LDS Against LDS claims about Christians & keeping the commandments: the example of Philoxenos of Mabbug

[Rescued One]

.

 

[Rescued One]

Seventy is a number not an office.

Luke 10
1 Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come.

 

[Peter1000]

Seventy is a number not an office.

Luke 10
1 Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come.

It is both a number and an office, only you would not know that just from the bible. It took current revelation to come to know the value of the 'seventy' in the time of Christ and the apostles.

 

[Peter1000]

Note to Peter1000: I am engaging you here only because it is my own thread, so I started the conversation, and there are obviously some things that need to be corrected in your reply, lest you get a wrong idea about what you have read here. You are still blocked generally from my view, due to your persistent malformed desire to make everything we discuss be about my Church and Chalcedon. That's not any more relevant here than it would be anywhere else, except for the fact that we are dealing with a distinctly Non-Chalcedonian saint here...hence the interaction in this case, rather than keeping you blocked, for the defense of the faith that you have clearly misunderstood.

With all of that out of the way, concerning your reply...



Absolutely, he is. We call him in Coptic Markos pi-Apostolos, "Mark the Apostle", or more fully, pi-Theorimos en-Evangelistis Markos pi-Apostolos "The beholder of God and Evangelist St. Mark the Apostle". He evangelized the Egyptians starting in the first century, establishing our Church in that land and elsewhere (he was from Libya, so it is sometimes said that he first went to Libya before going to Alexandria; it is possible, I suppose), and it is entirely acceptable within traditional Christianity to consider the first person/people to go to a people with the gospel message "the apostle" to that people. By what right was St. Paul an apostle, as he calls himself in the Bible in his epistles, other than being "the apostle to the Gentiles"? He was not of the 12 commissioned during the life of Christ, after all.

So this is standard stuff. Furthermore, St. Mark was one of the 70 (or 72, if you read the Vulgate).



I do "just read my Bible", Peter. I wasn't born yesterday; I know these things that are you talking about happen to be points of difference between the various Christian communions, most easily summarized as "the ecclesiology of Rome vs. everybody else" (for different reasons, depending on who you are talking to and what their background is). And you are essentially doing what Rome is accused of doing regularly: reading back your own ecclesiology into the text, and into the history, in places and times where it definitely wasn't.

So saying "Just read your Bible" is a meaningless statement. I have read it, and do read it, and see nothing of the Mormon claims in it. What now? Your claims are baseless, historically and logically.



This is absolutely false with regard to my Church, and even if it were more generally "the Christian way" (which I don't know that is, but I don't know every single type of church that is out there), what would it have to with the writings of a 5th-6th century Syriac Orthodox bishop and ascetic? That's not "today". That's the point of the thread -- all the way back then, it was still the case that XYZ (things that Mormons claim were 'taken from the earth', or lost in the Great Apostasy of early Christianity) were in fact still present, while Mormon-specific beliefs were condemned.



Again, so 'the keys' of your ecclesiological conception of the Church are essentially alive? They are 'living' when the bishop holding them is alive, but then go 'inoperative' when he has passed on, then 'come back to life' when another bishop is chosen? This is totally bizarre. Sounds like a parody of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, but I don't think they are that extreme. Same with the next section in your reply about an apostle passing on keys to a bishop. Where is that in the early Church? Nowhere. Nowhere at all. 'Apostle' is not, nor has it ever been, a rank or office to be held within the Church hierarchy.



Where is your proof of this accusation, particularly in light of what the historical record shows actually happened? Anyone can claim that "the Lord" did or didn't do this or that, but clearly only one thing actually happened. So where is your evidence that no more bishops were "ordained by the Lord"? Again, if you take this as literally as you seem to, then it must've been the Lord's plan to have the Church die and completely go away c. 106 AD with the death of St. John (who incidentally was not murdered).

Is this your belief about God and His plan, or not? If it is, then at least you are consistent, even though it is insane and contradicted by all available evidence (there absolutely no actual evidence to the contrary).

If it isn't (if God did not intend for the Church to completely vanish and go away with the death of the last apostle), then how do you sustain your very unique ecclesiology and belief in the 'Great Apostasy'?

Again, we're talking about God here -- what He either did or did not do. So there is no wiggle room. You either believe this about God or you don't. Please answer accordingly.



So now because they supposedly lost the knowledge of the keys, they then no longer had the authority? I'm sorry, this is very confusing. Earlier you treated the keys as though they were somehow living objects that can be passed from one man to another, and now you're talking about the knowledge of the keys being indicative of having or not having authority. Which is it -- the 'physical' or quasi-physical passing of the keys (living objects), or the passing on of the knowledge of them? If it's about knowledge, does the fact that you've told me all about them mean that I now have the authority to bind and lose? After all, now I have knowledge of them, and from a Mormon to boot. I don't understand how this is supposed to work.



