That’s a pretty good site, but most of the people there are very anti-religion and in fact atheist.You know, there’s lots of interesting stuff at www.exmormon.org and it’s all from former Mormons. Never knew that much about the Mormon stuff before, but it’s pretty clear that I was mistaken in my earlier understanding of it as a Christian religion. Some very odd notions there.
It is not proving a negative, and the argument is possible (see post 154 as an example).This is old LDS straw. You have to prove a negative which of course can’t be done. Catholics can show you a line of authority back to Christ. You can’t show us a line of authority back to anyone beyond Joseph Smith.
Except that the “president” is only the senior Apostle.that quote sure seems to negate the need for a Quorum of Apostles or any other “body”. It is quite specific that the “president” of the church has all the keys and can delegate any or all of them to a single individual.
They waited 1800 years until the winter of apostasy had past and the children of God were ripe for the Gospel. It required the right time (age of enlightenment), the right place (a land of religious liberty), and the right person (the foreordained prophet, a 14 year old boy of honest faith seeking the true Church of Christ.)Well you have to accept that Peter James and john waited over 1800 years and then came to earth as resurected beings and ordained them in secret with no other witnesses. That’s a bit more of a stretch than the documented succession of bishops in the Catholic Church.
Actually, Joseph was called up to treasure hunting and fooling his neighbors into thinking he had a stone that could find that buried treasure. He claims he later used that stone to translate the Book of Mormon from plates nobody ever saw except through their spiritual eyes. You can talk all you want to about an apostasy (which you can’t prove ever really happened), but until you can give us a credible reason to believe in the ramblings of Joseph Smith it all adds up to nothing. His first vision story was made up in 1838 and confllicts with several earlier first vision stories. There is no there there.“As a young man, Joseph “was called up to serious reflection” on the subject of religion. Because he was born in a land of religious freedom, he could question which of all the churches was right. And because the Bible had been translated into English, he could seek an answer from the word of God. He read in the book of James, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God,” and he did as directed. In answer to Joseph’s prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. This humble farm boy was the prophet chosen by God to restore the ancient Church of Jesus Christ and His priesthood in these latter days.” Robert D. Hales, “Preparations for the Restoration and the Second Coming: ‘My Hand Shall Be over Thee,’ ” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 88
Not true! The Apostles were not bishops.Actually, there is. The bible is clear that the apostles had two roles - as bishops . . .
So are modern Apostles. In modern LDS scripture the Lord has defined the office of an Apostle as a “special witness of Jesus Christ” (D&C 27:12; 107:23, 26). That means the same thing. They are special witnesses of His resurrection, that He still lives, and communicates His will to man and in ancient times.. . . and as eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ (called “apostles”).
Yes, and those Twelve were to continue.The 11 remaining apostles knew that it was Jesus’ will that there be 12 witnesses to his resurrection.
That is completely incorrect. The word “bishoprick” in Acts 1:20 simply means “position” or “office”. That is how modern translations usually translate it. Go to biblegateway.com and check for yourself. I did a quick search, and this is what I found:When choosing a successor for Judas, Peter described his office as “bishop”.
That is your own invention. There is nothing to back that up at all.The apostles ordained others to succeed them - not as apostles but as bishops.
How about Paul? How then did he become an Apostle? He wasn’t even a believer in Christ when He was alive, and persecuted the church after Jesus had died.No man after the apostles was qualified to be an apostle because their was no one who had “companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us”.
Rubbish! See above.For this same reason, there are no apostles today because no one fulfills the requirements of an apostle as described in Acts 1.
So are modern LDS Apostles.The LDS misunderstand the purpose of an apostle. The apostles were special witnesses to Christ’s resurrection.
The authority to govern the Church has always rested in the bishops. I think the confusion arises because the first bishops also happened to be the 12 apostles.
Nonsense!Apostle = witness
Bishop = Keys
Intelligent.Actually, Joseph was called up to treasure hunting and fooling his neighbors into thinking he had a stone that could find that buried treasure. He claims he later used that stone to translate the Book of Mormon from plates nobody ever saw except through their spiritual eyes. You can talk all you want to about an apostasy (which you can’t prove ever really happened), but until you can give us a credible reason to believe in the ramblings of Joseph Smith it all adds up to nothing. His first vision story was made up in 1838 and confllicts with several earlier first vision stories. There is no there there.
Very!Intelligent.
Not only intelligent, but the truth. Go to the Notre Dame library and you can read all about it.Intelligent.
Very intelligent and the truth as well. You can read all about it in your library at Notre Dame. Or you can read about it here:Intelligent.
I have read it. Studied it. It’s calumny. And it skirts the issue at hand, again.Not only intelligent, but the truth. Go to the Notre Dame library and you can read all about it.
You may not want to accept the hard cold facts about Joseph Smith, but the facts are there for the whole world to see. Mormon historians no longer doubt the fact he used a rock to find buried treasure or that he used the same rock to supposedly translate the Book of Mormon. This is no longer in dispute. Either are the different versions of the First Vision. You’re out of luck young man.I have read it. Studied it. It’s calumny. And it skirts the issue at hand, again.
This thread is about the Apostasy of the Christian church, not about Joseph Smith. Whether Joseph Smith is a true prophet or not, does not alter the fact that an Apostasy occured. If Joseph Smith did not restore the True Church, then somebody else will have to do it, because there was an Apostasy. And as it happens, the LDS Church is the only church on earth that makes anything near a viable claim to being that Restoration. There is no other church I know of that does that.Actually, Joseph was called up to treasure hunting and fooling his neighbors into thinking he had a stone that could find that buried treasure. He claims he later used that stone to translate the Book of Mormon from plates nobody ever saw except through their spiritual eyes. You can talk all you want to about an apostasy (which you can’t prove ever really happened), but until you can give us a credible reason to believe in the ramblings of Joseph Smith it all adds up to nothing. His first vision story was made up in 1838 and confllicts with several earlier first vision stories. There is no there there.
might want to recheck your dates on the renaissance. Wher do you get the idea that people weren’t privileged to read this? Many illiterate people COULDN’T read it but like most of the gospels it was read to them in church for hundreds of years. Please don’t try the tired fable that people didn’t have access to the bible cuz of the mean old Catholic church. History proves it’s simply not true./snip
“Then came that period known as the Renaissance, which gave to men an inward longing for liberation of thought with the courage to face the evil forces that held them in subjection. Man again began to seek for freedom and truth. The Master of men had said many years before, “… ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32.) But this and other scripture, for many years, they had not even been privileged to read.
and you really think this didn’t happen until Joseph Smith? Really? you might want to consider a history class there at Notre Dame. The struggle for freedom was a constant all along.But God began to work with men, and their hearts turned toward him; and whenever the spark of freedom was found, it was influenced and fed by the natural forces of agency. Soon the desire for freedom, matched with the courage to fight and die for it, spread among men.
you honestly believe that these are valid causal links? I think you misinterpret what actually happened. (more socioeconomic folowed by industrial/technological drivers than religious)I think it causes your timeline problems even with best case.The continued longing for freedom led directly to the period known as the Reformation, which led to the foundation of America and the framing of the Constitution,
here we see the truth of the LDS church as being American rather than universal. That opens a big can of worms. That would be the same constitution that stopped polygamy and disenfranchised the LDS church until they complied. does this mean other countries laws don’t provide those things? most governments claim to do just that.concerning which the Lord has said:
“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” (D&C 101:77.)
You think the first vision was the second coming? Please, the scriptures refer to eschatology which obviously can’t be the same as the “restoration”. the very idea of “dispensations” is an LDs invention.All of this in its proper order leads directly to the greatest period in the experience of man upon the earth, a new dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This period was foreseen and referred to by the apostle Peter as the times of restitution or restoration of all things involving a new gospel dispensation. Here are his words as he speaks also of the coming of the Lord at this particular time:
“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
“Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:20–21.) Alvin R. Dyer, “The Last Dispensation,” Ensign, July 1972, 52
no dofferent from the story of the shakers, the SDA’s, JW’s, David Koresh, Rev. Moon, I could go on and on. This is not unique. Anyone who wants to be a restorationist is dependent on an apostasy. problemis they have to manufacture it.“As a young man, Joseph “was called up to serious reflection” on the subject of religion. Because he was born in a land of religious freedom, he could question which of all the churches was right. And because the Bible had been translated into English, he could seek an answer from the word of God. He read in the book of James, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God,” and he did as directed. In answer to Joseph’s prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. This humble farm boy was the prophet chosen by God to restore the ancient Church of Jesus Christ and His priesthood in these latter days.” Robert D. Hales, “Preparations for the Restoration and the Second Coming: ‘My Hand Shall Be over Thee,’ ” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 88
debatable in the case of Joseph Smith but moot anyway. The quote you provided shows that if he’s the only one around he can pass along whatever keys are needed to whomever he needs to. I think that runs counter to you apostasy theory.Except that the “president” is only the senior Apostle.
And your challenge for me, to show what the Church teaches, is a topic for a thread on the Restoration. That will come soon enough. This thread is discussing the Apostasy.
it is not calumnious it has been verified with documented facts. It does skirt the issue at hand though. I’ll give you that.I have read it. Studied it. It’s calumny. And it skirts the issue at hand, again.
the only reason presented here to believe that an apostasy occurred is the word of Joseph Smith claiming that god revealed it to him. That makes his credibility as a prophet essential.This thread is about the Apostasy of the Christian church, not about Joseph Smith. Whether Joseph Smith is a true prophet or not, does not alter the fact that an Apostasy occured. If Joseph Smith did not restore the True Church, then somebody else will have to do it, because there was an Apostasy. And as it happens, the LDS Church is the only church on earth that makes anything near a viable claim to being that Restoration. There is no other church I know of that does that.
zerinus
we have shown that they were.Not true! The Apostles were not bishops.
where do you get this? eyewitness to the life, death and resurection of Christ is VERY differnet than “special witness”. LDS apostles don’t even claim to see God or speak directly. Gordon B. Hinkley doesn’t even claim that. it’s just thoughts and impressions and feelings. NOT the same as the biblical description of an Apostle.So are modern Apostles. In modern LDS scripture the Lord has defined the office of an Apostle as a “special witness of Jesus Christ” (D&C 27:12; 107:23, 26). That means the same thing. They are special witnesses of His resurrection, that He still lives, and communicates His will to man and in ancient times.
and of course biblegateway.com is the authoratative source for ancient languages. The modern transaltions are that way because the translate the meaning of “bishop” into modern terms. The original greek wording was bishoprick.That is completely incorrect. The word “bishoprick” in Acts 1:20 simply means “position” or “office”. That is how modern translations usually translate it. Go to biblegateway.com and check for yourself. I did a quick search, and this is what I found:
You can go there and try a few more translations if you like. The Apostles were not bishops. The bishops had strictly local jurisdiction. They did not have jurisdiction over the whole church. The bishop of Jerusalem had jurisdiction over Jerusalem, the Bishop of Antioch over Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome over Rome. The bishop of Rome couldn’t go and tell the bishop of Antioch what to do, or vice versa. All of this has been discussed before; but you guys make yourselves deaf, dumb, and blind, and bring up the same issues over and over again.
- New International Version: “May another take his place of leadership.”
- The Message: “Let someone else take over his post.”
- Amplified Bible: “Let another take his position”
- English Standard Version: “Let another take his office.”
- Young’s literal Translation: “his oversight let another take.”
Paul was a special case but even then he WAS an eyewitness. He was there when Jesus walked the earth and he SAW the resurected Christ in person.How about Paul? How then did he become an Apostle? He wasn’t even a believer in Christ when He was alive, and persecuted the church after Jesus had died.