(I know you lurk here)If the disembodied spirits of Peter, James, and John are able to show up wherever and confer the "priesthood" to whoever they want, why didn't they just keep showing up all the time during the "Great Apostasy"? Why did they dip out only to conveniently pop back up after Joseph Smith baptized himself?
>>18538848Mormonism was somewhat not retarded when they revived the idea that non whites have no place in the body of Christ, but they dropped that almost immediately and are now pointless.
>>18538848The answer is in your question. The great apostasy. You could ask why God didn't prevent the great apostasy or why it took until Smith for it to end but you could also ask why doesn't Jesus come back already or why does he even have to come back and didn't just fulfill the plan in his first life. The answer is the same for all the above. Because God said so.All of Christianity is equally as nonsensical as Mormonism. Sorry Christcucks but Mormons truly are one of you.
>>18538867
>>18538869
>>18538867"Because God said so" at least carries more weight when the God in question is supposed to be transcendent and ineffable.Mormon God is just a dude. They say he's just made of matter.
>>18538848They're not disembodied. John never died and was transfigured to live until the Second Coming, while James and Peter already have resurrected bodies. Same goes for Moroni, Elijah, Moses, etc. Just like the Father and the Son have perfected bodies too. Mormon angels can't lay hands on your head if they don't have tangible bodies.>why didn't they just keep showing up all the time during the "Great Apostasy"?Why did God only reveal himself to a tiny part of the world (ancient Israel) for so long? In Mormon history there was technically a continued Christian history in the New World well into the 4th century, possibly until the early 5th. Joseph Smith also taught that John went to evangelize among the Lost Tribes so there may have been a Christian church all that time during the Apostasy. Revelation 12 does say the Church (the woman) would be in the wilderness for 1260 days, which are really years. The fact the removal of the woman (Church) into the wilderness overlaps with the emergence of the Beast in Revelation 13 also fits with the 2 Thessalonians 2 chronology. Paul says the eschaton will "let" (hold back) until it is removed, and then the Man of Sin (Antichrist) would be revealed. He also says there would have to be a falling away (Greek: apostasia) for the Man of Sin to be revealed. He clearly means the Church would be taken away in some sense, and John corroborates this with symbolism in Revelation 12-13. Wait until you find out who was born into the world exactly 1260 years before the Restoration in 1830...but anyway, point is the Great Apostasy is pretty clearly Biblically confirmable.
>>18538910Yes, this is why fedoraanon is wrong. His point relies on completely disregarding the enormous differences between the Christian and Mormon worldviews.
>>18538977>while James and Peter already have resurrected bodiesOkay why didnt they just show up in their resurrected bodies during the "Apostasy?">Why did God only reveal himself to a tiny part of the world (ancient Israel) for so long?But he didn't? He especially didn't if you're Mormon, in which case the knowledge of God was teeming all over the Americas.>but anyway, point is the Great Apostasy is pretty clearly Biblically confirmable.Okay but why didn't they just stop the "Great Apostasy" though? What was the point of just letting the Word of God get corrupted only to restore it an arbitrary date in the future?
>>18538983God's freedom, by which his divine economy is produced, does not really have to operate according to some Leibnizian principle of sufficient reason. In fact it's kind of injurious to his omnipotence to say he always has to have reasons for everything.>But he didn't? He especially didn't if you're Mormon, in which case the knowledge of God was teeming all over the Americas.He did if you're a non-Mormon Christian though? Answer that first. Don't come put that on us. Anyway we still believe it was pockets even then. Interpreting it as "all over the Americas" is unrealistic, it's more realistic if it was also just a tiny corner of the world, chiefly around western New York. You may add more corners of the world to the list if you want but it doesn't add up to the whole world. And at one point only Noah and his family had contact with God out of all of humanity.
>>18538992>does not really have to operate according to some Leibnizian principle of sufficient reasonIsn't God just like, a guy though?Is he just an arbitrary, irrational dude?I mean, don't you baptize any dead people you can, and then "leave it up to them" to accept it? Why wouldn't Peter, James, and John just go around preaching to everybody, even if they didn't listen? >And at one point only Noah and his family had contact with God out of all of humanity.What's that have to with just shrugging his shoulders and letting the Bible be "le corrupted" until J. Smith comes out with the UNCORRUPTIBLE Book of Mormon?
>>18538997>Isn't God just like, a guy though?No he's someone establishing covenants relationships with mankind, with conditions to be kept on our end if he's to keep his side of the promise. By all means you're welcome to establish no such relationship with him on the basis of him being "just some guy." The transcendent god you believe in is sadly a self-inconsistent philosophical fiction, provably so. Really it's just crypto-atheism in the end, which is why one gets the feeling from how you frame the dichotomy that if you found out the God of Abraham and Moses and Jesus was not transcendent you would just become an atheist. Same thing happens when people like you get asked about morality if this transcendent god (or any god) didn't exist. And that's how you get some of your apophatic theologians like Paul Tillich saying the more correct way to speak about God, as believing classical Christian theists, is to say God doesn't exist, for existence is too human of a notion to apply to something as transcendent as God. It really is crypto-atheism through and through, and it's not surprising why the West came up with atheism.
>>18539016>establishing covenants relationships with mankindOkay but why did he just neglect to do that for ~2,000 years after the Great Apostasy when he was (apparently) both willing and able to do that?
>>18539018The real question is to ask WHETHER he did whatever it is he did or not. You get nothing from asking "why" and acting unsatisfied with any answer someone can speculate about. That was my point about ancient Israel which you haven't answered either, because you can't do any better.
>>18539022>That was my point about ancient Israel which you haven't answered either, because you can't do any better.I probably could but I'm unsure why you don't answer my question first.Which is: If God wants to establish covenants with mankind, and has the means to do so, which transcend physical or cultural boundaries (e.g. Peter, James, and John showing up to confer the Priesthood), then why did he wait an arbitrary amount of time to do so? I HAVE an answer though, about your "Israel question." It's just a really stupid question compared to mine IMO tbqhfam.
>>18539027I just cannot see you accepting any answer. My hope pointing out the Israel thing was to suggest that whatever answer you give for why it was ok for God to only focus on a small corner of the world for over 1000 years, would more generally go the same if you substitute that specific case (Israel in that time period) with any conceivable counterfactual pairing of place and time and people, all else being equal.>I HAVE an answer thoughTranscendence?
>>18538910>Mormon God is just a dude. They say he's just made of matter.So is Jesus in Trinitarian belief
>>18539055>why it was ok for God to only focus on a small corner of the world for over 1000 yearsThe prophets taught the Word of God all over the World. You are simply operating under a false premise. Israel was meant to be a "light" to the unbelievers, and for believers to join the physical nation. But the Word of God was preached to the whole world, at one point or the other.>For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.>How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?>And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!>But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?>So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.>But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.>>18539285>So is Jesus in Trinitarian beliefOmnipotent, transcendent God can do anything he wants. "I am That I Am" can do anything that I Am wants.
>>18538848mormons are nutty but they have some great art. the golden plates looks cool too.
>>18539446>The prophets taught the Word of God all over the World>Passage from Paul about IsaiahOh, so like the Mormons say? That God sent prophets and his Word to people in more than just Israel (or even the Americas), even before the time of Jesus and Christian missionaries? Is that what you're saying?>>18540072I don't really know why people say Mormons are nutty. They are a covenant people and it's because we have a relationship with our God that we accept the teachings given to us, the stuff people mock us for. But we aren't otherwise cognitively impaired. Mormons aren't more disposed than the average person to believe wacky shit, and they're encouraged (by their own God's command no less) to pursue academic higher learning. Mormons have no problems getting PhD's and becoming fully respectable scientists and historians for example. Mormon intellectualism as a sub-movement within broader Mormonism is super interesting cause it's a really wide field of ideas ranging from (economic, social, theological, etc) liberalism to conservatism and everything in between. It's the same as mainstream Christianity, or any of the major world religions.
>>18540383>Oh, so like the Mormons say? That God sent prophets and his Word to people in more than just Israel (or even the Americas), even before the time of Jesus and Christian missionaries? Is that what you're saying?You realize that Mormons say a LOT more than "maybe a prophet made it to America once", right?Do you realize?Maybe address my argument instead of this retarded cowardly deflection. Why didn't God "establish covenants" with mankind when he was both willing and able to? And you can't say he has "mysterious ways" here. He has Peter, James, and John on standby. J Smith said so, explicitly.
>>18540387But if I God in Mormonism was transcendent you'd be allowing all sorts of mysterious ways.>Why didn't God "establish covenants" with mankind when he was both willing and able to?He did to the exact extent you're now claiming he did, i.e. through prophets sent to people throughout the world anciently. But you were bothered by the Great Apostasy which is a separate matter. It's literally Biblical so again you have to deal with your own Bible and your own God and his own mysterious ways. I know you Christians cannot fathom accepting what 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 12-13 literally say but it's right there. If you're concerned about the Church not being anywhere on Earth when John was around, that's been answered already. If you're concerned about people not getting access to the gospel, that's the reason I brought up Israel, and it would be a problem EVEN IF we add extra prophets and extra gospel preaching, because it's just a matter of historical provable fact that many people live and die even TODAY and never get to hear the Gospel of Christ, and it happened in the past as well. But if you think that's unfair, Mormons have a whole theology about salvation work and the gospel being taught for the dead. So that's theologically not a problem. So what's left? The only thing left is why God ever allowed any part of humanity (really even if it were one soul it would be as much of a theodicy problem as if it were all souls save 1) to lose access, while alive, to the Gospel message/Church apparatus. Which I can't answer but neither can you. I can just tell you that it's historical fact. A lot of the blame does go to humanity's management of human affairs, but then the obvious question prompted is "Why didn't God just step in to prevent that?" but that's just an instance of the problem of evil more generally. You tell me why God doesn't stop people from being raped and murdered.
>>18540400>"Why didn't God just step in to prevent that?" but that's just an instance of the problem of evil more generally.specifically you claim that the "restoration" was necessary, but it was also something only God could do, by sending Peter, James, and John to confer the priesthood.There don't appear to have been any limitations to God doing this at any other time, but he chooses the early 1800s arbitrarily. >work for the deadThere's plenty of people whose names are completely unrecoverable from after the "Great Apostasy" (let's say 200 AD). The earliest relatives anyone can really uncover by name cap out by the turn of 1000 AD.
>>18540781>There don't appear to have been any limitations to God doing this at any other time, but he chooses the early 1800s arbitrarily.Why did God send Jesus when he did and not earlier? Why did God send Moses when he did and not earlier? Well I do know Jesus was foretold to come according to a timetable in Daniel and he did, and it's the same with the Restoration, I already mentioned 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 12-13.>There's plenty of people whose names are completely unrecoverable from after the "Great Apostasy" (let's say 200 AD). The earliest relatives anyone can really uncover by name cap out by the turn of 1000 AD.Our scripture teaches that God gives grace and revelation, especially once our efforts as human beings are exhausted.
>>18541058So you DONT have to perform ordinances for the dead? God gives them grace either way, right? I don’t get it.Anyways, people were saved before, during, and after Christs incarnation. There was never a time where a genuine relationship with God was impossible, such as in your “great apostasy” So my position does not share your problem.
>>18541071The ordinances for the dead are for them to leave spirit prison and enter spirit paradise until the resurrection and final judgement, then those who accept all ordinances will go to the celestial kingdom. People are still eventually saved without them but will have to endure spirit prison until final judgement before making their way to the terrestial and telestial kingdoms. Everyone, including those long forgotten, will also have the chance to receive ordinances after resurrection before final judgement.
>>18541071>So you DONT have to perform ordinances for the dead?We need to do whatever God commands.>God gives them grace either way, right? I don’t get it.Don't tempt the Lord, Satan.>There was never a time where a genuine relationship with God was impossible, such as in your “great apostasy”The Great Apostasy isn't saying you can't have a relationship with God in some sense. Even Revelation 12 says when the woman (Church) is gone that the remnant of her seed remained and had the testimony of Jesus. The Book of Revelaiton later says that means the spirit of prophecy. So we believe there was personal guidance at the time, good people, even some measure of personal testimony and personal revelation. The priesthood and the ecclesial economy was just not there for a time. Moreover you should read D&C 137 and be familiar with it first before saying some of the things you say about us and our stance on how people without the gospel preached to them fare.>So my position does not share your problem.There isn't a problem. But your position has many problems of its own.
>>18541152>>18541160Obviously, you believe the point of human life is Exaltation. There is no reason to conflate my belief in "Salvation" with your belief in Exaltation. Obviously, in your paradigm, people who do not make it to the Celestial Kingdom have missed the point of their human existence.But the contradiction is that your God wants people exalted, yes? And this is only possible with the Priesthood, no? If the Priesthood is unnecessary, why have it?When I say that I, as a CHRISTIAN, believe that Jesus Christ is High Priest forever and sprinkled the Altar in Heaven with his precious blood, none of that is superfluous to the point of human existence.Whereas your Priesthood, so far, seems completely contrived. Why do you need it if you admit that all those who died without access to it can be exalted anyways?Or are you saying they missed their chance at exaltation; at their chance of fulfilling the point of human life, based on entirely arbitrary decision making on the part of your god?
>>18541197You do realize other mainstream Christians such as Catholics and the Orthodox, also believe in priesthood and have sacraments required for salvation?Priesthood isn't a Mormon thing.
>>18541283Yeah it's all pretty retarded desu.However, at least CatholiX handwave this a bit by saying so long as you both have invincible ignorance and do not commit "mortal sin" you will be saved. I suppose they have a similar pointlessness as Mormons in that they also believe in a Purgatorial afterlife. CatholiX have an edge still, though, in that the only way to have mortal sin forgiven, no matter what, is through their sacraments. What do Mormons have that justifies the existence of their church? We have been told in this thread that everyone will have a chance at exaltation after death. UNLESS a Mormon would like to correct me on that.
>>18541289It's scriptural and the earliest Church Fathers confirm it. Protestantism is doubly apostate. At least the Catholics and Orthodox preserved some of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than disregard everything. You Protestants act like you're better Christians by not even taking the Bible literally says being born again is by water and Spirit, that baptism saves, is for the remission of sins, is the washing of regeneration, and the answering of a clean conscience before God. We are saved by faith but the works excluded from faith are not all works. Otherwise belief, which JESUS HIMSELF calls a work in the Gospel of John, would also be excluded. So, it's proven, if salvation comes by faith, it requires at least one work. Paul is simply opposing faith and the works saving through faith to any other works. Hence James says faith without works is dead. Leave it to a Protestant who already disregards scripture, provable early Christian tradition, AND new revelation, to also tempt God like Satan tempted Jesus. Why not turn the stone into bread? Same here. You are asking God to deviate from his divine economy acting like his actions are wrong or pointless or irrational. You really are quite a reprobate. Your assertion of mere belief won't save you if you're otherwise dismissing the Word of God in all other (three!) respects, as Jesus himself said, many call his name but he says to them he never knew them, and tells them to depart from him.
>>18541575>It's scriptural and the earliest Church Fathers confirm it.okay... be more specific here. I brought up a few things.>Jesus himself said, many call his name but he says to them he never knew them, and tells them to depart from him.Actually, these same people that never knew him cry out "many good works have we done in your name!"Which I, of course, do not trust for my salvation, though you do. Wonder who is really being described here.
