Some interesting doctrines of LDS

[lilered]

None of the quotes you posted say that either priesthood was transferred to Jesus' apostles. When the word "ordained" is used, we must not ASSUME it means a person is being "ordained" to the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. Being "ordained" simply means to be "set apart" for a special (or specific) purpose. The Melchizedek priesthood that Christ has is inviolable ("unchangeable") meaning that it does not need to be transferred from one person to another. Why? Because, unlike the Levitical priests (who died and had to be replaced) we (Christians) have a High Priest who is alive forevermore. Therefore, such a High priest does not need to be replaced and therefore His priesthood does not pass from one person to another like the Levitical priesthood did. THAT is the reason the Melchizedek priesthood is not mentioned as an office within the early Christian church.

I do not accept that ordained means the same as "setting apart". When one is ordained, it is understood to mean he is ordained to an office in either the lesser Priesthood or the Holy Priesthood.

Example: More Than One Ordained Office

Sometimes a man may hold more than one ordained office at a time. For instance, both bishops and patriarchs are also high priests. Also, a man may hold an ordained office and be set apart to other offices. For instance, an ordained elder may be set apart to offices such as president of his quorum, a ward mission leader, or Sunday School president.

When Jesus came to earth He restored the gospel in its fulness. He held the keys, or the full authority, of the priesthood and ordained Apostles (see Matthew 10:1–4) and Seventies (see Luke 10:1). He organized His Church among His followers, and when He finally left the earth, the Apostles were given the authority to ordain others to various offices in the priesthood (see Acts 14:23). In this way, the priesthood was passed on and remained the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Apostles continued to use the Priesthood to cast out demons, heal the sick, and perform miracles long after Jesus ascended into heaven.

[Dear434]

It is my understanding that Catholic priests are ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, suggesting that if they are correct in their claim of priesthood lineage, the early Christian Church DID pass on the priesthood along the way.

Our view is that at some point there was a loss of the priesthood, probably a gradual loss, until the fulness was lost. This required a restoration of the fulness of the priesthood.

BTW, we do view Christ as the Great High Priest, and that there are none greater than he. Since he is not currently active on the earth, he has called others to represent him and has shared his priesthood power with them (LDS).

No, RC priests are not ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. If they are, then that's news to me.

Are you familiar with the Jewish priesthood? Did you know that there was only 1 official (or legitimate) "High Priest" per year. This is the same with the Christian faith. Jesus Christ is our one and only High Priest who is our mediator between us and God the Father.

[darrel]

Dear434 I believe your reasoning is based on your bias toward traditional secterian christian dogma handed down in error from the first official edict from the counsel of Nicea. Those errors have perpetuated throughout hundreds of christian teachings today.

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ establishes the true nature of Jesus Christ and His Authority to govern His Church and is the same as given to his origional apostles. Your argument is not convincing to me.

[Dear434]

I do not accept that ordained means the same as "setting apart". When one is ordained, it is understood to mean he is ordained to an office in either the lesser Priesthood or the Holy Priesthood. When Jesus came to earth He restored the gospel in its fulness. He held the keys, or the full authority, of the priesthood and ordained Apostles (see Matthew 10:1–4) and Seventies (see Luke 10:1). He organized His Church among His followers, and when He finally left the earth, the Apostles were given the authority to ordain others to various offices in the priesthood (see Acts 14:23). In this way, the priesthood was passed on and remained the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Apostles continued to use the Priesthood to cast out demons, heal the sick, and perform miracles long after Jesus ascended into heaven.

lilered, I appreciate your interpretation of those scriptural verses. Unfortunately, the LDS interpretation reads more into the text than what the text actually says. What I said was true that being "ordained" in it's most basic sense means that a person is "set apart" or "commissioned" to perform a specific function, mission or duty. I hope you don't mind me quoting from an article I recently read which says it much better than I did.

"Christ commissions and mandates the entire Church to be in ministry. The scriptures give many examples of persons whom God designated to hold specific authority and responsibility. God calls such persons out from the kin-dom of the baptized and the Church authorizes them to serve with them in mission to the world. Mission is the basis for ministry.

Being called by God and set apart by the Church are inherent in the nature of ministry. Ordination recognizes that the Holy Spirit empowers persons to use their Godgiven gifts for service to God and God’s creation. Ordination denotes action by both God and the community in which the Spirit strengthens those ordained for service, and the community upholds them with prayer and other means of support.

