Marlin said:
So you must decide: is the LDS church the true church of Jesus Christ? If so, then there is no conflict between saying "Mormonism = Truth" and saying that no one comes to the Father but through Christ, since the Church is the vehicle through which Christ establishes His covenant with us.
So you don't make any distinction between Christ the person, and his people on earth? That's a dangerous equivocation. When Christ said those words, was He speaking of his church, or of himself? Isn't the church the
people who are comnig to God through Christ? What about these words: "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me" (John 14:1). Is Jesus here referring to himself and God, or to men like Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saints?
The Priesthood was and is not new, yet Joseph had to restore it. It has existed from the very beginning. It was conferred upon Father Adam, and he passed it on down the line of patriarchs. Whenever the Priesthood was lost to the earth due to wickedness and apostasy, there had to be restorations of it, the last of which came through Joseph Smith.
You need to prove this from the Hebrew scriptures. Was a priesthood ever
lost after God established it? The Aaronic
Kohen still continue among the Jews in unbroken succession to this day.
Your websites didn't explain what changed about the law and old priesthoods according to Hebrews 7, so it remains a question. Mormons make much of copying the ancient traditions in a new format, so obviously they must understand the change as more like a shift in emphasis, with the law still applying in the old way (which isn't change, but continuation). It requires the belief that God depended heavily on the righteousness of men, instead of letting people bear the consequences of their dependence on men (like when Israel wanted a king, rather than the judges God appointed).
The gospel Smith restored is not "different" than the one Paul taught--we just don't have all of Paul's words, and the Book of Mormon tells us that many "plain and precious truths" have been removed from the Bible. If anything, it is so-called "orthodox Christianity" which teaches a different gospel.
We don't need
all of Paul's words to know the essence of what he said. Just like we don't need
all of Jesus' words to know what he said. We know this because the disciples didn't think so (John 21:25).
Ecclesiastes 6:11
The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?
We have Paul's coherent arguments, and his letters are structured according to the fixed form of an
epistle, and any omission would have been evident in either of these (form or argument). A coherent argument doesn't need many words, just understanding. Once you understand the arguments, the reasoning behind the gospel (which was always corroborated with references to the Old Testament), you don't need much else. Any missing epistles would in any case never contradict his arguments in the ones we do have. It's when people have to depend on genealogies and start splitting hairs about the meaning of words that it's evident they're missing the big picture (2 Tim. 2:14).
Finally we have Paul's own testimony to remind us:
1 Corinthians 2:4
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
This reference is about what certain Pharisees wanted to impose on Gentile believers: the circumcision and the Law of Moses. But Paul forbade this and told them that they didn't need to be circumcised or follow the Mosaic Law. These were fledgling believers and were in need of the "milk" of the gospel, as opposed to the "meat." So Paul, not wanting them to be overly concerned with the finer points of the law, just gave them the basics. This doesn't mean that the "meat" of the gospel is not needed--but rather, that the Gentile believers weren't ready for it yet.
You've either just dismissed Paul's whole argument - which is repeated in detail in Galatians 5 (and read to
all the churches in Galatia, not just a group of "fledgeling believers") - or you haven't understood it. Could you indicate below where Paul leaves any doubt as to whether there will
ever arise a time when Christians will return to the law, "the yoke of slavery"?
Gal. 5:2-4
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
The "meat" you are talking about seems positiviely decayed and rotten after such a condemnation. Paul rests his whole argument on the fact that "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature". Thus, to return to dependence on the law (whether its finer or broader points) is to return your attention to the flesh and appearance - the old creation that should be left to perish (Col. 2:20) - and thereby to crucify Jesus again.
Instead, we are to
start where the law left off - with "Love your neighbour as yourself" - as a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). In doing this, you will never transgress the law (Gal 5:23).
John is saying that, to certain people in Thyatira (not to the whole world), he would not impose any other burden on them. This was written specifically to one group of people, and cannot be extrapolated to apply to everyone.
Yet you had no problem quoting Jesus words to Laodicia to me ("I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me".) Maybe I can explain how those words might apply to someone outside Laodicia...
The book of Revelation forms a single unit (evident from 22:18). Rev. 2:29 exhorts
everyone who believes to hear what is being said to the churches, because they will surely find themselves among them. The advice that those who weren't seduced by the prophetess only hold on to what they were given, is good for anyone tempted by "so-called deep secrets" (the same advice is given to the church at Philadelphia; 3:11). Furthermore, "He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" is repeated after every letter. This is reinforced by the address "to him who overcomes", because we know it refers to everyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5).
