I mean it has to. Common sense has to say something is very wrong here.

 

[TheExorcist]

Now what the mormons believe is not what Christ said. Christ did not say that Peter James and John were given the keys. Christ said YOU are Peter and to YOU. No Peter James and John I give to each of you the Keys to the kingdom. He said to you Peter. So right there are they not adding to scripture?

ANd here is another problem, why did the word of God leave all of this information out? Would that not be saying that Jesus did not reveal everything to us? That Jesus did not fulfill scripture?

Next and the most important question how did they get the keys off of Peter. Because the RCC can prove that they were passed down. Why does the RCC not have 3 Popes?

I mean no disrespect but isn’t this trying to explain one thing after another and not being able to at least show a possible way for it to line up with SS and ST create at least some doubt in their mind. I mean it has to. Common sense has to say something is very wrong here.

Here’s more…Mormons believe ALL 12 had those same keys (presumably passed on to them from Peter) but because Peter was chosen as the “president” of the Chuch he’s the only one in which the keys are active. And I used to believe that clap trap. Now listening to teachers such as Fr Pacwa and Patrick Madrid I’ve come to realize the real meaning of those scriptures.

 

[rinnie]

Here’s more…Mormons believe ALL 12 had those same keys (presumably passed on to them from Peter) but because Peter was chosen as the “president” of the Chuch he’s the only one in which the keys are active. And I used to believe that clap trap. Now listening to teachers such as Fr Pacwa and Patrick Madrid I’ve come to realize the real meaning of those scriptures.

Og Geeze I am not sure if I can take much more

But again this makes no sense. If Peter was the only one in which the keys were active why pass them on to the others anyway. God forgive me but it is so hard to believe that these good People buy into this. That would be like saying God only saved the People who were alive in the times of Peter and that hades which also means death ended the Church by the death of Peter. When Christ said Hades which is death would not end the Church. The Holy Spirit runs the Church Peter only had the Seat at the time as Pope. CHrist never said the death of Peter would end the work of the Holy Spiirt.

I mean I understand they only know what they are taught but they do believe in scripture. And I know these are such good People. They have to be so confused deep down inside.

I pray that God will reveal the truth to them with his Grace.

 

[TheExorcist]

Og Geeze I am not sure if I can take much more

But again this makes no sense. If Peter was the only one in which the keys were active why pass them on to the others anyway. God forgive me but it is so hard to believe that these good People buy into this. That would be like saying God only saved the People who were alive in the times of Peter and that hades which also means death ended the Church by the death of Peter. When Christ said Hades which is death would not end the Church. The Holy Spirit runs the Church Peter only had the Seat at the time as Pope. CHrist never said the death of Peter would end the work of the Holy Spiirt.

I mean I understand they only know what they are taught but they do believe in scripture. And I know these are such good People. They have to be so confused deep down inside.

I pray that God will reveal the truth to them with his Grace.

The thing you have to understand about the LDS church is the effect the lay priesthood has on things. There is no theology degree as it is in the Catholic and Protestant world. The leaders of the church are chosen from the congregation and do not have any kind of specialized training. All teachings unique to the Mormon church hinges on “revealed truth”, revelations from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith and other church presidents. We have had is hashed over and over on the Spirit testifying to people and telling them these things are true and how that works or does not work, so we dont need to go over it again. But suffice to say all “revealed truth” in the LDS church comes down to whether a person believes Joseph Smith is a prophet. If you believe he IS a prophet then you MUST believe (by LDS reasoning) that everything else is true. The BoM is the word of God, etc. Yes hard to understand but the vast majority of the church membership never questions these things and so they are just taught exactly like that over the years and on and on.

 

[rinnie]

The thing you have to understand about the LDS church is the effect the lay priesthood has on things. There is no theology degree as it is in the Catholic and Protestant world. The leaders of the church are chosen from the congregation and do not have any kind of specialized training. All teachings unique to the Mormon church hinges on “revealed truth”, revelations from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith and other church presidents. We have had is hashed over and over on the Spirit testifying to people and telling them these things are true and how that works or does not work, so we dont need to go over it again. But suffice to say all “revealed truth” in the LDS church comes down to whether a person believes Joseph Smith is a prophet. If you believe he IS a prophet then you MUST believe (by LDS reasoning) that everything else is true. The BoM is the word of God, etc. Yes hard to understand but the vast majority of the church membership never questions these things and so they are just taught exactly like that over the years and on and on.

