Again I have gotten tired of your refusal to see that you are being misleading, when you clearly are. I leave this with you:
"And there shall also be many which shall say..[God] will justify in committing a little sin: lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this;... And there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, ... and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark."
Matt19:4-6 say marriage was instituted by God and a commandment
7-9 divorce/fornication are not acceptable
10 "If we can't fornicate/divorce, it is better not to be marry." (To them, marriage now seemed risky because, What if they want a divorce later?)
11-12 Jesus: Not all men can simply choose not to marry. Only those given special circumstances are excused, and those circumstances are ... Celibacy is a righteous option available to those people. If they can live by that, they should.
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matt 19
Examine: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it
He encouraged celibacy to those WHO WOULDN'T ACCEPT FAITHFUL MARRIAGE and those in special circumstances! You are leaving out the context: versus 4-6, then their response to the teaching just given (verse 7). It was only after their reaction "better not to marry if I can't divorce my wife", that Christ gave the only acceptable alternatives (And those special circumstances are the only righteous alternatives.) He doesn't say they are better.
"He encouraged celibacy to those WHO WOULDN'T ACCEPT FAITHFUL MARRIAGE and those in special circumstances! "
No, he listed many types of Eunuchs that were fully acceptable to God. Those who were born that way, those who were made that way by others, and those who became that way for the Kingdom.
He said "and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Because in order to take your view on this passage, I would have to ignore verse 4-7, which sets up the next couple verses.
I hope you understand that I am not willing to ignore the context of that phrase you post here. Not to mention the Bible as a whole.
Yes, those Eunuchs were fully acceptable to God, because family life was not a good option (or impossible) under the circumstances given to them. Being celibate is the righteous path FOR THEM.
There are many scriptures in the Bible, Matthew 19, and Matthew 22 that says marriage isn't a requirement.
Chastity yes. Marriage no.
You don't have to accept it. But that is the truth of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Mormon temple marriage as described in D&C 132, or by any other Mormon leader has never been a requirement of Jesus. Despite that LDS leaders say differently.
SLU: There are many scriptures in the Bible, Matthew 19, and Matthew 22 that says marriage isn't a requirement.
A requirement for what?
SLU: You don't have to accept it.
That's right. I DON'T have to accept how you take phrases out of context and ignore the rest of the teachings from the Old and New Testament on this matter.
"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)
I will do a video, and I will film the entire page of this!
Don't forget the context (what was said before and after this statement) what is missing in the elipses (...) and don't forget OTHER quotes and explanations that Brigham gave relating to this topic.
But if you look at all that, your argument looses its thunder.
Your current beliefs are not in agreement with the LDS Church. You claim that your current beliefs have been passed along all the way from the first century.
Where is your evidence that THE SAME DOCTRINES that you differ with the LDS church were passed from ?? to the Montanists?
Do you have access to any evidence, any texts from even Montanus that address the doctrinal issues that we are discussing? Not to mention anybody before Montanus (who began preaching in the mid-second century)?
"Your current beliefs are not in agreement with the LDS Church"
The LDS church's beliefs are not in agreement with "true and everlasting" doctrine that has been given by it's supposed predecessors.
Denying important doctrines that at their time (according to Brigham Young), would be the only thing that would allow you into the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham Young as prophet made such claims that these doctrines are "everlasting" and that "the church" would never put them away. LOL right
I never claimed that I believe All the same things that Brigham Young did.
I would say that I agree with approximately 99.99% of everything he has ever said or written. There are probably between 10 to 12 statements in his long, long, long Presidency that I disagree with, but maybe you are not aware of the sheer volume that we have from Brigham.
So, this is hardly a good comparison for you to make when it comes to your traditions and the Montanists.
Yes I have read most of Journal of Discourses / Times and Seasons.
Brigham Young said that he had never preached a sermon that could not be considered doctrine.
But I find that the current LDS church, and the former LDS church are in a serious contention doctrinally. There are VAST differences, not just 10 or 12 statements by Brigham Young. We are talking fundamental differences here.
But you say that my current beleifs are not in agreement with LDS doctrine. WHICH LDS doctrine?
"FUNDAMENTAL differences would be things found in the Articles of Faith"
Which has also change and evolved over the years.
Joseph Smith originally wrote that there were 4 things required for salvation in Article 4 of the AofF. Shortly after completing the AofF, he added one more thing that is required to get even HIGHER in heaven. Which is Celestial Marriage (early on defined as plural marriage by multiple LDS prophets including Smith).
The fact of the matter is that your so called "Fundamental differences" deal with concepts that aren't even found within the official canon of the LDS church.
SLU: Joseph Smith originally wrote that there were 4 ...
but one thing leads to another. If you have faith, then you will be baptized as Christ instructed. If you have faith, you will receive the Holy Ghost, and so on. If you have true faith, you will love your neighbor. And yes you will marry, as Christ says we should.
"And yes you will marry, as Christ says we should.
"
I beg to differ. The LDS belief may say marriage is a requirement. Jesus said to let those who are to be enuchs for the kingdom of God, be eunuchs. Matthew 19:12
And Jesus also said that there is no marriage in heaven. Matthew 22..
So that shoots down that arguement down to the ground, bursting into flames.
"That is correct. Marriages are performed on Earth. "
And will remain on earth, as no one will be married or will be given in marriage in heaven.
Remember what the Pharisees question was.
Who's wife shall she be in heaven?
Jesus replied saying no one will be married in heaven.
And Matthew 19 Jesus said there will be Eunuchs who are Eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven. Meaning they won't be married even on earth, not yet in heaven (Matt 22)
"So, in your opinion, you think that only Adam and Eve were to have children and then their children were supposed to be celibate?"
What I am saying is that I see no commandment given that would apply to all humanity in that sense. Especially since in Matthew 19, Jesus says let their be Eunuchs for the glory of the kingdom of God.
If there is Eunuchs, they aren't reproducing. And that was a command of Jesus to let their be Eunuchs. Right?
utah: What I am saying is that I see no commandment given that would apply to all humanity in that sense.
According to you, Adam and Eve were told to have children, but that was supposed to be the end of procreation? That would mean that nobody else would have been born, and nobody else would have existed.
That is a rather novel interpretation. I am sure you have a clever way to twist this one as well:
"Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
As for Matthew 9, it appears that you have another problem with context. First, the Lord says, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
THEN they question Jesus about divorce, which then leads to the discussion of adultery. It is only at THAT POINT, where Christ says it is better to be a eunuch. Better than divorce and adultery.
Not Matthew 9! Matthew 19:12 is what Im referring too. Don't you know you're scriptures? Or don't you read my words?
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
I was quoting from Matthew 19. I just mistyped. Read the context.
First Jesus says, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
THEN the conversation goes into divorce and fornication. It is better to be a eunuch than to divorce or fornicate.
I am not leaving anything out. I am looking at the entire chapter here. That was his last statement on the marriage subject before the text moves on to something else.
After FIRST describing marriage as God's will (v 4-6), he then goes into the unacceptable choices and then acceptable alternatives ("for the kingdom of heaven's sake"). The last choice he gave is choosing to be celibate, would apply to (for starters) those with homosexual tendencies. This isn't a replacement for marriage.
Jesus says about becoming an Eunuch " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"..
That is as much of a command for being an Eunuch as there is any command for being married.
Certainly if someone gets married, they shouldn't get divorced. They should "cleave to their wife". But there is no spiritual requirement for getting married. But if you do get married, make it forever.
The teaching of marriage was only for on earth, because in response to the Pharisees Jesus said that your wife is not yours in heaven, because no one is married in heaven.
Yes, the wife that you obtained on earth, is not your wife in the resurrection (post Moses law)..
SLU: ...because in response to the Pharisees Jesus said that your wife is not yours in heaven...
Matt 22:23-28 The scenario given by the Sadducees (who didn't even believe in the Resurrection) was a scenario where, under the Law of Moses, "If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."
How can you possibly say that the scenario given was "post Moses law" when they specifically refer to a scenario which was only under the Law of Moses?
"How can you possibly say that the scenario given was "post Moses law"
Well, they did ask specifically about the (future event) resurrection.
These were religious scholars, who were very strict about keeping God's law. They were asking Jesus about God's law, and about the future event of the resurrection.
Jesus said about the wife that was married on earth. Who's will she be in heaven.
SLU:..they did ask specifically about the resurrection.
But they were referring to people who lived and died under the Mosaic Law, which was different with marriage (Matt 19:7-9)
SLU: Jesus said no body's.
The marriages spoken of were performed by the Levitical priesthood. What Christ described in Matt 16:19 was not.
Heb 7:11-12 says that perfection could not be achieved through the Levitical priesthood, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
Jesus was present with his disciples, and He was teaching universal doctrine. When he was speaking, he was addressing a question.
God is no respector of persons. Jesus was teaching about marriage in heaven. Not just to the Saducees, or the Pharisees, or the disciples. But to all of them.
But, just for you. I've made another video.
My video will make this doctrine VERY clear, incase it already wasn't. Sorry you missed the message. But I hope to illustrate it for you.
SLU: And will remain on earth, as no one will be married or will be given in marriage in heaven.
As I said, we know that nobody will be married or given in marriage in heaven (Read the Greek of that verse to understand the tense.) Nevertheless, what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, due to the authority given by Christ to the apostles. (Matt 16:19)
SLU: Remember what the Pharisees question was "Who's wife shall she be in heaven?"
Utah: ...at that time Jesus hadn't completed the sacrifice.. The laws of Moses were still valid.
The scenario given to Jesus was where one man would marry his brother's wife (often leading to polygamy) which was one of the laws in the Law of Moses. The New Covenant had no such law.
Christ explained to Peter that he was going to give him the "keys of the kingdom" and what he "shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The New Covenant also had instructions that men can be called by God to be Eunuchs, and that men can become Eunuchs for the sake of God's kingdom. And the being an Eunuch is not un-righteous.
A few chapters later, Jesus explains that a mans wife on earth will not be his wife in heaven. And that IS the context.
The Pharisees were asking Jesus about the resurrection. And about a wife currently joined to on earth. Who's wife will she be??
There were some eunuchs who were born that way and others were made eunuchs by force. Of course those people have no fault in that.
If they didn't find marriage (also no fault) or couldn't stay faithful in a marriage or would fornicate otherwise, ONLY THEN would it be better to be celibate/eunuch. Read starting from verse 4. You can't just ignore all that Christ had just said previously.
"and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" Matt 19
The Donatists came after the Novatianists. Interesting enough , they viewed themselves as the true Church, the only one with valid sacraments.
Yet you list this group as evidence for your idea of the "church" that needs no authority and has no organization. They certainly didn't see things as you do.
Novatian was a Roman priest. In your video you claim that these groups were not influenced by the Catholic Church. Really? In AD 251 Novatian opposed the election of Pope Cornelius, following the assassination of Pope Fabian during the persecution. He got himself elected as a rival pope.
"Novatian was a Roman priest. In your video you claim that these groups were not influenced by the Catholic Church."
And some of Joseph Smith's followers (in fact all of them in his time), were converts from other churches. So what. Are converts not allowed to be considered "true" Christians. Seriously dude?
SLU: Are converts not allowed to be considered "true" Christians.
YOUR argument was that you were listing groups that did not "protest" and break off from the Catholics!
SLU: Seriously dude?
Seriously, that was the argument you were making. And the second person on your list was an excommunicated Roman Catholic priest. See the problem with your argument here?
In the report of the Council of the Archbishop of Cologne about the "Anabaptist movement", to the Emperor Charles V, it is said that the Anabaptists call themselves "true Christians", that they desire community of goods, "which has been the way of Anabaptists for more than a thousand years, as the old histories and imperial laws testify. "
Can you think of a group that doesn't consider themselves "true Christians". And can you think of a group that doesn't believe that "the old histories" support their view?
Do you think for instance that the Gnostics went around saying "we are the untrue Christians"? Of course not, and they felt the histories and texts supported their point of view.
Whats more interesting is the timeline in which those words were written, which refers directly to when they were believed to be formed. Which shows how they had continued from the beginning. The author of that statement was well respected, a man of honor, and someone of a competing faith tradition. Not likely a sympathizer with Anabaptists.
Which is another reference to lineage leading back to the first church.
SLU: ...which refers directly to when they were believed to be formed. ...Which is another reference to lineage leading back to the first church.
Again, who doesn't believe that their beliefs lead back to the first church? Making such references and claims doesn't really mean much, especially centuries after the fact.
You are going to sit there and lie through your teeth pretending that these groups you listed had only "slight doctrinal variations".
The Petrobussians you have listed refused to take the Lord's supper. Violence against Catholic priests and was encouraged and they burned crosses. This group followed a man who rejected the ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT and all of the books in the New Testament except the 4 gospels!
Now I think instead of asserting this far off claims, that you should probably make a video or at least present some factual information. I've given my references. (to the right of the video). Maybe you could start by negating the claims in those references.
Do you really need a video to know that Montanus claimed himself to be a prophet saying that the Second Coming was imminent?
According to your standards, Montanus is just as much a false prophet as Joseph Smith. He announced the approach of the second advent of Christ, and the establishment of the heavenly Jerusalem at Pepuza in Phrygia. You can go to earlychurch (dot) org or almost anywhere for this information.
That's the first group on your list. Do you really want me to go on?
SLU:...a prophet is "one who reveals the misteries of God".
Great, so do Mormons. But what did Montanus reveal? Montanists believed certain things that we don't believe in, like renouncing marriage.
Furthermore, the Montanist texts didn't really survive, so we don't really know what they believed on most doctrinal issues. That leaves you to assume, with no evidence, that they must have believed the same as you do (aside from what you would normally call false prophecies.)
"Great, so do Mormons. But what did Montanus reveal?"
Revealing the mysteries of God, can be so much as just revealing the plan of salvation (basicly Romans 10:9-10). If someone is unaware of certain principles of God, and it is then revealed to them, they are receiving a prophecies (a mystery of God).
There is certain criteria for a prophet, or prophecy. However, prophecy still exists and always has, in the church today.
Montanists weren't just repeating the plan of salvation as written in the gospels and teaching about what what the original apostles had taught.
They would speak as if God were possessing their bodies, speaking in first person. Montanists would claim that they were fulfilling New Testament prophecies and they were making new prophecies.
No more than I agree with Joseph Smith saying that Christ would come back to reign in New Jerusalem in "this generation".
I believe in modern revelation. I believe God still speaks through his people. I also believe that the Catholic church distorted the trials of many so-called "heretics", and lied with blood on their hands about the herecies of God's people.
What was the un-officials start of the Catholic Church, was the Roman government. Enough said.
SLU: No more than I agree with Joseph Smith saying that Christ would come back to reign in New Jerusalem in "this generation".
So, why do you say that your "correct" beliefs and traditions can be traced back ... through Montanus, someone you yourself consider to be a false prophet?
I should also point the problems of this worn out jab against Joseph Smith. And again we see your double standard when it comes to prophecies concerning "this generation" Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32
Joseph himself did not know what was meant, "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).
Again, you are comparing unknown teachings that are alleged by a murderous and jealous Catholic church from 1800 years ago. To things are definately known about Joseph Smith, that were recorded just 175 years ago.
I think that the comparison is rediculas too. But it's your comparison.
My point is that there has been a continuous, non-Roman Catholic Christian presence since the first church until now.
The protestants would be those like the LDS, the Lutherns, and Episcopals, etc..
SLU: My point is that there has been a continuous, non-Roman Catholic Christian presence since the first church until now.
If THAT was your point, you did not do a very good job of representing it. Even so, calling it "continuous" as if they were the same group is not very accurate either.
"Even so, calling it "continuous" as if they were the same group is not very accurate either. "
At very least as continuous as the LDS church.
I mean look at how the LDS church has changed, and splintered out.
We are talking about over 100 groups, that fiercely disagree. At least the different Christian churches can agree on doctrine for the most part, and can even congregate together. Much more than I can say for the 100+ LDS groups.
The name of the LDS church changed 3 times (without considering splinters).
Then apostles and founding members split and went to disagreeing splinters of the LDS church including Joseph Smith's wife and Son, and several of his hand picked apostles.
And the LDS doctrine has been CLEARLY changed and rearranged hundreds of times.
So if you want to say the LDS church has been "continuous". Then use THAT standard in comparing the Montanans to modern xtians
Yes SMPF38, that is exactly my point when I rebutted your argument against the early Church.
You claim that the early church had apostasy, and followed controversial doctrines. But when compared to the LDS faith (your faith), these changes and doctrines don't seem so abnormal.
The LDS theology teaches of a great apostasy.
But the double standard is that the LDS church has experienced MANY great apostasies of their own.
SLU: ...when compared to the LDS faith, these changes and doctrines don't seem so abnormal.
I hate to break it to you, but the LDS view of apostasy has less to do with doctrines, and more to do with authority. But even so, LDS doctrines have always been far more uniform than the diverse thought that existed a couple centuries after Christ.
While opinions within LDS have differed in some things, LDS had a canon of scripture. The Bible wasn't canonized till late in the game.
"I hate to break it to you, but the LDS view of apostasy has less to do with doctrines, and more to do with authority. "
Apostasy can easily be defined by a religious body teaching incorrect doctrine.
And the LDS church has went through so many changes in their doctrine it is hard to tell which doctrine is true, and which doctrine is just "opinion" such as the book "Mormon Doctrine" which LDS reject as authorized doctrine, even though it was written by a member of the first presidency.
pira: "Mormon Doctrine" which LDS reject as authorized doctrine, even though it was written by a member of the first presidency.
Yet another lie. Not only was Bruce R. McConkie NEVER a member of the First Presidency, but he wasn't an apostle when "Mormon Doctrine" was written.
The book clearly stated in the front, that it contained the author's opinions, and the First Presidency at the time under President McKay also clarified that.
This is not the first time you have lied about this.
pirate: After it's released Bruce McConkie was chastised and decided to rewrite the forward to the book.
From the beginning, the book was considered as McConkies opinion. Not only according to the First Presidency, but also according to McConkie himself.
pirate: He advanced in the LDS church to apostle.
So what? Should he have been kicked out or forever demoted for expressing his thoughts and opinions even after admitting that they were just his opinions?
pirate: in the first version he didn't say "it's my opinion"
The first edition DID included a disclaimer that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and scriptural interpretations. And this was an unusual practice at the time.
pirate: If Mormon doctrine can even elude the elect in the LDS church...
McConkie did fine on all of the basic doctrines and concepts. The problem was his tone and some select topics. If you go by a percentage, most of the text was correct.
pirate: Sorry, I meant that Bruce McConkie was on "First Council of the Seventy " ...it's hard to keep them all straight.
You already knew the facts, because I have already corrected you on them (at least twice). I have no doubt that you will try to use that same deception again, perhaps in conversation with other people who don't know any better.
Good luck with that. But just remember that you already tried it with me a couple times, and you were busted. Or just blame it on the pot.
Of course I have. Starting with when you made your video "Mormon polytheism vs. monotheism". The posts from 2 months ago make it clear that I rehearsed these facts with you.
That is one of the reasons why I stopped talking to you. I had already corrected you on that same thing before. You don't care about the truth.
pirate: he was a leader ... he can't even get it right???
Since when are leaders infallible? Was Moses infallible?
"Of course I have. Starting with when you made your video "Mormon polytheism vs. monotheism". The posts from 2 months ago make it clear that I rehearsed these facts with you. "
You don't need to lie to kick it here. You never revealed Bruce McConkie's calling when he wrote the book.
You want to make him seem like some nobody, that was not any kind of leader. You want to make it seem like he was some random guy at the time.
Who is lying? Here was my response to your video that said an apostle wrote that book:
"Not when he wrote the book he wasn't. He became an apostle later. I hate to point out the facts on that for you...AGAIN."
SLU in the video: "A lot of Mormons will say that Bruce R. McConkie was not speaking for the LDS church in this book."
Actually, Bruce R. McConkie himself said he wasn't speaking for the Church in this book. The members of the First Presidency at the time also said this.
""Not when he wrote the book he wasn't. He became an apostle later. I hate to point out the facts on that for you...AGAIN."..
I clearly pointed out he held one leadership position before becoming an apostle, and that he held that leadership of General Authority, when he wrote the book.
Here is the bottom line on this. YOU spread your "information" about the LDS church and what our doctrine is.
While doing so, you PURPOSEFULLY mislead others by saying that "Apostle Bruce R. McConkie" wrote the book.
You say that AND you leave out the fact that the book had a disclaimer saying that it contained the author's opinion. AND you leave out the fact that the First Presidency under David O. McKay REJECTED the book as official doctrine.
SLU: "Mormon Doctrine". And not just any General Authority, a GA that became an Apostle. The name "Mormon Doctrine" is very revealing. I really don't need to say much more.
