21
Mar
12

The Great Apostasy

Lesson 13 in this year’s Gospel Doctrine class is on Jacob 5-7 from the Book of Mormon.  These chapters mainly deal with an allegory of the olive tree.  Part of this allegory describes what the LDS Church calls the Great Apostasy – the centuries from around 100 AD, the death of the last apostle, to 1820 AD when Joseph Smith is claimed to have seen Heavenly Father and Jesus.  During these many centuries, the LDS Church claims that the true church was removed from the earth.  No longer, according to it, was true doctrine taught.  It states that this was a fulfillment of Amos 8:11-12 which prophesied a famine of God’s Word.

As a corollary to this, the LDS Church now claims to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.” (D&C 1:30).  Some Mormons have tried to explain this by saying that this doesn’t mean that the LDS Church is the only true and living church – it’s the only true and living church with which the Lord is pleased.  I don’t know how many LDS members hold to that explanation, but it really puts the Lord into a bad light.  If that is true that means there are some true and living churches with whom the Lord is not pleased.  Is that fair on the part of the Lord?  And that really doesn’t fit in with the teaching of the Great Apostasy either.  As Gospel Principles states, “The true Church was no longer on the earth” (p. 95).  That also doesn’t fit in with the LDS position that the Apostasy was in fulfillment of Amos 8:11-12 which talks about a time when the word of the Lord was not just corrupted but could not be found.

In other words, Mormonism itself draws a sharp distinction between it and all other churches. Why then are Christians often lambasted when they draw the same distinction?

But even more important is the reason why Christians make this distinction.  I will be the first to admit that not every Christian’s motive for doing so is good.  But most Christians I know repeatedly come back and make this distinction because they want to impress upon their Mormon acquaintances that Mormonism is completely different from the teachings of biblical Christianity.  As such, it is our heartfelt belief, that it is not leading people to eternally living with Heavenly Father but rather to an eternity in outer darkness.  That is something we don’t want anybody to experience.  Therefore we highlight the differences in an attempt to have people examine them more closely – with the hope and prayer that many Mormons will come to know that living with Heavenly Father doesn’t depend on their own worthiness or their receiving temple ordinances, but depends entirely on the worthiness that Christ freely and fully gives us.

Advertisements

74 Responses to “The Great Apostasy”


  1. 1 TJayT
    March 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    A very interesting and thought provoking post Pastor Cares.

    If you don’t mind me asking a question; how does evangelical christianity explain the break from the Catholic church while avoiding the pitfall of acknowledging some sort of apostasy?

  2. March 21, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    TJayT,

    While Joseph Smith was a restorer, Martin Luther was a reformer.

    God preserves a people faithful to him throughout all generations despite the fact the Catholic leaders taught false doctrine. Luther didn’t break from the Catholic faith, he was excommunicated for exposing their false doctrine.

  3. 3 markcares
    March 21, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    TJayT,

    The medieval Roman Catholic church had many doctrinal errors but it still used the Bible as its authority. Luther, other Reformers, and their followers came to the truth and received saving faith from their reading of the Bible. Contrast this to what Mormonism says. It claims that the only way Joseph Smith could come to the truth was from a special visitation from God and new revelations. Luther and the others didn’t need that. The truth was there – it was just obscured. But it had not been removed as the LDS Church teaches. Hope that helps.

  4. 4 shematwater
    March 21, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Personally, I am all for admitting the differences. I like the differences, as they show clearly where the rest of Christianity has gone astray and lost the true gospel.

    However, I would state that in highlighting those differences one should be accurate in both meaning of doctrine and well as labeling.
    For instance, the term “biblical Christianity” has always been offensive because it implies that we do not believe in the Bible. Now I know that people here will start with their usual list of reasons why we don’t (starting with our acceptance that it was not perfectly preserved) but it is only their attempt to color our doctrine the way they like it.
    Another annoying habit that people have is the obnoxious claim that we are not Christians, when the name of Christ is in the name of our church, when all our doctrine is focused on Him, and when it is our faith in him that is the foundation of everything we do and believe.

    Now, you want to discuss our doctrines on work for the dead and plural marriage, or anything else I am all for it. In fact I enjoy it. However, don’t use convenient labels to color us and try to make us appear to be what we aren’t.
    (and get our doctrine right).

  5. 5 Joshtried
    March 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    No comment, other than if you have direct questions, I can be reached @ williams.joshuajames@yahoo.com
    Plus I do want to subscribe to these new threads. They are interesting, and do have potential…

  6. 6 markcares
    March 21, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Shem:
    Here’s the point. If you take the name of Christian, then you can’t consider non-LDS Christians also. If the LDS Church is the only true and living church then all the rest are dead and false. How then can Mormons say, “We are Christians too.”? That “too” links the two together and it’s a contradiction to link the two together as I stated in my original post.

  7. March 21, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Echo: “Martin Luther was a reformer.
    God preserves a people faithful to him throughout all generations despite the fact the Catholic leaders taught false doctrine. Luther didn’t break from the Catholic faith, he was excommunicated for exposing their false doctrine.”
    and
    Mark: “Luther, other Reformers, and their followers came to the truth and received saving faith from their reading of the Bible.

    Maybe we should pick apart everything Martin Luther said and taught and see how it stands up to your so-called correct Christian doctrine you subscribe to.

    Martin Luther when translating the Bible to German, added words that were not in the original Greek or Hebrew, such as in Rom. 3:28 he added the German word for”alone” in his translation of the Greek text.

    He also discounted books in the Bible…look at this quote:

    “About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it” (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).”

    and,

    “St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).

    and,

    In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).

    Hmmmm…..

  8. 8 JBR
    March 21, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Shem….
    You saying that the term “biblical Christianity” has always been offensive because it implies that we do not believe in the Bible… maybe is offensive to you because it in reality it’s accurate.

    Jesus offended the work-righteous if you recall (Matthew 15:11-13). So yes… the biblical Jesus would be offensive to you for the greatest opponent of Mormonism is Jesus as per the Bible alone.

    As Mark said:

    “We hope that many Mormons will come to know that living with Heavenly Father doesn’t depend on their own worthiness or their receiving temple ordinances, but depends entirely on the worthiness that Christ freely and fully gives us.”

  9. March 21, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Josh

    “Plus I do want to subscribe to these new threads. They are interesting, and do have potential…”

    Good to have you here.

  10. March 21, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Kate said: “Maybe we should pick apart everything Martin Luther said and taught and see how it stands up to your so-called correct Christian doctrine you subscribe to.”

    Kate, it won’t work because Martin Luther is not a prophet who speaks for God. His words are not “scripture” whereas in Mormonism, the words of LDS prophets are considered “scripture” and LDS prophets claim to speak for God. There is a huge difference there.

    We are not bound by Luther’s teachings. The LDS are bound by the teachings of their prophets.

  11. March 21, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    There is nothing in the Bible about a complete apostasy.

  12. March 21, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    He saw himself as a prophet:

    “Nearly all Protestant churches have had at least one outstanding leader whose dedication to what he considered his divinely ordained work and message was apparent to all. In spite of the fact that these men made mistakes and erred, their grateful and admiring followers awarded them a place of unusual authority in their church, particularly in matters of Biblical interpretation and doctrine. This was especially true of Luther and Calvin. Martin Luther, for instance, was called “an instrument of God,” “a prophet of the Almighty” and an “apostle of freedom.” Luther also applied the title of prophet to himself occasionally. His prophecies were gathered together by Johannes Lapäus and published by him in 1578 under the title True Prophecies of the Dear Prophet and Holy Man of God Dr. Martini Luther. This book was republished in 1846. Hans Preuss in 1933 wrote a scholarly volume entitled Martin Luther the Prophet, in which he lists the prominent theologians who called Luther a prophet, both before and after the Enlightenment. During the last century, Luther was more often called apostle or reformer. As time went on after Luther’s death and scholars were able to study and compare the astounding size of Luther’s writings (his published works fill more than 60 volumes), a critical evaluation was possible of the nature and extent of his contribution to the Christian church. In all this, he has remained the Reformer, the great Man of God (Spectrum, vol. 10, num. 1, p. 23).”

    Sometimes Luther referred to himself not only as a prophet, but also an apostle:

    “[Luther] did not regard himself as a Herculean hero. But he did assume the epistolary style of saint Paul as early as 1522, and he drew parallels between the career of the apostle and his own career, moving out of works-righteousness into the proclamation of the gospel of God’s grace. Furthermore, he could call himself a prophet of the German, an apostle and evangelist in German territory, an Isaiah or Jeremiah. Yet Luther did not always possess this prophetic self-confidence. He often engaged in self-examination. He was plagued by repeated doubts about his own person. Yet he could also state, ‘I do not say that I am a prophet…But if I am not a prophet, I am nevertheless certain for myself that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I indeed have Scriptures on my side.’” Robert Kolb: Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1560 (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999).

    So whether you call him a prophet or not, people followed him, believed what he taught and changed their teachings in their congregations to follow his.

    So, how is it that he could interpret and add to the Bible, disregard some books of the Bible and still have a following of people who believed on his words enough to discount any other beliefs?

    Am I to understand that though Luther reformed Christianity to believe that every word in the Bible is correct and that it is only by those words we are taught truth,…that it doesn’t matter to those who follow this teaching, that he, himself, added words, disregarded whole books in the Bible, and interpreted scripture based on his own inspiration from God?

  13. 13 SBGTF
    March 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    The Mormons here seem to be fixated on the Roman Catholic church regarding total apostasy, but we know that the Bible never went anywhere. Therefore, God’s word never went anywhere and some people did know the truth about salvation through Jesus Christ. Luther shed light on the way to true salvation as per the Bible and paved the way to get God’s word into the hands of the people so that everyone could have access to the truth. We have to have something to measure teaching against so that we do not get led astray by anyone. Joseph Smith was a “restorer”, but his church doesn’t resemble any other church that had ever existed prior to 1830. What exaclty did he “restore” and if it is a restoration, why doesn’t the LDS church resemble the early church or the historical christian church before the days of Roman Catholicism, and why has the way to eternal life been changed so dramatically by the Mormons? Christ clearly taught that eternal life was only available through him. He never linked the achievement of eternal life with any church. The LDS church is no restoration and there was no total apostasy.

  14. March 21, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    “his church doesn’t resemble any other church that had ever existed prior to 1830”

    This is actually a false statement. Educate yourself on the early Church during the ministry of Jesus…you will find much of what you claim is not there.

  15. 15 SBGTF
    March 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Kate, the burden of proof is on you to show that the Mormon Church existed prior to 1830.

  16. March 21, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Kate,

    Nothing Luther wrote or said was ever considered “scripture” Luther got ALL of his doctrine from scripture. Certainly if he ever claimed his words were scripture and we agreed that they were scripture, then you could most certainly hold us accountable for that. But he never did. In fact Luther himself welcomed anyone to show him how his interpretation was wrong provided they convinced him using scripture. That is a quality we all should have rather than closing our minds and hearts to other interpretations.

    A prophet, besides prophesying of future events was also someone who spoke God’s word faithfully in truth. In this latter sense, Luther could be considered a Prophet when he spoke God’s word faithfully in truth from the Bible.

    Luther did not add to the doctrine of the Bible. By including the word: “alone” Luther didn’t change the original meaning of the text, he only expounded the original intent. We easily gather that we are saved through faith alone from other scriptures as well even though the Bible doesn’t need to use the word: “alone” to clarify that for us. Luther simply expounded on the meaning of the text. As you can see, the Bible Lutherans use today doesn’t have the word: “alone” in it.

    Kate said: “So, how is it that he could interpret and add to the Bible, disregard some books of the Bible and still have a following of people who believed on his words enough to discount any other beliefs?”

    Luther’s personal opinion is just that, his personal opinion. We are not bound by anything Luther said or did. We are only bound by what the Bible says. Even after all that Luther said about some of the books of the Bible, he still included these books in his bible. We believe Luther’s words only as far as they are in complete agreement with the Bible. Luther was a fallible man. Scripture is infallible. We are not bound to Luther, we are bound to God and his word alone.

    Kate said: “Am I to understand that though Luther reformed Christianity to believe that every word in the Bible is correct and that it is only by those words we are taught truth,…that it doesn’t matter to those who follow this teaching, that he, himself, added words, disregarded whole books in the Bible, and interpreted scripture based on his own inspiration from God?”

    As I stated earlier, the word: “alone” isn’t in any Lutheran’s current day Bible. Luther didn’t exclude or disregard those books of the Bible, he included them in his Bible. Luther allowed scripture to interpret scripture.

  17. 17 RLO
    March 22, 2012 at 12:57 am

    Thank you Echo. I would add that biblical translation is no simple matter. And better is the effort which endeavors to communicate “thought-for-thought,” rather than an effort that rigidly translates “word-for-word.”

    Some believe Luther’s addition of the word “alone” conforms to this “thought-for-thought” translation approach. Others are only capable of observing that “alone” is not found in the original Greek. But again, “alone” is consistent with the whole of Scripture.

  18. March 22, 2012 at 1:00 am

    The debate ends right here for believers of the Lord Jesus Christ:

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

    The statement in Gospel Ptrinciples that “The true Church was no longer on the earth” (p. 95). is an out an out lie from a false prophet who is succeeding in deceiving many. Which is why Jesus predicted “11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” Matthew 24:11.

  19. 19 choosethechrist
    March 22, 2012 at 2:13 am

    Joseph Smith borrowed his idea of universal apostasy, restoration, and one universal church from Alexander Campbell. It was a common theme during the 1800s. I think it is interesting that Sidney Rigdon was involved with Alexander Campbell before teaming up with Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith took these ideas and moved farther and farther away from historical Christianity with each new “revelation” that he “received”.

    Those of us who cling to God and His Word (the Bible) understand that Jesus was the son of God, he lived a perfect life, died on the cross for our sins, and rose on the 3rd day. We know that our salvation comes from our repentant hearts and our belief in the work of Christ on the cross. We know that because of the work of Christ on the cross, we will dwell with God in heaven for all eternity.

    The church was never designed to be our savior. Jesus is our savior and our salvation is not tied to the LDS church or any other church for that matter.

  20. March 22, 2012 at 3:04 am

    “Jesus is our savior and our salvation is not tied to the LDS church or any other church for that matter.”

    Really?….so he was just kidding us when he established the pattern of His Church to edify and perfect the saints?

    Ephesians 4: 11-13 “And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

    12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

    13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

    I believe Christ and all that He taught us…I guess you don’t.

  21. March 22, 2012 at 3:26 am

    Kate

    “I believe Christ and all that He taught us…I guess you don’t.”

    You are in denial.

    So you believe Jesus’s statement in Matthew 16:18 that NOTHING will prevail against His church”?

    You believe that Jesus by his one sacrifice has perfected forever them that are sanctified? Hebrews 10:14 You stand perfect before God right now because of Jesus?

    You believe that because of what Jesus did we all sit TOGETHER in heavenly places as it says “5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:” Ephesians 2:5-6?

    You can’t believe a Mormon prophet and believe all that Jesus taught too – its an impossibility. You don’t even trust Jesus to protect His own church that He suffered and died for? The only thing you believe is what a deceiving prophet tells you to believe.

  22. March 22, 2012 at 3:30 am

    “You can’t believe a Mormon prophet and believe all that Jesus taught too – its an impossibility. You don’t even trust Jesus to protect His own church that He suffered and died for? The only thing you believe is what a deceiving prophet tells you to believe.”

    You are wrong and are deceiving others.

  23. 23 JBR
    March 22, 2012 at 6:08 am

    ………” You can’t believe a Mormon prophet and believe all that Jesus taught too – its an impossibility. You don’t even trust Jesus to protect His own church that He suffered and died for? The only thing you believe is what a deceiving prophet tells you to believe. ” ………….

    Well said, bereandave.

  24. 24 choosethechrist
    March 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Kate’s version of
    Ephesians 4: 11-13 “And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

    God’s Version of
    Ephesians 4:11-16 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

    The church does not perfect us, Christ perfects us!

    Christ’s church is the body of all those who believe what the Bible says about Jesus and have put their faith in the work of Christ alone for their salvation/exaltation.

    Kate thinks the church perfects us, but Ephesians really says that our church leaders EQUIP us and part of that is teaching us not to be deceived by the blowing and changing winds of Mormonism.

    Kate is basically saying that we perfect ourselves.

    Since Christ’s church is made up of all of us who BELIEVE and is not an organized group or structural building, it is quite a stretch to say that there was a time on Earth when no person believed in the saving power of JESUS!!!! It did not happen, no total apostasy EVER occured. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. I BELIEVE JESUS!

  25. March 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    “Kate is basically saying that we perfect ourselves.”

    See, you just keep repeating the same stuff…as if everyone will believe you if you repeat it enough.

  26. March 22, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Kate

    I’m going to start numbering how many thing Jesus Himself taught that you don’t believe. I won’t list them all now but here are some for starters:

    Kate’s disbelief #1

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

    You believe this instead “The true Church was no longer on the earth” Gospel Ptrinciples (p. 95).

    Kate’s disbelief #2

    Jesus says in Mark 12:24-25 “24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

    You believe in exaltation to become a god. You believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are gods right now and that Jesus is wrong. You believe this lie instead of Jesus – D&C 132:37 –

    “they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.”

    Kate’s disbelief #3 –

    Jesus said: “6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

    You believe – “If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by Joseph Smith; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him.” -1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142, Apostle George Q. Cannon

    Kate’s disbelief #4

    Jesus said: 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16. He describes how those in hell cannot cross over out of hell in Luke 16:

    “19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ ” Luke 16: 19-26

    You don’t believe one must be a believer and baptized to avoid damnation. You believe that unbaptized and unbelieving sinners “after suffering in full for their sins, they will be allowed to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.” Gospel Principles pp. 292f. “. . . the glory of the atelestial, which surpasses all understanding;” D&C 76:89. You believe people condemned to hell come out.