Wow. So a self proclaimed prophet. Isn’t if funny how the O.T. showed us everything to look for in Christ. And when Christ taught us in the N.T he told us it would be the advocate the Holy Spirit that would lead us in the CC. Why did he not say to look for a self-proclaimed prophet? Well don’t get me wrong he did say they would come and try to turn us from the Church but not to listen to them.

I just do not understand why they would not ask why this does not tie into the word of God.

But I can see now why they say what they are saying. They are trying to quote the word of God from the mind of a human. And this is not possible. God told us that we do not have the mind of Christ that is why we needed the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. And the Church is the Pilar of all truth not ourself and not a self-proclaimed prophet.

 

[TheExorcist]

Wow. So a self proclaimed prophet. Isn’t if funny how the O.T. showed us everything to look for in Christ. And when Christ taught us in the N.T he told us it would be the advocate the Holy Spirit that would lead us in the CC. Why did he not say to look for a self-proclaimed prophet? Well don’t get me wrong he did say they would come and try to turn us from the Church but not to listen to them.

I just do not understand why they would not ask why this does not tie into the word of God.

But I can see now why they say what they are saying. They are trying to quote the word of God from the mind of a human. And this is not possible. God told us that we do not have the mind of Christ that is why we needed the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. And the Church is the Pilar of all truth not ourself and not a self-proclaimed prophet.

Joseph Smith tells the story he saw God and Christ in a forest clearing near his home in 1820 and that they basically told him all the churches at the time were not correct. So that’s his claim of being called as a prophet. Its also the LDS’s basis for the separateness of God and Christ and that they both have bodies. I cant believe you’ve never heard this before. With all the posts and back and forths with ParkerD and Fly on the Wall they certainly would have mentioned this. Its certainly a fantastical story. They call that initial appearance to Joseph Smith by God and Christ the First Vision. His accounting of that initial appearance changed over the years as well too until we have the standardized “book” version contained in the LDS scriptures.

 

[Peter_John]

I was told once that it happened during the Dark Ages, which would put it somewhere during the major part of the Middle Ages. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. That could be anywhere from 5th to 15th century.

In LDS teaching it had to have occurred long before that. Mormonisms consider even the Schisms (East/West; Multiple Popes) irrelevant, as the Apostasy would have been complete before then. It would have been complete by the time Constantine gave Christianity state protection, about 312 A.D., which would mean that most of the Christians killed in the Diolcetianian persecutions were believers in an Apostate Christianity.

The most exhaustive work on the Great Apostasy from an LDS perspective is “Apostasy from the Divine Church” by John A. Widstoe (a former, as in passed-away, member of the Council of the Twelve). “The Great Prologue” by Mark E. Petersen, of similar LDS office, also expounds on it. “A MArvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards (similar status) gives a biased, argumentative, and often incomplete approach to it.

Mormons essentially believe that by the time history shows that any sacrament was not performed as they believe it should be performed the Apostasy was well under way, if not complete already. The evidence is not who was keeping the records, who supported whom, but how the sacraments were performed.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker what does who was with Jesus at the Transfiguration have to do with Jesus handing over the keys to Peter?

And having Peter as the leader of the RCC in no way stands in our way of listening to the voice of Christ. I do not see where the 2 tie into play.

I agree with you that when we follow Christ we must put our own lusts and wants aside and put the wants of Christ before us. We are indeed taught to Love Christ more then even ourself. But what does us putting our own personal needs and wants aside and putting Christ first as we are taught have to do with Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. And giving Peter the right to bind and loose?

Hi, Rinnie,

I’m going to answer your questions and not read the other conversations you have been involved with afterward on this thread, so I will assume a sincere conversation from the outset here.

One needs to first consider what it meant that Peter received the “keys to the kingdom”, and what it means that he received responsibility that “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” (We note in Matthew 18:18 that all twelve apostles received the latter responsibility.)

The “keys to the kingdom” are not the same thing as the “key of David”, which is clearly discernible through reading Isaiah and Revelation. The “keys to the kingdom” have to do with the kingdom of God on the earth as it is preparing for the kingdom of heaven, which will be in heaven. Christ opens the gates of heaven for those who go to heaven, or the gates of hell to rescue those who temporarily go to hell (to suffer for a thousand years) and allow those rescued from hell (after they bow the knee and confess and repent and ask forgiveness) to go to a place that is a “lowest heaven” with their resurrected body. That is part of what Christ was talking about in Matthew 16:18 and what Isaiah talks about when he writes of the prison being opened and the prisoners being rescued by the Messiah.

