Imbibing Revisionist History

[nrajeff]

In Fig's thread about the discovery that apparently humans existed 80,000 years ago, I commented:
From 325 A.D. to, say, 1800 A.D., the mainstream of Christendom--the powerful, influential sects who got to decide who was Christian and who was not--would have tried, convicted, branded a heretic, excommunicated, and possibly executed a fellow Christian who admitted believing that there were humans on Earth 80,000 years ago.

Father_JD seems to disagree with that ***essment:

Well have you imbibed revisionist historical "theories" that there were equally valid forms of Christianity and the bigger or more entrenched party merely "won out".

And I responded:

But if you are right, and the idea that a majority of Christendom was overrun by a cabal of corrupt leaders teaching false doctrines is a false, fabricated history, then what kind of respect can you have for the Reformers who fought that orthodoxy--an orthodoxy they risked their lives trying to bring down? And what the heck are your doing in a PROTESTANT church? Read what Wesley said about post-Constantine Christendom (The More Excellent Way, Sermon 89 is but one of several) and tell me that Wesley was a fellow "Imbiber of revisionist history."

So my question is this: Did John Wesley have a totally incorrect understanding of the history of post-Nicene Christianity? Did Wesley imbibe too much revisionist history?

[HickPreacher]

Some people think that all history has been rewritten and the human race is only 900 years old-- check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDtRajr8MYs

[BrianH]

Did John Wesley have a totally incorrect understanding of the history of post-Nicene Christianity? Did Wesley imbibe too much revisionist history?

Are you trying to imply that Wesley affirmed that there was a total apostacy in the sense of the idea as required by your church as a prerequisite for the so-called LDS "restoration"? If so, please tell us exactly what Wesley said IN CONTEXT that makes you think he believed that there was a total apostacy in the LDS sense.

(edit): oh and BTW, forgive me for going slightly off topic, but I have to wonder what cons***utes "revisionist history" to a Mormon...?!?! I mean ...heck the entire Book of Mormon is a "revisionist history" and it is the core foundational document of your entire religion so ...you know, this only makes me wonder.

thank you

-BH

.

[Trinity]

Some people think that all history has been rewritten and the human race is only 900 years old-- check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDtRajr8MYs

I became aware of the existence of this thesis as a chess player. The former chess champion, Gary Kasparov, is subscribing (supporting) to this idea of a young history of the human civilization. This hypothesis was developed by a Russian mathematician, Anatoly Fomenko. I have the first two volumes of his thesis, but I did not find the moment to read them yet. I have so many books to read.

Kasparov was interested about my organizational skills five years ago (a *** proposition in the Toronto area), but I prefered to stay with 'World Chess Network' at that time. I retired from chess two years ago.

About Fomenko:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko
About the New Chronology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)
Gary Kasparov on the history revision:
http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/ECover_of_History-Fiction_or_Science%3F_Chronology_1,2,3_.jpg/180px-ECover_of_History-Fiction_or_Science%3F_Chronology_1,2,3_.jpg

History: Fiction or Science? [vol. 1]
by Anatoly Fomenko
http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology-No/dp/2913621058/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

This hypothesis should be looked with a grain of salt. Do not take it too seriously.

Trinity

[HickPreacher]

I became aware of the existence of this thesis as a chess player. The former chess champion, Gary Kasparov, is subscribing (supporting) to this idea of a young history of the human civilization. This hypothesis was developed by a Russian mathematician, Anatoly Fomenko. I have the first two volumes of his thesis, but I did not find the moment to read them yet. I have so many books to read.

Kasparov was interested about my organizational skills five years ago (a *** proposition in the Toronto area), but I prefered to stay with 'World Chess Network' at that time. I retired from chess two years ago.

About Fomenko:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko
About the New Chronology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)
Gary Kasparov on the history revision:
http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/ECover_of_History-Fiction_or_Science%3F_Chronology_1,2,3_.jpg/180px-ECover_of_History-Fiction_or_Science%3F_Chronology_1,2,3_.jpg

History: Fiction or Science? [vol. 1]
by Anatoly Fomenko
http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology-No/dp/2913621058/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

This hypothesis should be looked with a grain of salt. Do not take it too seriously.

Trinity


Yes --I posted this link because it is an example of a radical departure from the norm on the history of civilization- and Christianity. Likewise Mormonism has a whole different idea about certain aspects of world history and Church history. So in some ways there is a parallel between Fomenki and Mormonism.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Are you trying to imply that Wesley affirmed that there was a total apostacy in the sense of the idea as required by your church as a prerequisite for the so-called LDS "restoration"?

Wesley didn't need to go that far in order to be branded a heretic.

[BrianH]

As usual, that does not answer the question.

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

As usual, that does not answer the question.

-BH.
--'As usual,' you have tried to go off-topic with red herrings and diversions. The first post in this thread says what I mean, and asks what I want answered. It should be self-explanatory. Read it again and I am hopeful that I won't need to p**** each sentence for you.

[Bob Betts]

--'As usual,' you have tried to go off-topic with red herrings and diversions. The first post in this thread says what I mean, and asks what I want answered. It should be self-explanatory. Read it again and I am hopeful that I won't need to p**** each sentence for you.

So my question is this: Did John Wesley have a totally incorrect understanding of the history of post-Nicene Christianity? Did Wesley imbibe too much revisionist history? So, to answer your questions about what Wesley said, you want us to speculate about what he meant by what he said, and what he imbibed?

Would you like to speculate on what Joseph Smith meant when he responded to the question, "Are the Mormons abolitionists"? by answering, "No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the Negroes free" (History of the Church, vol. 3, p.29)."

You're straining at a gnat with John Wesley.

Let's talk about revisionist history which matters, since this Forum is en***led Mormonism, and not John Wesley, nor Christianity.

I can prove from your own LDS scriptures that a complete apostasy never happened, which refutes LDS revisionist history, using the revisionist history of your scriptures, making your "restoration" by Joseph Smith, the myth of this age.

[Russ]

I can prove from your own LDS scriptures that a complete apostasy never happened,....

And John, who supposedly also never died.

What else, Bob?

[Bob Betts]

And John, who supposedly also never died.

What else, Bob?Well, John not dying, according to D&C 7, having "this power and keys of this ministry until [Christ's] return," in verse 7, is in direct contradiction to the Preach My Gospel missionaries manual, on page 34, when it says, "After the deaths of the Apostles, the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth." Since the Apostle John allegedly never died, then the missionaries manual is obviously false.

Then, there's the three Nephites in 3 Nephi 28 who are granted the same privilege as John, to never die. All four were given the desires of their hearts (which was to be there mission): to preach (prophesy) and minister "unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindred, tongues and people" (D&C 7:3; 3 Nephi 28:30), to "bring the souls of men unto [Christ], while the world shall stand" (3 Nephi 28:9; D&C 7:2, 7).

So, with four priesthood holders, holding the keys to Christ's ministry until Christ's return, no universal apostasy could have happened.

The three Nephites were still around in A.D. 322, according to Mormon chapter 1, alluded to in verse 13 as "[Christ's] beloved disciples," though they were taken from the face of the whole land of Zarahemla. They still had the rest the world to go to.

Again, in Mormon 10:11, Moroni speaks of he and his father, Mormon, seeing them and being ministered to by them. The date recorded on that page is A.D. 401.

Then there's the simple fact (if you're Mormon) that Mormon and Moroni were both allegedly prophets, which implies that they both had the priesthood keys and authority, or else none of their writings could be inspired of God. Both "prophets" in their respective books, preach to the people who are with them.

And, that takes us right to the end of the BoM, A.D. 421, with no end to the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority, thus no apparent beginning of a complete apostasy. Especially with John and the three Nephites allegedly on the earth until the Lord shall return.

Either the BoM and D&C are wrong, or the Preach My Gospel manual is wrong. They can't have it both ways.

The LDS scriptures prove there never was a universal apostasy. Therefore, Joseph Smith was never needed to restore anything.

[Libby]

From "Answers to Gospel Questions", Chapter 9 (Translated Beings—Part II)

According to the Pearl of Great Price, when Enoch was translated, the inhabitants of the city Zion were also taken and were also translated. How many others have been given this great honor we do not know, but there may have been many of whom we have no record. Prominence has been given to the case of Elijah as well as to Enoch, and the purpose of granting to prophets this great blessing is that they may minister upon the earth. Moreover, the Lord, of necessity, has kept authorized servants on the earth bearing the priesthood from the days of Adam to the present time; in fact, there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood. (Moses 5:59.) Even in the days of apostasy, and apostasy has occurred several times, the Lord never surrendered this earth and permitted Satan to have complete control. Even when the great apostasy occurred following the death of the Savior's apostles, our Father in heaven held control and had duly authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers. These servants were not permitted to organize the Church nor to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel, but they did check the advances of evil as far as the Lord deemed it necessary. This truth is made manifest in the statement of the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants wherein the following appears:

Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. (D. & C. 49:8.)

We know that John the Revelator and the three Nephites were granted the privilege of remaining on the earth in the translated state, to "bring souls unto Christ." We know that this was the request of John (D. & C., Sec. 7.) and likewise the desire of the three Nephites. (3 Nephi 28:4-18.)

It is reasonable to believe that they were engaged in this work as far as the Lord permitted them to go during these years of spiritual darkness. There are legends and stories which seem to be authentic, showing that these holy messengers were busy among the nations of the earth, and men have been entertained by them unawares. (Hebrews 13:2.) We may also well believe that these translated prophets have always been busy keeping constraint upon the acts of men and nations unbeknown to mortal man.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 44.)

So the periodic periods of apostasy on the earth had more to do with the falling away of the organized church and the removal of the priesthood keys than it did any permanent removal of "authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers.

[Bob Betts]

From "Answers to Gospel Questions", Chapter 9 (Translated Beings—Part II)

According to the Pearl of Great Price, when Enoch was translated, the inhabitants of the city Zion were also taken and were also translated. How many others have been given this great honor we do not know, but there may have been many of whom we have no record. Prominence has been given to the case of Elijah as well as to Enoch, and the purpose of granting to prophets this great blessing is that they may minister upon the earth. Moreover, the Lord, of necessity, has kept authorized servants on the earth bearing the priesthood from the days of Adam to the present time; in fact, there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood. (Moses 5:59.) Even in the days of apostasy, and apostasy has occurred several times, the Lord never surrendered this earth and permitted Satan to have complete control. Even when the great apostasy occurred following the death of the Savior's apostles, our Father in heaven held control and had duly authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers. These servants were not permitted to organize the Church nor to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel, but they did check the advances of evil as far as the Lord deemed it necessary. This truth is made manifest in the statement of the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants wherein the following appears:

Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. (D. & C. 49:8.)

We know that John the Revelator and the three Nephites were granted the privilege of remaining on the earth in the translated state, to "bring souls unto Christ." We know that this was the request of John (D. & C., Sec. 7.) and likewise the desire of the three Nephites. (3 Nephi 28:4-18.)

It is reasonable to believe that they were engaged in this work as far as the Lord permitted them to go during these years of spiritual darkness. There are legends and stories which seem to be authentic, showing that these holy messengers were busy among the nations of the earth, and men have been entertained by them unawares. (Hebrews 13:2.) We may also well believe that these translated prophets have always been busy keeping constraint upon the acts of men and nations unbeknown to mortal man.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 44.)

