LDS Against LDS claims about Christians & keeping the commandments: the example of Philoxenos of Mabbug

[Rescued One]

Were the leaders of the churches that murdered millions of people over the centuries evil men too?

Perhaps it was the governments that carried out the exocutions. Were you there?

 

[Rescued One]

Who said any such thing? Murder is murder whether it's one life or one hundred thousand. Your leaders were evil men.

The quotes I provided proved that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were evil men.

Saying that there were other evil men in the world won't exonerate J. S. and B. Y.

 

[Peter1000]

Murdered millions by whose estimate? What are we talking about here? The Inquisition? The Crusades? Millions, really? Was it all unjustified? You'll find the cause of warfare in Christian history to be more complex than priests leading armies for the sake of wanton destruction. Priests rarely were the helm of any army btw.

What do you have to say about the good clergy? How do explain the existence of men and women of genuine faith? How did they continue to exist despite there being no Apostles and God's spirit not being with them? Or are you content to smear everyone clergyman as evil the reason for Christianity's fall?

The problem i have with your narrative is that it is overly critical. I understand that as a MOrmon you have an invested interest in the Church before the LDS being utterly corrupt and destitute of anything good but this blinds you to looking at history with an objective eye. Mormons will gladly quote the Church fathers when they mention corruption or that people have abandoned real faith, but ignore those same fathers when they commend their brethren for persevering and keeping to the faith. Two things can be true at the same time and the Church has always had to deal with evil in it's midst. Human nature is not something obliterated by conversion or becoming a Christian so we are still subject to sin.

It is only overly critical to this forum. I admit millions of people did billions of good works despite not having the fullness of the gospel to lead and guide them correctly. I admit that millions of sincere people pushed forward with the words of the bible to make a difference in this world. The Holy Ghost was there, when a good person needed guidance, even though it was temporary. The Holy Spirit is always engaged with truth and righteousness, no matter who you are. So the Holy Spirit was there for millions of people.

Millions of people over the centuries did not trust the leaders of the churches and came up with their own churches and if they were not strong enough, the other churches came upon them and persecuted and murdered them for daring to go outside the established order of things. Especially during the dark ages and into the reformation.

The history is too brutal and cruel for Jesus to really have been at the head of it. It is just that plain to see. The bible speaks of it too, and those apostasy prophecies in the bible are absolutely true.

 

[Peter1000]

Maybe I missed it, I don't know if it was already asked and/or answered, but I'm curious:

If one of the Twelve Apostles is still around, why isn't he counted among the Quorum of Twelve? Was John's apostleship removed?

-CryptoLutheran

As far as we know, he has another calling now, and that is not to be part of a new 12 apostles. But that would be a great deal if John had been called as one of the present day 12 apostles. Good idea.

 

[Rescued One]

As far as we know, he has another calling now, and that is not to be part of a new 12 apostles. But that would be a great deal if John had been called as one of the present day 12 apostles. Good idea.

Was John excommunicated? If not, why would he no longer be an apostle?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is only overly critical to this forum. I admit millions of people did billions of good works despite not having the fullness of the gospel to lead and guide them correctly. I admit that millions of sincere people pushed forward with the words of the bible to make a difference in this world. The Holy Ghost was there, when a good person needed guidance, even though it was temporary. The Holy Spirit is always engaged with truth and righteousness, no matter who you are. So the Holy Spirit was there for millions of people.

Yet God denied them what they needed most. The Mormon Sacraments. Apostolic leadership and a pure Gospel. God denied them these things, not themselves. You can't blame the people for what they couldn't have known.

Millions of people over the centuries did not trust the leaders of the churches and came up with their own churches and if they were not strong enough, the other churches came upon them and persecuted and murdered them for daring to go outside the established order of things. Especially during the dark ages and into the reformation.

What are you talking about here? Give examples. You make it seem like it was a common thing for the Churches to be the ones with the sword and just wantonly kill people. The formal separation between the Clergy as dealing witht he spiritual realm and the government as dealing with the earthly was an important principle. Clergy were not supposed to pick up the sword as that was the responsibility of the King.