Yes you DO! You need to say that the First Presidency at the time rejected the book as being official mormon doctrine. You need to say that there was a disclaimer in the book that said it contains the author's opinion.
You can't claim that this was an official publication, that an Apostle wrote it, or even imply that.
No actually, what I say is factual. An apostle of the LDS church DID write "Mormon Doctrine" regardless WHO accepted it.
If President Clinton wrote a book, and people were to talk about it on the news. Even though president Clinton didn't write the book while he was president, people would say "President Clinton wrote the new book....."
Or even if he wrote the book before he became president. If it was referred to now. People would address him as president.
"Yes you DO! You need to say that the First Presidency at the time rejected the book as being official mormon doctrine."
This only proves my point. This is no different than Brigham Young's doctrine, that he declared doctrine, AND sent out to men.. And later the LDS GA rejected it too.
A prophet who preaches doctrine and sends it out to men.. Then a GA who write a book called "Mormon Doctrine" and sends it out to men. Both rejected by modern day Mormonism.
What you say may be "factual" in that sense, but it is meant to be misleading. You are promoting the idea that this book was written with official authority, when clearly it was not when you know all the facts.
" The posts from 2 months ago make it clear that I rehearsed these facts with you. "
You're being totally disingenious here about the "facts". You NEVER, EVER mentioned that Bruce McConkie was a general authority when he wrote the book "Mormon Doctrine". Sorry, you may like to think you layed the facts on real thick, but all you did was assert that he wasn't an apostle when he wrote the book.
I have not made that mistake again. You pretend that I have. You're a liar.
Utah:all you did was assert that he wasn't an apostle when he wrote the book.
I asserted more than that. You were in the habit of saying that Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote "Mormon Doctrine" because you want people to think that it is official doctrine DESPITE the fact that there was a disclaimer saying it was the author's opinion.
In THAT conversation, I explained, AGAIN, that he was NOT an apostle when he wrote it, and there was a disclaimer, AND the church presidency did not approve it.
SLU: So apostasy is normal isn't it. Not just with non-LDS religions.
Apostasy of small groups and individuals is normal. Judas, who was hand picked by Christ himself, is a perfect example.
SLU: I was just showing you how the LDS church is ever changing as well.
Your example was terrible. You pointed to the "first principles and ordinances of the gospel". Which haven't changed. Temple sealings aren't one of the "first" principles or ordinances. They are one of the last.
Utah: Fine, there is 1 apostle out of 12 that turned coat. But in LDS history, half of the twelve turned on Joseph Smith...
It isn't surprising to find that it is easier to turn on a mortal and sinful man (Joseph) than it is to turn on a perfect and sinless man (Christ).
Also, none of them ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon. Don't you find it curious that none of them, even when they turned on Joseph, lashed out by revealing Joseph's supposed hoax? Many returned to the Church.
"Don't you find it curious that none of them, even when they turned on Joseph, lashed out by revealing Joseph's supposed hoax? "
When you put it that way, it is interesting. I mean these people had a problem with Joseph Smith. But it's obvious why this swindlers wouldn't fess up about their "testimony".
1. Because their testimony never states that they actually "saw" the golden plates with their own eyes.
2. They didn't want people to think THEY were liars too. So of course they didn't.
Utah: Because their testimony never states that they actually "saw" the golden plates with their own eyes.
Who said then never actually saw the plates. Along with the 3 witnesses, there were 8 more witnesses who physically flipped through the pages of the metal plates.
All of those testimonies can be read in the preliminary pages of the Book of Mormon.
SLU: The name of the LDS church changed 3 times (without considering splinters).
The name "Church of Christ" had already been taken. That is hardly an point that supports your argument.
SLU: And the LDS doctrine has been CLEARLY changed and rearranged hundreds of times.
2 possibly 3 specific things can be argued. One of them is polygamy. BUT the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) says that God will sometimes require polygamy and sometimes not, so that doctrine truly has not changed.
SLU: At very least as continuous as the LDS church.
Not at all. The groups you mentioned were separated geographically, by time, and often didn't even know each other.
There was no line of authority transferred and you can't demonstrate that BASIC principles were shared. Such as: the nature of the Godhead/Trinity, relationship between faith/works/grace, baptism, etc.
In fact, I can find just as many similarities (probably more) with the LDS religion and early Christian groups.
I don't actually own a camera, so my ability to make videos is pretty limited.
As for the texts about Montanists: Tertullian was a pretty big defender of the Montanists and we have some of his writings. Eusebius wrote about the Montanists.
Sorry to hear that. I enjoy your videos. I'm in Utah right now. Do you want me to drop off a camera to you? Let me know, I think I have a cheap USB webcam hanging around somewhere.
I could mail it, or drop it off in Utah county or Salt Lake county.
I live in St. Louis, but I start school on Monday. I am in a doctorate program that takes 23 credit hours.
Don't worry about a camera. I have access to one that I can check out from the school when I have time. Time is more of a problem than anything else. However, I will try to get more videos out at some point.
If you feel that the Catholic Church dominated and went astray, making the other groups appear like "fringe groups", how do you know that the same didn't happen for the Jews leading up to the advent of Christ?
The Catholics held control of the scriptures for a very long time. What about whatever dominant group of Jews who may have had control of the Old Testament and Jewish tradition?
Your response here didn't really address my point. Let's try this:
If you feel that the Catholic Church dominated... making the other groups appear like "fringe groups", how do you know that the same didn't happen for the Jews leading up to the advent of Christ?
The Catholics held control of the scriptures for a very long time. What about whatever dominant group of Jews who may have had control of the Old Testament and Jewish tradition?
"If you feel that the Catholic Church dominated... making the other groups appear like "fringe groups", "
When you say "if you feel". That is a BIG "if". Because those are not my words, and I do not feel that way.
I feel that the despite the dominance of the Roman Catholic church, it was always obvious that they were a bureaucracy, not as much of a church. Similar to the LDS church.
This is why they had so much resistance, thus the reason for the inquisitions.
SLU: Would that present a problem to you if their doctrines or traditions changed?
It doesn't present a problem with me. It does affect your argument though. You claim that there was a group or groups that remained true to the original faith all along. I am asking you which one.
Oh good. Becauase I thought you were making the point that since some of these groups changed their traditions, that they were invalidated as the original.
Because if you were making that point. I would counter with the fact that from the first church until now, the non-Roman catholic church of Christ, has changed less in 2000 years than the LDS church has changed in 200 years.
SLU:I even accomodated you by listing each one of them on the right
I see your list, but when you say, "They weren't protestant, because they started before there was a heretical church to protest," you couldn't be further from the truth. The montanists maybe, but the Novatians were right in line with the Roman Catholics except that they refused readmission to communion of lapsi. Novatian was an ex-Roman Catholic who became a competing pope.
No, you really don't. You list a number of different groups and claim that they are all rooted in the first century church. Really? Rooted to before 100AD?
Of the groups you mentioned, the earliest are the montanists, a movement which began mid second century. Montanus claimed to be a prophet of God. Do you believe that he was?
Actually I think like usual you have your blinders on. And if you don't want to take it from me, follow the encyclopedia as I suggest in the video. I also give links to the right side of this video for further investigation.
I understand that you don't accept my answer. But that isn't my problem.
Well, the link that was in my video had more details. The link from baptistpillar. That link is dead now. However, you can try my website behindzioncurtain for more on that subject. But you can also go to archive. org for the page that the baptistpillar site had online.
They were called Christians in the first century (Acts 11:26); Montanists; Novatians; Donatists; Paulicians; Albigenses; Waldenses; Anabaptists; and today, Baptists. The historian A.H. Newman in his church history (Volume II pages 153-156) enumerates the following beliefs, practices, and characteristics of the Anabaptists.
As you can see, the Bible was mostly written in the later half of the first century.
Acts 11:26 shows the beginning of what would be a larger movement.
"Of course there is a continuous Christian history from Christ up to present day. That is not denied. The question is, with all the differences, which one is the pure untainted church that Christ founded?"
That question could be equally posed to Mormon groups.
Some accept and practice certain "everlasting principles" such as polygamy and the priesthood ban. Some reject certain "everlasting principles", making these principles not-so-everlasting.
Roger Williams: "There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking." "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew."
Parley Pratt, and David Witmer rejected Joseph Smith and called him a con-man.
William Law a member of the first presidentcy in Joseph's day, rejected Joseph Smith and called him a con man.
So what if some people reject the faith right?
I mean if Roger Williams had as much or less authority than Joseph Smith's hand picked apostles, then the apostles that rejected Joseph Smith would have just as valid statements against Mormonism as Roger had against Christianity.
David Whitmer actually believed himself to be the successor of Joseph Smith. He denounced the CoJCoLDS but never Joseph. In 1887, he published a pamphlet entitled An Address to All Believers in Christ, in which he affirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon. Whitmer always stood by his claim that he had actually seen the Golden Plates. He also ordered his testimony to the Book of Mormon placed on his tombstone.
You are right Parley Pratt wasn't who I was thinking of.I was thinking of the 3 original "witnesses" of the Book of Mormon, who all rejected Joseph at one time or another.
Martin Harris, David Witmer, and Oliver Cowdrey.
The point is that even in the LDS church there has been apostasy against their version of the truth.
You can't use Roger Williams as a witness against Christianity any more than you can use people like William Law, and the other leaders in the LDS church that rejected.
Actually in the same book that you reference Witmer critisized many errors of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy, and gave his reasons for separating himself from the LDS church and they all had to do with Joseph Smith.
You are right none of the 3 witnesses denied the Book of Mormon. However, none of the really ever actually saw with their eyes, the plates, despite rumors and stories, they never actually saw them, or inspected them.
Of course there is a continuous Christian history from Christ up to present day. That is not denied. The question is, with all the differences, which one is the pure untainted church that Christ founded? Where are the apostles and prophets? Many of the protestant founders believed that an apostasy had taken place in true Christianity. As far as Baptists, Roger Williams who founded the first Baptist church in America also believed that an apostasy had occured. LDS are not alone on this.
"Of course there is a continuous Christian history from Christ up to present day. That is not denied. The question is, with all the differences, which one is the pure untainted church that Christ founded?"
That question could be equally posed to Mormon groups.
Some accept and practice certain "everlasting principles" such as polygamy and the priesthood ban. Some reject certain "everlasting principles", making these principles not-so-everlasting.
Tit for tat pahdnuh.......GRIN! It's a start, and that's good. But there is a whole lot more to all this than you present, but of course. We all know none of us can get the *final* say-so on Historical Christianity.
