What Joseph Smith got right...

[ParkerD]

I couldn’t agree more! Can you please tell me why when mormon missionaries/apostles/prophets etc are not perfect and that when not every single moment of their service is not inspired as pure truth it is not considered an apostasy???

Lax16,

That would be because of the allowance for personal freedom that also allows for mistakes, growth, learning, and repentance, and more of that every day.

However, when the first Christians were struggling to bring the faith along among great persecution - imperfect for sure - they are considered apostate?

They aren’t “considered apostate”. Not even close.

I have never understood this. Obviously, this proves that there can be one or two “oddballs” that mean well and do some good and some not-so-good but that the religion as a whole still moves forward, right?

Yes.

As Jesus promised, His Church will never fail.

I would make the distinction about the use of the word “never” and the use of the connotation of the words “His Church”. A conclusion that is decisive and victorious does not mean that at every point along the way coming to that conclusion, there was “never” a loss that could result in the need for a “restitution”.

But you’re going to see things differently, and that is as it should be. One ought to be able to choose even in such an important matter as that.

 

[flyonthewall]

They were warning that people would fall away - not the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself! Of course people would fall away - they are human - and there was tremendous persecution.

Yes, when the apostles went out into the world they converted thousands! They were not writing about an apostacy of the Church - it was an apostasy of their beliefs!

Yet the church is full of those humans, and if the humans fall away, where does that leave the church?

However, we know that they succeeded! Look at the many, many Christians today. No they/we are not perfect, but neither are Mormons and neither were there prophets. So it seems to me lack of perfection in church history does not equal apostasy.

We never said that lack of perfection equals the apostacy. We have always stated that it was the priesthood being lost that is the cause of the apostacy. Once the proper authority is gone things start to get altered

You can talk about Paul during his persecution and imprisonment all day long. It is to be expected that he would be feeling abandoned by the people around him. However, it is Jesus’ words that matter, not Paul’s. Jesus promised to stay with us and His Church until the end.

Why would Paul’s feeling of abandonment trump Jesus’ promise of staying with us forever?

I’m not sure Paul was being persecuted at the time he made those statements in Acts 20, and he definately was not imprisoned.
You must also disagree with Paul when he states: “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;” .
If Jesus’s church has always been on the earth since the time of Christ, when will this falling away occur? If it has not happened yet, then it must be something you are looking forward to?
I believe Jesus also spoke of a falling away, so the words of Paul do not contradict Jesus’ words but go hand in hand with them.

 

[lax16]

Yet the church is full of those humans, and if the humans fall away, where does that leave the church?

Are you saying that all Christians fell away? Please provide proof of this.

We never said that lack of perfection equals the apostacy. We have always stated that it was the priesthood being lost that is the cause of the apostacy. Once the proper authority is gone things start to get altered

Yes, when Mormons say that all of the church leaders fell away from the truth that is exactly what that means! How do you know? Were you there? There were many good people fighting the good fight. To say otherwise is a real slap in the face to the many, many who were martyrd for their Christian faith.
Prove that all of the authority was gone! Last night I read many LDS writings on the apostasy. It is clear that you believe the apostasy was **planned by God **so that Joseph Smith would be called to restore the church. It is even in your teaching manuals.
Why would Jesus come as the Ultimate Sacrifice for all of us only to have it fall away until it is restored by the Mormons?

If Jesus’s church has always been on the earth since the time of Christ, when will this falling away occur? If it has not happened yet, then it must be something you are looking forward to?

Jesus tells us we do not know the time or the hour. Yes, of course we are looking forward to Jesus Christ returning in all His Glory!!!

I believe Jesus also spoke of a falling away, so the words of Paul do not contradict Jesus’ words but go hand in hand with them.

Jesus promised to stay with His Church until the end and that the gates of hell would not prevail. Jesus has the final word on the matter - not Paul.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

That would be because of the allowance for personal freedom that also allows for mistakes, growth, learning, and repentance, and more of that every day.

But only for the Mormons and not for the early Christians? Why the double standard?
They aren’t “considered apostate”. Not even close.

Are you saying that only early Church leaders were apostate then?
I would make the distinction about the use of the word “never” and the use of the connotation of the words “His Church”. A conclusion that is decisive and victorious does not mean that at every point along the way coming to that conclusion, there was “never” a loss that could result in the need for a “restitution”.

Jesus provides for that restitution. That is why He is the Messiah promised by God throughout the OT to end the need for sacrifice. He handled it once and for all. To say He didn’t/couldn’t do it is a very serious thing.

But you’re going to see things differently, and that is as it should be. One ought to be able to choose even in such an important matter as that.

As I have said many times before, it is not a choice to be Catholic. Christ commanded it and therefore I obey. He established One Church to last until the end of time. I have no right to argue with that.

 

[ParkerD]

But only for the Mormons and not for the early Christians? Why the double standard?

Are you saying that only early Church leaders were apostate then?

Jesus provides for that restitution. That is why He is the Messiah promised by God throughout the OT to end the need for sacrifice. He handled it once and for all. To say He didn’t/couldn’t do it is a very serious thing.

As I have said many times before, it is not a choice to be Catholic. Christ commanded it and therefore I obey. He established One Church to last until the end of time. I have no right to argue with that.

Lax16,

The question is complex about repentance and about leaders within the church organization other than the apostles. Of course repentance is always accepted and is what the Savior wants people to do. But it is evident from the history of the Jews that the tendency of people and of leaders is to not repent, because the world draws them the “other way.” That is why the need for prophets, to call people back to a pattern of repentance.

So the early Christians were no doubt living the gospel and repenting, but it is totally to be expected that when the apostles were no longer around to “set the standard”, that compromise with what was more acceptable to people around them could happen, easily–and that wouldn’t take very many years, particularly if a strong “leader type” came along.

The evidence suggests that the apostles did not call new apostles because God was allowing a situation where there could be more choices about religion in the world during the end times. More choices means people can choose for themselves without feeling like they need to do what their parents and their ancestors did. This is a greater degree of “choice” than if everyone were just doing what their parents did with regard to a religious choice for their life or for the lives of their children.

So your perspective works for you, and thus your choice feels right to you, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is going to read the words you read and think those words mean the same thing that you think those words mean. The LDS believe just as much in the triumph of Christ as does your religious background, and even more-so given the belief in the repenting that is going on in the spirit world and the accepting of Christ and His saving grace that is going on there, by eventually billions of people.

 

[flyonthewall]

Are you saying that all Christians fell away? Please provide proof of this.

No, I am not saying ALL Christians fell away, so no proof is necessary.

Yes, when Mormons say that all of the church leaders fell away from the truth that is exactly what that means! How do you know? Were you there? There were many good people fighting the good fight. To say otherwise is a real slap in the face to the many, many who were martyrd for their Christian faith.

We do not deny there were many good people fighting the good fight, that is something you assume.

Prove that all of the authority was gone! Last night I read many LDS writings on the apostasy. It is clear that you believe the apostasy was planned by God so that Joseph Smith would be called to restore the church. It is even in your teaching manuals.
Why would Jesus come as the Ultimate Sacrifice for all of us only to have it fall away until it is restored by the Mormons?

Jesus promised to stay with His Church until the end and that the gates of hell would not prevail. Jesus has the final word on the matter - not Paul.

It was Jesus that said that the time of the restoration of all things was not yet, but in the future. If Jesus established His church, and all things would be restored in the future, that would mean there would be a need to restore all things. That would be the falling away that was prophecied.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Lax16,

The evidence suggests that the apostles did not call new apostles because **God was allowing a situation where there could be more choices about **religion in the world during the end times. More choices means **people can choose for themselves without feeling like they need to do what their parents **and their ancestors did. This is a greater degree of “choice” than if everyone were just doing what their parents did with regard to a religious choice for their life or for the lives of their children.
.

