The prophesied Restoration

[Bonnie]

Chuckle, You slay me with your misunderstanding of Logic, common sense versus spiritual truths. God never invites anyone to reason with the truth (God) Spiritual revelation, is easy to determine for by its fruits you will recognize them... nothing good can come out of evil and a false prophet does not good...

Matthew 7

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

That my friend is not logic, its Gods words and we can't reason with that... chuckle.




Well to you it may be, but from your posting its obvious the scriptures and doctrine are foreign to you...

Thanks, Richard! You just condemned your Founding prophet for what he really was--a lying false prophet, who prophesied falsely in God's name; who bore rotten fruit; bragged obnoxiously; did not always follow the WoW; married other men's wives while they were still married to their first husbands, as well as well as very young teen-aged girls...yes, the list goes on!

 

[Bonnie]

"Telestial" is not a word either, Richard, chuckle, chuckle...but Mormons still believe in it, don't they, good buddy?

 

[Aaron32]

"Telestial" is not a word either, Richard, chuckle, chuckle...but Mormons still believe in it, don't they, good buddy?

Words convey meaning. Some terms are more significant in certain religions, or even scholarly papers on scientific subjects might not be meaningful to you, but they are IF you want to understand the subject.

For example, if you mentioned the terms like "Trinity", "homoousios", or "hypostatic union" in 100 AD, people might say those weren't words either.
And yet, whether they are deemed important or not, the concepts behind them define Christianity and makes Christianity distinct from other religions. Those terms are one of the very reasons "Mormonism" isn't accepted as "Christianity" on a scholarly basis.

 

[Richard7]

Thanks, Richard! You just condemned your Founding prophet for what he really was--a lying false prophet, who prophesied falsely in God's name; who bore rotten fruit; bragged obnoxiously; did not always follow the WoW; married other men's wives while they were still married to their first husbands, as well as well as very young teen-aged girls...yes, the list goes on!

I can give you page after page of witnesses that will verify my witness that JS is a Prophet of God, even today he holds keys that were also given to Peter... Keys that you guys can't find or preach little about.... Oh yea! I went to theological school and got my man made license to preach and baptized... chuckle. Well talk about false preachers and teachers who have no claim to Keys of the Kingdom... your church is built upon the sand, without a cornerstone or foundation....

 

[brotherofJared]

"Telestial" is not a word either,

LOL. It is a word and you know what it means. We all know what it means. If any one doesn't, we'd be happy to explain.

but Mormons still believe in it

I don't think we "believe in it", but we do know what it means. I'm sure that you do too.

 

[Richard7]

What's the topic of this op?

Whatever I want to talk about...

 

[Richard7]

No, just drawing attention to the fact you're off-topic and trolling. Happens A LOT in this board.

Yes I can be provocative and exasperating, but you still fail the test of knowledge, spiritual knowledge that is...

You are on record making self-contradictory claims. You're on record abusing scripture. You're on record hijacking your brothers op, and apparently for the sole purpose of making someone look bad. Perhaps you weren't aware that's what you were given the opportunity to reveal about yourself.

I am not under any obligation to engage any of that beyond making it apparent, noting it for the fallacious act of the flesh it is, and then moving on. If my resolve in this matter is doubted simply examine how often brotherofJared is engaged. He was asked the exact same thing I'm asking you now and he's consistently shown an inability, not merely an unwillingness, to post op-relevantly with manners and respect. I encourage and exhort you not to be that guy.

Chuckle, well lots of claims and where are your examples, I will give you the opportunity to show my contradictory claims. No folks he is all fluff and makes it up as he goes... he has no evidence of my making others look bad, that I leave to those who actually make post here with a air of superiority and then leave us with absolutely no substance... just a lot of big words, which allow for them to feel a sense of dominance. chuckle.

Now, if you have anything op-relevant to post I'll read it and consider replying. Otherwise, I don't collaborate with what you're bringing to the thread.

You don't what? collaborate! yikes go back and take some more english and sentence structure good buddy... then you can come back and collaborate and participate...subject complement is not your strong suit.

This op first began in a completely different thread. It is the author's practice, his modus operandi, to constantly start new threads whenever discourse becomes difficulty for him. The verses cited in the op don't actually speak of a restoration of the Church like that being asserted in the op. The use of a translation that uses the word, "restitution" is commendable because modern apocalyptic restorationist sects all got it wrong and none of them got their original predictions correct. Secular definitions should not be used if, when, and/or where they contradict with scripture. The Church, from its inception has always been a messy place and in need of reform, and that's one of the many ways where modern restorationists sects get their ecclesiology wrong. ALL of us should be cautious, if not skeptical and/or rejecting, of ANYONE who says the body of Christ is corrupt and they know how it should look. This is especially the case whenever and wherever their version does not comport consistently with the precedent established in the New Testament. I've evidenced all of this with scripture and the facts of history where applicable.

Yet not one example does he give folks. How about reform as "in the messy church" he states, no examples.... What reform? no examples either!
No one called the body of Christ as corrupt, we have always stated the the translation has been deemed unreliable at times. Since we don't have the original transcripts and the translation of Hebrew into Greek etc. There obviously is room for error, thank goodness we can compare back to the Dead Sea Scrolls for proof reading.

For several reasons Latter-day Saints have had a keen interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls. First, the scriptures themselves have primed us to anticipate the coming forth of additional ancient records. Second, Joseph Smith’s experience with records buried in the earth has given us a pattern of how ancient sacred texts were often hidden up only to come forth in a future day. Third, the expanded canon of latter-day scripture has caused us to suspect the existence of at least pockets of Israelites not closed to the possibility of continuing revelation and contemporary prophets. Fourth, the doctrine of restoration has led us to expect that others throughout the ages have witnessed apostate conditions and seen the need for a restoration of original truth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Latter-day Truth

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Latter-day Truth

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Shouldn't have to repeat any of it with someone interested in furthering the conversation topically.

Nope, I have seen enough already to know who I'm dealing with! chuckle.

You're also already on record refusing to answer the question, "What's the topic of this op?"

What ever I want, you can block me or ignore me... matters not.

If you've got something op-relevant to post, then do so. Otherwise, having said my piece about this op and seeing no one is interested in that conversation, I'll be moving on.

😢 bye!

 

[Pro-Truth]

Who understands that water baptism, like all works, are not required to obtain the gift of eternal life?

Who also understands that water baptism was an extremely common practice in the early church to celebrate after a person has become born again (born of the Holy Spirit)?

Who also understands that prior to become born again that a person dies spiritually? Our old self dies, crucified with Christ, buried...gone....and through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, a believer becomes born again, a new self, and secures newness of life, alive in Jesus Christ. Water baptism is simply a physical symbol, a celebration, of the born again spiritual reality.

The "Church" consists of all born again Christians all around the world...Jesus lives in the hearts of all born again believers...and we live in Him. With that said, it is impossible for Christ's church to need "restoration".


Born again believers are made perfect, righteous, and Holy forever (Hebrews 10:14) all because of Jesus Christ and God's grace.

 

[brotherofJared]

Who understands that water baptism, like all works, are not required to obtain the gift of eternal life?

Anyone who believes that water baptism is not necessary to obtain eternal life does not follow Christ. It's that simple. Believe what you want but your beliefs will not save u.

 

[organgrinder]

Anyone who believes that water baptism is not necessary to obtain eternal life does not follow Christ. It's that simple. Believe what you want but your beliefs will not save u.

Wrong again.

 

[Richard7]

Wrong again.

Ditto brother of jared.... no baptism, no eternal life... you fail to read the scriptures with intent, humility and a humble desire to know...

 

[Pro-Truth]

Anyone who believes that water baptism is not necessary to obtain eternal life does not follow Christ. It's that simple. Believe what you want but your beliefs will not save u.

So, where does Grace come into the picture? Do you believe God is impressed when you dunk yourself in water at the local swimming pool, river or lake? Or in some temple built by the hands of men? Why do most of the world's religions teach some sort of progressive salvation of things like do more, be more, etc like we are climbing toward God? Grace teaches that Jesus Christ climbed down to us instead.

If baptism is required for eternal iife, how do you explain the thief on the cross who "today" would be with Jesus in Paradise?

What did Paul mean when he said he claimed he didn't come to baptize, but to preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians 1:17? We know the gospel is what saves. Clearly baptism is differentiated from the gospel.

Scripture is clear that water baptism doesn’t save anyone. Rather, it is a symbolic act designed to publicly declare we’ve been saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Pro-Truth]

Anyone who believes that water baptism is not necessary to obtain eternal life does not follow Christ. It's that simple. Believe what you want but your beliefs will not save u.

That's simply not true. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount to give to anyone of what is asked of you. So, if a person asks you to drain your bank account and give them all of your money, do you do it? Have your ever been angry? Because anger is the same as committing murder. Do you think Jesus was joking around?

The works of the Law are perfect...in fact, Jesus said to be perfect. Are you perfect? Christians are dead to the Law, but, that does not mean the Law is dead. The true spirit of the Law is what was displayed in the Semon on the Mount. The Law is the perfect, yet, impossible standard...literally no one comes out alive after the Sermon on the Mount...and that is the whole point! I'll take Grace instead! That is how to truly respect the Law.

 

[Pro-Truth]

Then why the need for a Reformation--with numerous new denominations--with a different theology?

And why the prophecy here?

Acts 3:21---King James Version
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

That's a restoration, not a Reformation. God's gospel is perfect already, and has no need to be reformed.

Does God add people to His church today--- the same way He did in the NT?

Acts 2:38-42---King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

That's the doctrine one will find being practiced in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some erroneously teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation. But Scripture is clear this is not the case.

In 1 Peter 3:21, the Apostle Peter speaks of two types of baptism: a baptism for salvation and a physical baptism. The baptism for salvation is associated with “an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This baptism is into Christ’s resurrection. This first form of baptism is what happens spiritually when we believe in Jesus. We are spiritually baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection. We see this same sentiment expressed in Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12.

The second form of baptism referenced by 1 Peter 3:21 (“the removal of dirt from the flesh”) is a physical one. Peter is clear this baptism does not save! Instead, this baptism is presented as the symbolic representation of what occurred spiritually when we believed in Christ. This is the form of baptism we see Peter address in Acts 10:46-48. The Gentiles had already received the Spirit (without being water baptized), and Peter encourages a physical baptism in light of their salvation.

Additionally, the Apostle Paul did not view baptism as necessary for salvation. He made it clear to the church in Corinth that he came to preach Christ, not baptize people in water (1 Corinthians 1:17). This is quite an odd statement to make if baptism were necessary for salvation.

But what about John 3:5-6 which speaks of the necessity of being born of both water and the Spirit if one wants to enter the kingdom? Here, “born of water” means physical birth. This is seen in verse 6 when John refers to being born of “flesh.” John’s point is that one cannot be only born physically and enter the Kingdom. One must be born physically and be born a second time – spiritually. This was especially important for the Jews to know, since they believed they were God’s people simply based on their birthright (their first birth).

In Acts 2:38, Peter associates repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of sins. Some claim the verse should be read as “repent and be baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins.” From there, they argue that water baptism causes forgiveness. However, we know from the whole of Scripture (Old and New Testaments) that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). Blood is what brought our forgiveness, not water.

In Acts 2:38, Peter is simply portraying the big picture of salvation. Water baptism was a common public announcement one made to associate themselves with a teaching, movement, or group. In the days of the early church, water baptism and faith in Jesus were closely linked, though they were not inseparable.

In conclusion, Scripture is clear that water baptism doesn’t save anyone. Rather, it is a symbolic act designed to publicly declare we’ve been saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[brotherofJared]

So, where does Grace come into the picture?

It came into the picture at the moment Jesus completed his work offering his blood for the sins of all mankind. It's ridiculous that you don't know that.

Do you believe God is impressed when you dunk yourself in water at the local swimming pool, river or lake

Yes. I think God is impressed whenever we follow the teachings of his son even if we fail in trying to do so.

Why do most of the world's religions teach some sort of progressive salvation of things like do more, be more, etc like we are climbing toward God

I don't know about most religions. I don't believe most Christian religions teach that. It appears to me that the doctrine of most Christian religions is that you don't have to do anything God will take care of it all. And I believe that to be a gross error. That the message of the scriptures is that we follow Christ that we walk in the light has he walked in the light and that salvation comes to those who strive to do so. Such teachings are rare. The way is straight and narrow and few there be that find it. You guys teach a broad highway that anyone can jump on that bandwagon and be saved is the message that you all offer which is an empty promise, IMO.

 

[brotherofJared]

If baptism is required for eternal iife, how do you explain the thief on the cross who "today" would be with Jesus in Paradise?

Joseph Smith once challenged that question with this question, how do you know he wasn't baptized? But the fact is that paradise is not heaven. We have proved that logically with the scriptures time and time again. The response that you all come up with is that Jesus somehow performed some mystery magic that allowed him to be in two places at the same time and lie to Mary about where he wasn't. Jesus did not go to heaven that day. He went the opposite direction. He descended into hell not heaven. And it wasn't until three days later when he met with Mary that he told her he had not yet ascended to heaven. Three days later. So we have a doctrinal conundrum. Jesus had to have lied to one of those two people. The doctrinal conundrum is this, how can Jesus lie and still be God? And then of course the response is that Jesus can do whatever he wants because he is God. That Doctrine is untenable.

Jesus left his body on the cross as did the thief. Where they went as spirit beings was not heaven. From Peter we learned that he went to the spirits who "once lived" to free them from captivity. And if you have spirits in captivity then you must also have spirits that are not in captivity. I would suggest that the opposite of captivity is Paradise and that is where Jesus went and met with a thief from the cross. No one can enter into the kingdom of God except they are baptized of water and of the spirit. That's what Jesus Christ told Nicodemus.

What you all have done whenever you find a problem that you can't get around is invent your own man-made solutions that don't come from God. The message of the Bible is simple. If thou wouldst have life keep the commandments.

 

[brotherofJared]

What did Paul mean when he said he claimed he didn't come to baptize, but to preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians 1:17? We know the gospel is what saves. Clearly baptism is differentiated from the gospel.

They were already baptized. If you take this statement in context you will realize that the people there were divided and some were of Paul and some were of Apollos and some of another. But they were all baptized as is clear from the scriptures but they seem to insist that the baptism of Paul was more important than the baptism of John or of Apollo's or of any other holder of the priesthood in the church. His call was for unity and to accept their baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and quit arguing with each other. But I shouldn't have to explain the scriptures to you.

You are reading into them. Nothing in Paul's statement indicates that baptism was not necessary. Here it appears that you are attempting to pit Paul against Christ. I would not accept any statements that were opposite or a contradiction to Christs'. That would be advocating for a division in the body of Christ. And that's exactly what Paul was condemning in the passage you think serves your argument.

 

[brotherofJared]

Scripture is clear

Apparently not. From your interpretation it is anything but clear.

that water baptism doesn’t save anyone

LOL. You don't even understand the argument. I never said baptism will save you. Anyone who is saved is saved by grace. Obviously, not everyone will obtain that Grace. If that were true then everyone would be saved. But we know that not everyone will be saved. The question then should be what must one do in order to obtain that Grace. From the scriptures one of those things is baptism.

The fact that you guys obscure a person's responsibility for obtaining Grace is probably the greatest and most damnable thing that a religion can do to its constituents. It is a sad commentary for anyone seeking salvation to come to the conclusion that they have no part in it. They make no conscious decision about it. It's all up to God which sadly leaves us with two possibilities. One we are either saved by God based on his whim whether or not he likes you. Or God created you the way you are and there's nothing you can do about it. You were saved when you were born or you were damned to everlasting hell at the same moment. So you can live your life any way you want and if you happen to be lucky enough to be able to breathe before you finally pass away you can accept God as some people have done and you'll be saved in the Kingdom of heaven.

Our Doctrine is that we make a conscious decision whether we will follow God and his son Jesus Christ and waste away our life in his service or reject him. There are no fence sitters in this life. Those who are not for Christ are against him.

We all have a limited number of years and mortality and we choose what we will do with those years. God doesn't decide for us but we will do with them. He may give us some challenges that we have to overcome and some of those challenges are definitely greater than the challenges other people experience and their lives but whatever life we find ourselves in we make the decisions about what we will do about our circumstances. And after this life is over there's nothing we can do about what we did. Those works are marked and cannot be undone after we die. So either we die and our lives were spent and doing good or our lives were spent and undermining our neighbors and taking advantage of everyone and everything we could in an effort to improve our lives or diminish other people's lives. You can't fix that after your dead.

Jesus was very clear, if you want to talk about how clear the scriptures are, that those whose deeds in life were good would be resurrected to life. There's no way to get around that. He didn't caveat that with comments about what we believed or what church we belong to or whether we attended the temple or got baptized or any of that. The way you choose to live your life, that will decide what Resurrection you will come forth in.

That begs the question, how can anyone be saved if they never heard of Christ or never got baptized?

Baptism is not a good work. It is a necessary work. It does not mark a person as being saved or damned. It might work against them if they truly understood what they were doing when they accepted baptism. We Believe that baptism is the point in our life where we take the name of Christ on us. WE bind ourselves to him. And we agree that we will keep his commandments. Obviously somebody who understands that they have committed themselves to a life of keeping his commandments and then they go about the rest of their life breaking them, their condition will not be as good as those who had not made such a commitment. But I am not the judge of that. I cannot determine if a person's decision to be baptized was made with that understanding. And I do not believe that repentance is not available to them. It's available to everyone else, so why not them?

Unlike the way we live our life, which we cannot change, accepting Jesus Christ and living by him in spirit provided we lived life that was not fraught with wickedness and evil intents, a person can receive baptism after they are dead. But make no mistake, all who have broken the commandments regardless of whether they've been baptized and accepted Jesus Christ or not and did not repent of them in this life will suffer the consequences in the next. Again, I'm not the judge of that.

To be clear, baptism does not save. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the way we live.

 

[brotherofJared]

Rather, it is a symbolic act designed to publicly declare we’ve been saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus

Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is that not clear in the scriptures. But it's not taught in the scriptures. The call to the apostles was to go into all the world baptizing. And the reason why they are to baptize is for the very reason that Jesus said that no one can enter into the kingdom of God except they are baptized of water and of the spirit. You can't escape that. You can believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Richard7]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is that not clear in the scriptures. But it's not taught in the scriptures. The call to the apostles was to go into all the world baptizing. And the reason why they are to baptize is for the very reason that Jesus said that no one can enter into the kingdom of God except they are baptized of water and of the spirit. You can't escape that. You can believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it true.

What? no response to your replies, are they hiding for reasons you bested them... good job BJ....