From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:55:52 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1cY.02kv2ft701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

[...]
> Jesus told us:
> 
> "And I shall say unto thee, Thou are Peter and upon this rock I
> will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
> against it."  (Matthew 16:18)
> 
> "Peter" here comes from the Greek word "Petros" but "rock"
> comes from the Greek word "petra", 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that
> the "petra" was Christ. Mormons tend to claim that the gates of
> hell won't overpower the "rock of revelation." There are some
> problems with this interpretation:
> 
> (a) To apply the meaning of "rock of revelation" to the rock of
> Matthew 16:18 is simply unwarranted in Biblical Scripture. Even
> if it did mean "rock of revelation" then that rock must have been
> overpowered by the gates of hell according to the Mormon claim
> that the "councils of Gods" were gone from the time of Christ
> approximately, until the LDS church was put on the earth
> ("mankind ONCE MORE rejoices in the priceless privileges of the
> councils of God" - from: The Articles Of Faith pps. 203-204)

Not necessarily.  Most Mormons would say that the rock was the
princile of revelation from God.  When that revelation or
priciple is rejected, those that reject it are in apostacy.  How
long will someone continue to try to talk to someone when the one
they are trying to talk to ingores or rejects everything you try
to say?

What good is a revelation of no one will accept it or even listen
to it?

It was not the priciple of revelation that was overpowered, but
the apostles and their message.  The claim of the Restored
Gosple is that this will not happen again.

> (b) The Mormon assumption is that the "gates of hell" won't
> overpower the rock, NOT THE CHURCH.

[...]

> Paul also said:  "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ
> Jesus THROUGHOUT ALL AGES, world without end. Amen" 
> (Ephesians 3:21)
> 
> Note that it says "throughout all ages"  Even the Book of
> Mormon refutes the doctrine of a TOTAL APOSTACY!
> 
> "Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste
> death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of my Father
> unto the children of men, even until all things shall be
> fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when i shall come
> in my glory with the powers of heaven."  (3 Nephi 28:7)
> 
> How can you have a TOTAL apostasy, when you've got three
> Nephite deciples remaining on earth, during the great apostasy?

"And I [Mormon] did endevor to preach unto this people, but my
mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto
them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God;
and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land,
because of their [the people's] iniquity."  (Mormon 1:16)

"And there are none that know the true God save it be the
disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the
wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not
suffer them to remain with the people; and whether they be upon
the face of the land no man knoweth.

"But behold, my father [Mormon] and I [Mormoni] have seen them,
and they have ministered unto us."  (Mormon 8:10-11)

> Jesus said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my
> name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20) Isn't it
> reasonable then, to say that it only takes two or three people
> gather together in Christ's name to constitute a church? 

Maybe.  But if one is rejected by everyone, what good does it do
to try and maintain a formal organization.  There must be more to
a "Church" than a simple gathering.  There needs to be some kind
of organization at some level and some form of authority and
administration.  This was evident in Christ's original church of
apostles.

> You can have a church in one home (see Romans 16:5). 

Since you seem to be so well learned in Greek, I'll assume that
"house" in Romans 16:5 refers to an actual building, rather than
a family (ie: house of Israel).

> Even Mormon scriptures refute the total apostasy premise. 
>
> "And I will make thee a minister for him and for thy brother
> James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys
> of this ministry until I come." (Doctered Covenants 7:7)
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll assume that your rendering of "Doctrine and Covenants" is an
unitentional typographical error and not and intentional slam.

> Here you've got John the beloved and two others on earth till
> Christ comes back, with "this power and the keys of this
> ministry." How can something be restored through Joseph Smith,
> when it was never lost to begin with?"

See my previous references to the 3 Nephites in Mormon 1:16; 8:10-11.

This brings up another point: 
Where is John the beloved, or the 3 Nephites today?

Why don't John the beloved or the 3 Nephites come forward and
set everybody straight?  

Why didn't John the beloved or the 3 Nephites preserve their
own writings and records better?

Could it have anything at all to do with faith?                   

>> Besides, they never call the other churches an "abomination." They
>> regard the other churches as being legitimate, although incomplete,
>> vehicles of faith.  I think you may have been reading too much
>> anti-Mormon propaganda, comrade.
> 
> The FOUNDATION of the Mormon Church was based on THAT VERY
> WORD! "The Pearl Of Great Price" is a standard work of the church
> and IS canon.  In that book we read of the account of the
> supposed first vision.  There was a supposed revival in the town
> and Joseph couldn't decide whether he should join the Baptist,
> Methodist, or other denominations involved in the revival.  So he
> says he went into the woods to pray FOR THE FIRST TIME in his
> life, and he supposedly saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Minor nit-pick:

" ... It was the the first time in my life that I had made such an
attempt,"

The attempt being to ask God which church to join, perhaps?
Not necessarily the first time he ever tried to pray vocally
about anything.

"for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt
to pray vocally."  (PoGP: Joseph Smith--History 1:14)

This is clearly not Joseph's first ever attempt at prayer, but
his first ever attempt to pray vocally and ask God which church
to join.

> "I asked the Personages that stood before me which of all the
> sects WAS RIGHT-and which I should join. I was answered that I
> MUST join none of them, for they were ALL WRONG; and the
> Personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an
> ABOMINATION in his sight; that those professors were ALL
> CORRUPT.." (Pearl Of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19)

This could also accurately be paraphrased to make the Mormon
understanding more clear:

(Paraphrased sections in brackets, everything else is verbatum.)

" ... I asked the Personages that stood above me in the light,
which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never
entered my heart that [each of them was] wrong) -- and which I
should join.

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for [each of them
was] wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that [each
of] their creeds [was] an abomination in his sight; that [each
of] those professors were [...] corrupt; that: ``they draw near
unto me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they
teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of
godliness, but thet deny the power thereof.''"
(PoGP: Joseph Smith--History 1:18,19)

> If you consort a dictionary of today, and one from the early 1800's,
> you will see that the definition of ABOMINATION, CORRUPT, and
> WRONG, has not changed:
> 
> ABOMINATION: hatred and disgust; anything hateful and disgusting
> CORRUPT:     spoiled rotten; morally debase; EVIL; depraved.
>              contain alterations or errors.
> WRONG:       not morally right or just; sinful; wicked.
> 
> And these are not just the words of the church, they claim that
> these are the words of the Lord!  If "whoever said this" meant as
> you say, "..being legitimate, although complete", they would not
> have chosen these words.  And this is in LDS Scripture.
> 
> I certainly don't have to read one page of anti-mormon literature to
> get this.  It is right there in the canon.

Well, if Christ's and the apostles teachings *were*
tergiversated,  doesn't that kind of imply that they were wrong,
corrupt, and therefore had become an abomination because what was
being presented as their message was an adulterated version?

(I've been waiting to use the word "tergiversate" somewhere for a
long time now. Please pardon the periphrasis (circumlocution).) :-)

[...]
>> Again, the LDS position is that the plan that Jesus agreed to
>> was not his plan, it was his father's plan.
>
> The following reference are from The Pearl of Great Price:
> 
> Abraham 3:23-28  Council called of all the leading spirits
> Abraham 4:25,26  God proposed a plan for our progression.
> Abraham 3:24-26  That plan was for us to come to earth...and to
>                  have free-agency to choose which path we each
>                  wanted to follow.
> Moses 4:1-4 and Abraham 3:27,28 Lucifer, our elder brother who
>                                 desired glory, stood up and
>                                 proposed his own plan.

No, Tony.  While Lucifer *may* be considered *an* elder brother,
I can't see how these verses make him *the* elder brother, aka
the firstborn of the Father, aka the Onle Begotten of the Father.

Here are the verses you mention:

"And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto
the Son of Man: Here am I, send me.  And another answered and
said: Here am I, send me.  And the Lord said: I will send the
first.

"And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and at
that day, many followed after him."
(PoGP: Abraham 3:27-28)

"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom
thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the
same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying
-- Behold, here am i, send me, I will be thy son, and I will
redeem al mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely Ii
will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

"But behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from
the beginning, said unto me -- Father, thy will be done, and the
glory be thine forever.

"Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to
destroy the agenmcy of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him,
and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the
power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast
down;

"And he became Satan, yes, even the devil, the father of all
lies, to decieve and to blind men, and to lead them captive at
his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."
(PoGP: Moses 4:1-4)

> Moses 4:1-3  Lucifer's plan was to take away free agency, force us
>              to obey all the law. He wanted us to worship him.
> Moses 4:2    Jesus stood and offered himself as our sin offering,
>              giving man his free agency and the chance to attain
>              eternal glory, or godhood with heavenly father.
> Abraham 3:28 All council voted No to Lucifer and Yes to Jesus.

And one third of all the hosts of heaven followed Lucifer (See
Revelation 12:7-9, 4).

[...]
>>> You ask, as many Mormons do, "why are you persecuting us"? 
>>> When the fact of the matter is, that the LDS church threw the
>>> first stone when it claimed that all of Christianity was
>>> APOSTATE.
>>
>> Fair enough. I can see why this would annoy you. Still,
>> though, it's not like you aren't guilty of the same thing.
> 
> Only one person can be guilty of throwing the FIRST stone!

"Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; ...." (Exodous 23:2)

" ... I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ...." (Matthew 12:7)

[...]
>>> Well, as Christians, we are waking up the Mormons who are
>>> sleeping in the flames, and throwing ropes to those that are
>>> drowning.
>>
>> If someone doesn't think they are drowning, throwing them a rope they
> 
> If you don't like that analogy, how about the other one.  It IS
> possible that you could be asleep and not know you house is on
> fire!

Naw, it's not on fire, we just have a rather spectacular lighting
system.  :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc