LDS The Infallibility of the Prophets

[Leaf473]

They could have both a civil marriage and a temple marriage, I did. There were secret financial records during Christ's time.

What secret financial records are you referring to?

 

[Peter1000]

And your god is bound by human notions of time and generation why, exactly?

God and his notions of time and generation are the same us as for you.

If Mormonism is as Christian as its partisans claim it to be, then how come there was never such a ban on black Africans being priests in types of Christianity that maintain a sacerdotal priesthood, like Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?

Some Christian churches allowed it, some did not. During the 1800's and part of the 1900's many Christian churches would not allow blacks to hold priesthood in their churches. Many Christian churches would not allow blacks to even enter into their churches.

two other things He never revealed to anyone before JS in the at the time 1,800 year history of Christianity?

There are many things the Lord did not reveal to the Christian churches because of their resistence to his commandents. Here is a good example:
1 Corinthians 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Paul tried to reveal higher commandments to the Corinthians and they could not bear it. They were having problems with the milk, so Paul could not reveal unto them the meat of the gospel.

You keep jawing on the past, no Christian church has a glowing past, their are flaws and imperfections galore, because our churches are made up of imperfect people and imperfect leaders. However, our leaders got the word in 1978 that all worthy men should now have the right to hold the priesthood of God. We celebrate that day as do many with us in the black community.

You wish to continue to present the past, so you can be negtive about the church as always, and do not give anything to the present which is positive in all ways toward the black community. 10 temples now in Africa, one of the most growing communities in the church today. Very positive.

 

[He is the way]

In LDS teaching, then, it is possible to serve God and love Him enough to keep His commandments and still be part of the Church of satan?

No.

 

[He is the way]

I can see how having a civil marriage service first would be a possible solution, and that's a good idea.

Even with two separate marriage ceremonies, though, there is still certainly potential for bad situations arising. So again, it looks to me like LDS are giving under compulsion, even if they actually are happily giving more than 10%.

Bad situations?

 

[He is the way]

What secret financial records are you referring to?

I believe that there were financial records kept of the money that was cast into the treasury. I could be wrong. Was the amount of money cast into the treasury made public?

(New Testament | Mark 12:41 - 44)

41 ¶ And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

God is happy with people who give cheerfully, but not so happy with those who don't:

(New Testament | Acts 5:1 - 5)

1 BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

 

[He is the way]

The problem with this kind of assertion is that it assumes that JS was telling the truth and not subject to spiritual delusion, and therefore that his 'visions' (plural) didn't need any kind of verification from an actually-existing church. This is very unlike, for example, St. Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Emmaus. If you'll recall, he had this encounter and at its conclusion he was told to enter the city where he would be met by one of the believers who would receive him (see Acts 9).

Well at least I know that Joseph Smith was indeed telling the truth. We have the Book of Mormon. You believe Paul's account because of the Bible.

I am aware of your God-mocking belief, but again, the problem is that you are simply stating it as though it is fact because you believe it. And when you or other Mormons are asked where the proof is that this 'priesthood authority' was lost, you post Bible verses that mention the future when people will fall away from the faith, as though it is self-evident that these are referring to the Mormon 'Great Apostasy' idea, and not, I don't know, the coming of parasitic, pseudo-Christian religions like Mormonism which would draw people away from Christianity. Again, a propos of nothing. It's just something you already believe, so it's true. Well I'm sorry, that's not going to do it. You're going to have to show how, when, and where this was the case, and you cannot do that. Or if you can, you and every other Mormon here have not done so yet, despite being asked whenever this topic comes up.

Joseph Smith and others holding the priesthood have performed miracles and healed the sick:

"July 22, 1839.—Joseph arose from his bed of sickness, and the power of God rested upon him. He commenced in his own house and door-yard, commanding the sick, in the name of Jesus Christ, to arise and be made whole, and they were healed according to his word. He then continued to travel from house to house from tent to tent upon the bank of the river, healing the sick as he went until he arrived at the upper stonehouse, where he crossed the river in a boat, accompanied by several of the Quorum of the Twelve, and landed in Montrose.3"

From: “A Day of God’s Power”

When President Snow Called a Girl Back from the Dead: An Incredible Account of the Spirit World | LDS Living

That makes no sense. He wouldn't suffer it to be misused, so He allowed it or caused it to be lost?