So the periodic periods of apostasy on the earth had more to do with the falling away of the organized church and the removal of the priesthood keys than it did any permanent removal of "authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers.
I'll repeat the LDS scriptures, which contradict what Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

According to D&C 7:7, Christ gave John "this power and keys of this ministry until [Christ's] return." This contradicts the much more recently published Preach My Gospel manual, against the decades old Answers to Gospel Questions.

In 3 Nephi 28, the three Nephites are given the same privilege as John the beloved, requiring the power and keys to Christ's ministry. How is that not a clear contradiction to what Preach My Gospel says, "After the deaths of the Apostles, the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth."

John and the three Nephites possessed the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority, according to D&C 7:7 and 3 Nephi 28:6-9. But, they couldn't possess them if the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth, according to the manual.

Which is it. It can't be both.

JFS said, "It is reasonable to believe..." That simply means he was speculating, because he didn't know.

3 Nephi 28 goes much further in describing their activities, than Joseph Fielding Smith, who withheld many of the details of what the p***ages in question actually state:


29 And it shall come to p***, when the Lord seeth fit in his wisdom that they shall minister unto all the ascattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, and shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls, that their desire may be fulfilled, and also because of the convincing power of God which is in them.
30 And they are as the aangels of God, and if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.
31 Therefore, great and marvelous works shall be wrought by them, before the agreat and coming day when all people must surely stand before the judgment-seat of Christ;
32 Yea even among the Gentiles shall there be a agreat and marvelous work wrought by them, before that judgment day.

JFS minimized their responsibilities, by SPECULATING that Christ had "authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers." Yet, the BoM scriptures make their works sound much more grandiose, requiring the keys and authority to prophesy and preach and minister, and bringing the souls of men to Christ, with the convincing power of God, doing great and marvelous works.

JFS is obviously covering up the magnitude of their priesthood responsibilities with his diminutive speculation.

Libby, you quoted JFS saying, "These servants were not permitted to organize the Church nor to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel."

Then YOU stated, "So the periodic periods of apostasy on the earth had more to do with the falling away of the organized church..."

Yet, those men were organizing the church according to verse 18, "But this much I know, according to the record which hath been given—they did go forth upon the face of the land, and did minister unto all the people, uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost."

How is that not organizing the church?

I thought that the priesthood keys and authority were necessary to bring souls of men to Christ, unite them to the church, baptize them and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost? And, they were supposed to do all this with the convincing power of God, doing great and marvelous works.

Did they have the keys and authority, and did they build the church, according to Nephi's testimony in verse 18, or not? Which is it?

You also stated, "So the periodic periods of apostasy on the earth had more to do with the falling away of the organized church and the removal of the priesthood keys..." But, they HAD the keys, given by Christ in D&C 7:7, and 3 Nephi 28:6-9.

You finished by stating, "than it did any permanent removal of 'authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers.'"

That might be true, only if you ignore verses 18, and 29-32.

[Libby]

Bob, I only have a minute, but just wanted to say that there is a difference between "ministering" and "organizing a church". There were always priesthood holders to minister and baptize, but none with the authority to organize Christ's Church (until Joseph Smith). Organizing a church would require a Prophet and Apostles and keys to perform Temple ordinances, etc.

[Russ]

Bob, I only have a minute, but just wanted to say that there is a difference between "ministering" and "organizing a church". There were always priesthood holders to minister and baptize, but none with the authority to organize Christ's Church (until Joseph Smith). Organizing a church would require a Prophet and Apostles and keys to perform Temple ordinances, etc.

Libby, I don't agree with that based on what Bob posted earlier:

"...minister unto all the people, uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost."

"Uniting... to the church."

"Believe in the preaching."

"Baptizing them."

"Received the Holy Ghost."

That is organizing and building a church. That is making Mormons.

[Bob Betts]

Bob, I only have a minute, but just wanted to say that there is a difference between "ministering" and "organizing a church". There were always priesthood holders to minister and baptize, but none with the authority to organize Christ's Church (until Joseph Smith). Organizing a church would require a Prophet and Apostles and keys to perform Temple ordinances, etc.
Libby, according to LDS scriptures, as I've already pointed out, John and the three Nephites were the Apostles, with priesthood keys. And, Mormon and Moroni were successive prophets, with the priesthood authority, all the way up to A.D. 421. Prophets and apostles in the BoM, performing ordinances. What's missing, Libby?

Preach My Gospel claims that all the Apostles died. But, four did not.

Preach My Gospel states that the deaths of all the Apostles, triggered the universal apostasy, because the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority taken from the earth.

Preach My Gospel does NOT say, "Some priesthood keys and authority were taken from the earth," so that the four living priesthood holders could do everything but organize churches and perform temple ordinances. Preach My Gospel claims, without stipulations, that the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth, triggering a COMPLETE and UNIVERSAL apostasy. That's all inclusive, no exceptions.

In Mormonism, the authority to prophesy, bring souls to Christ, baptize them both in water and the Holy Ghost, requires priesthood keys and authority, which the four Apostles and two prophets had, according to D&C 7:7 and 3 Nephi 28:6-9, and the books of Mormon and Moroni.

Therefore, at least the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority required to bring souls to Christ, baptize them both in water and the Holy Ghost, were NOT taken from the earth, making Preach My Gospel wrong, and the doctrine of a COMPLETE and UNIVERSAL apostasy, false.

Otherwise, all of the prophesying, evangelizing (bringing souls to Christ), and baptizing in water and the Holy Ghost that those four living Apostles, along with what the prophets Mormon and Moroni had performed, were performed WITHOUT ANY priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority. Therefore, the ordinances they performed were invalid.

You can't have it both ways.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Libby, according to LDS scriptures, as I've already pointed out, John and the three Nephites were the Apostles, with priesthood keys. And, Mormon and Moroni were successive prophets, with the priesthood authority, all the way up to A.D. 421. Prophets and apostles in the BoM, performing ordinances. What's missing, Libby?

Preach My Gospel claims that all the Apostles died. But, four did not.

Bob, you need to understand the difference between the Priesthood, and Priesthood keys.

Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him.

Priesthood Keys are the right to preside and direct the affairs of the Church within a jurisdiction. They define the boundaries of authority and boundaries of the exercise of Priesthood authority. In other words, though I hold the priesthood, I do not possess the priesthood keys to be the leader of the church, unless I am specifically ordained to that office and given those keys to exercise my priesthood in that capacity.

In the Church, all men who are ordained Apostles and sustained as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have all priesthood keys conferred upon them. (See D&C 27:13; D&C 110:11–16; D&C 112:30.) But they do not have the right to exercise all those keys individually.

The President of the Church is the only person on earth who has the right to exercise all the keys of the Priesthood in their fulness. (See D&C 132:7.) He receives authority by setting apart by the Twelve Apostles.

In the early Church, Peter was the one chosen by the Lord to hold these keys:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16:19)

The most precious thing lost in the Apostasy was the authority held by the Twelve—the priesthood keys. For the Church to be His Church, there must be a Quorum of the Twelve who hold the keys and confer them on others.

When Peter and the other apostles were killed, the keys were not given to another. They were lost. And though John still held the priesthood, he did not have the right to exercise his priesthood keys, as that right rested with Peter, and the Quorum of the Apostles as a quorum.

If you are going to try to criticize our own doctrine of the Priesthood, you should become more familiar with it.
Here are a couple of excellent articles that will give you a greater understanding of our doctrine of the Priesthood.

I dare say it would benefit LDS people as well. I found it very informative for me.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=87ce9209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=a934279c7c699110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1#

Thanks.

[Libby]

Thanks, Fig.

Good articles.

[nrajeff]

I appreciate Fig's and Libby's explanations about what essentially is the difference between a total loss of authorized leaders to run and lead the church, and a total loss of inspired, faithful Christians.

I need to back for a minute and address an ***ertion FJD made--an ***ertion that I didn't take the time to confront:


Well have you imbibed revisionist historical "theories" that there were equally valid forms of Christianity and the bigger or more entrenched party merely "won out".

I have never believed that there were equally valid forms of Christianity. I think that some forms are and were more valid than others. The part that you got right was the part about the more entrenched party winning out.

[Richard]

Libby, according to LDS scriptures, as I've already pointed out, John and the three Nephites were the Apostles, with priesthood keys. And, Mormon and Moroni were successive prophets, with the priesthood authority, all the way up to A.D. 421. Prophets and apostles in the BoM, performing ordinances. What's missing, Libby?

Preach My Gospel claims that all the Apostles died. But, four did not.

Preach My Gospel states that the deaths of all the Apostles, triggered the universal apostasy, because the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority taken from the earth.

Preach My Gospel does NOT say, "Some priesthood keys and authority were taken from the earth," so that the four living priesthood holders could do everything but organize churches and perform temple ordinances. Preach My Gospel claims, without stipulations, that the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth, triggering a COMPLETE and UNIVERSAL apostasy. That's all inclusive, no exceptions.

In Mormonism, the authority to prophesy, bring souls to Christ, baptize them both in water and the Holy Ghost, requires priesthood keys and authority, which the four Apostles and two prophets had, according to D&C 7:7 and 3 Nephi 28:6-9, and the books of Mormon and Moroni.

Therefore, at least the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority required to bring souls to Christ, baptize them both in water and the Holy Ghost, were NOT taken from the earth, making Preach My Gospel wrong, and the doctrine of a COMPLETE and UNIVERSAL apostasy, false.

Otherwise, all of the prophesying, evangelizing (bringing souls to Christ), and baptizing in water and the Holy Ghost that those four living Apostles, along with what the prophets Mormon and Moroni had performed, were performed WITHOUT ANY priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority. Therefore, the ordinances they performed were invalid.

You can't have it both ways.


Peter, James and John were given the key of this Ministry.
D&C 7:7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.

Bob confused the Three Nephites as being apostles, and this was not so.

When Jesus, before parting from the Nephites, asked his disciples what they desired of him after he went to the Father, nine asked to come to him in his kingdom at a good old age when their labors on the earth were over (3 Nephi 28:1–2). Three, on the other hand, were reluctant to express their desire. Jesus therefore said to them, “I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me … for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand” (3 Nephi 28:6, 9; cf. D&C 7:2).


Who appeared to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration? What was the purpose of their appearance?

Larry E. Dahl, ***ociate professor of Church history and doctrine, Brigham Young University. Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, and perhaps others appeared to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, where the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19) were conferred upon them. There is evidence that they also were endowed with power from on high and instructed in the affairs of the kingdom of God.

Matthew (Matt. 17:1-13), Mark (Mark 9:2-13), and Luke (Luke 9:28-36) all give an account of the event. From their accounts in the King James Version of the Bible we learn:

1. Approximately one week after Peter had been told that he would be given the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), Jesus took Peter, James, and John “up into a high mountain apart.” (Mark 9:2.)

2. There Jesus was transfigured before them—his face shone as the sun and his raiment became “white as light.” (Matt. 17:2.)

3. Peter, James, and John saw Moses and Elijah (“Elias” is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Elijah; see Luke 4:25-26; 1 Kgs. 17) talking with Christ. Luke tells us that Moses and Elijah spoke of the Savior’s “decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:31.)