Please present this evidence.

 

[JeanMichel]

I have read this rebuttal before and I understand the point. However, he was appointed by a prophet/seer/revelator - one would think the prophet would not have made an error in selecting Orson Pratt to publish the church’s work.

Really, anyone can decide after the fact that the prophet’s choice was a mistake. Prophets shouldn’t make mistakes such as these if they are truly led by God.

Let’s be careful with this type of criticism. Jesus chose Judas, which some would call a major error on this part. However, it was not an error. Judas had his free choice and he chose badly. Pratt was a man that had his own choices to make. Being a prophet does not make all the people asked to serve perfect.

 

[JeanMichel]

Yet the church is full of those humans, and if the humans fall away, where does that leave the church?

We never said that lack of perfection equals the apostacy. We have always stated that it was the priesthood being lost that is the cause of the apostacy. Once the proper authority is gone things start to get altered

I’m not sure Paul was being persecuted at the time he made those statements in Acts 20, and he definately was not imprisoned.
You must also disagree with Paul when he states: “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;” .
If Jesus’s church has always been on the earth since the time of Christ, when will this falling away occur? If it has not happened yet, then it must be something you are looking forward to?
I believe Jesus also spoke of a falling away, so the words of Paul do not contradict Jesus’ words but go hand in hand with them.

Which son of perdition has been revealed? The restoration could not have happened without this revelation given your interpretation of the scripture. Who was it?

 

[ParkerD]

Please present this evidence.

Zaffiroborant,

The evidence begins in the teachings of Christ regarding how the situation was prophesied to be before His Second Coming:

Luke 12:35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

It is evident in the preceding verses that divisions are prophesied to happen within the same household regarding choice of religions during the times preceding the Second Coming of Christ.

Another prophesy preceding the end times is this prophecy of Amos:

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Those words show directly that from “sea to sea,” and from “north to east” (in other words, all over the earth), those searching to “hear” or “seek” “the word of the Lord” “shall not find it.”

Isaiah prophesied about Christ’s suffering the atonement, and about people wandering in their “own way”:
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Paul prophesied about a coming time when:

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

(“Itching ears” means that the teachers chosen by the people will teach what the people want to hear, rather than teach the “sound doctrine” that evidently the people won’t want to hear.)

John saw in vision a time when the church (the woman) would “fly into the wilderness” and when a “dragon” would have power among the saints,

Rev. 13: 7
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

The above-prophesied conditions would logically lead to more diverse choices available regarding religion on the earth, because of the situation that teachers having “itching ears” would bring into the world their own teachings rather than the pure doctrinal teachings that lead to sanctification and exaltation, and yet the Savior suffered for “all we” who have “gone astray” and thus there was a planned allowance for all that wandering, and for people being able to choose “their own way” and decide for themselves what they deep-down want.

Ultimately, people will choose for themselves where they want to place themselves on the spectrum of available choices regarding religion during the end times. That’s not a “bad thing”–it is how God allowed things to happen on earth, to provide the opportunity for choosing freely, without feeling compelled in their choice.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

The question is complex about repentance and about leaders within the church organization other than the apostles. Of course repentance is always accepted and is what the Savior wants people to do. But it is evident from the history of the Jews that the tendency of people and of leaders is to not repent, because the world draws them the “other way.” That is why the need for prophets, to call people back to a pattern of repentance.

Hi Parker - That is why Jesus came! There is no longer a need for prophets to “re-do” everything. Wise people to remind us to do God’s work…yes.

So the early Christians were no doubt living the gospel and repenting, but it is totally to be expected that when the apostles were no longer around to “set the standard”, that compromise with what was more acceptable to people around them could happen, easily–and that wouldn’t take very many years, particularly if a strong “leader type” came along.

Then what happend to the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would stay with His Church to lead it until the end of time?

The evidence suggests that the apostles did not call new apostles because God was allowing a situation where there could be more choices about religion in the world during the end times. More choices means people can choose for themselves without feeling like they need to do what their parents and their ancestors did. This is a greater degree of “choice” than if everyone were just doing what their parents did with regard to a religious choice for their life or for the lives of their children.

What?? The evidence shows - not suggests - that the apostles went out into the world and converted thousands! What do you mean they did not call new apostles? Explain this please.
Of course there is choice, it is called free will. That is why some people died for defending their faith and others chose to abandon it.
You say God was allowing a situation because that is how Mormonism explains its very existence - by saying that God was setting the stage for Joseph Smith. That is working backwards. When one follows God’s promise to His people Israel, we see that it all moves forward ending with the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And it worked!

So your perspective works for you, and thus your choice feels right to you, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is going to read the words you read and think those words mean the same thing that you think those words mean. The LDS believe just as much in the triumph of Christ as does your religious background, and even more-so given the belief in the repenting that is going on in the spirit world and the accepting of Christ and His saving grace that is going on there, by eventually billions of people.

Parker - Of course not everyone sees things the same way. However, if I put on my “revisionist glasses” I can turn it into anything I want so that I can join any church that I want. However, if I do as Jesus wants, I will join The Church that He started 2,000 years ago.

 

[lax16]

Let’s be careful with this type of criticism. Jesus chose Judas, which some would call a major error on this part. However, it was not an error. Judas had his free choice and he chose badly. Pratt was a man that had his own choices to make. Being a prophet does not make all the people asked to serve perfect.

Please don’t miss my point that you are taking out of context.
Mormons assert that due to the errors of the leadership during the Early Church that this lead to the Great Apostasy. If the leaders of their early church made mistakes and their church is still around today it is obvious that poor leadership does not necessarily mean apostasy. The Mormons are still around right?

 

[traillius]

so he mixed the truth with a lie. A classic strategy of the enemies of God.

 

[lax16]

No, I am not saying ALL Christians fell away, so no proof is necessary.

Please re-read your prior post. You stated that if the humans fall away then there is no longer a church. So, yes, you are claiming there was no one left to keep the church together. If you say otherwise, then provide proof. If you agree, then there was no apostasy. To say that there were good people but no priesthood authority makes no sense. What church were people dying for if there was no church? What were they fighting for? Why were they being targeted if they were just lone random Christians and were not a threat? People would just consider them crazy.

We do not deny there were many good people fighting the good fight, that is something you assume.

I don’t assume anything. Your whole religion is based on the fact that “even Jesus Christ couldn’t keep a church together.” So, if that is the case, then why did people die for the cause?

It was Jesus that said that the time of the restoration of all things was not yet, but in the future. If Jesus established His church, and all things would be restored in the future, that would mean there would be a need to restore all things. That would be the falling away that was prophecied.

How do you know He didn’t mean that all would be restored when He comes again for all of us? (Not just Mormons). That was the understanding for 1800 years. Of course, you have to see it otherwise or there would be no need for Joseph Smith.

 

[flyonthewall]

Please re-read your prior post. You stated that if the humans fall away then there is no longer a church.

Re-read my post yourself…I asked a question…“if the humans fall away, where does that leave the church?” I said nothing about there no longer being a church.

So, yes, you are claiming there was no one left to keep the church together. If you say otherwise, then provide proof. If you agree, then there was no apostasy. To say that there were good people but no priesthood authority makes no sense. What church were people dying for if there was no church? What were they fighting for? Why were they being targeted if they were just lone random Christians and were not a threat? People would just consider them crazy.

Why does it not make sense to say there were good people but no priesthood? One does not need the priesthood to be a good person.
What church were people dying for if there was no church? You make the assumption that I say there was no church. There was a church.
What were they fighting for? Their beliefs.
Why were they being targeted if they were just lone random Christians and were not a threat? Well you have made some assumptions there. Just as we lump all Muslims together or all Jews, or any other non-christian religion together, and tend not to see differences in their beliefs, so did the Romans. Why do people get targeted? because they are different.

I don’t assume anything. Your whole religion is based on the fact that “even Jesus Christ couldn’t keep a church together.” So, if that is the case, then why did people die for the cause?

Why did the people die for their cause? Same reason anyone would die for a cause…because they believe in it.

How do you know He didn’t mean that all would be restored when He comes again for all of us? (Not just Mormons). That was the understanding for 1800 years. Of course, you have to see it otherwise or there would be no need for Joseph Smith.

I do believe that He did mean that all would be restored for all(not just Mormons)…the hard part is getting all to believe…Just as Jesus couldn’t get all to believe on Him during His ministry.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker -
(1) That is why Jesus came! There is no longer a need for prophets to “re-do” everything. Wise people to remind us to do God’s work…yes.

(2) Then what happened to the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would stay with His Church to lead it until the end of time?

(3) What?? The evidence shows - not suggests - that the apostles went out into the world and converted thousands! What do you mean they did not call new apostles? Explain this please.

(4) Of course there is choice, it is called free will. That is why some people died for defending their faith and others chose to abandon it.

(5) You say God was allowing a situation because that is how Mormonism explains its very existence - by saying that God was setting the stage for Joseph Smith. That is working backwards. When one follows God’s promise to His people Israel, we see that it all moves forward ending with the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And it worked!

(6) Parker - Of course not everyone sees things the same way. However, if I put on my “revisionist glasses” I can turn it into anything I want so that I can join any church that I want. However, if I do as Jesus wants, I will join The Church that He started 2,000 years ago.

Hi, Lax16,

I certainly don’t entertain any idea of changing your impressions about the Bible and the gospel one iota, but here’s a try to at least give you my perspective since you’ve asked the questions:

1. That’s kind of a funny statement for me to absorb, since the New Testament, including Acts and Revelation, talks about prophets with the full expectation that there are going to be more prophets and that there were prophets among the people living when Acts was written. There is one verse that is poorly used to misconstrue that there was to be an end to “prophets”. On the other hand also, the Old Testament use of the word “prophets” would conclude that each Pope has been a “prophet” to the people who followed him. That is what a “prophet” is–a teacher coming among the people presenting themselves as having been called by God with authority and with a message that is supposed to be true and is supposed to be followed. (A prophet doesn’t have a mission to “re-do” everything–of course not.)
2. He didn’t make that promise in the way you have cited. It’s like making a square peg fit into a round hole. (But I suppose it works for you and many others, just not for me and other non-Catholics.) The Spirit does not provide blanket coverage, even for church members.
3. I meant that they did call new apostles (Matthias, Paul, Barnabas) in the early years of the church after Christ’s ascension, but later they didn’t call more, and John would have understood why they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit to call new apostles since the church (the “woman”) was going to be taken from among the people and into the “wilderness” as he saw in vision.
4. I hope you still feel like there is free will today, and that God considers it important to the extent of there being no compulsion or feeling of compulsion.
5. My thoughts about that subject come from reading the Bible, and from gaining the guidance of the Holy Ghost in reading and pondering the prophecies. I see the Bible as fully preparing the minds of people who read it looking for fulfillment of prophesies to be able to receive understanding about when those prophesies are fulfilled (just like Anna and Simeon did at the time of Christ’s birth), if they really “seek” and “ask” and “knock”. (Such as “another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth.”)

So it is not “working backwards”, unless you mean that one won’t necessarily “see” that a prophecy has been fulfilled until perhaps after it has been fulfilled and they see the fruits of the prophecy unfolding before their eyes. (That is often how prophecy works.)

1. Yes, I have no doubt that the verses you have given the meaning that made sense to you have justified your beliefs–so it is fine that through that earnestness you will bring the teachings of the gospel from the Bible into your life and they will bring you happiness and contentment. So will I and my family find happiness through living the gospel teachings in our lives also.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

The evidence begins in the teachings of Christ regarding how the situation was prophesied to be before His Second Coming:

Luke 12:35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

It is evident in the preceding verses that divisions are prophesied to happen within the same household regarding choice of religions during the times preceding the Second Coming of Christ.

Another prophesy preceding the end times is this prophecy of Amos:

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Those words show directly that from “sea to sea,” and from “north to east” (in other words, all over the earth), those searching to “hear” or “seek” “the word of the Lord” “shall not find it.”

Isaiah prophesied about Christ’s suffering the atonement, and about people wandering in their “own way”:
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Paul prophesied about a coming time when:

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

(“Itching ears” means that the teachers chosen by the people will teach what the people want to hear, rather than teach the “sound doctrine” that evidently the people won’t want to hear.)

John saw in vision a time when the church (the woman) would “fly into the wilderness” and when a “dragon” would have power among the saints,

Rev. 13: 7
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

The above-prophesied conditions would logically lead to more diverse choices available regarding religion on the earth, because of the situation that teachers having “itching ears” would bring into the world their own teachings rather than the pure doctrinal teachings that lead to sanctification and exaltation, and yet the Savior suffered for “all we” who have “gone astray” and thus there was a planned allowance for all that wandering, and for people being able to choose “their own way” and decide for themselves what they deep-down want.

Ultimately, people will choose for themselves where they want to place themselves on the spectrum of available choices regarding religion during the end times. That’s not a “bad thing”–it is how God allowed things to happen on earth, to provide the opportunity for choosing freely, without feeling compelled in their choice.

I don’t see your “evidence” supporting your assertions, it looks to me like what you think, God is thinking.

And really Parker, you need not explain “itching ears” to people here, it comes off as condescending.

 

[ParkerD]

…Parker, you need not explain “itching ears” to people here, it comes off as condescending.

Sorry–I thought some readers (particularly youth) might not be familiar with the term. I should have explained that I was clarifying for other readers. Have a good day.

 

[lax16]

Re-read my post yourself…I asked a question…“if the humans fall away, where does that leave the church?” I said nothing about there no longer being a church.

Your post states: “Yet the church if full of those humans, and if the humans fall way, where does that leave the church?” and you are saying what you mean is the question: “If some of the people fall away from belief where does that leave the church?”

It leaves some very good people fighting to keep the Church alive during a time of great heresies and persecution. It leaves a Church with some very devout and brave members that has survived for 2,000 years.

Why does it not make sense to say there were good people but no priesthood? One does not need the priesthood to be a good person.
What church were people dying for if there was no church? You make the assumption that I say there was no church. There was a church.
What were they fighting for? Their beliefs.
Why were they being targeted if they were just lone random Christians and were not a threat? Well you have made some assumptions there. Just as we lump all Muslims together or all Jews, or any other non-christian religion together, and tend not to see differences in their beliefs, so did the Romans. Why do people get targeted? because they are different.

Mormons state that the priesthood authority was gone. So…there were thousands upon thousands of Christians with no leadership? Or, not Mormon leadership? Obviously, there has always been popes, priests, and bishops so you must be saying those who held those positions were apostate. Because that is a very big and insulting claim you should back it up with proof.
Lumping people? You lost me here. Christians were targeted for their beliefs and I highly doubt if there was one Christian off by himself that the enemies would have spent their time tracking him down.

Why did the people die for their cause? Same reason anyone would die for a cause…because they believe in it.

But why would people living in a state of apostasy die for their faith?

I do believe that He did mean that all would be restored for all(not just Mormons)…the hard part is getting all to believe…Just as Jesus couldn’t get all to believe on Him during His ministry.

