Restoration of the Gospel

Post by **_sr1030** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:49 pm

I had Three Mormon missionaries visit me two or three weeks ago. They were older and I believe watching out for the young missionaries who are working this area. It was a very nice visit, they are great people.

That being said, they inquired as to whether or not I had ever read the Book of Mormon and of course I have many times, but that was many years ago. They asked whether or not I had sincerely prayed about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and again my answer was yes and that I received an answer that it was not true. Of course no LDS that has ever heard me say that truly believes I was sincere, but there is nothing I can do about that.

Even though 2 of these missionaries have spent most of their lives in the LDS church, they could not answer basic questions about the Book of Mormon and restoration of the Gospel.

I asked what the Book of Mormon restored (which was lost). They answered that the priesthood was restored and started quoting things from the D&C. I quickly corrected them in that the answers about restoration should be found in the Book of Mormon. They were to return after they talked to someone more knowledgeable than they were, or even bring them to my place. This looks like is what will happen soon.

I thought I would ask this same question here and see what answers I would get from LDS on this board that seem to know a lot more than the missionaries do.

Looking at the Book of Mormon as the restoration of the Gospel:

1) What did the Book of Mormon restore?
2) The Book of Mormon claim is that without a complete apostacy on the part of the church, there would be no need for a restoration. This makes logical sense to me. So what was lost? I personally see that the church was here during the first 19 centuries, therefore at most a reformation may have been required, but certainly not a restoration.
3) the claim is that the creeds of the then existing churches were an abomination. Can a church whose creeds are an abomination be considered a Christian church?

sr

Post by **_ldsfaqs** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:47 am

sr1030 wrote:Of course no LDS that has ever heard me say that truly believes I was sincere, but there is nothing I can do about that.

Hey SR, long time no see (though I've heard you might be Scratch or home-ever?). leeuniverse here. by the way, the links I post below were originally posted I think by me back during ZLMB days, so you should have read them but likely didn't.

I don't think that is true.... Being sincere doesn't make one ready to receive.
Atheists will say they are sincere, but they don't believe in the Bible.
Remember the Bible say's the tree must be "ready to harvest". You not believing the Book of Mormon would more than likely simply mean you were not ready to harvest.

Even though 2 of these missionaries have spent most of their lives in the LDS church, they could not answer basic questions about the Book of Mormon and restoration of the Gospel.

Depends on what you are asking. Missionary's being young are mostly there to share the Gospel to those ready to harvest, not have intellectual discussions and debate. Thus, they are not prepared for that.

I asked what the Book of Mormon restored (which was lost). They answered that the priesthood was restored and started quoting things from the D&C. I quickly corrected them in that the answers about restoration should be found in the Book of Mormon. They were to return after they talked to someone more knowledgeable than they were, or even bring them to my place. This looks like is what will happen soon.

The Book of Mormon is simply another Testament of Jesus Christ. It wasn't designed to restore all truth. It did restore some, which I will get into below, but certainly not all. Most LDS simply aren't "trained" in what was and wasn't restored etc., we simply learn what is, the Gospel. That's why it was hard for them to simply say this this and that was restored by the Book of Mormon.

Looking at the Book of Mormon as the restoration of the Gospel:

1) What did the Book of Mormon restore?

2) The Book of Mormon claim is that without a complete apostacy on the part of the church, there would be no need for a restoration. This makes logical sense to me. So what was lost? I personally see that the church was here during the first 19 centuries, therefore at most a reformation may have been required, but certainly not a restoration.

Reformations are pretty much Non-Biblical. Christ himself didn't "reform" the Church, he created an entirely new Church, remember the "can't put New Wine into an Old Jar" statement?

Further, reform/restore, same difference. There are many churches out there that claim they are "reformed" Churches, but they are still new and different churches than others.

The Priesthood, certain practices and doctrines are complete "restorations", not simply "reforms", thus yes, a restoration was necessary.

3) the claim is that the creeds of the then existing churches were an abomination. Can a church whose creeds are an abomination be considered a Christian church?

sr

Christian is someone who believes and strives to follow Christ. "Perfection" is not in the definition, either personally or theologically. Christ himself made that clear in Mark 9, Luke 9, and Matthew 18 in which the Apostles tried to deny and stop of Faith of people who didn't have their authority and truths, who were not with the Church, but Christ harshly warned them not to do that, that they were ALSO of HIM.