It was lost because God did not suffer it to be misused and it was misused.

We were in communion with the Church of Rome, but it was not the "Roman Catholic Church" at that time, as the characteristics which mark it as unique today (its unique ecclesiology, theology, etc.) were largely absent at the time. For instance, the filioque -- the addition of the phrase "and the Son" in the clause of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which was unique to the Latin churches before the creation of the first Eastern uniates after the Great Schism -- wasn't added until c. 580s. Ask any Roman Catholic: even that name wasn't applied to their Church until the time of the Reformation, by Protestants. Etymology Online gives the date of 1554 AD, which is over a millennia after Chalcedon and at least a few centuries after the 'Great Schism' between the Eastern and Western Chalcedonians (generally dated to 1054, though some say it wasn't finalized until the sacking of Constantinople in 1204).

No. That makes no sense. How would priesthood in the Egyptian Church 'come from' Rome? Rome has never had any kind of ecclesiastical authority over Egypt, or even real presence there. Rome did not even form its own uniate Church in Egypt (the Coptic Catholic Church, an Eastern Rite church of some 187,000 people) until 1824, and even then it was basically titular. In fact, the first vicar of the Coptic Catholics was appointed in 1781 to oversee less than 2,000 people, and very shortly afterwards thought better of his decision and returned to Orthodoxy in repentance.

By 1824, we were already on our 109th Pope, HH St. Peter VII. How could that have been the case if our 'priesthood lineage' came from Rome? In truth, HH St. Peter VII refused the overtures of the Latins and the Russians alike. He famously responded to the Russian tsar's offer of protection by asking him rhetorically if he planned to live forever, and when the answer came that he would die like any man, HH told him he will stay with the Protector of the Church who does not die (Christ). These aren't the words of someone who recognizes Rome or the Chalcedonian churches more generally as being the origin of the Church or its 'priesthood lineage', and he is not unique at all in our history.

My priesthood lineage is from Jesus Christ and the apostles.

No more than the Chalcedonian Church could be said to be formed in that year. That's the thing about mutual anathematizations: they're mutual. They establish us as separate from those we anathematize (though to be more technical about it, we did not anathematize the Chalcedonians as people, only the Tome; HH St. Timothy II, the direct successor to our teacher HH St. Dioscorus, mandated that any who wished to return to Orthodoxy from Chalcedonianism be accepted by profession of faith only, after an appropriate period of reflection to make sure that this is what they really want to do). They also establish those who we are separated from as their own unique population. Think about it logically: before 451 AD, no one was Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, as Chalcedon hadn't happened yet. So did Chalcedon create a 'new' church, or two new churches? It depends on who you ask, of course, but just as the Chalcedonians would say that they changed nothing between 450 and 451, we likewise say that we did not change in rejecting Chalcedon, and we have the record to prove it, in the sayings of the likes of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite of the White Monastery (pre-Chalcedonian Coptic saint, b. c.347), the historical record on both sides of the divide with regard to the Trisagion or Agios prayer (both Zacharias Rhetor on the OO side and Patriarch Ephrem of Amida on the EO side say that what has been recast as the 'OO understanding' was common to all the people of Syria since the days of HH St. Eustathios of Antioch, who was patriarch before the founding of Constantinople, which the 'EO understanding' of the hymn is traditionally tied to), etc.

This is where I got my information:

Oriental Orthodox Churches shared communion with the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Imperial Roman Church before the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, as well as with the Church of the East until the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, all separating primarily over differences in Christology.

From: Oriental Orthodox Churches - Wikipedia

The questions surrounding the schism of the 5th century open a very deep hole, and I think if you're going to attempt to traverse it in order to make some kind of point against my Church in particular, I will warn you that you will not be able to get out of it with such a shallow understanding of the conflict such as you have now. And again, it is unrelated to any of my questions about Mormonism. So you might not want to go there, or at least instead request that a separate thread be made. (I'd absolutely be willing to participate in it, but as you can probably tell from this post, that comes with a lot of background reading to get the necessary information to even make sense of what you're looking at. To this very day, the two 'sides' don't even necessarily agree on the substance of what the schism was actually about. So get ready for a lot of references, and a lot more history than you are probably equipped to deal with, if this is where you want to go...that is to say, if it is not just a cheap ploy to recast my Church as something akin to the Protestant churches or some other western phenomenon that you are more familiar with.)

What are the examples that the Oriental Orthodox Church is true?

"Then" as in since Chalcedon? So Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus are all preserving the true faith? Well dang, man, in that case I'll see you at liturgy as soon as we're able to have them again!

 

[dzheremi]

God and his notions of time and generation are the same us as for you.

No. The Christian God is not bound by time. See, e.g., Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. God exists outside of time, as time is a human-created concept. There is nothing that dictates a 7-day week, for instance (that idea likely originated with the Babylonians, but other ancient civilizations had differently-numbered weeks, and differently-numbered weeks lasted well into the Christian Era), and it may or may not surprise you to know that today is not November 6, 2020 for everyone. For the Egyptians who still use the Ancient Egyptian Calendar based on the reform of Ptolemy III in 238 BC, it is currently Paopi 28, 1737 A.M. (Anno Martyrum = Year of the Martyrs, counted from the ascendency of the great persecutor Emperor Diocletian in 284 AD.) You might react by thinking "So what -- it's the same day; it's just called a different thing", which is sort of correct, but not really since the months of the Coptic calendar don't line up with our months. Paopi starts on October 11 and ends November 9; and then there's the "little month" at the end of the year, known in Bohairic Coptic as Pikouji Navot, corresponding to September 4-10, which gives this calendar a total of 13 months. Oh, and also every day technically ends in the evening with the concluding prayer (so if you go to the website of the Southern Diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church, you can see readings listed under "Today's Readings" that seem to be for tomorrow, November 7, appearing today on November 6). So I'm either already in the future relative to all of you, or in the past relative to the Egyptians.

See, so the concept of time is completely arbitrary, since we made it up. We can say that it means whatever we think it means, and our agreement that today is when it is and called what it is called and so on has more to do with being brought up in the same society than there being anything real about "Friday night" or "2020 AD", etc.

Some Christian churches allowed it, some did not. During the 1800's and part of the 1900's many Christian churches would not allow blacks to hold priesthood in their churches. Many Christian churches would not allow blacks to even enter into their churches.

Okay, so again, how is it that you're any better than they are when so many of them didn't do these things? Nobody in the churches of Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Latin-speaking North Africa (modern Algeria, Tunisia) restricted black people this way. Many were black themselves (including not just priests but also bishops, archbishops, etc.), or were not black but welcomed black people. Sometimes there was even racism involved on a local level (the life of St. Moses the Ethiopian tells us that initially some of the Egyptian monks in the monastery he came to refused to listen to him because they did not want to take counsel from a black man; shameful, even for the 4th century!), though there was also correction issued to the racists (e.g., when HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic heard of this situation, he examined the faith, life, and deeds of St. Moses and placed him in charge of the monks, as his faith and virtue was greater than theirs).

There are many things the Lord did not reveal to the Christian churches because of their resistence to his commandents. Here is a good example:
1 Corinthians 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

We have been through the Mormon understanding of this verse and concept and found it to be at odds with the historical Christian understanding as found in the Church Fathers, so I don't want to belabor that point. Instead I will ask the following question: let's assume that what you say here is true, that the Corinthians could not bear God's commandments; you are aware that the Church at Corinth was just one local church in the Mediterranean, right? Don't get me wrong, it's still the Church as it exists at that location (in keeping with Orthodox ecclesiology), but it's not the knock-out piece of evidence for a worldwide great apostasy or anything of the kind. And heck, Peter, not to make your point for you, but the Spirit says even more condemnatory things to the seven churches of Asia in the Revelation of St. John than this, praising them in some things and condemning them in others, as is correct to do of course, but even there it never says "And because of this (sin that I am convicting you/warning you of) the Church is taken from the Earth to be restored later" or whatever.

