The Church of Jesus Christ

dberrie2020

Well-known member
When was the last revelation received by a Mormon prophet? When was the last “revelation” canonized?

There is one thing for sure--that question--when applied to the critic's churches here--would be--never.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had numerous heavenly appearances in their history. Their church is replete with those heavenly experiences, with witnesses--the same as the NT church claim.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
The problem is who you call Jesus...

According to LDS/Mormon theology God the Father came from Kolob which is a star or planet described in the Book of Abraham, a presumed sacred text of the Latter Day Saints. (let me know if you mormons figured it out and if it is a star or planet)
Anyway, the father then had some sort of relations (sexual?) with some sort of celestial female...mother...who had a baby who was the preincarnate Jesus. She also had other sons one of which was named Lucifer. Well, son Jesus got promoted to the Godhead...made a God...and was then born to Mary. lucifer, well, we know what happened to him.
But, Jesus ends up being a created being...and not eternal as he came into existance at his heavenly birth.

This pre-incarnate Jesus had a father, the guy from Kolob...who had a father, Jesus' grandpa who like Jesus and Jesus' father were once men like us living here on earth.

So dberrie2020...and the other mormons who post here...it becomes very simple to "attack the very church which does have those things, claiming it as being false.".....because it is.

If Paul presented your theology of the pre-incarnate jesus and past history to the Bereans...they too would have walked. You see dberrie2020...and all of you other mormons who post here....you present a fake Jesus. Now you no longer have to have pondered the thought of why the critics here would choose to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints....you present a fake Jesus.
The LDS church should really be called the "Church of Satan's Brother." Since that is who their Jesus really is.
 

Yitoz

Active member
If the role of apostle was to be handed on, then one would have thought that such an office would have been bestowed upon Polycarp, who was a disciple of the last living apostle, John. Polycarp never wrote that either he nor any other of John's disciples was ordained an apostle. There are no historical texts that reveal that any other apostle ordained any of their disciples to that office either, but there is ample evidence that many were ordained to be bishops, and there is evidence that the primitive church had priests, but the Aaronic or Melchezidek priesthoods were never mentioned as being conferred. There are also records that the apostle John "fell asleep" in Ephesus and was interred there, contrary to mormon teachings. What we know about the mormon priesthoods is somewhat sketchy in that the "experiences" were by 'second sight' encounters or visions. I'm not saying that something like that could never happen; however, I believe hat if those offices were to be passed on continuously until the return of Jesus, then records would have been kept for such important events. The RCCs claim that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, though IMO is sketchy as well, has for more scripture to go on than the mormon claims that those offices were 'restored' in early 19th century america.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
If the role of apostle was to be handed on, then one would have thought that such an office would have been bestowed upon Polycarp, who was a disciple of the last living apostle, John. Polycarp never wrote that either he nor any other of John's disciples was ordained an apostle. There are no historical texts that reveal that any other apostle ordained any of their disciples to that office either,

There is evidence there were other apostles ordained in the NT church--other than the original twelve:

Acts 13:1-3---King James Version
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

Those two then appear here as apostles, for the first time:

Acts 14:14---King James Version
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

but there is ample evidence that many were ordained to be bishops, and there is evidence that the primitive church had priests, but the Aaronic or Melchezidek priesthoods were never mentioned as being conferred.

While I would agree there is very little mentioned about the priesthood within the Biblical NT--how could one be a priest, unless it was conferred upon him--and by one who had authority to do so?

There are also records that the apostle John "fell asleep" in Ephesus and was interred there, contrary to mormon teachings. What we know about the mormon priesthoods is somewhat sketchy in that the "experiences" were by 'second sight' encounters or visions. I'm not saying that something like that could never happen; however, I believe hat if those offices were to be passed on continuously until the return of Jesus, then records would have been kept for such important events.

"In May 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery went into the woods along the banks of the Susquehanna River to pray concerning baptism. In response to their supplications, a messenger appeared to them, told them he was John the Baptist and laid his hands on the men. He then said:

"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." (Doctrine and Covenants 13.)"

Again--more heavenly appearances--which events are replete in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
As I have pondered the thought of why the critics here would choose to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--one thought is prevalent in my musings.

The NT church had the living, mortal apostles and prophets. They had heavenly visitations to numerous occasions--with witnesses. They had the priesthood. Jesus Christ Himself visited them, and continuing revelation and scripture ensued. They had the temple--present and future, etc.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also possess those same traits.

Yet--those who have little to none of that, --attack the very church which does have those things, claiming it as being false.

How is that persecution any different than what the traditional Jews leveled agaisnt the first century church of Jesus Christ?
What you and every Mormon see as an attack is actually the defense of our faith. It is your prophet who stated our faith fell into apostasy and that he restored this apostatized faith in the guise of the BoM and attendant texts, purported first visions (which one) and being empowered by the Mormon God to translate "reformed Egyptian" into Elizabethan English by a seer stone in a hat. So, your religious belief system attacked ours and we are, therefore, and rightfully so, defending against the lies of Mormonism. Therein is the truth and consequently your OP is wrong at every level.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
He addressed it. Your post failed to rebut his response. To summarize, you presented a straw man, not our doctrines. We have no reason to defend doctrines we don't have.

End of story.
Are you saying the mormons don't belive in Kolob? Or is it just a canyon in Utah?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Actual talk
a youth fireside in Bellvue Washington in January of 2016, Elder Oaks acknowledges that none of the top leaders of the church claim to have had a direct visitation by any heavenly being, but all obtained their testimony like "dust gathering on a windowsill"
I agree with @Erundur - That isn't what he said. He said he didn't know anyone in the church leadership that had the kind of experience that Paul or Alma had. To recap the kind of experience they had, they were going about attacking Christians, believers in Jesus Christ and an angel stopped them. That doesn't happen to a lot of people. It didn't happen to any of the original Twelve Apostles (they weren't going around attacking Christians). Nothing in the response Elder Oakes gave indicated that none of the leaders had any direct visitation by heavenly beings.

The original question was about Alma's experience which was similar to the experience that Paul had on the road to Damascus. I think I can safely assume that none of your church leaders had that kind of experience either. But that's not what qualifies a person to be an apostle or a prophet. Lots of people have direct visitation by a heavenly being and never become apostles or prophets... one example from the New Testament would be Cornelious. Elder Oaks took that question and addressed it as, How can we get the kind of testimony that he received? (He being either Paul or Alma.)

He then specifically stated, "I never had an experience like that..." He was talking about getting a testimony, not about having direct visitations by heavenly beings. You go too far and this is typical of our critics. They take a specific phrase out of context and make it a general statement. You changed his statement, "I never had an experience like that" and made it "I never had any direct visitation by any heavenly being".
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
When was the last revelation received by a Mormon prophet? When was the last “revelation” canonized?
When was the last revelation received by a non-Mormon Christian prophet? Oh. That's right, there are none today nor have there been for 2000 years.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
The LDS church should really be called the "Church of Satan's Brother." Since that is who their Jesus really is.
That only happens when the person's name is too difficult to spell out, like Mahonri Moriancumer. But Jesus is special. I don't believe we'd use anyone else's name no matter how difficult it is to spell.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
What you and every Mormon see as an attack is actually the defense of our faith.
We say the same thing. What you see as an attack is actually the defense of our faith. But the OP listed several things that our critics factually do not have. In fact, it would appear that the churches that our critics belong to have nothing that remotely resembles the church Christ established and the New Testament is proof of that. Most of the churches today are patterned after the Catholic church which also doesn't resemble the church Jesus established. They don't have temples, you don't. They are clueless about the Melchizedek Priesthood and so are you all. They have no apostles and neither do you. They closed the scriptures saying there would be no more word and you all accepted it. They said the heavens are sealed and you all agreed.

I understand that you are defending your faith, but that doesn't mean you're right. There can be only one truth, one path, one faith and so far, that's not looking good for our critics.
It is your prophet who stated our faith fell into apostasy
That's not what he said. The church fell into apostasy. That also appears to be factual. Have you ever heard of the dark ages?
Therein is the truth and consequently your OP is wrong at every level.
Actually, it's correct on every level. Did the church in Christ's time have temple worship? Yes. Did they have prophets and apostles? Yes. Did they have heavenly visitations? Yes. Did they have continuing revelation through apostles and prophets? Yes. Did they add to the scriptures? Yes. Did they have the priesthood which was passed on by those having the authority to do so? Yes.

Do any of you all have that? No.

I didn't think so.
 

Richard7

Well-known member
I think it’s unfortunate that you reject the authority of Christ.
Big difference between rejecting and having the authority.... we claim that we do all things by using the power and priesthood authority of God. It's called the Keys of the Kingdom, which you guys have rejected... hmm
 

Janice Bower

Well-known member
As I have pondered the thought of why the critics here would choose to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--one thought is prevalent in my musings.

The NT church had the living, mortal apostles and prophets. They had heavenly visitations to numerous occasions--with witnesses. They had the priesthood. Jesus Christ Himself visited them, and continuing revelation and scripture ensued. They had the temple--present and future, etc.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also possess those same traits.

Yet--those who have little to none of that, --attack the very church which does have those things, claiming it as being false.

How is that persecution any different than what the traditional Jews leveled agaisnt the first century church of Jesus Christ?
Are you calling a discussion of the Bible persecution?

Galatians 1
6I am amazed how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ.
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse! 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be under a curse!

Let us read 1 Nephi 14:10
“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil”

Does the church of the Lamb of God have a name? What is it's name?
 
Last edited:

Magdalena

Well-known member
One of Mormonism’s major claims is that of continuing revelation.
Big difference between rejecting and having the authority.... we claim that we do all things by using the power and priesthood authority of God. It's called the Keys of the Kingdom, which you guys have rejected... hmm
You can claim whatever you want. Doesn’t make it from God.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
As I have pondered the thought of why the critics here would choose to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--one thought is prevalent in my musings.

The NT church had the living, mortal apostles and prophets. They had heavenly visitations to numerous occasions--with witnesses. They had the priesthood. Jesus Christ Himself visited them, and continuing revelation and scripture ensued. They had the temple--present and future, etc.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also possess those same traits.

Yet--those who have little to none of that, --attack the very church which does have those things, claiming it as being false.

How is that persecution any different than what the traditional Jews leveled agaisnt the first century church of Jesus Christ?

Not sure ......

Was "baptized Mormon". (wasn't me though)

Got the not being thngy.

Servitude ...... to not be.

What did you get?
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
There is one thing for sure--that question--when applied to the critic's churches here--would be--never.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had numerous heavenly appearances in their history. Their church is replete with those heavenly experiences, with witnesses--the same as the NT church claim.

So when does the revelation become cannon?

I thought the OP posed a good question.

When accepted by the mases?

In other words, do you guys have an officiall criteria for "prophet spoken words" becoming cannon?

Besides JS.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
What you and every Mormon see as an attack is actually the defense of our faith.

The faith pawned here by the critics can't be defended, using the Biblical text. That has been shown:

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

It is your prophet who stated our faith fell into apostasy

Which is confirmed by the fact there was a Reformation--which started numerous new denominations--with a different theology.

and that he restored this apostatized faith in the guise of the BoM and attendant texts, purported first visions (which one) and being empowered by the Mormon God to translate "reformed Egyptian" into Elizabethan English by a seer stone in a hat. So, your religious belief system attacked ours and we are, therefore, and rightfully so, defending against the lies of Mormonism. Therein is the truth and consequently your OP is wrong at every level.

And how is that any different than the NT church bringing forth additional scripture--which threatened the established practices of that day? How is the numerous heavenly visitations of the LDS church--and different than the claims of the NT church?

Lastdays--what heavenly visitations does your church claim in it's history, since it's inception? How many denominations do you believe the NT church had?
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Are you calling a discussion of the Bible persecution?

No. The critics here have precious little in common with the Biblical NT theology:

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Galatians 1
6I am amazed how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ.
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse! 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be under a curse!

So--does Galatians have correct theology?

Galatians 6:7-9--King James Version
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

Let us read 1 Nephi 14:10
“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil”

Does the church of the Lamb of God have a name? What is it's name?

Why wouldn't it be named after the Lamb of God--which is Jesus Christ? What is the name of your church?
 
Top