It is clear from reading the New Testament, that the experience that Peter, James and John had on the Mount of Transfiguration was sacred and was only partially explained. It is notable that John didn’t write about it in the book of John, and since they had been charged to “tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead” (Matthew 17:9), it can be discerned that John felt that the experience was too sacred to write about or that he thought enough was already known and he was restrained by the Spirit from adding more details.

If one takes the Mount of Transfiguration experience, the garden of Gethsemane experience, and the visionary experience given to John which resulted in his writing the Book of Revelation, then one can surmise that God gave John a select set of experiences–even more select than Peter had experienced based on the visions recorded in the book of Revelation. It is thus completely logical that after Peter died, John had the very same authority that Peter had had, hence the very same keys to the kingdom, since otherwise God would have given such a vision to whomever else was authorized as the presiding authority on earth who was authorized under the direction of Christ. That is how revelation from God for “new truths given to mankind” works.

However, one can also take all the above and say to themselves, “I choose not to believe that” and it will have been their free will choice in operation which God absolutely intends for mankind to have. He will not force a choice upon us, allowing us to choose with no “obvious right choice” or that would be a forced choice.

Peter had the “right to bind and loose”, and so did John have that right given to each of them by Christ, always necessitating that they would follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they made those kinds of “binding” and “loosing” decisions.

The issue of the continuation of authority after the death of Peter thus diverts toward two different directions which is also a case of God having allowed free will choice to be in place.

I choose to discern and understand that John had presiding authority which gave him the keys to have the vision he had and to record his vision for the world to have those words.

As far as how that discernment impacts a personal relationship with Christ, I would say that the more direct we can experience an ongoing, two-way relationship whereby we know of the changes we need to make in our lives through His shepherding and correcting guidance, the more we will be able to change and become the better person He wants us to become. If that relationship has less faith through being less “two-way” or having an intermediary involved, then the relationship is going to tend to have less of an impact on the person’s ability and covenant-making toward changing and becoming a “new person in Christ”.

 

[Peter_John]

This points up the continuing failure of the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, which means that individuals interpret the bible according to their own desires. Then, combine that with what I believe is either a delusion or the leading of a passing spirit, and you get a mislead movement of believers.

LDS position is that the Bible was corrupted after it was passed on to the Gentiles. They interpret this a s a thorough and overt corruption.

What is interesting is that the Book of Mormon account of how palin and precious parts of scripture were removed from the Bible is completely consistent with how the Deuterocanonical books were removed.

 

[Peter_John]

One needs to first consider what it meant that Peter received the “keys to the kingdom”, and what it means that he received responsibility that “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” (We note in Matthew 18:18 that all twelve apostles received the latter responsibility.)

What reason does the New Testament give us to believe it is anything more complicated than it appears?

The “keys to the kingdom” are not the same thing as the “key of David”, … by the Messiah.

There are a lot of things in here the inference of which is not justified by an integral application of the Bible. You are clearly using extra-Biblical sources, so you should affirm their basis for authority.

It is clear from reading the New Testament, that the experience that Peter, James and John had on the Mount of Transfiguration was sacred and was only partially explained.

Sacred yes, but what is clear from reading is that it was only partially understood. Partiall explained is an inference.

It is notable that John didn’t write about it in the book of John, and since they had been charged to “tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead” (Matthew 17:9), it can be discerned that John felt that the experience was too sacred to write about or that he thought enough was already known and he was restrained by the Spirit from adding more details.

Since John wrote about this after Jesus had risen from the dead, there is nor reason to believe that held anything back that he understood. Unless you can show something that affirms otherwise.

If one takes the Mount of Transfiguration experience, … It is thus completely logical that after Peter died, John had the very same authority that Peter had had, hence the very same keys to the kingdom, …

That seems an unjustified leap of reasoning. Paul had experiences Peter did not have while Peter was still alive.

… since otherwise God would have given such a vision to whomever else was authorized as the presiding authority on earth who was authorized under the direction of Christ. That is how revelation from God for “new truths given to mankind” works.

. I thought God could reveal Himself to anybody he wanted. The test of a vision is not to whom it comes, but its consistency with what has already been revealed.

In Christian history when the appointed leaders have lost their focus he has often called upon people who were not in positions of authority at all – sometimes not even devout --on special missions that would change things. St. Francis and St. Claire he called to renew the Church’s vision at a time when many leaders had been caught up in materialism, for example. One key is that St. Francis did not try to supplant those with the keys as Martin Luther did – and Luther was not just critical of leadership, but taught heresy – doctrine inconsistent with established revelation.