Christ didn't say "by their intellectual judgments ye shall know them, he said by their FRUITS ye shall know them".

The Good Samaritan story clearly shows that it's not what Church a person is in, not whether he's one of the elect, knowing the "truths", but one's heart and actions that make one "Of God" or not of God. Truth is important, but it's among the least important things, because other things are what most matter. Christ made this clear in all of these scriptures, and it's exactly why anti-mormonism especially by Christians is wrong. Proof of that is that the vast majority of those who leave Mormonism because of the efforts of anti-mormonism, primarily Christian anti-mormonism, leave God and Faith all together, not join one of their Faiths. God most certainly wouldn't like that.

Post by **_sleepyhead** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:55 pm

sr1030 wrote:That being said, they inquired as to whether or not I had ever read the Book of Mormon and of course I have many times, but that was many years ago. They asked whether or not I had sincerely prayed about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and again my answer was yes and that I received an answer that it was not true. Of course no LDS that has ever heard me say that truly believes I was sincere, but there is nothing I can do about that.

in my opinion the question about the historicity of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant. The Book of Mormon being historically accurate doesn't add any value to the book. The question should be does it provide any value to the individual reading it.

The Book of Mormon for me was about the world of religion. For me I began reading the Book of Mormon when I was quite naïve about the world of religion. Lehi's dream, the warning against priestcraft, the interaction between abinadi and King Noah, and the definition of the gospel provided me with valuable insight. In that sense the Book of Mormon was true for me.

Post by **_sr1030** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:32 am

sleepyhead wrote:
sr1030 wrote:That being said, they inquired as to whether or not I had ever read the Book of Mormon and of course I have many times, but that was many years ago. They asked whether or not I had sincerely prayed about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and again my answer was yes and that I received an answer that it was not true. Of course no LDS that has ever heard me say that truly believes I was sincere, but there is nothing I can do about that.

sleepyhead wrote: in my opinion the question about the historicity of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant. The Book of Mormon being historically accurate doesn't add any value to the book. The question should be does it provide any value to the individual reading it.

So it wouldn't matter if it was just a plagiarized fictional book?

sleepyhead wrote: The Book of Mormon for me was about the world of religion. For me I began reading the Book of Mormon when I was quite naïve about the world of religion. Lehi's dream, the warning against priestcraft, the interaction between abinadi and King Noah, and the definition of the gospel provided me with valuable insight. In that sense the Book of Mormon was true for me.

Most LDS that I have interacted with knew little of religion or of the Bible before becoming LDS.

sr

Post by **_Bazooka** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 am

ldsfaqs wrote:
sr1030 wrote:Of course no LDS that has ever heard me say that truly believes I was sincere, but there is nothing I can do about that.
I don't think that is true.... Being sincere doesn't make one ready to receive.
Atheists will say they are sincere, but they don't believe in the Bible.
Remember the Bible say's the tree must be "ready to harvest". You not believing the Book of Mormon would more than likely simply mean you were not ready to harvest.

ldsfaqs doesn't realise he has affirmed sr1030's point.

faqs, if you have to believe the Book of Mormon is true before asking for confirmation that it is true, how come Moroni didn't point that out?

2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The qualifiers being that sr1030 didn't need to already believe the Book of Mormon was true, just that he asked with a sincere heart having faith in Christ.

You are lying about Church doctrine, again.

Post by **_sleepyhead** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:53 pm

sr1030 wrote:So it wouldn't matter if it was just a plagiarized fictional book?

Hello sr,

No. I don't see why it should matter. Whoever originally wrote the Book of Mormon is now dead. The people who plagiarized it are dead too. If we knew who wrote it the copy write period would be over anyway. I see no reason to concern myself with whether it was plagiarized.

Post by **_Nightlion** » Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:31 am

sr1030 wrote:I had Three Mormon missionaries visit me two or three weeks ago. They were older and I believe watching out for the young missionaries who are working this area. It was a very nice visit, they are great people.

That being said, they inquired as to whether or not I had ever read the Book of Mormon and of course I have many times, but that was many years ago. They asked whether or not I had sincerely prayed about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and again my answer was yes and that I received an answer that it was not true. Of course no LDS that has ever heard me say that truly believes I was sincere, but there is nothing I can do about that.

Even though 2 of these missionaries have spent most of their lives in the LDS church, they could not answer basic questions about the Book of Mormon and restoration of the Gospel.

I asked what the Book of Mormon restored (which was lost). They answered that the priesthood was restored and started quoting things from the D&C. I quickly corrected them in that the answers about restoration should be found in the Book of Mormon. They were to return after they talked to someone more knowledgeable than they were, or even bring them to my place. This looks like is what will happen soon.

I thought I would ask this same question here and see what answers I would get from LDS on this board that seem to know a lot more than the missionaries do.

Looking at the Book of Mormon as the restoration of the Gospel:

1) What did the Book of Mormon restore?
2) The Book of Mormon claim is that without a complete apostacy on the part of the church, there would be no need for a restoration. This makes logical sense to me. So what was lost? I personally see that the church was here during the first 19 centuries, therefore at most a reformation may have been required, but certainly not a restoration.
3) the claim is that the creeds of the then existing churches were an abomination. Can a church whose creeds are an abomination be considered a Christian church?

sr

The power thereof. Once a community of faith is established that community begins to nurture its young in the admonition of the community. Succeeding generations fail to accomplish the precise gospel because parents are unwise and leaders are even less wise about making certain the strict protocols Jesus Christ commanded are followed to the end that the actual gospel by power in the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost is received.

Everyone who has any love in their heart will claim the 'spirit'. This human condition circumvents the gospel so well that pride grows where meekness was needed to begin with.

The Book of Mormon gloriously restores the gospel protocols with precision. Not that it did the LDS much good. For they never gathered these jewels up and polished them in their traditions nor did they become expert in the administration nor see to it that the commandments of Christ were obeyed and hence only condemnation has come of it.

These protocols are found in the Bible for sure if you are already born again and can SEE the kingdom you will find them. Acts chapters one and two hold it when combined with the sermon on the mount you almost get them all. There are Old Testament jewels that show the gospel protocols as well.

What the Mormons need today is another restoration so that they can see these commandments anew and reform and strive to obey the Lord and bring forth and establish his Zion. If you wonder what exactly the precise formula for gospel success with Christ in God are you only need to read my posting history for the past twenty two years. Or ask me now.

Post by **_LittleNipper** » Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:43 am

Speaking of the priesthood and salvation, let's see what a Christian of the REFORMATION had to say --- please see below:

Christ Our Great High Priest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER, VOL. VII, PAGE 163

HEBREWS 9:11-15: But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

1. An understanding of practically all of the Epistle to the Hebrews is necessary before we can hope to make this text clear to ourselves. Briefly, the epistle treats of a twofold priesthood. The former priesthood was a material one, with material adornment, tabernacle, sacrifices and with pardon couched in ritual; material were all its appointments. The new order is a spiritual priesthood, with spiritual adornments, spiritual tabernacle and sacrifices--spiritual in all that pertains to it. Christ, in the exercise of his priestly office, in the sacrifice on the cross, was not adorned with silk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER VOL. VII, PAGE 164

and gold and precious stones, but with divine love, wisdom, patience, obedience and all virtues. His adornment was apparent to none but God and possessors, of the Spirit, for it was spiritual.

2. Christ sacrificed not goats nor calves nor birds; not bread; not blood nor flesh, as did Aaron and his posterity: he offered his own body and blood, and the manner of the sacrifice was spiritual; for it took place through the Holy Spirit, as here stated. Though the body and blood of Christ were visible the same as any other material object, the fact that he offered them as a sacrifice was not apparent. It was not a visible sacrifice, as in the case of offerings at the hands of Aaron. Then the goat or calf, the flesh and blood, were material sacrifices visibly offered, and recognized as sacrifices. But Christ offered himself in the heart before God. His sacrifice was perceptible to no mortal. Therefore, his bodily flesh and blood becomes a spiritual sacrifice. Similarly, we Christians, the posterity of Christ our Aaron, offer up our own bodies (Rom 12:1). And our offering is likewise a spiritual sacrifice, or, as Paul has it, a "reasonable service"; for we make it in spirit, and it is beheld of God alone.

3. Again, in the new order, the tabernacle or house is spiritual; for it is heaven, or the presence of God. Christ hung upon a cross; he was not offered in a temple. He was offered before the eyes of God, and there he still abides. The cross is an altar in a spiritual sense. The material cross was indeed visible, but none knew it as Christ's altar. Again, his prayer, his sprinkled blood, his burnt incense, were all spiritual, for it was all wrought through his spirit.

4. Accordingly, the fruit and blessing of his office and sacrifice, the forgiveness of our sins and our justification, are likewise spiritual. In the Old Covenant, the priest with his sacrifices and sprinklings of blood effected merely as it were an external absolution, or pardon, corresponding to the childhood stage of the people. The recipient was permitted to move publicly among the people; he was externally holy and as one restored from excommunication. He who failed to obtain absolution from the priest was unholy, being denied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER VOL. VII, PAGE 165

membership in the congregation and enjoyment of its privileges; in all respects he was separated like those in the ban today.

5. But such absolution rendered no one inwardly holy and just before God. Something beyond that was necessary to secure true forgiveness. It was the same principle which governs church discipline today. He who has received no more than the remission, or absolution, of the ecclesiastical judge will surely remain forever out of heaven. On the other hand, he who is in the ban of the Church is hellward bound only when the sentence is confirmed at a higher tribunal. I can make no better comparison than to say that it was the same in the old Jewish priesthood as now in the Papal priesthood, which, with its loosing and binding, can prohibit or permit only external communion among Christians. It is true, God required such measures in the time of the Jewish dispensation, that he might restrain by fear; just as now he sanctions church discipline when rightly employed, in order to punish and restrain the evil-doer, though it has no power in itself to raise people to holiness or to push them into wickedness.

6. But with the priesthood of Christ is true spiritual remission, sanctification and absolution. These avail before God--God grant that it be true of us--whether we be outwardly excommunicated, or holy, or not. Christ's blood has obtained for us pardon forever acceptable with God. God will forgive our sins for the sake of that blood so long as its power shall last and its intercession for grace in our behalf, which is forever. Therefore, we are forever holy and blessed before God. This is the substance of the text. Now that we shall find it easy to understand, we will briefly consider it.

"But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come."

7. The adornment of Aaron and his descendants, the high priests, was of a material nature, and they obtained for the people a merely formal remission of sins, performing their office in a perishable temple, or tabernacle. It was
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER VOL. VII, PAGE 166

evident to men that their absolution and sanctification before the congregation was a temporal blessing confined to the present. But when Christ came upon the cross no one beheld him as he went before God in the Holy Spirit, adorned with every grace and virtue, a true High Priest. The blessings wrought by him are not temporal--a merely formal pardon--but the "blessings to come"; namely, blessings which are spiritual and eternal. Paul speaks of them as blessings to come, not that we are to await the life to come before we can have forgiveness and all the blessings of divine grace, but because now we possess them only in faith. They are as yet hidden, to be revealed in the future life. Again, the blessings we have in Christ were, from the standpoint of the Old Testament priesthood, blessings to come.

"Through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation.

8. The apostle does not name the tabernacle he mentions; nor can he, so strange its nature! It exists only in the sight of God, and is ours in faith, to be revealed hereafter. It is not made with hands, like the Jewish tabernacle; in other words, not of "this building." The old tabernacle, like all buildings of its nature, necessarily was made of wood and other temporal materials created by God. God says in Isaiah 66:1-2: "What manner of house will ye build unto me?....For all these things hath my hand made, and so all these things came to be." But that greater tabernacle has not yet form; it is not yet finished. God is building it and he shall reveal it. Christ's words are (Jn. 14:3), "And if I go and prepare a place for you."

"Nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption."

9. According to Leviticus 16, the high priest must once a year enter into the holy place with the blood of rams and other offerings, and with these make formal reconciliation for the people. This ceremony typified that Christ, the true Priest, should once die for us, to obtain for us the true atonement. But the former sacrifice, having to be repeated every
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER, VOL. VII, PAGE 167

year, was but a temporary and imperfect atonement; it did not eternally suffice, as does the atonement of Christ. For though we fall and sin repeatedly, we have confidence that the blood of Christ does not fall, or sin; it remains steadfast before God, and the expiation is perpetual and eternal. Under its sway grace is perpetually renewed, without work or merit on our part, provided we do not stand aloof in unbelief.

"For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer," etc.

10. Concerning the water of separation and the ashes of the red heifer, read Numbers 19; and concerning the blood of bulls and goats, Leviticus 16:14-15. According to Paul, these were formal and temporal purifications, as I stated above. But Christ, in God's sight, purifies the conscience of dead works; that is, of sins meriting death, and of works performed in sin and therefore dead. Christ purifies from these, that we may serve the living God by living works.

"And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant [testament]," etc.

11. Under the old law, which provided only for formal, or ritualistic pardon, and restored to human fellowship, sin and transgressions remained, burdening the conscience. It--the old law--did not benefit the soul at all, inasmuch as God did not institute it to purify and safeguard the conscience, nor to bestow the Spirit. It existed merely for the purpose of outward discipline, restraint and correction. So Paul teaches that under the Old Testament dispensation man's transgressions remained, but now Christ is our Mediator through his blood; by it our conscience, is freed from sin in the sight of God, inasmuch as God promises the Spirit through the blood of Christ. All, however, do not receive him. Only those called to be heirs eternal, the elect, receive the Spirit.

12. We find, then, in this excellent lesson, the comforting doctrine taught that Christ is he whom we should know as the Priest and Bishop of our souls; that no sin is forgiven, nor the Holy Spirit given, by reason of works or
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER, VOL. VII, PAGE 167

merit on our part, but alone through the blood of Christ, and that to those for whom God has ordained it. This matter has been sufficiently set forth in the various postils.

Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:49 pm

LittleNipper wrote:Speaking of the priesthood and salvation, let's see what a Christian of the REFORMATION (Martin Luther) had to say...

Good idea, Nipper.

Martin Luther is one of my favorites.

Here's what Wikipedia says about On the Jews and Their Lies, written by Martin Luther in 1543:

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

In the treatise, Luther describes Jews as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".

In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight; for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings; for their religious writings to be taken away; for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do; for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews; for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave laborers.

The prevailing scholarly view since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published. Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries. Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history."

Since the 1980s, some Lutheran church bodies have formally denounced and dissociated themselves from Luther's discriminatory writings on the Jews. In November 1998, on the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Lutheran Church of Bavaria issued a statement: "It is imperative for the Lutheran Church, which knows itself to be indebted to the work and tradition of Martin Luther, to take seriously also his anti-Jewish utterances, to acknowledge their theological function, and to reflect on their consequences. It has to distance itself from every [expression of] anti-Judaism in Lutheran theology."

This raises several interesting questions, Nipper.

Would you say Martin Luther was a man of god despite his virulent anti-Semitism?

Or, would you say Martin Luther was a virulent anti-Semite because he was a man of god?

Post by **_LittleNipper** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:56 pm

The Erotic Apologist wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:Speaking of the priesthood and salvation, let's see what a Christian of the REFORMATION (Martin Luther) had to say...

Good idea, Nipper.

Martin Luther is one of my favorites.

Here's what Wikipedia says about On the Jews and Their Lies, written by Martin Luther in 1543:

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

In the treatise, Luther describes Jews as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".

In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight; for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings; for their religious writings to be taken away; for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do; for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews; for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave laborers.

The prevailing scholarly view since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published. Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries. Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history."

Since the 1980s, some Lutheran church bodies have formally denounced and dissociated themselves from Luther's discriminatory writings on the Jews. In November 1998, on the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Lutheran Church of Bavaria issued a statement: "It is imperative for the Lutheran Church, which knows itself to be indebted to the work and tradition of Martin Luther, to take seriously also his anti-Jewish utterances, to acknowledge their theological function, and to reflect on their consequences. It has to distance itself from every [expression of] anti-Judaism in Lutheran theology."

This raises several interesting questions, Nipper.

Would you say Martin Luther was a man of god despite his virulent anti-Semitism?

Or, would you say Martin Luther was a virulent anti-Semite because he was a man of god?

I would say that Martin Luther was a man who was highly emotional with regards to seeking to biblically save souls. Martin Luther saw non-acceptance of Christ, as the Messiah, as the manipulative work of Satan. And as such believed, and rightly so, that the unsaved Jew is living a lie and fully accepting traditions that are (of themselves) unable to save anyone. Luther saw that the Jew was without excuse with regard to the prophetic message of Christ found throughout the Old Testament. But, just like the Mormon, corrupted the Gospel message --- taking the focus off the Savior and redirected it towards keeping empty traditions, and exhorting prophets and personal philanthropy. Some Lutheran bodies also promote gay marriage. They have assumed the role of social clubs and have relieved themselves of the embarrassment the Gospel message brings with it. That embarrassment is that not everyone is saved and not all beliefs lead to heaven. It is faith in Jesus Christ plus NOTHING. And that leaves a lot of people out ---- including some Lutherians.

DiscussMormonism.com

Restoration of the Gospel

Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Re: Restoration of the Gospel