    I’ll stop at those 4 for now.

  27. 27 shematwater
    March 22, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    DAVID

    I agree that we cannot believe what you claim Jesus taught and at the same time believe his true gospel. After all, yours is false doctrine and his is true. We can, however, believe everything he taught in the New Testament and everything he has reveled in the modern day, as it is the same person talking.

    Matthew 16: 18: This does not say nothing will prevail against his church. It mentions only the gates of hell. What are gates used for but blocking a path. Also note the original greek term translated as Hell is more appropriately translated as Death, which would mean that the gates of death, or the grave, will note prevail.
    One must also realize that the foundation that Christ is talking about is personal revelation, upon which, if the church is built it will not fall. However, once that person revelation is lost the foundation is gone and the church collapses.

    Hebrews 10: 14: The sanctified are those who are baptized, comfirmed by the Holy Ghost, and enter into all the ordinances and covenants of Salvation. These people are perfected forever in Christ.

    Ephesians 2: 5-6: All the faithful who have been sanctified will sit down together in Heaven. One must realize that Paul is writing to the saints; baptized members of the church that Christ had established. Those people will be together.

    So, I say again, I do not believe your interpretations, but I do believe every word that God has ever spoken through any of his appointed ministers.

    CHOOSE

    Again you do not understand what Kate or anyone else has said. It is Christ that perfects us, and we would never deny this. We just agree with Paul that the church is the mechanism through which he works to bring us to perfection. Without the church Christ will not work in our lives to perfect. That is what Paul is saying. Christ gave us the offices and organized the church so that through it he could bring us to perfection.

    Also note the Joseph Smith had no contact with Sidney Rigdon or the Cambellite movement until several months after the church was organized. This claim has been thuroughly disproven.

    MARK

    “If you take the name of Christian, then you can’t consider non-LDS Christians also”

    Why not. I would never consider myself Lutheran or Catholic, but what makes a Christian. The belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the savior of the world. Anyone who believes this basic doctrine, in any way, is a Christian. This includes the Catholics, all the Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Coptic Christians in Egypt. All have very different views, but all can trace their doctrine back to Christ being the savior.
    By your reasoning if you disagree with someone, or think their doctrine is wrong you can in no one share a common name, but have to separate yourselves completely. This is nothing more than an attempt to use convenient labeling to try to avoid any unwanted association.
    The fact is that we are all Christian with differences in doctrine, but all accepting Jesus as the Son of God and the savior of the world. (And please don’t try to claim that we don’t really believe this, as some people do, because you know that we do.)

    RLO

    So what you are saying is that a person has the right to translate the Bible according to what they think it means and not according to what it actually says. Echo may claim that “alone” is implied elsewhere, but I would disagree. So why is my thought-to-thought translation any less than Luthers.
    Honestly I think this perfectly illustrates our whole point on corruption in the text. The only way to know the actual thought in the scriptures is for God to reveal it, as he did to those who wrote it. If the translation is not divinely inspired than it is subject to mortal interpretation, which just causes problems.

    SGBTF

    The burden has been met for those who truly care to research the subject. That is Kate’s point. The evidence is there, all you have to do is go find it.
    I think a good place to start is the New Testament itself. Ephesians 4: 11-13 is a good references. Also note that Bishops and Deacons were a part of the early church, as well as a quorum of the seventy (mentioned in Luke).
    It is all there, for those who open their eyes and look.

  28. March 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    On Apostasy…

    If we follow a false prophet or a false teacher, we are apostates. In Mormonism and Christianity, apostates go to outer darkness.

    The ways to recognize a false prophet or a false teacher is by thoroughly testing and questioning their doctrines and teachings and prophecies. This requires “thinking” and thorough examination of all that they say and do rather than simple blind submission to them.

    My questions for our Mormon friends are these…

    1) What have you done to ensure that you are not following a false prophet?
    2) What guidance from the Bible or the BOM have you personally followed in order to ensure this?
    3) Are you able to question leaders when you disagree with what they say or do and state your views even if it disagrees with theirs without consequence?

    Christians, please let the Mormons answer before commenting. But if you have more questions to add to mine, go ahead. Thanks.

  29. March 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Shem

    Lets just take one these;

    “Jesus says in Mark 12:24-25 “24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

    “I agree that we cannot believe what you claim Jesus taught and at the same time believe his true gospel. After all, yours is false doctrine and his is true. We can, however, believe everything he taught in the New Testament and everything he has reveled in the modern day, as it is the same person talking.”

    So what is Abraham right now?

  30. 30 RLO
    March 22, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    What Shem claims RLO is saying:

    “So what you are saying is that a person has the right to translate the Bible according to what they think it means and not according to what it actually says.

    What RLO actually said in its entirety:

    “Thank you Echo. I would add that biblical translation is no simple matter. And better is the effort which endeavors to communicate ‘thought-for-thought,’ rather than an effort that rigidly translates ‘word-for-word.’

    Some believe Luther’s addition of the word ‘alone’ conforms to this ‘thought-for-thought’ translation approach. Others are only capable of observing that ‘alone’ is not found in the original Greek. But again, ‘alone’ is consistent with the whole of Scripture.”

    So then Shem, did I really say what you claimed I said?

    Rather than bending the words of others to say things they never actually said (and by the way – “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour,” Shem?), why don’t you make an effort to respect the words of others enough to not change them, even if you don’t agree with them?

    What I said was no difficult thing to comprehend: Bible translation is no easy matter, and, a thought-for-thought translation communicates more effectively than a rigid word-for-word translation.

    An example: Take the simple Spanish sentence, “Tiene razón.”
    A thought-for-thought translation reads, “You are right.”
    Yet, a rigid word-for-word translation would read, “You have reason.”
    Which is the better translation? Word-for-word, or thought-for-thought?

    So, what I would say to you Shem, is that Bible translators do not have the right to indiscriminately change the meaning of the original languages of the Bible to suit their whims and wishes. But rather, Bible translators have an obligation to translate the Bible from the original languages to another language according to what they think the original language is actually attempting to communicate, using all the best available means and tools and knowledge at their disposal, and giving due consideration to both the original language as well as the language into which the Bible is being translated.

    We may differ in opinion, and we can respectfully disagree, on whether this translator or another succeeded or failed in their endeavor.

  31. 31 shematwater
    March 23, 2012 at 4:18 am

    RLO

    Actually, what I said you said and what you did say are exactly the same. I am sorry for any confusion, but I never intended to imply that one has free liscense. What I was saying is that if a person thinks a passage means one thing than, according to you, they are permitted to alter the exact wording to more clearly express this.

    Let us use your Spanish example:
    “Tiene razón.”
    A thought-for-thought translation reads, “You are right.”
    Yet, a rigid word-for-word translation would read, “You have reason.”
    Which is the better translation? Word-for-word, or thought-for-thought?

    That depends. Is the person who wrote the Spanish intended to convey correctness in the other person, or merely logical process of thought. To say you are correct is to say that I conseed the argument in favor of your opinion. To say you have a logical process of thought is to say that your argument makes sense, and may even be compelling, but does not conceed to your opinion.
    Now, what you are saying is that a translator who reads this and concludes that the intended meaning is “you are right” has the right to translate it using these words rather than the direct translation. All I am saying is that if that translator is mistaken and the intended meaning was indeed “You have reason” that they have unknowingly caused a corruption of the text that will be accepted by any who accept their translation.
    So, the only way to get a truly accurate translation of thought-to-thought is to have the person who wrote the original tell you what the original thought was. In the case of scripture this would be through direct revelation from God.

    So, going back to the point Echo was discussing. Martin Luther added the word ‘alone’ believing that it more accurately conveyed the thought. But where is the proof that this belief was true?

    ECHO
    “This requires “thinking” and thorough examination of all that they say and do rather than simple blind submission to them.”
    And yet we are the ones accused of worshiping logic. How ironic that you advocate logic as a means of testing true prophets.

    “What have you done to ensure that you are not following a false prophet?”

    I have read the scriptures, more than once. I have searched them and found no contradictions with the words of the modern prophets. I have prayed to God and he has told me that they are his chosen leaders and prophets in these last days.

    “What guidance from the Bible or the BOM have you personally followed in order to ensure this?”

    Alma 32: 28-43; and while I cannot find specific passages there are the several admonitions to pray, to desire to believe, the believe, to study the scriptures, to follow the Spirit. All of these I have done, and all of them have sonvinced me that the LDS church is God’s true church, and that its leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators.

    “Are you able to question leaders when you disagree with what they say or do and state your views even if it disagrees with theirs without consequence?”

    There is always a consequence to any action ever taken by men. To agree carries a consequence, as does disagreeing. The real question is not whether we can disagree without consequence, but whether or not what they say or do is directed by God. If it is than we disagree at our own risk. After all, if we reject God’s truth we cannot expect to have no consequence. If it is not directd by God than we are free to disagree all we want without any action being taken by the church.
    Of course this question must also be asked of the rest of Christianity. Would there be consequences for you in your church if you started to declared that you disagreed with what Paul wrote to the Corinthians; or what Peter wrote in his epistles; and what if you rejected all the words of Isaiah? It really is no different. You teach that one cannot disagree with anything in the Bible without being cast to Hell. We have simply stated that one must accept every word revealed by God.

    DAVID

    As I said, I do not necessarily agree with you interpretation. I will leave at this for now, as it would take a while to fully address the issue.

  32. 32 RLO
    March 23, 2012 at 6:32 am

    Shem responded: “That depends. Is the person who wrote the Spanish intended to convey correctness in the other person, or merely logical process of thought . . . . . ”

    Shem, why, why must you take a simple, simple illustration, and twist it into something complicated, or convoluted, or subject to various interpretations? The spanish phrase, “Tiene razón” simply means, “You are right” in english. It doesn’t mean anything else. And this phrase would not be used if a response were intended to address “logical process of thought.” So no, Shem, it doesn’t depend, as you maintain. Take my word for it. Or better yet, don’t take my word for it. Ask any number of credible literate native spanish speakers what “Tiene razón” means, and how many different ways it could possibly be interpreted. See what answer they give you.

    But at least your response to this simple illustration reveals just why any meaningful dialog with you is impossible. You’re as bad as former President Bill Clinton, haggling over the meaning of the word “is.”

    Shem said: “What I was saying is that if a person thinks a passage means one thing, [then], according to you, they are permitted to alter the exact wording to more clearly express this.”

    Precisely. Precisely. Because the whole purpose in writing anything down is to communicate thoughts. And the purpose of translating from one language to another is, again, to communicate thoughts – not simply to translate the raw words. But you say, “…according to you…” But really, not according to me, but according to the meaningful purpose of translating – which is to communicate thoughts.

    Which goes back to the first thing I said, which was, “Biblical translation is no easy matter.” Anyone can convert a text word-for-word from Hebrew or Greek into English with a dictionary. But meaningful thought-for-thought translation from one language to another requires much more consideration.

  33. 33 rechtglaubig
    March 23, 2012 at 6:56 am

    Shematwater: “So, going back to the point Echo was discussing. Martin Luther added the word ‘alone’ believing that it more accurately conveyed the thought. But where is the proof that this belief was true?”

    Shematwater,

    Hello Shem. Actually, the reason for Luther’s use of “allein” in Romans 3:28 is twofold.

    1) “it conveys the sense of the text” – Luther
    2) It was proper German grammar to do so!

    “I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
    translation – not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
    language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
    the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
    “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer
    brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no
    money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet
    drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a
    vast number of such everyday cases.

    In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
    not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German
    tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may be
    clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say “The farmer
    brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words “kein money” do
    not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer
    brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word “allein” helps
    the word “kein” so much that it becomes a clear and complete
    German expression.” -Luther (An Open Letter on Translating)

  34. 34 JBR
    March 23, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    rechtglaubig,
    That’s a very good point worth making.

    This does in fact show that it all depends on where one starts with who\what has the absolute truth…….

    If you’re a Christian, then the Bible is.
    If you’re a Mormons, then it’s everything else other than the Bible.
    The Bible isn’t used to establish the truth in Mormonism.. it is rather only conveniently brought out and used to establish that the BoM … LDS Church … is true.

    Once people realize what the focus is, one understands then the true nature for even having the Bible around in Mormonism. So as Mark points out, a “great apostasy” has to be created ( as fictional as it is) so as to have cause for establishing a “new” restablished truth.

  35. March 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Shem

    “As I said, I do not necessarily agree with you interpretation. I will leave at this for now, as it would take a while to fully address the issue.”

    I left nothing to interpretation. I quoted Jesus directly. I did not give you my interpretation. So in reposne to what Jesus says below what is Abraham right now? Is he a god right now or is Jesus correct? You can’t have it both ways.

    “Jesus says in Mark 12:24-25 “24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

    Don’t you think you owe it to yourself to finally force yourself to FACE THE TRUTH? You can’t run away from it forever. It will take one sentence to answer the question honestly.

  36. 36 Kent
    March 23, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    I find it ironic that one of the reasons Abraham is supposedly a god is because he fathered a child with Hagar, not his wife, and concubines so that was being obedient to God?

    The Bible calls Ishmael a child of the flesh, which was Abraham being disobedient and not having faith and waiting for the child God promised, Isaac who was the son of the spirit, Abraham being obedient to God. So he became a god because of his disobedienance?

    Mormon falsehood:

    Doctrine and Covenants 132:32-37

    32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

    33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

    34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

    35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, acommanded it.

    36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

    37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

    Biblical truth:

    4:21-26

    21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

    Just as it was wrong for Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden and with it sin, death, disease, and destruction came into being, it was wrong for Abraham to have a child with the servant Hagar.

  37. March 23, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Face the truth, everything you are saying is okay for Luther to do, is what you say is not ok for Joseph Smith to do.

    Stupid comments such as “you can’t run away from it forever” does nothing for the tone of this blog.

  38. 38 Kent
    March 23, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    As bereandave pointed out, it is not our interpretation that the Bible says things such as Ishmael was born of the flesh but not the spirit, it is the Bible actually saying this is so as Hagar, his mother, was the bondwoman and the flesh was being disobedient to God

    Again, from Galations 4:22-23, “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise”

  39. March 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Kent

    Whenever Shem needs to evade the question he igores it or claims direct quotes are “my intepretation.” I asked him a very simple direct question about what the D&C says about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being gods right now versus what Jesus says quoting both sources directly and he dodges the question with a simple “I do not necessarily agree with my interpreation.”

  40. 40 Kent
    March 23, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Jesus says in Mark 12:24-25 “24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

    Jesus didn’t say anyone would be a god in the afterlife but as the angels which are in heaven who are created beings who worship God but are not worshipped themselves. John in Revelation 22 fell down to worship an angel and the angel told him not to do so. It is clear that everyone is to worship God only and no one else.

    Revelation 22:8-9

    8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

    9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

    Also, even if there is such a thing as spirit children, they would be required to worship God only.

    Exodus 34:14

    14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

  41. March 23, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    JBR said: “Once people realize what the focus is, one understands then the true nature for even having the Bible around in Mormonism. So as Mark points out, a “great apostasy” has to be created ( as fictional as it is) so as to have cause for establishing a “new” reestablished truth.”

    This is another excellent point about “why” Mormonism “must” have the doctrine of a “great apostasy” to begin with. Without this Mormon doctrine, that would mean the “true” church never ceased to exist and that would make Joseph Smith himself the apostate which is really what he is.

    The Bible nowhere teaches a “complete” apostasy and because of this, it does corner Joseph Smith and label him as an apostate as a result. As Christians, we don’t deny the scriptural teachings that there will be apostasy, we simply deny that there ever was a complete apostasy. The reason?…It’s completely and totally unscriptural.

    We believe in a God powerful enough to preserve his church through ALL generations.

  42. March 23, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Kate said: “Face the truth, everything you are saying is okay for Luther to do, is what you say is not ok for Joseph Smith to do.”

    Did Joseph translate from the Hebrew and Greek into english? No. Did Joseph Smith even know how to read Hebrew and Greek? No. He “claimed” to get his words from God. He translated the gold plates of the BOM by putting his face in a hat and gazing at a magical peep stone.

    Magic is condemned in the Bible.

  43. March 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    When Mormons pray to see whether or not their prophets are true, have you Mormons ever considered the idea that God might be answering those prayers by placing Christians just like us in your path that will show you that Mormonism is false?

  44. 44 shematwater
    March 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    DAVID

    I know you gave no interpretation, and I never claimed that what you gave was your interpretation. I simply stated that in answering your question I would be relying on a different interpretation than what you rely on; one that I do not agree with. That is my point.

    In all truth I actually explained this very passage at least twice to Kent, so he should be able to tell you what I am going to say, but I will explain again for your benefit.
    What is Abraham right now: He is a god and sits on a throne in Heaven.

    Speaking of Mark, the first thing we have to do is look at the context. To this end I quote more extensively from Mark 12, and offer my thoughts at times.
    Mark 12:18-23
    “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
    Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
    Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
    And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
    And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
    In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.”

    Notice that the context is a question of the Sadducees regarding resurrection. It is an important point to note that the Sadducees denied the resurrection, and where thus trying to trap Christ in his words.
    Now, it must also be noted that the family they are refering to was likely a real family that existed, which was well known because of circumstances outlined here. This is thought to be the case because when Matthew records this event he quotes the Sadducees as saying “Now there were with us seven brethren” (Matthew 22: 25) thus indicating that the seven brothers actually did exist.