Certainly there were more groups in the history of Christianity as a whole. I listed groups un-influenced and unbranched from Roman Catholocism that could not be considered "protestant".
The point is that there is a continous non-RCC Christian history from the first church to today.
Protestants date from the sixteenth century. They are the Lutherans, the Reformed, and others who were once Roman Catholics and left the Roman Catholic faith to start denominations of their own. The Baptists never left the Roman Catholic church as did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. They never left because they were never in. They did not begin their existence at the time of the Reformation, but hundreds of years prior to the Reformation.
The issue here is whether your sources are right about the founding of Baptist and its connection with the early church! To me, your sources and arguments are erroneous as I've pointed out!
Yes, you've stated that. I've got nothing to hide. This isn't secret knowledge. I've said 'go look these up in the encyclopedia'.
I just went to encyclopedia. com at first, and then with Britanica later. I've found that each one of these faith traditions existed, they were not protestors or breakoffs of the Catholics, and the preached what the 1st church did. They led up to the Baptists.
Why are you changing the subject? Because your history is 101% flawed? I know the history of my church so as the doctrines. We know why some of the teachings changed over time, but this is a topic if you wish to engage in, join my discussion with Shazoolo. It seems though that you are trying your best to divert our attention to another issue.
May the Lord bless your ways.
JesusgavemeHolySpiri 10 months ago
They were an underground church. Yarr!!
canadianbacon007 2 years ago
Fail
slu2com 2 years ago
Again I have gotten tired of your refusal to see that you are being misleading, when you clearly are. I leave this with you:
"And there shall also be many which shall say..[God] will justify in committing a little sin: lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this;... And there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, ... and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark."
smpf38 3 years ago
"Again I have gotten tired of your refusal to see that you are being misleading, when you clearly are. I leave this with you:"
And I will live this with you. It's the new movie that I just made. I even mentioned your alias in the video. Smile!
youtube. com/watch?v=jdB2SWsBiIc
slu2com 3 years ago
Matt19:4-6 say marriage was instituted by God and a commandment
7-9 divorce/fornication are not acceptable
10 "If we can't fornicate/divorce, it is better not to be marry." (To them, marriage now seemed risky because, What if they want a divorce later?)
11-12 Jesus: Not all men can simply choose not to marry. Only those given special circumstances are excused, and those circumstances are ... Celibacy is a righteous option available to those people. If they can live by that, they should.
smpf38 3 years ago
You're still missing what Jesus said.
Let me remind you, He encouraged celebacy.
Read again.
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matt 19
Examine: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Utah: Let me remind you, He encouraged celebacy.
He encouraged celibacy to those WHO WOULDN'T ACCEPT FAITHFUL MARRIAGE and those in special circumstances! You are leaving out the context: versus 4-6, then their response to the teaching just given (verse 7). It was only after their reaction "better not to marry if I can't divorce my wife", that Christ gave the only acceptable alternatives (And those special circumstances are the only righteous alternatives.) He doesn't say they are better.
smpf38 3 years ago
"He encouraged celibacy to those WHO WOULDN'T ACCEPT FAITHFUL MARRIAGE and those in special circumstances! "
No, he listed many types of Eunuchs that were fully acceptable to God. Those who were born that way, those who were made that way by others, and those who became that way for the Kingdom.
He said "and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
I understand you don't accept that.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: I understand you don't accept that.
Because in order to take your view on this passage, I would have to ignore verse 4-7, which sets up the next couple verses.
I hope you understand that I am not willing to ignore the context of that phrase you post here. Not to mention the Bible as a whole.
Yes, those Eunuchs were fully acceptable to God, because family life was not a good option (or impossible) under the circumstances given to them. Being celibate is the righteous path FOR THEM.
smpf38 3 years ago
There are many scriptures in the Bible, Matthew 19, and Matthew 22 that says marriage isn't a requirement.
Chastity yes. Marriage no.
You don't have to accept it. But that is the truth of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Mormon temple marriage as described in D&C 132, or by any other Mormon leader has never been a requirement of Jesus. Despite that LDS leaders say differently.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: There are many scriptures in the Bible, Matthew 19, and Matthew 22 that says marriage isn't a requirement.
A requirement for what?
SLU: You don't have to accept it.
That's right. I DON'T have to accept how you take phrases out of context and ignore the rest of the teachings from the Old and New Testament on this matter.
smpf38 3 years ago
"A requirement for what?"
Like I said, I just made a video for you. I use Brigham Young's and Joseph Smith's own words to describe "what"..
According to Brigham Young. Plural marriage (i.e. celestial marriage) is a requirement for being a God in heaven..
But there are other requirements that demand marriage in Mormonism too.
But I have illustrated some of this for you in the video that I just made. It will be available in about 15 minutes on this account slu2com
slu2com 3 years ago
Plural Marriage and Celestial Marriage are not equal. Do not try to pass those separate principals as equals.
subalphalf 2 years ago
Fail
slu2com 2 years ago
"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)
I will do a video, and I will film the entire page of this!
slu2com 3 years ago
Don't forget the context (what was said before and after this statement) what is missing in the elipses (...) and don't forget OTHER quotes and explanations that Brigham gave relating to this topic.
But if you look at all that, your argument looses its thunder.
smpf38 3 years ago
I won't forget that Brigham Young, and Mormonism in general OFTEN contridicts itself. Don't worry about that.
=)
I'll give the references and context like I ALWAYS do.
Im not going to read 3 chapters on a 10 minute video just because YOU think it's relevant.
What I will do is (like always) give the reference to these sermons, and where exactly on the internet you can find the full context.
slu2com 3 years ago
But I already GAVE the context. I already gave the other quotes from Brigham. We already had this conversation AND YOU LOST.
But sure, I'll do it again just for kicks.
smpf38 3 years ago
"We already had this conversation AND YOU LOST."
If you are the self proclaimed "winner". Then you are more than welcome to that self-proclaimed title.
However, this isn't about winning or losing for me. This is about the discovery of truth.
So you can keep crusading around and you can keep putting yourself up on the winner pedestal. But that's your game not mine. Thanks anyway.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Your current beliefs are not in agreement with the LDS Church. You claim that your current beliefs have been passed along all the way from the first century.
Where is your evidence that THE SAME DOCTRINES that you differ with the LDS church were passed from ?? to the Montanists?
Do you have access to any evidence, any texts from even Montanus that address the doctrinal issues that we are discussing? Not to mention anybody before Montanus (who began preaching in the mid-second century)?
smpf38 3 years ago
"Your current beliefs are not in agreement with the LDS Church"
The LDS church's beliefs are not in agreement with "true and everlasting" doctrine that has been given by it's supposed predecessors.
Denying important doctrines that at their time (according to Brigham Young), would be the only thing that would allow you into the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham Young as prophet made such claims that these doctrines are "everlasting" and that "the church" would never put them away. LOL right
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I never claimed that I believe All the same things that Brigham Young did.
I would say that I agree with approximately 99.99% of everything he has ever said or written. There are probably between 10 to 12 statements in his long, long, long Presidency that I disagree with, but maybe you are not aware of the sheer volume that we have from Brigham.
So, this is hardly a good comparison for you to make when it comes to your traditions and the Montanists.
smpf38 3 years ago
Yes I have read most of Journal of Discourses / Times and Seasons.
Brigham Young said that he had never preached a sermon that could not be considered doctrine.
But I find that the current LDS church, and the former LDS church are in a serious contention doctrinally. There are VAST differences, not just 10 or 12 statements by Brigham Young. We are talking fundamental differences here.
But you say that my current beleifs are not in agreement with LDS doctrine. WHICH LDS doctrine?
slu2com 3 years ago
slu: There are VAST differences, not just 10 or 12 statements by Brigham Young. We are talking fundamental differences here.
I disagree. FUNDAMENTAL differences would be things found in the Articles of Faith. Things that are actually centered in the LDS religion.
SLU: Brigham Young said that he had never preached a sermon that could not be considered doctrine.
We have been over that quote before. Have you forgotten? He said IF he 1) reads the transcript 2) approves it 3) sends it out
smpf38 3 years ago
"FUNDAMENTAL differences would be things found in the Articles of Faith"
Which has also change and evolved over the years.
Joseph Smith originally wrote that there were 4 things required for salvation in Article 4 of the AofF. Shortly after completing the AofF, he added one more thing that is required to get even HIGHER in heaven. Which is Celestial Marriage (early on defined as plural marriage by multiple LDS prophets including Smith).
Again, we are back to the point I made earlier.
slu2com 3 years ago
The fact of the matter is that your so called "Fundamental differences" deal with concepts that aren't even found within the official canon of the LDS church.
SLU: Joseph Smith originally wrote that there were 4 ...
but one thing leads to another. If you have faith, then you will be baptized as Christ instructed. If you have faith, you will receive the Holy Ghost, and so on. If you have true faith, you will love your neighbor. And yes you will marry, as Christ says we should.
smpf38 3 years ago
"And yes you will marry, as Christ says we should.
"
I beg to differ. The LDS belief may say marriage is a requirement. Jesus said to let those who are to be enuchs for the kingdom of God, be eunuchs. Matthew 19:12
And Jesus also said that there is no marriage in heaven. Matthew 22..
So that shoots down that arguement down to the ground, bursting into flames.
slu2com 3 years ago
slu: I beg to differ. The LDS belief may say marriage is a requirement.
It is a little more complicated than that. LDS believe that those who never had the opportunity, WILL have the opportunity.
What was THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam? Was that ever rescinded?
Also, Christ quoted another Old Testament teaching on this (Matthew 19:5).
SLU: And Jesus also said that there is no marriage in heaven. Matthew 22.
That is correct. Marriages are performed on Earth (Matt 16:19).
smpf38 3 years ago
"That is correct. Marriages are performed on Earth. "
And will remain on earth, as no one will be married or will be given in marriage in heaven.
Remember what the Pharisees question was.
Who's wife shall she be in heaven?
Jesus replied saying no one will be married in heaven.
And Matthew 19 Jesus said there will be Eunuchs who are Eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven. Meaning they won't be married even on earth, not yet in heaven (Matt 22)
slu2com 3 years ago
"FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam"
First of all, I don't recall there being a universal commandment given to Adam that would apply to us.
God said don't eat off of the tree also. But I don't think he meant that for anyone but Adam and his wife.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: First of all, I don't recall there being a universal commandment given to Adam that would apply to us.
So, in your opinion, you think that only Adam and Eve were to have children and then their children were supposed to be celibate?
That would mean that Adam and Eve's children would have been the last generation. Nobody else would ever be born.
smpf38 3 years ago
"So, in your opinion, you think that only Adam and Eve were to have children and then their children were supposed to be celibate?"
What I am saying is that I see no commandment given that would apply to all humanity in that sense. Especially since in Matthew 19, Jesus says let their be Eunuchs for the glory of the kingdom of God.
If there is Eunuchs, they aren't reproducing. And that was a command of Jesus to let their be Eunuchs. Right?
Show me where it is a commandment?!
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
utah: What I am saying is that I see no commandment given that would apply to all humanity in that sense.
According to you, Adam and Eve were told to have children, but that was supposed to be the end of procreation? That would mean that nobody else would have been born, and nobody else would have existed.
That is a rather novel interpretation. I am sure you have a clever way to twist this one as well:
"Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
smpf38 3 years ago
As for Matthew 9, it appears that you have another problem with context. First, the Lord says, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
THEN they question Jesus about divorce, which then leads to the discussion of adultery. It is only at THAT POINT, where Christ says it is better to be a eunuch. Better than divorce and adultery.
smpf38 3 years ago
Not Matthew 9! Matthew 19:12 is what Im referring too. Don't you know you're scriptures? Or don't you read my words?
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I was quoting from Matthew 19. I just mistyped. Read the context.
First Jesus says, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
THEN the conversation goes into divorce and fornication. It is better to be a eunuch than to divorce or fornicate.
smpf38 3 years ago
What you are doing is leaving out the part where Jesus says let those who can receive it, receive it.
Watch how you are being deceptive by not commenting on this part here:
"and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I am not leaving anything out. I am looking at the entire chapter here. That was his last statement on the marriage subject before the text moves on to something else.
After FIRST describing marriage as God's will (v 4-6), he then goes into the unacceptable choices and then acceptable alternatives ("for the kingdom of heaven's sake"). The last choice he gave is choosing to be celibate, would apply to (for starters) those with homosexual tendencies. This isn't a replacement for marriage.
smpf38 3 years ago
"This isn't a replacement for marriage. "
Nor is there any command for marriage.
Jesus says about becoming an Eunuch " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"..
That is as much of a command for being an Eunuch as there is any command for being married.
Certainly if someone gets married, they shouldn't get divorced. They should "cleave to their wife". But there is no spiritual requirement for getting married. But if you do get married, make it forever.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
pirate: " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"..
Only for those who are under the special circumstances that Christ had just given. The general teaching on marriage was given in versus 4-6.
smpf38 3 years ago
The teaching of marriage was only for on earth, because in response to the Pharisees Jesus said that your wife is not yours in heaven, because no one is married in heaven.
Yes, the wife that you obtained on earth, is not your wife in the resurrection (post Moses law)..
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: ...because in response to the Pharisees Jesus said that your wife is not yours in heaven...
Matt 22:23-28 The scenario given by the Sadducees (who didn't even believe in the Resurrection) was a scenario where, under the Law of Moses, "If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."
How can you possibly say that the scenario given was "post Moses law" when they specifically refer to a scenario which was only under the Law of Moses?
smpf38 3 years ago
"How can you possibly say that the scenario given was "post Moses law"
Well, they did ask specifically about the (future event) resurrection.
These were religious scholars, who were very strict about keeping God's law. They were asking Jesus about God's law, and about the future event of the resurrection.
Jesus said about the wife that was married on earth. Who's will she be in heaven.
Jesus said, no body's..
There is no marriage in heaven buddy.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU:..they did ask specifically about the resurrection.
But they were referring to people who lived and died under the Mosaic Law, which was different with marriage (Matt 19:7-9)
SLU: Jesus said no body's.
The marriages spoken of were performed by the Levitical priesthood. What Christ described in Matt 16:19 was not.
Heb 7:11-12 says that perfection could not be achieved through the Levitical priesthood, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
smpf38 3 years ago
Jesus was present with his disciples, and He was teaching universal doctrine. When he was speaking, he was addressing a question.
God is no respector of persons. Jesus was teaching about marriage in heaven. Not just to the Saducees, or the Pharisees, or the disciples. But to all of them.
But, just for you. I've made another video.
My video will make this doctrine VERY clear, incase it already wasn't. Sorry you missed the message. But I hope to illustrate it for you.
slu2com 3 years ago
No. Christ was speaking to the Sadducees only.
The fact that the Sadducees called Christ out asking him who the woman will be married to in heaven, PROVES THAT HE WAS PREACHING ETERNAL MARRIAGE.
They [Sadducees] and the Pharisees always tried to twist what Christ would preach. In this case they were trying to twist eternal marriage on him.
Eternal marriage is a blessing that requires faith of those who enter into the covenant. It is not for people who don't believe in resurrection.
subalphalf 2 years ago
SLU: And will remain on earth, as no one will be married or will be given in marriage in heaven.
As I said, we know that nobody will be married or given in marriage in heaven (Read the Greek of that verse to understand the tense.) Nevertheless, what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, due to the authority given by Christ to the apostles. (Matt 16:19)
SLU: Remember what the Pharisees question was "Who's wife shall she be in heaven?"
Context, buddy. That was under the law of Moses.
smpf38 3 years ago
"SLU: Remember what the Pharisees question was "Who's wife shall she be in heaven?"
Context, buddy. That was under the law of Moses. "
And at that time Jesus hadn't completed the sacrifice.. The laws of Moses were still valid.
Are you saying that the laws of Moses were meaningless at the time that Jesus said that in Matthew 22?
When did the laws of Moses lose their meaning?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Utah: ...at that time Jesus hadn't completed the sacrifice.. The laws of Moses were still valid.
The scenario given to Jesus was where one man would marry his brother's wife (often leading to polygamy) which was one of the laws in the Law of Moses. The New Covenant had no such law.
Christ explained to Peter that he was going to give him the "keys of the kingdom" and what he "shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
smpf38 3 years ago
"The New Covenant had no such law."
The New Covenant also had instructions that men can be called by God to be Eunuchs, and that men can become Eunuchs for the sake of God's kingdom. And the being an Eunuch is not un-righteous.
A few chapters later, Jesus explains that a mans wife on earth will not be his wife in heaven. And that IS the context.
The Pharisees were asking Jesus about the resurrection. And about a wife currently joined to on earth. Who's wife will she be??
Jesus said no ones
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
pirate: Eunuch is not un-righteous.
There were some eunuchs who were born that way and others were made eunuchs by force. Of course those people have no fault in that.
If they didn't find marriage (also no fault) or couldn't stay faithful in a marriage or would fornicate otherwise, ONLY THEN would it be better to be celibate/eunuch. Read starting from verse 4. You can't just ignore all that Christ had just said previously.
smpf38 3 years ago
"and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" Matt 19
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"We have been over that quote before. Have you forgotten? He said IF he 1) reads the transcript 2) approves it 3) sends it out"
I would be MORE than happy to repost his exact words again. Heck, how about I do an entire video on that speech?
I'll try to get the the video, meanwhile I will post his words and a reference to where they can be found. Ok?!
slu2com 3 years ago
The Donatists came after the Novatianists. Interesting enough , they viewed themselves as the true Church, the only one with valid sacraments.
Yet you list this group as evidence for your idea of the "church" that needs no authority and has no organization. They certainly didn't see things as you do.
smpf38 3 years ago
"they viewed themselves as the true Church,"
There is a true Church, but it is not a religion and certainly not a bureaucracy like the Mormons or the Catholics.
The true church is a faith in the one true God, and Jesus is their savior. (the true Jesus)
slu2com 3 years ago
Novatian was a Roman priest. In your video you claim that these groups were not influenced by the Catholic Church. Really? In AD 251 Novatian opposed the election of Pope Cornelius, following the assassination of Pope Fabian during the persecution. He got himself elected as a rival pope.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Novatian was a Roman priest. In your video you claim that these groups were not influenced by the Catholic Church."
And some of Joseph Smith's followers (in fact all of them in his time), were converts from other churches. So what. Are converts not allowed to be considered "true" Christians. Seriously dude?
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Are converts not allowed to be considered "true" Christians.
YOUR argument was that you were listing groups that did not "protest" and break off from the Catholics!
SLU: Seriously dude?
Seriously, that was the argument you were making. And the second person on your list was an excommunicated Roman Catholic priest. See the problem with your argument here?
smpf38 3 years ago
baptistpillar. com/bd0620.htm
In the report of the Council of the Archbishop of Cologne about the "Anabaptist movement", to the Emperor Charles V, it is said that the Anabaptists call themselves "true Christians", that they desire community of goods, "which has been the way of Anabaptists for more than a thousand years, as the old histories and imperial laws testify. "
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Anabaptists call themselves "true Christians"
Can you think of a group that doesn't consider themselves "true Christians". And can you think of a group that doesn't believe that "the old histories" support their view?
Do you think for instance that the Gnostics went around saying "we are the untrue Christians"? Of course not, and they felt the histories and texts supported their point of view.
smpf38 3 years ago
Whats more interesting is the timeline in which those words were written, which refers directly to when they were believed to be formed. Which shows how they had continued from the beginning. The author of that statement was well respected, a man of honor, and someone of a competing faith tradition. Not likely a sympathizer with Anabaptists.
Which is another reference to lineage leading back to the first church.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: ...which refers directly to when they were believed to be formed. ...Which is another reference to lineage leading back to the first church.
Again, who doesn't believe that their beliefs lead back to the first church? Making such references and claims doesn't really mean much, especially centuries after the fact.
smpf38 3 years ago
You are going to sit there and lie through your teeth pretending that these groups you listed had only "slight doctrinal variations".
The Petrobussians you have listed refused to take the Lord's supper. Violence against Catholic priests and was encouraged and they burned crosses. This group followed a man who rejected the ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT and all of the books in the New Testament except the 4 gospels!
Just a slight variation ... right?
smpf38 3 years ago
Now I think instead of asserting this far off claims, that you should probably make a video or at least present some factual information. I've given my references. (to the right of the video). Maybe you could start by negating the claims in those references.
slu2com 3 years ago
Do you really need a video to know that Montanus claimed himself to be a prophet saying that the Second Coming was imminent?
According to your standards, Montanus is just as much a false prophet as Joseph Smith. He announced the approach of the second advent of Christ, and the establishment of the heavenly Jerusalem at Pepuza in Phrygia. You can go to earlychurch (dot) org or almost anywhere for this information.
That's the first group on your list. Do you really want me to go on?
smpf38 3 years ago
'Do you really need a video to know that Montanus claimed himself to be a prophet saying that the Second Coming was imminent?"
