There ended up being 32 comments with mine included. It was getting to long for people to follow, so I started a part two in order to add more evidence and answer questions. Here is another scanned copy from History of the Church Volume 6.
Read all the highlighted in pink for full context. But notice in the writing, it says, Joseph Smith was camly preparded to meet force with force and that he (Joseph Smith) made a handsome fight in the Jail. Is this something A Maryter would do? Well I would dare say NO!
Lets read what D and C says about JS. D and C 135:4 says, 4 When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men.
Now lets see how Joseph Smith said the Same thing Jesus Said. We read in Isaiah 53:7 Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
This prophecy was fufilled in Acts 8:32 Jesus did not fight back. What about this, this also is said about Jesus before he was Crucifed. 1Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed [himself] to him that judgeth righteously:
This was not how Joseph the maryter handled the end of his life. He sadly does not fit the descrpriton Given in Isaiah. Now here is Something I suspect some LDS will not like, I am man enough to admit if I made a mistake, Wer62 knows, because I did it with him when we were E-mailing for the better part of 6 months. In the reply section, I said Joseph Smith Laid down his life, He never said that, the LDS were asking for where he said that. I say sorry, I did mean to say, Joseph Smith claimed to go as a lamb to the slaughter, So for that reason I dont believe he is a maryter, the facts just dont line up.
Now, I want to ask these few questions. The Mormons that have been replying and keeping on this topic, why is it you can defend this topic tooth and nail, but you cannot do that with more serious questions that will effect your eternal life. What I mean is this, I posted topics on the Trinity, ten things not found in the BoM or the Bible, but still am told the BoM has 1'000's of things that greatly clarify the Bible, The mormon priesthood Authority issue. I dont see these things being adressed like the issue of Joseph being a maryter.
I say this because, Lets say Joseph was a real Maryter and I am wrong, this will not effect my salvation. If I am correct and he was not a maryter, it wont effect your salvation. But these other issues will. Why? Because they are both different Gospels and things added to the Word Of God. Both of those are spoken of in the Bible, clearly stating you will go to hell for having a false Gospel and adding to or taking away from the Word of God.
One thing I want to address is a Mini Booklet posted in the reply Section of the Maryter topic. There was a lot of info posted and I only want to address a small part of it. The LDS member said
However, simply redefining the term is not sufficient to create a successful argument. Thus, the second prong of the attack relies on a person’s ignorance of trivial facts of Mormon history. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and this is especially true of new members or less-active members) are not aware of all the excruciatingly minute details of the history of the Church. It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon. These writers often claim to “expose” these minor events of Church history in a sensationalistic attempt to shock members of the Church with “hidden” revelations or “secret” accounts about various episodes in Church history. They will often claim that the Church has kept this knowledge under wraps for fear that if it was generally known it would cause many members of the Church to immediately renounce their faith and result in the ruination of the Church. They insinuate that the Church holds these “secrets” in some impenetrable vault with access restricted to the select few. What anti-Mormons never point out is that they found these “secrets” in books that are widely published by the LDS Church for public consumption. That is hardly the act of someone who wants to maintain a secret.
The LDS member who posted this openly admits it was taken from another who wrote it, But he seems to apply I am acting in this manner. If he cares to reply, I would ask him this, Do you feel I am acting in this manner, If so show me where I am acting like this?. I never once said the Church is hiding Stuff, I figure if I as a Non-LDS member can get these books to read then surly LDS can also. And I never said it was "Seceret" Stuff that needed to be expoused. I just choose this topic to adress.
I want to add one more thought here, What about people like the muslims, They fly planes into buildings, They strap bombs to themselves and kill people, Do you as an LDS member feel they are Maryters? I am in no way trying to say Joseph Smith was like them. My point is this, If you dont feel they are martyers, what does it really matter? I dont Feel JS was/is a maryter, Does this really mean much in the grand Scheme of Life? If Muslims feel they are maryters for flying planes into buildings but you dont, how is that any different than me and the issue of JS? Rick b
Rick b
15 comments:
Ricks comments:--------------- The LDS member who posted this openly admits it was taken from another who wrote it, But he seems to apply I am acting in this manner. If he cares to reply, I would ask him this, Do you feel I am acting in this manner, If so show me where I am acting like this?. I never once said the Church is hiding Stuff, I figure if I as a Non-LDS member can get these books to read then surly LDS can also. And I never said it was "Seceret" Stuff that needed to be expoused. I just choose this topic to adress. -----------------
No Rick, I know of no instance where you have claimed that the LDS Church is hiding stuff. I have never seen you make that claim. The writer is addressing a reality that does exist in a lot of anti-mormon work and is speaking in more general terms as i am quite sure he does not know you and has no idea what you personally may or may not have said.
I chose to post it here because i consider it to be helpful in regard to the topic at hand. I have great confidence that your readers are intelligent and level headed enough to grasp its relevance here without having to imply anything regarding your personal behavior here as related to this point.
In case i have not been clear so far let me state again that i know of no instance when RickB has claimed that the LDS Church is "hiding stuff."
In Christ,
Tad
Rick said: I am man enough to admit if I made a mistake.... In the reply section, I said Joseph Smith Laid down his life, He never said that, the LDS were asking for where he said that. I say sorry, I did mean to say, Joseph Smith claimed to go as a lamb to the slaughter-
Thank-you for clarifying that Rick. I was starting to move from very confused to very, very confused.
Joseph Smith never said he laid down his life.
Now that we are very clear that Joseph Smith never said that he "laid down his life" we can move forward a little bit.
Rick said:- If JS did not make the Bold claim of laying down his life, then yes in MY EYES he would be justifed for self defence. But because he made a bold statment of He laid down his life for the gospel, but then fought back, he is not justifed in my eyes.--
Now that we agree that Joseph Smith never stated that he laid down his life was Joseph Smith justified in the eyes of man in using self-defense in this instance?
Thank you so much.
A few things, I added an Issue to my post after you guys replyed, it is about muslims being maryters, please read it. Tad, I honestly figured because it was someone eles posting, that was the case, but I just wanted to make sure, As far as your question, Hmmm? I dont feel he was justifed in my eyes, I cannot speak for all men, as I said, I suspect, you would not want me speaking for you, as we clearly disagree on this topic. So the accounts of JS being a lamb and him fighting back dont line up, as a matter of fact they flat out contrdict one another.
If the LDS mangaed to remove either the statment from D and C or the account in the History of the Church, I could buy the self defence issue, But other wise, No. Again though, who cares if I feel he was right or wrong. Rick b
Ricks words- What about people like the muslims, They fly planes into buildings, They strap bombs to themselves and kill people, Do you as an LDS member feel they are Maryters?...
Flying planes into buildings and strapping bombs to oneself is a form of SUICIDE not murder.
If the definition of a martyr is “a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles.” or “one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.”
Then a muslim who willingly turned himself over to authorities is locked in a prison attacked and killed by an illegal, angry mob would fit the definition of a martyr.
I see nothing in the definition of a martyr that says one has to agree with the particular individuals ideology to have the definition applied to them.
And i am not LDS.
Alot here to adress. So I guess this is how I decide to handle this, Their was a mormon posting here going by Wer62, Also known as Ed. we wrote back and forth for almost 6 months maybe longer. He said this, I will debate issues to a point but after all is said and done I believe the best debate is one where you still walk away friends.
This is where I am at on this topic. I will adress a few things, but after that I am moving on.
First, Hmmmm, keeps asking me how I feel about JS, Was he justifed or not. As I already have stated, No not in my eyes. I gave my reasons why, we disagree, their is nothing more I can say. As I said already, this was a topic I choose to do, but over all it does not effect one's salvation either way.
Now onto your issue Sheepdog of me being called to share with mormons, I'm sorry but I can tell you wont believe anything I tell you, So I notice when Mormon Missionarys get put in a bind, They are asked a hard question, they suddnely bear their testominy. Like that really means much, My testominy cancels out their's.
What I mean is, Truth is not decided by a testominy. Muslims have one, JW's have one, Buddists have one. Does this mean they have the truth? No, It simply means they have a changed life.
Onto your Next question Sheepdog, I'm glad you feel I am being honest in the fact I am scanning more than enough to show I am not stopping short so as to decive. I notice non of you guys have read over every article I wrote, other wise if you have you have a short memory. I posted before, I clearly want both sides coming and sharing, not just me or my brothers. But also I stated I will and do post more than enough to give a very full context.
And I stated I will do more scanning of stuff to not be a deciver. I have read your books and I feel I can post above and beyond enough stuff to allow people to think for them selves, while you guys also are forced to deal with some hard things. Then SD, You said The fact is you are deceiving folks in trying to persuade them to believe that Joseph Smith actually was “running away”
I am not deciving anyone here, I put out enough info for people to fully think for them selves. I know some Non-LDS who feel he also was not a maryter and they read all the info I put out. Add to that, yet again, this is not a salvation issue.
Last poster, Just passing through I never said the muslims were or are Maryters. I simply asked, do you feel they are. I know many muslims feel they are maryters, but I dont feel they are. My point on that was this, We all disagree as to who or what a maryter is.
Like I said before, there are plenty of people in the Bible we lable maryters. The bigger question is, Does God call them maryters in His Word? Or is that how we as humans lable them? Like I said, feel free to reply, But I am going to be moving on to other topics, I stated what I believe and know as Ed Said, the debate needs to come to a close. Rick b
Let me add something here,
Just how do the MM's feel God spoke to them? Why is it you can witness to us non-LDS christians, but when we do it to you, Claiming we also were called like you were, But we were called to you, instead of the other way around, then things are different.
It's ok for you to tell me I am wrong and give me your truth, but when I do it to you, you get mad. Why is this the case?
You guys tell me I should listen to the modern day prophet, but when I do listen to your prophet and do what he said, you guys get mad at me. The prophet J.F.S. in D of S said, IF JS is a false Prophet he needs to be expoused as such.
Granted the Prophet said IF But I believe he is, and so I called this blog, Mormonism Reviewed. I am doing just that, Reviewing Mormonism and comparing it to the Scriptures.
Hmmmm? Said People have a difficult time with modern prophets. And mankind always has. It is not easy to live with a living prophet in our midst.
Do you not read your Bible? Jesus Himself said, the Prophets ended with John the Baptist. Then in Hebrews we read Jesus is our High Priest and God spoke to us through His Son in these last days. He did not speak to us through a prophet. After John the Baptist Died, their was mention of a prophet or two, but they were already alive, but after they died, the Prophets were done, No more mention of Prophets, unless it is False Prophets.
Other wise the Apostles and Disiples mention, Pastors and Teachers, Not prophets, Plus the Bible tells us, we have The Word of God, that is the Bible. Rick b
Come on guys, Your in such a big hurry to reply to something as trival as, Was JS a maryter. I answered your question and asked one. Now where are you guys. Cannot answer or dont like my answer? Or Both? Rick b, Not ashamed of Jesus, the Truth Or His Word.
To whomever it may interest,
Ricks comments: --------------------- Do you not read your Bible? Jesus Himself said, the Prophets ended with John the Baptist. Then in Hebrews we read Jesus is our High Priest and God spoke to us through His Son in these last days. He did not speak to us through a prophet. After John the Baptist Died, their was mention of a prophet or two, but they were already alive, but after they died, the Prophets were done, No more mention of Prophets, unless it is False Prophets. Other wise the Apostles and Disiples mention, Pastors and Teachers, Not prophets, Plus the Bible tells us, we have The Word of God, that is the Bible. ---------------------
Does the Bible really teach that prophets ended with John the Baptist?
Like most LDS i do read my Bible. Trying to make the claims above requires a somewhat crude hatchet job of Biblical interpretation.
Let’s take a closer look.
Here we read Jesus statement that is most commonly used in an attempt to make this claim:
---- "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." -Luke 16:16 ----
Some in their attempt to undermine the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints quote this verse in an attempt to somehow show that living prophets ended with John and are no longer needed- claiming that the belief in living prophets is somehow unbiblical. However, the "John" mentioned in Luke 16:16 is clearly John the Baptist (see Matthew 11:12-13). It should be plainly obvious that if it were true that living prophets ended with John the Baptist, then there certainly would not have been prophets of God long after John's death. But this is not the case at all. We do find prophets long after Johns death. (Acts 11:27; 21:10-11) (i will address this in more detail in a bit)
Clearly there were more prophets after John the Baptist so what does Luke 16:16 really mean?- and more specifically what exactly are "the law and the prophets" if there are to still be living prophets on the earth?
Simply stated, the “law and the prophets” as they are referenced in this passage are BOOKS of Old Testament scriptures. Ill clarify this distinction further in a bit. For now we need to understand that:
1. The “law” as it is referenced in this passage is a book.
". . . cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." -Gal 3:10
2. The “prophets” as it is referenced in this passage is a book.
". . . as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?" -Acts 7:42
3. The law and the prophets (books) are read in a synagogue.
"And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." -Acts 13:15
4. Things are written in the law and in the prophets- books.
". . . so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." -Acts 24:14
5. The law and the prophets are scriptures.
---- "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." -Luke 24:27 ----
Here is what we need to be very clear about as related to this point. The law and the prophets are two of the three main groups of Jewish scriptures, which over time Christians called the "Old Testament," and Jews called the "Tanakh" (a.k.a. the Hebrew Bible). The Hebrew Bible is divided into three groups of books: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. During the time of Christ, the third group or division was called "the psalms"
We can see this illustrated in the following passage.
---- "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the (1)”law of Moses” and in (2)”the prophets” and in (3)”the psalms” concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." -Luke 24:44-45 ----
The law and the prophets are BOOKS! Realizing that the law and the prophets are BOOKS of Old Testament scriptures greatly helps us to better understand other New Testament verses.
For instance during the Sermon on the Mount Jesus explained:
---- "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." -Matthew 5:17 ----
In other words Christ came not to destroy the scriptures, but to fulfill them. (for more examples, see Matthew 22:36-40, Luke 16:19-31, and Acts 28:23).
Christ coming to fullfil the “law and prophets” is a concept that most Christians are already aware of in at least a basic and general sense- BUT...
HERE IS THE VERY IMPORTANT KEY TO THIS POINT THAT I HAVE BEEN LEADING UP TO!!. As Christians in general and LDS Christians in particular, it is important not to confuse or equivocate between "the law and the prophets" and "apostles and prophets." THIS IS KEY DISTINCTION!!- that often times gets lost in the shuffle in these types of discussions. There is a difference between the two!! The former ("the law and the prophets") are BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE, while the latter ("apostles and prophets") are members of the true church of Jesus Christ- LIVING PEOPLE. Big difference! and a key distinction. (see also 1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11)
Let me repeat it one more time to make sure this distinction is clear. The “law and the prophets” are BOOKS of scripture and “apostles and prophets” are living PEOPLE.
This distinction is clear, evident and well laid out in the Bible.
Now that we have illustrated this distinction it might be helpful to go back and re-read the passages i have chosen to include here that lead up to it- they will probably make more sense now.
Anyway, in Luke 16:16 when Jesus says "The “law and the prophets” were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." he is talking about the “law and the prophets” as in BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE being until John- NOT living PEOPLE as Prophets being until John. This was the very clear understanding of the people at the time Jesus was speaking this. Jesus was not telling them that there would never be any more living prophets on there earth- that would have been absurd.
Even with clarity around this distinction the question does still remain as to- “why” were the law and the prophets until John?
The law and the prophets were until John in the same sense that they prophesied until John!
---- "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. FOR ALL THE PROPHETS AND THE LAW PROPHESIED UNTIL JOHN" -Matthew 11:12-13 ----
The law and the prophets prophesied UNTIL John because they were prophesying of Christ. When Jesus came after John, He fulfilled those scriptures concerning Christ, as they are written in the law and in the prophets. (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:27, 44-45).
The apostle Paul testified:
---- "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." -Acts 26:22-23 ----
Therefore, Luke 16:16 refers to the fulfillment of the SCRIPTURES, "the law and the prophets," concerning Christ. But this verse says NOTHING about "apostles and prophets" as living servants of God, who received new revelation, prophesied, and served in the church long after John's death. Big difference! "The law and the prophets" (Books of Scripture) were until John, not "apostles and prophets." (Living Beings)
Jesus in Luke 16:16 is speaking about a specific group of Scriptures ending with John and not living prophets ending.
-----------
So, where there Prophets after Jesus mortal ministry? Let’s take a look.
Another scripture some attempt to wrest along with Luke 16:16 is Hebrews 1:1-2:
---- "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ." ----
Some critics argue that God spoke unto the fathers by the prophets only "in time past" during the Old Testament. And claim that now that we have Jesus, we no longer need prophets. Therefore, they say that there will be no true living prophets after Christ.
Sometimes deceitfully but more commonly out of ignorance because of the traditions of their fathers these critics neglect to mention that, when God spoke unto us by His Son, one of the things He said He would do is send us prophets.
For example Jesus says:
---- “Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute:” -Luke 11:49 ----
God also said by His Son that, if we receive those He sends, we receive Him (John 13:20). Since we will be judged in the last day by what Christ has spoken, shouldn’t we heed His words and accept those He sends (John 12:48-49)?
So how can it be true that we no longer need prophets or that there will be no true prophets after Christ? This is just not what the Bible teaches.
The very simple fact of the matter is they who cite Hebrews 1:1-2 to support their argument against true prophets after Christ are reading into these verses their own ideas!! They are projecting their own understanding that flows out of the traditions of man and trying to make this passage say something that it does not say at all.
Lets break it down a bit.
Hebrews 1:1-2 states that:
A. "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," and...
B. "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ."
BUT NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT....
1. we no longer need prophets...
nor that...
2. there will be no true prophets after Christ.
These last two statements (1 & 2) are clearly some individuals private interpretations and flow out of the “philosophys and traditions of man”.
Lets look at these two interpretations a bit closer. According to the Bible these interpretations are most certainly false.
Interpretation 1- We no longer need prophets.
The apostle Paul refuted this interpretation in one of his epistles written years after Christ's Ascension. As i am sure you are already aware Paul compared the church to the body of Christ, where every member of the church is an ESSENTIAL member of Christ's body. Please note in the passage below that Paul specifically identified "prophets" as CURRENT MEMBERS of the New Testament church:
---- "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you: . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." -1 Corinthians 12:18-22, 27-31 ----
Remember, this is AFTER Christs ascension.
Hence as "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee," neither can one member of the church say unto a prophet, "I have no need of thee"; for ALL the members of the body of Christ need to be "fitly joined together," so that, by working together as a whole, they "maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" -Ephesians 4:16, cp. 2:21.
To be sure, Paul gave additional reasons why and how long we need prophets in the church:
---- "And [Christ] gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." -Ephesians 4:11-14 ----
It is clear that the reasons why we need prophets along with the other members of the church are: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: . . . That we hence forth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."
Here it is plainly laid out how long we need these members in the church. It is: "Till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God."
I just have to ask- have we achieved these ends? Not even close. Then obviously, according to Paul we still need prophets along with the other members of the church.
Interpretation 2- There will be no true prophets after Christ.
The Bible contradicts this interpretation, bearing record that there were true prophets in the church after Christ's Ascension (Acts 13:1, 15:32, 1 Corinthians 12:28).
----“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain PROPHETS and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” -Acts 13:1 ----
----“And Judas and Silas, BEING PROPHETS ALSO THEMSELVES, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed [them].” -Acts 15:32 ----
These are just a couple of references- there are others as well.
These prophets in the New Testament not only taught and preached, but they also received NEW REVELATION and PROPHESIED (Ephesians 3:1-6, Acts 11:27-30, 21:10-11).
In fact, apostles and prophets formed the very foundation of the church, of which Jesus Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-21). And since these apostles and prophets had a testimony of Jesus, the "spirit of prophecy" was present in the very leadership of the church (Revelation 19:10). This also means that the apostles themselves were prophets as well, who received and brought forth further revelation and prophecy AFTER Christ. Apostles are prophets. (e.g. the Book of Revelation).
--
Even in the latter days the Bible foretells that God will pour out His spirit, and our sons and daughters will “prophesy” (Joel 2:28).
In addition, the Bible reveals that in the last days there will be two witnesses who will prophesy 1,260 days. These prophets will also have power to devour their enemies with fire, to shut heaven that it does not rain, to turn water to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will. After they prophesy, they will be killed and lie in a street in Jerusalem for three and a half days. Then God will raise them from the dead, and they will ascend up to heaven in a cloud. See Revelation 11:1-12.
I just have to ask- how in the world can there be prophets in the last days who can call down fire, get killed, lie in the street dead only to be raised from the dead and ascend up to heaven in a cloud if there are never any more prophets on the earth after Jesus mortal ministry?
If these men are in fact prophets in the latter-days with what Church will these two prophets be affiliated? If you happen to still be on the earth when this event happens and these two prophets turn out to be LDS General Authorities I would suggest you contact your friendly local LDS missionaries as soon as possible! : )
As sure as you are reading this there will be true prophets in the latter days- like those in the Old Testament. And there are living prophets on the earth already!! They are found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have been brought about through the glorious Restoration of the Gospel in this the last and final dispensation of the fullness of times. What a glorious day and age we live in!!
Those individuals who claim there will be no Old Testament-style or -type prophets in the latter days, "do err, not knowing the scriptures."
To wrap this up i would say- Hebrews 1:1-2 means what it says:
---- "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ." ----
But Hebrews 1:1-2 does not say nor does it mean that (1) we no longer need prophets nor that (2) there will be no true prophets after Christ; for, when God spoke unto us by His Son, He clearly stated that He would send us prophets. He did so in the New Testament after Christ's Ascension, and He will continue to do so in these latter days.
I think it is important to point out that i have limited my comments here strictly to the Bible. As a LDS we have a variety of other elements at our disposal when i comes to discerning Gods truth in this dispensation that are not included here. Things like the testimony and counsel of living prophets, spiritual witness, personal revelation, the testimony of the Book of Mormon and other factors that function together as a whole in this dispensation. In other words i have intentionally restricted these comments to Biblica references only- of which there are more that are not included here.
I would like to leave you with this one last very plain and very clear passage of Scripture from the Bible for your contemplation.
---- "SURELY THE LORD GOD WILL DO NOTHING, BUT HE REVEALETH HIS SECRET UNTO HIS SERVANTS THE PROPHETS." -Amos 3:7 ----
As LDS we believe that God holds true to His word- and that God still sees fit to interact with man today in the very same ways he has done in the past. It is a glorious day and age that we live in!!
Thank-you for your time and consideration.
In Christ,
-Tad
Hey, Tad, way to beat a point to death, while still missing the point. Yes, Rick was wrong about the no Prophet thing, he's only human and he's already acknowledged a willingness to accept and apologize when he is wrong. Show a little grace and mercy and a little less glee.
I will say your responce was well thought out as far as the no prophet thing and I do appreciate that you held back some. Certainly it would have been even more rediculous to read had you continued. Ofcourse, you could have simply quoted a couple versus and proved him wrong on that point, but hey you had to get your agenda in there some how.
Luke 16:16 was quoted and misused and some interesting interpretations of Hebrews 1:1-2 were mentioned. Both of these passages are pointing out that the times have changed. This does not mean that we no longer need prophets or that there isn't any more, but rather the way we can commune with God has changed.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Rom 8:1-4 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Here we see the change in the our relationship with the law.
Hebrews 1:1-2 establishes the change as far as prophets are concerned, but to understand this change you need to understand the function of prophets, which I don't think you do.
[18] And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw [it], they removed, and stood afar off. [19] And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. [21] And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God [was]. (Exd 20:18-21 KJV)
Here we see the people deciding they don't want God to speak to them directly, despite God being there to speak to them. They rejected him, asking that he speak to them through designated people, prophets. It is this function that has changed. If you look through out the OT and into the new testament Prophets do the same things, somewhat different presentation from prophet to prophet but the same things.
First and foremost they communicate with God and bring the good news. This one is often missunderstood. When God sent Jonah to tell Ninevah that they were going to be destroyed it was good news. Maybe not to them, but by the Lord's standards it was better for them to die then to continue the way they were. God was taking action to correct the situation, that's always good.
Second, what we like to call prophecy, the fortelling of things to come and third, miracles, the demonstration of God's power, from summoning fire to stoping the rain.
Everything the acknowledged prophets of the Bible did was to bring people into,back into or closer to a right relationship with God. Correction and encouragement, repentance and building up.
Thanks to Jesus we can now commune with God directly, we no longer need a designated human go between. Just Jesus. The rest of the function of the prophets are still there, however.
[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hbr 1:1-2 KJV)
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Jesus came and spoke to man, God taking the form of a man came to commune with us. Where man created division before, God bridged the gap. Then Jesus went up to sit at the right hand of God and intercede for us and the Father sent us the Holy Spirit to replace him. While few could partake of Jesus' presence in the flesh, all can enjoy the presense of God through the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, the source of prophecy.
Tad made the arguement that Apostles are also Prophets, in a matter of function I wont argue, like all who have a relationship with God, apostles have the Holy Spirit too. However, do you understand that an Apostle is simply one who is sent. Jesus is acknowledged as having only 12 disciples but at least 72 Apostles, many of whom later sent other people out making more Apostles. Realy if you follow the teachings, Jesus told us all to go spread the news, so all believers are Apostles and thus Prophets.
Tad said "These prophets in the New Testament not only taught and preached, but they also received NEW REVELATION and PROPHESIED (Ephesians 3:1-6, Acts 11:27-30, 21:10-11)."
But I would point out...
Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.
God doesn't change and there is nothing new under the sun, so where do you think you are getting the "new revelation" from? Only 1 of the versus you mention talks about revelation and it's not new.
[1] For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, [2] If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: [3] How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, [4] Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) [5] Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [6] That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Eph 3:1-6 KJV)
The passage says that it wasn't made known before, it doesn't say it wasn't there, we now have the Holy Spirit to make it known to us. ie. make it so we can understand. Also notice, "the dispensation" not "this dispensation."
There is only one message, one God, one truth and none of it changes, never has, never will.
Tad said "As sure as you are reading this there will be true prophets in the latter days- like those in the Old Testament. And there are living prophets on the earth already!! They are found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have been brought about through the glorious Restoration of the Gospel in this the last and final dispensation of the fullness of times. What a glorious day and age we live in!!"
What a crock. Only in the LDS, how arogant a claim is that. The dispensation of the gospel was taken care of a long time ago and any "new revelations" only prove false prophets which according to the Bible are to be stoned. I suggest more study, remember:
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Act 17:11 KJV)
Search it out, realy search it out, get the full counsel, spend some time in the OT, pray for understanding and give it to God to make the truth known to you. He has always offered it and always will and anything that differs from the message in the Bible is heresy. Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus, he certainly can twist it to lead you astray, so if you need any source out side of God and his word, the Bible, then you are treading on thin ice.
But hey, we all have free will right, your going to believe what ever you want anyway despite the truth.
"anything that differs from the message in the Bible is heresy."
Really? That is what the Pharisees thought.
Jesus changed what was in the Bible (the Law and the Prophets, the OT the Jews had) that is why they were so angry. He was judged a heretic. He got the punishment the OT said a heretic/blasphemer deserved. So who gets to judge? Men?
I suppose you expect an example of where Jesus changed verses?
He said "it is written an eye for an eye.....but I say...." and then he changed what was written by his own prophets??? Wait, is that allowed? Is he now a heretic?
You know what I think? I think the original was wrong, and needed correcting. He simply corrected it.
ick: Just how do the MM's feel God spoke to them?
SD: Not many will ever claim this.
Missionaries are sent out to teach not to “testify” that God spoke to them.
They will say that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God. Joseph Smith claims he did see and speak with God. (he gives his eye witness testimony). They will teach of the Book of Mormon.
They do not tell people that they should just believe it because THEY say it.
They do not say, “believe me, believe my witness, they say to read, study, and consider it with a pure and open heart. Then, with faith, ASK GOD to make the truth of it known to you.
The (MM) allow the Spirit of God to testify of the truth of their message to those that are sincere.
Remember the Lord telling us how His Father would not give “stones” to His children who asked for “bread” (bread=truth about the Bread of Life).
He said basically that men can give stones if asked for truth, even well intentioned men do.
But when you go directly to Him in prayer and you are worthy to receive an answer, you will get bread/truth. What is worthy? Worthy is teachable, innocent, sincere, and willing.
P.S. Don't think that I am saying none of the missionaries have heard literally from God, I'm sure some have. Most are young (our babes....remember, the gospel would come from the mouths of babes?)
and many have had only a few experiences with the Spirit, but they have many more experiences as they go out and serve as they were called.
Hello Shellpdog. You said: "Jesus changed what was in the Bible (the Law and the Prophets, the OT the Jews had) that is why they were so angry. He was judged a heretic. He got the punishment the OT said a heretic/blasphemer deserved. So who gets to judge? Men?
I suppose you expect an example of where Jesus changed verses?
He said "it is written an eye for an eye.....but I say...." and then he changed what was written by his own prophets??? Wait, is that allowed? Is he now a heretic?
You know what I think? I think the original was wrong, and needed correcting. He simply corrected it."
Jesus was correcting the interpretation of the law and the prophets that was being taught at that time. He was pointing out their error in interpretation, then making the truth clear. He did not change scripture. He never changed scripture.
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Isa 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh [is] grass, and all the goodliness thereof [is] as the flower of the field:
Isa 40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people [is] grass.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Psa 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he [is] a buckler to all those that trust in him.
As you can see plainly, God's word does not change.
Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
So, you can plainly see that God does not change either.
You err, not knowing God or His enduring word. Jesus Christ will judge this earth.
2Ti 4:1 I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.
2Cr 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.
This is the point of this blog:
2Cr 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Shelli
Greetings Neptico,
Thank-you for sharing your views.
In Christ,
-Tad
SD, You said Jesus changed what was in the Bible (the Law and the Prophets, the OT the Jews had) that is why they were so angry. He was judged a heretic. He got the punishment the OT said a heretic/blasphemer deserved. So who gets to judge? Men?
I suppose you expect an example of where Jesus changed verses?
He said "it is written an eye for an eye.....but I say...." and then he changed what was written by his own prophets??? Wait, is that allowed? Is he now a heretic?
You know what I think? I think the original was wrong, and needed correcting. He simply corrected it.
Your first problem is you dont understand the bible, second problem is, you dont believe the bible.
The issue here is this, the OT is the first covenant, then if you read your bible, you will see that their was a difference between the Jews and us Gentiles. The whole issue of Eye for Eye, was a law for the Jews to follow. No where in the Jewish law is it stated we Gentiles are to Obey this law of God, unless we convert.
Then you said, Jesus got what he deserved, He was put to death, If he really Got what he deserved, he would have been stoned to death, Not crucifed. Then if he really Got what he deserved, He would not have been sinless, he was inocent of all charges and put to death unjustly.
Then when you said JS, saw God, JS himself said, no man can see God and Live, Without the priesthood.
So how was it JS saw God and lived then later on recived the priesthood? Rick b
Post a Comment