    Mark 12: 24-27
    “And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
    For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
    And as touching the dead, that they arise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
    He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.”

    In answering Jesus addresses the doctrine of the Resurrection separately from the question of the seven brothers. The reason for this is because the first part of the answer (verses 24-25) Christ is declaring only that which pertains to that family. They will be as the angels in Heaven, a thing that the Sadducees, not understanding the scriptures, did not understand.
    Jesus then addresses the resurrection and affirms its truth, using the book of Moses to prove it.

    We understand from Luke’s account of this event that there are, in fact, multiple worlds that people can inherit. Jesus states in Luke 20: 35-26 “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
    Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
    Notice that it is those whorthy to obtain that world, indicating the world that this family will inherit, and not any other. Also, he again addresses the basic resurrection separately.

    So, I believe everything that Christ says, and when he states that this family will be as the angels in heaven I believe him, for in that world they neither marry nor are given in marriage (agreeing with D&C 12: 16).
    But I can guaruntee that this is not your interpretation and thus we will not agree.

    JBR

    What has the absolute truth is God himself, and nothing else. The standard is not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or any other record or teaching from any mortal that ever lived. Truth is only known through direct revelation from God. The Bible contains much truth, but one will never understand it without the revelation of God. The same is true of everything else.
    For most Christians the source of truth is the Bible. For Mormons that source is God himself.
    And please note that the Bible is used more frequently to establish doctrine than any other book. The rest are suppliments and supports, used to clarify what the Bible has established, or to teach what it does not contain.

    RLO

    I don’t know any language other than English, and so I don’t know how accurate the translations are. I trust certain translators and not others.
    However, I was not trying to claim that this particular phrase can be translated any other way, as I really don’t know. I was merelly using it to illustrate my point. Your anger at my not accepting your translation seems to have prevented you from understanding this.
    This phrase may have only one legitimate translation, but that is not always the case. As such, as you have admitted, a translator can give one translation based on their interpretation of the original source, and another translator could give a different translation based on a different interpretation. This can cause great problems, as any scholar will tell you, and can lead, over time, to the loosing of the original thought in favor of what the translator wrongly believed the original thought to be.
    As I said, the only way to get a perfect thought-for-thought translation is to have the original author do the translating. Anything else is subject to translator interpretation and thus human error and unintentional corruption.

  45. March 23, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Shem said: “For most Christians the source of truth is the Bible. For Mormons that source is God himself.”

    The Bible “IS” God’s word. For Christians, God’s word is God’s word. For Mormons, a fairytale of a magical peep stone in a hat is God’s word. Magic being condemned in the Bible.

    Shem said to RLO: “Your anger at my not accepting your translation seems to have prevented you from understanding this.”

    As I stated before, our Lutheran Bible does not have the word “alone” in it. Our Lutheran denomination once used the KJV. It’s was a great Bible in it’s day however today much of the language is outdated and some meanings of words used in it have changed over time. Therefore “love for neighbor” dictates that we want to use a Bible today that is easily understood by everyone including the simple minded so that they too can understand God’s word. The KJV, while an awesome Bible in it’s day, today is nothing but a tool in the hands of a false church wanting to keep it’s simple minded people in the dark about God.

  46. March 24, 2012 at 1:48 am

    Shem

    “But I can guaruntee that this is not your interpretation and thus we will not agree.”

    I interpreted nothing,I simply quoted Mark and asked the question. You interpreted and in so doing narrowed the application of this passage to the point where it is virtaully meaningless because of its very very tiny application. Additionally, your interpretation does not even line up with LDS doctine. You simply made it up. You simply cannot bring yourself to believe the actual words of Jesus.

  47. March 24, 2012 at 2:26 am

    Kate

    “Stupid comments such as “you can’t run away from it forever” does nothing for the tone of this blog.”

    You should not runaway from the truth either.

  48. March 24, 2012 at 2:27 am

    David, I haven’t and I never will.

  49. March 24, 2012 at 3:05 am

    Kate

    As long as you refuse to accept the Bible in its entirety as the inerrant Word of God and continue to rely on prophecies revealed from “prophets” looking through “magic” peep stones decoding a nonexistent langauge, you will continue your sprint away from the truth. You are in denial as disbeliefs 1-4 (for starters) illustrate.

  50. March 24, 2012 at 3:16 am

    1 Peter 1 is such a concise letter and refutes so much of the LDS claims of a “Great Apostasy” and Bible corruption I thought I would post it here. It address our trust in Christ, salvation by grace, the eternal nature of the promise and Christ’s victory as well as the incorruptible and enduring nature of the gospel.

    1 Peter 1
    1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

    2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

    3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

    4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

    5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

    6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

    7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

    8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

    9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

    10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

    11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

    12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

    13Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

    14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

    15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

    16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

    17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

    18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

    19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

    21Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

    22Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

    23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

    24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

    25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

  51. 51 JBR
    March 24, 2012 at 4:05 am

    Shem,
    I Know full well why the Bible can not be the source of absolute truth in Mormonism. Because if the Bible was the absolute truth, there would be no “great apostasy”… and with no “great apostasy”, it would totally knock the one legged stool out from underneath Mormonism.

    I know that if every physical church could be “great apostasy”, I could pick up an KJV Bible and start an “non-apostatized” church with no further revelations .. no further any prophets. With the 1611 KJV Bible …. I know completely God’s revealed will for me and everybody, my relationship as a sinner with a perfect God and what an subsitute Savior truly offers.

  52. 52 shematwater
    March 24, 2012 at 5:25 am

    JBR

    And as long as you continue to worship the Bible instead of God you will always be in apostacy yourself.

    ECHO

    I am making no comment about the bible you use specifically. The example was brought up by someone else, and I was commenting on that example.
    As to the new translations of the Bible, I don’t think there is any need for them if the people are properly instructed and receive a descent education. I have never found the KJV to be confusing, and the poetic beauty of its writing is lost in all the modern attempts to replace it, as is some of the meaning.
    I do not think that the translation of the Bible really matters, however, as long as the one reading it does so with the direct guidence of the Holy Spirit to explain the true meaning that God intended.

    DAVID

    Honestly, your tactics are rather obvious. You can’t be wrong because you don’t interpret? That is garbage, as everyone interprets, and anyone who tries to deny this is either fooling themselves or trying to fool others.
    If all you want to do is give a quote than you have no ground to argue that what I say it means is wrong, unless you are willing to present a different meaning as the true meaning.

    I could do the same things, and you would complain and yell your head off about it. In fact, let us try it. Since we are discussing resurrection let us look at the greatest discourse on the subject contained in the Bible. First Corinthians chapter fifteen, specifically 29.
    “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

    I give no interpretation. I merely ask if you believe in what this verse states?

    “your interpretation does not even line up with LDS doctine. You simply made it up.”

    Actually, it lines up perfectly with LDS doctrine, which just again shows how ignorant you are of that particular subject. I will correct my last post as it should have referenced D&C 132: 16, not 12: 16. That should show clearly enough that this is exactly what we believe.
    Oh, and while I cannot recall where exactly I read it, this interpretation was taught by leaders of the LDS church.

    And one last question: Please explain how 1 Peter 1 refutes the apostacy? I just don’t see it.

  53. 53 shematwater
    March 24, 2012 at 5:33 am

    One will also note that in 2 Peter 3: 15-17 we are told that those who cannot understand the truth of the scriptures will twist them and alter them into something they can handle, and that we are to be careful lest we fall away with them.
    Peter knew the apostacy was coming.

    I will not be posting for a few days. Tomorrow we go to the Temple to be sealed, and so we will be indisposed until monday.
    (And David, please don’t comment on this. I caught you on the last thread.)

  54. March 24, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Again, have a beautiful day tomorrow Shem!

  55. 55 Kent
    March 24, 2012 at 8:54 am

    Shem said, “Actually, it lines up perfectly with LDS doctrine, which just again shows how ignorant you are of that particular subject. I will correct my last post as it should have referenced D&C 132: 16, not 12: 16. That should show clearly enough that this is exactly what we believe.”

    Doctrine and Covenants 132:16

    16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in amarriage; but are appointed angels in bheaven, which angels are ministering cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

    So the angels in heaven are servants to those who are worthy to be gods such as Abraham who Mormons in D and C 132 say was being obedient to God by fathering a child by Hagar and concubines?

    But it was wrong that Abraham fathered Ishmael by the bondwoman Hagar as the Bible, Galatians 4, calls him a child of the flesh in that Abraham who sowed to the flesh by going his own way and not having faith and waiting for the child God had promised. I believe Abraham is in heaven and God saw fit to forgive him for sinning and fathering Ishmael but I in no way believe that even if he could become a god by doing works and being worthy enough to be a god, that he wouldn’t have been rewarded for disobeying God by fathering Ishmael.

    Again, Mormon falsehood:

    Doctrine and Covenants 132:32-37

    32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
    33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
    34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
    35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, acommanded it.
    36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
    37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

    Again, below is Biblical truth that Abraham was sinning when he fathered Ishmael as Ishmael is a child of the flesh of the bondwoman Hagar when Abraham sinned and went his own way by sowing to the flesh instead of having faith and waiting for the child with his wife Sarah that God had promised. God did give Abraham the son of the freewoman Sarah, Isaac, in spite of Abraham’s sin because God is long suffering and He is faithful in doing what He said He is going to do.

    Galatians 4:21-26

    21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

    So we can either believe the Bible, in Galatians 4 or the Doctrine Covenants 132 as they are not the same thing at all. I choose to believe the Bible as the more I read things like the D and C, the more I am convinced that Mormon scriptures are not right and are not true.

  56. 56 Kent
    March 24, 2012 at 9:04 am

    From D and C 132

    32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
    33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
    34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

    From Galatians 4

    21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise

    I copied the above execerpts from the D and C and the Bible to show that Ishamel, the son of the flesh of the bondwoman Hagar, was not the promises of God but that Isaac, the son of the freewoman Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was the promises of God.

    Sometimes it is easier to keep something short to make a point (but see my previous posts on this subject for context)

  57. 57 JBR
    March 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Shem says:

    “JBR
    And as long as you continue to worship the Bible instead of God you will always be in apostacy yourself.”

    That is nothing more than a one legged stool trying to justify the bondwomen (Mormonism) and her son (those people trapped by Mormonism).

    “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” Gen. 21:10, Galations 4:30

    Shem continue the way you are and according to scripture you will be cast out…..
    cast out to where ?…….. into outer darkness. Matthew 8:12, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 25:30

  58. March 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Shem

    When I quote scripture and ask a question I am not interpreting anything. I am quoting sripture and asking a question. When you give your answer saying you don’t agree with my “interpretation” you are evading the question. Of course I have interpreted some passages, you can’t comment without doing that and you do not hold an exclusive license to intepret. But when I don’t interpret I’m not going to let you dodge the question by claiming I gave a “false” interpretation. Those tactics don’t work and I see them for what they are. Also, when I interpret, I don’t add words to scripture or give them such a ridiculously narrow meaning that a Bible passage only applies to a handful of people. The BIble wasn’t written for a handful of people and your interpretations explaining away contradictions do not stand when based on such mistaken and unsupported assumptions as the ones I see you make repeatedly.

    You ask if I believe this scripture?

    “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

    Yes, I do. I believe Paul asked this question of a possible practice that was apparently relevant at the time shortly after Jesus’s assention into Heaven. Let me ask you? Based on the logic you used to explain away what Jesus said in Mark 9 about people being LIKE THE angels after the resurrection, does 1 Corinthians 15:29 only apply to those particular people in Corinth? Why no, according to your interpretation, this one you like, so this one applies to everyone. Well, how convenient for you. The truth is Paul is not clear about the context of this passage. But we do know the practice of baptizing for the dead is not discussed anyhwere else in the Bible but this one passing comment and then never again. The practice is not condoned, commanded, explained, directed or encouraged. Paul could have been commenting on some practice others had been doing at the time that had served no real purpose and he was simply discussing the belief of those who practiced it. He could have been speaking about the fact that before we are baptized we are spiritually dead. Note the lines after 1 Corinthians 15:29 make this a reasonable indication of the context:

    “30And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
    31I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.”

    Do you see that last line Shem, “I die daily” yet Paul was baptized. My point is this passage is one passage that is simply unclear. I believe Paul asked this question, but that is all it was and the context was not clear. The meaning of the passage simply is not clear. I, however, do not disregard Hebrews 9:27″ 27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”

    What does a baptizm do for someone already dead who has already faced the judgment?

    “And David Please don’t comment on this . . .”

    When I see someone in total disbelief, solidifying that disbelief, I WILL commment on it as appropriate. It is an enormous display of unbelief and I hope you come to your senses and not go through with it.

  59. 59 shematwater
    March 25, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    DAVID

    I am done with you. You want a direct answer, I believe everything that Christ ever said.

    This is what I see in your posts, and what I believe your tactics are. Your reason is this: I will quote one verse without saying what it means. Then, if Shem claims to believe the quote I can reply that he then doesn’t believe LDS doctrine. On the other hand it he tries to explain the quote I can claim that he has added to the Bible. In this way I can trap him in his words.

    This is what I see. If you take this as an insult than oh well. You cannot trap me in my words. I have added nothing. I have used the Bible to show why I believe this to be the true meaning of the verse, and you have failed in your attempt to twist this and claim that I am narrowing the intended meaning.
    Now, I have never once claimed that you do not have the right to interpret, I have only stated that I, most likely, do not believe in your interpretation.

    Speaking of 1 Corinthians 15, I disagree with your assessment. But that doesn’t mean much, as we already knew that.
    Now, I do not disregard Hebrews 9: 27. I fully believe in a judgment at the point of death. However, I also do not disregard Revelation 20: 13 when it states that “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works” and thus proves that there will be another judgment after the millenial reign of Christ, at which time those spirits sent to hell at the time of the first judgment after death will be brought forth to be judged again. This squares nicely with the fact that Christ preached to the dead who were in prison (1 Peter 3: 18-20, 4: 6), as the only reason for this is if there was to be a later judgment at which time the dead could alter the judgment of the first. Which then is why we do baptisms for the Dead, as Paul indicates; because we believe that when man is resurrected there will be a final judgment at we will be judged for our works, one of which is baptism, which Christ tells us is required to enter the Kingdom of God (Mark 16: 16) and is thus needed even for those who died with no opportunity for such in this life.

    Again, I have added nothing, even though you will likely claim that I have.

    JBR and KENT

    In Galatians Paul is using the story of Sarah and Hagar to illustrate the difference between the Gospel and the Law of Moses. His intention is not to make a commentary on the life or actions of Abraham, but to use them to illustrate his point.
    We see this in Galatians 4: 24, where Paul says that this incident is an alagory, or the teaching of an abstract principle through the use of concrete ideas. That is all this is, and has nothing to do with whether or not Abraham was justified in marrying Hagar.
    To see that we must look back at the Genesis account. Now, JBR quotes verse 30 in Galatians 4, and yet we see through cross referencing that it was not God that told Abraham to cast out Hagar, but Sarah. God merely concented to such action, but still promised great blessings to Ishmael because he was Abraham’s son (Genesis 21: 10-12). In this same chapter we read of God’s blessings of Ishmael.
    Of course, in the very beginning of this story, back in Genesis 16, we read a few interesting points. Sarai gives Hagar to Abraham as wife. Hagar conceives and begins to despise Sarai, who then chastises her. Hagar flees from Sarai, and is then commanded to return and submit herself to Sarai. This raises the question: If the marriage was wrong to begin with why would God command her to go back and honor it? Why did God not support Hagar in leaving such a relationship if such was against his will?

    So, there is no contradiction between Galations and D&C 132. As one is teaching by alagory, and the other is teaching direct truth.

  60. 60 shematwater
    March 25, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    RLO

    “The spanish phrase, “Tiene razón” simply means, “You are right” in english. It doesn’t mean anything else. And this phrase would not be used if a response were intended to address “logical process of thought.”

    I have spoken with a Spanish Linguist, and this is what he told me. “Tiende razon” is more appropriately translated as “you have a point,” and thus is more often used to indicate logical reasoning in the words of the other person. While it can be rendered “You are right” this does not capture the full meaning of the phrase, and thus would not be the best rendition.
    It is also true that if the phrase is not given by itself it could have otehr meanings. An example is that it could be used to ask if a person was sane, or have the ability of reason.

    So, even with this phrase, the translation is subject to the translators understanding of the original language and how he interprets it.

  61. March 26, 2012 at 4:01 am

    Shem

    “I believe everything that Christ ever said.”

    If you beleived this you wouldn’t believe there could be No other Gods – and you DID add to scripture to reach your contrary interpretation.

    You would believe Jesus when he says at the resurrection the risen in Christ will be like the angels

    You would trust Jesus when He says His word endures forever.

    You would trust Jesus to protect His church against a “Great Apostasy”

    You would believe Jesus when he says after death people will neither marry nor be given in marriage.

    You don’t believe any of these truths, you kid your self aandn construct imaginative arguments that are rooted in nothing but false doctrine of a flase prophet.

    If you trusted Jesus you take His warning against false prophets to heart.

  62. 62 shematwater
    March 26, 2012 at 5:20 am

    I just noticed something that is rather interesting, and what I predicted.

    David quoted Mark. I then explained what I believed the context of the quote showed concerning the intended meaning of that quote.
    I quoted Paul. David then explained what he believed the context of the quote showed concerning the intened meaning of that quote.

    Of course, David also lectured me on how evil I was for attempting to use the context to explain the quote from Mark, and that is what is interesting, as it is exactly what I said he would do.

    I believe every word Christ ever said, and so I believe that “they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world” (luke 20: 35) which this family of seven brothers attained will be like the angels at the resurrection, and in this state they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
    I also believe that every word ever inspired by Christ endures forever.
    I trust that all prophecy given by God will be fulfilled, and thus know that there was a time of “a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord,” a time when people would search the whole earth for “the word of the Lord, and shall not find it,” (Amos 8: 11-12) which would be after Christ when “there come a falling away” (2 Thessalonians 2: 3).
    I also believe Christ when he states that he is the Son of God, and his Father is greater than him. I also believe his words when he calls us gods (John 10: 34), and in the inspired words of prophets that tell us we are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8: 17) to sit in his throne (Revelations 3: 21) being changed into the same image and glory (2 Corinthians 3: 18) so that when he returns we shall be like him (1 John 3: 2).

    I believe all this, for all of this has been declared by God to be true, and I cannot doubt his words. I can, however, doubt the words of uninspired men who lack true understanding and learning in matters of spirit, and thus wrest the doctrine of Christ to their own damnation (3: 16) because they are unable to know the truth.

  63. 63 RLO
    March 26, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Shem said: “I have spoken with a Spanish Linguist, and this is what he told me. [“Tiene razón”] is more appropriately translated as “you have a point,” and thus is more often used to indicate logical reasoning in the words of the other person. While it can be rendered “You are right” this does not capture the full meaning of the phrase, and thus would not be the best rendition.”

    Oddly enough, when you type “Tiene razón” into any of the following ten free Spanish-English Translation sites, they all come back with either “You are right,” “You’re right,” or “It is right.”

    http://www.spanishdict.com/translation

    http://translation.babylon.com/spanish/to-english/

    http://translate.google.com/translate_t#

    http://translation2.paralink.com/

    http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

    http://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/

    http://translate.reference.com/

    http://spanish.dictionary.com/

    http://www.translation.langenberg.com/

    http://www.athropolis.com/translate.htm

    I attended seven months of intensive Spanish language training at the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, Ca. This was followed by a two year assignment in Cartagena, Colombia, teaching in the Spanish language to Colombian naval officer candidates and naval officers at the Colombian Naval Academy and the Colombian Surface Warfare Officer School. I have been married to a native Spanish speaker for 22 years. I was a paid Spanish speaking police officer with one of the ten largest cities in the United States for 15 years.

    Not in the past 24 years of my speaking Spanish, nor in my wife’s lifetime of speaking Spanish, nor from any other native Spanish speaker, have we ever heard this simple Spanish phrase to mean anything other than what I have explained it to be. Nevertheless, you have apparently found someone who was willing to tell you precisely what you wanted to hear.

  64. March 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    Shem

    YOu refuse to believe all of what scriptures says and pick and choose what you want to believe. YOu can claim you believe everything CHrist says but in the next post or an earlier post you consistently explain what He says away away or make a weak attempt to narrow HIs meaning. Just as you did in the earlier discussion of the numerous passges clearly saying there are no other gods and that God knows of no other gods “not any”. YOu deny, deny and deny, scripture,after scripture after scripture. I’m not going to go through all the previous posts where I have already explained several passages and you simply added your own ideas to force it to say something it doesn’t. So I’ll just use this example:

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

    You claim this Matthew 16: 18: “This does not say nothing will prevail against his church. It mentions only the gates of hell. . .” SO according to YOU, there are actually things that can defeat His church. Which is why you believe a lie right now and prefer othere lies (although you believe them to be true) to the BIBle.

    Jesus’ church conquered sin, death and the devil, THOSE are the forces that oppose HIs church. There is no other enemy CHrist overlooked or allowed to defeat His church. And even AMOS does not mention that the the CHruch (the body of believers with CHrist as the head) was ever destroyed and needed to be “restored.” AMOS says nothing to support the notion of a “restored” church. Further, if you believe 2 Nephi 23-25, and you certainly do, you can’t possibly believe the true gospel as expressed in nuumerous passages that have been repeatedly cited to you by myself and others. Christ did not predict His church will ever be destroyed, but you have to believe that or your entire LDS faith collpases, which is why you have to claim there are others who can destroy His Chruch or even worse you have even argued that God allows Christ’s church to be destroyed. “Falling away” does not equate to “the great apostasy” ( i..e. – the HOuse of Cards) the LDS faith is built upon.

    “Of course, David also lectured me on how evil I was . . .” I did not say you were evil, but I will respond to you when you take passages out of context, if I have not already addressed the point. You are not evil, but you have been lied to by promoters of evil,lies and disbelief. See Paul’s warniing in Galatains 1.

  65. March 26, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    David, I know I’m not Shem, but I would like to respond to this… In YOUR mind we are taking passages out of context, yet we have shown you over and over again that this is not the case and that scripturally, we have backed up everything we have said. In all reality, you are interpreting each passage how “you” want and claiming you are correct…no different than what you are claiming we are doing. So when you post lengthy passages of scripture and then say, “see?” it really does nothing. This is what I say back to you…”you have been lied to by promoters of evil, lies and disbelief. See Paul’s warning in Galatians 1.”

  66. March 27, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Kate

    “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

    I interpret these words of Jesus repeated in three places in the Bible to mean that Jesus’Words shall never pass away. Shem and you believe they did pass away and needed to be “restored” (BTW – adding new language never spoken before 1830 is a revision not a restoration) Tell me how my interpretation is wrong?

    I also interpret 1 Peter 1:23-25 to mean that the Word of God, the gospel preached to them (which is not the gospel preached to you) is imperishable and enduring. How do I have that wrong? What am I twisting here?

    “23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For,

    “All people are like grass,
    and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
    the grass withers and the flowers fall,
    25 but the word of the Lord endures forever.”[c]

    And this is the word that was preached to you.”

    Further, Shem likes to claim Amos refers to the great apostasy. It does not, it speaks of an absense of the Word which is not an apostasy. Neither does it mention anything about the church needing to be “restored.” It simply says the Word was gone, and it never says it comes back “restored.” This is anotehr example of Shem making up things to support false LDS teachings desperate to find some basis, however obscure, for the apostasy that is the excuse for existence of the LDS church.

  67. 67 shematwater
    March 27, 2012 at 5:11 am

    I think this is the last time I will respond to anything David posts, as he is caught in the same argument and just keeps repeating it over and over in response to everything we say, apparently hoping that by doing the same thing he will get a different result.

    Let us examine some of his claims, and see how truly ridiculous they are.

    “I interpret these words of Jesus repeated in three places in the Bible to mean that Jesus’Words shall never pass away. Shem and you believe they did pass away and needed to be “restored” (BTW – adding new language never spoken before 1830 is a revision not a restoration) Tell me how my interpretation is wrong?”

    One must understand that David is in error as to our interpretation. We do not believe Christ’s words pass away, but accept that all will be fulfilled.
    Now, if we take the wording of his interpretation at face value there is nothing wrong with it. However, when we understand what he believes the word of God is, and what he believes “not pass away” means, we begin to see the error in his interpretation.
    So, what is the word of God to David. It is nothing more or less than everything that is current had in the Bible. This definition rejects all other writings and spoken words that God has given to inspired men. It concludes that the dozen or so inpired books referenced in the Bible itself are not the word of God, as they are not part of the Bible as it stands today.
    Along with this, what does he mean y not pass away. He means that the actual written record of those words will never be corrupted or changed by anyone for any reason.

    Compare this to the LDS perspective of these two parts of this verse.
    We believe the word of God is all those things that he has given by insoiration to men. It does not matter if they are in the Bible, as we do not limit God to who had can communicate with or where and how he can preserve his word. We accept that all the inpired works referenced in the Bible, that are not currently had, are the word of God, and are thus included in the statement that he quotes. We also believe that the written record of his word is not his word, but is just a record of it. His word is what he personally delivered to those he inspired.
    As to not passing away, we also take a different view. As we speak of the actual words given by God, and not the written record of those words we do not concider the corruption of the record to have any impact of the truth or validity of this statement. Rather we take the view that to pass away means to become meaningly, or to be unfulfilled. In other words, when God speaks it will happen, and the appointed time will not pass until it does.

    So, David limits this verse to dealing only with the Bible as we currently have it, excluding all other inspired writing, and only to the actual preservation of this written record.
    We however, understand this to refer to every word ever inspired by God, whether recorded or not, and whether current had or not; and that nothing he has declared will ever return meaningless, but will all be fulfilled.

    So, this is my answer to his question. His interpretation is wrong because it limits the word of God.

    Now let us look at what he says concerning Amos.
    “it speaks of an absense of the Word which is not an apostasy.”

    So, people who do not have the word of God are not in apostacy. Is David implying that if the Bible was lost to the whole world today that everything would be just fine, as not having the word does not lead to apostacy? I guess the word is not as necessary as he frequently claims.
    This also seems a contradiction to his claims that the word is the Bible, as there was never a time after Amos that the Bible was absent, and yet he admits that there was an absense of the word.
    In relation to Amos he also states that Amos does not speak of the need for a restoration. I would actually agree with this, as such a statement is not made by Amos. However, it seems reasonable that if God at one time takes his word from the people he will need to, at a later time, restore it to them. So, while Amos only actually prophecies of the loss of the word of God (which David claims does not mean an apostacy) it is reasonable to conclude that a restoration of the word was to follow. Of course this would be unexceptable to David, as this would mean that his understanding of not passing away is false, which he himself contradicts by admitting that the word was, indeed, absent.

    Of course, the only thing David can use against us is his continual tirades of “You deny the scriptures” or “You add to the scriptures” and so forth. This is, or course, only to say that we deny what he believes scripture to mean, and that we give a more detailed understanding of passages of scripture than what he would like us to use. It has no real foundation in any real reasoning. His only real point, when things are boiled down to the basics is that we do not agree with him and so in his mind we cannot agree with scripture.

  68. March 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Shem

    All your mockery of me for relying on the Bible alone as being the sole source of the inerrant Word of God is simply a rehash of the LDS argument that the Bible is an open cannon. It is not. Of course for false prophets to flourish they must deny the uncorruptible nature of God’s Word because if God’s Word never changed and is the Truth, which is the fact that you deny, their fraud is exposed and the House of Cards collapses. You don’t like me quoting the Bible because it speaks the truth which you MUST deny and do on a consistent basis.

    You say: “So, what is the word of God to David. It is nothing more or less than everything that is current had in the Bible.” That is inaccurate. When I speak of the BIble I use the NIV or the KJV mostly. I don’t deny that the Bible is revised to adapt to different languages and usuages over time, but I also include and go back to the original Greek and Hebrew text as authoritative for interpretation. New Bible revisions must be reviewed and compared for accuracy of meaning of each passage, but simply because the original language is reviewed and put into languages for modern use does not deprive God of the Truth or inerrancy of HIs Word.

    What is the Word of God to Shem? Let’s start with what he says is NOT God’s Word.

    “We also believe that the written record of his word is not his word, but is just a record of it. His word is what he personally delivered to those he inspired.”

    This is an amazing statement. For Shem, once God’s inspired spoken Word is written down, even with HIS full intention that it be written down, somehow God’s Word is demoted to what Shem calls a “record” of His Word and suddenly God’s Word is no longer God’s Word. How convenient this becomes for Shem. Because for him it is an excuse to deny the truth of God’s Word – why because it is only a “record” of God’s Word. I don’t know how Shem believes a spoken Word, which is eternal and never perishes ( which he claims to believe) is preserved unless spoken to an apostle or prophet AND written down, but that is not explained by Shem.

    So what does SHem believe is the Word of God?

    “We believe the word of God is all those things that he has given by insoiration to men. It does not matter if they are in the Bible, as we do not limit God to who had can communicate with or where and how he can preserve his word. We accept that all the inpired works referenced in the Bible, that are not currently had, are the word of God, and are thus included in the statement that he quotes.”

    I assume from this you must subtract everything that is written because it is only a record, unless he only applies that particular restriction to what is written in the BIble. But basically things not in the Bible and everything one of their LDS “prophets” say Shem thinks is the Word of God. Shem says “we do not limit God . . ” Well – God has limited HIs Word and has warned others not to add to His Word. (Proverbs 30:6, Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18 ) Shem simply refuses to believe that false prophets lie if he happens to be the believing their lies. For Shem – lies can be scripture. Correction – For Shem lies ARE scripture. Lies, will never be scripture for me. Christians don’t have to worry about the truthfulness of God’s written Word. God’s Word is always true. Shem can’t trust the Bible by itself because he believes a lie. Christians don’t entrust their eternity to the veracity of one man teaching contradictory doctrine that doesn’t square well with the Bible. To Shem – its scripture when Joseph Smith, like the devil did to Eve in the Garden said “you too can be as gods.” How does he DENY the truth which is repeatedly stated througout scripture that there are no other Gods? Easy – Shem limits God to his own planet, His own little piece of the universe, His own confined expanse, to make room for those other gods Joseph SMith says exist. And Shem tells himself that He believes God’s Word. The truth is SHem doesn’t recognize God’s Word when it stares hiim in the face. That is why SHem – doesn’t like it when I quote scripture that doesn’t leave much for interpretation. Shem here is why I quote scripture:

    “16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16.

    ” Is David implying that if the Bible was lost to the whole world today that everything would be just fine, as not having the word does not lead to apostacy?”

    No. I am saying what I said. We know nothing of when or for how long this will last. But I know it can’t possibly lead to the “great apostasy” of Christ’s church, because I believe Jesus when He says”

    “35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
    38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

    Unfortunately, for Shem, he believes this is not the Word of God but only a “record” of His Word which he must view with caution and skepticism. So he must trust Joseph Smith instead, or whatever else some other LDS prophet claims to be the “Word of God.” He must stayed tuned for the latest revelation, and then the next, and the next one, and the next one from a God who is unchanging.

    Shem you are lost. I will quote the Bible because you need to hear it. My prayer for you is that some day you will actually believe it, and that the someday is not too late.

  69. 69 RLO
    March 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Shem;

    See post #63 above, delayed in appearance pending moderator approval.

  70. 70 shematwater
    March 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    RLO

    The question I would ask is what Spanish do you speak? Are you talking about the Spanish of Spain, or the Spanish of Mexico, or that of Columbia, or Paraguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala, or the one of the other dozen forms of Spanish that is spoken throughout the world.

    My brother in law is fluent in the language of Spain, but is not fluent in the language of Paraguay, which my brother has learned, and neither are fluent in the Spanish of Nicaragua, which another brother knows.

    So, even with all that you claim, can you honestly say that this simple phrase will always mean the same to everyone who speaks Spanish?

  71. March 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Shem

    what Spanish do you speak?

    The kind real spannish speaking people speak. What kind of Eygptian did Joseph Smith translate again Shem?

  72. 72 shematwater
    March 27, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    RLO

    A little followup. I have spoken to a Spanish Professor, and this is the additional information that I have received on the phrase Tiene Razon.

    You are right is the most literal translation, and thus the most common. However, this does not mean that there are no other ways to translate the phrase. As such, depending on the context in which the phrase is used, it can convey more of ‘you have a point’ or ‘you are reasonable’ or any related idea, each of which carry their own connotations of meaning. While each of these can be expressed in other ways, they can also be expressed using this phrase.

    Of course the same can be true of the English phrase ‘You are right,’ considering that the word right has over 20 dictionary definitions.

  73. 73 RLO
    March 27, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Shem;

    You’re really not going to let go of this flimsy speculation of yours, are you?

    Argue every point of minutiae. Never give ground. And never admit you may have been mistaken about something, no matter how weak your position is proven to be.

    This has been your trademark tactic since I first became acquainted with you, going on several years running. And now, but yet again, you are demonstrating this tactic, thus proving why any meaningful dialog with you is impossible.

    Shem you asked: “So, even with all that you claim, can you honestly say that this simple phrase will always mean the same to everyone who speaks Spanish?”

    I can say that “tiene razón” is a Spanish language idiomatic expression which for every Spanish instructor I had during my seven-month course of instruction at Defense Language Institute instructor (and, F.Y.I., Defense Language Institute is staffed by native language instructors from nearly every Latin-American country as well as Spain), every Spanish speaker I have ever known from various countries, every Spanish speaker I have ever spoken with from various countries, every Spanish language resource I have looked at, the simple Spanish expression “tiene razón” has always meant what I have explained it to mean. And that is a far cry from the assertions of you and your alleged “Spanish linguist,” who are trying to claim;

    “I have spoken with a Spanish Linguist, and this is what he told me. “Tiene razón” is more appropriately translated as “you have a point,” and thus is more often used to indicate logical reasoning in the words of the other person. While it can be rendered “You are right” this does not capture the full meaning of the phrase, and thus would not be the best rendition.”

    Can I honestly say that this simple phrase will always mean the same thing to everyone who speaks Spanish? I guess not. Because in the fantasy world of Shem (who admittedly doesn’t even speak Spanish, mind you …) “tiene razón” can apparently mean anything fantasy leader Shem needs it to mean at any given time to suit his needs.

    This will be my last post on this issue. Take your last shot, Shem. I’m finished with this buffoonery.

  74. 74 shematwater
    March 28, 2012 at 4:22 am

    RLO

    I notice that you claim credibility for something that cannot be varified, but claim that I am making things up when I do the same.

    Honestly, I really don’t care who is right. You invited me to find scholars and linguists who could verify what you said. When I did just that you accused me of fabricating testimony because there is no possible way that anyone could actually present something contrary to what you yourself have stated.
    Honestly, I think that if it were possible for me to find a hundred scholars, linguists, or native speakers that all agreed that this phrase could have different interpretations you would still dismiss all of them because you can’t be wrong.


Comments are currently closed.

March 2012
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 182,230 hits

Top Posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: