Apostasy from Christ' true teachings

I was unable to finish my post#77 due to domestic issues, and lack of time. However if you wish, please refer back to the 2nd paragraph of that post, then you will see the first part of my evidence that it was very probably a teaching of Jesus that he was the same in essence and shared the same being with the Father. This is opposed to the Mormon idea that he was a seperate god from the Father. The argument over this teaching was settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD when some 230 Bishops gathered from around the known world to refute the presbyter Arius who taught that Jesus was a creation of God the Father. Arius' idea was recent in 325 AD, and Athanasius, the main defender of the Apostolic teaching on the diety of Jesus said, "But concerning matters of faith, the Bishops assembled at Nicea did not write: 'It has been decided,' but, 'Thus the universal church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did not show that their judgement was of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..."(Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). Athanasius asked Arius rhetorically,"... how many early fathers(in writings of the earliest Christians) can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325). Therefore the Mormon argument that the teaching of Jesus was that he was not equal to the Father is false, and J. Smith is a false prophet on this issue alone. PM

What makes you think, that a bunch of bishops, which could be you or I, could come to a good conclusion of the nature God and Jesus. Everything is based off interpretation alone, and 200-300 people is way to many people to sit around and talk about such a topic. They would be lead into confusion more then conclusion. Who are 200-300 bishops to say what the nature of God is, only one person may do that, Jesus or a Prophet, no body else. The nature of God is confirmed by appearence not by intrepretation. Yes I am aware of scripture and what it stats, honestly it contradicts its self unless you count all views as a profile, in which case you dont come to the conclusion that God the father is the same as Jesus and you dont come to the conclusion that God is a spirit alone. The only other intreptation I would accept is that God is the only God perhaps, but Yes Jesus is seperete and nothing more then a perfect man who became a savior and born by a virgin, and that the Holy Spirit is also seperete from God and Jesus, but just the spirit that God uses to explain his laws to men.QuizP.S. It is obviouse that the Council of Nicea was wrong or could have been wrong; because their was many Reformations. Joseph Smith is not wrong just because he agreed with a evil man in history, evil men also hold truth but who is to say when they are telling thet truth. Evil men lie knowing they are liars, you make it sound as if this Arius thought he was telling the truth and was confused, nay that is not the case.[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

Ok Rie,

quote:

---

Official church documents -Ensign 1997

​

According to Oliver Cowdery’s account written in 1835, Lebolo and his work crew had discovered several mummies in one of the catacombs near the place where once stood the renowned Egyptian city of Thebes. After Lebolo’s death, these mummies and two papyrus rolls and some papyrus fragments that had been placed in some of the sarcophagi eventually found their way to New York City and then into the hands of Michael Chandler. He was told that no one could translate the papyri’s inscriptions. He learned, however, that a man named Joseph Smith Jr. claimed some kind of special power that allowed him to decipher ancient writings. The Prophet’s name continued to come up, mostly in derision, at the various places where Chandler stopped to display his traveling mummy show. In 1835 Chandler finally made contact with the Prophet Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio. An entry in the Prophet’s history dated 3 July 1835 reads:

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation.

---

There were several mummies and 2 papyrus scrolls which found their way into the hands of Michael Chandler, but we read further that he brought them to Joseph Smith, but then what happend? We read that Mr Chandler didn't bring all but only brought some of the scrolls "he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation." this information does not provide enough information as to the method of translation. Joseph Smith new and all people new that he could not translate these documents him self(i.e. without seer stones), but did he try, perhaps as he had seen many of these figures from the transaltion of the book of Mormon and perhaps he didn't use the seer stones because they were ment for the book of Mormon. Then later we read that they(i.e. mummies and scrolls) were purchased.

quote:

---

Official church documents -Ensign 1997

​

The Prophet Joseph Smith was then inspired to raise money to purchase Chandler’s mummies and the accompanying papyri even though he did not know exactly what the writings would disclose. Kirtland Saints contributed the funds for the purchase. The price was $2,400not an inconsequential sum considering that the temple was under construction, but the faith of members who knew the Prophet and his works led them to help.

---

Then we read that he translated more of the scrolls and among the some of the translations were the book of abraham.(note he didn't translate all of the documents as of yet, also note that it appears he used scribes not the seer stones)

quote:

---

Official church documents -Ensign 1997

​

After the purchase, the Prophet Joseph began to translate some of the papyri with the assistance of scribes W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery. (Warren Parish was later called and employed as scribe.) This is what the Prophet recorded in his personal history: "With W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth."