Historically, order in the Church means ordination. Ordination is the act through which the Church recognizes and affirms God’s call to persons and authorizes them for ministries of koinonia, leitourgia, didache, kerygma and diakonia (more about this later).

Ordination conveys a commission based on recognition of individuals’ gifts and the Holy Spirit’s empowerment. Ordination witnesses to a covenant established between the ordained persons and the Church. The Church, by the laying on of hands, sets apart persons for particular ordained ministries. It is a sign of the call and response to Christian vocation.

Ordination is a gift of God given in answer to the prayers of the Church by which qualified women and men are called, authorized, and empowered to be representative ministers of Christ, who is the one who ultimately ordains."

Deacon Dialogue – Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary 2 Patty Meyers April 7, 2005

So basically, all I was saying is that a person who is "ordained" is set apart to perform a specific function (or in LDS lingo "a calling"). I hope that makes more sense.

[Dear434]

Dear434 I believe your reasoning is based on your bias toward traditional secterian christian dogma handed down in error from the first official edict from the counsel of Nicea. Those errors have perpetuated throughout hundreds of christian teachings today.

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ establishes the true nature of Jesus Christ and His Authority to govern His Church and is the same as given to his origional apostles. Your argument is not convincing to me.

Which "argument" would that be? I thought my explaination of what it means to be "ordained" was spot on. :)

[darrel]

Your quote was from a christian seminary and follows limited understanding which has evolved with the sprouts of christianity from the council of Nicea.

Those truths have confused many and limited their progression toward life eternal by knowing The True God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ Teaches the true manner of ordination and priesthood authority to act for God, founded upon Modern Revelation and Apostles and Prophets on the earth.:)

[a-train]

Are you familiar with the Jewish priesthood? Did you know that there was only 1 official (or legitimate) "High Priest" per year. This is the same with the Christian faith. Jesus Christ is our one and only High Priest who is our mediator between us and God the Father.

This is correct and it is the belief of the LDS faith. The High Priests in the Melchizedek piesthood within the LDS Church serve in an office not to be confused with that of the Hight Priest of the Levitical Priesthood. Jesus of Nazareth is the last High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood and He shall never be replaced by virtue of His First Resurrection and subsequent immortality.

-a-train

[Dear434]

This is correct and it is the belief of the LDS faith. The High Priests in the Melchizedek piesthood within the LDS Church serve in an office not to be confused with that of the Hight Priest of the Levitical Priesthood. Jesus of Nazareth is the last High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood and He shall never be replaced by virtue of His First Resurrection and subsequent immortality.

-a-train

Apparently we have a failure to communicate. I was under the impression there was more than one "high priest" in the LDS church. This is different from the Jewish (Levitical) Priesthood which only had one "high priest" per year. The point I am making is that Jesus could NOT be "the last High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood," as you assert, because he NEVER held the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood! How do we know this? Because Jesus was NOT from the tribe of Levi. Do you know which tribe Jesus ancestry came from?

[rameumptom]

Actually doesn't the Bible state that you can tell a prophet as a true one or not by if they false prophesied 1 time? Joseph Smith did.

He prophesied that the Civil war would become a world war. That didn't happen and according to the Bible all it takes is one strike. Also

no man can see God the Father, God told Moses that, so Joseph Smith had to have lied on that. If you say Joseph Smith did do that then

wouldn't you be calling God a lier to Moses?

RAM: No, the OT tells us that if a man prophesies and that prophesy does not come to pass, to not believe in the prophesy. Did you know that Jesus prophesied and expected the second coming to be in that very generation? Does that mean his 1 wrong prophesy makes Jesus a false prophet? I don't think so.

You've misread D&C 87. Joseph Smith said that modern warfare would start with the Civil War, where the South would call upon England and other nations for assistance. Later, England would call upon nations for help, at which time war would fall upon all nations. Looks like Joseph Smith was correct, after all. I suggest you start looking at the actual prophecies and studying them, rather than picking up bad info from anti-Mormon sites.

Moses saw God "face to face" - does that mean Moses lied? I would suggest that the Bible is incomplete on its meaning. Joseph Smith taught that a person could not see God, unless transfigured by the Holy Ghost; which is what occurred to Moses, when he saw God. Oh, and Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which to me means that Stephen saw God the Father. Shall we continue this dance? You are only proving your poor and inconsistent knowledge of the Bible.

Also you state that it has to be a conviction to know the truth or it seems some type of feeling. First doesn't the Bible state that only a

fool trusts in his own heart? Also can't demons tempt people with a "good feeling"? Or can they only do tempting through pain?

RAM: The men that were on the road to Emmaus, when Jesus spoke with them incognito, stated after he disappeared, "did not our hearts burn within us when he spake?" Elijah sought God, but did not find him in the earthquake or the fire, but in the "still, small voice." And Paul taught that the fruits of the Spirit are peace, joy, confidence, etc. Clearly, these are emotions that are involved, as Mormons claim that the Spirit burns in the bosom or is a "still, small voice" that speaks to the heart of man.

As for demons, they can do many things, but the Bible doesn't specify what he can or can't do. It is a fool that trusts in his own heart, but it isn't a fool that trusts in the witness of the Holy Spirit - there is a difference. I can tell the difference between my own emotions and the power of the Holy Ghost within me.

Actually you can prove it through historical documents of the time. The resurrection could be a little more tough, but most of it could

be proven. Also the apostles were not killed in the best way. One was crucified, one flayed alive, another headed, one was burn (and lived)

, so I would have to say it would take some character to make it up and then be treated this way, and still preach it. Paul lists all of

the stuff he went through and so no I think this is kind of sad on your part to state this.

RAM: How do you prove Jesus' miracles? How do you prove the dividing of the Red Sea? The only "historical documents" available are not historical documents. It is the Bible and a few other Jewish documents that are still available. But the copies we have do not date back to Jesus' day, much less back to Moses' day.

Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered, beaten, falsely imprisoned, and murdered for his faith. Sounds like Paul and the apostles of old had nothing on Joseph Smith.

Actually we can become "like" God, but not "God", this is where the confliction is. You seem to be saying that we can become God. And

that has to be false and I will tell you why.

RAM: You can read it as you wish. To me, "co-heirs with Christ" means we will get exactly what Christ received. Is Christ "God" or "like God?" Peter says we can partake of the divine nature of God. Does this mean God's exact nature, or something else? Who is twisting the scriptural reading here? I don't think it is me.

Please read this verse:

Isa. 44:8

Fear ye not, neither be afraid. have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a

God beside me? yea, there is no God, I Know not any.

RAM: There is no God beside God. However, there are gods subordinate to him. In fact, Origen and Eusebius taught that Jesus was a subordinate God to the Father. We will never be on the same level as God is. He is the one that saves and exalts us, and so we will always be his children in the eternal family unit. Besides, Isaiah was discussing the God of Israel, and not the other divine council, which were gods over the other nations. In some other nations they shared gods, or a god was overthrown by another, etc. Jehovah was stating that he is the only God of Israel. Read Margaret Barker's Great Angel and other writings for more info on this.

See the next post for the rest....

[rameumptom]

So you cannot explain the Trinity, but you can state that I am wrong? To state that I am wrong you must have some understand of what

you believe the Trinity is, or are you just stating this to cause a conflict?

RAM: The Trinity is not understandable. Just as with science, I cannot prove a theory, all I can do is disprove a theory; I can only tell you what the Trinity is not. And I do not know of anyone that can deftly describe the Trinity, as the creed itself calls God "unknowable" and "incomprehensible." If you pretend to understand the mystery of the Trinity, then you do not understand the creeds. And your modalistic example you gave previously shows you do not understand it.

You say that he cannot have a physical body in the Trinity? Why, can't he, and why are making statements on something you confess that

you cannot explain, while you are in so doing that? Also isn't it sin that defiles God? So if you were flesh that never sinned do you defile God?

RAM: Because the Trinity is a Spirit, without body, parts or passions. That is what the creeds teach. I cannot explain the Trinity, because I do not understand how God the Father can be without a body, and Jesus with a resurrected body, and still be one substance. According to the creeds, anything that is not pure would defile God, this would include any physical substance. For God to take into himself a physical body made from the impure materials of the earth would make God impure.

The LDS view is that God is made of the same substance as we are. He has a physical body as we do, however his body has been purified and glorified. So, both God the Father and Jesus have glorified physical bodies. They are one in the Godhead - one in purpose, unity, and Agape love.

So only certain individuals can represent Christ? I an many other Christian believe that every Christian has to take the responsibility to

represent Christ in our everyday lives. Thats why the sayings such as WWJD has come about.

RAM: I believe we are all to follow Christ as best we can. And yes, we should represent him in our lives. My point is, if the Trinity is a mystery, it makes it more difficult to follow a mystery.

Who stated that the priesthood had to be restored? Joseph Smith? Well by his 1 false prophecy wouldn't this make him a false prophet and

so wouldn't you have to discredit what he said, in upholding what the Bible states about false prophets?

RAM: Once again, if we want to toss out Joseph Smith for a prophecy you think is false (and it isn't), then we have to reject Jesus for his false prophecy, as well. The Bible does warn about false prophets, but it does not state that one wrong prophecy makes a false prophet. It only states for us not to believe in a wrong prophecy. You need to reread the Bible. BTW, how many times have you read the Bible? I'd like to know if you are getting your points from your own studies, or if you are getting them off of some anti-Mormon site. I've read straight through the Old Testament 7 times, and the New Testament about 20 times.

Oh, Peter tells us in Acts 3:

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

IOW, the Second Coming cannot occur until there is a restitution of all things, which all the prophets had foreseen. Given that Peter was not declaring that restitution had occurred, it must have been a future event. This restitution of all things is, in LDS belief, the Restoration of the Gospel in the last days.

Heres my question to this. If you can't get to the Father except through Christ and Christ stated that he was God, which one is more important?

(Being that you need one to get to the other.) And if you recognize them both as God you are now worshiping "many" Gods. Which in Isaiah

states that there are no other.

RAM: Once again, you are taking one verse out of the entire Bible and interpreting it differently than the Bible was meant to be read. Isaiah knew and understood about the divine council, as he saw it in Isaiah 6. Margaret Barker and other non-LDS Bible scholars have written on this. I suggest you read a few scholarly sites, instead of the anti-LDS sites.

As I stated, the early Christian Fathers believed God and Jesus to be separate beings. How else are we to understand going to the Father through Jesus? If they are the same being, then you automatically would go to the Father, with or without Jesus! Christ, as Origen and others taught, is God, but subordinate to the Father. Stephen saw two separate beings, the Father and the Son - was Stephen lying to us, or was God lying to Stephen? Or did Stephen tell us the truth?

God the Father is in a Godhead relationship with Jesus and the Holy Ghost. They receive their godhood from the Father, and are subordinate to him. According to the ancient Hebrew belief, the Father was El Elyon or Elohim. He gave out the nations to his sons, giving the best place, Israel, to Jehovah (Jesus Christ). Later, Jehovah was awarded all the nations as his prize.

We are unable to achieve a relationship directly with God the Father at this time. We need an intermediary, which is Jesus Christ. It is His atonement and resurrection that allows us to become purified and holy, in order for us to be able to enter into the presence of the Father. IOW, without Jesus, we cannot see the Father or be with Him.

I recommend you read Margaret Barker's website Margaret Barker or buy her book, The Great Angel

Amazon.com: margaret barker great angel: Books

[Dear434]

RAM: No, the OT tells us that if a man prophesies and that prophesy does not come to pass, to not believe in the prophesy. Did you know that Jesus prophesied and expected the second coming to be in that very generation? Does that mean his 1 wrong prophesy makes Jesus a false prophet? I don't think so.

Wrong! Jesus did not prophesy that the second coming would take place in the generation then living (in the first century). I think you are confusing Joseph Smith's prophecy about Christ's return in D&C 130:14-15

You've misread D&C 87. Joseph Smith said that modern warfare would start with the Civil War, where the South would call upon England and other nations for assistance. Later, England would call upon nations for help, at which time war would fall upon all nations. Looks like Joseph Smith was correct, after all. I suggest you start looking at the actual prophecies and studying them, rather than picking up bad info from anti-Mormon sites.

"On July 14, 1832, Congress passed a tariff act which South Carolina thought was so bad, she declared the tariff null and void. President Andrew Jackson alerted the nation's troops. At the time Smith made his prophecy, the nation expected a war between North and South to begin at the rebellion of South Carolina. This can be confirmed in a U.S. history book. Better yet, let me confirm it from a Latter-day Saints Church publication, Evening and Morning Star,... the issue which came out for January 1833. The news of South Carolina's rebellion was known before January 1833. It was known before December 25, 1832 but it was not available in time for the December issue. It takes quite a while for news to be set up even today in our dailies. We would expect it to wait for a month to come out in a monthly. The example contains the information available to the church before the paper hit the street. The example and the prophecy are strangely similar... Both consider the pending war a sign of the end—which it was not. In fact, the war expected in 1832 did not come to pass....Far from being evidences of Smith's divine calling, the most famous prophecies which he made are evidences that he can copy views of his time" (Mormon Claims Examined, by Larry S. Jonas, p.52).