All Christians believe in prophecy and prophets. The exact definition of a prophet is "one who reveals the misteries of God".
If a person reveals a mystery of God, are they a prophet? By definition yes.
But is it a title?
Not many of the prophets in the OT ran around carrying the title of "prophet". It wasn't on their name badge or anything.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU:...a prophet is "one who reveals the misteries of God".
Great, so do Mormons. But what did Montanus reveal? Montanists believed certain things that we don't believe in, like renouncing marriage.
Furthermore, the Montanist texts didn't really survive, so we don't really know what they believed on most doctrinal issues. That leaves you to assume, with no evidence, that they must have believed the same as you do (aside from what you would normally call false prophecies.)
smpf38 3 years ago
"Great, so do Mormons. But what did Montanus reveal?"
Revealing the mysteries of God, can be so much as just revealing the plan of salvation (basicly Romans 10:9-10). If someone is unaware of certain principles of God, and it is then revealed to them, they are receiving a prophecies (a mystery of God).
There is certain criteria for a prophet, or prophecy. However, prophecy still exists and always has, in the church today.
slu2com 3 years ago
Montanists weren't just repeating the plan of salvation as written in the gospels and teaching about what what the original apostles had taught.
They would speak as if God were possessing their bodies, speaking in first person. Montanists would claim that they were fulfilling New Testament prophecies and they were making new prophecies.
smpf38 3 years ago
"They would speak as if God were possessing their bodies, speaking in first person. "
Not as wierd to me, as some of the things that go on in the LDS temple.
Who are you to disparrage wierd beliefs?
slu2com 3 years ago
I have no problem with that either. I was simply saying that your portrayal of the Montanists "prophets" was innaccurate.
These people were writing down what they considered to be new revelation. Do you agree with their revelations or not?
smpf38 3 years ago
No more than I agree with Joseph Smith saying that Christ would come back to reign in New Jerusalem in "this generation".
I believe in modern revelation. I believe God still speaks through his people. I also believe that the Catholic church distorted the trials of many so-called "heretics", and lied with blood on their hands about the herecies of God's people.
What was the un-officials start of the Catholic Church, was the Roman government. Enough said.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: No more than I agree with Joseph Smith saying that Christ would come back to reign in New Jerusalem in "this generation".
So, why do you say that your "correct" beliefs and traditions can be traced back ... through Montanus, someone you yourself consider to be a false prophet?
smpf38 3 years ago
I should also point the problems of this worn out jab against Joseph Smith. And again we see your double standard when it comes to prophecies concerning "this generation" Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32
Joseph himself did not know what was meant, "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).
smpf38 3 years ago
Again, you are comparing unknown teachings that are alleged by a murderous and jealous Catholic church from 1800 years ago. To things are definately known about Joseph Smith, that were recorded just 175 years ago.
I think that the comparison is rediculas too. But it's your comparison.
My point is that there has been a continuous, non-Roman Catholic Christian presence since the first church until now.
The protestants would be those like the LDS, the Lutherns, and Episcopals, etc..
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: My point is that there has been a continuous, non-Roman Catholic Christian presence since the first church until now.
If THAT was your point, you did not do a very good job of representing it. Even so, calling it "continuous" as if they were the same group is not very accurate either.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Even so, calling it "continuous" as if they were the same group is not very accurate either. "
At very least as continuous as the LDS church.
I mean look at how the LDS church has changed, and splintered out.
We are talking about over 100 groups, that fiercely disagree. At least the different Christian churches can agree on doctrine for the most part, and can even congregate together. Much more than I can say for the 100+ LDS groups.
slu2com 3 years ago
If you look back through LDS history.
The name of the LDS church changed 3 times (without considering splinters).
Then apostles and founding members split and went to disagreeing splinters of the LDS church including Joseph Smith's wife and Son, and several of his hand picked apostles.
And the LDS doctrine has been CLEARLY changed and rearranged hundreds of times.
So if you want to say the LDS church has been "continuous". Then use THAT standard in comparing the Montanans to modern xtians
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: The name of the LDS church changed 3 times
So what? The "Church of Christ" was already taken by another denomination. It wasn't allowed to have different organizations with the same name.
How does that make any point at all?
SLU: LDS church including Joseph Smith's wife and Son, and several of his hand picked apostles.
Can you think of any instance ... any instance at all where a "hand picked apostle" chose the wrong path? Hint: New Testament.
SLU = double standard
smpf38 3 years ago
"So what? "
It was your point about other churches, I was just showing you how the LDS church is ever changing as well.
"How does that make any point at all?"
It's not my point, it was just a comparison to the original point that you made about other churches. It was rebuttal.
"Can you think of any instance ... any instance at all where a "hand picked apostle" chose the wrong path? Hint: New Testament."
So apostasy is normal isn't it. Not just with non-LDS religions.
slu2com 3 years ago
"SLU = double standard"
Yes SMPF38, that is exactly my point when I rebutted your argument against the early Church.
You claim that the early church had apostasy, and followed controversial doctrines. But when compared to the LDS faith (your faith), these changes and doctrines don't seem so abnormal.
The LDS theology teaches of a great apostasy.
But the double standard is that the LDS church has experienced MANY great apostasies of their own.
Watch out for that plank in your eye!
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: ...when compared to the LDS faith, these changes and doctrines don't seem so abnormal.
I hate to break it to you, but the LDS view of apostasy has less to do with doctrines, and more to do with authority. But even so, LDS doctrines have always been far more uniform than the diverse thought that existed a couple centuries after Christ.
While opinions within LDS have differed in some things, LDS had a canon of scripture. The Bible wasn't canonized till late in the game.
smpf38 3 years ago
"I hate to break it to you, but the LDS view of apostasy has less to do with doctrines, and more to do with authority. "
Apostasy can easily be defined by a religious body teaching incorrect doctrine.
And the LDS church has went through so many changes in their doctrine it is hard to tell which doctrine is true, and which doctrine is just "opinion" such as the book "Mormon Doctrine" which LDS reject as authorized doctrine, even though it was written by a member of the first presidency.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
pira: "Mormon Doctrine" which LDS reject as authorized doctrine, even though it was written by a member of the first presidency.
Yet another lie. Not only was Bruce R. McConkie NEVER a member of the First Presidency, but he wasn't an apostle when "Mormon Doctrine" was written.
The book clearly stated in the front, that it contained the author's opinions, and the First Presidency at the time under President McKay also clarified that.
This is not the first time you have lied about this.
smpf38 3 years ago
Sorry, I meant that Bruce McConkie was on "First Council of the Seventy "
There is so much leadership and bureaucratical offices in the LDS church it's hard to keep them all straight.
Yes, Bruce McConkie was serving a high ranking leadership position when the book was published.
After it's released Bruce McConkie was chastised and decided to rewrite the forward to the book.
He advanced in the LDS church to apostle.
In both instances he was a high ranking leader who wrote "Mormon Doctrine"
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
pirate: After it's released Bruce McConkie was chastised and decided to rewrite the forward to the book.
From the beginning, the book was considered as McConkies opinion. Not only according to the First Presidency, but also according to McConkie himself.
pirate: He advanced in the LDS church to apostle.
So what? Should he have been kicked out or forever demoted for expressing his thoughts and opinions even after admitting that they were just his opinions?
smpf38 3 years ago
"So what? "
Only that he held a rare, high ranking position in the LDS church when he wrote the book. (and in the first version he didn't say "it's my opinion")..
And then after that he became an apostle.
If Mormon doctrine can even elude the elect in the LDS church. How can any layman begin to understand it?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
pirate: in the first version he didn't say "it's my opinion"
The first edition DID included a disclaimer that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and scriptural interpretations. And this was an unusual practice at the time.
pirate: If Mormon doctrine can even elude the elect in the LDS church...
McConkie did fine on all of the basic doctrines and concepts. The problem was his tone and some select topics. If you go by a percentage, most of the text was correct.
smpf38 3 years ago
pirate: Sorry, I meant that Bruce McConkie was on "First Council of the Seventy " ...it's hard to keep them all straight.
You already knew the facts, because I have already corrected you on them (at least twice). I have no doubt that you will try to use that same deception again, perhaps in conversation with other people who don't know any better.
Good luck with that. But just remember that you already tried it with me a couple times, and you were busted. Or just blame it on the pot.
smpf38 3 years ago
"You already knew the facts"
Yes, I did know the facts, and sorry that I got these two confused "The First Council of Seventy", and "The First Presidency".
It wasn't a major mistake, and it wasn't intentional.
And you say that you've given me the facts??
You keep facts like he was in "First Council of the Seventy" to yourself. You've NEVER mentioned that he held that position when he wrote the book.
There are many called to that council. That is rare buddy.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"You already knew the facts"
Yes, I did know the facts, and sorry that I got these two confused "The First Council of Seventy", and "The First Presidency".
It wasn't a major mistake, and it wasn't intentional.
And you say that you've given me the facts??
You keep facts like he was in "First Council of the Seventy" to yourself. You've NEVER mentioned that he held that position when he wrote the book.
There are not many called to that council. That is rare buddy.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Good luck with that. But just remember that you already tried it with me a couple times, and you were busted. Or just blame it on the pot."
Yes, my apologies for getting the reference wrong. It was a mistake.
Bruce McConkie was in the "The First Council of Seventy", not "The First Presidency".
You've never supplied those facts. "The First Council of Seventy" is a rare leadership position to hold.
My point was, he was a leader when he wrote the book. And he can't even get it right???
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
pirate: You've never supplied those facts.
Of course I have. Starting with when you made your video "Mormon polytheism vs. monotheism". The posts from 2 months ago make it clear that I rehearsed these facts with you.
That is one of the reasons why I stopped talking to you. I had already corrected you on that same thing before. You don't care about the truth.
pirate: he was a leader ... he can't even get it right???
Since when are leaders infallible? Was Moses infallible?
smpf38 3 years ago
"Of course I have. Starting with when you made your video "Mormon polytheism vs. monotheism". The posts from 2 months ago make it clear that I rehearsed these facts with you. "
You don't need to lie to kick it here. You never revealed Bruce McConkie's calling when he wrote the book.
You want to make him seem like some nobody, that was not any kind of leader. You want to make it seem like he was some random guy at the time.
He was a leader holding a rare calling.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Who is lying? Here was my response to your video that said an apostle wrote that book:
"Not when he wrote the book he wasn't. He became an apostle later. I hate to point out the facts on that for you...AGAIN."
SLU in the video: "A lot of Mormons will say that Bruce R. McConkie was not speaking for the LDS church in this book."
Actually, Bruce R. McConkie himself said he wasn't speaking for the Church in this book. The members of the First Presidency at the time also said this.
smpf38 3 years ago
""Not when he wrote the book he wasn't. He became an apostle later. I hate to point out the facts on that for you...AGAIN."..
I clearly pointed out he held one leadership position before becoming an apostle, and that he held that leadership of General Authority, when he wrote the book.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Here is the bottom line on this. YOU spread your "information" about the LDS church and what our doctrine is.
While doing so, you PURPOSEFULLY mislead others by saying that "Apostle Bruce R. McConkie" wrote the book.
You say that AND you leave out the fact that the book had a disclaimer saying that it contained the author's opinion. AND you leave out the fact that the First Presidency under David O. McKay REJECTED the book as official doctrine.
Then you dare call ME a liar?
smpf38 3 years ago
Listen, a General Authority wrote a book called "Mormon Doctrine". And not just any General Authority, a GA that became an Apostle.
The name "Mormon Doctrine" is very revealing. I really don't need to say much more.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: "Mormon Doctrine". And not just any General Authority, a GA that became an Apostle. The name "Mormon Doctrine" is very revealing. I really don't need to say much more.
Yes you DO! You need to say that the First Presidency at the time rejected the book as being official mormon doctrine. You need to say that there was a disclaimer in the book that said it contains the author's opinion.
You can't claim that this was an official publication, that an Apostle wrote it, or even imply that.
smpf38 3 years ago
No actually, what I say is factual. An apostle of the LDS church DID write "Mormon Doctrine" regardless WHO accepted it.
If President Clinton wrote a book, and people were to talk about it on the news. Even though president Clinton didn't write the book while he was president, people would say "President Clinton wrote the new book....."
Or even if he wrote the book before he became president. If it was referred to now. People would address him as president.
slu2com 3 years ago
"Yes you DO! You need to say that the First Presidency at the time rejected the book as being official mormon doctrine."
This only proves my point. This is no different than Brigham Young's doctrine, that he declared doctrine, AND sent out to men.. And later the LDS GA rejected it too.
A prophet who preaches doctrine and sends it out to men.. Then a GA who write a book called "Mormon Doctrine" and sends it out to men. Both rejected by modern day Mormonism.
It's EVER changing bud.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Then a GA who write a book called "Mormon Doctrine" and sends it out to men. Both rejected by modern day Mormonism.
There you go again. You can't help yourself. You seem to be driven to promote falsehoods. I won't let you get away with it.
Mormon Doctrine was rejected by the President of the Church AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN! Not by modern day Mormonism as you claim.
The PERSON WHO WROTE IT said that it contained some of his own opinions.
smpf38 3 years ago
"The PERSON WHO WROTE IT said that it contained some of his own opinions. "
He said he took responsibility for it. I do not see the topic of "opinions" coming up in the first draft..
"Mormon Doctrine was rejected by the President of the Church AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN! "
Again thank you for illustrating my point about how confusing and ever changing "Mormon Doctrine" is.
Not even the General Authorities seem to understand it.
slu2com 3 years ago
No, the GA's do understand it.
The book "mormon doctrine" is not endorsed by the LDS Church. Never was and never will be.
Therefore, you it is completely out of the question to reference it.
subalphalf 2 years ago
Fail
slu2com 2 years ago
SLU: No actually, what I say is factual.
What you say may be "factual" in that sense, but it is meant to be misleading. You are promoting the idea that this book was written with official authority, when clearly it was not when you know all the facts.
smpf38 3 years ago
"You are promoting the idea that this book was written with official authority"
When LDS people talk about "authority this and authority that".
They usually refer to men who hold the "priesthood" or even "the high priesthood".
And then of course LDS refer to Jesus saying that he will give men authority, Matthew 16.
So is this authority thing so fickle that even a general authority, later to become apostle, so un-authoritive?
What good is this authority anyway?
slu2com 3 years ago
What good is the authority?
Very good. Extremely Important.
Acts 19 an entire group of people were rebaptized because it was done the first time by someone without the right "authority"
subalphalf 2 years ago
" The posts from 2 months ago make it clear that I rehearsed these facts with you. "
You're being totally disingenious here about the "facts". You NEVER, EVER mentioned that Bruce McConkie was a general authority when he wrote the book "Mormon Doctrine". Sorry, you may like to think you layed the facts on real thick, but all you did was assert that he wasn't an apostle when he wrote the book.
I have not made that mistake again. You pretend that I have. You're a liar.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Utah:all you did was assert that he wasn't an apostle when he wrote the book.
I asserted more than that. You were in the habit of saying that Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote "Mormon Doctrine" because you want people to think that it is official doctrine DESPITE the fact that there was a disclaimer saying it was the author's opinion.
In THAT conversation, I explained, AGAIN, that he was NOT an apostle when he wrote it, and there was a disclaimer, AND the church presidency did not approve it.
smpf38 3 years ago
Listen, a General Authority wrote a book called "Mormon Doctrine". And not just any General Authority, a GA that became an Apostle.
The name "Mormon Doctrine" is very revealing. I really don't need to say much more.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: So apostasy is normal isn't it. Not just with non-LDS religions.
Apostasy of small groups and individuals is normal. Judas, who was hand picked by Christ himself, is a perfect example.
SLU: I was just showing you how the LDS church is ever changing as well.
Your example was terrible. You pointed to the "first principles and ordinances of the gospel". Which haven't changed. Temple sealings aren't one of the "first" principles or ordinances. They are one of the last.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Apostasy of small groups and individuals is normal. Judas, who was hand picked by Christ himself, is a perfect example"
Right, but when comparing Judas with LDS apostasy there is a HUGE difference.
Judas is said to have rejected Christ by turning him over to the authorities.
Fine, there is 1 apostle out of 12 that turned coat.
But in LDS history, half of the twelve turned on Joseph Smith in OPEN REBELLION.
Then even Joseph's wife and children turned on Brigham Young and moved on.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Utah: Fine, there is 1 apostle out of 12 that turned coat. But in LDS history, half of the twelve turned on Joseph Smith...
It isn't surprising to find that it is easier to turn on a mortal and sinful man (Joseph) than it is to turn on a perfect and sinless man (Christ).
Also, none of them ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon. Don't you find it curious that none of them, even when they turned on Joseph, lashed out by revealing Joseph's supposed hoax? Many returned to the Church.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Don't you find it curious that none of them, even when they turned on Joseph, lashed out by revealing Joseph's supposed hoax? "
When you put it that way, it is interesting. I mean these people had a problem with Joseph Smith. But it's obvious why this swindlers wouldn't fess up about their "testimony".
1. Because their testimony never states that they actually "saw" the golden plates with their own eyes.
2. They didn't want people to think THEY were liars too. So of course they didn't.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Utah: Because their testimony never states that they actually "saw" the golden plates with their own eyes.
Who said then never actually saw the plates. Along with the 3 witnesses, there were 8 more witnesses who physically flipped through the pages of the metal plates.
All of those testimonies can be read in the preliminary pages of the Book of Mormon.
smpf38 3 years ago
SLU: The name of the LDS church changed 3 times (without considering splinters).
The name "Church of Christ" had already been taken. That is hardly an point that supports your argument.
SLU: And the LDS doctrine has been CLEARLY changed and rearranged hundreds of times.
2 possibly 3 specific things can be argued. One of them is polygamy. BUT the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) says that God will sometimes require polygamy and sometimes not, so that doctrine truly has not changed.
smpf38 3 years ago
SLU: At very least as continuous as the LDS church.
Not at all. The groups you mentioned were separated geographically, by time, and often didn't even know each other.
There was no line of authority transferred and you can't demonstrate that BASIC principles were shared. Such as: the nature of the Godhead/Trinity, relationship between faith/works/grace, baptism, etc.
In fact, I can find just as many similarities (probably more) with the LDS religion and early Christian groups.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Great, so do Mormons. But what did Montanus reveal? Montanists believed certain things that we don't believe in, like renouncing marriage. "
Cool! Now you are getting fired up.
So where are the texts to reveal that these doctrines were taught?
I truly think that you ought to do a video or two on Montanism and hopefully the rest of the information that I have presented here.
I would love to see your evidence for this.
Thanks!
slu2com 3 years ago
I don't actually own a camera, so my ability to make videos is pretty limited.
As for the texts about Montanists: Tertullian was a pretty big defender of the Montanists and we have some of his writings. Eusebius wrote about the Montanists.
smpf38 3 years ago
"I don't actually own a camera"
Sorry to hear that. I enjoy your videos. I'm in Utah right now. Do you want me to drop off a camera to you? Let me know, I think I have a cheap USB webcam hanging around somewhere.
I could mail it, or drop it off in Utah county or Salt Lake county.
Let me know, Im serious.
slu2com 3 years ago
I live in St. Louis, but I start school on Monday. I am in a doctorate program that takes 23 credit hours.
Don't worry about a camera. I have access to one that I can check out from the school when I have time. Time is more of a problem than anything else. However, I will try to get more videos out at some point.
smpf38 3 years ago
If you feel that the Catholic Church dominated and went astray, making the other groups appear like "fringe groups", how do you know that the same didn't happen for the Jews leading up to the advent of Christ?
The Catholics held control of the scriptures for a very long time. What about whatever dominant group of Jews who may have had control of the Old Testament and Jewish tradition?
Your can of worms: open
smpf38 3 years ago
"If you feel that the Catholic Church dominated and went astray"
No, the Catholic Church was always the paganized version of Christianity. Christianity always existed despite the (Roman) Catholic church.
There is a big difference between the word "catholic" and the official name of the "Catholic church".
The Catholic church didn't "go astray". They always were that way.
RE: This video
slu2com 3 years ago
Your response here didn't really address my point. Let's try this:
If you feel that the Catholic Church dominated... making the other groups appear like "fringe groups", how do you know that the same didn't happen for the Jews leading up to the advent of Christ?
The Catholics held control of the scriptures for a very long time. What about whatever dominant group of Jews who may have had control of the Old Testament and Jewish tradition?
smpf38 3 years ago
"Your response here didn't really address my point. "
Sure it did, you just didn't like the answer.
I've already answered your question. If you don't like the response ask someone else.
slu2com 3 years ago
"If you feel that the Catholic Church dominated... making the other groups appear like "fringe groups", "
When you say "if you feel". That is a BIG "if". Because those are not my words, and I do not feel that way.
I feel that the despite the dominance of the Roman Catholic church, it was always obvious that they were a bureaucracy, not as much of a church. Similar to the LDS church.
This is why they had so much resistance, thus the reason for the inquisitions.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: I listed groups un-influenced and unbranched from Roman Catholocism...
And is there any one of those groups that you can align yourself with as having retained all of the correct doctrines throughout?
If so, which one?
smpf38 3 years ago
"And is there any one of those groups that you can align yourself with as having retained all of the correct doctrines throughout?
If so, which one? "
Do you mean, which of those religions kept the same doctrines and same traditions forever???
Would that present a problem to you if their doctrines or traditions changed?
Because we can talk at length about the changes in Mormon doctrine. I could do atleast 30 videos about that (oh wait, I already have). LOL
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Would that present a problem to you if their doctrines or traditions changed?
It doesn't present a problem with me. It does affect your argument though. You claim that there was a group or groups that remained true to the original faith all along. I am asking you which one.
smpf38 3 years ago
"It doesn't present a problem with me."
Oh good. Becauase I thought you were making the point that since some of these groups changed their traditions, that they were invalidated as the original.
Because if you were making that point. I would counter with the fact that from the first church until now, the non-Roman catholic church of Christ, has changed less in 2000 years than the LDS church has changed in 200 years.
slu2com 3 years ago
"It does affect your argument though."
Actually, just because the traditions of these churches evolved or changed with the times, doesn't really present a problem at all.
Like I said the LDS church has changed more in 200 years, than the first church has changed in 2000 years.
But Christ wasn't interested in traditions anyway. Christ put the pharisees down for putting their traditions before God.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Like I said the LDS church has changed more in 200 years, than the first church has changed in 2000 years.
That is an easy statement to make, when you aren't even able to pin down what the "first church" was throughout those 2000 years.
You are simply taking your specific set of modern beliefs and then claim that some group somewhere must have believed the same as you all along.
But you have no evidence that this "church" existed even if you do use that word loosely.
smpf38 3 years ago
"That is an easy statement to make, when you aren't even able to pin down what the "first church" was throughout those 2000 years."
I listed the patriarchs that carried the first church to the second century and then down through time until now.
Now if you are looking for some brand name, or some secular official government like the Roman Catholic religion. You won't find that.
Christ didn't brand His church. It wasn't "the church of Jesus Christ and Early Day Saints". LOL
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: I listed the patriarchs that carried the first church to the second century and then down through time until now.
Not in this video you didn't. You listed different and often unrelated groups. The second one breaking one of your principle arguments of this video.
SLU: Now if you are looking for some brand name, or some secular official government like the Roman Catholic religion.
Right, I should be looking for unknown groups with no evidence, that must have believed just like you do.
smpf38 3 years ago
SLU: I listed the patriarchs that carried the first church to the second century and then down through time until now.
SMP: Not in this video you didn't.
SLU: I even accomodated you by listing each one of them on the right, and giving links for you to find some of the resources that I used.
I put a full article about this at behindzioncurtain. com also.
I was slightly limited here on Youtube. With only 10 minutes, and very little room to write. So check out my site..
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU:I even accomodated you by listing each one of them on the right
I see your list, but when you say, "They weren't protestant, because they started before there was a heretical church to protest," you couldn't be further from the truth. The montanists maybe, but the Novatians were right in line with the Roman Catholics except that they refused readmission to communion of lapsi. Novatian was an ex-Roman Catholic who became a competing pope.
Plus, the groups you mention are often unrelated.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Plus, the groups you mention are often unrelated. "
I disagree. Please see the links that I provided.
slu2com 3 years ago
I have gone to your links. They don't address my argument. For example:
Did Novatian follow an "apostolic succession" continuing from the Montanists?
smpf38 3 years ago
"You claim that there was a group or groups that remained true to the original faith all along. I am asking you which one. "
Watch the video again, I give you the answer, and I back it with historical facts that you can personally verify via an encyclopedia.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: I give you the answer...
No, you really don't. You list a number of different groups and claim that they are all rooted in the first century church. Really? Rooted to before 100AD?
Of the groups you mentioned, the earliest are the montanists, a movement which began mid second century. Montanus claimed to be a prophet of God. Do you believe that he was?
smpf38 3 years ago
"No, you really don't. "
Actually I think like usual you have your blinders on. And if you don't want to take it from me, follow the encyclopedia as I suggest in the video. I also give links to the right side of this video for further investigation.
I understand that you don't accept my answer. But that isn't my problem.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: I listed the patriarchs that carried the first church to the second century..
I can't find this list. Could you point me to it or list them in a post?
smpf38 3 years ago
Well, the link that was in my video had more details. The link from baptistpillar. That link is dead now. However, you can try my website behindzioncurtain for more on that subject. But you can also go to archive. org for the page that the baptistpillar site had online.
slu2com 3 years ago
They were called Christians in the first century (Acts 11:26); Montanists; Novatians; Donatists; Paulicians; Albigenses; Waldenses; Anabaptists; and today, Baptists. The historian A.H. Newman in his church history (Volume II pages 153-156) enumerates the following beliefs, practices, and characteristics of the Anabaptists.
As you can see, the Bible was mostly written in the later half of the first century.
Acts 11:26 shows the beginning of what would be a larger movement.
slu2com 3 years ago
another thing your forgetting about the orthodox church
gilbertobesanko 3 years ago
montanist are heritics
gilbertobesanko 3 years ago
bible. ca/mor-witness-book.htm
slu2com 3 years ago
"Of course there is a continuous Christian history from Christ up to present day. That is not denied. The question is, with all the differences, which one is the pure untainted church that Christ founded?"
That question could be equally posed to Mormon groups.
Some accept and practice certain "everlasting principles" such as polygamy and the priesthood ban. Some reject certain "everlasting principles", making these principles not-so-everlasting.
So which Mormon group is true?
slu2com 3 years ago
Roger Williams: "There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking." "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew."
fairlds. org/Apostasy/Apostasy_Recognized_by_Reformationists.html
ChristopherMillz 3 years ago
Parley Pratt, and David Witmer rejected Joseph Smith and called him a con-man.
William Law a member of the first presidentcy in Joseph's day, rejected Joseph Smith and called him a con man.
So what if some people reject the faith right?
I mean if Roger Williams had as much or less authority than Joseph Smith's hand picked apostles, then the apostles that rejected Joseph Smith would have just as valid statements against Mormonism as Roger had against Christianity.
slu2com 3 years ago
David Whitmer actually believed himself to be the successor of Joseph Smith. He denounced the CoJCoLDS but never Joseph. In 1887, he published a pamphlet entitled An Address to All Believers in Christ, in which he affirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon. Whitmer always stood by his claim that he had actually seen the Golden Plates. He also ordered his testimony to the Book of Mormon placed on his tombstone.
ChristopherMillz 3 years ago
Parley Pratt rejected Joseph Smith?! He never left the Church. In fact, he followed Brigham to Utah. He died LDS.
ChristopherMillz 3 years ago
William Law believed Mormonism to be true, but he viewed Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet because of his personal disagreements with polygamy.
ChristopherMillz 3 years ago
You are right Parley Pratt wasn't who I was thinking of.I was thinking of the 3 original "witnesses" of the Book of Mormon, who all rejected Joseph at one time or another.
Martin Harris, David Witmer, and Oliver Cowdrey.
The point is that even in the LDS church there has been apostasy against their version of the truth.
You can't use Roger Williams as a witness against Christianity any more than you can use people like William Law, and the other leaders in the LDS church that rejected.
slu2com 3 years ago
"He denounced the CoJCoLDS but never Joseph"
Actually in the same book that you reference Witmer critisized many errors of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy, and gave his reasons for separating himself from the LDS church and they all had to do with Joseph Smith.
You are right none of the 3 witnesses denied the Book of Mormon. However, none of the really ever actually saw with their eyes, the plates, despite rumors and stories, they never actually saw them, or inspected them.
slu2com 3 years ago
Of course there is a continuous Christian history from Christ up to present day. That is not denied. The question is, with all the differences, which one is the pure untainted church that Christ founded? Where are the apostles and prophets? Many of the protestant founders believed that an apostasy had taken place in true Christianity. As far as Baptists, Roger Williams who founded the first Baptist church in America also believed that an apostasy had occured. LDS are not alone on this.
ChristopherMillz 3 years ago
"Of course there is a continuous Christian history from Christ up to present day. That is not denied. The question is, with all the differences, which one is the pure untainted church that Christ founded?"
That question could be equally posed to Mormon groups.
Some accept and practice certain "everlasting principles" such as polygamy and the priesthood ban. Some reject certain "everlasting principles", making these principles not-so-everlasting.
So which Mormon group is true?
slu2com 3 years ago
Tit for tat pahdnuh.......GRIN! It's a start, and that's good. But there is a whole lot more to all this than you present, but of course. We all know none of us can get the *final* say-so on Historical Christianity.
Best,
Kerry (aka, "The Back Yard Professor")
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
Certainly there were more groups in the history of Christianity as a whole. I listed groups un-influenced and unbranched from Roman Catholocism that could not be considered "protestant".
The point is that there is a continous non-RCC Christian history from the first church to today.
slu2com 3 years ago
Historically Baptists Are Not Protestants
Protestants date from the sixteenth century. They are the Lutherans, the Reformed, and others who were once Roman Catholics and left the Roman Catholic faith to start denominations of their own. The Baptists never left the Roman Catholic church as did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. They never left because they were never in. They did not begin their existence at the time of the Reformation, but hundreds of years prior to the Reformation.
bhcs04 4 years ago
Most agreed. The baptists started about 1400 years before the reformation.
slu2com 4 years ago
The issue here is whether your sources are right about the founding of Baptist and its connection with the early church! To me, your sources and arguments are erroneous as I've pointed out!
avaikico 4 years ago
Yes, you've stated that. I've got nothing to hide. This isn't secret knowledge. I've said 'go look these up in the encyclopedia'.
I just went to encyclopedia. com at first, and then with Britanica later. I've found that each one of these faith traditions existed, they were not protestors or breakoffs of the Catholics, and the preached what the 1st church did. They led up to the Baptists.
Believe it. Or not... Fact is, I do.
slu2com 4 years ago
Why are you changing the subject? Because your history is 101% flawed? I know the history of my church so as the doctrines. We know why some of the teachings changed over time, but this is a topic if you wish to engage in, join my discussion with Shazoolo. It seems though that you are trying your best to divert our attention to another issue.
avaikico 4 years ago