You are mistaken that Christianity does not “care” about Apostles. The fact is we do not need apostles today. Those chosen by Christ were given a one time mission: to lay the foundation of this His church. The lds, by resurrecting the office of apostles are in actuality, laying another foundation which Paul said we cannot do.

Thanks for stopping by. I have been trying to research baptism for the dead in the early christian church. Do you have any references showing it was practiced well into the 3rd century? I would love to see those. I would especially love to see if people like Ireneaus or other early church fathers referenced it.

One thing that has me confused is how often critics go after Joseph Smith and his seer rocks and so forth. It does sound a bit odd, especially when I heard of JS using Urim and Thummim to dechipher/read plates and so forth. It sounded like something from Lord of the Rings. I wondered where JS could come up with such a silly idea, I mean who ever heard of the Creator giving such a thing to his people. I thought that until I read the Bible, it is right there. So as ridiculous as it sounds, God instituted the whole idea of seership using such methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim

I submit that no one religion on the face of the earth has room to talk about another. All religions since the inception of Christ have been guilty of rape, murder, simonry (to one degree or another–it is what one religion calls another in ascertaining worthy members for sacraments and ordinances) and down right extortion.

I don’t care how long ago it was, how long ago the Crusades were, how long ago the Inquitions were, how long ago the battle to establish either a Catholic or Protestant throne was, it was all done by shedding of blood. The point is, IF religion was ever right, ever followed the truth path of Jesus Christ, none of it would have happened. Period.

The only reason it does not happen now in our country, is because our forefathers had the wisdom to seperate state and religion and that is the only reason, as men are basically still prone to going insane over religion.

I can respect a person’s belief or need to believe the Bible is the innerrant word of God. I also know that came from the knee jerk reaction of breaking off from Catholicism where the cry was “sola scriptura.” To do that, to erradicate a thousand years worth of Church father’s writings, Luther proclaimed he would go by the Bible alone.

The problem is that there are many contradictions and deliberate frauds in the Bible, mostly dealing with trying to sell the Trinity as a God sanctioned doctrine. So the LDS is not out of line when they say that they believe it when and where it is accurately translated.

What Christianity today has missed the point on is that they don’t teach that being baptized for the dead was practiced well into the 3rd century before it was outlawed. Nor do they tell us why they outlawed it. Corinthians speaks of a third heaven. What third heaven? Paul was caught up to it. Why is that never taught? Do they even know themselves? Then Phillippians Paul speaks about his wanting to achieve the resurrection from the dead? Hello? He didn’t think he was going to make it? Upon further study, one would find he was talking about the out resurrection from the dead, where he would not have to wait to be bodily ressurected, but like Elias and others, would be caught up to be with the Lord at the moment of his death.

These doctrines are not taught in the Christian church. Mormonism dares to touch these doctrines.

So in essence, yes. The LDS church has reached back and touched on issues and doctrines that the greater part of Christianity has let die along the roadside.

I don’t really think the Catholic church follows the same structure as the Apostolic church. Yes, the pope is similar to the prophet in the mormon church, but the college of cardinals are more akin to the seventy, not apostles.

Also, establishing truth through the Bible is tricky business. Every one of the more than 100 Christian denominations claims to follow the “true” Bible. They can’t all be right with their conflicting beliefs. This is like 100 different verdicts in the OJ trial.

Perhaps I’ll have a discussion later on “what did Paul mean when he said we could become ‘joint-heirs with Christ’?” I’ll have to better research, but I believe there are some church fathers that support this position, and I will lay out some biblical scriptures which support this position. But that is off topic for this discussion.

Also, falcon, could I invite you to join the “Marcionite” discussion on the apostasy? I have another post dedicated to that topic, and I’d love to hear your comments there.

Or God is not God.

Tom

How do we establish truth? Excellent question. First of all it’s based on careful study of the Word of God, the Bible. There are specific, recognized principles for Bible interpretation. Now shortly after I got saved (decades ago) I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues. Today the gift is with me as is the gift of prophesy as outlined in First Cor. 12-13. When I received the Baptism and spoke in tongues I also proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, right on the spot. It was obvious that I was speaking forth God’s word. So would you agree with me that the Gospel I proclaim is the truth based on this supernatural witness of the Holy Spirit? It was more than a feeling, God manifested Himself in me by His Holy Spirit. So how do I know the truth a part from the Holy Spirit’s witness within me? In other words is the truth just in there or do I have to do something else? Again, I’m back to Bible study, solid interpretation principles, prayer, fasting when necessary and confirmation from informed sources.

Now you were using the argument from equivalency, which is; admit my guy is flawed (Joseph Smith) but find some other guy (Moses) that was flawed too and call it a tie. See they’re the same. You know, Hitler put Jews in internment camps but Franklin Roosevelt put the American Japanese in inturnment camps too so they’re the same.

Jesus said that the Spirit of truth would lead us into all truth. I believe that based on the witness of the Holy Spirit as manifested by God’s supernatural gifts, and the Holy Scriptures I have the truth. The truth is this: God is One. He’s not a former man who got righteous. Jesus is fully human and fully divine, having two natures in one person-without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. see Phillipians 2:5-11.

To avoid outer darkness and to spend eternity with God we have to trust in Jesus for our salvation. Only one Jesus can save. Not a created being god but fully God. Only He is the qualified Savior. I invite you to receive this gift of eternal life today.

Can you format your comments into paragraphs? It makes it easier to read. Thanks.

Thanks for the respectful discussion. Two people from different backgrounds can look at the same pieces of historical information, and come to different conclusions. It happens all the time, but it’s nice when mudslinging is not present. Thanks.

We can talk about apostacy in my other post. I’ll just say quickly here, that mormons are trying to establish the church as Jesus did, and “traditional christianity” does not seem to care about apostles any more. If you want to call this folk history, I guess that’s your prerogative.

You seem to take great delight in dissecting Joseph and Brigham’s statements. But I feel that if you dissected early church fathers (Origen, Tertullian, and Clement to name a few), you could easily make similar arguments about Christianity. Many of these early church fathers are known as Saints, such as St Clement. But you no longer espouse some of these doctrines, and Tertullian who coined “trinity”, is really a heretic–hence there is no Saint Tertullian.

As for “spiritual” feelings, how else does one establish truth? Two juries considered the OJ Simpson case. Neither knew exactly what happened. But one jury “felt” he was guilty, while the other “felt” he was innocent. Yet the facts of the case in both trials was never really disputed. How else can you explain these contradictory verdicts, other than through feelings? Facts certainly produced differing verdicts.

You mentioned Joseph was guilty of bank fraud. Let’s look at Moses for a similar example. If you were an Egyptian guard, wouldn’t you say Moses was guilty of murder? After all, he slew an Egyptian and buried him in the sand. We have a Bible to prove it, and Moses never denies it. Now, the jews, and Christians all come to Moses’ defence, and say Moses did it to save a jew who was being beaten. But from an Egyptian point of view, he’s nothing but a murderer and fugitive. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter.” Sometimes guilt or innocence depends on one’s point of view.

Let’s pretend that you were to espouse the Eqyptian god of Ra and we were having a discussion on the merits of Judaism vs Ra-ism (for lack of a better word), it would be awfully easy for you to call Moses a murderer. Yet I would find it easy to defend Moses as a prophet.

You would say, “Moses really talked to God? I think he just carved those stone tablets by himself……After all, he’s a murderer…”

Do you see my point?