Apostasy and authority

[_Jason Bourne]

Do all LDS agree with you here that God the Father had a father? The Lord's church is a church of order, you know.

Yes they do.

No they do not. I don't. Blake Ostler does not. I bet David Paulsen does't or Robert Millet. I bet Dan Peterson doesn't. I don't see it taught much anywhere these days. I have not heard and GA discuss it forever.

[_JAK]

John 5: 19, 30
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise


Yes

How does that support the concept that God the Father had a father? I'm not seeing it, Gaz.

Jersey Girl

What did Jesus do? He came to earth, took on mortal flesh, proved himself worthy of higher honors. He laid down his life and received a resurrected body. As his Father had done. Joseph taught this in the King Follet discource. Did he declare it as a certain doctrine? No. But he said "I know it is good reasoning".

Where did Gods begin? It is unknown, but the pattern is laid out before us very plainly. Did our Father in Heaven have a Father? I would say yes. But did the Grandfather have a father? That I don't know.

Conjectures on these questions are speculation absent evidence. The biblical scripts lack consistency. In addition, no accounts of Jesus were written until 30 to 110 years after the alleged facts. Hearsay should be regarded with suspicion. Needless to say, decades of story telling are not established as reliable.

Hence, Gazelam’s statement here is non-factual speculation of religious doctrines. In fact, a historical Jesus as directly quoted in the Bible is not established.

What is established is the power of politics and the Emperor Constintine the Great along with his sons who codified Christianity and passed it from generations forward. Clearly, it did not remain static or the same. The various schisms including the Protestant Reformation have added and subtracted from doctrines which relied more on superstition than fact.

No evidence has been established for God. And no independent or objective evidence has been established for books of the Bible.

The internal contradictions as well as the various interpretations (including LDS interpretations) should be regarded with great skepticism or as unreliable.

What J. Smith “taught” is no more relevant than any other teaching regarding interpretation of ancient scripts for books in the Bible.

What Gazelam states is “unknown” is a mere fragment of what is as a matter of fact unknown. We do know about the influences of the emperors and various kings on Christianity as it evolved over decades and centuries. Since few could read or write prior to the invention of the printing press, no reliable, objective, skeptical review of various texts (biblical) are available to view. Doctrines were perpetuated by those in power. That can be documented. Revisions and versions of the Bible can be seen. Nevertheless, all are subject to interpretation, and such interpretations are subjective.

No validity has been established for supernatural assertions regarding God myths or the Trinity or any other claim absent objective evidence.

The assumption God is without merit in any denomination of Christianity or Islam or any other religious movement which makes claims for the gods or the evolution and invention of God as characterized by any religion which makes such claims.

J. Smith made up his myths, and as a charismatic character, he attracted some to his myths. However, no scripts of religious mythology have been established as reliable over and above other claims to establish reliability.

Those born to Jewish families tend to be or remain Jewish. Those born top Muslim families tend to be or remain Muslim. And, Gazelam, those born to Mormon families tend to be or remain Mormon (an evolution long past 1517 CE - the beginning of protest by any name one wishes to use as authoritative).

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK In addition, no accounts of Jesus were written until 30 to 110 years after the alleged facts. Hearsay should be regarded with suspicion. Needless to say, decades of story telling are not established as reliable.

You may find of interest an article written by an acquaintance of mine, William Lane Craig:

First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late New Testament critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

[_Jersey Girl]

John 5: 19, 30
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise


Yes

How does that support the concept that God the Father had a father? I'm not seeing it, Gaz.

Jersey Girl

What did Jesus do? He came to earth, took on mortal flesh, proved himself worthy of higher honors. He laid down his life and received a resurrected body. As his Father had done. Joseph taught this in the King Follet discource. Did he declare it as a certain doctrine? No. But he said "I know it is good reasoning".

Where did Gods begin? It is unknown, but the pattern is laid out before us very plainly. Did our Father in Heaven have a Father? I would say yes. But did the Grandfather have a father? That I don't know.

Okay, Gaz. Here is yet another example of how Mormon's extract one portion of scripture, in this case ONE VERSE of scripture from John and import a meaning onto the text that isn't even there.

Read John 5 IN CONTEXT! The lead in to this ONE VERSE is about HEALINGS performed by Christ.

Don't you think that if you're going to claim the Bible as scripture that you should show due reverence and respect for it by reading and quoting it IN CONTEXT?


Jersey Girl

(edited to remove stupid rant)

[_Gazelam]

Please explain to me how the surrounding verses change vs 19 in any way.

[_Gazelam]

Do all LDS agree with you here that God the Father had a father? The Lord's church is a church of order, you know.

Yes they do.

No they do not. I don't. Blake Ostler does not. I bet David Paulsen does't or Robert Millet. I bet Dan Peterson doesn't. I don't see it taught much anywhere these days. I have not heard and GA discuss it forever.

I'm merely quoting from two of Joseph Smiths greatest sermons. I am sure men like Millet have read the same sermons, and accept them wholeheartedly, its simple doctrine really.

[_Gazelam]

Why would the living Prophet not know if the LDS have a teaching, and an important one at that, which you claim is held by ALL LDS?

I persoanlly would have taken it as a teaching moment, but if Hinkley saw it as expounding on meat to an audience choking on milk, well then hes the prophet and I'm not, so there ya go.

[_Gazelam]

Richard Please provide your interpretation of
Quote:
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us."
39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40"For he who is not against us is for us.

Mark 9

Gaz

And how do the scriptures you offer, in your view, work together with these that I offered?
Quote:
There are numerous accounts of priesthood authority, such as Christs declaration that the Twelve were specificly chosen and ordained (John 15:16), Saul and Barnabas were seperated and had hands laid on their heads to give them authority(Acts 13:1-3; Romas 1:1) Paul also reminds Timothy of the responsibility of the authority given to him by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14)

Richard I think the normal protocol would be for you to answer my question first. Then you’re welcome to ask me questions.

On a previous occasion, Jesus taught that neither Satan nor his false ministers can cast out devils, for "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; ... And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself." (Matt. 12:25-30) Now he adds in plainess what was necessarily implied in his previous discource that only those who follow him and are legal administrators in his kingdom can perform the miracle of casting out devils in his name.

The man mentioned was not one of the Twelve to whom the express power had been given to cast out devils (Matt. 10:8); he was not one of the inner circle of disciples who traveled, ate, slept, and communed continually with the Master. Luke has it: "he followeth not with us"; that is, he is not one of our traveling companions. But from our Lord's reply it is evident that he was a member of the kingdom, a legal administrator who was acting in the authority of the priesthood and the power of faith. Either he was unknown to John who therefore erroneously supposed him to be without authority or else John falsely supposed that the power to cast out devils was limited to the Twelve and did not extend to all faithful priesthood holders. It is quite possible that the one casting out devils was a seventy. There is no New Testament record of the calling of the first quorum of the seventy, but when Jesus (at a later day) called a second quorum of the seventy into the ministry, he expressly gave them power to cast out devils. (Luke 10:1-20)

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.1, p.416-417

[_richardMdBorn]

38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us."
39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
40"For he who is not against us is for us.

Mark 9

On a previous occasion, Jesus taught that neither Satan nor his false ministers can cast out devils, for "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; ... And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself." (Matt. 12:25-30) Now he adds in plainess what was necessarily implied in his previous discource that only those who follow him and are legal administrators in his kingdom can perform the miracle of casting out devils in his name.

Where the heck is the “legal administrators” in the passage?

The man mentioned was not one of the Twelve to whom the express power had been given to cast out devils (Matt. 10:8); he was not one of the inner circle of disciples who traveled, ate, slept, and communed continually with the Master. Luke has it: "he followeth not with us"; that is, he is not one of our traveling companions. But from our Lord's reply it is evident that he was a member of the kingdom, a legal administrator who was acting in the authority of the priesthood and the power of faith

Again, there is nothing about legal administrators” in the passage. Importing an LDS term into a passage which contradicts it does not strengthen your position.

Either he was unknown to John who therefore erroneously supposed him to be without authority or else John falsely supposed that the power to cast out devils was limited to the Twelve and did not extend to all faithful priesthood holders. It is quite possible that the one casting out devils was a seventy. There is no New Testament record of the calling of the first quorum of the seventy, but when Jesus (at a later day) called a second quorum of the seventy into the ministry, he expressly gave them power to cast out devils. (Luke 10:1-20)

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.1, p.416-417

Hi Gaz. The technical term for McConkie's opinion here is a cop-out. If the man had been one of the seventy, and it was necessary to be an appointed follower of Jesus to have such power, Jesus would have pointed it out. He did not. You need to do better than this.

[_Jersey Girl]

Please explain to me how the surrounding verses change vs 19 in any way.

The surrounding verse provide the context and thus the meaning of verse 19. The Bible wasn't written in "verses", Gaz. The numbered verses do not represent a menu for you to choose one and put on your plate for consumption. When you read any other book, do you extract one sentence and claim understanding of the author's intent and meaning of the entire body of work?

John 5 is a story. Read the story.

Jersey Girl