How can the CJCLDS be Christ's Church if Christ's Church was "Destroyed?"

A Berean · Dec 14, 2013

Just curious.

LDS Apostle B. H. Roberts wrote, "Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place" (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41).

The Book of Mormon insists a great and abominable church has "taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (I Nephi 13:26).

The bottom of that page of the Book of Mormon dates this perversion of the gospel around 600 B.C., which was long before the "gospel of the Lamb" was even given in the New Testament.

LDS claim the Book of Mormon has restored these "plain and precious things," and that it is the "fulness of the gospel" (Book of Mormon I Nephi 13:34-35; D. & C. 20:8-9; 27:5).

But Mormons are hard-pressed to point to evidence that Christ's church has been destroyed (see Matt 16:18) or anything that has been "restored" by the Book of Mormon, or provide evidence outside of the Book of Mormon that proves those allegedly "restored" things were lost, or ever existed to begin with.

Orson Pratt also attacked the Bible saying, "The voices of several hundred jarring, contending, soul-sickening sects, were constantly sounding in your ears; each one professing to be built upon the Bible, and yet each one differing from all the rest. Under this confused state of things, you have peradventure, involuntarily exclaimed: can the Bible be the Word of God! Would God reveal a system of religion expressed in such indefinite terms that a thousand different religions should grow out of it?" (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p. 47).

What would Pratt say now that over 200 splinter groups all claiming to believe in the same Book of Mormon have come out of Joseph Smith's original church? (See Denominations that Base Their Beliefs on The Teachings of Joseph Smith by Kate Carter).

It is strange indeed that Mormonism attacks the reliability of the Bible, considering that Talmage calls it the most important book for Mormons and the "first" book of doctrine.

Rescued One · Dec 17, 2013

A Berean said:
Just curious.

LDS Apostle B. H. Roberts wrote, "Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place" (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41).

The Book of Mormon insists a great and abominable church has "taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (I Nephi 13:26).

The bottom of that page of the Book of Mormon dates this perversion of the gospel around 600 B.C., which was long before the "gospel of the Lamb" was even given in the New Testament...

Mormonism teaches that "the gospel" refers to a "plan of salvation." That plan, they teach, was given to Adam. The "plan of salvation" is a way that mortals are to follow in order to return to Heavenly father's presence.

• Moses 5:58–59—The gospel was preached to Adam by angels.
• Moses 6:1—Adam obeyed God and called upon his sons to repent.
• Moses 6:48–63—Adam was taught the plan of salvation.
• Moses 6:64–68—Adam was baptized and received the Holy Ghost and the priesthood.
Primary 6: Old Testament Lesson 6: Adam and Eve Lived the Gospel of Jesus Christ

RevelationTestament · Dec 19, 2013

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

The Hebrew would read "a year, and years, and half a year from the face of the serpent." This is 1+2+.5 yrs. The basic calendar had 30 day months & the biblical calendar 360 days so this is the same 1260 day period just reiterated in the language of Daniel.

In Daniel 7 we find:

23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are bten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

A revue of Daniel reveals this 4rth kingdom is the Roman kingdom.
From various places we learn the a prophetic day is one year. "I have given you a day for a year." This is used in Daniel 9 to prophesy the 490 years [70 weeks] to the time of "the messiah."
There is no way the 1260 yrs was before Christ. So the little horn basically rules the earth until the judgment sits when this 1260 yr period ends. Revelation 12 tells us it ends after Christ after the dragon chases the woman into the wilderness. Daniel 7 tells us the little horn who changes God's laws and times rules over the saints of God during this time......

I'd say that basically qualifies as apostasy. There are more scriptures prophesying an apostasy.

timewerx · Dec 19, 2013

A Berean said:
It is strange indeed that Mormonism attacks the reliability of the Bible, considering that Talmage calls it the most important book for Mormons and the "first" book of doctrine.

Almost every religious books in all major religions has:

- Contradictions within them
- Loyal followers blind to these contradictions "if it contradicts, it's figurative!"
- Loyal followers who will not consider advice from neutral parties, especially from other religions

The big irony here is that religious people also give great importance to sound and logical reasoning when it comes to secular matters.

Like accepting audits from third party bodies for example to attain the most unbiased and accurate evaluation of their performance.

But in religion, they wouldn't take an "outsider's" opinion of themselves.

If you found yourself in a dense jungle, and there's a danger approaching you rapidly, you might not see it approach until it's too late. But someone from another viewing angle, perhaps way up in a high tree, might see the danger approaching you.

Rescued One · Dec 19, 2013

A Berean said:
Just curious.

LDS Apostle B. H. Roberts wrote, "Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place" (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41). ..

Good question.

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see D&C 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).
Apostasy

A Berean · Dec 20, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

The Hebrew would read "a year, and years, and half a year from the face of the serpent." This is 1+2+.5 yrs. The basic calendar had 30 day months & the biblical calendar 360 days so this is the same 1260 day period just reiterated in the language of Daniel.

In Daniel 7 we find:

23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are bten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

A revue of Daniel reveals this 4rth kingdom is the Roman kingdom.
From various places we learn the a prophetic day is one year. "I have given you a day for a year." This is used in Daniel 9 to prophesy the 490 years [70 weeks] to the time of "the messiah."
There is no way the 1260 yrs was before Christ. So the little horn basically rules the earth until the judgment sits when this 1260 yr period ends. Revelation 12 tells us it ends after Christ after the dragon chases the woman into the wilderness. Daniel 7 tells us the little horn who changes God's laws and times rules over the saints of God during this time......

I'd say that basically qualifies as apostasy. There are more scriptures prophesying an apostasy.

Merely posting a bunch of Scriptures and then expecting me to understand them using LDS think, does not a valid argument make.

I will grant you there has been apostasy in the Church since its founding.

But a complete falling away and destruction of the Church Christ founded and built with His own Blood Sacrifice? Nuh nuh. Scripture says that won't happen. Who shall we believe? A false prophet, or the Words of Jesus Christ?

RevelationTestament · Dec 21, 2013

A Berean said:
Merely posting a bunch of Scriptures and then expecting me to understand them using LDS think, does not a valid argument make.

You are the one adamant about using the Bible. Without it will you listen to me? When I use it to show you you are wrong I get this baloney.

will grant you there has been apostasy in the Church since its founding.

But a complete falling away and destruction of the Church Christ founded and built with His own Blood Sacrifice? Nuh nuh. Scripture says that won't happen. Who shall we believe? A false prophet, or the Words of Jesus Christ?

No it doesn't. it says repeatedly that there would be an apostasy. That the King of this earth would come, and no man would be able to work. Jesus. That the little horn would be given power over the Saints. Daniel. That the false prophet would fool the whole world. Revelation. etc etc.

