Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament?

[_moksha]

I see only self aggrandizing, boastfulness, and self indulgence.

Would you be that harsh with Donald Trump? Remember Wrestlemania 23 and the battle between the two entities each sporting something that resembled hair.

[_gdemetz]

That's okay, Moksha, I have been harsh with him. He was just giving me a dose of my own medicine. He he!

[_Albion]

Moksha, my immediate response is...huh? What has any of that got to do with the shady character of Joseph Smith. To my knowledge, Trump hasn't been convicted in a court of law for "glass looking" and makes no claim to prophetic ability.

[_Albion]

gdemetz, I think you need to get out more. There is the vast Christian world which agrees pretty much on the essentials of the Gospels and then there is the tiny sect that is Mormonism....less than one percent of the world's population.....a tiny hair on the tail of the dog, and you see it as wagging the dog. I don't think so.

[_Albion]

Franktalk, I suppose when you start with a premise divorced from scripture there is a natural inclination to want to interpret everything as supporting that premise. I don't know your commitment to Mormonism but Mormons do it all the time. Once their "missionaries" convince a contact of the false validity of Joseph Smith its pretty easy to slowly feed them all the Bible verses that appear to or can be twisted to support his fraud.

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk, I suppose when you start with a premise divorced from scripture there is a natural inclination to want to interpret everything as supporting that premise. I don't know your commitment to Mormonism but Mormons do it all the time. Once their "missionaries" convince a contact of the false validity of Joseph Smith its pretty easy to slowly feed them all the Bible verses that appear to or can be twisted to support his fraud.

Really Albion, you disagree but just what is the "correct' view of the scripture? Can you tell me? Or should I use the Catholic method where they just call the Apostles liars.

When church leaders interpret scripture for the members they cast their own views of scripture as correct and all others as error. If they are guided by the Spirit of God this should not be a problem. But how are we to know if another is actually telling us the truth as God wants it told to us? The easy way is to have the witness of the Holy Spirit and just pray for the witness to truth.

I will now show a few examples of scriptural interpretation from the Roman Catholic Church. To start with I will quote some material from the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 1 pages 597 and another on page 599. This section deals with the book of Revelation known as Apocalypse to the Catholics.

…..From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude. He encourages them with the promise of an ample and speedy reward. He assures them that Christ’s triumphant coming is at hand. Both in the beginning and at the end of the book the seer is most emphatic in telling his people that the hour of victory is nigh. He begins saying: “Blessed is he that…….keepeth those things which are written in it; for the time is at hand.” He closes his vision with the pathetic words: “He that giveth testimony of these things saith, surely I come quickly: Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” ………It would appear, and is so held by many, that the Christians of the Apostolic age expected that Christ would return during their own lifetime or generation. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of several passages both in Epistles and Gospels. The Christians of Asia Minor, and the seer with them, appear to have shared this fallacious expectation. Their mistaken hope, however, did not effect the soundness of their belief in the essential part of the dogma. Their views of a millennial period of corporal happiness were equally erroneous. The Church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurretion. St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Church from all crude Fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millennium allegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth. With the foundation of the Church the millennium began. The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin. Thus the number 1000 is to be taken indefinitely.

I want to point out a few things. First of all they say that John wrote about the coming of Christ as very near (in time) and in this they declare him “fallacious”. They also declare “The church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection.” So they have redefined the millennium as meaning something completely different than John was told in his vision. In this they completely ignore the warning at the end of the book.

Rev 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

And on page 599 of the Catholic encyclopedia we find this:

…….To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g. of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended, it was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice.

Here they are saying that Daniel was written by someone else around 160 BC at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and it was not prophecy but a history of events that had already taken place. Daniel lived around 600 BC and wrote his book around 550 BC. But the big problem comes from scripture.

Mar 13:14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains:

These are words spoken by Jesus. Here Jesus declares that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel and that Daniel was a prophet. I don’t see how the Catholic Church can reconcile this conflict that their interpretation causes.
They also say that John followed the practice of writing after events had taken place yet John says:

Rev 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

I have a hard time believeing that John wrote a book saying it is a prophecy when in fact it was not. I am a futurist so I believe the events described in the book of Revelation have yet to take place. In my view John is telling the truth.

So please tell me what you think about the book of Daniel and the Revelation? Did the Catholic church have it right that both books are not prophecy? Was John a liar? Was the book of Daniel written by someone besides Daniel? Did Christ not know what He was talking about? You sitting back and disagreeing means nothing to me. Let me know what you think is correct. Or is your job just to disagree and offer no truth?

[_Albion]

You have posted a lengthy post on the Book of Daniel and the Catholic Church that has, in my view, no direct bearing on my post at all. The first big gulp of Mormonism, and the one Mormon "missionaries" emphasize the heaviest, is that somehow the events cataloged over thousands of years in the Old Testament and which were all designed to point to the coming of God's son, his life and atonement and the offer of free salvation through grace, all came to naught because it all collapsed a short time later. It paints a sad picture of a pathetic God who took all this trouble over such a long period of time but by Mormon standards was powerless to keep everything he had planned and engineered form staying together. When you convince people of that, using a few out of context scriptures that talk of "falling away" and apostasy and extend them to fit your point, it's pretty easy to take the next step to introduce Joseph Smith as God's superman who saved the world from itself by restoring what you have convinced your mark was taken away.. By extension Smith, as he did, can then introduce any doctrine or practice he wishes. That, I think, is where Mormons are coming from. Oh, the word "celestial" is mentioned in scripture...that must mean a special high, or third heaven and obviously supports the doctrine that found germination in Smith's fertile brain. Two sticks mentioned in Ezekiel....obviously that's a prophesy about the Bible and the Book of Mormon.....a reference to baptism for the dead in Corinthians....got to be a correct practice because Smith has a "prophesy" about the practice. Smith ascended to the highest degree of masonry...oh, here's a prophesy about actual temple practice. If I didn't believe people's salvation was at stake, it would be laughable. That is my premise and no matter how much you may want to interpret the Book of Daniel or slam the Catholic Church your post has no bearing on my point.

[_Franktalk]

Albion,

As I suspected you are an empty suit. If you can't bring your own beliefs to the table then you have none worth defending. I study scripture daily and can defend all of my beliefs in some way. Unless you contrast what you believe with what I believe we get nowhere. You are nothing more than a noisy negative opinion box on autopilot.

Unless you bring scripture and your interpretation to a post I will not respond to you. You are a waste of time.

[_Albion]

I made a post, you responded with something completely off the wall and off topic and somehow object when I bring it back to topic. Your decision is fine by me. I have no interest in your tangents and less interest in a discussion on Catholicism.

[_gdemetz]

An empty suit is putting it mildly! Albion, if you can't see from the Bible, and in particular from the New Testament, that there was a great apostasy which required a restoration, then you are indeed very ignorant! I will just give you a few quotes right off the top of my head!

"made war with the saints and overcame them"
" {the woman representing the church} was driven into the wilderness...for 1260 day" {prophetic days representing years}
" {for that time will not come - the coming of Christ until..} a great falling away"
"the times of the restitution of all things as spoken of by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began"

There are so many, Albion, wake up and ask yourself what were all the thing which needed to be restored! I think that you are in way over your head on this site!!!