I guess you reject my challenge. That’s fine. Your understanding on how meetings usually go is a correct one. However, is that how Christ conducted his meetings? His word, as should be, was final. Just as it was always w/ his mouthpiece the prophets. In Acts 15, you’ll find that Peter, who was chosen as the Lord’s mouthpiece put the matter to rest after a discussion about the Holy Ghost. His word was final b/c he was chosen & set apart by the Lord (not by man incidentally). The Apostles always sought the Lord’s intervention on doctrinal matters as he taught them to do.
You don’t agree that the foundation had been changed? In 300 a.d., who was the prophet, who were the apostles? Today, has the scacrament changed? Baptism by emersion? Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost? Did the Lord change those ordinances or did man?
Review the history of those meetings & you will see that although they may have prayed, they certainly didn’t pray to know His will. They believed then as many do today that the heavens were closed to revelation. Something Christ never taught as His way. In fact he taught the exact opposite.
Also, you’re right, Christ did not come to reject scripture but to fulfill it. However, many of the jews at the time thought he was rejecting scripture. That was my parallel.
Bottom line, if you choose to follow the wisdom of man, or men in this case, sobeit. I choose to follow the bible & Christ’s teachings & go directly to the source for my wisdom on these matters. You would agree, that is what he taught, right?
Reno,
I rejected no challenge. And I carefully pointed to
where I believe your train of understanding went off
the track.
As to Apostles, I do not believe this was a continuing
gift to the church. I believe it was a foundational
gift for the establishment of the church... and
especially until the cannon of scripture was complete.
Again, I can hear the words of smith ville in your post -
you’ve absorbed the charges well. They aren’t true, however.
I could take your argument and point out that after young
smith’s “revelation”, he was followed by Jehovah’s witnesses
not too many years after with new “revelation”. While all
cults make some classic doctrinal errors that result in
heresy, why not go with the more recent revelation?? Hmmm?
Their stuff is much more current and cutting edge than
yours. And after their turn with “revelation”, Mary Baker
Eddy slipped on ice (true!) and had her new “revelation in
1866. Wow, wasn’t young Smith’s revelation way back in 1830
or so?? Better to go with the latest an greatest “direct
revelation” right???
Why not cut to the chase, forget about mere prophets, and
go with the “return of Christ himself!”, The Rev. Sun Myong Moon!
He has DAILY “revelation”! And it is 160+ years more
current than that old smithville stuff! And his revelation
shows he is Christ! And he obviously believes as you have
expressed, “go directly to the source for my wisdom
on these matters”. Plus you would have the advantage of
marrying with out all the courting stuff! Forget multiple
brides for one man. You can have multiple couples
marrying at once.
And so goes the slippery slope. The only remaining revelation
is which cult will arise next to restore the church and
bring us new truths.
BTW, You did not answer my questions to you about history
during the life of Joseph Smith...
best,
ampu
I find it amazing you can refer to this chapter, and yet fail to see what it says!