A Berean · Dec 22, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
You are the one adamant about using the Bible. Without it will you listen to me? When I use it to show you you are wrong I get this baloney.

But you haven't done that. The Scriptures you used to refute my argument, say absolutely nothing about a high priests, nor do they even begin to address my argument that the LDS teachings concerning the Melchizedek priesthood are not Scriptural because Jesus has been named our ETERNAL high priest, for ever.

will grant you there has been apostasy in the Church since its founding.

But a complete falling away and destruction of the Church Christ founded and built with His own Blood Sacrifice? Nuh nuh. Scripture says that won't happen. Who shall we believe? A false prophet, or the Words of Jesus Christ?

RevelationTestament said:
No it doesn't. it says repeatedly that there would be an apostasy. That the King of this earth would come, and no man would be able to work. Jesus. That the little horn would be given power over the Saints. Daniel. That the false prophet would fool the whole world. Revelation. etc etc.

Yes it most certainly does. Matt 16:18.. and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Aside from the fact that the Scriptures you posted to substantiate your argument don't even imply what LDS teaching claims about the destruction of the Christian church and perversion of Christ's Gospel; Unless I knew of LDS restoration doctrine a priori I would never arrive at the conclusion that the church Jesus Christ built with His own blood and founded on His Apostles, was completely destroyed from the earth, the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place"

This "total destruction" allegedly took place 600 years before the "church of the lamb" even existed.

And if I did somehow manage to glean that from those verses, all I need to do is read Matt 16:18 and my mistake should be corrected.

How do you reconcile Matt 16:18 with LDS restoration theology that says exactly the opposite?

RevelationTestament · Dec 22, 2013

A Berean said:
But you haven't done that. The Scriptures you used to refute my argument, say absolutely nothing about a high priests, nor do they even begin to address my argument that the LDS teachings concerning the Melchizedek priesthood are not Scriptural because Jesus has been named our ETERNAL high priest, for ever.

UM NO. Scripture and verse? - without your interpretation please....

grant you there has been apostasy in the Church since its founding.

But a complete falling away and destruction of the Church Christ founded and built with His own Blood Sacrifice? Nuh nuh. Scripture says that won't happen. Who shall we believe? A false prophet, or the Words of Jesus Christ?
[comments about no destruction of the church]
Yes it most certainly does. Matt 16:18.. and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

No again. The gates of hell will not prevail against the STONE/Rock given to Peter. And what is that? The church is a woman throughout scriptures starting with Genesis. The stone is the Word - that is what Satan will not prevail against in the end - nothing about the church at all.

Aside from the fact that the Scriptures you posted to substantiate your argument don't even imply what LDS teaching claims about the destruction of the Christian church and perversion of Christ's Gospel; Unless I knew of LDS restoration doctrine a priori I would never arrive at the conclusion that the church Jesus Christ built with His own blood and founded on His Apostles, was completely destroyed from the earth, the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place"

Yes, you are stubborn. Guess you just can't believe Daniel 7 that the little horn would change the laws of Christ.

This "total destruction" allegedly took place 600 years before the "church of the lamb" even existed.

No, actually it began after Nicaea.

And if I did somehow manage to glean that from those verses, all I need to do is read Matt 16:18 and my mistake should be corrected.

How do you reconcile Matt 16:18 with LDS restoration theology that says exactly the opposite?

Do you understand why Peter was the stone?
Do you understand how the church will be built on this stone?
Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world yet you go on and on about an earthly church....

Acts 3:21
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution[ie restoration] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

For there to be a restoration there must be an apostasy.

A Berean · Dec 22, 2013

Originally Posted by A Berean

But you haven't done that. The Scriptures you used to refute my argument, say absolutely nothing about a high priests, nor do they even begin to address my argument that the LDS teachings concerning the Melchizedek priesthood are not Scriptural because Jesus has been named our ETERNAL high priest, for ever.

RevelationTestament said:
UM NO. Scripture and verse? - without your interpretation please....

Without a frame of reference it's pointless to just post Bible verses. This is a discussion forum and without my interpretation it is no longer discussion.

I will offer my interpretation, and then you offer yours. We can go back and forth from there, using proof texts to substantiate our differences of opinion, and I really can't think of any other rational way for us to proceed.

I will list the relevant verses which I believe point to Jesus as the final high priest because He is the only eternal high priest and there is no need for another.

Hebrews chapter 1 points to the supremacy of the Son.

Heb 2 lays out how Jesus has been made like us.

Heb 3:1-6 designates Jesus as our high priest

Heb 4:14-16 Jesus is our great high priest, sinless.

Heb 5:1-4 Jesus is the perfect high priest

Heb 5:6,7 Jesus is appointed high priest by the Father and a priest made perfect, the author of salvation and "for ever" of the order of Melchizedek.

Heb 7 explains the levitical priests were finite humans who were constantly needing to be replaced, and by which perfection could not come. ,

"For these priests were made without an oath,".... The priests of the tribe of Levi, and of the order of Aaron, were installed into their office, and invested with it, without an oath.

Christ was made a high priest with an oath, even with an oath of God; which gives his priesthood the preference to the Levitical priesthood.

Heb 8 speaks again of Christ's "eternal" priesthood in heaven, not earth (He sat down at the right hand of the Father) and the new covenant is distinguished from the Sinai covenant with Israel.

Heb 8:1Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this. We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2a servant of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

Heb 9 explains that the high priest is the only one who could enter into the "holy place" and these were "fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation." That time is now and Jesus is the mediator of this new covenant, and 22According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.

24For Christ hasn't entered into holy places made with hands, which are representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place year by year with blood not his own, 26or else he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation.

Vs 24 to 28 should be self explanatory. Jesus sacrificed His own blood, once, for all, by which salvation is achieved for all of mankind.

Heb 10:7Then I said, 'Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God.'"8Previously saying, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you didn't desire, neither had pleasure in them" (those which are offered according to the law), 9then he has said, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He takes away the first, that he may establish the second, 10by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Bottom line: Jesus is our last high priest, of the order of Melchizedek, forever, He is the mediator of a new covenant by which His blood atones for the sin of all mankind, ONCE FOR ALL.

Please feel free to disagree.

I had said in reply: Yes it most certainly does. Matt 16:18.. and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

RevelationTestament said:
No again. The gates of hell will not prevail against the STONE/Rock given to Peter. And what is that? The church is a woman throughout scriptures starting with Genesis. The stone is the Word - that is what Satan will not prevail against in the end - nothing about the church at all.

Peter was given a stone?

There's "nothing about the church" in your Bible? Really? The church is the "bride of Christ" and Jesus is also the Word, so you're out of wiggle room because He satisfies both definitions - Word and Rock.

I can't find a single Bible version that uses the word "rock" instead of "church, congregation or assembly" to describe that which the gates of hell will not prevail against. So I can't imagine where you get that.

Obviously this is talking about Christ's Church on earth, which is the entire body of believers in Christ. (the true Christ, that is)

RevelationTestament said:
Yes, you are stubborn. Guess you just can't believe Daniel 7 that the little horn would change the laws of Christ.

I don't recall asking if you felt I was stubborn. Learned and well grounded in the teachings of Jesus Christ is how I would describe myself, as all Christians should be if you ask me.

The problem is, I don't think Dan 7 lays it out as succinctly as you insist. In fact, unless one understands LDS teaching of Daniel 7, it's quite a stretch to believe Daniel 7 is telling us that:

"the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place"

Can you elaborate on why your interpretation is more accurate?

This "total destruction" allegedly took place 600 years before the "church of the lamb" even existed.

RevelationTestament said:
No, actually it began after Nicaea.

Not according to LDS teaching. The Book of Mormon insists a great and abominable church has "taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (I Nephi 13:26). The bottom of that page dates this perversion of the gospel around 600 B.C

How do you reconcile Matt 16:18 with LDS restoration theology that says exactly the opposite?

RevelationTestament said:
Do you understand why Peter was the stone?
Do you understand how the church will be built on this stone?
Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world yet you go on and on about an earthly church....

I don't believe Matt 16:18 indicates Peter is the stone. Some say Christ was referring to himself. The debate rages on but in all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. However, since Jesus, and not Peter, is the foundation of the Church and called the rock elsewhere, as is also the Father, I choose to believe Jesus is the rock. Regardless, since the meaning here is ubiquitous, from a scholarly standpoint LDS are no better (and certainly cannot use this as proof text to prove their dogma) than the Christian denominations who separate themselves by building doctrine on spurious dogma such as this.

RevelationTestament said:
Acts 3:21
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution[ie restoration] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

For there to be a restoration there must be an apostasy.

Can you prove the Book of Mormon has "restored" anything?

RevelationTestament · Dec 22, 2013

A Berean said:
Originally Posted by A Berean
But you haven't done that. The Scriptures you used to refute my argument, say absolutely nothing about a high priests, nor do they even begin to address my argument that the LDS teachings concerning the Melchizedek priesthood are not Scriptural because Jesus has been named our ETERNAL high priest, for ever.

Without a frame of reference it's pointless to just post Bible verses. This is a discussion forum and without my interpretation it is no longer discussion.

I will offer my interpretation, and then you offer yours. We can go back and forth from there, using proof texts to substantiate our differences of opinion, and I really can't think of any other rational way for us to proceed.

I will list the relevant verses which I believe point to Jesus as the final high priest because He is the only eternal high priest and there is no need for another.

Hebrews chapter 1 points to the supremacy of the Son.

Heb 2 lays out how Jesus has been made like us.

Heb 3:1-6 designates Jesus as our high priest

Heb 4:14-16 Jesus is our great high priest, sinless.

Heb 5:1-4 Jesus is the perfect high priest

Heb 5:6,7 Jesus is appointed high priest by the Father and a priest made perfect, the author of salvation and "for ever" of the order of Melchizedek.

You conveniently omit the part that says Jesus was "made perfect" and "became" the author of our salvation.... Not eternal back in time in this respect. You see, you bend what the Bible says to fit your preconceived notions. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus was begotten as the Son in time on a day when God made an oath to him. And that he became our Savior by the oath of God. Not eternal back in time in that respect either. You say stuff like the Father is eternal so the Savior MUST be eternal. The problem is the SCRIPTURES don't say it. You aren't God and you shouldn't be trying to change the plain meaning here.

Christ was made a high priest with an oath, even with an oath of God; which gives his priesthood the preference to the Levitical priesthood.

There you go - you said it. He wasn't always a high priest....

Heb 8 speaks again of Christ's "eternal" priesthood in heaven, not earth (He sat down at the right hand of the Father) and the new covenant is distinguished from the Sinai covenant with Israel.

Yep eternal in futurity....

Bottom line: Jesus is our last high priest, of the order of Melchizedek, forever, He is the mediator of a new covenant by which His blood atones for the sin of all mankind, ONCE FOR ALL.

Please feel free to disagree.

OK. Scripture doesn't say that. It is your incorrect summation. Nowhere does God say Jesus is the last high priest....on the contrary as I have shown.

Peter was given a stone?

Yes, which is why he was a stone. The stone is the word of God, revelation etc.

There's "nothing about the church" in your Bible? Really? The church is the "bride of Christ" and Jesus is also the Word, so you're out of wiggle room because He satisfies both definitions - Word and Rock.

I can't find a single Bible version that uses the word "rock" instead of "church, congregation or assembly" to describe that which the gates of hell will not prevail against. So I can't imagine where you get that.

Obviously this is talking about Christ's Church on earth, which is the entire body of believers in Christ. (the true Christ, that is)

No, "obviously" is a bad qualifier. "Obviously" he is talking about the stone the church was built upon which the gates of hell would not prevail against.

You didn't answer my questions. Why was Peter a stone?

I don't recall asking if you felt I was stubborn. Learned and well grounded in the teachings of Jesus Christ is how I would describe myself, as all Christians should be if you ask me.

The problem is, I don't think Dan 7 lays it out as succinctly as you insist. In fact, unless one understands LDS teaching of Daniel 7, it's quite a stretch to believe Daniel 7 is telling us that:

Not at all. I will be glad to go point by point how the early christian church changed and met all the requisite prophecy of Daniel 7.

This "total destruction" allegedly took place 600 years before the "church of the lamb" even existed.

Not according to LDS teaching. The Book of Mormon insists a great and abominable church has "taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (I Nephi 13:26). The bottom of that page dates this perversion of the gospel around 600 B.C

How do you reconcile Matt 16:18 with LDS restoration theology that says exactly the opposite?

Because that was a prophecy given in 600 B.C. He "saw" it way beforehand.

I don't believe Matt 16:18 indicates Peter is the stone. Some say Christ was referring to himself. The debate rages on but in all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. However, since Jesus, and not Peter, is the foundation of the Church and called the rock elsewhere, as is also the Father, I choose to believe Jesus is the rock. Regardless, since the meaning here is ubiquitous, from a scholarly standpoint LDS are no better (and certainly cannot use this as proof text to prove their dogma) than the Christian denominations who separate themselves by building doctrine on spurious dogma such as this.