No, I don't know that. I expect to be an adult and defend what you're claiming with period sources, not just claim "You know I'm right". In actuality, I think this is some of the most warped reading of Christian history I have ever seen in my entire life. But if it's something you can defend, that shouldn't matter, right? So get to it!



Clearly. Or rather, you do need them but do not care whether or not what you write lines up with them, and so your argument suffers accordingly because it can be shown that you don't even know the basics of what you're talking about. You're completely out of your element, and it could not be more obvious. This is fixable, if you'd actually care to fix it by learning things, instead of simply declaring yourself right, apropos of nothing.



Peter, why do you keep responding as though we are on the same page about things when you are peddling Da Vinci Code-level conspiracy nonsense in response to a request for actual period sources akin to that of the OP? It's not that I don't know what you think happened, but rather that what you think happened is apparently influenced by modern fantasy writings rather than history as recorded at the time. 'Intrigue' is irrelevant. Only what is actually recorded matters, because anyone can claim anything if no actual evidence is required. As you can hopefully tell by now, that's now how I work. "You know exactly what I mean" -- No. Stop it. This is not a Mormon meetinghouse. You're not among the default like-minded. Prove what you claim.



Case in point, where do you get this fantasy from? Nestorius was exiled first (at his request) to a monastery in or near Antioch, and from there exiled to Egypt, where he lived until at least 451, dying shortly after the Council of Chalcedon (this is according to pro-Nestorian sources like the absurd "Lynching of Nestorius" that you can find quoted on Wikipedia and other places, written by one Stephen M. Ulrich of "The Institute of Holy Land Studies", which never goes so far as to suggest an actual lynching). This is far from the paranoid fantasy where everyone wanted him dead so they could take his place. I don't know where that's coming from. They wouldn't have had to kill him to do that, since he was already exiled.



Evidence for the bolded part, please!



How on earth is this evidence of anything at all? HH St. John Chrysostom being unable to enforce ecclesiastical discipline on dissenting parties in his region is corruption? That's a rather strange definition of corruption, as the same was true of bishops of Rome at an even earlier date, to whom HH Pope Dionysius of Alexandria similarly wrote letters in guidance, to remind them of the appropriate way to deal with the conflicts they were having with the other churches over the issue of baptisms done by heretical bodies. They couldn't just force the African and Asian churches to accept their own view, either. Is that "corruption", too?

And if so, then is it not also corruption that the LDS could not to this day stop all who claim the Mormon religion from being in polygamous marriages (as the fundamentalist sects of your religion still practice), and even more obviously corruption that it took the LDS themselves until 1910 to formally ban the practice, despite earlier sections of the Doctrine and Covenants dating from 1835 which stated that monogamy is the law of the Latter Day Saint religion -- issued even while Joseph Smith himself was actually living and practicing polygamy? (He married Emma Hale in 1827 and Fanny Alger in 1833.) That's somehow not corruption but "St. John couldn't get what he wanted" is?



How is this in any way, shape, or form a response to the OP? That conflict occurred well before the time of Mor Philoxenos, and is unrelated to the evidence given in his writings that the very things that Mormons claim were taken from the Church at an early date did in fact remain (as they do to this day) well into the period when the 'Great Apostasy' is claimed to have happened/been happening, as well as incidental but very telling refutations of what JS and Co. would later claim were 'restored' from the early Church.

And also, even if it were relevant (which it isn't, at all), Pelagius was allowed after his condemnation (Synod of Carthage, 418) to settle in Alexandria by none other than HH St. Cyril, despite the condemnation of Pelagius as a heretic at the Council of Ephesus in 431, after Pelagius' death. A council which HH St. Cyril presided over.

Kinda makes you think that your depictions of Church history are decidedly more shallow than what actually happened, doesn't it? Or at least I believe it really should.

I cannot imagine going through life claiming to be Christian while knowing essentially nothing of the history of the religion which I have attached myself to, and instead assuming that there is a big conspiracy behind everything and corruption in every place where leaders might have disagreements or fail to be able to meet their goals for this or that reason. Surely Joseph Smith was not granted absolutely everything, right? He never made good on what was first presented as a 'revelation' concerning the selling of the copyright to the BOM in Canada, for instance. Ah! Apostasy!

Sorry...I still can't get over what a ridiculous idea you seem to have in your head as evidence of corruption or apostasy. If that's how things work, then your religion is in apostasy, as well. But of course something tells me that you won't measure it in the same way.

All dicussion and logic set aside, I will let the bible be the judge. Ephesians 2:19-22 gives us what the true foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of the First-century Saints was. Where is that foundation today? It does not exist in any Christian organization.