So as always, we're dealing with a disagreement not over the presence or absence of apostasy or people/congregations who will not endure sound doctrine or what have you (as these realities are attested to in the holy scriptures), but over the scope and antiquity of the presumed apostasy on the part of Mormons. Did some fall away in the past, even the very ancient past? Absolutely. Will some still fall away in the future? You bet. Does this mean in any way, shape, or form that the Church became irrevocably corrupted such that it vanished from the face of the Earth only to be restored later by Joseph Smith via visitations with "God and Jesus" and various Biblical personages? No. None of that ever happened. Does that mean that by X date we can say "The Great Apostasy was happening/had happened, and there was no more true Church for X number of centuries"? No to that, too. Well, I mean, you can say all of this and more if you want to, but this is all against Christianity. Christ said that the Church which He established would persevere, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Christ, of course, was and is and always will be 100% correct; 'modern prophets' do not get to presume to correct our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

You keep jawing on the past

Well if you have a way that we can discuss an event or period that is said to have happened in the past, involving people and events in the past, and extending for a long time in that past until another point that was also in the past, without "jawing on the past", I'd like to hear about it.

no Christian church has a glowing past

I never said any of them did. That's not the point at all.

their are flaws and imperfections galore, because our churches are made up of imperfect people and imperfect leaders.

No ones expecting Mormon leaders or any leaders to be perfect; maybe just at least significantly less racist than the surrounding society by 1977, rather than significantly more, given how they pin the blame for their racism on 'God', so you'd think they wouldn't be behind the curve on this given their connection to the heavenly being.

However, our leaders got the word in 1978 that all worthy men should now have the right to hold the priesthood of God.

And ours did basically at the beginning of our religion, when Moses married an Ethiopian wife (for an OT reference), or when St. Philip preached to the Ethiopian.

You wish to continue to present the past, so you can be negtive about the church as always, and do not give anything to the present which is positive in all ways toward the black community. 10 temples now in Africa, one of the most growing communities in the church today. Very positive.

No, I only wish to show how the Mormon 'great apostasy' idea is so incorrect, unsupportable, and ultimately anti-God. As for any converts your religion has made in Africa or anywhere else in the world, Lord have mercy. I hope they are freed from this new manifestation of slavery (of the worst kind: spiritual slavery) on the African continent or anywhere else Mormonism is established.

 

[Peter1000]

A disagreeing opinion does not an apostasy make.

You are right about a simple disagreeing of opinion. But a disagreeing of opinion that leads to moving millions of people out of God's "supposed" church and creating hundreds of new churches in it's stead is at least gounds to consider why? Apostasy should be at least among the possibilities. Especially if your hero Martin Luther is right about Rome being satans home.

Was the Catholic faith the only option back then? You've failed church history lessons with @dzheremi so I don't expect you to know that answer.

In europe, at the time of the reformation, there were small factions of people such as the Wandenese, the Lollards, the Ana Baptists, the Hussites, that were not in line with Rome, and Rome was killing and persecuting them in the attempt to anihilate them. So Martin decided to form his own church. So did Zwingli, so did Calvin.

Dzheremi has his opinion of church history, I have mine. He may know more about church history, but his opinion of church history may or may not be right. I think it is not right. Just look at the ecumenical councils and you can see that it was not the Holy Ghost that guided the decisions, it was the faction that got the most bishops there first that made the decisions, regardless of the Holy Ghost.

Isn't it interesting that none of the churches mentioned in the New Testament have the name of Jesus Christ in their name? Obviously not a determining factor in which is the "true" church.

Your right, having the name of Jesus Christ in the name of your church is not a determining factor as to whether you are the true church. But it is 1 factor. If you aren't sure you are the true church, you definately will not put Jesus's name on it.

Luther disagreeing with some of the practices of Rome does not mean that an apostacy
occurred. Christianity existed outside of Rome's influence. People sin. People in high places sin. God is all about repentance and forgiveness. Absolutely does not mean a "great apostasy" occurred that needed a false prophet to pretend to restore.

It is, however, one factor. And when you add up all the factors, disagreeing with Rome so emphatically as to put your life on the line is a pretty decent factor that Rome had apostatised from the true church. The reformation folks tried to right the ship, but they fell flat because they did not have the priesthood.

When JS came along, he was not a reformer, but a restorer, and he came to know that he needed the priesthood, the keys of the kingdom which Christ had given to Peter in order to do the work that heaven would recognize. So he sought after it by prayer and his prayers were answered and he received the priesthood and the work moved quickly on.

 

[Leaf473]

...no Christian church has a glowing past, their are flaws and imperfections galore, because our churches are made up of imperfect people and imperfect leaders.

(Please pardon my jumping in here.)

I think this is the thrust of the OP, as I understand it. Since the leaders are imperfect, it doesn't make sense to give unwavering allegiance to them.

But, in highly authoritarian and controlling groups such as the JW's, LDS, and to a lesser degree the Catholic Church, once an individual begins to question the leader, it all begins to unravel.

For example, if the pope can be wrong, then maybe I don't have to go to confession before Mass after all.

 

[Leaf473]

No.

Okay, then I'm confused again as to how this works in LDS teaching.

From post #251:
We believe there are only two churches on the earth, Christ's church and Satan's church and that everyone belongs to one or the other.
LDS - The Infallibility of the Prophets

If it isn't possible to serve God and love Him enough to keep His commandments and still be part of the Church of satan,

And if there have always been people on earth who served God and loved Him enough to keep His commandments,

then Christ's Church never left the Earth.

Does that all follow, or did I make a mistake somewhere?

 

[He is the way]

Okay, then I'm confused again as to how this works in LDS teaching.

From post #251:
We believe there are only two churches on the earth, Christ's church and Satan's church and that everyone belongs to one or the other.
LDS - The Infallibility of the Prophets

If it isn't possible to serve God and love Him enough to keep His commandments and still be part of the Church of satan,

And if there have always been people on earth who served God and loved Him enough to keep His commandments,

then Christ's Church never left the Earth.

Does that all follow, or did I make a mistake somewhere?

You did not make a mistake, there have always been people who follow God and those who follow Satan. Those who follow God are of God's church and those who follow Satan are of Satan's church. The wheat and the tares are mixed. That being said there needs to be way for God's ordinances to be performed with the authority of His priesthood. That authority has been restored to the earth. God has made it available to all of His children alive or dead, but He will force no one to heaven. We all have choices to make, it is my hope that everyone will choose wisely to LOVE God and serve Him.

 

[dzheremi]

You are right about a simple disagreeing of opinion. But a disagreeing of opinion that leads to moving millions of people out of God's "supposed" church and creating hundreds of new churches in it's stead is at least gounds to consider why?

Yes, like why did Joseph Smith form his own parasitic 'church' if the creation of new churches is to be taken as a sign of apostasy/an inherently bad thing? Seems that following your logic he shouldn't have done that, or at least you shouldn't support him having done that if you want to be consistent.

In europe, at the time of the reformation, there were small factions of people such as the Wandenese, the Lollards, the Ana Baptists, the Hussites, that were not in line with Rome, and Rome was killing and persecuting them in the attempt to anihilate them. So Martin decided to form his own church. So did Zwingli, so did Calvin.

It may interest you to know if you don't already that heretics were burned to death for heresy in Calvinist Geneva, such as infamous anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake on the order of the city's governing council in 1553. Any rosy picture painted of Protestant reformers bravely resisting violent and barbaric Rome is no doubt rightly complicated by the reality that in some cases and places the offspring of the original reform movement showed that they were more concerned that Rome wasn't killing the right heretics, rather than that Rome was killing those they considered to be heretics period. (For background: Servetus was a Spaniard, born Miguel Serveto in the Kingdom of Navarre, so he was definitely one of Rome's own heretics. He was originally arrested by Roman Catholic authorities and imprisoned in April of 1553; his burning at the stake occurred on October 27th of that year.)

Dzheremi has his opinion of church history, I have mine. He may know more about church history, but his opinion of church history may or may not be right. I think it is not right. Just look at the ecumenical councils and you can see that it was not the Holy Ghost that guided the decisions, it was the faction that got the most bishops there first that made the decisions, regardless of the Holy Ghost.

The difference between you and I is that I have sources for my claims, and try to link to either primary or secondary sources (i.e., either the original documents or commentaries on them, usually) whenever available, whereas your alternate history of Christianity is not informed by anything but Mormon propaganda that specifically avoids those same sources, as they do not come down in favor of Mormonism at all, since Mormonism is not the restoration of once 'corrupted' early Christianity. I think the best I ever saw in this regard (in that it at least made reference to a few early Church Fathers) was a Mormon essay that attempted to use HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic as a reference for the supposedly patristic nature of Mormonism's idea of 'progression to Godhood'. Of course it only took showing the work that this was taken from to prove that the Mormons had either knowingly or out of ignorance twisted HH's words so as to make a point that was diametrically opposed to the actual point that HH was making in that same work (and in the rest of his writings, and in the writings of all the fathers; again, nothing in the history of the patristic writings in any way supports uniquely Mormon doctrines), but at least for that one essay you guys sort of tried to acknowledge that there is some worth to looking to the early Church itself, rather than assuming that it's a useless exercise since it is all 'corrupt' by that point.

Your right, having the name of Jesus Christ in the name of your church is not a determining factor as to whether you are the true church. But it is 1 factor. If you aren't sure you are the true church, you definately will not put Jesus's name on it.

Since when is it a factor? Christ praises St. Peter in Matthew 16 and says that on this rock (variously understood to mean the rock of St. Peter's confession and/or on the person of Peter himself) He will build His Church, but does not specify what its name should be. There are of course many, many churches dedicated to Christ in particular (just think of every parish with "Redeemer" or "Savior" somewhere in its name), but this is generally not thought of as being to the exclusion of whatever saints or events these same parishes' Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. churches honor by naming other parishes after people or things other than Christ.

It is, however, one factor. And when you add up all the factors, disagreeing with Rome so emphatically as to put your life on the line is a pretty decent factor that Rome had apostatised from the true church.

Why are you focused so intently on Rome? Does your ecclesiology somehow not function without having Rome to be the bad guy? I'm not even sure most Protestants think of themselves in such terms today, so it's weird to see a Mormon argue this way.

The reformation folks tried to right the ship, but they fell flat because they did not have the priesthood.

At least some refractions of the Reformation led to a disbelief in any kind of priesthood, so at least for those it would follow that not having the priesthood is not a problem, but part of the entire point. What would you say to them? I ask because I'm willing to bet that such people or movements would very quickly dismiss this way of thinking as heavily smacking of 'Romanism'.

When JS came along, he was not a reformer, but a restorer, and he came to know that he needed the priesthood, the keys of the kingdom which Christ had given to Peter in order to do the work that heaven would recognize. So he sought after it by prayer and his prayers were answered and he received the priesthood and the work moved quickly on.

So in this way of thinking, JS is in some sort of priestly line descending from St. Peter? What about the churches that he is most closely connected to by virtue of having actually gone to them, namely Rome and Antioch? It was once even accepted by Rome that St. Peter even served as a bishop in Antioch (this is something that actual Antiochian churches have never lost sight of, though Rome's identification with St. Peter in Rome has led to a corresponding lack of emphasis on their previous feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Antioch, which I believe was sometime in February; I'd link to something about this, but I don't know how to go about finding it, since I don't know which Roman sources would testify to this; maybe it's in some old martyrology or something).

Why does JS supposed 'priesthood' overshadow or replace this established historical record? I don't want to read your testimony in response to this (obviously you already believe it to be true); I want to see actual reasons why people like HH St. Evodius (the direct successor of St. Peter at Antioch, who was ordained while the apostle was still alive, c. 53 AD) or his successor HH St. Ignatius (r. 68-c.106) are somehow not to be trusted/corrupt/whatever the charge is, while Joseph Smith is not to be subject to at least that same level of scrutiny.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Especially if your hero Martin Luther is right about Rome being satans home.

My hero? Your ignorance is showing...

Dzheremi has his opinion of church history, I have mine. He may know more about church history, but his opinion of church history may or may not be right. I think it is not right.

Still showing...

our right, having the name of Jesus Christ in the name of your church is not a determining factor as to whether you are the true church. But it is 1 factor. If you aren't sure you are the true church, you definately will not put Jesus's name on it.

Still showing... It either is or isn't a determining factor. You contradict yourself. None of the early churches in the NT had his name on them (7 churches in Revelation, churches at Antioch, Corinth, etc.). Christ's redeeming message is for people, all people, whether they are members of a certain church or not, regardless if the name of a church has the name of Christ in it or not. People are saved, not churches.

It is, however, one factor. And when you add up all the factors, disagreeing with Rome so emphatically as to put your life on the line is a pretty decent factor that Rome had apostatised from the true church.

You keep missing the point. The LDS church claims a "Great Apostasy". Despite what "Rome" may or may not have done, Christianity as a whole never disappeared. You ignore historical facts in the name of your church's false claims.

The reformation folks tried to right the ship, but they fell flat because they did not have the priesthood.

As has been discussed in the other thread, the "priesthood" as the LDS try to define it never existed in the NT or early Christian church. We are a priesthood of believers, but none of us hold an "Aaronic" or "Melchizedek" priesthood. Jesus is the one and only Melchizedek priest.

When JS came along, he was not a reformer, but a restorer, and he came to know that he needed the priesthood, the keys of the kingdom which Christ had given to Peter in order to do the work that heaven would recognize. So he sought after it by prayer and his prayers were answered and he received the priesthood and the work moved quickly on.

No apostasy, no lost priesthood, no need for the LDS "restoration".

 

[Leaf473]

Bad situations?

Well, suppose the temple ritual is done first. Wouldn't the couple already be married then by the time of the civil ceremony? I assume there are people at the temples registered to sign marriage licenses.

Suppose the civil ceremony is done first. Then those with a temple recommend head off to the temple. haven't you ever had the experience of your friends and family going to a party to which you were not invited? How did you feel?

Suppose the temple is maybe an hour's drive away. I think the OP talked in a previous thread about the common practice of carpooling to the temple, and how because of that it was obvious who had a recommend and who did not. So even though it's theoretically confidential, in practice it largely is not, it sounded to me.

**********

But maybe you're thinking these are not really examples of compulsion.

Well, I have a choice about whether or not to rob the bank down the street. I could rob it, probably get caught and go to prison. But I do have a choice. Am I under compulsion?

When I pull up in front of the library in the small town where I live, I have a choice of whether or not to put a quarter in the parking meter. I can choose not to, and risk a parking ticket which I think is $3 (gasp). Again, compulsion?

I say yes in both cases, the parking meter is just very mild compulsion.

 

[Leaf473]

I believe that there were financial records kept of the money that was cast into the treasury. I could be wrong. Was the amount of money cast into the treasury made public?

(New Testament | Mark 12:41 - 44)

41 ¶ And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

I don't know if the temples financial records were public or not. I don't think, though, that the temple at Jesus time was a good model for Christian financial record keeping. These are the same people who bribed Judas.

God is happy with people who give cheerfully, but not so happy with those who don't:

(New Testament | Acts 5:1 - 5)

1 BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

I agree that God wants us to be cheerful givers! And as Paul talks about, give what you've decided in your heart.

Of course, any scripture reference that either of us have posted is a lot less convincing if it is potentially wrong.

 

[He is the way]

Well, suppose the temple ritual is done first. Wouldn't the couple already be married then by the time of the civil ceremony? I assume there are people at the temples registered to sign marriage licenses.

Suppose the civil ceremony is done first. Then those with a temple recommend head off to the temple. haven't you ever had the experience of your friends and family going to a party to which you were not invited? How did you feel?

In my case I had the civil ceremony first and after some time (a few years later) we were sealed in the temple. I have not heard of any bad situations.

Suppose the temple is maybe an hour's drive away. I think the OP talked in a previous thread about the common practice of carpooling to the temple, and how because of that it was obvious who had a recommend and who did not. So even though it's theoretically confidential, in practice it largely is not, it sounded to me.

It has never been obvious as to who does or does not have a recommend. It is not uncommon for a person to let their recommend lapse, besides we don't judge members on whether they have a temple recommend or not. I didn't have a recommend for many years and no one treated me any different.

**********

But maybe you're thinking these are not really examples of compulsion.

Well, I have a choice about whether or not to rob the bank down the street. I could rob it, probably get caught and go to prison. But I do have a choice. Am I under compulsion?

When I pull up in front of the library in the small town where I live, I have a choice of whether or not to put a quarter in the parking meter. I can choose not to, and risk a parking ticket which I think is $3 (gasp). Again, compulsion?

I say yes in both cases, the parking meter is just very mild compulsion.

No I do not see those examples as examples of compulsion. No one has to park at a parking meter. No one has to rob a bank. No one has to go to the temple. That being said our choices have their consequences either bad or good.

 

[Leaf473]

You did not make a mistake, there have always been people who follow God and those who follow Satan. Those who follow God are of God's church and those who follow Satan are of Satan's church. The wheat and the tares are mixed. That being said there needs to be way for God's ordinances to be performed with the authority of His priesthood. That authority has been restored to the earth. God has made it available to all of His children alive or dead, but He will force no one to heaven. We all have choices to make, it is my hope that everyone will choose wisely to LOVE God and serve Him.

Amen to loving God and serving him!

If Christ's Church was never taken from the earth, then why was the priesthood taken from the Earth in LDS thinking?

 

[Leaf473]

In my case I had the civil ceremony first and after some time (a few years later) we were sealed in the temple. I have not heard of any bad situations.

I'm glad you haven't heard of any bad situations.

It seems to me, though, if I earnestly believed that something real took place in the temple, I would want to see my children go through the ritual where they are sealed for "time and all eternity", I think it is.

It has never been obvious as to who does or does not have a recommend. It is not uncommon for a person to let their recommend lapse, besides we don't judge members on whether they have a temple recommend or not. I didn't have a recommend for many years and no one treated me any different.

it sounds like your experience is different from what the OP related.

If a bunch of people are carpooling it seems like it would be obvious who was there.

**********
No I do not see those examples as examples of compulsion. No one has to park at a parking meter. No one has to rob a bank. No one has to go to the temple. That being said our choices have their consequences either bad or good.

The compulsion is not to rob the bank, people are compelled not to rob it.

And yes you can walk from a long ways away and avoid the parking meter. But that's not a pleasant experience if you have a lot of books and it's a hot, humid day.

But again, none of this really matters, if Paul's writings can't be trusted, if I understood you correctly about that.

 

[He is the way]

Amen to loving God and serving him!

If Christ's Church was never taken from the earth, then why was the priesthood taken from the Earth in LDS thinking?

The priesthood was lost due to corruption:

(New Testament | Acts 20:28 - 31)

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

 

[Peter1000]

No. The Christian God is not bound by time. See, e.g., Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. God exists outside of time, as time is a human-created concept. There is nothing that dictates a 7-day week, for instance (that idea likely originated with the Babylonians

I believe the 7 day week came directly from Genesis who told Moses he created the earth in 6 days and on the 7th day He rested. Sounds like He is inside of time, at least during the creation.

Okay, so again, how is it that you're any better than they are when so many of them didn't do these things?

We have acknowledged that our history with the black community is not a perfect one. That is now in the past, and we are now in 2020 and in good standing with those in the black community that want to find the truth and participate in the benefits of the priesthood.

but it's not the knock-out piece of evidence for a worldwide great apostasy or anything of the kind.

First of all, the church at that time was not a worldwide church. It was primarily a Mediterranean church, with 5 major churches that dominated the Mediterranean and a little beyond.
Secondly, you do make my point. With all of Asia on the ropes and being warned by Jesus they could be cut off if they don't repent, and Corinth, and Diotrephes (who knows what church he belonged to) And chaos being produced by hundreds of men and women pulling at the church and the state breathing down its neck, there is certainly a point that can be made for a churchwide apostacy.

Does this mean in any way, shape, or form that the Church became irrevocably corrupted such that it vanished from the face of the Earth only to be restored later by Joseph Smith via visitations with "God and Jesus" and various Biblical personages?

Can you tell me which church hold the "keys of the kingdom of God" today?

Well if you have a way that we can discuss an event or period that is said to have happened in the past, involving people and events in the past, and extending for a long time in that past until another point that was also in the past, without "jawing on the past", I'd like to hear about it.

Not necessary to visit the past again and again and again. We have acknowledged our imperfections, so move forward with us into a brighter day of understanding and hope. Move with us into the 21st century and witness a community that is growing and vibrant and a light unto the world.