No, the problem is that the Mormons claim that God has a body so the Jews could not believe the message and the Mormons believe in polygamy which the Christians could not accept, so…the message is for Mormons only. I hear it, I have heard it, and there is no way that God sent a prophet involved in criminal behavior to preach a new message that was in opposition to both the Old and New Testament. People hear the message and reject it because they know better.

 

[lax16]

Hi, Lax16,

I certainly don’t entertain any idea of changing your impressions about the Bible and the gospel one iota, but here’s a try to at least give you my perspective since you’ve asked the questions:

Hi Parker - I am not asking you to change my impressions about the Bible, just provide LDS teachings on the matter.

1. That’s kind of a funny statement for me to absorb, since the New Testament, including Acts and Revelation, talks about prophets with the full expectation that there are going to be more prophets and that there were prophets among the people living when Acts was written. There is one verse that is poorly used to misconstrue that there was to be an end to “prophets”. On the other hand also, the Old Testament use of the word “prophets” would conclude that each Pope has been a “prophet” to the people who followed him. That is what a “prophet” is–a teacher coming among the people presenting themselves as having been called by God with authority and with a message that is supposed to be true and is supposed to be followed. (A prophet doesn’t have a mission to “re-do” everything–of course not.)

Please define an LDS “prophet.” We do not call the Pope a prophet and I know this has been said many times before on various threads. Yes, there are wise teachers, doctors, and saints of the Church, but we do not call them prophets. We do not share the same meaning it would seem.

1. He didn’t make that promise in the way you have cited. It’s like making a square peg fit into a round hole. (But I suppose it works for you and many others, just not for me and other non-Catholics.) The Spirit does not provide blanket coverage, even for church members.

Jesus’ promise isn’t what He said it was? Please stop acting as if I, and millions of other Christians, have misunderstood the words of Jesus Christ. If Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be with the Church until the end, then that is exactly what He meant.
Where in LDS teachings does it address this?

1. I meant that they did call new apostles (Matthias, Paul, Barnabas) in the early years of the church after Christ’s ascension, but later they didn’t call more, and John would have understood why they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit to call new apostles since the church (the “woman”) was going to be taken from among the people and into the “wilderness” as he saw in vision.

What do you mean by “call” new apostles? What did they need to do to “call” new apostles and how do you know they didn’t do it?

1. I hope you still feel like there is free will today, and that God considers it important to the extent of there being no compulsion or feeling of compulsion.

Of course there is free will. I am not sure what you mean by compulsion?

1. My thoughts about that subject come from reading the Bible, and from gaining the guidance of the Holy Ghost in reading and pondering the prophecies. I see the Bible as fully preparing the minds of people who read it looking for fulfillment of prophesies to be able to receive understanding about when those prophesies are fulfilled (just like Anna and Simeon did at the time of Christ’s birth), if they really “seek” and “ask” and “knock”. (Such as “another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth.”)

Your thoughts also come from what you are taught as a Mormon that there needed to be an apostasy so that Joseph Smith could become a prophet.

So it is not “working backwards”, unless you mean that one won’t necessarily “see” that a prophecy has been fulfilled until perhaps after it has been fulfilled and they see the fruits of the prophecy unfolding before their eyes. (That is often how prophecy works.)

But Mormonism does not fulfill the OT prophecy about the Messiah and Christ’s promise to stay with His Church.

1. Yes, I have no doubt that the verses you have given the meaning that made sense to you have justified your beliefs–so it is fine that through that earnestness you will bring the teachings of the gospel from the Bible into your life and they will bring you happiness and contentment. So will I and my family find happiness through living the gospel teachings in our lives also.

I am sure you are a very good person and that you have raised your children to be the same. However, I do not understand how performing temple rituals is living the gospel teachings from the New Testament?
No, I am not justifying my beliefs. I am always reading and studying to learn more about the church that Jesus Christ started. It always leads me to the Catholic Church.