However, one can also take all the above and say to themselves, “I choose not to believe that” and it will have been their free will choice in operation which God absolutely intends for mankind to have. He will not force a choice upon us, allowing us to choose with no “obvious right choice” or that would be a forced choice.

So are you saying there is some secret knowledge needed to make a right choice? If I pray for that knowledge, and God does not gice it to me, am I accountable for choosing something else? What if I pray about something and God points me in a completely opposite direction from where you say, even if I expected it to point that way? Should I ignore what the Lord has shown me?

Peter had the “right to bind and loose”, and so did John have that right given to each of them by Christ, always necessitating that they would follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they made those kinds of “binding” and “loosing” decisions.

And they passed that on to the Bishops even before the Bible was composed.

The issue of the continuation of authority after the death of Peter thus diverts toward two different directions which is also a case of God having allowed free will choice to be in place.

I choose to discern and understand that John had presiding authority which gave him the keys to have the vision he had and to record his vision for the world to have those words.

Interesting choice of words: “I choose to discern adn understand.” Puzzling concept.It makes it sound like a foregone conclusion. I think that choosing to discern and understand what God wants to show me a better approach than deciding in advance what I will accept.

As far as how that discernment impacts a personal relationship with Christ, I would say that the more direct we can experience an ongoing, two-way relationship whereby we know of the changes we need to make in our lives through His shepherding and correcting guidance, the more we will be able to change and become the better person He wants us to become. If that relationship has less faith through being less “two-way” or having an intermediary involved, then the relationship is going to tend to have less of an impact on the person’s ability and covenant-making toward changing and becoming a “new person in Christ”.

And that ongoing two-way experience is best found in the Eucharist, in the Real Presence of Christ on Earth and within ourselves. It changes us in ways we cannot change on our own.

 

[Peter_John]

Hi, Rinnie,

… “new person in Christ”.

The New Testament presents Peter as having been left on his own to decide how to organize the Church. He did not even do it right away. He was going to go back to fishing. The most telling incident is the choice of Juds’ replacement. He did not decide to replace Juds to fill a vacancy. He chose to replace Juds based on existing scripture, to fulfill a prophecy. They did not all pray to decide. They prayed for the one to be revealed, in modern terms, by the flip of a coin.

Not much of a concrete heirarchy here, and certainly no reason to consider the body of the twelve as an inviolate structure.

 

[ParkerD]

The New Testament presents Peter as having been left on his own to decide how to organize the Church. He did not even do it right away. He was going to go back to fishing. The most telling incident is the choice of Judas’ replacement. He did not decide to replace Judas to fill a vacancy. He chose to replace Judas based on existing scripture, to fulfill a prophecy. They did not all pray to decide. They prayed for the one to be revealed, in modern terms, by the flip of a coin.

Not much of a concrete heirarchy here, and certainly no reason to consider the body of the twelve as an inviolate structure.

That’s pretty funny. Drawing lots was an already-established method of discerning God’s will which was practiced by the Jews, so Peter was doing what the apostles knew was an established method, which had great symbolism. It was not flipping a coin.

 

[ParkerD]

What reason does the New Testament give us to believe it is anything more complicated than it appears?

Peter John and Rinnie since she seems to believe whatever anyone else writes:

To read the New Testament is to read page after page of messages that say in effect “there is more to be understood than these words about this subject”. John also specifically wrote that all that Jesus did was not written up, and the world couldn’t contain the books that would need to be written in order to describe everything He did. (John 21:25)

There are a lot of things in here the inference of which is not justified by an integral application of the Bible. You are clearly using extra-Biblical sources, so you should affirm their basis for authority.

You may think I am, but I’m not–they are right there in the Bible in plain view for a careful reader who is willing to cross reference.

Since John wrote about this after Jesus had risen from the dead, there is nor reason to believe that held anything back that he understood. Unless you can show something that affirms otherwise.

John was very careful to only write what the Spirit told him to write. He was intimately familiar with that process, and did so masterfully. I need not “show something that affirms otherwise.”

That seems an unjustified leap of reasoning. Paul had experiences Peter did not have while Peter was still alive.
. I thought God could reveal Himself to anybody he wanted. The test of a vision is not to whom it comes, but its consistency with what has already been revealed.

That would be your belief which matches many others’ beliefs. This doesn’t make it correct, nor does it make it my belief. Revelation contains more than “what had already been revealed.” It contains far more than Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus.

So are you saying there is some secret knowledge needed to make a right choice? If I pray for that knowledge, and God does not gice it to me, am I accountable for choosing something else? What if I pray about something and God points me in a completely opposite direction from where you say, even if I expected it to point that way? Should I ignore what the Lord has shown me?