Moses saw God "face to face" - does that mean Moses lied? I would suggest that the Bible is incomplete on its meaning. Joseph Smith taught that a person could not see God, unless transfigured by the Holy Ghost; which is what occurred to Moses, when he saw God. Oh, and Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which to me means that Stephen saw God the Father. Shall we continue this dance? You are only proving your poor and inconsistent knowledge of the Bible.

"face to face" is a Hebrew idiom describing the close relationship Moses had with God. It is not to be taken literally as the Bible is clear "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20. But of course, I'm sure you'll just mark this as just another mistranslation and look toward your "modern day prophet" to tell you the "true" meaning.

[Dear434]

RAM: There is no God beside God. However, there are gods subordinate to him. In fact, Origen and Eusebius taught that Jesus was a subordinate God to the Father. We will never be on the same level as God is. He is the one that saves and exalts us, and so we will always be his children in the eternal family unit. Besides, Isaiah was discussing the God of Israel, and not the other divine council, which were gods over the other nations. In some other nations they shared gods, or a god was overthrown by another, etc. Jehovah was stating that he is the only God of Israel. Read Margaret Barker's Great Angel and other writings for more info on this.

See the next post for the rest....

Mormons believe Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, correct? If Jesus (Jehovah God) said there are no other Gods then wouldn't this preclude His own Father, at least from a LDS perspective? This is not a problem for non-LDS Christians since we believe in the existence of only one true God but for Mormons this would seem to be a huge problem. Mormons believe Elohim is God the Father, and yet Jesus (Jehovah) clearly states that He is God ALONE! What's a Mormon to do with all the Monotheistic passages found in Isaiah alone?

[rameumptom]

Wrong! Jesus did not prophesy that the second coming would take place in the generation then living (in the first century). I think you are confusing Joseph Smith's prophecy about Christ's return in D&C 130:14-15

RAM: Sigh. Can we get some people on here that know the Bible? It would make discussing these things so much easier.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Guess what? That generation passed and the signs of the sun going dark, the moon turning to blood, and the Son of Man coming in glory did not occur. So, Jesus gave an incorrect or false prophecy.

As for Joseph Smith's prayer on when the 2nd Coming would be, he even stated in that quote you give us that he did not know if that meant the 2nd Coming or not! If you are going to quote LDS scripture, please do not misquote it and twist it around. You conveniently left out verses 16-17.

14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the acoming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

That seems to me to have been a correct prophesy. The 2nd Coming did NOT come before Joseph Smith's 85th birthday! This misquoting by you clearly shows you are trying to get your statements from an anti-LDS site, and not really studying LDS scripture. This is basically bearing false witness against Joseph Smith, by twisting his words.

"On July 14, 1832, Congress passed a tariff act which South Carolina thought was so bad, she declared the tariff null and void. President Andrew Jackson alerted the nation's troops. At the time Smith made his prophecy, the nation expected a war between North and South to begin at the rebellion of South Carolina. .... In fact, the war expected in 1832 did not come to pass....Far from being evidences of Smith's divine calling, the most famous prophecies which he made are evidences that he can copy views of his time" (Mormon Claims Examined, by Larry S. Jonas, p.52).

RAM: Orson Pratt wrote in several papers in 1858 that this prophecy was soon to come to pass. These papers ridiculed him. Joseph did not state that the war would begin in 1832. This is a straw man attack that Larry Jonas gives. And it does not explain the correct prophecy of England seeking aid, when world war would fall on the nations. Nor does it explain the other prophecies, which have been correctly understood by Church leaders in the past to refer to the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.

"face to face" is a Hebrew idiom describing the close relationship Moses had with God. It is not to be taken literally as the Bible is clear "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20. But of course, I'm sure you'll just mark this as just another mistranslation and look toward your "modern day prophet" to tell you the "true" meaning.

RAM: Or it can be taken literally that Moses saw God face to face. How is it that you are the chosen one to determine what is literally correct, what is metaphor/simile, and what is incorrect? Clearly there is a disagreement in the Mosaic record, probably due to being from two different sources. The early prophets had not problem with the idea of seeing God. Jacob called a place Peniel, because he saw the face of God. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (suggesting he saw God). Isaiah stood in the presence of God and proclaimed he had unclean lips (Isaiah 6), but lived. Shall I go on, or are you going to stick with one verse to justify destroying the testimonies of all these prophets?

[rameumptom]

Mormons believe Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, correct? If Jesus (Jehovah God) said there are no other Gods then wouldn't this preclude His own Father, at least from a LDS perspective? This is not a problem for non-LDS Christians since we believe in the existence of only one true God but for Mormons this would seem to be a huge problem. Mormons believe Elohim is God the Father, and yet Jesus (Jehovah) clearly states that He is God ALONE! What's a Mormon to do with all the Monotheistic passages found in Isaiah alone?

RAM: Once again, you are taking a verse of the Bible out of context. There are several scriptures that show that God and Jesus are separate beings, but are one God in that they are one Godhead. You can cherry pick verses out of the Bible, or you can seek to understand what the ancients believed and taught about it. This is why I suggest a good reading of Margaret Barker's writings. She is a Methodist preacher and Old Testament expert/scholar in England. She has no reason to support these issues, except they are what the ancients taught and she's sharing those insights. In fact, she didn't know anything about the LDS Church until she had written her book, The Great Angel, and began receiving letters from LDS scholars thanking her for her research.

Isaiah's "monotheistic" statements are written as such because he knew that the nation of Israel only had one God: Yahweh. He is the only God of Israel.

Secondly, as Trinitarians believe that their view of the Trinity is monotheism; LDS believe that the Godhead describes a singular God, as well, even though they are physically separated.

Finally, explain the word "monotheism" as it deals with the Trinity. Ask any Jew or Muslim to describe the Trinity, and they would call it polytheism. Spinning words so as to make polytheism into monotheism still does not make it mean anything. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Describing Isaiah's writings by modern definitions does not work. We must study the ancient beliefs and practices to determine what Isaiah was all about. Margaret Barker explains that Isaiah saw the divine council (Isaiah 6), and saw the gods surrounding the throne of God. He understood there were many gods, but also knew that only one of them was the God of Israel.

[Dear434]

RAM: Sigh. Can we get some people on here that know the Bible? It would make discussing these things so much easier.

You falsely accuse me of taking scripture out of context and that is precisely what you have done with Matthew 24:34. In CONTEXT Jesus is talking about the generation that would be alive to witness the events he spoke of in verses 3-31. Clearly the generation then living did NOT witness these events and consequently could NOT be the "generation" Jesus was speaking about! However, I do find it disconcerting that a Mormon would accuse our Savior of giving a false prophecy!

Guess what? That generation passed and the signs of the sun going dark, the moon turning to blood, and the Son of Man coming in glory did not occur. So, Jesus gave an incorrect or false prophecy.

Wrong again. But maybe you'll "Choose the Right" and repent of your false accusations.

[quote name=rameumptomAs for Joseph Smith's prayer on when the 2nd Coming would be' date=' he even stated in that quote you give us that he did not know if that meant the 2nd Coming or not! If you are going to quote LDS scripture, please do not misquote it and twist it around. You conveniently left out verses 16-17.

That seems to me to have been a correct prophesy. The 2nd Coming did NOT come before Joseph Smith's 85th birthday! This misquoting by you clearly shows you are trying to get your statements from an anti-LDS site, and not really studying LDS scripture. This is basically bearing false witness against Joseph Smith, by twisting his words.

RAM: Orson Pratt wrote in several papers in 1858 that this prophecy was soon to come to pass. These papers ridiculed him. Joseph did not state that the war would begin in 1832. This is a straw man attack that Larry Jonas gives. And it does not explain the correct prophecy of England seeking aid, when world war would fall on the nations. Nor does it explain the other prophecies, which have been correctly understood by Church leaders in the past to refer to the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.

Changing the subject does not help your argument. The fact of the matter is that the so-called Civil War prophecy was hardly astonishing since many people were predicting that a civil war was immenent. I do have to wonder why, if Joseph Smith's prophecy was so accurate and "prophetic," it wasn't published immediately after it was given? The first time it was ever published was It was in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price in England and in The Seer by Orson Pratt in 1854 (neither of which were considered LDS "scripture").

RAM: Or it can be taken literally that Moses saw God face to face. How is it that you are the chosen one to determine what is literally correct, what is metaphor/simile, and what is incorrect? Clearly there is a disagreement in the Mosaic record, probably due to being from two different sources. The early prophets had not problem with the idea of seeing God. Jacob called a place Peniel, because he saw the face of God. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (suggesting he saw God). Isaiah stood in the presence of God and proclaimed he had unclean lips (Isaiah 6), but lived. Shall I go on, or are you going to stick with one verse to justify destroying the testimonies of all these prophets?

Again, you can choose to interpret those passages literally, but you then have to interpret the passages which explicitly say God cannot be seen in a non-literal way. The passage about Stephen seeing Jesus standing at God's right hand is a figureative form of speech. Just like when someone says "Chaney is Bush's right hand man" doesn't mean Chaney is literally the President's right hand but that he is a man whom the president has entrusted authority to. In the same way Christ is at God's [figureative] "right hand" because that is a position of power, authority and honor.

No, I didn't "conveniently" leave anything out. I gave a reference to the specific verses that address the so-called "revelation". Again, no "twisting" was involved. Joseph Smith said he believed "the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time". "That time" being 1890-1891 time-frame. It was Joseph Smith who interpreted this "revelation" as being related to "the coming of the Son of Man" which we refer to as His 2nd Coming.

[Hemidakota]

Your last statement stands incorrect. You are making your own assumption or interruptional viewpoint and not what is written in Acts 7:56. I haven't seen a person who stands in the shoes of a prophet or a person like Paul or Stephen, that have not witnessed the Godhead.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Not trying to offend anyone but taking a THIRDpersonview, I notice a growing boiling pot.

Rameumpton, in your "frustration and anger," you tried to teach without obtaining the word. The Matthew 24:34 speaks of our day. Read Joseph Smith Matthew. I notice you are teaching with your own desires and not the Lord's. You are not teaching by the Spirit. You are leading away, people, from Christ. When you speak you better know it without a shadow of a doubt. Not because the Bible said it, the Book of Mormon said it. But because the Holy Ghost has testified to you that it is true. Meaning you have asked for the truth and prepared it in your mind. D&C 42.

Dear434 wants to know something and you might initially present the answer but she might not agree. Well, it began when you didn't speak by the Spirit. She doesn't agree so your present her with more "proof." Any amount of proof will not let a person know. It has to be given by the Holy Ghost.

I have studied the gospel a lot, and to be honest(and blunt), I was confused by your rabble. It was not leading to Christ. They were your words and the truth might have been there, but I wasn't willing to spend the energy to see if it really was there. I feel impressed that it is there but it is covered by the twisting of men. Just like the Bible. 1 Nephi 13:27

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

It may have been done unintentionally, but it was done nonetheless. We are here to present the truth in a peaceful manner, conducive to the Spirit. Not to be taken in our Pride and assume rights over others. This will also be the only post because I feel this is sufficient to teach the proper way of teaching.

For the record, President Hinckley talked about this in his LAST talk to the Priesthood brethren. "Slow to Anger" <http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-775-23,00.html>sorry I don't know how to link this.

I do not mean to injure, hurt, or offend in any manner. I just saw heresy and I felt impressed to correct.

[a-train]

Apparently we have a failure to communicate. I was under the impression there was more than one "high priest" in the LDS church. This is different from the Jewish (Levitical) Priesthood which only had one "high priest" per year. The point I am making is that Jesus could NOT be "the last High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood," as you assert, because he NEVER held the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood! How do we know this? Because Jesus was NOT from the tribe of Levi. Do you know which tribe Jesus ancestry came from?

Wow, you guys are adding pages to this thread!

No doubt, our LORD was indeed of the tribe of Judah, and yes I understand that He did not receive the Levitical Priesthood by any virtue of His lineage. One could say that the last Levitical High Priest who had performed his duties just before our LORD's great Sacrifice was the 'last High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood'. Perhaps it was Caiaphas. I would not argue with that.

But I think we both understand that Jesus Christ, having an authority much higher than the Levitical Preisthood, fulfilled the Levitical Law with His Great Sacrifice to which the Levitical Priesthood only pointed.

I'm sure you've studied it much as Paul says: 'For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.' (Heb 7:28)

The next verse says of course: 'Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;' (Heb 8:1)

The Authority of our LORD circumscribes the Levitical Priesthood. He fulfilled the actual duties that the High Priest only represented. Perhaps I could rephrase if I must: Jesus is the real High Priest that the Levitical High Priests only symbolized with their ordinances.

The office of High Priest in the LDS Church is not to be confused with the High Priests of ancient Israel. You are absolutely correct when you say: 'This is different from the Jewish (Levitical) Priesthood which only had one "high priest" per year.'

LDS believe that the office and duty of the High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood has been fulfilled and ended with the Saviour's Great Sacrifice and there is no modern effort to somehow assume that position or its duties.

-a-train

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Sorry for my call out on rameumpton, it wasn't done in the best of spirits. I deleted the message. Sorry.

[Snow]

Changing the subject does not help your argument. The fact of the matter is that the so-called Civil War prophecy was hardly astonishing since many people were predicting that a civil war was immenent. I do have to wonder why, if Joseph Smith's prophecy was so accurate and "prophetic," it wasn't published immediately after it was given? The first time it was ever published was It was in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price in England and in The Seer by Orson Pratt in 1854 (neither of which were considered LDS "scripture").

.

Interesting. You are making (implying) that Orson Pratt was dishonest in publishing the prophecy.

I'd be willing to bet that you can't prove your allegation. You can't can you.

[Dear434]

Your last statement stands incorrect. You are making your own assumption or interruptional viewpoint and not what is written in Acts 7:56. I haven't seen a person who stands in the shoes of a prophet or a person like Paul or Stephen, that have not witnessed the Godhead.

"And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

So you believe that Jesus is literally standing on God's literal right hand? Sounds painful, or at least very uncomfortable.

[Dear434]

Interesting. You are making (implying) that Orson Pratt was dishonest in publishing the prophecy.

I'd be willing to bet that you can't prove your allegation. You can't can you.

I made no such implication. I simply asked "why?" Why was this "prophecy" not published sooner? And why in England of all places? The Civil War was in America, so wouldn't it make more sense to publish this "prophecy" in America?

[Hemidakota]

Yes! That is a correct statement. Individuals who witnessed the veil renting, have commonality when observing the moment. I do see at this point, your objection with idioms is an issue.

Now, if that idiom is problem, perhaps, ‘removing the beam out your eye' maybe an issue. LOL

[Hemidakota]

"And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

So you believe that Jesus is literally standing on God's literal right hand? Sounds painful, or at least very uncomfortable.

The first concept with dealing with the Godhead, something I see you don't clearly understand, beside the reading materials presented before you, the use of language.

DEAR434: I going to Yes to this idiom. For me, I do understand what is being presented. That is a correct statement that he did witnessed the Godhead. Whether you can agree with this or come to grips with reality, the fact is there. I do know individuals who witnessed the veil renting, have commonality when observing the moment as Stephen and Joseph Smith. I do see at this point, your objection with idioms is an issue.

Now, if that idiom is problem, perhaps, ‘removing the beam out your eye' maybe an issue. LOL

[Dear434]

The first concept with dealing with the Godhead, something I see you don't clearly understand, beside the reading materials presented before you, the use of language.

If I were a Mormon, here's what I would "understand" about the "Godhead". I would "understand" that it is made up of 3 Personages, the Father (Elohim), the Son (Jesus/Jehovah) and the Holy Ghost (a personage of spirit). I would also "understand" that they are not literally "one" (as in one person or one substance) but rather they are "one" in purpose. How am I doing so far? I "understand" much more than you assume I do.

DEAR434: I going to Yes to this idiom. For me, I do understand what is being presented. That is a correct statement that he did witnessed the Godhead. Whether you can agree with this or come to grips with reality, the fact is there. I do know individuals who witnessed the veil renting, have commonality when observing the moment as Stephen and Joseph Smith. I do see at this point, your objection with idioms is an issue.

Believe what you wish, but the text only says he (Stephen) only saw Jesus and the idiom (stand at the right hand of God) simply means that this vision of Jesus was to show that He (Christ) was high and lifted up (exalted) and placed in a position of power and authority (something the Jews thought blasphemous). Keep in mind that Stephen was a Jewish follower of Christ (the "Way" wasn't called "Christians" yet) and as a Jew, he would have believed in the Shema (Monotheism). Therefore, it would be unreasonable to believe he was claiming to have seen 2 Gods standing next to each other.

Now, if that idiom is problem, perhaps, ‘removing the beam out your eye' maybe an issue. LOL

I have no problem with the idiom since I actually know what it means. No beams in these eyes. :)