Why 1600 Years For A Restoration?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Rodney+Mar 1 2004, 07:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rodney @ Mar 1 2004, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 1 2004, 08:40 PM

...and state with any sense of honesty whatsoever that the church was progressing nicely according to God's plan.

Your relatively tiny little church has been around for about 180 years. I think I'll reserve my judgement on how well it's progressing according to God's plan until after, oh, say, another 800 years?

That partial sentence you quoted was in reference to the Catholic church circa 570-600 AD. To be fair, you need to bring your judgment day back about 225 years. B)

[Jason]

Ray,

I'll agree about where you get your proof from. I don't believe in LDS scriptures. That leaves me with the Bible. Nothing in the Bible indicates a general apostasy.

Snow,

You're right. The example of the Short Creek ward is no indication of general apostasy. Nor that other wards are in danger of it. It's just an example that it has and can happen. As for the sex abuse stuff, we all know that it's a part of life, but Im trying to show Peace that even in "mormon zion" there are "men of god" who commit terrible acts.

Jason

[Jason]

Jenda,

Non-Catholic theologians interpret that passage of scripture as meaning something other than the oppressive Roman Empire it was describing. They interpret it as being the Catholic Church. Can you guess why??

J

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 2 2004, 08:50 AM

Ray,

I'll agree about where you get your proof from. I don't believe in LDS scriptures. That leaves me with the Bible. Nothing in the Bible indicates a general apostasy.

Snow,

You're right. The example of the Short Creek ward is no indication of general apostasy. Nor that other wards are in danger of it. It's just an example that it has and can happen. As for the sex abuse stuff, we all know that it's a part of life, but Im trying to show Peace that even in "mormon zion" there are "men of god" who commit terrible acts.

Jason

LOL...Jason....'men of God' do not commit terrible acts....men who commit terrible acts may be in the church....but that doesn't make them 'men of God'.

D&C 121:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

the Lord alone judges who are 'men of Himself' and who are not...

[Guest Starsky]

Jason...the polygamy things isn't LDS...if you knew your church history, you would know that the LDS church stopped polygamy a long time before this article you printed.

That there are breakoffs of the church....well yeah! But the actual church run by president Hinckley right now...is sound and not in apostasy.

There have been break offs of every church since the beginning of time....that proves nothing except that there will always be people who choose their own way and take others with them...Satan being the first.

Now back to our original topic...about your church...(you slippery little .....LOL) your church is nothing more than the product of the apostasy that occurred about 100AD when all the apostles were killed off and only a scattered people were holding one thing or another of the original church.

Your church can rewrite a personal history all they want, but there is no mention of any of it in the cannonized scripture....just the opposite. And you can ignore the sciptures I put out about the apostasy...the refresshing, restoration, the falling away, that was written about...but it doesn't make you credible.

[srm]

you said, "then when some LDS Bishop molests a ward girl, then the whole LDS Church becomes apostate!?"

Was there such a case on the website you provided?

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 1 2004, 04:57 PM

Peace,

Im not disputing that apostasy occured. Im quite sure that it still occurs.

What I am disputing is the notion that the Catholic Church lost the authority of the priesthood as the LDS Church contends. The LDS Church claims that there was a "GENERAL" apostasy. In other words, a complete, total, universal apostasy where nobody was worthy or qualified to hold the Priesthood of God. No Mormon has yet to show that a general apostasy took place!

Jason

If something is not lost, Jason, why would it need to be restored? Acts 3:21 ...restitution of all things... Ergo; all things were lost. Ergo; a general Apostasy.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by srm@Mar 2 2004, 10:00 AM

Peace,

Im not disputing that apostasy occured. Im quite sure that it still occurs.

What I am disputing is the notion that the Catholic Church lost the authority of the priesthood as the LDS Church contends. The LDS Church claims that there was a "GENERAL" apostasy. In other words, a complete, total, universal apostasy where nobody was worthy or qualified to hold the Priesthood of God. No Mormon has yet to show that a general apostasy took place!

I showed you one scripture where the apostles weren't even allowed into the church...

I quoted you the scripture out of "D&C 121 about God taking the authority and priesthood power away when wickedness prevailed...put two and two together...you have to come up with 4...apostasy=no priesthood.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 2 2004, 08:55 AM

Jenda,

Non-Catholic theologians interpret that passage of scripture as meaning something other than the oppressive Roman Empire it was describing. They interpret it as being the Catholic Church. Can you guess why??

J

In the scripture I quoted, the woman who travailed and gave birth to the child was the church, not the Roman empire. The child is the Kingdom of God (Zion). There is no way to interpret that scripture to mean what you are implying. None at all.