And Ephesians 4:11-14 tells us that apostles and prophets were given for a reason and without them, it tells us what will happen. And it happened. Read vs 14, we are children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine..... that is Christendom today without living apostles and prophets.

Now, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has had many split offs, but the apostles and prophets have been maintained in the mother church since the beginning, and will not be dominated by any split off. There is no question about who is the true church. Jesus said this would happen and it did, but he also said that the true mother church would not see a rival to disrupt the continued growth of the true church. And that has been true.

Not like in the fifth century and the eleventh century. By that time the mother church was divided so many times that you could not recognize the true church. You cannot recognize the true church today in Christendom, therefore, you must fall back on, we are all the true church, and you know that does not work, really.

The apostasy took place.

 

[dzheremi]

You're still not getting the point of the thread, Peter.

The question is: If the 'great apostasy' actually happened such that these teachings which Mormons assume are unique to Mormonism (since they/you buy into the idea that the 'great apostasy' actually happened, and led to a loss of the Church due to the inability of anyone in it to properly direct it) were lost, then why do we find them in a late fifth-early sixth century bishop and ascetic who you've never heard of? And why, to the extent that what he writes is relevant to beliefs that are actually unique to Mormonism (such as creation from preexisting matter), do we not then find affirmation of those things that Mormons believe that Christians do not, but instead condemnation?

Because you cannot deny that he tells his readers to follow the commandments, and that this is basic to the Christian life, and to keep their covenants, and all these things that Mormons think only they teach or do. Or were the 'many plain and precious things' supposedly lost during the supposed 'great apostasy' something other than these?

As it is, the historical record is against you by the mere existence of this man's writings, regardless of whether or not you or anyone would agree with him or what he writes or the Church he represents...though you'd think you would agree, since he is telling everyone to follow the commandments and to keep their covenants and so on, and that's Mormonism's constant charge against the historical Christian Church: that it didn't do that, and hence it was "taken from the earth" at an early date. Well, again, the historical record says no, and here's the proof.

Please address that. You have not done that so far. Repeating what you believe the foundation of the Mormon religion is does not do that. We're not arguing over whether or not the Church is founded upon prophets and apostles. Everyone can read the scriptures you've cited and see what they say. That does not address the logical inconsistency wherein the Church is supposedly taken from the earth and no one is around that teaches this stuff and yet, wait a minute, here we have a fifth-sixth century bishop and ascetic who is teaching it. (And he's far from the only one; I only used him as an example because he's quite late, being post-Chalcedon and all, and I know that you Mormons would've never encountered any of his writings, so it would be more difficult to wriggle out of what they represent in this context by appeal to an alternate history version of Christianity, as you guys usually do with regard to the 'imperial powers' behind or connected to the councils. Well, for us in the OO communion, this is after the councils, and is certainly not connected to any imperial power. So deal with it.)

 

[Peter1000]

You're still not getting the point of the thread, Peter.

The question is: If the 'great apostasy' actually happened such that these teachings which Mormons assume are unique to Mormonism (since they/you buy into the idea that the 'great apostasy' actually happened, and led to a loss of the Church due to the inability of anyone in it to properly direct it) were lost, then why do we find them in a late fifth-early sixth century bishop and ascetic who you've never heard of? And why, to the extent that what he writes is relevant to beliefs that are actually unique to Mormonism (such as creation from preexisting matter), do we not then find affirmation of those things that Mormons believe that Christians do not, but instead condemnation?

Because you cannot deny that he tells his readers to follow the commandments, and that this is basic to the Christian life, and to keep their covenants, and all these things that Mormons think only they teach or do. Or were the 'many plain and precious things' supposedly lost during the supposed 'great apostasy' something other than these?

As it is, the historical record is against you by the mere existence of this man's writings, regardless of whether or not you or anyone would agree with him or what he writes or the Church he represents...though you'd think you would agree, since he is telling everyone to follow the commandments and to keep their covenants and so on, and that's Mormonism's constant charge against the historical Christian Church: that it didn't do that, and hence it was "taken from the earth" at an early date. Well, again, the historical record says no, and here's the proof.

Please address that. You have not done that so far. Repeating what you believe the foundation of the Mormon religion is does not do that. We're not arguing over whether or not the Church is founded upon prophets and apostles. Everyone can read the scriptures you've cited and see what they say. That does not address the logical inconsistency wherein the Church is supposedly taken from the earth and no one is around that teaches this stuff and yet, wait a minute, here we have a fifth-sixth century bishop and ascetic who is teaching it. (And he's far from the only one; I only used him as an example because he's quite late, being post-Chalcedon and all, and I know that you Mormons would've never encountered any of his writings, so it would be more difficult to wriggle out of what they represent in this context by appeal to an alternate history version of Christianity, as you guys usually do with regard to the 'imperial powers' behind or connected to the councils. Well, for us in the OO communion, this is after the councils, and is certainly not connected to any imperial power. So deal with it.)

From the beginning, the church has taught us to live the commandments and keep the covenants etc. In the 2nd - 19th centuries, there have been men that wrote and write today about the importance of keeping the commandments. So the idea that man in the 5th-6th century would write to his congregation to keep the commandments is not a great surprise to me or anyone in our church.

What we say, is there were good men throughout our Christian history that have tried to keep people on the straight and narrow path. But from the middle 2nd century on, that path became blurred because we were starting to be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
(Ephesians 4:14)

Without apostles the bible says that will happen, and it did. You can look at the Ecumenical councils to see how the very winds of doctrines exploded onto the scene, causing many to break away from these men running the councils. Your church did in the 5th century. The smallest of doctrinal discussions turned into life and death struggles between the churches.

The path was absolutely unclear and because of that men, like your bishop in the 5th and 6th century had to write his treatises to try to keep his parishioners in line. I am sure it helped.

Today, it is almost a dirty word to say we must keep the commandments that Jesus taught, because the doctrine of grace has been so wildly misinterpreted. So Mor Philoxenos, today would be treated like 'He is the way' on this forum, with a rather distant coolness, because Jesus has already saved us with his works, so we don't need to do these things anymore. In fact, you deny Jesus's works and sacrifice if you try to do good works and keep commandments, none are required. Jesus's righteousness is going to cover us, so stop with the good works and commandments stuff, you are just proving your ignorance and disdain for Jesus.

So I think the Church of Jesus Christ would be the first to acknowledge Mor, and his message that we need to keep the commandments, because that doctrine has taken a far back seat in the 21st century.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Well that was a nice piece of fiction, Peter. This is what my Bible says about keeping commandments:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Timeless. No restoration needed.

 

[Peter1000]

Well that was a nice piece of fiction, Peter. This is what my Bible says about keeping commandments:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Timeless. No restoration needed.

You are right, no restoration needed.

Where plain and precious concepts still exist, there is no need to restore them, this is one of those classic biblical sayings that needed no restoration.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You are right, no restoration needed.

Where plain and precious concepts still exist, there is no need to restore them, this is one of those classic biblical sayings that needed no restoration.

Then we are agreed. Joseph Smith and the lds religion(s) and church(es) he founded are unnecessary.

 

[dzheremi]

Where plain and precious concepts still exist, there is no need to restore them, this is one of those classic biblical sayings that needed no restoration.

To address both this and your other reply in one, this is indeed the point of the thread. It is not really about Mor Philoxenos or any other particular person of any time and place (though I chose him precisely for the time and place he came from and is associated with, because the normal Mormon narrative of the 'great and abominable church' or whatever that forces itself on everyone does not work with a dispossessed non-Chalcedonian working on the fringes of an empire that rejects him and his entire Church, in a mixed pagan/Christian environment far from more solidly Christianized the centers of power), but about how what we have been left -- even from obscure places and people we might otherwise not agree with (as is the case if you take a macro level view, where this guy's a this, but that guy's a that, so they don't agree) -- shows that the Mormon claims against traditional Christianity are not true. They don't stand up to scrutiny not just in the context of Mormon/Christian disagreement in Joseph Smith's era or at any point after, but even when considering those figures who existed many, many centuries before Joseph Smith ever did.

So how can the 'great apostasy' have been the taking of the Church from the earth, as though these people and these churches did not exist? Mor Philoxenos did not preach or write anything out of line with the Oriental Orthodox faith, and that's the same faith we still receive and guard today.

And of course if the 'great apostasy' is less than total, then it collapses in on itself because it is not in fact true that these things were taken away or obscured or whatever term you'd like to use. And then there is no need for Joseph Smith or Muhammad or anyone else to come and 'restore' anything, because nothing is lost to begin with.

It seems that you agree with me in a very limited way or to a very limited scope, but that's fine. This is one of those things where the Mormon claim sets such a high standard that even a tiny bit of agreement with a non-Mormon on this topic results in the complete falsification of Mormonism's claims and alternate history narrative. And it does not do that simply because I say it does, but because this is what the Mormon leaders over time have said it does, in what has been called "The dichotomy of Mormonism", as here:

As per the statements of your own leaders, Mormonism is either 100% completely true -- no exceptions -- or 100% completely false, with no room for any other options.

So if the 'great apostasy' did not actually take away the Church from the earth, and you can agree with this fifth-sixth century Syriac Orthodox bishop in whatever capacity (i.e., that he is teaching rightly 'plain and precious things', even within the midst of the 'great apostasy' itself), then your religion is proven to be false and unnecessary by its own standards.

 

[He is the way]

To address both this and your other reply in one, this is indeed the point of the thread. It is not really about Mor Philoxenos or any other particular person of any time and place (though I chose him precisely for the time and place he came from and is associated with, because the normal Mormon narrative of the 'great and abominable church' or whatever that forces itself on everyone does not work with a dispossessed non-Chalcedonian working on the fringes of an empire that rejects him and his entire Church, in a mixed pagan/Christian environment far from more solidly Christianized the centers of power), but about how what we have been left -- even from obscure places and people we might otherwise not agree with (as is the case if you take a macro level view, where this guy's a this, but that guy's a that, so they don't agree) -- shows that the Mormon claims against traditional Christianity are not true. They don't stand up to scrutiny not just in the context of Mormon/Christian disagreement in Joseph Smith's era or at any point after, but even when considering those figures who existed many, many centuries before Joseph Smith ever did.

So how can the 'great apostasy' have been the taking of the Church from the earth, as though these people and these churches did not exist? Mor Philoxenos did not preach or write anything out of line with the Oriental Orthodox faith, and that's the same faith we still receive and guard today.

And of course if the 'great apostasy' is less than total, then it collapses in on itself because it is not in fact true that these things were taken away or obscured or whatever term you'd like to use. And then there is no need for Joseph Smith or Muhammad or anyone else to come and 'restore' anything, because nothing is lost to begin with.

It seems that you agree with me in a very limited way or to a very limited scope, but that's fine. This is one of those things where the Mormon claim sets such a high standard that even a tiny bit of agreement with a non-Mormon on this topic results in the complete falsification of Mormonism's claims and alternate history narrative. And it does not do that simply because I say it does, but because this is what the Mormon leaders over time have said it does, in what has been called "The dichotomy of Mormonism", as here:

As per the statements of your own leaders, Mormonism is either 100% completely true -- no exceptions -- or 100% completely false, with no room for any other options.

So if the 'great apostasy' did not actually take away the Church from the earth, and you can agree with this fifth-sixth century Syriac Orthodox bishop in whatever capacity (i.e., that he is teaching rightly 'plain and precious things', even within the midst of the 'great apostasy' itself), then your religion is proven to be false and unnecessary by its own standards.

(New Testament | 2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 3)

NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

[Peter1000]

To address both this and your other reply in one, this is indeed the point of the thread. It is not really about Mor Philoxenos or any other particular person of any time and place (though I chose him precisely for the time and place he came from and is associated with, because the normal Mormon narrative of the 'great and abominable church' or whatever that forces itself on everyone does not work with a dispossessed non-Chalcedonian working on the fringes of an empire that rejects him and his entire Church, in a mixed pagan/Christian environment far from more solidly Christianized the centers of power), but about how what we have been left -- even from obscure places and people we might otherwise not agree with (as is the case if you take a macro level view, where this guy's a this, but that guy's a that, so they don't agree) -- shows that the Mormon claims against traditional Christianity are not true. They don't stand up to scrutiny not just in the context of Mormon/Christian disagreement in Joseph Smith's era or at any point after, but even when considering those figures who existed many, many centuries before Joseph Smith ever did.

So how can the 'great apostasy' have been the taking of the Church from the earth, as though these people and these churches did not exist? Mor Philoxenos did not preach or write anything out of line with the Oriental Orthodox faith, and that's the same faith we still receive and guard today.

And of course if the 'great apostasy' is less than total, then it collapses in on itself because it is not in fact true that these things were taken away or obscured or whatever term you'd like to use. And then there is no need for Joseph Smith or Muhammad or anyone else to come and 'restore' anything, because nothing is lost to begin with.

It seems that you agree with me in a very limited way or to a very limited scope, but that's fine. This is one of those things where the Mormon claim sets such a high standard that even a tiny bit of agreement with a non-Mormon on this topic results in the complete falsification of Mormonism's claims and alternate history narrative. And it does not do that simply because I say it does, but because this is what the Mormon leaders over time have said it does, in what has been called "The dichotomy of Mormonism", as here:

As per the statements of your own leaders, Mormonism is either 100% completely true -- no exceptions -- or 100% completely false, with no room for any other options.

So if the 'great apostasy' did not actually take away the Church from the earth, and you can agree with this fifth-sixth century Syriac Orthodox bishop in whatever capacity (i.e., that he is teaching rightly 'plain and precious things', even within the midst of the 'great apostasy' itself), then your religion is proven to be false and unnecessary by its own standards.

The Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints stopped functioning as a true church when the last bishop that was ordained by the apostles of the church died. That is why it is difficult to know exactly when the 'keys' were gone from a local area and the entire world. So the church as a true governing body was gone by the mid 2nd century. There is 1 apostle that we believe did not die, and that was John. But he was obviously given instruction to not pass his authority to another person. We do not hear from him until JS says that he knew him. It is my understanding that it was because of his presence on the earth that the gates of hell was not able to prevail against the church.

Does this mean that all the teachings of Jesus Christ did not exist. No. Many of the classical teaching would persist even up until today. Many millions of good people continued to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to do good works in his name and lived lives that resembled the life of Christ. I would call this faithful group through the ages, a remnant of the true church.

Over time, however, these groups were continually losing pieces of the gospel, we call plain and precious pieces of the gospel that moved them away from the true church further and further, until to the present, there are gaps in the gospel that impact a persons personal Christian journey.

Fortunately, this gap may be repaired in the spirit world before the resurrection, and proper ordinances be performed with proper authority, necessary to be raised in the first resurrection at Christ's coming.

Finally, who knows if Mor was teaching all the plain and precious gospel of Jesus Christ, we only have a little of his writings. And if he was 5th or 6th century his knowledge of the fulness of Christ was lacking, for the apostles, who could give this knowledge (Ephesians 4:12-13) had been gone for 300 year or more.

So the true church was not here and Mor was teaching to live the commandments, with was a good thing, but not the fulness of Christ, therefore a restitution of all things had to take place and it did.

 

[dzheremi]

The Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints stopped functioning as a true church when the last bishop that was ordained by the apostles of the church died. That is why it is difficult to know exactly when the 'keys' were gone from a local area and the entire world. So the church as a true governing body was gone by the mid 2nd century. There is 1 apostle that we believe did not die, and that was John. But he was obviously given instruction to not pass his authority to another person. We do not hear from him until JS says that he knew him. It is my understanding that it was because of his presence on the earth that the gates of hell was not able to prevail against the church.

What?! Really? This sounds like something that someone trying to parody Mormonism would make up. I'm going to need a source on this, Peter. I've heard before that Mormons believe that St. John didn't die, but I assumed that meant that they knew he wasn't martyred like the other apostles were, not that they believe that he lived throughout the centuries and never died. Where is he now, in that case?

I apologize in advance if this turns out to be a serious point, but it does sound quite far-fetched...and for JS to claim that he knew him? I dunno, man...I'm even more shocked that anyone can take Mormonism seriously, if that's really what you guys believe.

Does this mean that all the teachings of Jesus Christ did not exist. No. Many of the classical teaching would persist even up until today. Many millions of good people continued to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to do good works in his name and lived lives that resembled the life of Christ. I would call this faithful group through the ages, a remnant of the true church.

Okay, then how is it a total apostasy? You can't say "The Church was taken from the earth...except for those people over there; just don't look at them...because the Church didn't exist anymore!" That's a horribly inconsistent view.

Over time, however, these groups were continually losing pieces of the gospel, we call plain and precious pieces of the gospel that moved them away from the true church further and further, until to the present, there are gaps in the gospel that impact a persons personal Christian journey.

How can you claim in one paragraph that there was this 'remnant' church, and then in the next claim that there wasn't? It either existed or it didn't. Is this a way of having your apostasy and not having to defend it against clear evidence that it never happened, as recognized (now) by you with this talk of a remnant of the true church?

Fortunately, this gap may be repaired in the spirit world before the resurrection, and proper ordinances be performed with proper authority, necessary to be raised in the first resurrection at Christ's coming.

Why are Mormon ordinances necessary for the resurrection to happen? Why is it not enough that Christ told us it would? (e.g., John 6:40)

Finally, who knows if Mor was teaching all the plain and precious gospel of Jesus Christ, we only have a little of his writings.

That's not really true. Comparatively few of his works have been translated into English in comparison to other ethnically Syrian saints like St. Ephrem (of course), or even other well-known non-Chalcedonians like Jacob of Serug, but they still exist in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions. We have some sense of what we are missing because fragments have been published of his commentaries on Matthew and Luke, and some still remain as well of the "Philoxenian" version of the Syriac Bible, which was for some time considered to be the preferred translation in that language until it was superseded by the work of one of his descendants, HG Thomas of Harqel who was also bishop of Mabbug but lived for some time in exile in Egypt, who completed his version of a Syriac translation from the Greek LXX (apparently relying heavily on Philoxenos' version, if sources like Wright's Short History of Syriac Literature are correct) in 616, at the request of the then-Pope of Alexandria, HH Anastasius. In addition to that, there is apparently one homily on St. Mary the Mother of God that has been translated into English, and several letters written to different people who aren't named (e.g., "sent to a friend", "sent to a novice", etc.), which received English translations by Gunnar Olinder in the 1950s.

And if he was 5th or 6th century his knowledge of the fulness of Christ was lacking, for the apostles, who could give this knowledge (Ephesians 4:12-13) had been gone for 300 year or more

This is projecting Mormonism's biases onto someone who lived some thirteen centuries before Joseph Smith. There is no indication anywhere in Christian history that the apostles needed to be alive and walking the earth in order for anyone to receive knowledge of the fullness of Christ. It was Christ Himself who told His apostles that the Holy Spirit would come and lead them into all truth. He didn't say that they would just have it by virtue of being alive. And the Holy Spirit, being God as He is, is not subject to death, so it wouldn't matter if none of the apostles were still around, because the Holy Spirit is never not going to be.

So the true church was not here and Mor was teaching to live the commandments, with was a good thing, but not the fulness of Christ, therefore a restitution of all things had to take place and it did.

You're really contradicting yourself here, though, Peter. Think about it logically: You say of course the teachings weren't all lost because now you know this bishop was around who was preaching things that Mormons usually say were gone with the great apostasy, but since there wasn't 'authority', it doesn't matter, as it was not the fullness of Christ. For one thing, where do you think such right teaching comes from if not from God, and why would He give it to anyone after having taken the church away? Is that how your god acts -- "I'm going to completely take it away, but also leave it there in these scattered people with no authority, so it essentially doesn't matter because they can't do anything with it"? Isn't this pretty far from the God who said in the Bible that you accept as holy scripture, "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them"? (Matthew 18:20) How do you reconcile this with your view of what happened, according to the Mormon narrative?

I don't think you can have it both ways. If even a remnant remained, then the apostasy wasn't total, and if the apostasy wasn't total, then there was nothing to restore. And if the apostasy was total...well...I guess I have to wait for your comments on the St. John being alive all this time thing...

For now, it seems like Mormonism has trapped itself and can't get out.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Could you imagine being the Apostle John over these last 2000 years(per the Mormon view)? Watching the missionary efforts you started flounder. Watching as a corrupted message of the Gospel enters the Church and takes hold. Seeing men and women not get temple marriages or be baptized properly (forever preventing them from the highest heaven). Seeing men and women throw their lives into monasticism. Watching as the world embraced a false version of the true God? Seeing men whom were faithful and loyal to God with a true and innocent faith and yet being unable to appoint them Apostles?

All the while John himself did nothing. He could see the presence of faithful men and women, even those he knew but for some reason he was unable to guide them. Unable to pass the keys. Thus the Holy Spirit apparently died in the Church and remained in him alone.

I bet the Apostle John was depressed seeing the work of Jesus, himself and the Apostles flounder into nothing and accomplish nothing. He was depressed at seeing two thousand years of a false Gospel and probably didn't know why the Mormon God forced him to wait until Joseph Smith came, who is not as remarkable as many men and women before him. I bet John is still depressed.

 

[mmksparbud]

They get the believe from this passage---however, they fail to read the whole passage.

Joh 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

 

[dzheremi]

Guys, this is all too out there...I don't even know that Peter expressed himself properly, so I'm going to hold off on making any further comment with regard to St. John the Apostle until it is confirmed or clarified to me what Peter meant, from his own brain. This seems like one of those things like "God lives on a star called Kolob" which might get some things right (i.e., there is a star in Mormon...uh...theo-cosmology?...called Kolob, and there is a god), but is wrong in its particulars. (As the poster Ironhold recently clarified to me, the Mormon God the Father does not live on it; it's just the name of the star that is closest to wherever he is in time and space.)

There's nothing more useful to the person who does not want to admit a doctrine plainly than to find his interlocutor wrong on a technical point, so I will reserve judgment.

 

[Peter1000]

They get the believe from this passage---however, they fail to read the whole passage.

Joh 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Thank you mmksparbud, we believe that John has indeed tarried until Christ returns. It has not been given just exactly what he has done over the years, but we do know that the Lord allowed him to stay on earth till he returns.

And how do we know that? Because a prophet in our time was allowed to talk with him and knew him. No speculation, no interpretations, no scholarly study, just talked to him and knew him.

And BTW, this knowledge comes from the bible too, as you have presented. We do speculate that he was translated and given the power to extend his life, similar to Elijah who did not die, but was taken, and like the city of Enoch, all of which did not die, but were changed to be able to extend their lives.

 

[mmksparbud]

Thank you mmksparbud, we believe that John has indeed tarried until Christ returns. It has not been given just exactly what he has done over the years, but we do know that the Lord allowed him to stay on earth till he returns.

And how do we know that? Because a prophet in our time was allowed to talk with him and knew him. No speculation, no interpretations, no scholarly study, just talked to him and knew him.

And BTW, this knowledge comes from the bible too, as you have presented. We do speculate that he was translated and given the power to extend his life, similar to Elijah who did not die, but was taken, and like the city of Enoch, all of which did not die, but were changed to be able to extend their lives.

Why are you thanking me? I said you do not read past what you want it to say--
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Enoch and Elijah were not left on this earth---they were translated into heaven. John died--quite taking just the parts of scripture you want. Jesus was saying---it's none of your business what I choose to do!
Your prophet did not talk to him.

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you mmksparbud, we believe that John has indeed tarried until Christ returns. It has not been given just exactly what he has done over the years, but we do know that the Lord allowed him to stay on earth till he returns.

So you really believe that St. John the Apostle is alive now, waiting for Jesus' return. But you don't know where he is or what he has been doing this entire time. But you do believe that his being alive/that he has been alive this entire time is the confirmation of Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church? (post #32)

A few questions, if you don't mind:

How does this belief square with your belief in the Great Apostasy? You say that the Great Apostasy definitely happened because although a remnant of right-teaching people have existed and taught throughout the centuries, they did not have the authority needed to guide the Church/keep it from falling into apostasy, because their line did not involve having said authority passed down directly from one of the twelve apostles, but instead went through the bishops of the intervening centuries. Right? Well, excuse me for being observant, but if one of the original apostles is still alive, then why does authority need to be passed on to anyone at all? You say that St. John was "obviously" instructed not to pass on his authority to anyone else, but if he never died to begin with, why would that matter? It is still with him, then. So the authority given to the apostles by Jesus Christ still exists upon the earth, in the person of St. John the Apostle, making the restoration even more needless than it would be if all of the apostles had died, because the entire way that the authority was supposedly lost -- according to you Mormons -- is that all the apostles died and nobody could carry on in their place!

You've completely shot yourselves in the foot with this belief, since it doesn't go with this other belief at all!

Also, if St. John's being alive to this day is the proof of our Lord's guarantee that "the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church", then why is it St. Peter who answers Him in Matthew 16, leading to the famous "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" line? While St. John is not explicitly mentioned in the text, it does say He was with His disciples, and if we are just going to make things up like St. John living forever, then why could it not have been written to include St. John in that place instead? After all, presumably since Mormonism is the complete restoration of the original Christian Church, this belief concerning St. John should have also been present at the time of the writing of the Gospels, correct? So if the understanding was to be that St. John in his physical preservation was to be the fulfillment of Christ's promise, why is this not reflected in this passage, either by having Christ say it to St. John directly, or even by having Christ say something like "And one of you is not going to die until my second coming; you'll just live on forever on the earth, until I come back", since that's what Mormonism apparently teaches?

 

[Peter1000]

Could you imagine being the Apostle John over these last 2000 years(per the Mormon view)? Watching the missionary efforts you started flounder. Watching as a corrupted message of the Gospel enters the Church and takes hold. Seeing men and women not get temple marriages or be baptized properly (forever preventing them from the highest heaven). Seeing men and women throw their lives into monasticism. Watching as the world embraced a false version of the true God? Seeing men whom were faithful and loyal to God with a true and innocent faith and yet being unable to appoint them Apostles?

All the while John himself did nothing. He could see the presence of faithful men and women, even those he knew but for some reason he was unable to guide them. Unable to pass the keys. Thus the Holy Spirit apparently died in the Church and remained in him alone.

I bet the Apostle John was depressed seeing the work of Jesus, himself and the Apostles flounder into nothing and accomplish nothing. He was depressed at seeing two thousand years of a false Gospel and probably didn't know why the Mormon God forced him to wait until Joseph Smith came, who is not as remarkable as many men and women before him. I bet John is still depressed.

Yes, John must have cried every day to see the church change into a game of thrones. And for Rome to devolve into the synagogue of satan. (Martin Luther, the reformer's description of Rome)

He must have cried when he witnessed the Alexandria that continually erupted into a political war between the Christians, Jews, and pagans over who would be preeminent in the city. Murder, exiles of thousands of people, loss of homes and property was the order of the day.

He must have cried as he watched bishops fight against bishops and dethrone one bishop after another for silly jealousies, and doctrinal differences that did not amount to a hill of beans. But fight we will so our particular belief will be preeminent. Every year there was a new false teaching that had to be rooted out and out of revenge and jealousy were thrones given and taken in Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome.

He must have cried when bishops took upon themselves not only to be head of the church, but also head of the city or political arena that caused so much controversy and life and property.

I could literally go on and on, look at every bishop and their rules and you will find a lot of controversial events that make you want to wonder if they knew anything about Christ and how he operates?

But you are right, John did not like what he saw Christianity devolve into and could not do anything about it.