Mormon Teachings

[Athelwulf]

It's usually understood to apply only to Revelations, since the Bible was not yet canonized at the time it was written.

I was starting to think that. I wasn't sure if the Bible was cannonized when Revelations was written. Thanks for clearing that up.

However, you don't need Revelations (or any other revelation) to see that they have added to the gospel, which they now call the "fullness of the gospel". See my posts on page 9 of this thread.

I have different settings for how many posts appear on a page. To me, there are only seven pages. Don't worry, I'll get to reading your posts, tomorrow after a good night's sleep.

Brutus, I'm curious about why you haven't adressed my post. Is it because of Jenyar's comment that the passage is held only to apply to Revelations? If so, I still need to know what the LDS Church thinks about it. Or maybe you simply didn't see my post? Just making sure my curiosity isn't drowned out by those of others.

 

[Halcyon]

I will therefore just refer you to web sites which answer your questions, rather than try to answer the deluge of anti-Mormon garbage you bring up.

It would be equally as valid to refer to your argument as "Pro-Mormon garbage." But how productive would this be if we regress into name calling?

Book of Mormon Criticisms: Changes

Why Were 4,000 Changes Made in the Book of Mormon?

Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon

I'm not making an argument against the validity of the book based on changes in grammar and spelling. Had I been, then you could have used those websites to throw me back, because that's all they're defending against. They do NOT explain the changes in fundamental church belief found between the original and present versions of the book. They don't even hint at their existence. Why would you use those to refute my argument when they don't even address my argument?

 

[Halcyon]

1 Nephi 1 Lehi foretells the coming of the Messiah
1 Nephi 2: Lehi teaches his sons to keep the commandments of God
1 Nephi 3: The Lord gives no commandments save he shall prepare a way to accomplish them
1 Nephi 5: The Bible shall go forth unto all nations
1 Nephi 6: Nephi's purpose is to persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham
1 Nephi 7: The Lord will deliver the faithful from their afflictions
1 Nephi 8: By pressing forward and holding to the word of God, we may arrive at the love of God and partake of it
1 Nephi 10: The Messiah will come and be resurrected; men need to be righteous; No unclean thing can dwell in the kingdom of God
1 Nephi 11: A vision of the coming of Christ
1 Nephi 12: A vision of the land of Promise (America, which is certainly part of LDS doctrine)
1 Nephi 13: Many plain and precious things are removed from the Bible, and apostasy results (vision)
1 Nephi 14: There are only two churches: the Church of Jesus Christ and the church of the devil
1 Nephi 15: All men will be judged according to their works; the kingdom of God is not filthy
1 Nephi 16: The wicked take the truth to be hard
1 Nephi 17: If we keep the commandments, God will nourish and strengthen us
1 Nephi 18: Some men esteem the words of God, while many tread them underfoot
1 Nephi 19: Liken the scriptures unto ourselves for our profit and learning
1 Nephi 22: Israel to be scattered, then the Gentiles will nurse and nourish them; end of the world prophesied

I think I see the problem here. For some reason, you're transposing Christian doctrine, with Mormon doctrine. See, it doesn't work like that. But don't be embarrassed. By the time you get back, I'll have the rest your list, the parts that weren't Christian doctrine, pulled aside with an explanation of what DOCTRINE is for you. In the meantime, check out this site:
http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm#22

Where this comes from:

"22. Does the Book of Mormon teach the doctrines of Mormonism?

No. Many people assume that if they read the Book of Mormon they will get a good idea of LDS beliefs. However, the Book of Mormon teaches one God, not plural gods as in Mormonism. It mentions heaven and hell, not three degrees of glory, no temple marriage or secret temple ceremonies. It does not teach baptism for the dead, pre-existence of man, eternal progression or polygamy (see comparison chart). One of the most objectionable doctrines in the Book of Mormon is its view of skin color. White skin is seen as desirable, dark skin is seen as a mark of God's displeasure (see chart on racial statements). Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in the late 1820's. Over the next fifteen years his doctrines underwent radical changes which are seen in his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price."