Jesus did not give different gospels to different churches, and if He wouldn't burden one church with more than they've received (at around 100AD), it applies to every church, and every individual belonging to them.
Revelation is a testimony to the completeness and sufficiency of the gospel at 100AD (John's disciple Antipas, mentioned in 2:13, was martyred in 92AD), and you may notice that Jesus identifies people who will endure in almost every church. In fact, He said he would personally preserve some men from Philadelphia (Rev. 3:10) . There would be no reason to "move their lampstand from its place", as He warned Ephesus (and only Ephesus). It is no small coincidence that Philadelphia means "brotherly love".
I agree. Serving each other in love is to be desired over seeking one's own glory. This is Mormon doctrine as well. You seem to think that Mormons are only concerned with their own salvation. This is a misunderstanding.
I notice that you use the word salvation. If there is a misunderstanding, it is because you introduced another equivocation: Mormons believe everybody is saved (i.e. resurrected) so there can be no reason to be concerned about it. What traditional Christians call salvation, you call exaltation - that which pertains to our final status before God. When I said glory, I was referring to your doctrine of exaltation.
Mormons seem continually concerned about their status before God, and want other Christians to be equally preoccupied with it. Because that is what the function of the priesthood comes down to, isn't it? To raise ones status before God, and allow Him to let you (and those ministered by you) into a bigger heaven and a greater glory.
The religious orders and ordinances of Mormonism can hold absolutely no attraction for someone who has crucified his old self and holds no personal claim to God's pleasure. If someone has died in Christ to "the law with its commandments and regulations" they belong to the new order, and have no use for anything that might claim some spiritual value on earth: "that done in the body by the hands of men", and which "are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order" (Heb. 9:10). And without its external regulations like the "Word of Wisdom" and exclusive ordinanances, the LDS church is humbled to a mere denomination of Christianity, and all Mormons are on the same level as the plainest sinner who has accepted Christ as his personal saviour.
Col. 2:20-22
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Are you talking about the traditions of baptism and Priesthood authority? Of the sacrament (communion)? Again, you need to be more specific: what exactly is the "tradition" that is burdening the Mormons so?
Not baptism or communion or even priesthoods, but their claims to exclusive authority
over these temporal institutions. They are shadows, and their counterparts in heaven are not threatened by human failings or Satan himself. It is in their original patterns - which are not a part of this creation - that Christ is our mediator (Heb. 9).
The burdens I talk about are therefore the same as the Pharisees placed on common Jews, and against which Jesus reacted so strongly:
Luke 11:46 "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
It is more than a rejection. It is a denial of the truth which so affects the sinner that he cannot repent any more after he commits such a sin. And without sincere repentance, he is unable to gain forgiveness.
There is no such thing as sinless repentance. Someone who repents does it from the convicion of his sin and realization that Christ and Christ alone is the truth that will set him free. Christ sees his fallen state and helps his weakness, and forgives him because he asks. Nobody
earns forgiveness. That is what grace means (Eph. 1:7). If someone asks, he is forgiven, and he remains forgiven while he remains in Christ. Only rejection of Christ can cause him to be condemned. He can work on his sincerity while he is being perfected and growing in faith.
Romans 9:16
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
The freedom in Christ comes with a stipulation that we will keep His commandments. We are thus made unfree, servants to righteous behavior and thought.
The freedom in Christ comes unconditionally, and it requires only faith to affect our lives in the way that pleases God. "Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him" (Col. 2:6). We received Christ purely by the grace of God, by believing his Son, not by keeping the law (Gal. 3:2). Being free from the law, we are free to live by faith and to put Christ's words into practice with no regard for our Selves (for salvation
or exaltation). It is not because we obey commandments that we are free from sin - as if we could free ourselves by obedience - but because God freed us (Rom. 6:20-22).
Without strict obedience to God's commandments, we are not justified fully.
Galatians 2:16
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
"The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24) and, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).
What you are talking about are deeds that show our faith is alive (James 2:26). These deeds have nothing to do with particular laws and ordinances, but with the fulfilment of all of them when we put Christ's love into practice (James 2:15).