The Bible provides ample guidance about living by the commandments and the inspiration God provides, making covenants and obeying the covenants made, and then receiving more inspiration and guidance. There is no guarantee that just because a person prays they will be guided correctly, since they also have free will choice. The Pharisees and Sadducees provide ample evidence of this. There is an established pattern for receiving truth and light from God, and obedience is a precursor as are necessary faith and covenant making including a willingness to make those covenants. God knows our hearts, and our innermost desires and motives.

And they passed that on to the Bishops even before the Bible was composed.

Which only means they thought and taught this, but what is really happening is that God has implemented the kind of filtration system that He had planned from the beginning, for the carrying out of His perfect work, and the Bible contains the words of prophets who spoke and wrote by the inspiration given to them by God through the Holy Spirit and through visions.

'Wishing a good day and much peace to all readers.

 

[KathleenGee]

Let’s take a step back.

What makes a prophet true?

“God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written in their hearts. The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation that will include all nations. Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope.”…CC 64.

‘God has said everything in His Word’
“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect, unsurpassable Word. In Him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.’

‘St. John of the Cross commenting on Hebrews 1:1-2: "In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word–and he has no more to say…because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.’" CC 65

'Christian faith cannot accept “revelation” that claim to surpass or correct Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”. CC 67

If Christ thought it most pertinent to our salvation, He would have shared Mormonism with us. He did not. To say He brought another story as given by Joseph Smith is to bring a different Christ, and as has been stated here…the early Christians died in vain for Christ.

However, Christ knows His own and He knows them. We know that the early Christians died for Jesus Christ. He came for all. He shared Himself to the point of laying down His life for us and rising from the dead.

By His life, death, and resurrection we are saved. This was the reason the early Christians gave their life for Him, and the reason for the perseverance of our faith today. To define these martyrs as apostate is from the evil one.

 

[Jay53]

One needs to first consider what it meant that Peter received the “keys to the kingdom”, and what it means that he received responsibility that “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” (We note in Matthew 18:18 that all twelve apostles received the latter responsibility.)

Hi Parker,

I’m still curious as to why Matthew 18:18 seems to only refer to certain sacraments/ordinances for Mormons (e.g. sealing marriages) and doesn’t seem to be taken in conjunction with John 20:21-23 and refer to forgiveness of sins. (Especially since Matthew 15-17 refers to a person sinning.) If I remember correctly, you once told me that the Mormon apostles do not forgive sins (in the same way that Catholic priests do), but that they counsel an individual and help them pray to seek forgiveness from God. Perhaps it’s just my perception and I’m misunderstanding the Mormon view so maybe you could clarify this for me. Thanks.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John and Rinnie since she seems to believe whatever anyone else writes:

To read the New Testament is to read page after page of messages that say in effect “there is more to be understood than these words about this subject”. John also specifically wrote that all that Jesus did was not written up, and the world couldn’t contain the books that would need to be written in order to describe everything He did. (John 21:25)

You may think I am, but I’m not–they are right there in the Bible in plain view for a careful reader who is willing to cross reference.

John was very careful to only write what the Spirit told him to write. He was intimately familiar with that process, and did so masterfully. I need not “show something that affirms otherwise.”

That would be your belief which matches many others’ beliefs. This doesn’t make it correct, nor does it make it my belief. Revelation contains more than “what had already been revealed.” It contains far more than Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus.

The Bible provides ample guidance about living by the commandments and the inspiration God provides, making covenants and obeying the covenants made, and then receiving more inspiration and guidance. There is no guarantee that just because a person prays they will be guided correctly, since they also have free will choice. The Pharisees and Sadducees provide ample evidence of this. There is an established pattern for receiving truth and light from God, and obedience is a precursor as are necessary faith and covenant making including a willingness to make those covenants. God knows our hearts, and our innermost desires and motives.

Which only means they thought and taught this, but what is really happening is that God has implemented the kind of filtration system that He had planned from the beginning, for the carrying out of His perfect work, and the Bible contains the words of prophets who spoke and wrote by the inspiration given to them by God through the Holy Spirit and through visions.

'Wishing a good day and much peace to all readers.

So you do believe in secret knowledge. That is Gnosticism, an early heresy. Cross refence cannot alter the meaning and intent of any referenced passages when taking independently in context. That is the only way that such positions can be mainatained on a Biblical basis alone, and as they are not independently suggested in the text the selection of cross-references must still be guided by extra-Biblical sources. You basically affirm that your claims need no support. they are right because you say so.