4. A bright cloud “overshadowed them” and “they feared as they entered into the cloud.”

5. The Father spoke “out of the cloud” saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

6. As they came down from the mountain, the Savior charged them to tell no one of the experience until after his resurrection. In response to the disciples’ question about Elias that “must first come,” Jesus confirmed that “Elias truly shall first come and restore all things.” He also confirmed that John the Baptist, in his role as an Elias, had already come and had been killed at the hands of those who would yet kill the Son of Man. (See JST, Matt. 17:14 to confirm that Christ had reference to John the Baptist, “and also of another who should come.”)

Adding to and clarifying the gospel writers’ accounts, we have Peter’s reference to the transfiguration in his second epistle (2 Pet. 1:16-18), the Prophet Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Bible, testimony from the Doctrine and Covenants, and commentary by Joseph Smith and other modern prophets.

In the Prophet’s inspired translation of Mark’s record, we learn that John the Baptist was also present on the Mount of Transfiguration. JST, Mark 9:3 reads:

“And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, or in other words, John the Baptist and Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.”

Robert J. Matthews, who has done extensive work with the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible comments upon this verse:

“Considerable discussion has been stimulated by this comment, since the presence of the Baptist at the Mount has never before been suggested. Furthermore, it is certain that Elijah the Prophet was present at the Mount, and the term Elias (the Greek form the Hebrew name Elijah) has generally been understood to have reference to him. For this reason many have wondered if this p***age has somehow been printed erroneously. However, NT 2, folio 2, page 24, reads exactly as the printed Inspired Version for this p***age. Likewise, the Bernhisel copy, page 74, reads with precisely the same wording, thus corroborating the present text of the printed Inspired Version. This discussion is not intended to be a doctrinal explanation of the matter, but simply a presentation of evidence that the published account gives the text in the original m****cript. ...

“There can be no mistake that the Elias at the Mount of Transfiguration was Elijah the prophet. What role John the Baptist might have had there is not known.” (Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, Provo: BYU Press, 1975, pp. 180, 367.)[/B]

[Richard]

Elder Bruce R. McConkie gives us the following explanation about John the Baptist being on the Mount of Transfiguration:

“It is not to be understand that John the Baptist was the Elias who appeared with Moses to confer keys and authority upon those who then held the Melchizedek Priesthood, which higher priesthood already embraced and included all of the authority and power John had held and exercised during his ministry. Rather, for some reason that remains unknown—because of the partial record of the proceedings—John played some other part in the glorious manifestations then vouchsafed to mortals. Perhaps he was there, as the last legal administrator under the Old Covenant, to symbolize that the law was fulfilled and all old things were done away, thus contrasting his position with that of Peter, James, and John who were then becoming the first legal administrators of the New Kingdom.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965, 1:404.)

The Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration, then, was Elijah, although John the Baptist was also present. Elijah was the last prophet to “hold the key of … the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood.” He restored this authority so that the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood could be administered properly. (See History of the Church, 6:251-52.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Peter, James, and John were not only observers on the Mount, but were important participants. He said, “The Savior, Moses, and Elias, gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the mount, when they were transfigured.” (History of the Church, 3:387.) The Prophet’s statement that the disciples were also transfigured is, perhaps, an explanation of Luke’s saying, “they entered into the cloud.” (Luke 9:34.)

The Father speaking from the cloud, and Peter’s statement that Jesus “received from God the Father honour and glory when there came such a voice” (2 Pet. 1:17), evidences that the Father may also have been present. We have Moses’ testimony that, to stand in the presence of God, mortals require transfiguration. (See Moses 1:11.)

Many of our questions about the Mount of Transfiguration might be answered if we had a complete record. Doctrine and Covenants 7 is part of John’s record, “translated from parchment, written and hid up by himself.” [D&C 7] (History of the Church, 1:35-36.) What else John has to say in his record about his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration is unavailable to us, for the record is “hid up.” Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shared his belief that Peter, James, and John “received their endowments on the mount” (see Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56, 2:165) and Elder Bruce R. McConkie has suggested that “while on the Mount. ... they received the more sure word of prophecy.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-73, 1:400.) Indeed, there must have been much happen of which we are ignorant.

This, in fact, is affirmed by the Lord in Doctrine and Covenants 63:21: “When the earth shall be transfigured, even according to the pattern which was shown unto mine apostles upon the mount; of which account the fulness ye have not yet received.” [D&C 63:21] This verse not only affirms but demonstrates that our New Testament record of the experiences on the Mount of Transfiguration is incomplete—by revealing that the Apostles there saw the future transfiguration of the earth.

When we are privileged to receive the full account, we may find that several other personages, in addition to those thus far mentioned, were present, and that much more was said and done than we currently know about. In the meantime, we can be anxiously engaged in stretching our minds toward understanding and our souls in worthy application of that which we have already received.

[Richard]

Church History.

To act for God in organizing his Church and administering all the ordinances, Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek Priesthood in the divinely established way. Authority and responsibility for specific ***ignments are essential (D&C 18:9, 27-32, 35-37; 27:12; see Keys). In addition, Joseph Smith and others received and taught the significance of each ordinance and key. Since no one on earth possessed that authority at the time, the Prophet Joseph Smith and his ***ociate Oliver Cowdery received both instruction and ordination from God and from his messengers.

The Prophet and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829, under the hands of John the Baptist. He informed them that he acted under the direction of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that that priesthood would be given to them (JS—H 1:72). Although the precise date of this restoration is not known, it is certain that it occurred after May 15, 1829, and before August 1830 (D&C 27:12). The documents available and the date of the formal organization of the Church give support to a time of restoration before April 6, 1830. Many students have concluded that late May or early June 1829 is the most probable time frame (HC 1:40n-42n; Porter, pp. 5-10).

Sometime before June 14, 1829, the Lord instructed Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery concerning their ordination as elders, which is a Melchizedek Priesthood office (HC 1:60-61). Furthermore, when Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Oliver, they ordained them also as apostles (D&C 27:12) and committed to them "the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times" (D&C 128:20; cf. 27:13).

Several records document the occurrence and significance of this visitation. An early confirmation of the receipt of apostolic powers is evidenced in an 1829 revelation recorded in the hand of Oliver Cowdery in which the Lord stated, "I command all men every where to repent & I speak unto you even as unto Paul mine apostle for ye are called even with that same calling with which he was called" (Cowdery, 1829; cf. D&C 18:9). In his 1832 History of the Church the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that he had received "the holy Priesthood by the ministering Angels to administer the letter of the Gospel" and that he had been given "a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinance from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Keys of the Kingdom of God conferred upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him" (Jessee, p. 3).

Oliver Cowdery on many occasions bore witness that he "was present with Joseph when an holy angel from God came down from heaven and conferred, or restored, the Aaronic Priesthood and…was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred on each other, by the will and commandment of God" (Anderson, p. 22).

Joseph Smith said that Peter, James, and John made their visit "in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river" (D&C 128:20).

On April 3, 1836, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery knelt in prayer in the Kirtland Temple and received another profoundly important vision in which certain Melchizedek Priesthood keys were restored. Moses appeared and committed the keys of the gathering of Israel. Elias gave to them keys of the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham. Finally, Elijah stood before them as promised by Malachi and Moroni and bestowed the keys of sealing families together (D&C 110:11-16; 2:1-3).

[Bob Betts]

Bob, you need to understand the difference between the Priesthood, and Priesthood keys.

Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him.

Priesthood Keys are the right to preside and direct the affairs of the Church
D&C 7:5 I [JESUS] say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved [JOHN] has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done [AS AN APOSTLE].
6 Yea, he [JOHN] has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.
7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the [I]keys of this ministry until I come.

John had the priesthood keys, and the authority of Christ, and the calling of an Apostle, and the right and the power, and the promise of Christ to never taste death, and to bring the souls of men unto Christ, until Christ's return.

What am I missing, fig? John had everything you said an Apostle would need. This, if the story were true, would be a special calling, out of the ordinary of your everyday, Mormon priesthood rules and regulations.



within a jurisdiction. Verse 3 "...and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people." There's the jurisdiction, fig. What am I missing?


They define the boundaries of authority and boundaries of the exercise of Priesthood authority. In other words, though I hold the priesthood, I do not possess the priesthood keys to be the leader of the church, unless I am specifically ordained to that office and given those keys to exercise my priesthood in that capacity.Well, D&C 7 defines John's possession of the keys, to bring the souls of men to Christ, to prophesy, to be as a flaming fire and a ministering angel, to be a minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth, to do a greater work than what he had done before, as an Apostle, as one of the co-foundations of the Church.

What am I missing, fig? According to the story, John had the priesthood, the keys, the power, the authority, the same calling, their jurisdiction and the special privilege to not taste death. With all of this in John's possession, what is the basis for the claim that after the deaths of the Apostles, the priesthood keys and authority were taken from the earth?


In the Church, all men who are ordained Apostles and sustained as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have all priesthood keys conferred upon them. (See D&C 27:13; D&C 110:11–16; D&C 112:30.) But they do not have the right to exercise all those keys individually.Under ordinary circumstances within the parameters of your priesthood doctrine, I won't argue with you. But, apparently, according to the stories in D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28, Jesus made special exceptions of John and the three Nephites. This is the undeniable truth of your scriptures. All four had the priesthood, the keys, the power, the authority, the same callings, the same jurisdiction (the world) and the special privilege to not taste death. They brought souls to Christ, and baptized them in water and the Holy Ghost.

So, I again ask, what am I missing? With all four Apostles having those priesthood essentials in their possessions, what is the basis for the claim that after the deaths of the Apostles, the priesthood keys and authority were taken from the earth?

And, what about Mormon and Moroni, as successive prophets up until A.D. 421?


The President of the Church is the only person on earth who has the right to exercise all the keys of the Priesthood in their fulness. (See D&C 132:7.) He receives authority by setting apart by the Twelve Apostles.Weren't Mormon and Moroni successive Presidents of the 'Church'?


In the early Church, Peter was the one chosen by the Lord to hold these keys:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16:19)

The most precious thing lost in the Apostasy was the authority held by the Twelve—the priesthood keys. For the Church to be His Church, there must be a Quorum of the Twelve who hold the keys and confer them on others. AGAIN, according to the story, Jesus Christ himself conferred the keys and authority on the four, calling and granting them special priesthood privileges, based on the desires of their hearts. And, they allegedly exercised those privileges, throughout the world, even to the present, and until Christ's return.

How does that add up to a complete apostasy, with the priesthood keys and authority being taken from the earth.

It doesn't add up, and it doesn't make sense.


When Peter and the other apostles were killed, the keys were not given to another. They were lost. And though John still held the priesthood, he did not have the right to exercise his priesthood keys, as that right rested with Peter, and the Quorum of the Apostles as a quorum.That's the opposite of what Jesus allegedly said, in D&C 7. Jesus TOLD Peter, what greater, special work John was going to be allowed to do, right there in verses 3-7.


If you are going to try to criticize our own doctrine of the Priesthood, you should become more familiar with it.I have NOT tried to criticize your doctrine of the priesthood. I have criticized your doctrine of a complete, universal apostasy following the deaths of the apostles, when allegedly four Apostles were on the earth throughout that alleged apostasy, who possessed the very priesthood essentials for a special calling from Jesus Christ, which priesthood essentials your religion claims were taken from the earth after the deaths of the Apostles.

It's a contradiction. Or, what am I missing?

[BrianH]

Jeff, even a casual review of my participation in this thread thus far would have indicated that I did NOT go off topic at all. I addressed a specific pertinent question to YOU that you have ignored. Fig is the one who responded with the non-answer and all I did in the post to which you are responding is point out that his reply was not an actual answer.

I suggest you get your facts straight BEFORE you run like a scared chicken behind another lame and unsupportable accusation.

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

Jeff, even a casual review of my participation in this thread thus far would have indicated that I did NOT go off topic at all. I addressed a specific pertinent question to YOU that you have ignored. Fig is the one who responded with the non-answer and all I did in the post to which you are responding is point out that his reply was not an actual answer.
I suggest you get your facts straight BEFORE you run like a scared chicken behind another lame and unsupportable accusation.-BH.


---If you have stayed on topic, then you should be able--even after a mere casual review--to show where you answered my questions. On the other hand, if you never gave a substantial response, you will be unable to show where you did, and you will resort to inflammatory insults as a very poor subs***ute. To reiterate:

The first post in this thread says what I mean, and asks what I want answered. It should be self-explanatory. Read it again and I am hopeful that I won't need to p**** each sentence for you.

[BrianH]

You have yet to show that I have NOT stayed on topic. Here, let me spoon feed the Mormon. The following is the sum total of the discussion beteen you and me thus far (without reference to Fig's non-contribtion).


Jeff> So my question is this: Did John Wesley have a totally incorrect understanding of the history of post-Nicene Christianity? Did Wesley imbibe too much revisionist history?

Brian> Are you trying to imply that Wesley affirmed that there was a total apostacy in the sense of the idea as required by your church as a prerequisite for the so-called LDS "restoration"? If so, please tell us exactly what Wesley said IN CONTEXT that makes you think he believed that there was a total apostacy in the LDS sense.

Jeff>'As usual,' you have tried to go off-topic with red herrings and diversions. The first post in this thread says what I mean, and asks what I want answered. It should be self-explanatory. Read it again and I am hopeful that I won't need to p**** each sentence for you.

Brian>Jeff, even a casual review of my participation in this thread thus far would have indicated that I did NOT go off topic at all. I addressed a specific pertinent question to YOU that you have ignored. Fig is the one who responded with the non-answer and all I did in the post to which you are responding is point out that his reply was not an actual answer.

I suggest you get your facts straight BEFORE you run like a scared chicken behind another lame and unsupportable accusation.

Jeff> If you have stayed on topic, then you should be able--even after a mere casual review--to show where you answered my questions. On the other hand, if you never gave a substantial response, you will be unable to show where you did, and you will resort to inflammatory insults as a very poor subs***ute. To reiterate:

The first post in this thread says what I mean, and asks what I want answered. It should be self-explanatory. Read it again and I am hopeful that I won't need to p**** each sentence for you.

Given the indisputable FACT that the foundation of the LDS religion includes a cornerstone claim of an alleged "restoration" from some apparently imaginary "total apostasy"...

1.) Why is it wrong of me to ask for clarification of your question regarding Wesley's view on this supposed "great apostasy"?

2.) What makes you think that simply telling me to read the very text I am asking you about somehow amounts to any kind of honest effort to clarify whatever it is you think you are getting at?

This appears to be just more LDS dodgeball. It really was a VERY simple question based on what you and I and everyone reading this already knows: that your religion exists because of a claimed "restoration" from some so-called total apostasy. I am simply asking if you think Wesley's comment above somehow supports that foundational claim of your religion. If so, I ONCE AGAIN request that you simply place that reference in its CONTEXT in order to support your claim. If not, then what's the point here, Bubba?!

I am willing to bet that you are simply unable to answer my rather simple request, because it is likely that all you did was ape it from some LDS website where Mormons are told what to think, and it is likely that even they failed to care enough about the truth to bother themselves with understanding what Wesley meant. Instead they appear to have done what Mormon "schoalrs" usually do: cherry pick a few words here and a few words there and then try to glue them together with the limp spittle of their mere ***umptions to try to make their point. (Sadly for Mormons, this usually works on them).

Now, my question was very simple. You will either anwser it or else you will once again dodge it like a bad, seeping rash on an aids victim while pretending that you have no obligation to clarify your question or your point. My guess is you will do the later, and the REASON WHY you will not answer my request is because you know that you cannot comply with that very basic request and you fear that if you do, it will become obvious that you have misrepresented him.

Give me a reason to think you are at least paying attention; show me that I am wrong.

-BH

.

[Bob Betts]

Fig-bearing Thistle -

You were the one with the most comprehensive response to my criticism of your doctrine of a complete apostasy following the deaths of all the Apostles (though four Apostles never died, completely contradicting the claim in Preach My Gospel, which has yet to be addressed by you or Libby or any LDS).

I provided another comprehensive response to yours, at 11:22 Sunday evening. I respectfully asked you to show me what I'm allegedly missing in my understanding of the D&C 7 and 3 Nephi 28 LDS scriptures, as I layed them out in my last post to you.

Of course, any LDS could respond, and show me my errors in understanding, and I welcome them to do so. If I am wrong, someone should be able to walk me through my errors in my post, and pick them apart.

[nrajeff]

Brian seems to be having some cognitive setbacks when it comes to understanding what this thread is about, so I shall try to simplify it down a lot more than it already is:

Once upon a time there was a man named John Wesley. He traveled to many towns, preaching the gospel and baptizing, establishing congregations where there were none, and exhorting Christians to quit being such hypocrites. He also had a lot to say about ancient (antenicene) Christianity in contrast to later versions of it, and he did not always think much of what Christianity had turned into because of what he believed Christianity had lost beginning with Constantine's "management" of it. But Wesley claimed that Christianity had gotten pretty bad even while the apostles were still around, trying to prevent its taking over the church:

But how early did the "mystery of iniquity" work, and how powerfully, in the Church at Corinth! Not only schisms and heresies, animosities, fierce and bitter contentions were among them; but open, actual sins; yea, "such fornication as was not named among the Heathens." (1 Cor. 5:1.) Nay, there was need to remind them that "neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor drunkards" could "enter into the kingdom of heaven." (1 Cor. 6:9, 10.) And in all St. Paul's Epistles we meet with abundant proof, that tares grew up, with the wheat in all the Churches, and that "the mystery of iniquity" did every where, in a thousand forms, counterwork "the mystery of godliness."
19. When St. James wrote his Epistle, directed more immediately "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad," to the converted Jews, the tares sown among his wheat had produced a plentiful harvest. That grand pest of Christianity, a faith without works, was spread far and wide; filling the Church with a "wisdom from beneath," which was "earthly, sensual, devilish," and which gave rise, not only to rash judging and evil-speaking, but to "envy, strife, confusion, and every evil work." Indeed, whoever peruses the fourth and fifth chapters of this Epistle, with serious attention, will be inclined to believe, that even in this early period the tares had nigh choked the wheat, and that among most of those to whom St. James wrote, no more than the form of godliness, if so much, was left.... And if the state of the Church in the very first century was so bad, we cannot suppose it was any better in the second. Undoubtedly it grew worse and worse. Tertullian, one of the most eminent Christians of that age, has given us an account of it in various parts of his writings, whence we learn that real, internal religion was hardly found; nay, that not only the tempers of the Christians were exactly the same with those of their heathen neighbours, (pride, p***ion, love of the world reigning alike in both,) but their lives and manners also.

But the greatest (wound that Christianity) ever received, the grand **** which was struck at the very root of that humble, gentle, patient love, which is the fulfilling of the Christian law, the whole essence of true religion, was struck in the fourth century by Constantine the Great, when he called himself a Christian, and poured in a flood of riches, honours, and power upon the Christians; more especially upon the Clergy...when the fear of persecution was removed, and wealth and honour attended the Christian profession, the Christians "did not gradually sink, but rushed headlong into all manner of vices." Then "the mystery of iniquity" was no more hid, but stalked abroad in the face of the sun.And this is the event which most Christian expositors mention with such triumph! yea, which some of them suppose to be typified in the Revelation, by "the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven!" Rather say, it was the coming of Satan and all his legions from the bottomless pit: Seeing from that very time he hath set up his throne over the face of the whole earth, and reigned over the Christian as well as the Pagan world with hardly any control...Such has been the deplorable state of the Christian Church, from the time of Constantine till the Reformation. A Christian nation, a Christian city, (according to the scriptural model,) was nowhere to be seen; but every city and country, a few individuals excepted, was plunged in all manner of wickedness.
29. Has the case been altered since the Reformation? Does "the mystery of iniquity" no longer work in the Church? No: The Reformation itself has not extended to above one third of the Western Church: so that two thirds of this remain as they were; so do the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches. They are as full of heathenish, or worse than heathenish, abominations, as ever they were before. And what is the condition of the Reformed Churches? It is certain that they were reformed in their opinions, as well as their modes of worship. But is not this all? Were either their tempers or lives reformed? Not at all. Indeed many of the Reformers themselves complained, that "the Reformation was not carried far enough."
Is not this the falling away or apostasy from God, foretold by St. Paul in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians? (2 Thess. 2:3.) Indeed, I would not dare to say, with George Fox, that this apostasy was universal; that there never were any real Christians in the world, from the days of the Apostles till his time. But we may boldly say, that wherever Christianity has spread, the apostasy has spread also;

(SERMON SIXTY-ONE, The Mystery of Iniquity)

More later.

[BrianH]

Brian seems to be having some cognitive setbacks when it comes to understanding what this thread is about, so I shall try to simplify it down a lot more than it already is:

The fact that YOU have failed to bother properly quoting your named source is not a reason to think that I am having problems, Jeff. Your compliance, SUBSEQUENT to my request is evidence that you recognize this.


Once upon a time there was a man named John Wesley. He traveled to many towns, preaching the gospel and baptizing, establishing congregations where there were none, and exhorting Christians to quit being such hypocrites. He also had a lot to say about ancient (antenicene) Christianity in contrast to later versions of it, and he did not always think much of what Christianity had turned into because of what he believed Christianity had lost beginning with Constantine's "management" of it. But Wesley claimed that Christianity had gotten pretty bad even while the apostles were still around, trying to prevent its taking over the church:[/COLOR]

But how early did the "mystery of iniquity" work, and how powerfully, in the Church at Corinth! Not only schisms and heresies, animosities, fierce and bitter contentions were among them; but open, actual sins; yea, "such fornication as was not named among the Heathens." (1 Cor. 5:1.) Nay, there was need to remind them that "neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor drunkards" could "enter into the kingdom of heaven." (1 Cor. 6:9, 10.) And in all St. Paul's Epistles we meet with abundant proof, that tares grew up, with the wheat in all the Churches, and that "the mystery of iniquity" did every where, in a thousand forms, counterwork "the mystery of godliness."
19. When St. James wrote his Epistle, directed more immediately "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad," to the converted Jews, the tares sown among his wheat had produced a plentiful harvest. That grand pest of Christianity, a faith without works, was spread far and wide; filling the Church with a "wisdom from beneath," which was "earthly, sensual, devilish," and which gave rise, not only to rash judging and evil-speaking, but to "envy, strife, confusion, and every evil work." Indeed, whoever peruses the fourth and fifth chapters of this Epistle, with serious attention, will be inclined to believe, that even in this early period the tares had nigh choked the wheat, and that among most of those to whom St. James wrote, no more than the form of godliness, if so much, was left.... And if the state of the Church in the very first century was so bad, we cannot suppose it was any better in the second. Undoubtedly it grew worse and worse. Tertullian, one of the most eminent Christians of that age, has given us an account of it in various parts of his writings, whence we learn that real, internal religion was hardly found; nay, that not only the tempers of the Christians were exactly the same with those of their heathen neighbours, (pride, p***ion, love of the world reigning alike in both,) but their lives and manners also.