The LDS Church is the vehicle which points us to Christ. It is not an end in itself. Following LDS precepts will get you nearer to God than any other belief system.
And to that end it is as impotent as any other belief system. No precept can get anyone any closer to God than the laws He gave Moses, and even they were insufficient to bring anyone nearer to God (Heb. 7:19). In fact, the law only revealed how far we were from God (Rom. 3:20) and gave us more to trespass against (Rom. 5:20). That is why grace came: to close the distance from God's side (
Rom. 10:5-13).
I disagree. The Priesthood is lost from a person when he tries to gratify vain ambitions, hide his sins, exercise unrighteous dominion over anyone, or aspires to the honors of men. As the D&C tells us, "Amen" to the Priesthood and authority of that man.
Then "Amen" to anyone who has sinned. (Actually, the Bible only ever says "amen" to something that is faithful and true: see Rev. 3:14). For if you transgress one precept of the law, you have transgressed all of it (James 2:10). Selfishness and vain conceit is common to all sin (Gal. 5:20). And it was because of sin that the priesthoods of the old order were considered insufficient. They were sinful and subject to death: "...the law appoints as high priests men who are weak" (Heb. 7:28) "but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever."
There are more scriptures that plainly contradict you. If selfish ambition and vain conceit could prevent someone from transmitting the gospel effectually, why wasn't Paul concerned about it?:
Phil. 1:15-18 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
God has His own ways, and His ways are not our ways. For His own reasons, he saw fit to restore the gospel through Joseph Smith at the time and place that He did. I don't pretend to know all about the apostasy or why the truth was restored when it was. God's agenda and timetable are different from ours, and we don't always understand why He does what He does.
That's just a very spiritual-sounding way of saying you have no idea what God is doing. You are ignorant about the most fundamental reasons for your faith, but when it comes to hidden or secret knowledge that requires ever-more revelations by Mormon prophets, the rest of Christianity is told it's in the dark? If Mormonism keeps on evolving, where is the truth that has been restored - in the past or in the future?
If there is still some question about sin, estrangement from God, or the validity of one's faith, the answer lies with Christ himself. He
embodies the good news we call "gospel". Mormonism hasn't taught the world anything new about Jesus himself. They haven't brought (or restored) any knowledge that hasn't been available for the past two millennia. Instead, Mormonism only starts off right after the apostles -
that's where they say the truth really mattered, so that when that was lost, all was lost.
You say here God restored the truth only now for His own reasons and within His own time, but your argument until now has been that
man was the reason God basically left his faithful few in the hands of liars for 1800 years, that
man (in the form of the Catholic Church) was the reason God couldn't restore the truth earlier, and that
man now holds the greatest truth (in the form of the LDS church).
Joseph was to prepare the way for Christ's return, and he did that admirably well. The political kingdom of Christ will commence at the Second Coming. Will you criticize Christ as the political leader of the world then, I wonder? Will Christ be unable to distnguish between the gospel and politics?
I can understand why it's so important for you to see Joseph Smith as a latter-day John the baptist, and even why you might think he did rather well (by wordly standards). But Smith is not Christ, and to deny his political rulership is not the same as denying God's. Jesus' kingdom is
not of this world, and his coming will bring a
new heaven and a
new earth - replacing any mortal form of government, Christian or non-Christian (Acts 17:24). And since He will be coming quite unexpectedly, the best preparation is to be ready. God is in heaven; man is on earth; man's claim to power and authority can only ever be earthly, and therefore he should not be presumptious (Eccl. 5:2).
I don't deny Christ's lordship now or ever - it's the same now as it will be then: He is Lord of lords and King of kings. That is why I won't consider any substitute for Him. For all Smith's ambition, God never allowed him to become the president of America. Had he managed to do it, the American people would have had to accept his political authority. But even then, he would not have been any nearer to Christ's kingdom than the least of God's children.
Undetected?? There are many references in the New Testament that indicate that the apostles knew that the Church was going to apostatize. Here is a list of some of them:
Matthew 24:5, 24 - False Christs and false prophets shall arise and deceive many
Acts 20:29 - After my departing shall grievous wolves enter among you, not sparing the flock
Gal. 1:6 - I marvel that you are so soon removed from him
2 Thes. 2:3 - That day shall not come except there come a falling away first
2 Tim. 1:15 - All they which are in Asia be turned away from me
2 Pet. 2:1 - False prophets are among the people
1 John 2:18 - Now there are many antichrists
1 John 4:1 - Many false prophets have gone out into the world
Rev. 13:7 - It was given unto Satan to make war with the saints and overcome them
Granted, some of these references don't refer to universal apostasy; however, they do show that the apostles were well aware that these false prophets and "grievous wolves" were already among the people, and that many of the people were being turned away from the gospel, having "itching ears" for fables instead of truth. The apostles knew what was going to happen.
None of them refer to universal apostasy (note the words "many" and "among"). I hope you read the rest of the chapters containing the verses above as well: they were addressed to
faithful believers (otherwise, what's the point?). If there ever was a
total apostasy it certainly went undetected: that's a necessary premise for the need for
restoration (detection would allow correction). It's only
logical that false doctrines and false Christs would come out of the ranks of believers, rather than a world who couldn't care less about God. In order for a false prophet to deceive so many people, he would have to look and act
exactly like a genuine prophet (complete with visions of God, angels, miracles and revelations about how reprobate everybody is who doesn't believe him). In other words: he would not be distinguishable from Joseph Smith, for example, but for the gospel he taught.
As for the more likely, traditional kind of apostasy - where people turn away from the gospel they received and Christ in greater and greater numbers, as the church continues to grow - the apostles could (and clearly did) identify such people, and pointed their false teachings out to the elders in every church (like those of the circumcision group, the Nicolaitans, and the prophetess Jezebel). Such doctrines were referred to as "the doctrine of Balaam" (cf. Rev. 2:14). They could (and did) remind them that it would mostly be people close to them who do this. Because Paul and the apostles are able to identify these false teachings, they taught others the truth as well:
2 Tim. 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Timothy certainly wasn't the only faithful second-generation Christian. We read of many others. So it's no surprise that when Paul writes to Timothy he speaks of all of Asia who had rejected him, but when John receives his Revelation 30 or 40 years later, only two of the seven churches are mostly unacceptable (but they still receive a letter, and the assurance that God hasn't given up on them. He is always "in the midst of the seven candlesticks": Rev. 2:1). It's interesting to note that one of them, Ephesus, had actually become so intent on exposing false doctrines that they forgot to practice love among each other - and
they are the church warned to repent or lose their candlestick.
My faith is in Christ. I follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, but that is only because I believe that he taught true Christian doctrine. Joseph Smith is not a god, but rather a servant of God.
As we all should be, and often fail to be. By all means, follow the teachings of Joseph Smith if they lead you to Christ and knowledge of the life He bought for you - as it is described in the gospels and the first apostles - but don't let any yeast in with the flour. Remember that he was just a man.
Well, Mormon doctrine says you're wrong. There was an apostasy of such magnitude as to corrupt the pure gospel as given by Jesus Christ, to the point where it had to be restored.
And Mormons are free to believe this if they need to. But history and the testimony of the Spirit given through the "apostate" church contradicts that belief. The Holy Spirit doesn't weaken when men are weak and truth is scarce, and isn't stronger because their confidence is higher and they believe they have the truth pinned down. Jesus' gospel isn't swayed by men, for He "regards not the person of men" (Matt. 22:16).
There you go again, assuming that the straw man "priest" of Mormonism is required for faith to be efficacious. This is not LDS doctrine! Having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is LDS doctrine, and priests are not necessary for this relationship.
Then they seem to be rather redundant. What do they do, but perform religious duties in the
hope that the recipient will develop and maintain a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Their long absence (during the time of the "apostasy") certainly haven't had any adverse affect on people's desire and ability to develop such a relationship with God. Faith was still efficacious, and God counted it as righteousness, just as He promised. His promises were "yes" in Christ, not in the priesthood.
I'll be sure to remind you of the strawman priests who are required for faith to be efficacious when you bring them up again.
How is truth given, though, from Christ to the believer? Do you believe that the Bible is the fourth member of the Godhead, or do you believe that God is able, through the Holy Spirit, to convey sacred truths to our hearts? Can't God convey truth??? Are you seriously saying that He cannot?
Don't put words into my mouth. Christ is the truth, and God clearly conveyed his message to me when I heard it (Rom. 10:17). Why would I ever deny it? The Bible is a collection of "hearings" by men of faith, of dots to connect. It is valuable because through it God speaks to his children as a people, not just as individuals (who are often tempted to believe that only that which is true for them individually is the real truth). Christ does not change, He does not add new burdens, He does not go back on his word, thus, revelation of Him is sufficient for knowing God "once for all" (Jude 1:3).
God Himself wants us to get the greater glory and the better heaven, however. These are reserved for people who love Him enough to obey Him and keep all of His commandments and ordinances. Are you going to tell God that you didn't think enough of His offer to make you a Celestial being, to consider it seriously? Those who love God keep His commandments. We must submit to Him as little children, accepting the fact that He knows what is best for us and will guide us into all truth. He wants us to live Celestial lives. Will you disobey His desire for you to be so?
Then God himself will give it to us. We can't get in the way of what God wants unless we reject the very delivery of His love: Christ. We love him and obey him and keep all his commandments when we love each other, for "love is the fulfilment of the law". Or do you deny this? The law is a good schoolteacher, but it's a bad sign if still find ourselves in school at the end of our lives.
Not even the greatest authority on earth - even if he was divinely appointed - can enforce, induce or capture genuine love that comes freely from the heart. It is for that reason that God freed us from the yoke of slavery, so we may love Him and each other
freely, and without concern that we meet the standards of
any other authority (even while we submit to them as we do to the government). Go learn what this means: God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 9:13).
If God ever promised celestial glories, the answer is "yes" in Christ. I must become less and He must become more, for I want to be nothing that I am not already in Him. There is no "me" left to be glorified - all glory belongs to Christ now, and everything that belonged to this life and might be for my profit I consider loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ.
Of course you do. But do you want it full-time, as only the "Gift of the Holy Spirit" can do for you? This gift is only conferred on a person after baptism, through confirmation, and represents the "baptism of fire" spoken of by Jesus and John the Baptist. This "baptism" is only available through proper Priesthood authority. So do you want the Spirit with you sometimes, or all of the time? Only Mormonism can give you the latter gift.
You must have misunderstood. He is full-time with anybody who has accepted Christ as their Saviour (or their salvation would come and go depending on their works, contrary to the Biblical message). "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3). And I have been baptized, thank you.
This temple of the Spirit isn't only occupied with God on Sundays.
You are speaking of special spiritual gifts, which God gives as He pleases, where it is needed, and that all who are part of the body of Christ may desire and drink of (1 Cor. 12:13). This has historically been called "being filled with the Spirit", and as you'll see from scripture, it happened only on occasion (with the possible exception of John the Baptist, who was filled since birth (Luke 1:15), casting doubt on the fact that baptism is necessary). These
gifts are by definition (and by the testimony of Christians throughout history) also available outside the Mormon church, and their reception is not any reason for anyone to boast or claim authority.
PS. Did you know the theology behind "
This gift is only conferred on a person after baptism, through confirmation, and represents the 'baptism of fire' spoken of by Jesus and John the Baptist" has its roots in Calvin (France, 1536), was taken up by John Wesley (the Methodists, which we know Joseph Smith had contact with), who in turn influenced the
Holiness movement (1837), the
Stone-Campbell Restoration movement and other
Restorationist revivals in America, who framed the background for Smith's own religious experience:
"By the end of the 18th century, many educated Americans no longer professed traditional Christian beliefs. In reaction to the secularism of the age, a religious revival spread westward in the first half of the 19th century." -
The Second Great Awakening
It seems the Holy Spirit doesn't need a proper priesthood's permission to act.
So you'll have to get in line. You are not the first who tried to sell the Holy Spirit of the Living God to people, as if they had Him on a leash. Do
you presume to be able to direct the Spirit's coming and going?
PPS. I'll have a look at your link, but it already bases its argument on a long list of assumptions: that the Bible predicts a
total apostasy, that the "latter days" refers to the first century in this instance (but in other instances to the "latter days" of Mormonism), that the LDS church is exempt from the defintion given for the son of perdition (i.e. he will claim complete authority over all religious matters, accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders). They refrain from mentioning that this "lawless one" will only be exposed and removed by the Second Coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:8) -
not by the LDS church. Not to mention that their main sources concerning the apostasy is material from the post-apostolic era,
pointing out heresies (meaning they were possible to detect and counter). What's more, while they accuse the church of Hellenizing, they seem blind to
the problems that accusation holds for themselves.
I'll read further, but if the site requires me to accept the
premise of an apostasy in order to see the "proof" of it, it's off to a bad start.