Still, how does all this prevent God from countering the forces of the world and establishing a new Apostle? Seems like the Mormon God was just unable to have his faith persevere through that time. This should give you pause about your own faith. If the Church could fall once, it can fall again. It might already have done so already, despite there being prophets, because your Church has done away with eh particulars Joseph Smith revealed.

Seems to me the Mormon God cannot handle corruption or the heart of man.

The history is too brutal and cruel for Jesus to really have been at the head of it. It is just that plain to see. The bible speaks of it too, and those apostasy prophecies in the bible are absolutely true.

So basically Jesus was powerless to combat the evil of this world. This is how weak the Mormon Jesus is.

 

[Peter1000]

Yet God denied them what they needed most. The Mormon Sacraments. Apostolic leadership and a pure Gospel. God denied them these things, not themselves. You can't blame the people for what they couldn't have known.

They lost out, but only for a short time. You have to know the whole plan of God. All people will have an acute experience with living the full gospel of Jesus Christ, whether on this earth or in the spirit world beyond. All will have the full right of choosing Jesus Christ or not. So they may have lost for a time the fullness of the gospel, but they will have that experience before the judgement.

Still, how does all this prevent God from countering the forces of the world and establishing a new Apostle? Seems like the Mormon God was just unable to have his faith persevere through that time. This should give you pause about your own faith. If the Church could fall once, it can fall again. It might already have done so already, despite there being prophets, because your Church has done away with eh particulars Joseph Smith revealed.

You are right, except Jesus told JS that this church shall not apostatize because God needed this organization to assist him in getting the world and the spirit world ready for his second coming.

This sounds like the same promise Jesus made to Peter that the gates of hell shall not prevail against this church. Our understanding of this scripture is that if the leaders of the church would rely on revelation from Jesus, the gates of hell would not prevail. The leaders gave up revelation from God and started governing the churches (5 sees- Pentarchy) with their own wisdom and if God had not made special provisions, the gates of hell would have prevailed. Does it not sound like the gates of hell prevailed when in 1500's Luther says that Rome was the playpen of satan, and satan was the head of the church? Well that sounds like all was not well in the church. And Luther was not even a Mormon.

Seems to me the Mormon God cannot handle corruption or the heart of man.

Jesus handles corruption the same way every time. With the corruption of the house of Israel, he withdrew and allowed the kings to make their own decisions and would not support them in their time of need. They reject him, he rejects them.

The same with the corruption in the churches. They would not listen to him, he will withdraw and leave them to their own imaginations. Read the history to find out how well that went.

So basically Jesus was powerless to combat the evil of this world. This is how weak the Mormon Jesus is.

See above, you reject him, he withdraws from you, knowing that eventually he will find a people that he can use to restore again his true church to the earth and do another great work and a wonder. JS was that person, the restoration is in full throttle and going round the world fast. The second coming is moving at us quickly, there is much to be done.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They lost out, but only for a short time. You have to know the whole plan of God. All people will have an acute experience with living the full gospel of Jesus Christ, whether on this earth or in the spirit world beyond. All will have the full right of choosing Jesus Christ or not. So they may have lost for a time the fullness of the gospel, but they will have that experience before the judgement.



You are right, except Jesus told JS that this church shall not apostatize because God needed this organization to assist him in getting the world and the spirit world ready for his second coming.

This sounds like the same promise Jesus made to Peter that the gates of hell shall not prevail against this church. Our understanding of this scripture is that if the leaders of the church would rely on revelation from Jesus, the gates of hell would not prevail. The leaders gave up revelation from God and started governing the churches (5 sees- Pentarchy) with their own wisdom and if God had not made special provisions, the gates of hell would have prevailed. Does it not sound like the gates of hell prevailed when in 1500's Luther says that Rome was the playpen of satan, and satan was the head of the church? Well that sounds like all was not well in the church. And Luther was not even a Mormon.



Jesus handles corruption the same way every time. With the corruption of the house of Israel, he withdrew and allowed the kings to make their own decisions and would not support them in their time of need. They reject him, he rejects them.

The same with the corruption in the churches. They would not listen to him, he will withdraw and leave them to their own imaginations. Read the history to find out how well that went.



See above, you reject him, he withdraws from you, knowing that eventually he will find a people that he can use to restore again his true church to the earth and do another great work and a wonder. JS was that person, the restoration is in full throttle and going round the world fast. The second coming is moving at us quickly, there is much to be done.

I had in mind a much larger response, instead I'll simply ask this. Do you agree that Peter was worthy of being an Apostle?

 

[Peter1000]

I had in mind a much larger response, instead I'll simply ask this. Do you agree that Peter was worthy of being an Apostle?

Yes, he was chosen by Jesus Christ himself.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, he was chosen by Jesus Christ himself.

Was Peter a sinful man?

 

[Peter1000]

Was Peter a sinful man?

Yes, Peter was a sinful man, even denying Christ 3 times at his trial.

But he repented of this denial and went on with the keys of the KOG to become a great special witness of Christ and died for his testimony.

You ask, well if Peter was a sinful man, why did Jesus transfer to him, the entire administrative duties of the new Church of Jesus Christ, found in the keys of the KOG? You could also ask, why did Jesus not allow Peter to pass these keys to another person before his death. That is a good question.

I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints by the year 64, the year most historians mark the death of Peter, was in a perilous state already, a mere 30 years from the ascension of Christ.

Many of the churches were in conflict, within a few years, all of Asia had turned against Paul, probably 1/2 the church at that time, were faltering. Jesus knew what was going to happen, what the people wanted, and so he allowed it to happen by not allowing the keys to be passed on to a belligerent leadership.

You see, Peter was loud and brass and headstrong, but he was also humble and submissive at the same time. The leadership of the church by the time he died was starting to have the attitude of ruling and control, which continued until that became the goal and glory of the bishop, especially among the Pentarchy. These leaders not only wanted to rule the spiritual lives, but also the secular lives of people like Kings. This attitude was far from the attitude of a Peter, or Paul, or any apostle.

Jesus was not going to pass the keys of the KOG to these kind of men.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, Peter was a sinful man, even denying Christ 3 times at his trial.

But he repented of this denial and went on with the keys of the KOG to become a great special witness of Christ and died for his testimony.

You ask, well if Peter was a sinful man, why did Jesus transfer to him, the entire administrative duties of the new Church of Jesus Christ, found in the keys of the KOG? You could also ask, why did Jesus not allow Peter to pass these keys to another person before his death. That is a good question.

I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints by the year 64, the year most historians mark the death of Peter, was in a perilous state already, a mere 30 years from the ascension of Christ.

Many of the churches were in conflict, within a few years, all of Asia had turned against Paul, probably 1/2 the church at that time, were faltering. Jesus knew what was going to happen, what the people wanted, and so he allowed it to happen by not allowing the keys to be passed on to a belligerent leadership.

You see, Peter was loud and brass and headstrong, but he was also humble and submissive at the same time. The leadership of the church by the time he died was starting to have the attitude of ruling and control, which continued until that became the goal and glory of the bishop, especially among the Pentarchy. These leaders not only wanted to rule the spiritual lives, but also the secular lives of people like Kings. This attitude was far from the attitude of a Peter, or Paul, or any apostle.

Jesus was not going to pass the keys of the KOG to these kind of men.

That wasn't my question at all. My next question is, was there no one like Peter between 100 AD and Joseph Smith?

 

[Peter1000]

That wasn't my question at all. My next question is, was there no one like Peter between 100 AD and Joseph Smith?

The short answer is, the Lord obviously did not think so.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The short answer is, the Lord obviously did not think so.

So an Apostle is chosen based on their moral character?

Was God then incapable of raising an Apostle because there was no one comparable to the sinner and man of imperfect faith Peter?

 

[Peter1000]

So an Apostle is chosen based on their moral character?

Was God then incapable of raising an Apostle because there was no one comparable to the sinner and man of imperfect faith Peter?

It is obvious that an apostle is chosen because of the moral character, but other qualities are needed too.

God was not willing to raise another apostle after a while because of the wickedness of the world, including the church. Just read your bible and the history, it is obvious.

Before Paul's death, bishops were not allowing apostles to come into their territory.
All of Asia was turned away from Paul.
Corinth was in turmoil.
Galatia was in a turmoil, having left their first love, Jesus.
All of the 7 churches of Revelations disappeared.
The world was killing his apostles one by one around the Mediterranean world.
6-7 prophecies from apostles about apostasy.
Gnostic, and other religious, and church elders themselves, were always working their alternate religions to take off members after them.
And this is all before the last apostles died and satan was let loose and the persecutions started.

This is the reason Jesus did not continue to replace apostles, which he did in the beginning.

 

[BigDaddy4]

It is obvious that an apostle is chosen because of the moral character, but other qualities are needed too.

God was not willing to raise another apostle after a while because of the wickedness of the world, including the church. Just read your bible and the history, it is obvious.

Before Paul's death, bishops were not allowing apostles to come into their territory.
All of Asia was turned away from Paul.
Corinth was in turmoil.
Galatia was in a turmoil, having left their first love, Jesus.
All of the 7 churches of Revelations disappeared.
The world was killing his apostles one by one around the Mediterranean world.
6-7 prophecies from apostles about apostasy.
Gnostic, and other religious, and church elders themselves, were always working their alternate religions to take off members after them.
And this is all before the last apostles died and satan was let loose and the persecutions started.

This is the reason Jesus did not continue to replace apostles, which he did in the beginning.

Your reasoning just doesn't make sense when looked at through Biblical scripture. Abraham, from what I understand, was considered the first Jewish prophet. Since that time, there has always been a prophet up through Malachi. Even when Israel was in captivity or had gone astray. So your reasoning about being "turned away" or in "turmoil" or whatever lame excuse you can make up just doesn't fly. God always provided according to His will. And His will, apparently, was to not have Apostles be an ongoing position within the church.

 

[dzheremi]

The whole thing doesn't make sense ecclesiologically (though that was never my point in the OP...), because the standard proof text I've seen the Mormons offer here (Ephesians 2:20) says nothing about either the continuation of any line of prophets, nor the idea of some kind of prophetic 'office', as Mormonism would have it. If we read Ephesians 2 in context, it becomes very clear that the Mormons simply fabricate this idea out of the barest of threads, in the sense of finding a lone sentence they can isolate and make mean whatever they want it to be (that's the danger of proof-texting: ignoring wider context).

From verse 11 onward we read:

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

+++

Reading the last sentence (bolded) in the context of the rest, it is very clear that the blessed apostle St. Paul is talking to this specific community about how they were once lost and without Christ, but through His coming and their accepting Him, now they are members of this Church having been built on this foundation. In other words, it's something that has already happened, not something that St. Paul is saying will be continuously happening or 're-happening'. When you build a foundation and it is strong, then it stays and there is no need to keep rebuilding it, because it cannot be harmed in such a way as to require it to be rebuilt, as Jesus Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone, and nothing can break Him as He is God incarnate.


Also note, giant aside but hopefully helpful to someone somewhere: grammatically, "been" is the past participle form of the verb "be", used to indicate what in other languages is called perfective aspect, which is itself used for completed actions, e.g., "has eaten", "have walked", etc. These are all past participle compounds, and while the participle is a form of the verb and not a tense, it is not a mistake that it shares the same -ed/-en ending as the past tense verb forms, because obviously tense and aspect go together in this way, as you can tell by looking at the pairing of tense and aspect that you get in languages where aspect is much more clearly displayed in the grammar, like Russian, where you can tell all of this stuff from looking at the verb forms. It is important to recognize how aspect works when looking at passages like Ephesians 2:20, because even though it obviously wasn't written in a Slavic language, it is using a construction that nevertheless expresses perfective aspect, i.e., it's an already completed action. It is not something that St. Paul is saying will be the foundation of the Church, such that we should follow forthcoming claimed 'prophets' so as to be faithful to the foundation we have been given. It's what already is the foundation of the Church, and we are faithful to it by accepting Christ, as the once faithless and lost Ephesians did.

 

[Peter1000]

Your reasoning just doesn't make sense when looked at through Biblical scripture. Abraham, from what I understand, was considered the first Jewish prophet. Since that time, there has always been a prophet up through Malachi. Even when Israel was in captivity or had gone astray. So your reasoning about being "turned away" or in "turmoil" or whatever lame excuse you can make up just doesn't fly. God always provided according to His will. And His will, apparently, was to not have Apostles be an ongoing position within the church.

God has had prophets intermittently throughout the history of the world to lead people to the true God. The last prophet before Jesus, was Malachi. Then 500 years and we have Jesus. He chose 12 to be the leaders of his church when he went to heaven.

As I have shown from the scriptures, the wickedness of the world and even the wickedness in the church finally stopped Jesus from replacing fallen apostles. He had to wait until America was formed to bring back his true church and a new prophet, or it would have been stomped out before it could get started again.
Even in America, the land of the free, his church had problems from the beginnings with persecutions. Jesus had to use extraordinary power to keep this fledgling little church on track and reach a time when the church would have enough members that it could sustain itself.

His church now is one of the fastest growing churches in the world and will continue to grow as people see the vision of the church and get ready for the second coming.

 

[Peter1000]

The whole thing doesn't make sense ecclesiologically (though that was never my point in the OP...), because the standard proof text I've seen the Mormons offer here (Ephesians 2:20) says nothing about either the continuation of any line of prophets, nor the idea of some kind of prophetic 'office', as Mormonism would have it. If we read Ephesians 2 in context, it becomes very clear that the Mormons simply fabricate this idea out of the barest of threads, in the sense of finding a lone sentence they can isolate and make mean whatever they want it to be (that's the danger of proof-texting: ignoring wider context).

From verse 11 onward we read:

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

+++

Reading the last sentence (bolded) in the context of the rest, it is very clear that the blessed apostle St. Paul is talking to this specific community about how they were once lost and without Christ, but through His coming and their accepting Him, now they are members of this Church having been built on this foundation. In other words, it's something that has already happened, not something that St. Paul is saying will be continuously happening or 're-happening'. When you build a foundation and it is strong, then it stays and there is no need to keep rebuilding it, because it cannot be harmed in such a way as to require it to be rebuilt, as Jesus Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone, and nothing can break Him as He is God incarnate.


Also note, giant aside but hopefully helpful to someone somewhere: grammatically, "been" is the past participle form of the verb "be", used to indicate what in other languages is called perfective aspect, which is itself used for completed actions, e.g., "has eaten", "have walked", etc. These are all past participle compounds, and while the participle is a form of the verb and not a tense, it is not a mistake that it shares the same -ed/-en ending as the past tense verb forms, because obviously tense and aspect go together in this way, as you can tell by looking at the pairing of tense and aspect that you get in languages where aspect is much more clearly displayed in the grammar, like Russian, where you can tell all of this stuff from looking at the verb forms. It is important to recognize how aspect works when looking at passages like Ephesians 2:20, because even though it obviously wasn't written in a Slavic language, it is using a construction that nevertheless expresses perfective aspect, i.e., it's an already completed action. It is not something that St. Paul is saying will be the foundation of the Church, such that we should follow forthcoming claimed 'prophets' so as to be faithful to the foundation we have been given. It's what already is the foundation of the Church, and we are faithful to it by accepting Christ, as the once faithless and lost Ephesians did.

What Ephesians 2 gave you was in the middle of a discourse on being members of the true church is also gave you a little gem of information. That this church's foundation is not the bible, and is not just Jesus Christ (sorry that is not blasphemy because the bible says it too).
The church has been and is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets and Jesus.
It should say living apostles and prophets.
If you read further to Ephesians 4, Paul tells us why the apostles and prophets and others are necessary and what will happen if the apostles and prophets and others go away. Clearly implying that living apostles need to be in the church always, for these reasons, or this will happen.

So read Ephesians 4, especially 11-14. We always need living apostles and prophets or we will be tossed too and from with every wind of doctrine and the sleight of men..... If you read the history of the Christian church, the doctrinal debates have existed ad nauseam, from about 150 - today because of the very fact that the apostles and prophets were taken by that time.

 

[dzheremi]

That still doesn't make sense, Peter. Doctrinal disputes occurred during the lives of the apostles, as testified to by the Apostolic Council in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible itself. So their simply being alive wasn't some kind of bulwark against dissent.

Just face the fact that there's nothing you can say that can either make your ecclesiology make sense or be present in the first century.