Ok. So as you can see from my previous article that this apologist is doing everything in his power to get people to believe that those who oppose the church have no clue what they are talking about. Because after all to him they have the whole truth which leads me to his next comment...
"as there a need to restore the Church? Yes, there was a need to restore the Church. Here is why. The New Testament is replete with verses after verses calling the Early Jewish and Gentile Christians back to the sound doctrines that had already been established. Not only that, but the organization of the Church was founded upon the principle truth that Christ did not leave his Church without leadership, guidance, and counsel. Who were these men? They were the Apostles, Peter, James, and John making up what we would call the First Presidency. Now, ask yourself this. After the ascension of Christ, in Acts chapter 1, what did the disciples do? They went to prayer and presented two names of those who were considered appropriate to fill the vacancy of an office that Judas of Iscariot had abandoned. Now, why would they do this? Simple, because it is Christ’s church and it is how it would be organized. Therefore, as the Apostles were murdered, there was no one called to fill the vacancy. It is said that John was the last apostle to live and we do not know exactly what happened to him. When the destruction of Jerusalem happened, the Christians, heeding the warnings given by Christ, and the Apostles, fled from the city. As the nation of Israel became no more, and the temple of Jerusalem became no more, the authority of the Church also became no more. Spiritual darkness seeped into the church because there was no longer an apostle or prophet who was called by divine authority to lead the church. Because of this, those Christians who survived and were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, began to develop their own ideas, teachings, and doctrines. This included the nature and person of Christ and the Father. Gnosticism came to rise up in competition to Christianity, as well as many other different factions of Christianity. This is all evident in History."
Restore a church? Which church would that be? The church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, or a different one? Because each of them didn't answer to a central hub. And what are the last days he is referring to? The authority of the Church in which he is talking about is the body of Christ and it is no more because it will be removed from the earth before Gods wrath is pored out on the Earth. So yet again they want insert ideas into Biblical passages to justify their cause. As far as his bit about competition with Christianity I will leave it at this. What is the one thing any group will do to try and justify their stance about God. That is they attack the credibility of the Bible. So what does Mormonism do...Let's see "We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly." I haven't even gotten into major doctrinal issues yet and we can see the affects of Mormonism.
"Another argument that already has been answered. The reality is, we do need modern day Prophets. That is because God has spoken to the children of men through Prophets in times past, and has spoken through prophets in the First Century, and has restored the Church to speak through prophets today. The fundamental purpose of a Prophet is to speak and administer on behalf of God. Critic’s then employ the Hebrews 1:1-2 verse when they really do not understand the historical context of it all. When the term last days is referenced in the New Testament, it is specifically speaking of the last days in that of the given generation. Meaning, Hebrews 1:1-2 is correct that God had spoken through Prophets in times past and that he had spoken to the people in these last days through His Son Jesus Christ. Notice the term these last days and notice that the writer of Hebrews is referring to his time as these last days. That is because the end of the age and judgment coming upon the First Century Jews was imminently upon them."
Well what are these last days? If he is talking about Jesus speaking to us and Jesus isn't dead or his presence gone would he not still be speaking to us? And is there anyone who isn't LDS that can see any validity to his claim? He is correct on one point and that is that the point of a prophet is to speak and administer on behalf of God however if that is his justification for a prophet then how would he justify 1 Timothy 2:5,6? One thing you will see an apologist do when they realize this argument doesn't work is to try and bring up how it is speaking of prophets in Revelation. However we need to go back to another point I have already made and that is when that occurs the Church(Body of Christ) isn't here. So again to the hamster wheel they go.
"Did Brigham Young teach that men lived on the moon?
This is a very old argument from the Anti-Mormons. Didn’t Christians at one time believed that the Earth was flat? Yes. Were they wrong? Yes. Therefore, we shall conclude that Christian thinkers at that time were liars and deceivers. This is a prime example of taking a quote that was made by someone and then putting it into a modern understanding and then attempt to interpret it from a modern perspective."
I can't speak about what prior Christians believed however I can state that if they did choose to believe this it wasn't based of scripture. The issue he is forgetting to mention is that Brigham had stated that his very words were scripture.
"The problem that many run into when it comes to the Anti-Mormon’s, is that they only give part of the story. They do not give you the full story. They utilize mockery, ridicule, and half-truths in an attempt to denounce the teachings of the Mormon Church. They then call members of the Mormon Faith, unchristian, lost souls, and the caveat blind sheep who follow wolves in sheep clothing."
They only give part of the story? That is the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? Let's all prove this by asked common everyday Mormons how many wives Joseph had. Most are ignorant of this to no fault of their own. So if they won't tell their own people the whole story how can we expect any less when it comes to a debate with Christians? And if you attempt to change the definition of Christian to include yourself that doesn't mean you fit in with the mold. Just because you believe in "A" Jesus doesn't make you Christian. I by no means am saying that Mormons are bad people however as I like to say "Going to church doesn't make you Christian, anymore than eating beef makes you a cow."
I hope this helps everyone if you should choose to engage with LDS apologist. Be mindful that you will be pre-labeled Anti-Mormon and that at some point their anger will be made clear. I love the Mormon people and I hope that everyone reading this does as well. May God bless you and keep you safe.
- ► 2013 (11)
- ▼ 2011 (17)