---

later we find that all of the scrolls were burned and later we find some were found, who is to say that the papyrus found was the one translated as the book of Abraham? who knows -nobody, you can't verify this information, there is no way to do so, I have checked . The church standpoint on this issue is that the papyri found was one of the many Joseph Smith had in his posession not that it was the one used to translate the book of Abraham. For the issue of the papyri in the book of abraham, maybe it was a err, no church is 100% correct and maybe this is were the err is in the church, bad papyri copies and not the original. So you see the answer is simple, the book of Abraham is not found, it was burned in the fire. No way to validate the book of Abraham. The papri in the pearl of great price perhaps were error as no body is perfect not even prophets.(sorry for the confusion)QuizP.S. More from the Ensign,There is no doubt that the Prophet Joseph Smith regarded the manner in which these writings came to him as the result of divine intercession. The testimony of W. W. Phelps is no less certain: God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church. This happened only after the Lord had prepared his Church and the world to receive the book of Abraham. The rekindled spirit of excitement about ancient Egyptian writings in the 19th century, owing to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and Champollion’s work, was one step in that preparation. Speaking of the way the Lord has guided discoveries and achievements of the human family to further his purposes, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

​

There has never been a step taken from that day [ancient times] to this, in discovery or invention, where the Spirit of the Lord was not the prevailing force, resting upon the individual, which caused him to make the discovery or the invention. Nor did the Lord always use those who have faith, nor does he always do so today. He uses such minds as are pliable and can be turned in certain directions to accomplish his work, whether they believe in him or not.

​

Now, do you think that these discoveries and inventions have come just because these men have been sitting down and concentrating their minds upon these matters and have discovered them though their thought or accidentally? Not in the least, but the Spirit of the Lord, the Light of Christ, has been back of it. We are ready for these discoveries, these inventions, and they all have a bearing upon the restoration of the gospel and preparation for the time which is yet future, but which is shortly to come, when Christ shall reign on the earth, and for a thousand years peace shall be established.

​

Hence, this remarkable book of Abraham was brought forth in a remarkable way to help prepare us for the Second Coming of the Savior.
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

Ok Rie,I am going to have to agree with you. The Rosetta is a good find and it helps translaters to understand ancient documents. Yes translaters can use the Rosetta stone to validate papyri, etc.Quiz

Do you really think that the LDS Church would admit that the Book of Abraham was "translated" from an ordinary Funerary document unless they had absolutely no choice ?

quote:

---

Quiz : When people try to stop the work of the Lord, they die and this is ok because they are trying to stop the way of the Lord, it is the same for those who disagree with the Lords work(i.e satan), they die, very simple comcept, I am surprised they didn't die.
----
Rie: Ah, got it. Shootouts are godly in your book, as long as you feel one side is in the right.

---

Rie, remember that conversation with Joralax on the rapist crud? I agree that Joralax was trying to make a hard point. he was not saying that being raped is ok. What Joralax was saying was; being raped if you dont scream (according to the scripture, OT) you wont be killed(i.e. does not mean it is ok just means the the person being raped didn't mind it(according to intreperatation, I dont agree but anyways)is ok and you would have to marry the girl. But if the girl does scream, you were killed(very simple). You have to understand that Joralax was comparing the rape you know about your friend, (that is, the situation were the girl didn't scream because she had a knife to her neck, she could not scream) but she could of screamed if the knife was not their, so it was like being in a desert were no body can here you.... The idea was nobody could hear the little girl scream, but they could have if the knife was not their or if she was not in the desert. I think being raped is not ok but I recall this story to help you understand that Yes it is ok for bad things to happen to people which break the laws and stop the work of the Lord (i.e. as you agree the guy should have been killed,etc or i.e. The work of the Lord is against people who are raped and scream, they are killed just like the person who raped your friend)the idea is, God is God, you better do what he says or else. The idea is to be God fearing. I would think such would be ok(i.e not the rape I would be pissed too, and in this situation the rapier would deserve to be killed)to be shot. So the idea is simple, bad people deserve bad things, if you come before the Lord God in person or his Prophets and come against the Lord God (i.e. you are a bad person)bad things are going to happen, being shot is only something small time, I would think you would be destroyed, but apparently God is more forgiving then I.QuizP.S. RIE I am sorry for your friend and understand I have friends which have been in similiar situations and I really hate to think about it and I am sorry to bring it up, I am just trying to make a point it seemed a good time to bring it up, sorry if I made you upset.[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

Paulk, I understand your point, the problem is the criticism is not factual it is theoritcal. People have to base their opinion off facts, it is fact that the papyri is not the actual papyri so that is my standpoint.Quiz

Ok Rie,

quote:

---

Ah. So, going from your church's own documents, praytell, when in 1891 did Jesus Christ return (DHC 2:182)?

---

The churches documents dont state the Jesus would have come already or in 1890, rather they state that it would NOT be before 1890.The passage in question is found in Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is reported in abbreviated form, and Joseph acknowledged as he recorded it that he didn't understand the meaning or intent of the revelation. Joseph Smith recorded:I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 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. (D&C 130:14-15).
This is where most critics end their presentation making it look like he was predicting the coming of the messiah, but if we read further we find,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 (D & C 130:16).We only learn what the prophet did prophesy by verse 17:"I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."Without a doubt, that prophecy came true. The Lord did not return to the earth for His Second Coming before that time. This prophecy is quoted all over the place in the lds doctrine that is why you would find it in other places such as DHC 2:182.QuizP.S. I am still working on the others...(D&C 87, DHC 1:315, D&C 84:4-5) Wait untill I have responded but yeah eventually you may go on.[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

Ok Rie,

quote:

---

When did the Civil War pour out on all nations (D&C 87:1-3)?

---

The offical church answer is that the civil war was predicted with verse 87:1 and then verse 2,3 and 4 are speaking of wars which will continue after the civil war. (So for the most part war wont stop from the point of civil war, I would say this is a bit far fetched, but it is true we have had war throughout the world for the most part since this time.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003][This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

I can't find a offical answer from the church. I have found some websights which help perhaps, DHC 1:315 is regarding the civil war and the word "generation" was actually understood as a "dispensation".Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

[quote]When was a temple built in Independence, MO by the generation living in 1832 (D&C 84:4,5)?[quote] The day and time for the temple was changed for a future date. This is ok though, because the bible has prophecies which also were changed for certain reasons, as long as the prophecy is changed quickly, it does not harm the greatness of the prophecy or the proof that God exists or the idea that a prophet is not a prophet.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

quote:

---

OK.

​

Please give me a couple of examples of J. Smith's prophecies which you consider that he has fulfilled.

---

Their is one located on Post 128.

quote:

---

Please also list examples of what kind of evidence you would accept for each which would convince you that the the prophecies, in fact, were not fulfilled.

---

Read post 95 from RIE about the civil war and read post 129. The answer is more theoretical but it atleast answered the question. This kind of theoritecal evidence could be proof that perhaps he was not what Joseph Smith said he was.Quiz

1. (ASGARA)D&C 132 - answered - post 29
2. (ASGARA)Timeframe Apostasy would occur - answered in post 60 and 63
3. (RIE)romans mention jesus - not found, rie you are right from what I can find. - Still looking
4. (RIE)baptist being critical thinker, they are in the religous world. But I guess that does not count.
5. (RIE)gnostics = early catholics = no difference = they were already apostate.
6. (RIE) As a hypothetical person in this hypothetical courtroom, I say "Case dismissed." = you would be a bad judge, dismissing cases before reviewing all evidence.
7. (Prozacman and definition of sons of perdition) answered in post 116
8. (post 69) answered in post 70
9. post 77 answered in post 122
10. post 78 by RIE - answered in post 123
11. post 82 answered in post 86
12. post 80 still not answered by TL
13. (RIE) post 94, defimition of character - answered in post 126
14. post 95 - answered post 128-131
15. post 97 - answered in post 132
16. post 98 - question in 107
17. seer stone biblical? - search the bible for seer references you will find them.
18. truth about ancient translation - answered in post 124
19. post 108 - answered in post 115Did I miss any?QuizP.S. Conclusion, only a few of my answeres were theoretical most were factual and reveal some fulfilled prophecies. I will stand by these answeres knowing some of them are theoritcal.[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

QuizHow can you possibly believe that these statements support one another?You are twisting the words to the extreme and they still do not really fit do they?"Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man."""Without a doubt, that prophecy came true. The Lord did not return to the earth for His Second Coming before that time"Now we have this gem."without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing"Well if it was a previous apearing then he would hardly have to see it as a future event[at eighty five years of age] and therefore is not a prophecy and if it referred to the beginning of the millenium then it would not have occurred even if he had lived to be 85.The end of the millenium has also passed and neither has the event occurred.Then the last item"or whether I should die and thus see his face"Well we will never know shall we? This prophesy is empty of any real information and therefore cannot be evidence.As a great man once said this is not even false.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-14-2003]

Scripture as it appears in D&C:130 14-17(14)I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming 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.You have to read the entire scripture to understand the context.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-15-2003]