And your remark about using only the Bible to find scriptures referring to the great apostasy is almost ludicrous. I say that because, except for the scripture that I quoted in Revelations (which is a prophecy), it is kind of hard to say something happened before it happened. The Bible ends about, what 70 years after Christ? The apostacy occured about 550 years after Christ.

Let me spell out that scripture for you so you understand precisely what I am saying.

Long about 570 AD, the woman (the church) flees to the wilderness for 1260 days (years). That is descriptive of the apostacy. The church is restored again in fullness 1260 years later, making it about 1830. In 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ is organized, God's church is restored.

[Jason]

Whew, are we tag-teaming here or what?!

Peace,

Did you ever wonder about that D&C 121 verse with it's "Amen to the authority of that man" bit? So if you've got an unrighteous missionary (like some I served with) who is having sex with a girlfriend in the field, and then baptises his converts, is that baptism valid? According to what you just wrote, I guess not?

And polygamy wasn't officially stopped until 1904. But if you knew your LDS History, you would have known that......

Srm,

you said: "Was there such a case on the website you provided?"

No. The one I was thinking of was that Bishop in Provo last year.

you said: "If something is not lost, Jason, why would it need to be restored? Acts 3:21 ...restitution of all things... Ergo; all things were lost. Ergo; a general Apostasy. "

The verse you quoted is out of context. This discusses Christ's mortal ministry. Even then, Jesus paid respect to the apostate High Priest because he sat in "Moses Seat"!

Jason

[Jason]

Peace,

You wrote: "I showed you one scripture where the apostles weren't even allowed into the church..."

That's only one city. Not the whole world...

you said: "I quoted you the scripture out of "D&C 121 about God taking the authority and priesthood power away when wickedness prevailed...put two and two together...you have to come up with 4...apostasy=no priesthood."

Sorry, I don't believe in the D&C.....

Jason

[Jason]

Jenda,

you said: "In the scripture I quoted, the woman who travailed and gave birth to the child was the church, not the Roman empire. The child is the Kingdom of God (Zion). There is no way to interpret that scripture to mean what you are implying. None at all."

Actually, the woman is probably Mary, and the Child is Jesus. You interpolation of a Church is unfounded.

The rest of your post is speculation, not fact.

Jason

[porterrockwell]

Wow, I have a piece of advice for all those on this thread. Let us not cast pearls before swine. Obviously there is no willingness or humility in this "ex-mormon" to accept plain and simple truths. Unfortunately for you Jason, on the path you are headed down, you will come to the same rude awakening that the Jews will when they flee to the Mt. of Olives and find their Messiah. Oh blessed day for them! Or so they believe, it'll be all good and dandy until the embrace him and come to find the prints in his hands, and in his feet. How would feel if all your life, you've waited, and waited. Come to find out it WAS YOU who crucified him, it was your blood that drove his body to the cross. Imagine that Godly sorrow. Do you really want to be burned on that great when the Lord enters his Kingdom as a thief in the night, and then returns his righteous seed to their Father as they ascend to the heavens. Hey, that is the beauty of the plan, it's your choice...but you are wrong. Oh ye of little faith.

[Ray]

Heh, what will it take before you come to know the truth, Jason?

When God reveals something through inspiration in the Bible, you rely only upon your own understanding of what He was saying. And when God reveals something through inspiration in anything other than the Bible, you rely only upon your own understanding of what those people were saying. You either say that God was saying only what you think He was saying, or that men are only speaking for themselves, without the inspiration of God.

Why don’t you ask God for an assurance of the truth? Why rely only on your own understanding, without relying on God to help you understand the truth? Without His help, you will never know the truth, because you will always be able to come up with your own reasoning to support what you only think is true.

Btw, you’re not the only person who thinks like you do. Lots of people think they can see things the way they really are, but only those people who receive an assurance from God can know the truth.

[Jason]

Porter,

If that's your idea of the "good news" of Mormonism, I'll gladly decline....

But if indeed God is a 10 year old boy who treats heaven like his own personal club house, at least I already know the secret handshake and password!

J

[Jason]

Ray,

Your being kind again. Thanks.

Actually, I do pray a lot. (Not as much as I should though.)

It's been just over two months since I finally rejected atheism. I believe in Christ again. But In trying to understand Mormonism, I find no basis to support the theory that there was an Apostasy. On the contrary, I only see evidence of God's grace supporting Christianity throughout the last 2000 years of world upheaval.

Hope we can still be friends?

Jason

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 2 2004, 12:15 PM

...at least I already know the secret handshake and password! 

J

Perhaps, but you'll never use that knowledge in the condition that you're in now. Even if you could, once you realize your true standing before God, and that you lightly passed over these sacred things, your guilt will be so intense that you'll be trying to hide yourself in shame. But remember, when that moment comes, that our Lord will forgive you. As long as you haven't denied the power of the Holy Ghost, you will always be able to be forgiven.

[srm]

No.  The one I was thinking of was that Bishop in Provo last year. 

can you provide informationor a link for more information?

The verse you quoted is out of context.  This discusses Christ's mortal ministry.  Even then, Jesus paid respect to the apostate High Priest because he sat in "Moses Seat"!

I don't think that the context matters (allthough I don't agree with you). Peter says all things will be restored...in order for all things to be restored they must be taken away. Ergo; all things were taken away...a general apostasy.

[inactivetx]

Originally posted by srm@Mar 2 2004, 11:00 AM

Ergo; all things were lost. Ergo; a general Apostasy.

Ergo, srm has seen Matrix Reloaded a few too many times?

Just teasing B) I loved that movie, too.

[inactivetx]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 2 2004, 11:19 AM

Long about 570 AD, the woman (the church) flees to the wilderness for 1260 days (years). That is descriptive of the apostacy. The church is restored again in fullness 1260 years later, making it about 1830. In 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ is organized, God's church is restored.

Jenda,

How did you arrive at the 570 AD date for the General Apostacy and how do you reconcile this with the LDS teaching that the apostacy began with the death of the Apostle John around 100 AD? Otherwise, your math is quite interesting.

[srm]

Originally posted by inactivetx+Mar 2 2004, 01:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (inactivetx @ Mar 2 2004, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Mar 2 2004, 11:00 AM

Ergo; all things were lost.  Ergo; a general Apostasy.

Ergo, srm has seen Matrix Reloaded a few too many times?

Just teasing B) I loved that movie, too.

I've never seen it. I started using years ago after my philosophy class

[inactivetx]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 2 2004, 01:18 PM

I find no basis to support the theory that there was an Apostasy. On the contrary, I only see evidence of God's grace supporting Christianity throughout the last 2000 years of world upheaval.

Jason,

What evidence do you see of God's grace in the last 2000 years in Christendom? I see the history of Christianity as a big mess myself. Christ formed his Church during his ministry, returned to heaven, sent the Holy Spirit at Pentacost and then God pretty much left everyone to their own devices. The Apostles were murdered and died, a definable denomination formed around 300 AD (don't quote me on dates, you're the history major ) as the Catholic Church, then the Great Chism followed by Luther and further splintering of denominations arguing over infant baptism, salvation by grace or works, Sabbath on Sunday or Saturday or even if we honor a Sabbath day. Heck, it took almost 3 centuries to agree that the Trinity even exists (and personally, I think its wrong). It is amazing that any truth survived at all! So, I guess if that's the grace you are speaking of, then I timidly agree.

[srm]

Originally posted by inactivetx+Mar 2 2004, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (inactivetx @ Mar 2 2004, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 2 2004, 11:19 AM

Long about 570 AD, the woman (the church) flees to the wilderness for 1260 days (years).  That is descriptive of the apostacy.  The church is restored again in fullness 1260 years later, making it about 1830.  In 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ is organized, God's church is restored.

Jenda,

How did you arrive at the 570 AD date for the General Apostacy and how do you reconcile this with the LDS teaching that the apostacy began with the death of the Apostle John around 100 AD? Otherwise, your math is quite interesting.

We feel that the apostasy started shortly after the time of Christ. Pauls letters were attempts to combat apostasy. BTW, we don't believe that John died at 100 AD (or at all). Where do you get that date?

[inactivetx]

Originally posted by srm+Mar 2 2004, 02:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Mar 2 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -inactivetx@Mar 2 2004, 01:37 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--srm@Mar 2 2004, 11:00 AM

Ergo; all things were lost.  Ergo; a general Apostasy.

Ergo, srm has seen Matrix Reloaded a few too many times?

Just teasing B) I loved that movie, too.

I've never seen it. I started using years ago after my philosophy class

Then forgive me for my presumption *blush*. You would find the source of my humor in the final scene of the film. Carry on.

[inactivetx]

Originally posted by srm@Mar 2 2004, 02:53 PM

BTW, we don't believe that John died at 100 AD (or at all).  Where do you get that date?

This is from The Amazing Bible World History Timeline (Do a Google)

"John: No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD "

John might not have died How you figure?