And by the way, what it is it with you people and regarding even the most objective evaluations of Mormonism as anti-mormon propaganda? Not saying I'm being objective, mind you, but most of the sources I cite are.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

I think I see the problem here. For some reason, you're transposing Christian doctrine, with Mormon doctrine. See, it doesn't work like that. But don't be embarrassed.

mostly because when they want, they're "Christians", they use "christian" terms, they "are" christians, but when you catch them himming & hawing, why they hide behind words, sometimes so much verbage, that they are trying to smoke-screen you, be-dazzle you, etc...

And by the way, what it is it with you people and regarding even the most objective evaluations of Mormonism as anti-mormon propaganda?

because as members of a cult, they take any slight diagreement or persistant questioning, as being "anti", their term for you & me.

so don't ask questions, just believe, be brain-washed, rationalize, get "that burning in the bosom", it doesn't matter that all the primary sources contradict each other & real history, you will never see the obvious, because there isn't, take my word for it

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Halcyon, you raise quite a few questions about Mormon doctrine which cannot possibly be addressed in one single post or essay.

thats ok, we got the time, show us the proof, no really, it most be here somewhere, I mean, just how hard is it to hide a continent-wide civilization?

I will therefore just refer you to web sites which answer your questions,

thanks, but if you mean FARMS & FAIR, they're real unbiased sites, right?

rather than try to answer the deluge of anti-Mormon garbage you bring up.

just asking questions, its just that mormonism doesn't stick up, what with the BoM being real history & all, thats a big pill to swallow, about the size of a 1"x5"x71/4" book

Rest assured that the issues you raise have all been refuted for decades, some for more than a century.

then why do you still believe it? it must be hard to defend the most ridiculous assertions, like; where there horses here before Columbus? what is reformed egyptian? continent-wide or LGT? who built the mounds? were indians really white?

 

[Marlin]

I'm back from the reunion early, so here is my response.

I think I see the problem here. For some reason, you're transposing Christian doctrine, with Mormon doctrine. See, it doesn't work like that. But don't be embarrassed. By the time you get back, I'll have the rest your list, the parts that weren't Christian doctrine, pulled aside with an explanation of what DOCTRINE is for you.

Mormons are Christians. Our doctrine is Christian and we make no distinction between "Mormon doctrine" and "Christian doctrine."

In the meantime, check out this site:
http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm#22

Where this comes from:

"22. Does the Book of Mormon teach the doctrines of Mormonism?

No. Many people assume that if they read the Book of Mormon they will get a good idea of LDS beliefs. However, the Book of Mormon teaches one God, not plural gods as in Mormonism. It mentions heaven and hell, not three degrees of glory, no temple marriage or secret temple ceremonies. It does not teach baptism for the dead, pre-existence of man, eternal progression or polygamy (see comparison chart).

Why Doesn't the Book of Mormon Teach Some of the Basic Teachings of the Church?

One of the most objectionable doctrines in the Book of Mormon is its view of skin color. White skin is seen as desirable, dark skin is seen as a mark of God's displeasure (see chart on racial statements). Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in the late 1820's. Over the next fifteen years his doctrines underwent radical changes which are seen in his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price."

The Nephites themselves may have been prejudiced, which would explain why they had a preference for white skin.

And by the way, what it is it with you people and regarding even the most objective evaluations of Mormonism as anti-mormon propaganda? Not saying I'm being objective, mind you, but most of the sources I cite are.

I think we are so deluged with anti-Mormon propaganda that we naturally get defensive about it sometimes. Sincere questions are welcome, but we get tired of rabid anti's attacking us over the same issues, over and over again ad nauseum.

 

[water]

Mormons are Christians. Our doctrine is Christian and we make no distinction between "Mormon doctrine" and "Christian doctrine."

Many other Christians don't agree with this.

How do you comment?
Are Mormons Christians, but others who call themselves Christians aren't Christians?

I think we are so deluged with anti-Mormon propaganda that we naturally get defensive about it sometimes. Sincere questions are welcome, but we get tired of rabid anti's attacking us over the same issues, over and over again ad nauseum.

This is not a fair comment. Just like in school, every student must learn math for himself (even though millions have done it before him), certain issues of the Mormon doctrine are to be dealt with individually, over and over again, or one never learns it.

 

[Marlin]

Many other Christians don't agree with this.

How do you comment?
Are Mormons Christians, but others who call themselves Christians aren't Christians?

We are well aware that certain other Christians don't agree that we are Christians. We will go on believing in Christ and worshipping Him as we see fit, regardless of what others may say about our beliefs.

We recognize that other Christian denominations are also Christians. Even though we may worship Christ differently, we don't presume to say that other churches don't have any truth to them. In fact, to paraphrase President Gordon B. Hinckley, we ask that those who join us from other denominations "bring what truth they already have with them, and we will add to it."

This is not a fair comment. Just like in school, every student must learn math for himself (even though millions have done it before him), certain issues of the Mormon doctrine are to be dealt with individually, over and over again, or one never learns it.

You have a point there. I know that talking with others about my beliefs has helped greatly in crystallizing and forming them more perfectly. However, when one learns math, there usually are not anti-mathematicians trying to pull down, distort, and attack your learning.

 

[Jenyar]

We recognize that other Christian denominations are also Christians. Even though we may worship Christ differently, we don't presume to say that other churches don't have any truth to them. In fact, to paraphrase President Gordon B. Hinckley, we ask that those who join us from other denominations "bring what truth they already have with them, and we will add to it."

What do you think about Joseph Smith's revelations then? What are your opinions about the "great apostasy"?

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. 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 . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church", Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270.)
​

 

[Marlin]

What do you think about Joseph Smith's revelations then? What are your opinions about the "great apostasy"?

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. 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 . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church", Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270.)
​

As I understand it, the reason God told Joseph Smith that other denominations' creeds were "abominations" is, they teach the doctrine that God is impersonal, unknowable and to some extent uncaring of man. God is our literal Father of our spirits and cares very much about what happens to each of us, as a personal, loving parent who has passions, emotions, and feelings. He gets angry, He feels love and affection, and He wants us to learn and grow until we are like Him. The God of the creeds is without body parts or passions, is not our literal Father, and damns people eternally for finite sin. The "abominations" that the creeds preach simply put the Plan of Salvation as taught by Mormonism aside in favor of doctrines that cannot save Man.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is false in that the scriptures do not in and of themselves convey priesthood authority to "all believers." Priesthood authority must come in an unbroken chain from the Lord to Man. The doctrine that faith and grace alone can save Man without obedience is also false and an abomination to God.

So while Mormons realize that others are indeed Christian who try to worship Christ as best they know how, we also have an understanding that at least to some extent, every other denomination and religion is false. Only Latter-day Saints have direct, express priesthood authority from God to act in God's name.

 

[Jenyar]

As I understand it, the reason God told Joseph Smith that other denominations' creeds were "abominations" is, they teach the doctrine that God is impersonal, unknowable and to some extent uncaring of man.

He was talking about modern Christian churches, among them the Puritans and Lutherans. You will be very hard pressed to find in any of their doctrines an "impersonal, unknowable and to some extent uncaring" God. No doubt some experience Him that way, as Joseph Smith did perhaps, but those feelings have nothing to do with doctrine.

God is our literal Father of our spirits and cares very much about what happens to each of us, as a personal, loving parent who has passions, emotions, and feelings. He gets angry, He feels love and affection, and He wants us to learn and grow until we are like Him. The God of the creeds is without body parts or passions, is not our literal Father, and damns people eternally for finite sin. The "abominations" that the creeds preach simply put the Plan of Salvation as taught by Mormonism aside in favor of doctrines that cannot save Man.

As I see it, whether God has "body parts" is also a doctrine that cannot save man. The rest was plain from Scripture long before the Mormon church came along. That God is Spirit (John 4:24) makes Him no less literal, but it does explain why not everyone who is descended from Adam are God's children, just like not everyone who is born of Israel are Israel's children (Rom.9:6). And for those who thought it was just about physical descent, Jesus said "God can raise up children for Abraham out of these stones" (Luke 3:8). Sin itself is not finite: someone is guilty as long as the offended person is offended. It depends on God, who is eternal. But however hell is defined, it also does not reduce salvation.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is false in that the scriptures do not in and of themselves convey priesthood authority to "all believers." Priesthood authority must come in an unbroken chain from the Lord to Man. The doctrine that faith and grace alone can save Man without obedience is also false and an abomination to God.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is an affirmation of authority of scripture, and has nothing to do with conveying the priesthood to believers. God did that himself by rebuilding the temple with living priests (1 Peter 2:4-5). We share in the eternal priesthood through faith in Christ (Hebrews 7:24). The link between us and Christ is our faith, so there isn't even a chain - we're called sons of God (Gal. 3:26), not descendents of God.

There is also no doctrine that anyone is saved without obedience, just that works has no salvific value (Romans 11:6). Obedience merely confirms the faith I mentioned above, by showing that it's alive (James 2:26) - it does not bring salvation, nor does it add to it.

So while Mormons realize that others are indeed Christian who try to worship Christ as best they know how, we also have an understanding that at least to some extent, every other denomination and religion is false. Only Latter-day Saints have direct, express priesthood authority from God to act in God's name.

That's a strange claim, since only Christ has the priesthood of Melchizedek, "Therefore he is able to save completely [panteles] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). After you've called someone a Christian, there's nothing left to be said - they are "acting in His name". Christ saves them by his own intercession, and "the former regulation [of Levitical and Aaronic priests] is set aside because it was weak and useless" (Hebrews 7:18). Yet you say God reinstated this legalistic regulation, putting everyone who used to be justified by grace back under the law, so that Christ doesn't "save completely" anymore, only partially?

So you'll have to tell me what went "lost" from the Christian understanding to make us false to some extent. I have great suspicions of any ambition to become like the Most High in any way or form than Christ, and I don't see how the LDS understanding teaches something about Him that can only be known from with its walls.

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar, I would disagree that only Christ holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. He conferred it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through Peter, James and John, and every Elder and High Priest in the LDS Church holds it.

I would also disagree that the scriptures confer any sort of priesthood authority upon readers of them. Hebrews 5:4 tells us that no man takes this honor unto himself, except he is called of God, as was Aaron. How was Aaron called? By the laying on of hands by someone who held priesthood authority already.

The authority to preach and act in God's name was lost from the earth with the death of the Apostles. They even prophesied that a great Apostasy was going to occur before the Second Coming of Christ. Priesthood authority was restored to the earth through the prophet Joseph Smith, and in this authority alone is God's sanction to act on His behalf.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, I would disagree that only Christ holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. He conferred it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through Peter, James and John, and every Elder and High Priest in the LDS Church holds it.

Then you'll have to show how the Melchizedek priesthood can be conferred, in the light of Hebrews 7:15-16: "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." Explain why Jesus would confer a priesthood that is set apart from other priesthoods by the fact that only He qualifies for it: "Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood" (v.23-24). No other priest is "holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens" (v.26) - not even the apostles.

That, and it was conferred on Jesus by a specific oath (Heb. 7:20-22):

"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.' "​

Peter, James and John never claimed to have such exclusive authority, and there was never a Melchizedek oath involved in their office. The office of apostle ended with the witnesses to Jesus' resurrection, which may be seen from Judas' replacement. Obviously the verse Peter quotes only applies to one apostle - Judas - not to all of them, and they were chosen because they were eye-witnesses (a priviledge that can't be "conferred"!):

Acts 1:20-22
"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.' Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.
For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."​

Also, Peter makes sure that everything necessary has been done before he dies, so that "after my departure you will always be able to remember these things" (2 Peter 1:15). Unless Peter failed, what would be left to witness to, left to be done, that the apostles hadn't already done, that they hadn't locked or unlocked with their authority? And if Peter failed, what makes you think any latter-day apostles will do better? Was Jesus wrong to trust Peter with his kingdom, even though he knew Peter would fall away (Matt. 16:18; Matt. 26:31)? Yet Christ promises twelve thones around himself to them:

Matt. 19:28
Jesus said to them [the Twelve], "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28
You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Jesus also makes sure of the preservation of the gospel after He is gone: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" (John 14:26). So if Christ trusts a fallible church and a fallible Peter to build his kingdom, what is there to "restore"? Christ taught that even if his followers fell away - even if the whole world fell away - his words would not (Matthew 24:35). They will always be there to return to, whatever happens to the church. Mormons do no teach return to the gospel as far as I can see, they teach the restoration of the gospel.

I would also disagree that the scriptures confer any sort of priesthood authority upon readers of them. Hebrews 5:4 tells us that no man takes this honor unto himself, except he is called of God, as was Aaron. How was Aaron called? By the laying on of hands by someone who held priesthood authority already.

Not on the readers, on the believers. One becomes part of Christ through faith in Him (Rom. 3:22; 2 Cor. 13:5). The honor belongs to God, because it salvation by grace, received by faith in God and not by our works. I don't know why you insist on Aaron's priesthood, unless you don't understand the argument of Hebrews 7 "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?" And when that priest had come, why revert back to a priesthood that "appoints as high priests men who are weak" (v.28)?

But when Peter writes to the church, "scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood" he tells them:

1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.​

We aren't called like Aaron, a Levite chosen by the law (embodied by Moses), but by Christ himself, chosen by grace. "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law."

Yes, the Mormons have restored something, but I think you have to ask yourself if this was meant to be restored.

The authority to preach and act in God's name was lost from the earth with the death of the Apostles. They even prophesied that a great Apostasy was going to occur before the Second Coming of Christ. Priesthood authority was restored to the earth through the prophet Joseph Smith, and in this authority alone is God's sanction to act on His behalf.

The authority to preach comes from God's word - Christ. It would have been lost if He remained dead, but He did not. Here's your great apostasy: "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4). Christ himself predicts this in Matt. 24

"Then you [his audience, "this generation" v.34] will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.​

The apostasy would continue until his return. So when your prophets want to tell us of Christ, "Here he is, in the inner rooms of our church", Jesus' warning in Matt. 24:26 comes to mind, and your prophets seem false. I cannot see what you have "restored" that Christ didn't build himself, what "understanding" was lost that the apostles themselves didn't bind in obedience to Jesus, and what "priesthood authority" you have that wasn't made redundant by all who believe.

Who but Jesus has authority to act on God's behalf? "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." The duty of his priesthood of believers outweighs any earthly authority:

1 Peter 4:11
If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen​

 

[water]

Jenyar, I would disagree that only Christ holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. He conferred it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through Peter, James and John, and every Elder and High Priest in the LDS Church holds it.

To compare those missionary *boys* with Jesus?

To think those boys have the same authority as Jesus?


I am appalled.

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar, most of what we (LDS members) know about the Priesthood comes from revelations given to the prophet Joseph Smith. The Bible simply doesn't say much about it, compared with what we know now about it. Please see the following two sections of the Doctrine & Covenants for an understanding of where we get our doctrines about the Priesthood:

Doctrine & Covenants 107

Doctrine & Covenants 20

 

[Marlin]

water, the Elders are lower than the High Priests. The missionaries you have talked with (apparently) are Elders, not High Priests. The two offices are both in the Melchizedek Priesthood, but Elder is lower than High Priest.

 

[Marlin]

I'm not making an argument against the validity of the book based on changes in grammar and spelling. Had I been, then you could have used those websites to throw me back, because that's all they're defending against. They do NOT explain the changes in fundamental church belief found between the original and present versions of the book. They don't even hint at their existence. Why would you use those to refute my argument when they don't even address my argument?

Here is another site which may help answer your arguments:

Changes in the Book of Mormon (Lindsay)

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, most of what we (LDS members) know about the Priesthood comes from revelations given to the prophet Joseph Smith. The Bible simply doesn't say much about it, compared with what we know now about it. Please see the following two sections of the Doctrine & Covenants for an understanding of where we get our doctrines about the Priesthood:

Doctrine & Covenants 107

Doctrine & Covenants 20

Thanks, but through the voice of the apostles, the Bible says everything about anything that Jesus considered neccessary to reveal. Why was this doctrine - so crucial, according to Mormons, that anything less corrupts the full gospel - left out (if not flatly contradicted by Hebrews 7)? Or was Paul holding back when he said:

I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness — the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. (Col. 1:25-28)​

and which Peter confirms:

2 Peter 1:3; 12-16
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
...
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.​

Why don't the original apostles make every effort to preserve "the authority to preach and act in God's name"? Do you really want Christians to believe, against the book of Hebrews in particular and the original apostles in general, that "the Bible simply doesn't say much about" a part of the gospel that was necessary to prevent such cataclysmic apostasy?

_________________________________

I couldn't help comparing the folowing verses. Do they say the same thing? Which one reflects the high priests of Hebrews 7:28?

Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. (D&C 107:2-4)​

and

First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! (Hebrews 7:2-4)​

 

[Marlin]

Thanks, but through the voice of the apostles, the Bible says everything about anything that Jesus considered neccessary to reveal.

This is not a biblical doctrine. The Bible never says that it is the complete word of God, with no more word from God possible. That is an unwarranted assumption many Christians make to justify their belief that God cannot (or does not) speak any more than He has already spoken.

Why was this doctrine - so crucial, according to Mormons, that anything less corrupts the full gospel - left out (if not flatly contradicted by Hebrews 7)?

It was not initially left out. Remember, the Latter-day Saint Christian's position is that many "plain and precious truths" were removed from the Bible, and that a general apostasy from the truth occurred, causing many important truths to be lost to the world (until Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets were the instruments of God in restoring them).

Or was Paul holding back when he said:

I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness — the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. (Col. 1:25-28)​

and which Peter confirms:

2 Peter 1:3; 12-16
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
...
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.​

Paul *did* give the saints the fulness of the gospel, but as mentioned above, an apostasy took place in which many truths were lost, to be replaced by the philosophies and doctrines of men.

Why don't the original apostles make every effort to preserve "the authority to preach and act in God's name"? Do you really want Christians to believe, against the book of Hebrews in particular and the original apostles in general, that "the Bible simply doesn't say much about" a part of the gospel that was necessary to prevent such cataclysmic apostasy?

The apostles did teach that an apostasy would occur. I'm sure that they did all in their power to preserve the truth, but apparently, slowly but surely, that apostasy did occur after their deaths. Even if the Apostasy was general, however, Mormon scripture makes it clear that John the Revelator, along with "the three Nephites" in the Book of Mormon, were permitted to tarry until the Second Coming. So apparently the apostasy wasn't total--if it was, then what of John? And if John tarried, why didn't he make sure the apostasy didn't happen?

The answer (I believe) is, when the people demand to be fed fables instead of truth, God allows them to bask in their folly. The Great Apostasy didn't happen all at once, but it did happen. God allowed it to happen due to his respect for the free agency of mankind to believe and do what they see fit. They saw fit to change and reject important truths, substituting the creeds and philosophies of men for the saving ordinances of the Gospel.

The Bible doesn't proclaim that it is the only word of God, nor does it say that all truth necessary for salvation is contained within its pages. The Bible as we know it wasn't even compiled when Peter and Paul made their pronouncements which you quote. Paul apparently did give the saints the fulness of the gospel, but again, Priesthood authority was lost with the deaths of the early saints and apostles.

 

[Jenyar]

This is not a biblical doctrine. The Bible never says that it is the complete word of God, with no more word from God possible. That is an unwarranted assumption many Christians make to justify their belief that God cannot (or does not) speak any more than He has already spoken.

You are assuming assumptions. Christ himself is the only complete word of God. The Bible - by recording the words of the prophets and apostles - testify about Him. There testimony, as I've indicated, is complete and sufficient for knowledge of Him, because it contains the reality and events of his life: His gospel. The Bible was canonized for the authority of its witnesses to these events, not because we think God stopped speaking. And it's the reality of the events - that God really became fully human, really died for our sins, and really obtained the resurrection for those who believe in Him - that reconciles us with God. Not the weak regulations of men and men of regulation, that were but shadows of these realities.

If you want more books about Jesus, any bookstore will provide you with heaps. As priesthood of believers, Christs words are alive in us, and God still speaks with us and through us by His Spirit. We can speak with inspiration on many relevant subjects, but on the events surrounding Jesus' life on earth only the Bible may speak with authority - only original apostles were there to ensure his gospel would be preserved. That was why they were selected, and what they spent their lives on. And all you're saying is that they failed in the task they were chosen for.

Books aren't per se "revelations". Whatever needed to be revealed was finalized by Jesus. Everything afterwards either speaks of Him, or of something else. I believe Mormon doctrine speak of something else.

Luke 16:16
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it."​

It was not initially left out. Remember, the Latter-day Saint Christian's position is that many "plain and precious truths" were removed from the Bible, and that a general apostasy from the truth occurred, causing many important truths to be lost to the world (until Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets were the instruments of God in restoring them).

Yes, that's a claim that validates the Mormon doctrines very conveniently, but unfortunately cannot be proved by any textual analysis. The Greek sentences are often very long (Ephesians 1:1-16 is a single sentence in Greek), and any omissions would render them grammatically incomprehensible. And the problem I have is not with anything that might have been "left out", it was what is left in - specifically Hebrews, in this case.

You have yet to show how earthly authority overrides heavenly one, how latter-day "high priests" can receive something as unattainable as the Melchizedek priesthood, and thereby obtain sole authority to minister the "full" gospel. And even how such authority can be lost if it is passed on with knowledge. It seems this gospel only asserts Mormonism's own autonomy, much in the way Islam asserts that the Jews switched the names of Isaac and Ishmael. I asked Brutus this as well: except "priesthood authority", what crucial part of the gospel do you have that can't be found in the Bible?

Paul *did* give the saints the fulness of the gospel, but as mentioned above, an apostasy took place in which many truths were lost, to be replaced by the philosophies and doctrines of men.

When was it lost? How are truths lost, unless they are forgotten, and how did apostle's successors forget them if we have the apostles letters to them? Then it must be asked, which books of the Bible are affected, what can be trusted? I can see where this leads: by throwing doubt on the integrity of Bible, the subsequent Mormon additions are effectively raised to a higher authority.

The apostles did teach that an apostasy would occur. I'm sure that they did all in their power to preserve the truth, but apparently, slowly but surely, that apostasy did occur after their deaths. Even if the Apostasy was general, however, Mormon scripture makes it clear that John the Revelator, along with "the three Nephites" in the Book of Mormon, were permitted to tarry until the Second Coming. So apparently the apostasy wasn't total--if it was, then what of John? And if John tarried, why didn't he make sure the apostasy didn't happen?

In other words, Jesus failed to preserve his gospel (contrary to his promise to Peter), Peter failed his intention to ensure his church will "always be able to remember these things". We already know the church failed to adhere to the Bible, which is why it split from the Orthodox church, and why the reformation took place.

But if John was still intact around 90AD, then all earlier texts must still be pure. But then the Mormon understanding of the apostasy doesn't make sense anymore, because the truth must be lost "just enough" to leave space for their own doctrines, but "not enough" to affect John and his contemporaries.

This apostasy must have happened practically overnight, if it is supposed to have affected the Bible we have today. And that brings us to another point which I bring up with Muslims as well: if the books that warn us of apostasy are still intact, why don't you trust them? And if they're not intact, why are you so sure the warnings are genuine?

The answer (I believe) is, when the people demand to be fed fables instead of truth, God allows them to bask in their folly. The Great Apostasy didn't happen all at once, but it did happen. God allowed it to happen due to his respect for the free agency of mankind to believe and do what they see fit. They saw fit to change and reject important truths, substituting the creeds and philosophies of men for the saving ordinances of the Gospel.

It happened alright, it's still happening, and will keep on happening until the Second Coming. But it happens outside of the original gospel, and therefore outside of the preserved and canonized scripture. Jesus said "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away". His words (that is, the gospel of God) and our salvation (that is, his resurrection) has never been lost. Anything else is apostasy, because Christ and the apostles warned us against it so that it would not happen to the elect.

Matt. 24:24-25
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.​

All throughout history God has always kept a remnant for himself so that His promises could never be considered failed, and yet you say for 1800 years He didn't?

The Bible doesn't proclaim that it is the only word of God, nor does it say that all truth is contained within its pages. The Bible as we know it wasn't even compiled when Peter and Paul made their pronouncements which you quote. Paul apparently did give the saints the fulness of the gospel, but again, Priesthood authority was lost with the deaths of the early saints and apostles.

Why would you insist on this unless you wished to justify adding to it? So I repeat, there is nothing to add to what God has done through Christ, to which we have complete access through faith, just as the partriarchs did. The apostles alone were witness to it - not us, not the patriarchs - and therefore we trust their testimony. There is simply no place for Mormon intervention between the gospel and the working of the Holy Spirit.