I don't think I am going to be able to help you. Hope you don't mind if I stop posting to your posts. Your Savior quite clearly calls Peter the stone. The name Cephas means that. If you can't accept that, I can't waste more time with you.
Cheers

A Berean · Dec 22, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
You conveniently omit the part that says Jesus was "made perfect" and "became" the author of our salvation.... Not eternal back in time in this respect. You see, you bend what the Bible says to fit your preconceived notions. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus was begotten as the Son in time on a day when God made an oath to him. And that he became our Savior by the oath of God. Not eternal back in time in that respect either. You say stuff like the Father is eternal so the Savior MUST be eternal. The problem is the SCRIPTURES don't say it. You aren't God and you shouldn't be trying to change the plain meaning here.

Actually, it's rather rude to accuse me of intentionally omitting a talking point to prove my argumetn. That assumes I am being dishonest. Maybe I should call you names and run away?

But I won't because you are just dots on a screen to me.

However, following the logic above, Jesus is not eternal because there was a particular "day" that he died.

If Jesus is not eternal how is it that He chose us, in Him, before the foundation of the world? Eph 1:4. 1 Pet 1:17 If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man's work, pass the time of your living as foreigners here in reverent fear: 18knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a faultless and pure lamb, the blood of Christ; 20who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake, 21who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God.

RevelationTestament said:
There you go - you said it. He wasn't always a high priest....

Nope. Never said that. And neither do these Scriptures imply that Jesus is NOT eternal. it would be silly to think that when it is said with no uncertainty that He is eternal elsewhere in the Scriptures.

RevelationTestament said:
Yep eternal in futurity....

Nope. That's not the definition of eternal, that's the definition of finite. We are finite because although we will have no end, unlike Christ we had a beginning. We are created beings. See Genesis.

Eternal means no beginning and no end. Christ is not a created being. All things that were created were created by and through Him. Consequently Jesus cannot be a product of His own creation. By Him, through Him and for Him are all things. Rom 11:36

RevelationTestament said:
OK. Scripture doesn't say that. It is your incorrect summation. Nowhere does God say Jesus is the last high priest....on the contrary as I have shown.

Well, again, if you look at what the Scriptures plainly say without the LDS spin, and you keep them in context, you can see that the message here in Hebrews is that Jesus is a man, and the more perfect high priest because He is also eternal, and a high priest "for ever" which is demonstrated in the order of Melchizedek, which his priesthood is fashioned after in that it is for ever. And since there can only be one high priest at a time, after making the "perfect sacrifice" therefore requiring no more sacrifice and ending the old covenant and ushering in the new, by His blood sacrifice, Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father. (spare me some typing and look up what it means to sit at the right hand of the father in Jewish customs)

So what can we rationalize from all that? That this is telling us Jesus had a beginning? I certainly don't glean that from Hebrews. Your mileage may vary.

I asked: Peter was given a stone?

RevelationTestament said:
Yes, which is why he was a stone. The stone is the word of God, revelation etc.

Peter is the Word of God? I thought Jesus was the Word and the life.

Look, you can stand on LDS dogma if you like, but again, the jury is still out on this.

I could put the following in my own words but it's beer thirty and I just brewed a great tasting American Heffe. I've typed enough today. So allow me to paraphrase again from Bible Questions Answered and no, these aren't the teachings of men, these are IMO fact filled arguments made from an interpretation of the following Scriptures which I fully agree with.

the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).

No, "obviously" is a bad qualifier. "Obviously" he is talking about the stone the church was built upon which the gates of hell would not prevail against.

RevelationTestament said:
You didn't answer my questions. Why was Peter a stone?

You didn't answer a lot of mine, but you have only asserted that he is the stone. As I said, that's not the only valid interpretation.

I had said: The problem is, I don't think Dan 7 lays it out as succinctly as you insist. In fact, unless one understands LDS teaching of Daniel 7, it's quite a stretch to believe Daniel 7 is telling us that:

RevelationTestament said:
Not at all. I will be glad to go point by point how the early christian church changed and met all the requisite prophecy of Daniel 7.

Pointless. There are many interpretations of these apocalyptic dreams. Besides, your version would be the teachings of men which the Scriptures instruct me to avoid. It's also pointless to build doctrine on any such dogma one may generate in his mind to justify his religious persuasion.

RevelationTestament said:
Because that was a prophecy given in 600 B.C. He "saw" it way beforehand.

The statements appear to me to have been made in the present tense.

RevelationTestament said:
I don't think I am going to be able to help you.

chuckle. Well, I fully agree. It would be like tossing a drowning man an anvil, because I'm not drowning at all.

RevelationTestament said:
Hope you don't mind if I stop posting to your posts. Your Savior quite clearly calls Peter the stone. The name Cephas means that. If you can't accept that, I can't waste more time with you.
Cheers

No problem. You can stand on that dogma if you like, but as I've demonstrated, it clearly is not rational to do so, nor Biblical. Kinda reminds me of the story of the guy who asks to borrow his neighbor's lawn mower and the neighbor says no, my wife is baking a cake. So the guy asks "what does your wife baking a cake have to do with me borrowing your lawn mower?" to which he replied: "Nothing. But if I don't want you to borrow my lawn mower, any excuse will do.

So I'm done here too. I've corrected your errors for everyone's edification and for the sake of the truth, so it's all good.

Bye :wave:

Love ya.

Mean it.

RevelationTestament · Dec 22, 2013

A Berean said:
Actually, it's rather rude to accuse me of intentionally omitting a talking point to prove my argumetn. That assumes I am being dishonest. Maybe I should call you names and run away?

But I won't because you are just dots on a screen to me.

However, following the logic above, Jesus is not eternal because there was a particular "day" that he died.

If Jesus is not eternal how is it that He chose us, in Him, before the foundation of the world? Eph 1:4. 1 Pet 1:17 If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man's work, pass the time of your living as foreigners here in reverent fear: 18knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a faultless and pure lamb, the blood of Christ; 20who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake, 21who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God.

You are mixing apples and oranges. I never said Jesus is not eternal. I never said He is a created being. His office of the Only Begotten Son had a beginning by an oath...an oath He obviously received as a cognizant thinking being rather than an infant. Jesus' spirit, like ours, has always existed....

Nope. Never said that. And neither do these Scriptures imply that Jesus is NOT eternal. it would be silly to think that when it is said with no uncertainty that He is eternal elsewhere in the Scriptures.

ditto above

Nope. That's not the definition of eternal, that's the definition of finite. We are finite because although we will have no end, unlike Christ we had a beginning. We are created beings. See Genesis.

Eternal means no beginning and no end. Christ is not a created being. All things that were created were created by and through Him. Consequently Jesus cannot be a product of His own creation. By Him, through Him and for Him are all things. Rom 11:36

ditto above
I have never said or implied Jesus is a created being. I am not Arian.
His office of the Son is not eternal. The Bible destroys that notion totally. It had a beginning when He was begotten, and has an ending when we make him our Eternal Father - no more to be "the Son." "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

I asked: Peter was given a stone?

Peter is the Word of God? I thought Jesus was the Word and the life.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone.
1 Peter 2:5
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Look, you can stand on LDS dogma if you like, but again, the jury is still out on this.

I could put the following in my own words but it's beer thirty and I just brewed a great tasting American Heffe. I've typed enough today. So allow me to paraphrase again from Bible Questions Answered and no, these aren't the teachings of men, these are IMO fact filled arguments made from an interpretation of the following Scriptures which I fully agree with.

the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the chief cornerstone (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame (1 Peter 2:6).

again interpretation....I'll take the Bible thanks:
Matthew 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Why? You "obviously" don't understand, so I will push you along. Peter was a high priest.
Jn 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

This is the stone upon which hell will not prevail. Again it has nothing to do with an earthly church.

So I'm done here too. I've corrected your errors for everyone's edification and for the sake of the truth, so it's all good.

With due respect, you have relied upon a bunch of commentaries and traditional interpretations of the scripture in which you have been indoctrinated.... I have shown you the scriptures on point.
Cheers

A Berean · Dec 23, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
You are mixing apples and oranges. I never said Jesus is not eternal. I never said He is a created being. His office of the Only Begotten Son had a beginning by an oath...an oath He obviously received as a cognizant thinking being rather than an infant. Jesus' spirit, like ours, has always existed....

Well, if Jesus has a beginning, as you insist, then He is not eternal. You can't have it both ways.

RevelationTestament said:
ditto above

ditto above
I have never said or implied Jesus is a created being. I am not Arian.
His office of the Son is not eternal. The Bible destroys that notion totally. It had a beginning when He was begotten, and has an ending when we make him our Eternal Father - no more to be "the Son." "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

See above

RevelationTestament said:
Jesus is the chief cornerstone.
1 Peter 2:5
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

again interpretation....I'll take the Bible thanks:

By that you mean someone else's interpretation is all. I've offered valid arguments and you've hopped right over them just to restate your original argument. I don't agree those Scriptures say what you imply they say and I've offered commentaries which explain why and you haven't answered any of the arguments made in those commentaries, you've just restated your argument. That gets us nowhere and my experience debating Mormons is this is what I have come to expect. After going in circles like that for awhile they will typically bow out, pointing the finger of blame on their opponent.

So if you're going to "take the Bible" then you should present arguments as to why you "take the Bible" with the understanding that you have.

RevelationTestament said:
Matthew 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Why? You "obviously" don't understand, so I will push you along. Peter was a high priest.
Jn 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

This is the stone upon which hell will not prevail. Again it has nothing to do with an earthly church.

But, you have not demonstrated why your "point of view" is correct and mine is wrong. Just posting the Scriptures you think prove your argument and then stating emphatically that your interpretation is necessarily correct, does not an argument make. I said that before and it is still true.

Now if we are to continue I would expect that you address the arguments I've presented which demonstrate WHY I believe they say something different than you. It occurs to me at this point that any further discussion of our difference of opinion should involve rebuttals from you concerning the points I have made concerning your arguments. Many of them can be found in the commentaries I've referred you to and those of my own can be found simply by scrolling back through this thread.

RevelationTestament said:
With due respect, you have relied upon a bunch of commentaries and traditional interpretations of the scripture in which you have been indoctrinated.... I have shown you the scriptures on point.
Cheers

Yes, you have shown me the Scriptures that you believe make your point, but you have not explained WHY your interpretation is necessarily right. I quite disagree with your understanding for reasons I have shown you, but you have not addressed those arguments in the context of why your understanding is necessarily correct and mine is wrong.

No you have not made your point, see above.

RevelationTestament · Dec 24, 2013

A Berean said:
Well, if Jesus has a beginning, as you insist, then He is not eternal. You can't have it both ways.

At this point I really feel you are just trying to be argumentative. I never insisted Jesus has a beginning - I said His spirit has always existed. I said his office as the Son had a beginning. I don't think I can make it any clearer.

I believe you are just hoping if you keep insisting my scriptural references don't make my case you'll fool the reader.

I really don't see how asking me to argue against a pile of commentaries will prove anything when I have made my case with scripture. After all they are just interpretation of the scripture. Why should I accept them? Do you affirm they are prophets? Do you affirm that God talked to them or taught them? I have provided ample biblical source material for the reader to see I have made my case even if you insist on dragging your feet.

A Berean · Dec 24, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
At this point I really feel you are just trying to be argumentative. I never insisted Jesus has a beginning - I said His spirit has always existed. I said his office as the Son had a beginning. I don't think I can make it any clearer.

I believe you are just hoping if you keep insisting my scriptural references don't make my case you'll fool the reader.

I really don't see how asking me to argue against a pile of commentaries will prove anything when I have made my case with scripture. After all they are just interpretation of the scripture. Why should I accept them? Do you affirm they are prophets? Do you affirm that God talked to them or taught them? I have provided ample biblical source material for the reader to see I have made my case even if you insist on dragging your feet.

You know, I hear this garbage all the time from "those of a certain religious persuasion."

I'm not asking you to accept anything I say. In fact I WANT you to disagree, but not just disagree, but actually ENGAGE me in a rational DISCUSSION of the Scriptures you use to prove your argument. Of course you don't want to get into an actual discussion because you will have to defend your beliefs rather than just grabbing a verse out of Scripture here and there and insisting it means what you insist is should mean with no rational explanation other than you believe it must be so and anyone who can't see that is just being argumentative and "dragging their feet."

You can't just dismiss the arguments in those commentaries without addressing them with arguments of your own simply because they are "commentaries." These are no different than addressing comments I might have typed out myself. It's just easier to copy and paste than type, and if the message is the same, which it is, then you're the one hedging, not me. Your reason seems veiled in an unwillingness to truly get to the bottom of an issue. The Scriptures insist we can know the truth, why do Mormons seem so afraid to BOLDLY confront it? The Scriptures I'm reading insist we all MUST do that. Even so do the LDS scriptures.

I know you conveniently dismiss Orson Pratt's words as apostate when they disagree with the teachings of other LDS prophets or your world view, but when he thought he was speaking for God he said of the Book of Mormon: If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments[bless and do not curse]by evidences adduced from scripture and reason. Such, and such only, should be the weapons employed to detect and overthrow false doctrines[bless and do not curse] to reclaim mankind from their errors, to expose religious enthusiasm, and put to silence base and wicked impostors.

How can we do that if Mormons won't engage their detractors in a rational discussion of the merits of Mormon teaching as opposed to the Scriptures?

The commentaries I posted address the Scriptures you believe prove your argument, and explain why your interpretation is wrong. This can be seen with only a minimum of discernment, by simply contrasting the verse you use to substantiate your argument, to many other Scriptures which prove you wrong. Scripture always agrees with the rest of the Scriptures and within the proper context this can be seen. Take them out of context and I can make the Scriptures say just about anything I want them to.

The commentaries demonstrate how you have taken this verse out of context and misapplied it to Mormon dogma. They also explain why, rationally and Scripturally they say something else. If you disagree with the arguments made in the commentaries then it's up to you to offer your own arguments which prove your argument is correct and the arguments presented in the commentaries are wrong. That's how "discussion" works.

But you haven't participated in a "discussion" with me, you've only made one point and you refuse to even consider a rebuttal. We talked about the definition of bigotry recently, have we forgotten so easily what it means?

Consequently you should consider these arguments, my Scriptural arguments, because I agree with them. They also stand now and will stand unchallenged until such a time as you prove them wrong. Which I challenge you to do by DISCUSSING your reasons with me.

In an attempt to goad you into actually having a discussion with me, I will suggest that the reason you don't want to go back and forth with me, point and counterpoint, is because you don't really have a good argument. And if that's the case, you shouldn't be defending it.

So please stop trying to back OUT of discussions with me by claiming I am either being disrespectful or that I just can't "see it." If I don't see it, then it's either not actually visible or you haven't shined enough "light" on it in such a manner that I am able to understand it with the same understanding that you have, and for the same reason that understanding is necessarily true.

Also, you clearly indicated to me that you don't believe Jesus is eternal when you said:

"You conveniently omit the part that says Jesus was "made perfect" and "became" the author of our salvation.... Not eternal back in time in this respect."

Again, you can't have it both ways. Jesus' nature is either Eternal or He is not, and if He is Eternal then He has existed from eternity as the Son. The definition of Eternal means there was never a beginning or end. There never was a point in time that The Father was not the Father, or that the Holy Spirit was not the Holy Spirit, and consequently there never was a time when Jesus was not the Son of God, since that is who He is and always has been, from eternity. Logically following, if Jesus is the "Only Begotten" of the Father, then He must Eternally be the Only begotten Son, since that is the capacity in which He has existed from eternity with the Father.

RevelationTestament · Dec 24, 2013

A Berean said:
You know, I hear this garbage all the time from "those of a certain religious persuasion."

I'm not asking you to accept anything I say. In fact I WANT you to disagree, but not just disagree, but actually ENGAGE me in a rational DISCUSSION of the Scriptures you use to prove your argument. Of course you don't want to get into an actual discussion because you will have to defend your beliefs rather than just grabbing a verse out of Scripture here and there and insisting it means what you insist is should mean with no rational explanation other than you believe it must be so and anyone who can't see that is just being argumentative and "dragging their feet."

You can't just dismiss the arguments in those commentaries without addressing them with arguments of your own simply because they are "commentaries." These are no different than addressing comments I might have typed out myself. It's just easier to copy and paste than type, and if the message is the same, which it is, then you're the one hedging, not me. Your reason seems veiled in an unwillingness to truly get to the bottom of an issue. The Scriptures insist we can know the truth, why do Mormons seem so afraid to BOLDLY confront it? The Scriptures I'm reading insist we all MUST do that. Even so do the LDS scriptures.

I know you conveniently dismiss Orson Pratt's words as apostate when they disagree with the teachings of other LDS prophets or your world view, but when he thought he was speaking for God he said of the Book of Mormon: If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments[bless and do not curse]by evidences adduced from scripture and reason. Such, and such only, should be the weapons employed to detect and overthrow false doctrines[bless and do not curse] to reclaim mankind from their errors, to expose religious enthusiasm, and put to silence base and wicked impostors.

How can we do that if Mormons won't engage their detractors in a rational discussion of the merits of Mormon teaching as opposed to the Scriptures?

The commentaries I posted address the Scriptures you believe prove your argument, and explain why your interpretation is wrong. This can be seen with only a minimum of discernment, by simply contrasting the verse you use to substantiate your argument, to many other Scriptures which prove you wrong. Scripture always agrees with the rest of the Scriptures and within the proper context this can be seen. Take them out of context and I can make the Scriptures say just about anything I want them to.

The commentaries demonstrate how you have taken this verse out of context and misapplied it to Mormon dogma. They also explain why, rationally and Scripturally they say something else. If you disagree with the arguments made in the commentaries then it's up to you to offer your own arguments which prove your argument is correct and the arguments presented in the commentaries are wrong. That's how "discussion" works.

But you haven't participated in a "discussion" with me, you've only made one point and you refuse to even consider a rebuttal. We talked about the definition of bigotry recently, have we forgotten so easily what it means?

Consequently you should consider these arguments, my Scriptural arguments, because I agree with them. They also stand now and will stand unchallenged until such a time as you prove them wrong. Which I challenge you to do by DISCUSSING your reasons with me.

In an attempt to goad you into actually having a discussion with me, I will suggest that the reason you don't want to go back and forth with me, point and counterpoint, is because you don't really have a good argument. And if that's the case, you shouldn't be defending it.

So please stop trying to back OUT of discussions with me by claiming I am either being disrespectful or that I just can't "see it." If I don't see it, then it's either not actually visible or you haven't shined enough "light" on it in such a manner that I am able to understand it with the same understanding that you have, and for the same reason that understanding is necessarily true.

Also, you clearly indicated to me that you don't believe Jesus is eternal when you said:

"You conveniently omit the part that says Jesus was "made perfect" and "became" the author of our salvation.... Not eternal back in time in this respect."

Again, you can't have it both ways. Jesus' nature is either Eternal or He is not, and if He is Eternal then He has existed from eternity as the Son. The definition of Eternal means there was never a beginning or end. There never was a point in time that The Father was not the Father, or that the Holy Spirit was not the Holy Spirit, and consequently there never was a time when Jesus was not the Son of God, since that is who He is and always has been, from eternity. , if Jesus is the "Only Begotten" of the Father, then He must Eternally be the Only begotten Son, since that is the capacity in which He has existed from eternity with the Father.

I find this to be the quandry you present. You allege that you believe in a different Jesus based upon the Bible, but yet when I present clear biblical scripture showing your error, you retreat to commentaries and the opinions of others and challenge me to prove them wrong and "chastise" me for not engaging their opinions. Yet you will not listen to any of those I present with interpretations of the Bible because you simply dismiss them as "false" prophets since they differ from your interpretations and commentaries. I find that to be very hypocritical. So no. I will not engage them. I challenge you to engage the scriptures I present and deal with them in a prayerful and contrite spirit. That is the only thing from me you will even address. My commentaries you will laugh at if I presented some. But, when I try to deal openly and honestly with you with straightforward reasoning right out of the Bible, I should be able to expect you to do the same. Instead I get your "Logically following" and "obviously" type of reasoning and interpretation and a "here, look at all these commentaries" - that is NOT scripture, and conflicts with the "obvious" language from the Bible. So unless you are willing to deal with the actual words from the Bible [which you allege you follow] then I cannot help you - you are just too indoctrinated in the words of man....

A Berean · Dec 24, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
I find this to be the quandry you present. You allege that you believe in a different Jesus based upon the Bible, but yet when I present clear biblical scripture showing your error, you retreat to commentaries and the opinions of others and challenge me to prove them wrong and "chastise" me for not engaging their opinions. Yet you will not listen to any of those I present with interpretations of the Bible because you simply dismiss them as "false" prophets since they differ from your interpretations and commentaries. I find that to be very hypocritical. So no. I will not engage them. I challenge you to engage the scriptures I present and deal with them in a prayerful and contrite spirit. That is the only thing from me you will even address. My commentaries you will laugh at if I presented some. But, when I try to deal openly and honestly with you with straightforward reasoning right out of the Bible, I should be able to expect you to do the same. Instead I get your "Logically following" and "obviously" type of reasoning and interpretation and a "here, look at all these commentaries" - that is NOT scripture, and conflicts with the "obvious" language from the Bible. So unless you are willing to deal with the actual words from the Bible [which you allege you follow] then I cannot help you - you are just too indoctrinated in the words of man....

No, we somehow manage to just keep talking past each other. I'm doing everything I can to keep the discussion on topic, but we just keep getting side tracked.

Looking back through the thread, your reply to the question: How can the CJCLDS be Christ's Church if Christ's Church was destroyed?

Aside from the fact that you missed the implications of that... that if Christ's church has been destroyed, how can an church ever again claim to be Christ's Church again? It was destroyed, remember?

The definition of Destroyed is:

1.to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2. to put an end to; extinguish.

3. to kill; slay.

4.to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.

5. to defeat completely.

This clearly did not happen, and if you insist it did, please present the evidence, other than the definition of apostasy which is people abandoning their faith. But that does not satisfy the condition of "complete annihilation."

By definition, destroyed leaves Smith with nothing to "restore."

But I digress...

Your reply was to post Rev 5, 12, 13, 14and Dan 7, 23-26, with absolutely nothing to say as to WHY those verses SHOULD mean what you imply they mean. You just assumed that I should understand that they mean the entire Christian Church was destroyed from the earth, etc.

You said: "I'd say that basically qualifies as apostasy. There are more scriptures prophesying an apostasy."

I countered that I agree there has been apostasy, but apostasy in the church does not indicate a "total" falling away. but the verses you posted proving apostasy, simply do not demonstrate a complete falling away and complete destruction of the Gospel from the earth, etc. as LDS theology teaches. Maybe you see that there but I don't. Your argument is that it IS there, and I have asked you to demonstrate how that can be, since I don't see that in the text. Your reply is to accuse me of ignoring CLEAR Scriptural teaching, yet it's not clear to me by any stretch, since the words necessary to substantiate your argument, are simply not there. So you're going to have to find some means other than just posting these Scriptures and saying.. there you go, right there, plain as day because it simply is not there at all.

You've assigned specific meaning to an apocalyptic "vision" in which there is NO CLEAR meaning. Let's look at just one verse for example.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

There has been a ton of dogma built on revelation but there is no way that I can see, this verse or any of the others which use allegory and symbolism in this same manner can be used to build the doctrine that the Church Christ built with His own blood sacrifice was DESTROYED from the earth, without your a priori assumptions concerning what this verse means. As is the same with the other verses. Unless you already believe that, there is no way this CLEARLY teaches that.

So my argument is that since these verses clearly don't SAY what you imply they mean, I am asking you to prove to me WHY I should believe them as you do.

RevelationTestament · Dec 26, 2013

OK. Let's see if we can establish any common ground.

Let's look at Daniel 9 and see if you agree that the 70 weeks are indeed 490 years.

Let us look at the specific prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah in Daniel 9. Daniel prayed and fasted to know the meaning of the seventy weeks of Jeremiah. Knowing the law of Moses decreed evil would come upon them, he prayed the LORD would forgive and save Jerusalem from desolation. Then Gabriel came therefore to understand the vision.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah [Anointed one] the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times. And after threescore (60) and two weeks shall Messiah be cutoff, but not for himself: and the people of the prince [Rome] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [Titus destroyed the temple]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood [again a flood being the workings of Satan in men], and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week [3 1/2 days or years] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation [the END], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. [The last sentence has also been interpreted as: "and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." Oxford Annotated Bible] Daniel 9:24-7.

I will start by saying Rome is the abomination which maketh desolate. The Roman Church is the Great Harlot and Mother of Abominations of the Earth. At the decreed end the desolator will receive the judgments of Revelation 18. Now let us determine when the 70 weeks start. After Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, the Hebrews returned to Jerusalem in two main migrations, but Daniel stayed in the capitol of the Persians. The first migration under Zerubbabel had commission to rebuild the Temple [known as the Temple of Zerubbabel]. The commission came through king Cyrus of Persia in his first year to build an house at Jerusalem to the LORD God. Cyrus the king brought the vessels of gold and silver king Nebuchadnezzar had taken, and gave them to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah (Zerubbabel), to be taken to Jerusalem. Ezra 1. Zerubbabel led forth the families listed in Ezra 2 to Judah. By the seventh month the people were in their cities, and gathered in Jerusalem where Zerubbabel directed them first in building an altar. Then according to the grant of Cyrus king of Persia, they began collecting wood and materials to rebuild the Temple. Ezra 3. Apparently the rebuilding effort stopped or slowed during the eight year reign of Cambyses. In the sixth month of the second year of Darius the spirit of the LORD was stirred in Zerubbabel through the words of Haggai, to finish the Temple. Apparently, by this time Zerubbabel was recognized as governor of Judah. Haggai 1. The Temple was finished under Darius, king of Persia (who renewed the decree of Cyrus or possibly Darius II), on the third day of the month Adar in the sixth year of Darius. Ezra 6. The second migration returned under Ezra, the scribe, who left Babylon the first day of the first month in the seventh year of king Artaxerxes, who ruled after Darius I, and therefore after Daniel's account. Ezra 7:7-9. They were commissioned by the LORD and king Artaxerxes to beautify the Temple by a letter found in Ezra 7.

