By that logic Matthew 16:19 is blasphemous:
19 I will give you the keys bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beloosed in heaven.”
Upvote
0
The Necessity of Joseph's Stamp on Heaven's Passport
- Thread starter drstevej
- Start date
By that logic Matthew 16:19 is blasphemous:
19 I will give you the keys bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beloosed in heaven.”
It only get complicated when people reject the doctrine that Messiah is in fact the Savior of the world, God manifest in the flesh, and King of kings and Lord of Lords. Daniels prophecy cannot, and must not be read apart from The Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
Scripture gives no such position to Peter. Peter himself calls himself an "elder" as he admonishes other elders, and Paul rebukes Peter because of his inconsistency while an apostle.
Upvote
0
RestoredGospelEvidences
Active Member
What I've noted that you're doing is a continual mud slinging game, bringing up different issues which you hope will vilify Mormons. You've got numerous threads now doing this. It only will cause more ill-feelings & harm to come on Mormons by those who might take your mud & turn them into bricks to throw. You being a Christian, ought to at least know that you're only inadvertantly mud slinging your own faith, & the bible, which wouldn't be able to pass your own vilification tactics, if what you've done against Mormons was done on yourself & the Bible.
First, the statement from Brigham Young, though he was a prophet, isn't official world wide Mormon doctrine & policy. If you want to insist that it is, then lets see if you'd be willing to accept biblical statements as binding doctrine for all bible believers to have to practise & believe now. Thus, here's the bible under your tactics, Atheistic ones, & early anti-Christians' propaganda methods:
Statements by Ancient Prophets & Apostles to be practices & followed as official doctrine for all bible believers?
Wives to submit to their husbands as being the boss? (Eph. 5:22-23).
Christ stomping his foot on unbelievers? (1 Cor. 15:24-25).
Self mutilization of the private parts? (Gal. 5:11-12).
Eating flesh & drinking blood to get into heaven? (John 6:44-66). The Atheist, Madalyn O'Hair's misinterpretation, leads the reader to think of the sacrament in a literal way, instead of the symbolic interpretation behind it. She used a negative description, when she said that the sacrament was a "...barbaric habit of drinking the blood of Jesus, & eating the flesh of Jesus..." (The American Atheist Sept. 1977 p.25-6. The American Atheist Radio Series, #107 July 27, 1970, entitled: Fanciful Facts About Jesus, by O'Hair).
Christians violent & thirsty for blood & war? Official doctrine to take up arms against non-Christians? “Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). This passage could also be misused to vilify Christians.
Killing the flesh to save the soul? (1 Cor.5:1-11, note verse 5): "To deliver such an one [a fornicator] unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
Did Ezekiel eat human & cows dung, in cakes? Ezk.4:11-15. Would it be official world wide Christian doctrine to do the same?
In early Christian times, the non-Christians complained that the early Christians were saying that they alone will be saved while everyone else will be roasted in the fire. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:549, Joseph R. Hoffmann, Celsus On The True Doctrine, 41 & 86). "Not saved" without the consent of modern Christians is something Mormons & non-Christians have to be subjected to as different born-again Christians run around declaring who is & who is not "saved," & by judging themselves saved, while everyone else who hasn't accepted Jesus ("the real Jesus"), is said by "the saved," to be heading for the fires of hell. Without this consent from Christians here, the Mormons are thrown in with other "non-Christians" & thus don't have the consent to join in writing in other threads restricted to "Christians only." The same consent policy is also all over the world, & internet, Mormons, though they believe & accept the Christ of the New Testament, are said by "the saved," to "not be Christians." (Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?); Grand Pilgrimage Lectures: Prof. Stephen Ricks, BYU, at the Murray Library, Utah, USA, 10-17-1992. Rick explored how anti-Mormon "Christians" attempt to exclude Mormons, or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, from being Christians. See also: Daniel C. Peterson, & Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders For A Word {How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints}, 1992).
The early anti-Christian, ex-Christian, Julian the Apostate, [361—63 C.E.], could have also argued with the same type of logic, about having to have the consent of Christ & Christians, to get saved, or to get into heaven. At least, this is what he says: "Moses says that the creator of the universe chose the Hebrew nation, that to that nation alone did he pay heed and cared for it, & he gives him charge of it alone. But how & by what sort of gods the other nations are governed he has not said a word" (100a)." (Robert L. Wilken, The Christians As The Romans Saw Them, 162-3, 180-81).
Julian asks the Christians if Judaea was the only land that he chose to take thought for, what about the other lands? Why did God only send prophets to a certain land, "but to us no prophet, no oil of anointing, no teacher, no herald to announce his love for man which should one day, though late, reach even unto us also?...If he is the God of all of us alike, & the creator of all, why did he neglect us?" (106d).
The 3rd cent., early anti-Christian, Porphyry, according to Wilken, took a passage in John 14:6, & then asks: "If Christ says he is the way, the grace, & the truth, & claims that only in himself can believing souls find a way to God, what did the people who lived in the many centuries before Christ do[?] ...What became of the innumerable souls, who can in no way be faulted, if he in whom they were supposed to believe had not yet appeared among humankind?...Why did he who is called the Savior hide himself for so many ages?" It is arrogant for Christians to think that only since the coming of Christ have men & women had access to God. Realizing that Christians answered this objection by appealing to the antiquity of Jewish tradition, he says": `Let them not say that the human race was saved by the ancient Jewish law, since the Jewish law appeared & flourished in a small part of Syria, a long time after [the ancient cults in Italy], & only later made its way into the Italian lands, after the reign of Gaius Caesar, or probably during his reign. What, then, became of the souls of Romans or Latins who were deprived of the grace of Christ which had not yet come until the time of the Caesar? [Augustine, Ep. 102.8]..." Wilken, The Christians As The Romans Saw Them, 162.
The comments of others here, about the keys & dispensations, is also what Brigham Young makes references to. It's interesting to note that in early to later Christian art works, & writings, to get into paradise, the ascending Christian must have the sign of the cross, & know other things to pass by St. Peter, holding a key to the door of paradise, & thus get in, after Peter clasps the ascenders' hands & wrists. It's thus implied that one might need St. Peter's consent to enter into paradise.
The Gospel of Nicodemus, Adam uses a gestural sign of the cross, & a hand clasp, to enter into paradise. (The Lost Books of The Bible, & The Forgotten Books of Eden, 80—88, Nicodemus chaps 13—21; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8: 416—58).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I do see what you are saying, especially if the format here is strictly debate. I see it more as God willingly giving the powers to Peter, as opposed to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young attempting to usurp God's position and power which had already been established as God's. This is suppported by some other LDS doctrine which attempts to elevate man to God's status and bring God down to man's. The doctrine of eternal progression, that man can become a god ("As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become") is one. Joseph Smith has also stated that he is able to do things that Christ can't do, like keeping a church together: "I have more to boast about than any man...Neither Paul, John, Peter, or Jesus ever did it. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp.408-9). I only give the additional information to provide context. This is not intended as mudslinging, it is just the facts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
To clarify Mormon theology here--
All power belongs to God, it cannot be usurped, and any attempt to usurp is simply Satanic and deserving of such punishment. The only way in which a person wields the tiniest fraction of God's power is when He lends it to a person to perform His will. Such a lending of power is to be treated with the upmost reverence, and is immediately revoked if person strays from the will God has put forth. A prime example of this would be the keys described in Matthew 16:19.
The LDS view of the nature of man, the nature of God, and eternal progression is outside the realm of this thread, so I'm not going to derail it by going there. But from your words here, I'm guessing that you're misunderstanding what is actually believed. I'd encourage you to have a Mormon actually explain their beliefs to you (if you want, feel free to PM me).
Mormons do not view Joseph Smith as being perfect or sinless. Speaking as my personal unqualified opinion, one sin he certainly seemed to have in abundance was pride. The above quote is a prime example.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
RestoredGospelEvidences
Active Member
The whole point of Christ, Christianity, & most early to later Christian Fathers, was to bring God down to man, so that men & women could be "raised up" to God. This early Christian doctrine is called, theosis, Christian moral perfection, deification, etc. The repeated phrase throughout the centuries is something like, or similiar, though different in others areas, but it basically says: God (or Christ), became a man, so you can learn from a man how man (women included), can become god (God, or Gods & Goddesses). This is called "the great exchange," too. (See: First Godmakers Were Early Christians, 1 & 2).
Boasters?
The early anti-Christians were also concerned with the Christians claim to revelations to them only, so the critics thought. Celsus must have been aware that many of the early Christians believed that other peoples around the world, in those in the realms of the spirits could be saved through the gospel, but he ignored this, in one part of his writings, in order to charge that early Christians are such egotists, that they believe that they will be the only ones saved, while everyone else will be roasted in the fire, when God brings the fire, like a cook, upon the world. Perhaps even in Origen's book against the Celsus, we see how he thought that the Christian religion was better that the superstitious doctrines of wicked men. "...Whereas the Churches of God which are instructed by Christ, when carefully contrasted with assemblies of the districts in which they are situated, are as beacons...in the world; for who would not admit that even the inferior members of the Church, & those who in comparison with the better are less worthy, are nevertheless more excellent than many of those who belong to the assemblies in the different districts?" Was Origen then boasting that they were "the best people"?
Justin Martyr in the 2nd cent. A.D. wrote: "...Christians received the death sentence simply because of their name. Justin himself, in his 1st Apology," "addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius, begged for nothing more than that specific charges be presented against the Christians & that only if the charges were substantiated should the person involved be punished as they deserved. But, he argued, if no one could bring proof of criminal activities then their punishment simply for being Christian was a gross violation of reason & justice. "By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; & indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are a most excellent people." Justin also argued that the name Christian means "good."
"In the second part of the sentence Justin referred to the occasional spelling of the name "Christian" as Chrestianus in Latin, & the coincidence that in the Greek language the word Chrestos means "good." So, in the same chapter he wrote: "For we are accused of being Christians (Crestiani) but to hate what is good (Chrestos) is unjust." This is, of course, merely a play on words, more bitter than sarcastic."
Celsus charged that the Christians thought of themselves as being above other people, that they were "arrogant" boastful, & yet they were an "unsavory" group of people. The early Christian did not agree with Celsus, however, & sought to answer such charges. From the sources mentioned above, I suppose that if the modern anti-Mormon Critics had lived in the days of Celsus & the early Christians, perhaps they may have also charged that the Christians also thought of themselves as "the best people." If however we Latter-days Saints (or the Mormons) have some amongst us who are perhaps "guilty" of being overly proud of their religion & think highly of their own people. So also, there may have been perhaps enough early Christians who also may have had this sort of overly proud attitude, which gave the earlier critics something to complain about, as the modern critics think they need to do. So what ever the judgment that the Modern Christians feel that should be past on the Mormons, such judgment may also have to fall back on their own earlier Christian roots. If they should allow for the early Christians to make the statements that they made, they shouldn't mind it to much if Mormons boast a little too.
Rev. Joseph Milner, A. M., & Rev. Isaac Milner, D.D. F.R.S., The History of The Church of Christ, (London: Printed by Luke Hansard & Sons, For T. Cadel, In the Strand, 1827), 528--542.
History of the Church Vol.6, p.408-9. This snipping from LDS history is used to vilify Mormons & Joseph Smith as some egotistical boaster, who was boasting about his good deeds. But why do they, as well as other critics not include the biblical basis for which Joseph makes his boast? For he was following the example of Paul. 2 Cor.11 is mentioned in the source that the critics quote from, so they should have been aware of the situation & setting for such a boast. So why did they leave it out? (See: 2 Cor.11:10-33). But was Joseph Smith evil for boasting? Was Paul? of course not.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:549, bk.5 chap.14 & (Celsus On The True Doctrine, Hoffmann, 41 & 86. TANF Vol.4 p.476 bk.3 chap.29 (Origen Against Celsus). Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome & The Early Christians, 1-2, see also footnote 2 on p.24, Justin Martyr Apol. 1.3-4; ANF 1.163ff. For a collection of passages from the writings of the early Christian fathers concerning this play on words, see Stephen Benko, "Pagan Criticism of Christianity," Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. II. 32/2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 105. Etc.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 71
- Faith
- Mormon
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Your quote from Joseph Smith is out of context. He first quoted Paul's boasting passages " I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2Cor 11. He goes on to boost like Paul about all the trials he has gone through and makes a true observation that the followers of Jesus and the apostles turned on them when the persecutions got hard. I'm paraphrasing here but he says; 'the majority of the whole have stuck by me, I am in the bosom of a good and righteous people, I need my friends please don't desert me.' He takes all of his boasting and says I can't do it with out you. It is totally different than the way the anti-mormons present it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Your understanding of what Jesus said about Peter is not what Scripture teaches about who the Rock is, so your quotation makes no difference. How are those words to be interpreted in the light of ALL SCRIPTURE?
Christ is the Rock and the Judge and has always been the Rock and the Judge. Obviously the claim made for Joseph Smith is equally false, as is the claim for Mary, or anyone else.
Upvote
0
That's where you are mistaken. The Tanach speaks of the New Covenant (Testament) and the New Testament is the "decoder" for all of the Old Testament, especially the epistle to the Hebrews.
The OT is types and shadows. The NT reveals the reality in Christ (in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily), and the fulfillment of types and shadows. Why would one prefer shadows over substance?
Upvote
0
It sure does talk of a new covenant. Looks nothing like the one you tell me exists, so I'll just stick with the Prophets over the Apostles.
As soon as I see this I'll believe you:
33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
But since you're telling me "Know the Lord", it can't exist. Sorry that Jeremiah, who speaks of a new covenant, doesn't speak of people going from person to person telling them the Messiah came but that we will all know from the greatest to the least without being told.
I don't believe in types and shadows. I prefer to look for the things promised to my people instead of jumping to a thing that was not what we were promised.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 71
- Faith
- Mormon
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You are right, Jesus is the Rock . That's why we don't read Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built. It's the Rock of revelation that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God upon which the church is built. Prophets fall and make mistakes, they can be replaced but Jesus our the savior can not be.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 18, 2003
- 47,493
- 27,114
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Similar threads
