Is John the Baptist "Elijah"?

[LDSChristian]

I posted scriptures Moroni quoted to Joseph Smith but noticed something that intrigued me while I was doing so. These were the words Moroni used:

5 Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

I know it was John the Baptist who gave Joseph Smith the Aaronic Priesthood and Moroni said the Priesthood would be revealed by the hand of Elijah. Is John the Baptist the "Elijah" the scriptures speak of or at least this one verse? The words Moroni used is a variation to Malachi 4:5.

[MarginOfError]

Nope. Make sure you read the whole thing.

And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming. JS-H 1:38-39

Fulfillment of the prophecy

[LDSChristian]

Nope. Make sure you read the whole thing.

Fulfillment of the prophecy

I read the whole thing. "You didn't answer my question."

[MarginOfError]

I read the whole thing. "You didn't answer my question."

I did actually. I also provided documentation with it. It was prophesied that Elijah would return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, restoring priesthood so that the hearts of the fathers would turn to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers. You can't divorce the reason for Elijah's return from his return (which you've necessarily done by honing in on one verse and then associating it with John's restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Furthermore, I provided a link to the fulfillment of the prophesy you cited, in which Elijah returned "To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse." You notice how that phrase accompanies Elijah's return in Malachi, Joseph Smith-History, and the D&C. The power that Elijah was to restore was very different than the power that John the Baptist restored. Ergo, John the Baptist =/= Elijah.

It's really quite elementary.

[LDSChristian]

I did actually. I also provided documentation with it. It was prophesied that Elijah would return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, restoring priesthood so that the hearts of the fathers would turn to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers. You can't divorce the reason for Elijah's return from his return (which you've necessarily done by honing in on one verse and then associating it with John's restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Furthermore, I provided a link to the fulfillment of the prophesy you cited, in which Elijah returned "To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse." You notice how that phrase accompanies Elijah's return in Malachi, Joseph Smith-History, and the D&C. The power that Elijah was to restore was very different than the power that John the Baptist restored. Ergo, John the Baptist =/= Elijah.

It's really quite elementary.

No, you didn't. Those scriptures do answer the question but you didn't actually give an answer.

[MarginOfError]

Is John the Baptist the "Elijah" the scriptures speak of or at least this one verse?

Nope.

Which part of that exchange wasn't an answer to your question?

[LDSChristian]

Which part of that exchange wasn't an answer to your question?

Where you said you answered the question.

[HiJolly]

Where you said you answered the question.

ROFL.

LDSChristian, you've been to too many Anti-LDS websites, and they've dumbed you down! Bummer!

HiJolly

Edited February 4, 2011 by HiJolly

[Dravin]

Which part of that exchange wasn't an answer to your question?

I'm kinda enjoying the irony inherent in his complaint that just supplying scripture doesn't answer a question considering his behaviour in another thread.

[MarginOfError]

I yield

Once again, lesser minds prevail.

[/snark]

[LDSChristian]

I'm kinda enjoying the irony inherent in his complaint that just supplying scripture doesn't answer a question considering his behaviour in another thread.

I got my answer but if you read on the other forum with margin you'll see why I answered her how I did. It's funny that her verses and links count as answers but somehow a whole list of scriptures wasn't enough of an answer for her even though the verses were the answer.

[Traveler]

I got my answer but if you read on the other forum with margin you'll see why I answered her how I did. It's funny that her verses and links count as answers but somehow a whole list of scriptures wasn't enough of an answer for her even though the verses were the answer.

Jesus kind of did the same thing with the Pharisees and scribes.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

I got my answer but if you read on the other forum with margin you'll see why I answered her how I did. It's funny that her verses and links count as answers but somehow a whole list of scriptures wasn't enough of an answer for her even though the verses were the answer.

His post contained a response (aka an answer) and supporting evidence. More importantly when later asked how his evidence supported his conclusion he answered the question. Your posting in the other thread was akin to responding to a question about the Utah State Constitution by linking to the US Constitution.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

John the Baptist is an Elias, a messenger that prepares the way. Gabriel/Noah and Joseph Smith are also Eliases.

Elijah came to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland temple, bringing to pass this prophesy in Malachi. See D&C 110.

[MarginOfError]

Exhibit 1:

I don't recall any scriptural evidence of a presidency of the seventy. Nor am I persuaded that the early Church was organized in exactly the same fashion as the modern Church. The principles of organization by quorum are the same, but some of the offices and procedures pertaining to those quorums may differ.

Exodus 24:1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.

9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

Numbers 11:16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.

Ezekiel 8:11 And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

Luke 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

Hebrews 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

Anything else?

You're kidding. You asked about how it's relative to the scriptures so I gave Biblical references. Since I gave the references, next question in regards to the organization of the church.

Except it doesn't address the presidency of the seventy, and if it does somehow, but not directly, asking for you to expound on a pile of citations dropped in his lap is not unreasonable. So no, he isn't kidding. Gonna answer his question? Or continue to avoid it?

I answered the question with a list of scriptures.

No, actually, you didn't. You established scriptural precedent for the seventies. You did not, however, establish scriptural precedent that the seventies are to be presided over by a subset of seven presidents.

It was the organization of the presidency that was in question, not the existence of the seventy.

Numbers 11:16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.

Dangling modifier. Are they officers over the seventy, or officers over the people. That's pretty weak evidence.

And we haven't even touched upon the significance of seventy in Hebrew culture. Which opens up the question of whether seventy were chosen because it was a number of significance to God, or did God choose seventy because it was a number of significance to the Hebrews? It's kind of a chicken and egg question, but the answer can have pretty hefty ramifications on how we perceive church organization.

And for what it's worth, I don't think any quorum of seventy in the modern era has ever had 70 members (at least not at the general or area level, I can't speak for the stake level). Why is it they had seventy in the group in ancient times, but we don't keep seventy in modern times? (which by now we could have done, seeing as we have 8 quorums of seventy)

Numbers 11:24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.

25 And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

In Numbers and Luke, two separate groups of seventy were called by God which is where more than one group of seventy comes from.

Okay, what you said had absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted. It's like you're having a make believe conversation where people only say things that you want them to say, regardless of what was actually said.

The verses in question speak specifically on where the quorum of the seventy comes from.

:facepalm:

I can't do this. I'm going to start imposing a minimum standard of logical thinking and reading comprehension for those engaging in debates with me.

You ask for Bible references to the quorum of the seventy and I gave it.

He asked for Bible references to the presidency of the quorum of the seventy.

Exhibit 2

I posted scriptures Moroni quoted to Joseph Smith but noticed something that intrigued me while I was doing so. These were the words Moroni used:

5 Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

I know it was John the Baptist who gave Joseph Smith the Aaronic Priesthood and Moroni said the Priesthood would be revealed by the hand of Elijah. Is John the Baptist the "Elijah" the scriptures speak of or at least this one verse? The words Moroni used is a variation to Malachi 4:5.

Nope. Make sure you read the whole thing.

Fulfillment of the prophecy

I read the whole thing. "You didn't answer my question."

I did actually. I also provided documentation with it. It was prophesied that Elijah would return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, restoring priesthood so that the hearts of the fathers would turn to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers. You can't divorce the reason for Elijah's return from his return (which you've necessarily done by honing in on one verse and then associating it with John's restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Furthermore, I provided a link to the fulfillment of the prophesy you cited, in which Elijah returned "To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse." You notice how that phrase accompanies Elijah's return in Malachi, Joseph Smith-History, and the D&C. The power that Elijah was to restore was very different than the power that John the Baptist restored. Ergo, John the Baptist =/= Elijah.

It's really quite elementary.

No, you didn't. Those scriptures do answer the question but you didn't actually give an answer.

Which part of that exchange wasn't an answer to your question?

Where you said you answered the question.

I got my answer but if you read on the other forum with margin you'll see why I answered her how I did. It's funny that her verses and links count as answers but somehow a whole list of scriptures wasn't enough of an answer for her even though the verses were the answer.

His post contained a response and supporting evidence. Yours consisted of the equivalent of responding to a question about the Utah Constitution by linking to the US constitution.

Summary of Exhibit 1: Providing scriptures that don't address the actual question, followed by making a weak argument based on ambiguous text, followed by returning to a stance that the originally posted scriptures answered a question to which they were not relevant.

Summary of Exhibit 2: Providing scriptures that are immediately relevant to the question, followed by an explanation of why the scriptures were immediately relevant.

Hmmm...yeah, those weren't at all the same thing.

[LDSChristian]

Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 2

Summary of Exhibit 1: Providing scriptures that don't address the actual question, followed by making a weak argument based on ambiguous text, followed by returning to a stance that the originally posted scriptures answered a question to which they were not relevant.

Summary of Exhibit 2: Providing scriptures that are immediately relevant to the question, followed by an explanation of why the scriptures were immediately relevant.

Hmmm...yeah, those weren't at all the same thing.

Considering I answered you on the other thread with scripture verses, which contains the ultimate answers, yea I answered your question.

[Dravin]

Considering I answered you on the other thread with scripture verses, which contains the ultimate answers, yea I answered your question.

By that metric he answered your question. Thus the irony. It's okay when you do it but not when he does (even though he didn't just plop scriptures down in the thread but we'll just roll with the accusation). They have another word for that besides irony.

[Justice]

Not only did he answer your question, but he answered it correctly. :)

At least that's the way I see it.

[furtherlight]

Let us see what we really believe....

But let us start with this question.

Why would the Lord have said that John the Baptist was the greatest born among women?

Obviously there is an awful lot that we must not know about this man other than that he baptized the Lord. Is that alone enough to have made him the greatest? I would spend some more time researching especially in the JST.

Search through each scripture in the new testament that talks about John, Elias and Elijah. And like I said focus on what the JST say. Let the scriptures and the Spirit teach you, not what some one else might say, don't reject something because it doesn't fit your paradigm. That is what the Jews did to Jesus, after all, they already knew it all, they had Abraham, right? We need to quit telling the scriptures what they say and start letting them talk to us. Remember that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Joseph all knew what they were talking about and they also knew how to count. ( That is a reference to the Mount of Transfiguration. ) The D&C has some great references too.

I like the question asked by LDSChristian. It doesn't matter whether or not that thought was put there by something that is anti-LDS. What matters is that he is thinking and asking questions. I am totally expecting some flaming or rebutal, especially since this is my first post. Enjoy -

[Guest]

Let us see what we really believe....

But let us start with this question.

Why would the Lord have said that John the Baptist was the greatest born among women?

Obviously there is an awful lot that we must not know about this man other than that he baptized the Lord. Is that alone enough to have made him the greatest? I would spend some more time researching especially in the JST.

Search through each scripture in the new testament that talks about John, Elias and Elijah. And like I said focus on what the JST say. Let the scriptures and the Spirit teach you, not what some one else might say, don't reject something because it doesn't fit your paradigm. That is what the Jews did to Jesus, after all, they already knew it all, they had Abraham, right? We need to quit telling the scriptures what they say and start letting them talk to us. Remember that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Joseph all knew what they were talking about and they also knew how to count. ( That is a reference to the Mount of Transfiguration. ) The D&C has some great references too.

I like the question asked by LDSChristian. It doesn't matter whether or not that thought was put there by something that is anti-LDS. What matters is that he is thinking and asking questions. I am totally expecting some flaming or rebutal, especially since this is my first post. Enjoy -

When you say, "Not what some one else might say... ".. who do you mean? Forum members? Anybody? Does that extend to the Ensign as well?

Coz, the Ensign says this:

I Have a Question - Ensign July 1999

[RipplecutBuddha]

This thread was interesting until it got personal. The main point is the question was asked, and the question was answered. Nobody is refuting the answer given, so...moving on now.

[Guest]

This thread was interesting until it got personal. The main point is the question was asked, and the question was answered. Nobody is refuting the answer given, so...moving on now.

Okay, you just confused me. I thought furtherlight refuted the answer given. Didn't he? I know he stated it in a very veiled manner so hey, I could have misinterpreted it.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Okay, you just confused me. I thought furtherlight refuted the answer given. Didn't he? I know he stated it in a very veiled manner so hey, I could have misinterpreted it.

I don't think he did, though I could have missed it. In my reading, he's just calling for us to get off of auto pilot and really think about it. (something we should do more often than normal, I think.)

I just re-read his post, and I still don't see a refutation...just good solid advice.

In short, the answer given was that while John the Baptist was an Elias for both Christ and Joseph Smith, he was not the Elias mentioned in the prophecy that the OP quoted. Further answers were given that several prophets have been an Elias (one sent to prepare the way) throughout the dispensations of the Gospel.

Edited May 26, 2011 by RipplecutBuddha

[Guest]

I don't think he did, though I could have missed it. In my reading, he's just calling for us to get off of auto pilot and really think about it. (something we should do more often than normal, I think.)

I just re-read his post, and I still don't see a refutation...just good solid advice.

In short, the answer given was that while John the Baptist was an Elias for both Christ and Joseph Smith, he was not the Elias mentioned in the prophecy that the OP quoted. Further answers were given that several prophets have been an Elias (one sent to prepare the way) throughout the dispensations of the Gospel.

The answer given was that John the Baptist was not Elijah...

But, if you look at the furtherlight's first bolded phrase below, I took that to mean that because the JST said Elias appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration and by virtue of the "count" there were only 2 personages there, then Elias (John the Baptist) is Elijah who appeared on the Mount. This interpretation of what he said is supported in the next bolded phrase that he expects there to be a rebuttal, even flaming - so that tells me he is taking the opposing position.

As a matter of fact, upon re-reading furtherlight's post, I am getting more certain that's what he means.

Let us see what we really believe....

But let us start with this question.

Why would the Lord have said that John the Baptist was the greatest born among women?

Obviously there is an awful lot that we must not know about this man other than that he baptized the Lord. Is that alone enough to have made him the greatest? I would spend some more time researching especially in the JST.

Search through each scripture in the new testament that talks about John, Elias and Elijah. And like I said focus on what the JST say. Let the scriptures and the Spirit teach you, not what some one else might say, don't reject something because it doesn't fit your paradigm. That is what the Jews did to Jesus, after all, they already knew it all, they had Abraham, right? We need to quit telling the scriptures what they say and start letting them talk to us. Remember that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Joseph all knew what they were talking about and they also knew how to count. ( That is a reference to the Mount of Transfiguration. ) The D&C has some great references too.

I like the question asked by LDSChristian. It doesn't matter whether or not that thought was put there by something that is anti-LDS. What matters is that he is thinking and asking questions. I am totally expecting some flaming or rebutal, especially since this is my first post. Enjoy -

[RipplecutBuddha]

There was only one Elijah, the prophet by name. However there was a prophet named Elias, and there is a type of prophet known as "an Elias" the term means a prophet who's calling is to prepare the way for another servant of God.

The confusion is over whether John the Baptist was fulfilling the prophecy concerning the return of Elijah, which he did not, since he did not hold the keys. The confusion lay in the fact that in many Christian circles, the names Elijah and Elias are interchangeable and understood to be exactly one and the same person.

When he says 'They also knew how to count' there were indeed two beings present with the Lord, hence the request to build three tabernacles on the spot by Peter. However, counting does not identify who was in the cloud.

The saying that John the Baptist was the greatest of all prophets may have something to do with the fact that he operated with his priesthood authority in three dispensations of the Gospel. He started his ministry under the Law of Moses, then lived to see the inaguration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Finally he helped usher in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times by restoring the Aaronic priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. None of these have anything to do with the prophecy of Elijah 'turning the hearts of the children to their fathers and the hearts of the fathers to their children'. That prophecy was fulfilled in the Kirtland Temple by Elijah himself.

Another way John the Baptist was great was that he was 'an Elias' to both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith.