Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Ti 3:16)

LDS believe that Joseph Smith was inspired to re-translate the Bible (which was more of him receiving direct revelations from God, correcting errors in the Bible). You and I/Ray/others can't even agree on what the verses should say, let alone how to interpret them. The verse above should read: "And all Scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (JST 2 Tim. 3:16).

See the difference between saying, "All scripture is given by inspiration," and, "And all scripture given by inspiration..." The first dictates the ridiculous view that the Bible is perfect and infallible (oooooh boy).

… or that the Holy Bible contains some words which aren’t scripture, because those words weren’t given by inspiration from God.

Joseph simply clarified this scripture thinking his retranslation would be easier for us to understand, but in essence all scripture IS given by inspiration from God, otherwise it is not or should not be called scripture.

The second dictates that scriptures that are inspired are valuable for lots of reasons, but not that every word in the scriptures IS inspired.

Yes, another rephrase on what I just said. Again, Joseph was merely trying to clarify this scripture in his own words thinking he could make it easier for us to understand it.

The Holy Scriptures are infallible ... [Paul's letters] are perfect because they were given to him by inspiriation of God.

The holy scriptures are infallible as long as they are interpreted correctly, otherwise they will give some people who don’t interpret them correctly the wrong ideas… which was never God’s intention.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

See here: http://scriptures.lds.org/gsj/jsphstrn

...in essence all scripture IS given by inspiration from God, otherwise it is not or should not be called scripture.

That's my point Ray...uninspired men added or injected their own views into the Bible through the years. Just because it's called scripture since it's in the Bible, doesn't mean it is scripture. By scripture, I mean the word of God, not just whatever is between the two covers of the Bible.

Again, Joseph was merely trying to clarify this scripture in his own words thinking he could make it easier for us to understand it.

Incorrect. Joseph didn't just decide, "Hey I know that verse is wrong...I'll phrase it this way so people will get what it really means." God directed Joseph to re-translate the Bible. Instead of looking at manuscripts in foreign languages, the corrections to errors in translation came to Joseph directly, as revelations.

In case anyone missed it at the beginning, see here: http://scriptures.lds.org/gsj/jsphstrn

[Ray]

Our Lord authorized Joseph to retranslate the Bible, giving him inspiration and revelation to know how.

Our Lord did not say something like "now that you're here in Matthew chapter 3, put in exactly these words: " "...

... because our Lord always wanted Joseph to ask Him for guidance, and as Joseph did he came to know God through the thoughts that God gave him... as evidenced by Joseph's own choice of words.

And btw, AK, we're just clashing because of some of the words we are choosing, and I think we are basically very much in agreement. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

... because our Lord always wanted Joseph to ask Him for guidance, and as Joseph did he came to know God through the thoughts that God gave him... as evidenced by Joseph's own choice of words.

I just want to make sure everyone knows the corrections to the Bible came as revelations from God. I don't care one way or another whether Joseph saw sentences in his mind or chose his own words to express the revelation, as long as we agree it was an inspired translation (which I think we do). In other words, Joseph didn't just decide how best to rephrase the Bible in light of restored truths. It was a Spirit-guided, inspired process.

[Maureen]

...That said, there are snippets of the JST which appear in the LDS KJV, as footnotes or supplements. As far as those are in the official LDS canon, I believe they are the most perfect translation. The KJV is not perfect in every respect.

So AK, if there is no difference between the JST version and the KJV version regarding 1Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12, would say that they are correct translations?

...I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

M.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

So AK, if there is no difference between the JST version and the KJV version regarding 1Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12, would say that they are correct translations?

...I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

Let me treat briefly the scripture above. Using a quick search of Strong's Greek Concordance, I looked up the original Greek words in question (spirit, soul) and found the following. Pay attention to the fact that the words translated as "spirit" and "soul" refer to different aspects of man's spirit:

For "spirit" we find:

G4151 pneuma

From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind.

For "soul" we find:

G5590 psuche

From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from G4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from G2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [H5315], [H7307] and [H2416]: - heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.

Note that in defining what the original word for "spirit" is, the word "soul" is used. Then note that in defining what the original word for "soul" is, the word "spirit" is used. They are so interchangeable as to be barely distinguishable. What the translators did was use two words meaning roughly the same thing to refer to different qualities of the same thing (the human spirit).

So no, I have no problem with the verse as translated, as long as the original meaning of the words is understood by the reader. This scripture isn't saying that man can be divided into three separate parts which are spirit, soul and physical body. It's talking about two aspects of man's immortal spirit (rational and animal, in the original Greek) and man's body.

[prisonchaplain]

Believing there was an apostasy doesn't mean "the gates of hell prevailed" against the church. Now, if God stood idle and never restored or reversed the apostasy then yeah, I think that'd qualify as prevailing. BUT...the whole message of the LDS church is that God has acted, has shut the gates of hell, has reversed the apostasy and is triumphing over Satan. I really do tire of the accusation that believing there was an apostasy means God is somehow weak and "couldn't even preserve his own church." We might as well level that accusation against God for letting Israel wander amidst an idolatrous Egypt for 435 years without a prophet or true doctrine from Above. But that'd be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

The whole history of the scriptures is in fact a record of apostasy (loss of truths and authority) and resotrations. Especially noteworthy is the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah (finding lost scriptures, building and dedicating a temple, entering a covenant with God, regaining true worship and doctrine).

Yes, of course Israel fell into sin repeatedly. BUT, and this is big--there was always a remnent of godly people who kept the Law, and continued to serve God. The access to God was never cut off. To say that the Apostasy of roughly 100 - 1800 AD is the same, because a few people still tried and had good hearts, even though they could not fully access God, because no one worthy of the church offices existed is just wrong. It sounds like saying, well there weren't any full Christians, but there were always a few wannabes.

Frankly, I can relate to this issue pretty well. Pentecostals do believe that, for the most part, many of the experiential gifts of the Holy Spirit were lost. A few monks or devout souls experienced tongues etc. throughout church history, but it was not common to the churches from roughly 100 - 1900 AD. BUT, never did we argue that, therefore, the church was basically in limbo during that time.

You may tire of hearing that the Restored Gospel has the sound of God failing to empower his church to prevail, but to those of us on the supposedly unrestored side of the Kingdom, that is how it sounds.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Yes, of course Israel fell into sin repeatedly. BUT, and this is big--there was always a remnent of godly people who kept the Law, and continued to serve God. The access to God was never cut off.

If by access you mean prayer and revelation, sure it's always been available. Saying there was an apostasy of the New Testament church means specifically the ordinances and offices established by Christ were altered or removed without authorization by God.

If there was no apostasy of the New Testament church, which church has been led by 12 apostles? Which church has received new scripture and continuing revelation (such as Peter's revelation about extending the gospel to the Gentiles)? I don't ask these confrontationally or as an attack; these are the specific things I mean when I talk about apostasy.

It sounds like saying, well there weren't any full Christians, but there were always a few wannabes.

That's your take on it and you're entitled to it. Again, when I speak of apostasy I mean apostasy of the New Testament church with its foundation of apostles and prophets. I didn't say "apostasy of all Christians" or anything equally stupid. As I said elsewhere, belief in an apostasy of Christ's New Testament church doesn't reflect negatively on those who came after the fact and lived the gospel as best they knew how.

Frankly, I can relate to this issue pretty well [...] never did we argue that [...] the church was basically in limbo during that time.

I can relate to this issue pretty well too. One of my older brothers left the LDS church and became Eastern Orthodox because he couldn't understand how an omnipotent God could allow his apostles, prophets and church to be torn down by Satan. The apostasy was like a sunset; gradual and not all at once. The restoration was like a sunrise; gradual.

I don't think the restoration of Christ's true church is limited only to events transpiring after Joseph Smith's First Vision. I think of Christopher Colombus; Gutenberg; Tinsdale; Martin Luther; Roger Williams; the Founding Fathers and Constitution allowing free practice of religion; and a host of others.

You may tire of hearing that the Restored Gospel has the sound of God failing to empower his church to prevail, but to those of us on the supposedly unrestored side of the Kingdom, that is how it sounds.

My mother wasn't raised in the LDS church, my dad was. My mother never felt like a "wannabe" for attending her Christian church until she was baptized into the LDS church. If my comments have ever made you think I look at you like a "wannabe," it wasn't my intention and I think you know I take pains in my posts to be respectful of everyone.

[mdb]

ApostleKnight wrote:

The JST was never published by the LDS church as an official translation. One reason for this was the martyrdom of the prophet in 1844. Another reason was that his writings/papers relating to the translation were kept by the RLDS which split from the LDS church after Joseph's death. That said, there are snippets of the JST which appear in the LDS KJV, as footnotes or supplements. As far as those are in the official LDS canon, I believe they are the most perfect translation. The KJV is not perfect in every respect.

The JST is not a "translation" in the real sense of the word. It is a revision. The JST was revised by Joseph Smith around 1830 and was revised using the KJV as a base. It was not a "translation" from the Alexandria Text or such, but a revision from english to english off a bible translation that you say was originally translated with errors. I sure hope those supposed errors were not compounded through the use of an apparent error filled text in order to make a superior, more accurate text. You would think that in order to fix the problem, he would have gone back to the original Greek and Hebrew to do his work, rather than use a bible he believed to already be mistranslated.

Ray wrote:

Joseph simply clarified this scripture thinking his retranslation would be easier for us to understand, but in essence all scripture IS given by inspiration from God, otherwise it is not or should not be called scripture.

Actually, he rewrote extire chapters and books - even removing one completely. That is more than a simple clarification. The revisions change it's understanding, not "make it easier to understand".

Joseph Smith made extensive corrections and additions to: Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation.

He also made numerous alterations in the writings of the OT prophets and in Mark, John, Acts, and several of the epistles.

No changes were made in: Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John.

He made some corrections in all other books of the Bible, and rejected the entire book of Song of Solomon as not being inspired scripture.

Ray wrote:

The holy scriptures are infallible as long as they are interpreted correctly, otherwise they will give some people who don’t interpret them correctly the wrong ideas… which was never God’s intention.

If a person interprets them without inspiration from the Holy Spirit, the word of God is still infallible. One's false interpretation only makes his interpretaion false, the the word itself.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

... because our Lord always wanted Joseph to ask Him for guidance, and as Joseph did he came to know God through the thoughts that God gave him... as evidenced by Joseph's own choice of words.

I just want to make sure everyone knows the corrections to the Bible came as revelations from God. I don't care one way or another whether Joseph saw sentences in his mind or chose his own words to express the revelation, as long as we agree it was an inspired translation (which I think we do). In other words, Joseph didn't just decide how best to rephrase the Bible in light of restored truths. It was a Spirit-guided, inspired process.

I was simply trying to point out that Joseph Smith had (and continued to develop) his own style of writing and speaking, just like any and every other person did and does whether or not they were or are a prophet.

Or in other words, when we read the words of Paul in the Bible, those are actually the words of Paul, just like the words of Peter, and James, and John, and Moses, and Isaiah, and Nephi, and Mormon, and Moroni, and Shakespeare, and me, and you, and everybody else has their own words they use to think with while speaking and writing to others.

And through it all, as we read or hear the words that people choose to use to express the thoughts they have or had, we can all know whether or not anyone was or is inspired by God through the power of the Holy Ghost... as the Holy Ghost helps us to interpret their words and see any and all truth that is in them.

But yes, to make this a little simpler for some people, I do know that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to write and speak and interpret the writings of others through the power of the Holy Ghost, and I also know he received priesthood or authority from God that was given to him by others who had priesthood or authority from God and laid their hands upon him to give him that priesthood or authority from God, and I also know he received inspiration and revelations given through thoughts and visions and personal appearances from our Lord and His authorized servants who received their authority from God... directly.

Now there, does that just about cover it for you?

And the main point I was trying to make is that we ALL need to receive inspiration or revelation from God to know whether or not anything is true... and NOT simply accept what "people" speak or write... even if their words are recorded in a collection of books that "other people" decided should be included within that collection of books... because to do that is pretty much the same as simply accepting the words that I speak or write declaring that I have received knowledge from God if I had been living and speaking and writing during the time Paul or Isaiah or Jeremiah or any other prophet of God lived and spoke and wrote their words and some people put my words in some books.

Or in other words, anyone and everyone can know whether I am speaking the truth by receiving an assurance from God, just as anyone and everyone can also know whether or not anyone else is speaking the truth by receiving an assurance from God to assure them it is the truth.

And Yes, I do know that the truth in the thoughts expressed in the Bible and Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants and in the words of our living prophets and apostles today were and are inspired by God, and I give them the reverence they're due... whether anyone else thinks I do or not.

[prisonchaplain]

If by access you mean prayer and revelation, sure it's always been available. Saying there was an apostasy of the New Testament church means specifically the ordinances and offices established by Christ were altered or removed without authorization by God.

Was it possible or likely for the Christian believers who lived during the age of the apostasy to gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom? If it was very difficult to near impossible, due to the supposed removal of ordinances and offices, then the effect is the same. Satan did prevail against God's church, if he systematically kept willing-but-ill-equiped believers from entering a kingdom of eternal reconciliation with the Father.

If there was no apostasy of the New Testament church, which church has been led by 12 apostles? Which church has received new scripture and continuing revelation (such as Peter's revelation about extending the gospel to the Gentiles)? I don't ask these confrontationally or as an attack; these are the specific things I mean when I talk about apostasy.

The LDS church places heavy emphasis on church offices--much more than I can find in my Bible. So, the question you have, of course has no answer--it is an "LDS question." We do not find that the 12 apostles were meant to maintain and pass on their offices to the exact number. In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians he seems to imply that there were already new apostles (more than 12--and that his own apostleship was being challenged). Furthermore, the very definition of apostle included that the person had physically seen and been with Christ, so it couldn't be passed on--though leadership could be. A discussion on church government could get quite lengthy and detailed, but the bottom line issue most Christians have with the Restored Gospel teaching is the implication that God's church was invalid for 1800 years, and the faithful are more or less distanced from their God. It sure sounds like Satan prevailing against Christ's church.

As I said elsewhere, belief in an apostasy of Christ's New Testament church doesn't reflect negatively on those who came after the fact and lived the gospel as best they knew how.

If the absence of ordinances and offices kept willing but ill-equiped believers from full reconciliation with God, the effect is the same.

BTW, I did not mean to imply that you, or any individual LDS poster was being disrespectful or antagonistic to non-LDS Christians. I am a bit surprised that many LDS do not understand why we find the Restored Gospel teaching itself to be 'hard to take.' The common understanding amongst us is that the doctrine teaches that Joseph Smith's revelations restored and provided the primary pathway to the Celestial Kingdom. Again, if that pathway was nearly blocked for 1800 years, how can it not be said that Satan prevailed against the Church?

I can relate to this issue pretty well too. One of my older brothers left the LDS church and became Eastern Orthodox because he couldn't understand how an omnipotent God could allow his apostles, prophets and church to be torn down by Satan. The apostasy was like a sunset; gradual and not all at once. The restoration was like a sunrise; gradual.

Wait. Within a generation of Christ's incarnation the offices are gone? After a 400 year wait between the last prophet and Jesus, we have a total loss within one generation? That's not very gradual.

I don't think the restoration of Christ's true church is limited only to events transpiring after Joseph Smith's First Vision. I think of Christopher Colombus; Gutenberg; Tinsdale; Martin Luther; Roger Williams; the Founding Fathers and Constitution allowing free practice of religion; and a host of others.

Likewise, if the pathway to the Celestial kingdom remained more or less blocked until Joseph Smith, the precursory lights were meaningless to those who perished without the light.

My mother wasn't raised in the LDS church, my dad was. My mother never felt like a "wannabe" for attending her Christian church until she was baptized into the LDS church. If my comments have ever made you think I look at you like a "wannabe," it wasn't my intention and I think you know I take pains in my posts to be respectful of everyone.

Let me say again, that neither you, nor any other posters have been personally confrontational, aggressive, or disrespectful. Non-LDS struggle with this doctrine. What I tried to explain to you is that even Pentecostals were criticized for claiming to have more of the Holy Ghost than other Christians. Would you not to expect exponentially more criticism for claiming to have the only true church government, leaders, and pathway to the Celestial Kingdom? It's not cause your mean. It's the message: being Christian itself is not good enough--you must join with our sect, come under our leadership and authority, etc. if you want to enter God's best kingdom.

For all the confusion and strife you claim to see in the Christian world, with its many denominations, most of us get along quite well. We might believe our understandings of God and his Word are best, but we call one another brothers. We learn from each other. And, quite frankly, on most Sunday mornings these days, it would probably be difficult to tell an Assemblies of God from Baptist from a Methodist from an Evangelical Free church, based upon the service alone. We sing many of the same songs, read the same books, listen to the same radio stations--and quite often go to the same religious confereneces (i.e. Promise Keepers). The days of denominational flagwaving are long gone.

We get blamed for saying Jesus is the only way. But, the Restored Gospel seems to say to us: Jesus + our Church, our leaders, our authority, our ordinances etc. So, it's not personal. We struggle with the message, not the messengers. B)

I just want to make sure everyone knows the corrections to the Bible came as revelations from God. I don't care one way or another whether Joseph saw sentences in his mind or chose his own words to express the revelation, as long as we agree it was an inspired translation (which I think we do). In other words, Joseph didn't just decide how best to rephrase the Bible in light of restored truths. It was a Spirit-guided, inspired process.

I'm a bit confused here. Ray, are you saying that the LDS believe the JST of the Bible is inspired of God, in the same manner the original writers were inspired? If so, why does the church authorize the KJV rather than the JST?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

The JST is not a "translation" in the real sense of the word.

I pointed that out myself. Did you even read my post?

I sure hope those supposed errors were not compounded through the use of an apparent error filled text in order to make a superior, more accurate text.

The errors were real, not apparent. And if God's doing the correcting, I think it very unlikely indeed for errors to be compounded.

You would think that in order to fix the problem, he would have gone back to the original Greek and Hebrew to do his work, rather than use a bible he believed to already be mistranslated.

No, I wouldn't think that. I get the feeling you didn't read my other posts at all. I already explained that the corrections to the Bible came as revelations from God, not from the Bible itself. And I also pointed out that we have no original manuscripts of the works in the Bible. We have really, really old documents, but they're just copies of copies. So again, no, I wouldn't think God would tell Joseph to go back to copies which obviously had errors in them.

Just to clarify: It's not just that I believe some words were originally translated in error; I believe that over time changes were made to the manuscripts themselves as uninspired men tinkered with doctrines and added/subtracted words as was their wont. So again, it would be useless to go back to "originals" which aren't originals.

The revisions change it's understanding, not "make it easier to understand".

The JST makes it easier to understand the author's original intent which in some cases has been altered accidentally or on purpose by those translating and copying the originals (which have long ago perished).

[Serg]

Wait. Within a generation of Christ's incarnation the offices are gone? After a 400 year wait between the last prophet and Jesus, we have a total loss within one generation? That's not very gradual.

I don't think the restoration of Christ's true church is limited only to events transpiring after Joseph Smith's First Vision. I think of Christopher Colombus; Gutenberg; Tinsdale; Martin Luther; Roger Williams; the Founding Fathers and Constitution allowing free practice of religion; and a host of others.

Likewise, if the pathway to the Celestial kingdom remained more or less blocked until Joseph Smith, the precursory lights were meaningless to those who perished without the light.

1) No. It was not only a generation.

2) Receantly in a General Conference, one of the apostles(or a seventy) speaking of the founders of the USA and marthin Luther, said such men 'were saved". So there you go. Although God allowed His Church to be mistreated by men, hence the "kingdom of God has been proclaimed but the violent take it away", God saved such persons based on their knowledge at the time, and their probabilities. Surely if Luther indeed had the best intention towards God and received revelation to protest, he could have been saved based on his limmited knowledge. Although the ordinances had to be done, this does not mean that such people did'nt get saved.

[mdb]

I truely believe that God is faithful and preserved His word over many generation - not allowing it to be altered. It has withstood many attempts by men to destoy it. I do not believe that for almost 2000 years the world was without His word - having a mistranslated, perverted work which led astray all who read it. The Church of Christ has not been without true followers and as someone else said, the gates of hell will not overcome the Church of God and of Christ Jesus. The JW's believe they also have the true word of God in their translation and claim that until the NWT Bible and the Watchtower Organization came into being, that the Church was defeated (with the martyring of the 12 apostles). That is unbiblical and a lie. God's word survived and so did His Church.

Well, that thread meandered from the original topic didn't it?

[Ray]

Tommy,

The way YOU get to Celestial kingdom is by accepting ALL the words of God YOU receive as they are presented to YOU by either God or by other people God inspires to present them to YOU. And the way YOU can know whether or not the words people present to YOU are presented or inspired by God is by YOU actually receiving an assurance from God assuring YOU that the people who presented them to YOU were either God or inspired by God. As I said before, many people who listened to our Lord did not know they were hearing from God.

And btw, that's the same standard God uses with everyone to determine if they really love God and all of His words... not basing where they go by what other people know, but what they know and knew from God.

Or in other words, nowhere have I said that you need to receive every word of God that God has already presented or is now presenting or can continue to present TO OTHER PEOPLE, by either God or some people God inspired to share the truth with those other people, because all that matters to God is what YOU have received and that you continue to receive every word from God, that is presented to YOU by either God or the people God inspires.

For example, I am or at least claim to be inspired by God to know that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God, and now that I have shared this information with YOU it is now up to YOU to FIND OUT whether or not Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God, by asking God for His assurance of that truth, and if YOU never act on that information, by asking for God’s assurance, YOU will never know if God truly inspired Joseph and that Joseph was a prophet of God… which means YOU will never know that much about God, by knowing what God has done through Joseph, and not only that, but YOU will also never know the truth about any of the other things God has revealed through Joseph.

And btw, if there is or ever will be any other way for YOU to find out the truth God has already revealed through Joseph without you learning more about Joseph or by the teachings God inspired Joseph to speak and write, once God assures you of ALL of the truth, you will know the same truths that Joseph taught… because Joseph also gained his knowledge from God, and you would then be “one” in agreement with Joseph... and God and me and everybody else who knows those same truths that Joseph taught.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Satan did prevail against God's church, if he systematically kept willing-but-ill-equiped believers from entering a kingdom of eternal reconciliation with the Father.

My A/G friend from my last job had this concern too (not that it's just an A/G concern mind you). The answer is in the New Testament and in LDS doctrine: Baptism for the dead. 1 Cor. 15 talks about baptism for the dead who will rise, for those who didn't have the chance during life. After all, Jesus taught that to fulfill all righteousness baptism is required, and that no man can enter into God's kingdom but by being born of water and Spirit (baptism, laying on of hands for gift of the Holy Ghost).

Would it be just to deny entrance into God's kingdom to the millions before Christ who didn't have the chance to be baptized? Of course not. Baptism for the dead allows those who would've been baptized had they had the chance, to have the essential ordinances performed for them.

Now, my A/G friend also had a problem with that because he thought that meant anyone who had their baptism performed for them automatically was saved. Nope, it just makes available the effect of the ordinance if they accept Jesus and the rest that follows.

Now I'm pretty sure you don't believe in baptism for the dead, so I don't want to get into that per se. I just wanted to say that there is a solution to the apparent denail of salvation to those who lived during the apostasy. Whether we agree is another matter of course.

We do not find that the 12 apostles were meant to maintain and pass on their offices to the exact number.

I'm pretty sure most other non-LDS Christian churches would agree. That explains the disparity in emphasis on the need for a foundation of apostles. I do find that Jesus intended there always to be a quorum of 12 apostles leading his church. We both understand each other's position.

...the very definition of apostle included that the person had physically seen and been with Christ, so it couldn't be passed on--though leadership could be.

What LDS believe can be passed on are what we call priesthood keys. Priesthood keys are the right to preside or lead. So while it is true that an apostle has to have seen Christ to be a special witness of his resurrection, he must also be ordained and given the keys the New Testament apostles had. It is well known that Christ gave Peter the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19). Not mentioned as often is that Christ gave these same keys to the 11 other apostles too (Matt. 18:18). Christ gave these keys to none other of his disciples besides the twelve apostles.

Now we may disagree on what the keys are and what they're for. My point is that besides seeing Christ, apostles need to have priesthood keys to direct or preside over the church.

...the bottom line...is the implication that God's church was invalid for 1800 years...[it] sure sounds like Satan prevailing against Christ's church.

If there had been no restoration, I'd agree. But we're in Act Two of a three act play (premortal, mortal, resurrection). We haven't reached the end yet, so Satan hasn't ultimately prevailed against Christ's church.

I am a bit surprised that many LDS do not understand why we find the Restored Gospel teaching itself to be 'hard to take.'

I do understand how it could be difficult to hear that Christ has restored his New Testament church, and that to dwell with God in the highest heaven we must join it. I imagine it was hard as well for the Jews/Gentiles in Christ's day to hear that their system of worship wasn't enough to grant them entrance into God's kingdom, and that new ordinances (such as baptism) and new practices (Lord's Supper instead of Passover) had to be accepted.

...if [the pathway to the Celestial Kingdom] was nearly blocked for 1800 years, how can it not be said that Satan prevailed against the Church?

It can be said. I just wouldn't agree with it since God has restored what was lost and made salvation in the Celestial Kingdom available for all--even those who perished long ago (ordinances for the dead).

Likewise, if the pathway to the Celestial kingdom remained more or less blocked until Joseph Smith, the precursory lights were meaningless to those who perished without the light.

Unless they lit the way for others; and unless this allowed others to arrive at a place where salvation could be extended back to the original light-bearers. It's a classic "the glass is half-full, half-empty" debate.

It's the message: being Christian itself is not good enough--you must join with our sect, come under our leadership and authority, etc. if you want to enter God's best kingdom.

Yet this is precisely the message Christ told his disciples to spread through the world, as in Matt. 28:19-20. Not saying that should make it easier to hear, just that it's not a new message.

...the Restored Gospel seems to say to us: Jesus + our Church, our leaders, our authority, our ordinances etc.

Again, this is the message Christ commanded his apostles/disciples to proclaim in New Testament times.

I'm a bit confused here. Ray, are you saying that the LDS believe the JST of the Bible is inspired of God, in the same manner the original writers were inspired?

Actually it was I--not Ray--who made that comment you were confused about. The reason the JST is not the official LDS Bible is because of reasons listed here: http://scriptures.lds.org/gsj/jsphstrn

[Guest MrsS]

Was it possible or likely for the Christian believers who lived during the age of the apostasy to gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom? If it was very difficult to near impossible, due to the supposed removal of ordinances and offices, then the effect is the same. Satan did prevail against God's church, if he systematically kept willing-but-ill-equiped believers from entering a kingdom of eternal reconciliation with the Father.

Whoa ~ I thought that entry into the Celestial, Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms only happens at the second coming/Resurrection? Am I reading Prison Chaplain wrong?

[Kuma]

I usually do not post in the forums for the fact that often times it is pages and pages of trying to prove a point that never gets across. *shrugs* but what do I know. All I have to say on this subject is that it is something I have studied and prayed about much and often. This singular matter has weighed upon my mind more than almost any other. I will not post anything more that will spin more and more ideas but I will say this simply-

I know that God is my Heavenly Father and that I literally am his daughter. He loves me and wants all of his children to return to him. I know that he has given us these bodies to learn and grow and to become more like him. He is our Father. I know this to be true, inside and out. When I have ripped everything else away the simple truthfulness of this Gospel was all that was there. I know it to be true. God loves us. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

When I have ripped everything else away the simple truthfulness of this Gospel was all that was there. I know it to be true. God loves us. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Amen, Kuma. Thank you.

[prisonchaplain]

Receantly in a General Conference, one of the apostles(or a seventy) speaking of the founders of the USA and marthin Luther, said such men 'were saved". So there you go. Although God allowed His Church to be mistreated by men, hence the "kingdom of God has been proclaimed but the violent take it away", God saved such persons based on their knowledge at the time, and their probabilities. Surely if Luther indeed had the best intention towards God and received revelation to protest, he could have been saved based on his limmited knowledge. Although the ordinances had to be done, this does not mean that such people did'nt get saved.

But what does it mean that they were saved? Were they consigned to the Terrestial Kingdom, forever to miss out on the presence of the Heavenly Father? And, who were "such men?" Just the heroes, those very few who did extraordinary things to further God's plan.

And btw, that's the same standard God uses with everyone to determine if they really love God and all of His words... not basing where they go by what other people know, but what they know and knew from God.

Ray, your answer to this question may clarify this whole issue of the general apostasy: During the period of the apostasy, from roughly 100 - 1840 AD, was it possible for those who believed in Christ sincerely, based on what knowledge they had, to DIRECTLY gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom (i.e., meaning that they did not have to depend on someone in doing a specific water baptism in their name after the Restoration)?

[prisonchaplain]

The answer is in the New Testament and in LDS doctrine: Baptism for the dead. 1 Cor. 15 talks about baptism for the dead who will rise, for those who didn't have the chance during life. After all, Jesus taught that to fulfill all righteousness baptism is required, and that no man can enter into God's kingdom but by being born of water and Spirit (baptism, laying on of hands for gift of the Holy Ghost). ... I just wanted to say that there is a solution to the apparent denail of salvation to those who lived during the apostasy. Whether we agree is another matter of course.

Two key issues:

1. Entry into the Celestial Kingdom is at least partly dependent on someone post-mortem finding my information, and performing the ceremony. If my name doesn't get found, I'm out of the Celestial Kingdom.

2. Many Christians, myself included, do not agree that their are any ritualistic requirements attached to salvation. Water baptism is a testimony to the salvation I have experienced. The fulfillment of righteousness took place at Calvary. Same goes for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost--it's a gift--one that we Pentecostals believe is subsequent to salvation.

Now we may disagree on what the keys are and what they're for. My point is that besides seeing Christ, apostles need to have priesthood keys to direct or preside over the church.

The hierarchical nature of your doctrine in these areas, and the strong emphasis on office and authority explains much about the doctrinal and behavioral discipline within the LDS Church. So, if nothing else, the teachings do have practical benefits. :)

If there had been no restoration, I'd agree. But we're in Act Two of a three act play (premortal, mortal, resurrection). We haven't reached the end yet, so Satan hasn't ultimately prevailed against Christ's church.

To fine tune what you've said: How would you compare the age of apostasy in the Christian church with typical periods of degeneration in Israel (under wicked kings, during times of prolific syncretism with surrounding Pagans)?

I do understand how it could be difficult to hear that Christ has restored his New Testament church, and that to dwell with God in the highest heaven we must join it. I imagine it was hard as well for the Jews/Gentiles in Christ's day to hear that their system of worship wasn't enough to grant them entrance into God's kingdom, and that new ordinances (such as baptism) and new practices (Lord's Supper instead of Passover) had to be accepted.

So, there it is. Are you essentially saying that the COJCLDS is the Third Covenenant (Old, New, LDS?) God has offered to his people? Or, perhaps, the restitution of the lost second one?

Yet this is precisely the message Christ told his disciples to spread through the world, as in Matt. 28:19-20. Not saying that should make it easier to hear, just that it's not a new message.

My sense is that Jesus was moving us away from dependence on organizations and man-made systems of worship and ritual, and towards direct relationship with God, and then with the people of God. So, in a sense, this restored gospel almost sounds like a return to the older system.

[prisonchaplain]

Whoa ~ I thought that entry into the Celestial, Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms only happens at the second coming/Resurrection? Am I reading Prison Chaplain wrong?

Keep in mind that non-LDs only believe in the heavenly kingdom. I go with the Apostle Paul on this one:

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.(KJV)

And as for the hope that there's still opportunity for conversion after death, I go with the writer of Hebrews:

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:(KJV)

Understanding these beliefs, whether you agree or not, you might better understand the consternation of non-LDS Christians with the belief that there was 1700+ years of apostasy.

[mdb]

After all, Jesus taught that to fulfill all righteousness baptism is required, and that no man can enter into God's kingdom but by being born of water and Spirit (baptism, laying on of hands for gift of the Holy Ghost).

What does born of water and the Spirit mean?

Born of Water: natural birth

Born of the Spirit: spiritual birth

Be careful not to take the verse out of context. Jesus makes the distinction between the two births when Nicodemus asks "how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus says that a man must be born naturally (water) and spiritually (the Spirit). This is emphasized in the next verse when it says "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. DO NOT MARVEL..."

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (Jn 3:1-8)

There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him. (1 Peter 3:21,22)

It's not baptism by water that saves, but a spiritual baptism (death to the flesh and being born of the spirit), a spiritual rebirth.

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Rom 10:8-11)

"But those things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart..." (Matt 15:18)

If you believe in your heart on Jesus Christ, then you will not be ashamed and from your mouth public proclamation will be made. As followers of Christ, one will be baptised by water because Jesus commanded us that we should and if we love His commands, that's what we'll do. But to say one must be baptised by water in order to be saved is to add works to a salvation which comes only by the grace of God through faith.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8)

The thief on the cross was not baptized by water and the Lord said, "today you will be with Me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) Why did Jesus say it? Because the thief believed on Jesus Christ and was saved. God revealed that truth to him so it remains that God was gracious to save a thief, even gracious enough to save me. Savation is by grace, by faith, not by works or by a water baptism. Even John said that though he baptized by water, one was coming who would baptize us with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matt 3:11)

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:4,5)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

My comments in this post are meant to inform, not convince, okay PC? I won't get into trying to prove my beliefs are true, I just want to explain how the LDS beliefs fit together practically, whether you believe them to be true or not. Here we go:

1. Entry into the Celestial Kingdom is at least partly dependent on someone post-mortem finding my information, and performing the ceremony. If my name doesn't get found, I'm out of the Celestial Kingdom.

LDS believe that during the Millenium, temples will dot the earth. With the aid of direct revelation and ministering of angels, every name of every person who didn't have a chance to receive saving ordinances will be compiled. Consequently, there will be a 1,000 year period to perform ordinances for the dead. It will be a "No soul left behind," kinda thing. :)

2. Many Christians, myself included, do not agree that their are any ritualistic requirements attached to salvation.

And that's fine. I'm just explaining that if someone did think ordinances were required, the Lord has prepared every good thing to allow everyone the same chance to accept them (whether during life or death).

How would you compare the age of apostasy in the Christian church with typical periods of degeneration in Israel (under wicked kings, during times of prolific syncretism with surrounding Pagans)?

I wouldn't say they were equal in intensity or completeness. For sure, from Malachi to Christ I consider a classic apostasy: no prophets (read: priesthood leader) and I'd say probable distortion of doctrine. But that's just my opinion and in that light, not worth much. I would have no qualms saying that the Great Apostasy (the one of Christ's New Testament Church) was unique in many respects.

Are you essentially saying that the COJCLDS is the Third Covenenant (Old, New, LDS?) God has offered to his people? Or, perhaps, the restitution of the lost second one?

Absolutely the restitution or restoration of the New Testament Covenant (read: Church). At the risk of being a broken record, the two key parts of God's covenant with any dispensation/covenant (new or old) are: (1) authority to speak for God and perform ordinances; (2) correct knowledge of God and ordinances. This is an extreme exercise in "Cliffs Notes-condensing," but I think it suffices.

My sense is that Jesus was moving us away from dependence on organizations and man-made systems of worship and ritual...

However, the church organization Christ established during his ministry (apostles/bishops/deacons/elders/seventies etc...) was not man-made, but God-given. I see God's kingdom as one of order, and an organized church as God's way of administering salvation in an orderly and not chaotic manner.

Aside from LDS beliefs and revelations (that's cutting away a lot), my reading of the Old and New Testaments leads me to conclude that God always governs, guides and saves His people within a structure of priesthood offices and ordinances.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Jesus says that a man must be born naturally (water) and spiritually (the Spirit).

That's your take on it and that's fine. I simply disagree. The twin ordinances I see repeatedly occuring in the New Testament are baptism by immersion and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. An especially significant example of this teaching is in Acts 2:37-38 on the Day of Pentecost:

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Peter's answer sounds awfully similar to being born of water and Spirit. I'm not trying to convince you really, so I'll just leave it at that.

It's not baptism by water that saves, but a spiritual baptism (death to the flesh and being born of the spirit), a spiritual rebirth.

Jesus Christ's grace saves us. Ordinances are ways he has given to access that grace. Nothing more, nothing less. A core LDS doctrine is that one must be spiritually reborn to be saved. It's how we define it that's different.

As followers of Christ, one will be baptised by water because Jesus commanded us that we should and if we love His commands, that's what we'll do. But to say one must be baptised by water in order to be saved is to add works to a salvation which comes only by the grace of God through faith.

This seems awfully picky. If we ignore Christ's commandments, I don't see how we'd qualify for salvation. So if Jesus commanded us to be baptized, I don't see how we'd qualify for salvation if we aren't baptized. It's not that there's something magical about the water or anything. It's a commandment of our Lord. That's all I'm saying. Why is that so blasphemous?

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8)

This is verse doesn't condemn "works" like baptism. Please be mindful of context. Here's a Pauline guide that will never do you wrong:

(1) Whenever Paul mentions "the law" in his epistles he almost always means "the Law of Moses" with its myriad required rites of purification/animal sacrifice/death penalties for sin, etc...

(2) Whenever Paul mentions "works" in his epistles he almost always means satisfying the the Law of Moses's requirements.

(3) Whenever Paul mentions "the law" and "works" in his epistles, he almost always does so to prove that they are unable to save, and that only Jesus saves.

What Paul is saying in the above scripture (and almost all his epistles) is, "Hey, listen up! It doesn't matter how many bullocks you burn, how many Passovers you keep, how many times you read the Shema, whether you have phylacteries or not...none of those works of the Law of Moses will save you. Jesus Christ's grace alone can bring salvation, and you can't access that grace through the Law of Moses."

The thief on the cross was not baptized by water and the Lord said, "today you will be with Me in paradise."

LDS believe that there are two "waiting places" between death and judgment called spirit paradise and spirit prison. Even if this thief deserved to go to spirit paradise while waiting for judgment, that doesn't mean he would sit down with Christ in his throne (as per Rev. 3:21) at Judgment Day. If baptism isn't necessary, why did Jesus even bother to teach it, and be an example by being baptized himself (even though he had no sins to wash away)? I find few examples in the scriptures where Jesus taught anything "optional" about the requirements of salvation.

Even John said that though he baptized by water, one was coming who would baptize us with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matt 3:11)

Precisely. Another name for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is being baptized by fire...it's symbolic. Think of the tongues of flame on Pentecost as an example of this. :) So again, water baptism and receiving the Spirit...twin ordinances of salvation.