But the greatest (wound that Christianity) ever received, the grand **** which was struck at the very root of that humble, gentle, patient love, which is the fulfilling of the Christian law, the whole essence of true religion, was struck in the fourth century by Constantine the Great, when he called himself a Christian, and poured in a flood of riches, honours, and power upon the Christians; more especially upon the Clergy...when the fear of persecution was removed, and wealth and honour attended the Christian profession, the Christians "did not gradually sink, but rushed headlong into all manner of vices." Then "the mystery of iniquity" was no more hid, but stalked abroad in the face of the sun.And this is the event which most Christian expositors mention with such triumph! yea, which some of them suppose to be typified in the Revelation, by "the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven!" Rather say, it was the coming of Satan and all his legions from the bottomless pit: Seeing from that very time he hath set up his throne over the face of the whole earth, and reigned over the Christian as well as the Pagan world with hardly any control...Such has been the deplorable state of the Christian Church, from the time of Constantine till the Reformation. A Christian nation, a Christian city, (according to the scriptural model,) was nowhere to be seen; but every city and country, a few individuals excepted, was plunged in all manner of wickedness.
29. Has the case been altered since the Reformation? Does "the mystery of iniquity" no longer work in the Church? No: The Reformation itself has not extended to above one third of the Western Church: so that two thirds of this remain as they were; so do the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches. They are as full of heathenish, or worse than heathenish, abominations, as ever they were before. And what is the condition of the Reformed Churches? It is certain that they were reformed in their opinions, as well as their modes of worship. But is not this all? Were either their tempers or lives reformed? Not at all. Indeed many of the Reformers themselves complained, that "the Reformation was not carried far enough."
Is not this the falling away or apostasy from God, foretold by St. Paul in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians? (2 Thess. 2:3.) Indeed, I would not dare to say, with George Fox, that this apostasy was universal; that there never were any real Christians in the world, from the days of the Apostles till his time. But we may boldly say, that wherever Christianity has spread, the apostasy has spread also;

Interesting that you yourself as well as many in your religion manifest many of the very problems he is talking about. Can you provide us with any reason to think that what Wesley had in mind was the loss of Mormonism? If so, please do. If not, what is your actual point here?


More later.

...uh ...okay. But be sure and dumb it down so that those of us who do not have to pretend to be "Gods in embryo" can understand it. And DO get around to telling us what you want us to think Wesley meant pertaining to Mormonism as the supposed "restoration", if that is indeed your point. Then again if its not ...what is?

-BH

.

[Bob Betts]

It has now been about 46 hours since my response to Fig-bearing Thistle.

Apparently, I have proven my point, that there was no universal apostasy, in the absense of any further defense from any Mormon. It is a false doctrine. There was no need for a restoration. There was no need for a Joseph Smith. There was no need for Doctrine or Covenants. There was no need of a Book of Mormon. Everything about Mormonism is irrelevant.

And the refutation I presented was brought to you entirely by the LDS scriptures, themselves.

[maklelan]

It has now been about 46 hours since my response to Fig-bearing Thistle.

Apparently, I have proven my point, that there was no universal apostasy, in the absense of any further defense from any Mormon. It is a false doctrine. There was need for a restoration. There was no need for a Joseph Smith. There was no need for Doctrine or Covenants. There was no need of a Book of Mormon. Everything about Mormonism is irrelevant.

And the refutation I resented was brought to you entirely by the LDS scriptures, themselves.

Bob, it's also been days since my response to you in another thread. You seem eager to accuse other people of indiscretions you are unable to avoid yourself. With this kind of hypocrisy running so rampant, do you think anyone not already entirely invested in your worldview is at all convinced that you know what you're talking about? I didn't think this board was exclusively about backslapping and glad-handing each other for successfully defending your shared worldviews to each other. I'll be happy to start my own thread if the tenuous relationship to the main topic overly concerns you.

[Bob Betts]

Bob, it's also been days since my response to you in another thread. You seem eager to accuse other people of indiscretions you are unable to avoid yourself. I didn't realize that Fig's not responding to my post #23, was an indiscretion. Surely he or someone would have responded by now, if possible. YOU haven't responded, either, in this post. This is merely a personal attack on me, when you could have provided a substantive response, instead.


With this kind of hypocrisy running so rampant, do you think anyone not already entirely invested in your worldview is at all convinced that you know what you're talking about? And, your substantive response to post #23 is...? If I don't know what I'm talking about, why is no Mormon responding...including you?


I didn't think this board was exclusively about backslapping and glad-handing each other for successfully defending your shared worldviews to each other. I don't see anyone backslapping or glad-handing me, nor I, them in this thread. How about a substantive response to post #23?


I'll be happy to start my own thread if the tenuous relationship to the main topic overly concerns you.No need to start a new thread. I'm more on topic than the author of this thread, since the Forum ***le is Mormonism. Not Wesleyanism, nor Christianity, nor the Bible (as other threads are also so off topic from the subject of this Forum).

So, since the author's purpose in bringing up something Wesley said, is directly related to the LDS doctrine of an alleged universal apostasy, and this is the Mormonism Forum, why don't you quit attacking me, and respond to post #23?!

[maklelan]

I didn't realize that Fig's not responding to my post #23, was an indiscretion. Surely he or someone would have responded by now, if possible. YOU haven't responded, either, in this post. This is merely a personal attack on me, when you could have provided a substantive response, instead.

And, your substantive response to post #23 is...? If I don't know what I'm talking about, why is no Mormon responding...including you?

I don't see anyone backslapping or glad-handing me, nor I, them in this thread. How about a substantive response to post #23?

No need to start a new thread. I'm more on topic than the author of this thread, since the Forum ***le is Mormonism. Not Wesleyanism, nor Christianity, nor the Bible (as other threads are also so off topic from the subject of this Forum).

So, since the author's purpose in bringing up something Wesley said, is directly related to the LDS doctrine of an alleged universal apostasy, and this is the Mormonism Forum, why don't you quit attacking me, and respond to post #23?!

And I guess my comments in the other thread will remain unanswered. I'm surprised and quite disappointed in the way you've handled our discussion, although I don't think that you care at all. You appear to have no regard for the standards of debate or for anyone at all who disagrees with you. Bad form.

[Richard]

And I guess my comments in the other thread will remain unanswered. I'm surprised and quite disappointed in the way you've handled our discussion, although I don't think that you care at all. You appear to have no regard for the standards of debate or for anyone at all who disagrees with you. Bad form.

Maybe because Bob only sees himself as a victim. Interesting.

Regards, Richard.

Post Script, get use to him eventually calling you a dishonest Mormon or unreasonable, that is his tactic when frustrated and needs to deflect.

[Libby]

I think Bob would just like an answer to his post #23.

I looked at it again, and I really thought the issue of not having proper keys had been settled.

[Bob Betts]

And I guess my comments in the other thread will remain unanswered. I'm surprised and quite disappointed in the way you've handled our discussion, although I don't think that you care at all. You appear to have no regard for the standards of debate or for anyone at all who disagrees with you. Bad form.More personal attacks, no substantive response to post #23. Your inaction speaks louder than your contentious words. Bad form.

I may still find the time to address you in the other thread. But, I have bigger fish to fry, on subjects related to Mormonism in the Mormonism Forum.

You obviously have enough time to bad-mouth ME, but not enough to address post #23. Very bad form.

Why don't you just provide me your substantive defense against my comments and questions, if you are able, and get it over with. You've already wasted two post spaces, venting on me. Let's get down to the business the subject of this thread, if you can.

[Bob Betts]

I think Bob would just like an answer to his post #23.Thank you, Libby.


I looked at it again, and I really thought the issue of not having proper keys had been settled.How can it be settled, when it is clear that Jesus gave John the keys to His ministry in D&C 7:7, and gave the three Nephites the same privileges as John, as stated in the beginning verses of 3 Nephi 28. And, when there were two successive prophets/presidents through the rest of the end of the BoM? Are you all saying that all of the things that each of them accomplished, as directed by Christ, were all done without ANY proper keys and authority?

The Preach My Gospel manual claims that the apostasy happened "after the deaths of the Apostles," yet four Apostles never died. Don't any of you find that slightly contradictory?

I've read about your four immortal priesthood holders, and two mortal prophets/presidents toward the end of the BoM, who must have had SOME keys and authority to do everything that Christ told them to do. Yet, Preach My Gospel claims "the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth." Don't any of you find THAT slightly contradictory?

So, those six, holding the highest ranking offices in the Mormon 'church', Apostles and Presidents, were given important and extensive missions to do, by Christ, but, had no proper keys or authority to do any of it?

I've repeatedly asked Fig what I'm missing, and have yet to get a response, other than maklelan's non-constructive verbal ***aults.

[Richard]

Thank you, Libby.

How can it be settled, when it is clear that Jesus gave John the keys to His ministry in D&C 7:7, and gave the three Nephites the same privileges as John, as stated in the beginning verses of 3 Nephi 28. And, when there were two successive prophets/presidents through the rest of the end of the BoM? Are you all saying that all of the things that each of them accomplished, as directed by Christ, were all done without ANY proper keys and authority?

The Preach My Gospel manual claims that the apostasy happened "after the deaths of the Apostles," yet four Apostles never died. Don't any of you find that slightly contradictory?

I've read about your four immortal priesthood holders, and two mortal prophets/presidents toward the end of the BoM, who must have had SOME keys and authority to do everything that Christ told them to do. Yet, Preach My Gospel claims "the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth." Don't any of you find THAT slightly contradictory?

So, those six, holding the highest ranking offices in the Mormon 'church', Apostles and Presidents, were given important and extensive missions to do, by Christ, but, had no proper keys or authority to do any of it?

I've repeatedly asked Fig what I'm missing, and have yet to get a response, other than maklelan's non-constructive verbal ***aults.

Just because someone was given the Keys of the Kingdom to act in the name of God, does not allow that person to act in any other way but by direction from Heaven. God knew the time, place and when the restoration could take place and bloom as a flower and spread to the ends of the earth. That restoration took place when the world in general allowed freedom of worship, and it's beginning was her in the USA under a Secular Cons***ution allowing all to have freedom of religion and worship.

We do not and cannot dictate to God, the how, when or where Bob. Just as some believe the Bible is the final word of God, this is the folly of a self centered world, who wants to dictate to God, what he can and cannot do. Revelation continues not because of man, but because God can speak as he pleases.

Richard.

[maklelan]

More personal attacks, no substantive response to post #23. Your inaction speaks louder than your contentious words. Bad form.

I may still find the time to address you in the other thread. But, I have bigger fish to fry, on subjects related to Mormonism in the Mormonism Forum.

I'll be keeping an eye out.


You obviously have enough time to bad-mouth ME, but not enough to address post #23. Very bad form.

Why don't you just provide me your substantive defense against my comments and questions, if you are able, and get it over with. You've already wasted two post spaces, venting on me. Let's get down to the business the subject of this thread, if you can.

Don't try to patronize me Bob. You've already lost a great deal of my respect.

[Bob Betts]

You obviously have enough time to bad-mouth ME, but not enough to address post #23. Very bad form.

Why don't you just provide me your substantive defense against my comments and questions, if you are able, and get it over with. You've already wasted two post spaces, venting on me. Let's get down to the business the subject of this thread, if you can. Don't try to patronize me Bob. You've already lost a great deal of my respect.Suggesting that you provide a substantive defense against my comments and questions, if you are able, rather than continuing your mud-slinging at me, is patronizing you?

This is now your third post to me without a word of substance, or hint of a defense of your universal apostasy doctrine or the Preach My gospel manual. So, I will edit and repeat the post which brought you to this thread to begin your verbal ***ault on me, the other day.

It has now been almost 3 days since my response to Fig-bearing Thistle. No Mormon has come to the defense of the apostasy doctrine, or the Preach My Gospel manual.

Apparently, I have proven my point, that there was no universal apostasy. It is a false doctrine. There was no need for a restoration. There was no need for a Joseph Smith. There was no need for a Doctrine or Covenants, or a Book of Mormon. Everything about Mormonism is irrelevant.

And the refutation I presented was brought to you entirely by the LDS scriptures, themselves.

[Russ]

QUOTE=Bob Betts "And the refutation I presented was brought to you entirely by the LDS scriptures, themselves."

[maklelan]

Suggesting that you provide a substantive defense against my comments and questions, if you are able, rather than continuing your mud-slinging at me, is patronizing you?

Don't be a hypocrite, Bob. The first time I addressed you on this forum it was with nothing but respect, and you quickly regressed to petty and personal insults when I disagreed with you. No one is fooled by your false sense of piety.

[Russ]

Don't be a hypocrite, Bob. The first time I addressed you on this forum it was with nothing but respect, and you quickly regressed to petty and personal insults when I disagreed with you. No one is fooled by your false sense of piety.

Just go after Bob's argument rather than going after Bob himself.

[maklelan]

Just go after Bob's argument rather than going after Bob himself.

I am going after his argument, which is hypocritical and petty. It may be a tangent from the main topic of the thread, but that's not stopped you and your cons***uents from trying to derail every thread ever started here.

[Russ]

I am going after his argument, which is hypocritical and petty. It may be a tangent from the main topic of the thread, but that's not stopped you and your cons***uents from trying to derail every thread ever started here.


Nah, you're just complaining loudly.

If you were to address Bob's arguments you'd do that without calling him hypocrite and petty. Your frustration is getting in the way.

Get back on the argument. Tear it to pieces. (If'n ya can.)

At this point, it's pretty easy to see that the three Nephites and John carried the "mantle" and no apostasy ever occured.

P.S. Just stay away from name-calling and address the argument rather than the person.

P.P.S.P.S.P.P.S. Bob is just a low-down, no good, anti-Mormon from Arizona. So what. We know that's your "feelings." Speak directly to his argument and refrain from ad hominem. You good wit dat? I'm good wit dat. Hope you're good wit dat. Catch ya later, 10-4, Roger, Roger. Over and out n' all dat. (Guess I'm one o' dem no good liars too. Oh, well. Over n' out.)

[maklelan]

Nah, you're just complaining loudly.

If you were to address Bob's arguments you'd do that without calling him hypocrite and petty. Your frustration is getting in the way.

Get back on the argument. Tear it to pieces. (If'n ya can.)

At this point, it's pretty easy to see that the three Nephites and John carried the "mantle" and no apostasy ever occured.

P.S. Just stay away from name-calling and address the argument rather than the person.

P.P.S.P.S.P.P.S. Bob is just a low-down, no good, anti-Mormon from Arizona. So what. We know that's your "feelings." Speak directly to his argument and refrain from ad hominem. You good wit dat? I'm good wit dat. Hope you're good wit dat. Catch ya later, 10-4, Roger, Roger. Over and out n' all dat. (Guess I'm one o' dem no good liars too. Oh, well. Over n' out.)

First off, you're the last person who gets to tell anyone to stay on topic. Second, Bob's never addressed the issues I've brought up in other threads, irrespective of the topic. Third, you need to learn what ad hominem means. Telling someone they're being hypocritical is a commentary on their argumentation, not their person. That's not ad hominem. Telling someone they can't know something because they're a Mormon is ad hominem, and telling someone they're wrong because they're stupid/ugly/old/young/white/green/purple is ad hominem. Please learn the difference before you spout off again.

[Libby]

How can it be settled, when it is clear that Jesus gave John the keys to His ministry in D&C 7:7, and gave the three Nephites the same privileges as John, as stated in the beginning verses of 3 Nephi 28.

It seems simple to me, Bob. These men were not given the power or authority (the keys) to organize Christ's Church. It really is that simple.

[Bob Betts]

It seems simple to me, Bob. These men were not given the power or authority (the keys) to organize Christ's Church. It really is that simple.That's so very odd, Libby, when Christ (allegedly) gives Peter, James and JOHN "this POWER and the KEYS of this MINISTRY [Christ's Church] until I come" right there in clear English in D&C 7:7, and YOU deny he (and the other five) has the power or the keys??? Libby, what has happened to your mind?

Libby, your "church's" Preach My Gospel manual, clearly claims that the "priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth." It does NOT say, the "proper" priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority "to organize Christ's Church," were taken from the earth."

Additionally, you didn't answer my question(s):

Are you all saying that all of the things that each of them (the four apostles and two prophets/presidents) accomplished, as directed by Christ, were all done without ANY proper keys and authority? Yes, or no?

So, those six, holding the highest ranking offices in the Mormon 'church', Apostles and Presidents, were given important and extensive missions to do, by Christ, but, had no proper keys or authority to do any of it? Yes, or no?

[Bob Betts]

Don't be a hypocrite, Bob. The first time I addressed you on this forum it was with nothing but respect, and you quickly regressed to petty and personal insults when I disagreed with you. No one is fooled by your false sense of piety.
FOUR wasted posts without any substance regarding post #23. You simply have no defense of your doctrine.

Whatever.

[BrianH]

Hi Bob,

Well, this is no surprize. I have been asking Mormons to show me evidence of the specific "apostasy" about which they teach their children. The closest thing I get in reply is quotations from 17th -19th century Christians complaining about PERSONAL apostasy among Christians, or the complaints from Protestants about an apostasy (specifically the straying from the Bible) in the Catholic church - neither of which is the same thing as "A" universal "Great Apostasy", as described by Mormons usually characterized by the absense of the Holy Spirit, and his authority, the absense of the supposed Christian Levitical Priesthood authority, & etc.

When I ask Mormons for evidence of Mormon doctrine and practice among the apostolic churches -the very churches whose doctrine and practice they claim to have "restored"- the answer is ...silence.

You are correct. If there was no "Great Apostasy", there is no need for any "restoration". Similarly, if there is no reason to think that the distinctive doctrines and practices of Mormonism ever existed in the New Testament or sub-apostolic church, then obviously Mormonism did not "restore" those doctrines and practices. The reality is that Joseph Smith INVENTED and/or borrowed these elements, and simply called them a "restoration" in a desperate effort to crown his inventions with the veneer of some kind of authority in the eyes of those whom he could dupe with such antics.

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

This is now your third post to me without a word of substance, or hint of a defense of your universal apostasy doctrine ... No Mormon has come to the defense of the apostasy doctrine..Apparently, I have proven my point, that there was no universal apostasy.

---Uh, I think the topic of this thread had something to do with what John Wesley said regarding apostasy in early Christianity. And the question was whether or not Wesley's statements are evidence that he had employed historical revisionism. Let's look again at one of his statements on that: In this sermon on how true Christians should behave, Pastor Wesley talks about various gifts of the Spirit, and he starts out explaining WHY Christianity LOST the extraordinary ones (hint: the answer is in paragraph #2):


1. In the preceding verses, St. Paul has been speaking of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; such as healing the sick, prophesying, (in the proper sense of the word; that is, foretelling things to come) speaking with strange tongues, such as the speaker had never learned, and the miraculous interpretation of tongues. And these gifts the Apostle allows to be desirable; yea, he exhorts the Corinthians, at least the teachers among them (to whom chiefly, if not solely, they were wont to be given in the first ages of the Church) to covet them earnestly, that thereby they might be qualified to be more useful either to Christians or heathens. "And yet," says he, "I show unto you a more excellent way;" far more desirable than all these put together, inasmuch as it will infallibly lead you to happiness both in this world and in the world to come; whereas you might have all those gifts, yea, in the highest degree, and yet be miserable both in time and eternity.

2. It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honour, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [those gifts of the Spirit] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

(The More Excellent Way Sermon 89
text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)


Now, I will ask AGAIN, since this is what this thread is about: Are any of you really going to claim Pastor Wesley's conclusions are the result of his subscribing to revisionist history?

[Bob Betts]

---Uh, I think the topic of this thread had something to do with what John Wesley said regarding apostasy in early Christianity. And the question was whether or not Wesley's statements are evidence that he had employed historical revisionism. Let's look again at one of his statements on that: In this sermon on how true Christians should behave, Pastor Wesley talks about various gifts of the Spirit, and he starts out explaining WHY Christianity LOST the extraordinary ones (hint: the answer is in paragraph #2):


1. In the preceding verses, St. Paul has been speaking of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; such as healing the sick, prophesying, (in the proper sense of the word; that is, foretelling things to come) speaking with strange tongues, such as the speaker had never learned, and the miraculous interpretation of tongues. And these gifts the Apostle allows to be desirable; yea, he exhorts the Corinthians, at least the teachers among them (to whom chiefly, if not solely, they were wont to be given in the first ages of the Church) to covet them earnestly, that thereby they might be qualified to be more useful either to Christians or heathens. "And yet," says he, "I show unto you a more excellent way;" far more desirable than all these put together, inasmuch as it will infallibly lead you to happiness both in this world and in the world to come; whereas you might have all those gifts, yea, in the highest degree, and yet be miserable both in time and eternity.

2. It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honour, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [those gifts of the Spirit] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

(The More Excellent Way Sermon 89
text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)


Now, I will ask AGAIN, since this is what this thread is about: Are any of you really going to claim Pastor Wesley's conclusions are the result of his subscribing to revisionist history? I KNOW the ***le of this forum is Mormonism.

I KNOW that LDS leadership imbibes revisionist history.

And, I KNOW that Ward services are not known for having healings, or where people prophesy, speak in tongues, or interpret tongues.

I KNOW there was no universal apostasy, just going by LDS scripture, alone.

I KNOW that Christ would not abandon, nor remove His Spirit from His universal Church for 1,700 years, or even for one day for that matter, since His parting promise was, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. He sent His Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ will continue to be with us, even unto the end of the world.

I KNOW that if Christ was going to restore anything in His universal Church, He would not use an occult-practicing, law-breaking, womanizing, adulterous, covetous, lying, decieving, false prophesying man like Joseph Smith.

Does LDS leadership imbibe revisionist history? ABSOLUTELY. I've seen your VC movie.

There have always been varying degrees of apostasy. There was some while all the Apostles were alive. There was apostasy from Jesus Christ, himself: John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

But, your LDS claim to a complete apostasy? Nothing but false doctrine to promote Joseph Smith as a restorer.

Sex, lies, and false prophecies. Fact, not fiction. And, your leadership will revise anything in LDS history to make a reprehensible man, appear adoring.

[Richard]

Of interest is the Coptic Gospel of the Twelve, which even thought not Canonical, seems interesting that the
inference helps to make our case seem even more plausible.



One text in particular, the Coptic Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, makes it clear that 3 Nephi has more in common with the themes of the earliest Christian writings than we have heretofore realized. Among the parallels are the Lord’s desire for unity among his people and his offer to give them whatever they may righteously ask of him. In both accounts, he eats with them, feeds them, administers the sacrament (accompanied by a sacramental prayer), and prays with them.

1. The Apostasy is foretold. Even though the literature on the Old World forty-day mission of the Lord is extensive, it disappeared from the Christian world because it was never very popular. One reason is its pessimism. In almost all the accounts, for example, the Apostles anxiously ask the Lord about the future of the Church. They are surprised to hear that it will fall prey to the plottings of evil and disappear after two generations. “The Apostles protest, as many do today: Is this a time for speaking of death and disaster? … But Jesus remains unyielding.” Christ among the Ruins By Hugh W. Nibley


Characteristic of the Old World forty-day literature is its emphasis on certain teachings neglected or opposed by later Christianity. Whether or not religious scholars choose to accept these teachings as authentic, it is their presence in 3 Nephi which interests us here. For example, Luke does not mention the Savior’s visits among his servants throughout the world, although he records the Lord’s comings and goings in Judaea. In the Old World forty-day literature, however, there is discussion that the Savior is to appear to people in all parts of the world. So also in the Book of Mormon:

“I have other sheep which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of the land round about whither I have been to minister. …

“They … have not as yet heard my voice. …

“But … I shall go unto them, and … they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep.” (3 Ne. 16:1–3; see also 3 Ne. 15:14–24; 3 Ne. 17:4.) Nibley.

[BrianH]

Of interest is the Coptic Gospel of the Twelve, which even thought not Canonical, seems interesting that the
inference helps to make our case seem even more plausible.

Why?

Please be specific.

thank you

-BH

.

[Richard]

First answer, ---- in Vigilae Christianae, 20 (1966), p. 6–7.


Here is some more Brian.


While there are few New Testament references to priests, other than Jesus Christ and converted Levite priests (Acts 6:7), Protestants should not ***ume that this office was abolished. The early church had priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen (ca. 240 A.D.) spoke of the church hierarchy in the 2nd century describing the priest's office as being between that of the deacon and bishop (Jean Danielou, "Origen", p.44-45, 49-50; Cel. 5,3,1; De Princ. 3,2,4; Hom. Luc., 35; Hom. Ez. 1,7) and Eusebius (ca. 300 A.D.) clearly distinguished between those holding the priesthood (i.e. bishops, presbyters or elders, priests, deacons, etc.) and the lay members both men and women. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:19, 23, 43; 7:30; 10:3, 4) Eugene Seaich observes that "documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood did not immediately disappear from Christianity. 1 Clement (ca. 96 A.D.) divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites. The latter were also called "Deacons" and according to Justin's First Apology (ca. 150 A.D.) were responsible for p***ing the bread and wine to those attending service" (Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 59). Though the ***le priest was rarely used in the New Testament, so also were similar priesthood ***les such as pastor (Eph. 4:11), evangelist (Acts 21:8); (2 _Tim. 4:5), presbytery (1 _Tim. 4:14), and seventy (Luke 10:1),(Luke 10:17). [2] (See also 1 Clement 40-44; an article in Ferguson's Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 754-5 provides references to other second and early third century Christian sources mentioning Christian priests.)

[BrianH]

BH>>Why?

Please be specific.


R>First answer, ---- in Vigilae Christianae, 20 (1966), p. 6–7.[/B]

That is pretty vague. What you trying to say?


Here is some more Brian.

While there are few New Testament references to priests, other than Jesus Christ and converted Levite priests (Acts 6:7), Protestants should not ***ume that this office was abolished. The early church had priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen (ca. 240 A.D.) spoke of the church hierarchy in the 2nd century describing the priest's office as being between that of the deacon and bishop (Jean Danielou, "Origen", p.44-45, 49-50; Cel. 5,3,1; De Princ. 3,2,4; Hom. Luc., 35; Hom. Ez. 1,7) and Eusebius (ca. 300 A.D.) clearly distinguished between those holding the priesthood (i.e. bishops, presbyters or elders, priests, deacons, etc.) and the lay members both men and women. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:19, 23, 43; 7:30; 10:3, 4) Eugene Seaich observes that "documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood did not immediately disappear from Christianity. 1 Clement (ca. 96 A.D.) divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites. The latter were also called "Deacons" and according to Justin's First Apology (ca. 150 A.D.) were responsible for p***ing the bread and wine to those attending service" (Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 59). Though the ***le priest was rarely used in the New Testament, so also were similar priesthood ***les such as pastor (Eph. 4:11), evangelist (Acts 21:8); (2 _Tim. 4:5), presbytery (1 _Tim. 4:14), and seventy (Luke 10:1),(Luke 10:17). [2] (See also 1 Clement 40-44; an article in Ferguson's Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 754-5 provides references to other second and early third century Christian sources mentioning Christian priests.)

1.) Is this the text from your reference above or was that reference to something else?

2.) No one disputes the fact that there were those who ministered and officateted in many places throughout the early church who were called "priests". There were even CONVERTED Levites. And since they held an official office in the Jewish temple, it would make sense for the Christian church to employ them in some offical capacity. This does not mean that they were performing the duties commaned by God to the Levitical priests in his own definition of that priesthood.

Are you trying to tell me that the early Christian "priests" performed the ritual sacrifices commaned by God?

What are you trying to get at here?

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

Thanks for that fascinating info, Richard. For a while, I have been wondering why it seems like the orthodoxy have never compared their churches--in doxy and praxy--to the original church that Jesus established. I have to ***ume that there are sincere Christians out in the world who honestly wish to find, and join, the church that comes the closest to the original. (Why would any Christian NOT want to do that?) So I think it would be useful and common sense for the "united" world of modern Christendom to publish a list of all churches within its "tent," and rank each church according to how close it is to the original, so people will know and will be able to make informed decisions. So far, I have not been able to find such a list. Why would anyone fear such info being made public? It stands to reason that it's not a giant tie for 1st Place--some churches are going to be closer to the original in doctrine and ordinances, while others are going to be farther away from it. So why not compile rankings so the average Christian can make an informed decision when deciding which to join?

[BrianH]

One of the things I noticed about this "fascinating info" is that, if it is intended to support the claim of the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthood, it is false and/or misleading.

First of all, the fact that there were "priests" in portions of the early church is hardly support for the Mormon claim of a "restored" Levitical priesthood. The simple fact is that the Greek and other Eastern Orthodox churches have a continuous priesthood tradition dating back to the first century. The Roman church has a similar tradition, so it appears that the CHRISTIAN priesthoods were never "lost" such that they needed to be "restored". So that portion of Richard's citation is simply irrelevant and to the extent that it is presented as support for the claims of Mormonism, it is misleading. Again the office of "priest" is not any evidence of a MOMRON priesthood. In fact, it clearly reflects the Orthodox and Catholic priesthood tradition.

Secondly, Richard's source is simply wrong if he claims that Clement describes a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church. Its not clear that this is what he is saying in the first place, but if it is, he is simply wrong. A careful reading of 1 Clement will show that the claim that Clement "divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites" is false. If you read 1 Clement ch 32 through roughly ch 40 you will quickly notice that Clement was concerned with church order and vaguely mentions the Jewish priesthood (mentioning the Levitical priesthood) as an example of such order and urges the Christian church to imitate that ordeliness. Clement does NOT claim that the Christian church maintained a Levitical (aka Aaronic) priesthood at all.

Richard's source appears to be the kind of shallow ****ysis that so characterizes LDS apologetics. A source such as Origen or Justin simply mentions a priesthood, and suddenly LDS proclaim that this is support for the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthoods. But again, a careful reading will show that they are not providing any support whatsoever for anything of the kind.

thank you

-BH

.

[HickPreacher]

NRAJEFF cites--

From this time they [those gifts of the Spirit] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

(The More Excellent Way Sermon 89
text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor)

This sound a lot like what non-Utah Mormons say about Utah Mormons though. Sounds like a cultural condition that was confused with a spiritural condition.

[Russ]

.

First off, right out of the gate, you address Bob's person rather than his argument.

"Don't be a hypocrite, Bob."

"...petty and personal insults."

"No one is fooled by your false sense of piety."

That's text book ad hom.

Defend your religion.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=BrianH;8580]One of the things I noticed about this "fascinating info" is that, if it is intended to support the claim of the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthood, it is false and/or misleading.

Typical Brian, "false and or misleading" So Brian states, but without any proof, facts or evidence to show otherwise.


First of all, the fact that there were "priests" in portions of the early church is hardly support for the Mormon claim of a "restored" Levitical priesthood. The simple fact is that the Greek and other Eastern Orthodox churches have a continuous priesthood tradition dating back to the first century. The Roman church has a similar tradition, so it appears that the CHRISTIAN priesthoods were never "lost" such that they needed to be "restored".

So it is traditional, please relate and compare the duties of these Orthodox Church Priests with historical OT Priest and Priesthood.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of a priesthood authority outside of Jesus both before and after His resurrection, with John describing such callings just prior to the second coming.



So that portion of Richard's citation is simply irrelevant and to the extent that it is presented as support for the claims of Mormonism, it is misleading. Again the office of "priest" is not any evidence of a MOMRON priesthood. In fact, it clearly reflects the Orthodox and Catholic priesthood tradition.


Early Christian authors insisted too that high priests, prophets, bishops, elders, priests, and deacons with authority persisted among the Christians.
Doubters desire to deny a formal priesthood, which seems to arise mostly out of theological necessity Brian, rather than historical or biblical evidence.




Secondly, Richard's source is simply wrong if he claims that Clement describes a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church. Its not clear that this is what he is saying in the first place, but if it is, he is simply wrong. A careful reading of 1 Clement will show that the claim that Clement "divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites" is false. If you read 1 Clement ch 32 through roughly ch 40 you will quickly notice that Clement was concerned with church order and vaguely mentions the Jewish priesthood (mentioning the Levitical priesthood) as an example of such order and urges the Christian church to imitate that ordeliness. Clement does NOT claim that the Christian church maintained a Levitical (aka Aaronic) priesthood at all.

Good answer Brian, Richard is simply wrong. Then you kind of fudge with saying it is not clear. Do the research and prove me wrong, Brian.




Richard's source appears to be the kind of shallow ****ysis that so characterizes LDS apologetics. A source such as Origen or Justin simply mentions a priesthood, and suddenly LDS proclaim that this is support for the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthoods. But again, a careful reading will show that they are not providing any support whatsoever for anything of the kind.


Well Brian, historically and Biblically you have to accept one of two positions, either the authority continued, unbroken, or the authority was lost and a restoration was needed or necessary. It is quiet clear Biblically, a proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and NT.

1 AND in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. 2 Then the twelve called the mul***ude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 ¶ And the saying pleased the whole mul***ude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.(Acts 6:1–6).

Richard

[Bob Betts]

Thanks for that fascinating info, Richard. For a while, I have been wondering why it seems like the orthodoxy have never compared their churches--in doxy and praxy--to the original church that Jesus established. I have to ***ume that there are sincere Christians out in the world who honestly wish to find, and join, the church that comes the closest to the original. (Why would any Christian NOT want to do that?) So I think it would be useful and common sense for the "united" world of modern Christendom to publish a list of all churches within its "tent," and rank each church according to how close it is to the original, so people will know and will be able to make informed decisions. So far, I have not been able to find such a list. Why would anyone fear such info being made public? It stands to reason that it's not a giant tie for 1st Place--some churches are going to be closer to the original in doctrine and ordinances, while others are going to be farther away from it. So why not compile rankings so the average Christian can make an informed decision when deciding which to join?You think it would be common sense for someone to stand in judgment over all Churches, to rank them. So, every Church that is ranked below #1...how do you think they would react to somebody publicizing such a list? Now, I would ***ume that the one who makes the list will belong to the Church which he thinks is #1, so every Church that he lists below his Church, is going to be justifiably offended, and ask, "Who does he think he is"?

Why don't YOU, Jeff, rank the 200 LDS denominations, and tell us which ones are #2 and below, since you will no doubt rank yours as the #1 'church' closest to the first century Church. Then, publicize it and see if any of those other LDS denominations might just raise an objection or two.

If this is an idea that you think is common sense, and you want to place yourself in the position to makes such judgments, then go ahead and be the brave soul who incurs the wrath of all those other LDS sects that you place your 'church' above.

Guess what I think of your "common sense" idea?

[Richard]

You think it would be common sense for someone to stand in judgment over all Churches, to rank them. So, every Church that is ranked below #1...how do you think they would react to somebody publicizing such a list? Now, I would ***ume that the one who makes the list will belong to the Church which he thinks is #1, so every Church that he lists below his Church, is going to be justifiably offended, and ask, "Who does he think he is"?

Why don't we just allow God to rank them, why does Bob keep thinking we are behind the judging process. In fact I believe God has communicated that list already Bob.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'" (Joseph Smith History 1:18-19)


Offended that God has spoken? and accused all that they teach for doctrines the commandments of man.



Why don't YOU, Jeff, rank the 200 LDS denominations, and tell us which ones are #2 and below, since you will no doubt rank yours as the #1 'church' closest to the first century Church. Then, publicize it and see if any of those other LDS denominations might just raise an objection or two.

There is only one that has the copyright to all the LDS Scriptures Bob. So why worry, all the rest have to teach from Gods only true Church and doctrine, The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.





If this is an idea that you think is common sense, and you want to place yourself in the position to makes such judgments, then go ahead and be the brave soul who incurs the wrath of all those other LDS sects that you place your 'church' above.

Guess what I think of your "common sense" idea?


Common sense has nothing to do with it, find the one and only Church that Preaches, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. What does common sense have to do with it? Oh, yea Bob, we also taught Plural Marriage at one time. Interesting, we also find that in the OT times. Great comparison of doctrine.

Peace good buddy.

Richard.

[BrianH]

BH>>One of the things I noticed about this "fascinating info" is that, if it is intended to support the claim of the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthood, it is false and/or misleading.

R>Typical Brian, "false and or misleading" So Brian states, but without any proof, facts or evidence to show otherwise.


Had you bothered to actually READ the rest of what I said, BEFORE submitting to your ususal knee-**** reaction to mock, belittle and ignore, you just might have noticed that I DID proceed to offer some facts that make this point clear. I have trouble understanding why you are virtually FORCED by some compulsion to p**** out my rather mundane observations before you can actually comprehend the entire thought.


BH>>First of all, the fact that there were "priests" in portions of the early church is hardly support for the Mormon claim of a "restored" Levitical priesthood. The simple fact is that the Greek and other Eastern Orthodox churches have a continuous priesthood tradition dating back to the first century. The Roman church has a similar tradition, so it appears that the CHRISTIAN priesthoods were never "lost" such that they needed to be "restored".

R>So it is traditional, please relate and compare the duties of these Orthodox Church Priests with historical OT Priest and Priesthood.

I would if that was the point I am making. Please go back and read the text you just responded to and try to understand what I am saying. I am NOT saying that there is any comparison between the Levitical priesthood and the priests that ministered in some early Christian churches. In fact, I am making quite the opposite claim.


The Bible repeatedly speaks of a priesthood authority outside of Jesus both before and after His resurrection, with John describing such callings just prior to the second coming.

Yes indeed. No disagreement there. The problem is, it does not speak of a LEVITICAL priesthood in the Christian church.


BH>>So that portion of Richard's citation is simply irrelevant and to the extent that it is presented as support for the claims of Mormonism, it is misleading. Again the office of "priest" is not any evidence of a MOMRON priesthood. In fact, it clearly reflects the Orthodox and Catholic priesthood tradition.

R>Early Christian authors insisted too that high priests, prophets, bishops, elders, priests, and deacons with authority persisted among the Christians.

Again all true. But they NEVER speak of an operating "LEVITICAL" (aka "Aaronic") priesthood in the Christian church. The priesthood tradition of the Eastern Orthodoxies and the Catholic church continue to this day, and NONE of them even pretend to be the "Aaronic Priesthood".


Doubters desire to deny a formal priesthood, which seems to arise mostly out of theological necessity Brian, rather than historical or biblical evidence.

Well you will have to take that up with someone else because I do not have any problems with a formal priesthood. The problem I am addressing here is the Mormon claim to have supposedly "restored" the Aaronic Priesthood in the Christian church.



BH>>Secondly, Richard's source is simply wrong if he claims that Clement describes a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church. Its not clear that this is what he is saying in the first place, but if it is, he is simply wrong. A careful reading of 1 Clement will show that the claim that Clement "divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites" is false. If you read 1 Clement ch 32 through roughly ch 40 you will quickly notice that Clement was concerned with church order and vaguely mentions the Jewish priesthood (mentioning the Levitical priesthood) as an example of such order and urges the Christian church to imitate that ordeliness. Clement does NOT claim that the Christian church maintained a Levitical (aka Aaronic) priesthood at all.

R>Good answer Brian, Richard is simply wrong. Then you kind of fudge with saying it is not clear. Do the research and prove me wrong, Brian.

I wonder what exactly your reading disorder is. Why is it that you ignored the REST of what I just said. Let me help you try to understand this. The only portion of your little copy-paste effort that even mentions the LEVITICAL priesthood (likely from a book that you never even read) is a reference to 1 Clement. Your source has either ignorantly or deliberately misrepresented what Clement was talking about. I would encourage you to actually go to the source material and READ 1 Clement 40 for yourself instead of ***uming a comment about it is correct. If you DO manage to put forth this effort, you will easily see that Clement was NOT saying that there was a LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD in the Christian church. Rather, he is talking about church order and showing how God had established such order in the Jewish temple practices. He is using that as an EXAMPLE of the order to which he is exhorting them, he is NOT saying that there was a Levitical priesthood in the Christian church.


BH>>Richard's source appears to be the kind of shallow ****ysis that so characterizes LDS apologetics. A source such as Origen or Justin simply mentions a priesthood, and suddenly LDS proclaim that this is support for the LDS "restoration" of the Old Testament priesthoods. But again, a careful reading will show that they are not providing any support whatsoever for anything of the kind.

R>Well Brian, historically and Biblically you have to accept one of two positions, either the authority continued, unbroken, or the authority was lost and a restoration was needed or necessary. It is quiet clear Biblically, a proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and NT.

While I am tempted to dispute your claim that it is "quite clear Biblically" that a proper "transfer of authority is of key importance" within the NT ('cuz I don't think that is clear at all), I will refrain, because that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the LDS claim of having "restored" the Aaronic Priesthood as part of their "restoration" of the Christian church is false, since there was no Aaronic Priesthood in the Christian church to begin with. In fact, not only was there no such priesthood in the Christian church, having one would have run contrary to the teaching of the Book of Hebrews 7-8 which clearly describes the purpose of the OT priesthoods (and in particular the duties of the sacrificed that God used to define the very purpose of the Aaronic priesthood) as being SYMBOLIC, and is not completed and totally fulfilled by Christ himself, thus obviating the need for the OT priesthood altogether.

As for your excerpt from Acts and your point about transfer of authority being represented by the laying on of hands ...well, you should know that this simple act is in no way unique to the Mormon church. And again, this is not the point I am debating here to begin with. I am challenging the claim that the LDS church "restored" the Levitical priesthood. Read God's own definition of the Levitical priesthood (Lev 1-10), and see if the LDS "Aaronic Priesthood" even begins to come close to obeying the commands that God gave to define this office.

Thank you

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

You think it would be common sense for someone to stand in judgment over all Churches, to rank them.

---How can such an idea NOT be commonsensical? Consumer Reports evaluates the claims regarding competing products, and ranks them according to how well they actually live up to their claims and how much of a value they are. The rankings can range from very good to poor. If it's important for shoppers of vacuum cleaners to have access to such comparative info--on VACUUM CLEANERS--it seems to me that it would be much more important for Christians shopping for the best church, since gospel-related and salvation-related matters are a bit more important than rug-cleaning matters. Or am I wrong? I sense fear coming from your response. What have you to fear?


So, every Church that is ranked below #1...how do you think they would react to somebody publicizing such a list?

----Probably not with glee. Possibly with anger, resentment, jealousy, and spite. Hopefully with some introspection and a desire to fix the issues that resulted in them being more distant from original Christianity.



Now, I would ***ume that the one who makes the list will belong to the Church which he thinks is #1, so every Church that he lists below his Church, is going to be justifiably offended, and ask, "Who does he think he is"?

--Why would you expect the comparative evaluations to be done in such a biased, subjective way? Is that what you have come to expect from mainstream Christian churches? Why wouldn't you expect it to be run the way consumer products are tested and ranked--by a 3rd party who owes nothing to any of the compe***ors, and who is agreed by them to be the arbiter? If the country can have Consumer Reports for appliances, why can't it have Christian Church Reports for churches?

Why don't YOU, Jeff, rank the 200 LDS denominations, and tell us which ones are #2 and below, since you will no doubt rank yours as the #1 'church' closest to the first century Church.

---Because I am biased towards the one to which I belong, and obviously if I thought another was superior in all the categories that matter, I would belong to THAT one. So I would not be a credible judge.That's why.

Guess what I think of your "common sense" idea?

--I think it terrifies you. I think you want to pray that Christendom never thinks of doing my idea, because then the cat would be out of the bag, and your church--which you have little confidence would be ranked at the top--would lose any members with common sense who find the published rankings persuasive.

[alanmolstad]

the Bible has not changed in what it says.
But so many people over the ages have disagreed with what the Bible means.

The core of what the church taught in the beginning is the same as what I believe now.
But on many side issues what we believe now is very different.

So we can NOT attack the church and say that the whole thing is "FALSE" just because on a side issue we disagree with some guys who are now long dead.

And, we cant add to the Bible , or teach new ideas that were not included in the faith that was once for all given.



So this means that I can come out with an idea about how to understand the story of how Jesus walked on the water
But I can not come out and claim that I have received a new teaching from God, where I contradict the bible about Jesus walking on the water.


So on side issues I feel free to disagree with others in the church and in history.
But on the core teachings I am in agreement.....