Unexplainable things in scripture


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

The title of this thread is rather unusual – I will use this with the possibility that someone may suggest a better title.

I was recently rereading scriptures in the current “Come Follow Me” lessons for this year.  I was reading in Matt chapter 2 when I pondered – how can this be – how could this possibly happen as presented.  Here is the scripture:

Quote

1 Now when Jesus was aborn in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2 Saying, aWhere is he that is born bKing of the Jews? for we have seen his cstar in the east, and are come to dworship him.

3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 aAnd when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he bdemanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judæa: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6 And thou aBethlehem, in the land of bJuda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a cGovernor, that shall drule my people Israel.

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

Now let me explain what is so unbelievable to me.  Herod has the witness of foreign “wise men” from the east that the future “King” of the Jews has been born and that this king will be the promised Messiah or Christ (see verse 4).   This witness goes not just to Herod but to all the chief priests and scribes of the people in Jerusalem.  It is not that all these individuals do not believe in G-d or his prophecies – in fact they do believe – they know and understand the significances.  Now the unbelievable part – with all their respect and belief in scripture they believe; they determine to rebel against G-d and attempt to oppose and prevent G-d from fulfilling scriptural prophecy. 

As a student of the Dead Sea Scrolls – I have often pondered how it was that not so far from Jerusalem scholars, priests and scribes had gathered waiting for Christ to be born.  They even appeared to understand perhaps even the year of his birth – they had to have known.  The birth of Christ was not a secret.  We have a group of shepherds running around the very place where everyone knew he would be born saying they had seen angles showing them where to find the Christ.  Yet no one from the Dead Sea seemed to be able to find the Christ?  How could this be?  How could have so many have missed that which is so obvious?  UNBELIEVABLE!!

 

The Traveler

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pride has a way of causing men to do spectacularly irrational and hypocritical things--like when believers in God assume that mere mortals can thwart the will and prophesies of God.

What the scribes and other religious leaders counter-intuitively attempted at Christ's birth wasn't all that different from their hypocritical involvement in his death, not excluding placing guards at and sealing the tomb--as if that would make a difference. (.Mt 27:62-66)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

They were expecting a King.  Not a poor carpenter's son born in the barn.

Yes, this.  The thing about Jesus is that he looked like everyone else.  Without the spirit, people wouldn't recognize him as the Son of God. 

Even much later in life, many people couldn't believe that he was the Messiah because they were expecting a warrior/king that would deliver the Jews from the Roman Empire.  They didn't expect a Messiah that would spend time with sinners and the lowly, let alone Roman tax collectors.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, anatess2 said:

They were expecting a King.  Not a poor carpenter's son born in the barn.

Not according to the narrative in Matt 2.  Bethlehem was not considered the ideal place of birth for the influential and powerful.    I can understand that they may have thought that the Messiah would grow up to be the legendary king and liberator - but they knew full well the birth would happen in an otherwise insignificant and lowly place despised and avoided by the ruling upper class.  If they had wanted - anyone could have found the Christ child just from the witness of the shepherds and what they had "spread abroad" - which means beyond natural boundaries. 

What I am trying to point out - is that their error was not a misunderstanding of scripture nor was it because of disbelief or doubt.  They knew full well the divine signs of heaven and the prophecies of scripture were being fulfilled - yet they were so filled with darkness - they took all their knowledge and understanding of scripture and sacred things with deliberate intention to thwart G-d and his promises.  For the first time in all my longings for understanding scripture I did not even consider that such darkness could dwell in the hearts and minds of religious leaders - especially those so connected to truth and divine revelation.  No wonder that as soon of Jesus opened his mouth and spoke - they immediately sought to kill him.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not according to the narrative in Matt 2.  Bethlehem was not considered the ideal place of birth for the influential and powerful.    I can understand that they may have thought that the Messiah would grow up to be the legendary king and liberator - but they knew full well the birth would happen in an otherwise insignificant and lowly place despised and avoided by the ruling upper class.  If they had wanted - anyone could have found the Christ child just from the witness of the shepherds and what they had "spread abroad" - which means beyond natural boundaries. 

What I am trying to point out - is that their error was not a misunderstanding of scripture nor was it because of disbelief or doubt.  They knew full well the divine signs of heaven and the prophecies of scripture were being fulfilled - yet they were so filled with darkness - they took all their knowledge and understanding of scripture and sacred things with deliberate intention to thwart G-d and his promises.  For the first time in all my longings for understanding scripture I did not even consider that such darkness could dwell in the hearts and minds of religious leaders - especially those so connected to truth and divine revelation.  No wonder that as soon of Jesus opened his mouth and spoke - they immediately sought to kill him.

 

The Traveler

I disagree with this statement just by the plain fact that Jews - who has managed to preserve their traditions until today - do not believe Jesus as the promised Messiah.  I wouldn't proclaim that Jews have such darkness as to deliberately thwart God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I disagree with this statement just by the plain fact that Jews - who has managed to preserve their traditions until today - do not believe Jesus as the promised Messiah.  I wouldn't proclaim that Jews have such darkness as to deliberately thwart God.

I am not talking about all Jews - I am talking specifically of those leaders (chief priests and scribes) that that were "troubled" with the prospect of the Christ and met with Herod to determine where Christ would be born.  (see Matthew 2:3-6).  I as specifically talking about those that were "troubled" with the wise men coming from the east to worship the Jewish Christ.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am not talking about all Jews - I am talking specifically of those leaders (chief priests and scribes) that that were "troubled" with the prospect of the Christ and met with Herod to determine where Christ would be born.  (see Matthew 2:3-6).  I as specifically talking about those that were "troubled" with the wise men coming from the east to worship the Jewish Christ.

 

The Traveler

The verses supplied does not say anything about chiefs and scribes being troubled.  Herod was troubled.  Not the chiefs nor scribes.  It did mention that Jerusalem was troubled as they understood as a threat to their King is present, not that the Messiah is born.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The verses supplied does not say anything about chiefs and scribes being troubled.  Herod was troubled.  Not the chiefs nor scribes.  It did mention that Jerusalem was troubled as they understood as a threat to their King is present, not that the Messiah is born.

Read verse 4 a little more carefully.  It was exactly about where the Messiah, "Christ" was to be born.  Herod knew it was all about the Christ and so did the chief priests and scribes - because they told Herod exactly what little village was the birthplace of the Christ.  Read it again - the chief priests and scribes were troubled with Herod with what the wise men has come for and were saying.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Read verse 4 a little more carefully.  It was exactly about where the Messiah, "Christ" was to be born.  Herod knew it was all about the Christ and so did the chief priests and scribes - because they told Herod exactly what little village was the birthplace of the Christ.  Read it again - the chief priests and scribes were troubled with Herod with what the wise men has come for and were saying.

 

The Traveler

The verses are written in the point of view of Herod.  Herod learned this, Herod did that, etc.

Also, Verse 3 and Verse 4 is not one event.  

Verse 3 - Herod is troubled.  Jerusalem is also troubled - but this does not necessarily mean the Jews were troubled that the Messiah is born.  It could also mean that the Jews were troubled that Herod was troubled about the King of the Jews possibly being born... as the Romans may be tolerant of the Jews not practicing the state religion but only up to the point of it not threatening Roman rule.  The Jews were experienced in Romans killing Jews when slightly provoked.

Verse 4 - Herod gathered chiefs and scribes to know more about the prophesy.  Doesn't say anything about them sharing Herod's concerns about the King of the Jews being born as a threat to Roman rule.

All in all, the Jews have been waiting and waiting for the King of the Jews to deliver them from the oppression of the Romans.  The fact that Jesus did not do this in the way that the Jews expected is the reason that Jews, to this day, are still waiting for the promised Messiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2019 at 4:25 AM, Traveler said:

Now let me explain what is so unbelievable to me.  Herod has the witness of foreign “wise men” from the east that the future “King” of the Jews has been born and that this king will be the promised Messiah or Christ (see verse 4).   This witness goes not just to Herod but to all the chief priests and scribes of the people in Jerusalem.  It is not that all these individuals do not believe in G-d or his prophecies – in fact they do believe – they know and understand the significances.  Now the unbelievable part – with all their respect and belief in scripture they believe; they determine to rebel against G-d and attempt to oppose and prevent G-d from fulfilling scriptural prophecy. 

As a student of the Dead Sea Scrolls – I have often pondered how it was that not so far from Jerusalem scholars, priests and scribes had gathered waiting for Christ to be born.  They even appeared to understand perhaps even the year of his birth – they had to have known.  The birth of Christ was not a secret.  We have a group of shepherds running around the very place where everyone knew he would be born saying they had seen angles showing them where to find the Christ.  Yet no one from the Dead Sea seemed to be able to find the Christ?  How could this be?  How could have so many have missed that which is so obvious?  UNBELIEVABLE!!

 

The Traveler

.

I have sometimes wandered similar things. The manner in which the Jews responded to Jesus suggests to me that the law of Moses, which the people had been practicing for more than a thousand years completely failed in its primary purpose of preparing a people to accept Jesus. The law of Moses was a God-given law, designed and given by God to His chosen people, and re-iterated and emphasised by prophets for centuries, and yet it appears to have substantially failed in its primary purpose of preparing this people for Jesus, as partially evidenced by the fact that the leaders of the Jewish people used their knowledge of prophetic teachings, to conspire with a man they knew to be a tyrant, to act against Jesus. Its hard to understand the lack of success of this divinely prepared plan for God's chosen people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it would be a similar situation today.  If the Lord came among men, not in an angelic progression from the heavens, but just to visit, and did miracles among them as he did for the Nephites and the Lamanites, how willing would people accept him?

If a prophet came among the Latter-day Saints but did NOT get authority from the Twelve or the First Presidency and then proceeded to command a mountain from one spot to the other, healed the sick, taught to the poor, and mingled with those we see as destitute and sinners as he taught them and criticized the Leaders of the world...how many of you think the Church leadership would LEAP to SUPPORT him.

Do you think they would proclaim him?  Or is it more likely they'd either ignore him or warn members that as he had not followed their specific chain of priesthood authority that he was not to be adhered to, despite the obvious miracles?

How many other Christian churches do you think would proclaim this visit?

And then he left again as it was just a visit prior to his official coming...how many do you think would actually support that he had a visit?

Many expect that when the Lord comes he will arrive and talk at General Conference or that the General Authorities will be made instantly aware...but what if that didn't happen.  What if, when he came he proclaimed that the Church Leadership was to no longer be the Church leadership and only he was to lead...what would their reaction be today?

I think in that instance, it will be MORE on what we hear from the Spirit and whether it confirms his words.  So far, everyone who has said something like this has been an imposter...but what about the day, if it comes, when it actually is not?

Do you expect that unless he arrives by some miraculous manner, that the Leadership of the Church would suddenly give up their leadership and bow down to an individual who had not received the authority in the prescribed manner as dictated by our Priesthood lines of authority and ordination to office that we do today?

Hopefully, today, they would...and will when the second coming arrives (which we do expect to have a glorious arrival), but this describes the type of situation that the Jews had when he came originally.

This is the situation we are talking about in the New Testament. 

They expected someone to come as a Savior from their enemies in glory and a great manifestation to their church leaders.  Those Church leaders expected someone who would be one of THEM, and had the authority granted by the measures granted in the church, as well as having constant glorious manifestations to THEM.

That is NOT what happened.

Thus, he represented a direct challenge to their authority and power as well as to the organizational lines of the Church of the time.  For all intents and purposes, with his Twelve Apostles, his ideas would be disbanding their leadership and replacing it with new ones.

It was a hard thing to accept for a normal Jew, much less a Church leader who had much of their identity engulfed within the current Jewish religion. 

When faced with such things people want to either keep to the Status Quo and get rid of the challenge, or if in power, keep their power and prestige and do all they can to diminish the power and prestige of the challenger.

Just like today where those in power might try to retain that power and diminish the impact of the Lord if he should come, which would make those who are the normal individual also wonder whether to believe the media and their leaders or not...this is very much like what happened anciently when he came to them as their Savior and Messiah.

As we see, some listened to the spirit or felt it and followed him, but many did not.  I think in some ways if it had happened today (rather than the meridian of time) it would actually turn out very similar in some ways.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If a prophet came among the Latter-day Saints but did NOT get authority from the Twelve or the First Presidency and then proceeded to command a mountain from one spot to the other, healed the sick, taught to the poor, and mingled with those we see as destitute and sinners as he taught them and criticized the Leaders of the world...how many of you think the Church leadership would LEAP to SUPPORT him.

Such a thing would likely constitute proof of the falseness of the Church's claim to authority. No man would, or could, come in the name of Jesus Christ and yet be independent of the kingdom of God. Or, at best, it would show that works of faith are not limited to Church members, a thing we already realize. But such a man as you invent above, if real, would quickly submit himself to the authority of the kingdom of God, once he realized the Church's identity.

You appear to be trying to suggest that Church leaders are corrupt and Pharisaical, hypocritically denying the power of God in a bid to solidify their own power base. Do you believe such tripe? If not, why would you ever suggest such a thing?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2019 at 9:25 AM, Traveler said:

Now let me explain what is so unbelievable to me.  Herod has the witness of foreign “wise men” from the east that the future “King” of the Jews has been born and that this king will be the promised Messiah or Christ (see verse 4).   This witness goes not just to Herod but to all the chief priests and scribes of the people in Jerusalem.  It is not that all these individuals do not believe in G-d or his prophecies – in fact they do believe – they know and understand the significances.  Now the unbelievable part – with all their respect and belief in scripture they believe; they determine to rebel against G-d and attempt to oppose and prevent G-d from fulfilling scriptural prophecy.

Occurrence: Jesus miraculously heals a man on the Sabbath day.
Result: "How DARE you do the work of healing on the Sabbath!"

Occurrence: Pilate offers the Jews a choice of freedom between two condemned men, one a convicted murderer and the other a performer miracles of healing.
Result: "Give us Barabbas!"

Occurrence: God provides a world for us and a path of redemption for our failures.
Result: "Life isn't FAIR! I HATE God! He'll sure get an earful when I finally see him! Until then, I'm doing whatever I want!"

Certain political parties have long strived, and with more than a little success, to convince us that the solution to government overreach and interference is more government. Foolishness is the universal condition of mortality, and bad judgment plagues us all; but there is no cure for willful stupidity other than turning away from such sinfulness. This is just one modern manifestation among many of the same unbelievable idiocy mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2019 at 10:19 AM, anatess2 said:

The verses are written in the point of view of Herod.  Herod learned this, Herod did that, etc.

Also, Verse 3 and Verse 4 is not one event.  

Verse 3 - Herod is troubled.  Jerusalem is also troubled - but this does not necessarily mean the Jews were troubled that the Messiah is born.  It could also mean that the Jews were troubled that Herod was troubled about the King of the Jews possibly being born... as the Romans may be tolerant of the Jews not practicing the state religion but only up to the point of it not threatening Roman rule.  The Jews were experienced in Romans killing Jews when slightly provoked.

Verse 4 - Herod gathered chiefs and scribes to know more about the prophesy.  Doesn't say anything about them sharing Herod's concerns about the King of the Jews being born as a threat to Roman rule.

All in all, the Jews have been waiting and waiting for the King of the Jews to deliver them from the oppression of the Romans.  The fact that Jesus did not do this in the way that the Jews expected is the reason that Jews, to this day, are still waiting for the promised Messiah.

You do realize that Herod was a declared, studied and practicing Jew from his birth.  Also he was not at odds with the chief priests and scribes - at least not near so as was Jesus.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Occurrence: Jesus miraculously heals a man on the Sabbath day.
Result: "How DARE you do the work of healing on the Sabbath!"

Occurrence: Pilate offers the Jews a choice of freedom between two condemned men, one a convicted murderer and the other a performer miracles of healing.
Result: "Give us Barabbas!"

Occurrence: God provides a world for us and a path of redemption for our failures.
Result: "Life isn't FAIR! I HATE God! He'll sure get an earful when I finally see him! Until then, I'm doing whatever I want!"

Certain political parties have long strived, and with more than a little success, to convince us that the solution to government overreach and interference is more government. Foolishness is the universal condition of mortality, and bad judgment plagues us all; but there is no cure for willful stupidity other than turning away from such sinfulness. This is just one modern manifestation among many of the same unbelievable idiocy mentioned above.

Since you have brought political parties into the picture - I believe that a similar example in modern times would be more like elected president from a particular political party openly seeking to murder a brilliant and popular rising star in the same political party.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 9:05 AM, Vort said:

Such a thing would likely constitute proof of the falseness of the Church's claim to authority. No man would, or could, come in the name of Jesus Christ and yet be independent of the kingdom of God. Or, at best, it would show that works of faith are not limited to Church members, a thing we already realize. But such a man as you invent above, if real, would quickly submit himself to the authority of the kingdom of God, once he realized the Church's identity.

You appear to be trying to suggest that Church leaders are corrupt and Pharisaical, hypocritically denying the power of God in a bid to solidify their own power base. Do you believe such tripe? If not, why would you ever suggest such a thing?

No, not anymore than it did in previous eras.

Was the Church false when the Lord came in his mortal ministry.

Absolutely NOT!!!

In fact, it was the ONE TRUE religion.  Of course, the REAL leader, John the Baptist was out in the Desert at that point rather than in accolades where his father used to be, but the Church was still the Church.

The Lord merely pointed out the hypocrisy of it's leaders (beyond John the official hierarchy, even as he probably participated in all of it in it fullness and correctly observed it's laws as given by Moses), and noted the scriptures, truths, and beliefs of the church at the same time.  In fact, as per the commandment, he actually was BAPTIZED to show that even he would follow the commandments and set an example.

However, even if he had been given church authority officially, he was not recognized as the Leader of the Church and as such was a threat to the political power and religious authority of those who were recognized as such.

This is a pattern that has occurred with the true church and prophets sent several times throughout the scriptures.

The Book of Mormon shows this as well.  First with Lehi most likely, as in that time Laban appears to be the holder of the plates and perhaps the leader selected for religious ideas to hold them.  Lehi, obviously is the one who does not possess the plates and any attempts to do so had Laban vigorously defend them.  He even sought out the deaths of Lehi's sons.

Later, we have King Noah who also had a church with prescribed priests and scribes.  They were given the authority and it is perhaps that Alma himself had the correct authority given (we never see that he was given it again, per se...in order to Baptize, but that he did go and baptize himself and others).  In either light, they had the gospel (which was reemphasized by Abinadi) but ignored it.  When a prophet was called outside their reign of religious hierarchy, they too rejected it.  That did not mean that their gospel was false, but that they ignored it and blatantly sinned.

Again, we have Samuel the Lamanite.  At that time, we also had Nephi leading the official church by all appearances.  HOWEVER, apparently he did NOT write down the words of Samuel and thus, even though the common folk recognized him, the Church perhaps did not officially recognize him as a prophet.  It had to be ordered by the Savior himself to write record these words of Samuel the Lamanite.

This is a prime example of a prophet being sent, but not officially recognized by the Church in writing as such with their words being written in the way approved by the Lord.  That said, it did NOT change that Nephi nor others were the prophets nor that they were servants of the Lord and received revelation.

Thus, we would HOPE that the Church leaders today would recognize a messenger from the Lord, but if scriptures are any indication, there is no guarantee to it.

What we should be on guard today for is the general pattern of the church from prior decades.  It seems that around every 150-200 years there starts to be a drift from the original organization of the Church.  We see it in Alma to the time of the Lord's coming.  We see it in the time from the Lord's coming to the start of the drift of the Nephite/Lamanite civilization and their extinction.  We see it with the great apostasy.  It never happens all at once, but with small, little changes that eventually end up in GREAT and MASSIVE changes.  Nephi was still a prophet when the great wickedness occurred prior to the Lord's death and coming to America, but the church had swerved a great deal from what it had been when Alma organized it over a century prior.  The same thing happened prior to the Days of Mormon as the church started to have those who fell away (which is astounding when you think about it, up until then they even had three Nephites and physical as well as spiritual witnesses to those who fell away).

These do not always cause the church to stop being the church, but does lead to incorrect doctrines and other such items to be taught, even as the Priesthood is still carried within the church.

Am I saying the church is at this point currently.

No.

I am saying that, just like Nephi did not record the words of Samuel the Lamanite to the Lord's desire as per what we find out from his visit to the Nephites in  America after his death, that if such a messenger came, they may not officially recognize it.  HOPEFULLY they would, but they might not. 

Thus, if this is what may happen today, that what happened then may be repeated.  Even if our church authorities DID recognize such, in all likelihood most authorities would not (at least that's my estimation) as he would be outside the typical hierarchy of power and authority from a mortal standpoint.  Until he comes in GREAT power from the heavens as predicted at the siege and fall of Jerusalem in the Last Battle of the Last Days...most probably would not recognize him for who he was, even if he performed miracles as he did in his mortal ministry.

Therefore, to think that it was obvious to them  (when they were looking for such a glorious type manifestation, or that he would be set apart and recognized as such by the hierarchies of power recognized by mortal men) is not necessarily correct.

I think they DID recognize him eventually (and were trying to protect their power in such) but, that is not necessarily absolute in being correct or accurate. 

More aptly, I feel that today we probably have MANY angelic messengers and other servants from on high coming to earth to minister and aid.  However, how many times do you think they are recognized as such or seen, even by those within the church?  If nothing else, that probably goes to show just how often we would recognize them today, in the first place.

Thus, what makes us (speaking collectively as a population) think that somehow that is going to miraculously change overnight?

If we (once again, as the population of the earth) do not recognize such things when it happens to us today, or at least broadcast it so that others may know as a testimony of these things, why do you think it is suddenly going to change tomorrow?

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Was the Church false when the Lord came in his mortal ministry.

Absolutely NOT!!!

In fact, it was the ONE TRUE religion.  Of course, the REAL leader, John the Baptist was out in the Desert at that point rather than in accolades where his father used to be, but the Church was still the Church.

This is inaccurate. Jesus Christ was of course the REAL leader of his Church, not John the Baptist. John the Baptist did not establish a church; he merely baptized people for the remission of sins in anticipation of Christ.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Lord merely pointed out the hypocrisy of it's leaders (beyond John the official hierarchy, even as he probably participated in all of it in it fullness and correctly observed it's laws as given by Moses), and noted the scriptures, truths, and beliefs of the church at the same time.

You are confused as to what constitutes a "church". The Jews of Jesus' time were not organized into a "church". They held a hereditary Priesthood and operated according to the ancient way. Jesus himself organized his "church" from among those Jews who followed him. There were prophets, and there were traditions, and there were feast days and recognized seats of authority, but there was no "church" structure in the modern sense until Jesus organized such a thing.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Again, we have Samuel the Lamanite.  At that time, we also had Nephi leading the official church by all appearances.  HOWEVER, apparently he did NOT write down the words of Samuel and thus, even though the common folk recognized him, the Church perhaps did not officially recognize him as a prophet.  It had to be ordered by the Savior himself to write record these words of Samuel the Lamanite.

...

I am saying that, just like Nephi did not record the words of Samuel the Lamanite to the Lord's desire as per what we find out from his visit to the Nephites in  America after his death, that if such a messenger came, they may not officially recognize it.

This is just plain false. Samuel the Lamanite's words were indeed recorded, as Nephi told the Lord. Samuel was widely recognized as a prophet. You have misread the scriptures on this matter, and are simply wrong.

Setting aside for the moment your mistaken claims and errant attempts to illustrate what you're saying, here is what appears to be the thrust of your argument:

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Later, we have King Noah who also had a church with prescribed priests and scribes.  They were given the authority and it is perhaps that Alma himself had the correct authority given (we never see that he was given it again, per se...in order to Baptize, but that he did go and baptize himself and others).  In either light, they had the gospel (which was reemphasized by Abinadi) but ignored it.  When a prophet was called outside their reign of religious hierarchy, they too rejected it.  That did not mean that their gospel was false, but that they ignored it and blatantly sinned.

Again, we have Samuel the Lamanite.  [...] the Church perhaps did not officially recognize him as a prophet. [...]

This is a prime example of a prophet being sent, but not officially recognized by the Church in writing as such with their words being written in the way approved by the Lord. [...]

Thus, we would HOPE that the Church leaders today would recognize a messenger from the Lord, but if scriptures are any indication, there is no guarantee to it.

What we should be on guard today for is the general pattern of the church from prior decades.  It seems that around every 150-200 years there starts to be a drift from the original organization of the Church.  [...]  It never happens all at once, but with small, little changes that eventually end up in GREAT and MASSIVE changes.

[...]

I am saying that, just like Nephi did not record the words of Samuel the Lamanite to the Lord's desire as per what we find out from his visit to the Nephites in  America after his death, that if such a messenger came, they [meaning, I presume, the leadership of the Church] may not officially recognize it.  HOPEFULLY they would, but they might not.

JJ, this is false. You are dangerously wrong. If you think you can look for prophets of God teaching the truths of the gospel with power and authority, yet not sanctioned by the leaders of God's own kingdom, you are following the apostasy of the Snufferites and countless other groups. I urge you to rethink what you have written above. You should first correct your numerous factual errors from what you wrote before. After getting that information straight, you should carefully, thoroughly, and prayerfully reconsider the bolded parts above that you have proclaimed. You are mistaken, and such a mistake might eventually lead to tragic results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This is inaccurate. Jesus Christ was of course the REAL leader of his Church, not John the Baptist. John the Baptist did not establish a church; he merely baptized people for the remission of sins in anticipation of Christ.

You are confused as to what constitutes a "church". The Jews of Jesus' time were not organized into a "church". They held a hereditary Priesthood and operated according to the ancient way. Jesus himself organized his "church" from among those Jews who followed him. There were prophets, and there were traditions, and there were feast days and recognized seats of authority, but there was no "church" structure in the modern sense until Jesus organized such a thing.

This is just plain false. Samuel the Lamanite's words were indeed recorded, as Nephi told the Lord. Samuel was widely recognized as a prophet. You have misread the scriptures on this matter, and are simply wrong.

Setting aside for the moment your mistaken claims and errant attempts to illustrate what you're saying, here is what appears to be the thrust of your argument:

JJ, this is false. You are dangerously wrong. If you think you can look for prophets of God teaching the truths of the gospel with power and authority, yet not sanctioned by the leaders of God's own kingdom, you are following the apostasy of the Snufferites and countless other groups. I urge you to rethink what you have written above. You should first correct your numerous factual errors from what you wrote before. After getting that information straight, you should carefully, thoroughly, and prayerfully reconsider the bolded parts above that you have proclaimed. You are mistaken, and such a mistake might eventually lead to tragic results.

You know, false witness against your neighbor is NOT a good sin to possess...

In your haste to try to condemn me you left out a very important statement I made...which was..

Quote

Am I saying the church is at this point currently.

No.

Charging unfounded accusations against me probably does NOT bring out the best in me, but I am reminded that perhaps you should look at things you have said on other topics on the board which are FAR closer to apostasy then anything I have even thought about.  I try to find common ground with people typically, but your false accusations have probably put me in a mood which I should not be in.

Who is the President of the Church right now?  Who is the leader of the mortal Hierarchy?  Is the Lord the leader of the church and does he have all the keys to this dispensation?

As per some statements by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, when he comes again, the keys will need to be given from the Presidents of the Church.  Who will they give it to and Why?

In this same regards, the gospel was STILL true when the Lord came.  The leaders of the church were STILL the leaders of the church.  Unlike Alma who had the ability to baptize himself, the Lord, of necessity, needed to go to John to be Baptized.  John was the TRUE holder of that authority at that time.  The Lord is thought to have received many of the keys and authority that was necessary at the Mount of Transfiguration AFTER the baptism.

Even then, just like he would be today if he suddenly showed up, he is OUTSIDE the mortal hierarchy that has been set up.  He is within the HEAVENLY hierarchy but the keys and such for this dispensation are still held by the President of our church. 

The religious leaders of his time did not suddenly stop being the leaders, the Priests did not suddenly stop being able to do sacrifice (and in fact, they were commanded and were necessary to keep obeying the Law of Moses, even though the Lord was here in mortality) or follow the law of Moses simply because the Lord had been born.  He came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it.  John recognized the Lord, and it was a good thing, but there were probably many who did not.

Even his own apostles, who knew him better than probably anyone alive today, did not know him at times after the resurrection when he came to them unless he revealed it to them.

Do you think that the apostles today are different than Peter or James or John?  Do you think that somehow they are more righteous than the personal friends the Lord chose to be his apostles during his mortal ministry and to be the first ones to lead HIS church and spread his gospel after his resurrection?

Do I think he has already come...

No, I do not.

And I would hope that if he did the General Authorities of the Church would know, but I'm pretty sure that there will be MANY leaders that do not throughout the world.  If he so does it in a way that the Church leaders also do not know, I am not going to hold that against him either.  When he comes in his glory all will know, but prior to that, he will decide if he does appear and to who he makes that apparent to.

I will add a follow on, as the post you responded to was NOT what you actually were responding to, and I'll actually repost it again so that you have the proper context of your accusation...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated

Quote

 a prophet came among the Latter-day Saints but did NOT get authority from the Twelve or the First Presidency and then proceeded to command a mountain from one spot to the other, healed the sick, taught to the poor, and mingled with those we see as destitute and sinners as he taught them and criticized the Leaders of the world...how many of you think the Church leadership would LEAP to SUPPORT him.

Do you think they would proclaim him?  Or is it more likely they'd either ignore him or warn members that as he had not followed their specific chain of priesthood authority that he was not to be adhered to, despite the obvious miracles?

How many other Christian churches do you think would proclaim this visit?

And then he left again as it was just a visit prior to his official coming...how many do you think would actually support that he had a visit?

Many expect that when the Lord comes he will arrive and talk at General Conference or that the General Authorities will be made instantly aware...but what if that didn't happen.  What if, when he came he proclaimed that the Church Leadership was to no longer be the Church leadership and only he was to lead...what would their reaction be today?

I think in that instance, it will be MORE on what we hear from the Spirit and whether it confirms his words.  So far, everyone who has said something like this has been an imposter...but what about the day, if it comes, when it actually is not?

Do you expect that unless he arrives by some miraculous manner, that the Leadership of the Church would suddenly give up their leadership and bow down to an individual who had not received the authority in the prescribed manner as dictated by our Priesthood lines of authority and ordination to office that we do today?

Hopefully, today, they would...and will when the second coming arrives (which we do expect to have a glorious arrival), but this describes the type of situation that the Jews had when he came originally.

As I stated, hopefully they would recognize him. 

That is my hope.

I DO NOT KNOW that this will occur, and I find putting blind faith in any individual, especially as we have no idea who may be leading the church at that point or what the circumstances or situation may be, is particularly fallacious.

I HOPE...but I do not know.  That is what faith is composed of.

You have leapt upon this as if faith is not enough and interpreted it viciously in a manner that has NOTHING to do with what I actually stated.

What I was doing was appropriating a modern day example of what it might have been for with the Jews in the Holy Land at the time.

In this, it is VERY pertinent to us, far more than casting accusations against the mote in a brother's (or sisters) eye.

What we need is to listen to the Spirit.  This is what eluded MANY of those who were at Jerusalem at the time.  Instead of listening to the Lord or having it revealed to them as Peter did in regards to the Lord, they relied on other factors.  This meant that many did NOT believe in the Lord and that the Jews that converted to Christianity were not the majority of the Jews at the time.  The followers of the Lord in his lifetime, though perhaps in the thousands, were still few in number comparatively.

The lesson then is what will be different for us today.  If we were in that same situation, would we have followed John the Baptist?  Would we have converted to the Lord's teachings.  Would we have listened to the Pharasees or the scribes, or others?  Would we have tried to stop practicing the Law of Moses as some did in the Book of Mormon?  What would WE, as individuals do.

The key is that we cannot rely solely on others for our own testimony.  We each need to have that testimony ourselves and rely on the Spirit, rather than what others specifically dictate to us to believe or to think. 

So do I have faith that our leaders would recognize him.

Absolutely. 

Do I KNOW that this will be the case?

I  don't.  For all I know they will be in hiding, though they will still be there and the church exists, but unable to convey it to all the members out there.  They may not be able to discuss it.  There maybe all sorts of other factors that I have no clue what is in store. 

However, if we have the SPIRIT to guide us, then perhaps, just like those few that followed the Lord in his mortal ministry, and later the Christians that converted and withstood all sorts of persecution, we can know for ourselves if we meet the Lord or his messengers without having to rely on others to tell us that it is so and when he comes again, perhaps in the temple or at an appointed place and time prior to the glorious arrival at Jerusalem, we will recognize him regardless. 

Without the spirit to guide us, we are much like many of those in Jerusalem who did not recognize the Savior, nor believe in him when he came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Traveler said:

You do realize that Herod was a declared, studied and practicing Jew from his birth.  Also he was not at odds with the chief priests and scribes - at least not near so as was Jesus.

 

The Traveler

Herod was not a Jew even as he was raised Jewish according to the desire of his father.  If he was Jewish, he'd be the prophesied King of the Jews.  Which he is not.

He may not be at odds with the priests and scribes but that doesn't change the fact that when Jews do Jewish things in defiance of Romans like construct Jewish monuments, the Romans still killed Jews of Jerusalem.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Herod was not a Jew even as he was raised Jewish according to the desire of his father.  If he was Jewish, he'd be the prophesied King of the Jews.  Which he is not.

He may not be at odds with the priests and scribes but that doesn't change the fact that when Jews do Jewish things in defiance of Romans like construct Jewish monuments, the Romans still killed Jews of Jerusalem.

As I understand Herod's father was a convert to Judaism but was of Arabic bloodlines and therefore could not be the prophesied King of the Jews as you are suggesting - he was not of David decent.   If you read my post I said he was a declared and practicing Jew - I did not say by blood line.  Please note someone could be a Jew by birth and by blood or genetics but at odds with the practices.  The main point is that Herod was studied and fluent in Hebrew scripture - he had a understanding of Jehovah and knew the prophecies concerning the Messiah.  Having a knowledge of the prophecies and signs concerning the Messiah and having declared himself to believe and respect Jehovah - Herod, with that knowledge and understanding of G-d and the Messiah sought to kill the Christ child.

In addition the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem - according to Matthew put their full support behind Herod.  This all was not done in ignorance but in defiance of Jehovah and the prophecies of the Messiah.

From the Dead Sea Scriptures we know that there was a faction of Jews (that included priests of Aaron and scribes) that performed rituals at the temple of Jerusalem and were at odds with the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem.   This faction of Jews established a community by the Dead Sea that they called "Damascus" for the singular purpose of preparing for the Messiah.  They knew when the Messiah would come - yet there is no record that they ever recognized Jesus as the Messiah.  The chief priests is a reference to the Pharisees that the colony at Damascus considered chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem; apostate (unclean) as referenced in the "Damascus Document" in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

What Matthew tells us is that the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem (not of Damascus) knew that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem.  They knew of the prophecies, including that foreign kings (wisemen) would bring gifts and worship the Christ.  They knew what was going on - they knew the signs and they knew the times and deliberately  and with such knowledge - chose badly.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You know, false witness against your neighbor is NOT a good sin to possess...

JJ, at the risk of getting too meta, you of course realize that falsely accusing me of bearing false witness against you is itself a false witness. Don't you?

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In your haste to try to condemn me

I had no such haste.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

you left out a very important statement I made...which was..

Quote
Quote

Am I saying the church is at this point currently.

No.

 

I left that part out because it was not directly relevant. Rather than accusing the Church leaders of being in apostasy, you were merely hinting that such might be the case. I find such hints dangerous and counterproductive to the cause of the Saints. Of course men are imperfect, even those who lead the kingdom of God. But that is not relevant. Your poorly-thought-out examples of supposed mistakes by ancient leaders in God's kingdom do not make your point.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Charging unfounded accusations against me probably does NOT bring out the best in me, but I am reminded that perhaps you should look at things you have said on other topics on the board which are FAR closer to apostasy then anything I have even thought about.  I try to find common ground with people typically, but your false accusations have probably put me in a mood which I should not be in.

JJ, you are completely welcome to point out whatever I have written "FAR closer to apostasy". In fact, please do so. If I have in fact written things that border on apostasy, I want to know so that I can rethink that position and see where I stand on it. If no such things exist, then of course I'm sure you will quickly withdraw your false witness against me. Right?

In the meantime, as long as you continue to make such blatantly false statements as that the ancient Nephite leaders did not even recognize Samuel as a true prophet or record his words until the Lord came in the flesh and told them to, I will continue to  point out that you are mistaken.

You have represented yourself as a historian. Do you truly consider yourself to be a historian? If so, do you analyze historical documents with the same critical eye as you used to analyze the passages in 3 Nephi about Samuel the Lamanite? Because if so, your historical insights will be questionable indeed. On the other hand, if you use a higher standard for critical analysis of profane historical texts, you might consider giving the same effort to your understanding and analysis of scripture.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Who is the President of the Church right now?  Who is the leader of the mortal Hierarchy?  Is the Lord the leader of the church and does he have all the keys to this dispensation?

As per some statements by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, when he comes again, the keys will need to be given from the Presidents of the Church.  Who will they give it to and Why?

Let me make sure I understand you. It sounds as if you are stating that, when the Lord comes, he (the Lord) will need to receive keys of leadership that he now lacks from past and then-present Church presidents.

Do I understand you correctly?

If so, I assert that this is nonsense, and that you have badly misunderstood whatever teachings you apocryphally reference. Maybe you should tell us what quotations you're using to come to that determination, and we can discuss whether they mean what you claim they mean.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Unlike Alma who had the ability to baptize himself, the Lord, of necessity, needed to go to John to be Baptized.  John was the TRUE holder of that authority at that time.

I disbelieve your assertion. No one has "the ability to baptize himself". That is not how Priesthood ordinances work. Whatever Alma was doing in his self-dunking, I believe that it was not an ordinance of self-baptism.

However that may be, John did of course have authority to baptize, an ordinance to which Jesus submitted himself. But your earlier statement was that John (the Baptist) was "the REAL leader" of the religion/Church:

21 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In fact, it was the ONE TRUE religion.  Of course, the REAL leader, John the Baptist was out in the Desert at that point rather than in accolades where his father used to be, but the Church was still the Church.

To assert that John, not the mortal Christ himself, was "the REAL leader" of the religion is simply false, and to assert that John was "the REAL leader" of the Church ignores what the Church was (namely, that it was founded by Christ, not by John the Baptist).

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The religious leaders of his time did not suddenly stop being the leaders, the Priests did not suddenly stop being able to do sacrifice (and in fact, they were commanded and were necessary to keep obeying the Law of Moses, even though the Lord was here in mortality) or follow the law of Moses simply because the Lord had been born.  He came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it.  John recognized the Lord, and it was a good thing, but there were probably many who did not.

Yes, and...? What of it? How does this buttress your claims?

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Do you think that the apostles today are different than Peter or James or John?  Do you think that somehow they are more righteous than the personal friends the Lord chose to be his apostles during his mortal ministry and to be the first ones to lead HIS church and spread his gospel after his resurrection?

I think that Christ's apostles failed (through no fault of their own) to perpetuate the kingdom of God, resulting in their Church falling into apostasy. I think that our modern apostles will suffer no such fate, whatever their weaknesses and trials.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Do I think he has already come...

No, I do not.

And I would hope that if he did the General Authorities of the Church would know, but I'm pretty sure that there will be MANY leaders that do not throughout the world.  If he so does it in a way that the Church leaders also do not know, I am not going to hold that against him either.  When he comes in his glory all will know, but prior to that, he will decide if he does appear and to who he makes that apparent to.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you claiming that the Lord will come again the second time, but not necessarily be known to all? Because if so, you are dangerously at odds with our own prophetic teachings. Or are you saying that Jesus may have appeared and may yet appear to individuals in mortality in private theophanies? This is surely true, but I don't understand what you're suggesting by it. You think that Christ may appear to some Church leaders, who then don't realize that it was Christ? And this is a major worry for you?

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I will add a follow on, as the post you responded to was NOT what you actually were responding to, and I'll actually repost it again so that you have the proper context of your accusation...

The post I responded to was not what I was actually responding to? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I stated

Quote

 a prophet came among the Latter-day Saints but did NOT get authority from the Twelve or the First Presidency and then proceeded to command a mountain from one spot to the other, healed the sick, taught to the poor, and mingled with those we see as destitute and sinners as he taught them and criticized the Leaders of the world...how many of you think the Church leadership would LEAP to SUPPORT him.

Do you think they would proclaim him?  Or is it more likely they'd either ignore him or warn members that as he had not followed their specific chain of priesthood authority that he was not to be adhered to, despite the obvious miracles?

How many other Christian churches do you think would proclaim this visit?

And then he left again as it was just a visit prior to his official coming...how many do you think would actually support that he had a visit?

Many expect that when the Lord comes he will arrive and talk at General Conference or that the General Authorities will be made instantly aware...but what if that didn't happen.  What if, when he came he proclaimed that the Church Leadership was to no longer be the Church leadership and only he was to lead...what would their reaction be today?

I think in that instance, it will be MORE on what we hear from the Spirit and whether it confirms his words.  So far, everyone who has said something like this has been an imposter...but what about the day, if it comes, when it actually is not?

Do you expect that unless he arrives by some miraculous manner, that the Leadership of the Church would suddenly give up their leadership and bow down to an individual who had not received the authority in the prescribed manner as dictated by our Priesthood lines of authority and ordination to office that we do today?

Hopefully, today, they would...and will when the second coming arrives (which we do expect to have a glorious arrival), but this describes the type of situation that the Jews had when he came originally.

As I stated, hopefully they would recognize him. 

So you're suggesting that a true prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ, with divine authority to preach the gospel in Christ's name, might well arise OUTSIDE THE KINGDOM OF GOD? And that in turn, the leaders of God's kingdom MIGHT NOT RECOGNIZE HIM AS A TRUE PROPHET?

Do I have that right?

Amazing.

JJ, I'm not sure what to say. If you truly believe this, you are so far off what I understand to be the true path that I see you as being in great spiritual jeopardy, and in danger of leading others away in a Snuffer-esque manner.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The lesson then is what will be different for us today.  If we were in that same situation, would we have followed John the Baptist?  Would we have converted to the Lord's teachings.  Would we have listened to the Pharasees or the scribes, or others?  Would we have tried to stop practicing the Law of Moses as some did in the Book of Mormon?  What would WE, as individuals do.

The Pharisees had no divine authority to instruct others on the true ways of God; they set themselves up as the wise. Christ repeatedly called them hypocrites, ultimately because of this very thing; they set themselves up as some kind of authority. To compare Church members today following their leaders with the Jews of old following the Pharisees is so badly off the mark that I can think of no response except to point out that it's a fallacious comparison.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

As I stated, hopefully they would recognize him. 

That is my hope.

I DO NOT KNOW that this will occur, and I find putting blind faith in any individual, especially as we have no idea who may be leading the church at that point or what the circumstances or situation may be, is particularly fallacious.

I HOPE...but I do not know.  That is what faith is composed of.

[...]

So do I have faith that our leaders would recognize him.

Absolutely. 

Do I KNOW that this will be the case?

I  don't.

You are using one small definition of faith—belief without full knowledge—to define the whole of faith and then claim that your unbelief is actually faithful.

You are mistaken. Faith is a multifaceted gem, and "belief without full knowledge" is but one facet of that gem. The word "faith" builds off of that small definition, but in its fullest sense it means a great deal more than just that. Or are you suggesting that the Lord, who is faithful, must therefore lack full knowledge?

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Without the spirit to guide us, we are much like many of those in Jerusalem who did not recognize the Savior, nor believe in him when he came.

Do you believe the Spirit is guiding you to hold back from believing and following the Church's leaders until such a time as you gain a testimony of their divine callings?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share