However, in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, Nehemiah learned of the troublous times of his people: "The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire." Nehemiah 1:1-3. King Artaxerxes saw his troubled countenance, and Nehemiah told him it was because Jerusalem lay waste, and the gates lay burnt. So the king prepared a letter to the keeper of his forest to cut timber for the rebuilding, and sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2:1-8. When he arrived, he found the city in a state of waste. He told the people what God had put in his heart to do, and called the people to rebuild. Nehemiah 2:17-8. But these were troublous times. When the Arabians, the Ammonites, the Ashdodites, and Tobiah, and Sanballat heard of the rebuilding, they came to fight against Jerusalem, so Nehemiah "...set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows." Nehemiah 4:7,8,13. "So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty and two days." Nehemiah 6:15. "Now the city was large and great: but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded." Nehemiah 7:4.

Cyrus II (the Great) reigned from 549-530 B.C.; Cambyses II from 530-522 B.C.; Darius from 522-486 B.C.; and Xerxes from 486-465 B.C. The commandment to rebuild the walls and the city was to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes I ruled from 465 B.C. to 424 B.C.[1] His twentieth year was 445 B.C. This is about when Old Testament prophecy stopped. This is the beginning of the seventy weeks, which commence with seven weeks (7 x 7 = 49 days/years) to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (when the walls are rebuilt) unto the Messiah, which brings us to 396 B.C. After the second period of threescore and two weeks the Messiah is cut off. Sixty two weeks equals 434 days or prophetic years, which brings us to 38 Anno Domini (according to Roman dating). After His ascension our Lord continued to periodically speak to His apostles, and personally called Paul as a disciple. He then was cut off for awhile, and the Holy Spirit did His work. So the third and last period of the seventy weeks is not consecutive. "Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that is was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel." Zechariah 11:9-14.

The third period is a period of only one week (7 years) when he shall confirm the covenant with many. This is a prophecy of the seven year Jewish war beginning under the reign of Nero. One might say He began to confirm the covenant in Rome in the autumn of 63 A.D. or 64 A.D., when many Christians were called to confirm their covenants with our Lord, and were sacrificed under Nero who chose to blame the Christians for the great fire in Rome. A tradition places the sacrifice of Peter in 67 A.D., rather than 64 A.D. However, this prophecy was directed specifically to the Jews, some of whom had accepted Jesus Christ (Acts 11,12). In the Holy Land the Jewish war did not start until approximately August 15, 66 A.D., when Antonia was attacked, although some argue that it began with the unrest in Jerusalem and its surroundings in approximately May, 66. For the dates concerning the Jewish war I rely on the history of Josephus, the Jewish historian to the Romans. His history uses Macedonian (Greek) names for the months of the year which seem to correspond best with an accurate date if imposed upon the Roman months of the year. If, alternatively the Macedonian name is imposed on the Tyrian system or on the luni-solar calender, the date may vary up to one half month from the date I use herein (Roman). In the spring of the 13th year of Nero, 67 A.D., Vespasian, who is the seventh crown of the great red dragon, was sent to subdue the Hebrews. He began by taking cities and fortresses in Galilee: Jotapata, Japha, Garizim, Tarichaeae, and Gamala. After the death of Nero, Vespasian left his invasion of Judaea in 69 A.D., and returned to defeat Vitellius and become emperor. He then sent his son, Titus.

In the midst of the week, that is in the fourth or middle year, He causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease. The fourth year of the war would be August 15, 69 A.D., to August 14, 70 A.D. According to Josephus, Titus took the outer wall of Jerusalem on May 7, 70. The Temple sacrifice ceased on 17 Panemus, which would correspond with July 17, 70 A.D. Titus burned the Temple on August 10 (10 Lous), 70 A.D. Then the prophesied desolation began. On September 8 (8 Gorpaeus), 70 A.D., Titus took the upper city of Jerusalem. According to Tacitus 600,000 Jews perished. According to Josephus the Romans killed 1,197,000 Jews in the siege and the aftermath of revolts. About 97,000 captives were sold as slaves, or died as unwilling gladiators in the Roman games. The city walls were destroyed. The Jewish War continued until the fall of Masada in 73 A.D. [2] So the Hebrews had till 73 A.D., to accept their Messiah. Major revelations stopped, and the canonical books of the New Testament were set. Continuing revelation was through the Holy Spirit which revealed the truthfulness of the gospel to those who earnestly sought. He knowing the Hebrews would not accept their Messiah, has fulfilled His promise to give His light unto the Gentiles in the latter days. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Luke 13:34-5.

Do you agree that the 70 weeks of prophecy is 490 yrs(from 490 days)?

A Berean · Dec 26, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
OK. Let's see if we can establish any common ground.

Not if you're going to attempt to consider the captivity of the Jews as this "apostasy." Surely you jest.

Again, according to Smith, this "apostasy" allegedly took place in 600 BC, long before the "church of the Lamb" was ever in existence. Obviously someone had their facts mixed up.

Interesting enough, even the Jewish literature of antiquity leaves us with no clue whatsoever concerning these Mormon Doctrines that were allegedly "lost." Outside of the Book of Mormon, where can we find any historical or archeological evidence that proves Mormon doctrines were EVER practiced prior to 1830?

There are some very BASIC questions you need to ask yourself before diving into dogmatic proclamations based on revelation. If Christ's church has been totally destroyed, how can ANY church EVER AGAIN claim to be Christ's Church? It was destroyed, remember? Can you explain that?

What you need to prove is that the New Covenant Church, which Jesus Christ founded in 32 AD with His own Blood Sacrifice - the Body of Christ (the one the gates of hell will never prevail against), is the Mormon Church and NOT that same Christian Church which exists today; And that the Bible we have today does NOT contain the very SAME writings and teachings it contained when they were written 2000 years ago, but instead contained the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Show me evidence of this alleged "corruption" that supposedly removed all of these "plain and precious" teachings Smith insisted he restored, anywhere other than the empty claims of the false prophet Joseph Smith.

You need to prove that the Church Christ founded was really the Mormon Church and not the Christian Church in existence today, until its ordinances were changed, covenant broken on the part of man, and a COMPLETE falling away with a UNIVERSAL apostasy from these alleged Mormon teachings of Christ took place. According to Smith, this falling away allegedly ushered in the false gospel of the Christian Church and some real bad guys corrupted the Bible. Pointing to Daniel 9 as your proof text and saying there you go, doesn't even begin to prove anything of the sort.

If "restoration" theology is true, then you should also be able to point to something.... anything.... that the Book of Mormon has "restored."

So I have asked you two questions and twice to "show me the evidence." When you can address these 4 issues, we will be back on topic and our discussion will continue.

How can the CJCLDS be Christ's Church if Christ's Church was "Destroyed?"

Newbie

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Our God is a consuming fire.

the village i--o--t--

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Similar threads