Evangelicals Against Mitt

The American Spectator ^ | 1/3/2008 | Carrie Sheffield

[tantiboh]

Mitt Romney is facing an unexpected challenge in Iowa from rival Mike Huckabee, who has enjoyed a groundswell of support from religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians wary of the clean-cut former Massachusetts governor because of his Mormon religion.

The common worry among evangelicals is that if Romney were to capture the White House, his presidency would give legitimacy to a religion they believe is a cult. Since the LDS church places heavy emphasis on proselytizing -- there are 53,000 LDS missionaries worldwide -- many mainstream Christians are afraid that Mormon recruiting efforts would increase and that LDS membership rolls would swell.

...

THE ONLY PROBLEM with those fears is that they don't add up. Evangelicals may be surprised to learn that the growth of church membership in Massachusetts slowed substantially during Romney's tenure as governor. In fact, one could make the absurdly simplistic argument that Romney was bad for Mormonism.

...

ONE WAY TO GAUGE what might happen under a President Romney would be to look at what happened during the period of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Held in Salt Lake City, they were dubbed the "Mormon Olympics."

...

Despite all the increased attention, worldwide the Church grew only slightly, and in fact in the year leading up to the games the total number of congregations fell. Overall, from 2000 to 2004, there was a 10.9 percent increase in memberships and a 3.6 percent increase in congregations.

...

The LDS church is likely to continue its current modest-but-impressive growth whether or not Romney wins the White House. Perhaps the only real worry for evangelicals is that, if elected, the former Massachusetts governor will demonstrate to Americans that Mormons don't have horns.

Carrie Sheffield, a member of the LDS Church, is a writer living in Washington, D.C.

[Reno232]

Well, Colofornian, you've really made my point quite nicely. You bring up the scriptures I cited, then cite your own as if they are authoritative, as if you opinion is the definitive one. Obviously, there are perceived contradictions here. What makes your opinion better than ours, or better than a lot of other Christian churches who differ from your opinion?

You cite scriptures re: philosophers, scholars, debaters etc., & I would agree w/ those scriptures. You also claim that those scriptures are not talking about the church-at-large. What church-at-large are you referring to, seeing there are literally hundreds if not thousands of Christian churches who have varying & completely different views & opinions of the scriptures?

As I researched the scriptures & continue to do so on a regular basis, I find the LDS doctrines to be very congruous w/ the Bible. The affirmation from the Lord just solidifies those studies.

BTW, here's a few other scriptures you might be interested in:

Titus 1:16

"16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate".

Now, does the Lord say in their belief they are being abominable, disobedient, & reprobate, or does He say works?

Revelations 20:12

"12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works".

Now, were they judged by their faith, or by their works? Do you feel the judgment is just to determine who believed in Christ? If belief is all that's needed, then why the judgment of works?

Matthew 16:27

"27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Now, this is the Lord speaking. Again, rewarded by their belief, or their works?

I am in no way, shape, or form trying to indicate that grace doesn't play a very important role in all this, for w/o the atonement, all these works would be meaningless. But in order to gain all the Father has, one must have both faith & works. The scriptures seem to be quite clear on that. But that's just my humble opinion after years of study & prayer.

As always, I respect your opinions even though they differ from mine. You, as well as many others here, often claim that everything is in the Bible. There is no need for a prophet today as in days of old. No offense, but I can't think of a time when a prophet is more needed than today. Christianity's inability to decipher definitively the differences between faith & works despite the scriptures in the over all scheme of things is just one example of a myriad available as to why I believe that is so. You do realize that the LDS aren't the only Christians to believe in works the way we do, right? So, using DU's matrix, who's right, & how would you know?

[Reno232]

Thanks again for making my point TN. Faith & works are about this life, not after we die. Thanks for the imput.

[MHGinTN]

Isn’t it amusing that on the one-hand the apologists keep telling us that one of the significant ‘works’ of a believer in Christ is to believe. Then the Mormons claim they can be proxy baptised for the dead who ‘may not have’ accepterd Christ during their bodily life. Then they agree with you that the dead can do no works. I wonder, do they even comprehend the contradictions in their own posts?

[Tennessee Nana]

:)

[Reno232]

As you should well know MHG, we do the work for the dead, but ultimately, they must either accept or reject the work that has been done on their behalf. The dead that didn’t have the chance to accept the gospel while here on earth will indeed be judged by their works, but tempered by the knowledge & understanding to that which they had here. Very loving on Father’s part imho.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think becomes of those that didn’t have the chance to even hear of Jesus Christ, let alone accept His gospel? Are they just flat out screwed? Would that sound like a loving God?

Again, the doctrine of baptism by proxy for the dead (also mentioned in 1 Corinth. 15:29)seems utterly congruous w/ the teachings of the Bible. No contradictions I see. Seems very logical & in harmony w/ the loving & impartial God described in the Bible.

[MHGinTN]

ICor 15 is Paul referring to a practice which pagans at Corinth were practicing in their pagan cult ... and it is very possible that some of these pagans had become Christians and/or members of the Church at Corinth. Paul was not teach the Corinthians to practice baptism for the dead. If he had been seeking to teach this to them he would have used pronouns such as 'we', and 'you', and 'our'. This is at least the sixth time I've addressed this on a Mormonism thread. I know you have read at least a few of those threads, so it is apparent that you are trying to float this lie --yet again-- that Paul taught baptism for the dead. It is useful when you apologists for this religious cult try this because we who oppose your heresies get yet another chance to expose the basic lies in Mormonism. So, thanks for the opportunity to expose your heretical beliefs yet again.

Mormon Baptism for the dead refuted:

I Corinthians 15:29, "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"<p>

Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.<p>

The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced. <p>

Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were. <p>

Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead? [ colorcountry’s post from http://www.carm.org/questions/baptismfordead.htm the whole article is just below for reference]<p>

What is Baptism for the Dead
Mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29?

"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (1 Cor. 15:29, NASB).

Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism, in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.

 
But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.

 
In Verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ is the first one raised -- in a glorified body -- and then who are His at His return. Next, verses 24 - 29 mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"

 
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.² The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.

 
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.¹ This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

 
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?
However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans.. Let's take a look.

Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."

The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized." It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.

I -- first person singular
you (singular) -- second person singular
he/she/it -- third person singular
we -- first person plural
you (plural) -- second person plural
they -- third person plural

It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized."
____________

1. The KJV renders it as, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

The NKJV, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?"
The NASB, "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
2. Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29. Dallas Seminary Faculty.

[Tennessee Nana]

In 1 Corinth. 15:29 Paul is saying that they are wasting their time getting baptized for the dead...

You either believe while you are still alive and are saved or dont believe and are damned forever...

Once you are dead it is too late...

God is a just God...

He gives people more than enough time to repent and be saved in their lifetime...

Those who are saved get to go to heaven to worship the Lamb of God, Jesus forever...

Jesus shed His blood to save everybody but not everyone will be saved...only those who believed will go to heaven...

Anyone who did not chose to worship Jesus while they were alive would be like a fish in a tree if they wound up in heaven...

God would not do that to the Bride of Christ...

God is just and fair...it would not be fair for a man to curse the Name of God all his life and then end up in Heaven when he died, unsaved, right next to saints who have repented, and been saved and accepted jesus as their Lord and savior...

such a suggestion would make God a liar, and the finished work of Jesus on the cross a waste of time...

Once you are dead, its too late...

[Reno232]

That Paul was not condemning the practice of baptism for the dead is evidenced by the fact that he cites it as evidence for the resurrection, as is clear from a full quote of the verse: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” Clearly, the practice would have been foolish if there were no resurrection. That Paul was not referring to some ancient Babylonian or Gnostic practice is evidenced by the fact that his audience must have been acquainted with the practice. It makes little sense for an apostle to cite a pagan practice as evidence for the resurrection. This point was made in a recent article by Richard E. DeMaris, a non-LDS scholar at Valparaiso University, in his article, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (Winter 1995).

The Greek original of 1 Corinthians 15:29 does not use the pronoun “they.” It says, “Otherwise, what will do the ones being baptized for the dead?” The text uses a passive participle form, “the being baptized [ones],” used as a substantive (where it is usually accompanied by the definite article). Participles reflect gender, number and case, but not person. Hence, there is no third person plural (”they”) in the Greek original. Placing stress on the pronoun supplied by the English Bible translators for flow in English distorts Paul’s meaning. The passage, being devoid of reference to person, does not exclude the Christians as the ones who performed the rite, as the critics have claimed.

Two of the early church fathers, Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), in Heresies 8.7, and Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), in Against Marcion 5.10, note that the Marcionites, a Christian group outside mainstream Christianity (like the Latter-day Saints) baptized others in the name of the dead. St. Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) tells how the Marcionites, when one of their catechumens died without baptism, would place a living person under the dead man’s bed and ask whether he desired to be baptized. The living person would respond in the affirmative and was then baptized as a proxy for the deceased (Homily 40 on 1 Corinthians 15). Some dismiss this evidence on the grounds that the Marcionites were heretics. Latter-day Saints, believing that the great apostasy was already well under way by Marcion’s time and that no Christian group then possessed the full truth, see the practice as a remnant of an earlier practice dating from the time of the apostles. Since baptism is essential for salvation (John 3:5-7) and that Christ went into the spirit world to bring the message of salvation to those who had not received it in mortality (1 Peter 3:18-21; 4:6; cf. John 3:25-29), it seems reasonable to expect that the Lord would have provided a means for the dead who had not heard the gospel to receive this sacred ordinance. Moreover, there is a precedent in one of the books of the Apocrypha, 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, where we read that Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and ruler, offered sacrifices to atone for the sins of some of his dead soldiers.

That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo, held in 393, declares, “The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them” (fifth canon in the list of 41 rather than 36.). The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage. Churches not represented at these minor council did not feel bound to discontinue the practice. Consequently, the Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran and the Copts of Egypt continued baptisms for the dead while, in some churches, it was replaced by prayers and masses for the dead.

In early Christianity, Jesus’ baptism was often seen as the pivotal moment in his victory over the grave, while the baptismal waters are said to deliver the dead (Odes of Solomon 6, 24). The baptism of the souls of the dead or of their resurrected bodies is a frequent theme in the stories of Christ’s descent into the spirit world. The fifth-century Epistle of the Apostles 27 has the resurrected Jesus telling his apostles how he baptized the dead with water. Another fifth-century document, the Acts of Pilate, has an appendage (Part II, The Descent into Hell) that tells how, when Christ descended into hell, he removed therefrom the spirits of the righteous and of the repentant, after which they were then baptized in the Jordan River.

The Gospel of Bartholomew informs us that when Siophanes, son of the apostle Thomas, died, his soul was taken by Michael, who washed him three times in the Acherusian lake. This lake plays a similar role in other pseudepigraphal works. In Apocalypse of Moses 37:3-6, we read that when Adam died, a seraph carried him off to the Lake of Acheron and washed him three times in the presence of God, then conducted him to the third heaven. The fifth-century Apocalypse of Peter also speaks of men being brought before God and being baptized in the “field of Akrosja.” The same story is repeated in the Apocalypse of Paul, where we read that no man can enter the heavenly city unless his soul is first baptized in the lake Acherusa. Pistis Sophia (lines 291-2) also speaks of the baptism of the souls of the dead and notes that those who remain on earth should perform the ordinances of baptism, anointing and sealing for those who died without the opportunity to receive them in this life (lines 195-6).

While the authorship of these pseudepigraphic works is open to question, it is certain that they were widely circulated among early Christian groups and therefore contain doctrines with which those Christians were familiar.

For more information, see John A. Tvedtnes, “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity,” in Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, The Temple in Time and Eternity (Provo: FARMS, 1999). See also, John A. Tvedtnes’s review of, Wilson, Luke P., “Does the Bible Teach Salvation for the Dead? A Survey of the Evidence” and “Did Jesus Establish Baptism for the Dead?” in FARMS Review of Books, Volume 10, Number 2 (1998) :184-199.

[Reno232]

I agree w/ much of what you’ve said. Those that had opportunity here in this life & passed it up, will have their reward. But as I asked earlier, what about those that have never even heard of Jesus Christ let alone had occasion to accept His gospel? What is their fate? What way, if any, is prepared for them to receive the same reward as those that had oppotunity? We know that the Lord taught those in the spirit world after His Crucifixion, to what end?

[MHGinTN]

Your obfuscating methodology doesn't deal with post #323. ... BTW, I do not believe that baptism is essential for Salvation since that would entail Grace plus. Baptism IS important to the believer's outward witness that he/she is trusting in Christ as 'Soter'. ... Now you have enough to really zip off into tarbaby distractions. :^)

[MHGinTN]

How about listing all the Bible passages which teach baptism for the dead, in your opinion. Then we’ll discuss them.

[Reno232]

~”BTW, I do not believe that baptism is essential for Salvation since that would entail Grace plus”~.

Tell me what your take on John 3:5 is:
“5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”.

MHG, as I’ve told you on many occasions, I will not follow you into the sandbox. If you would like to have a reasoned discussion, I’m game. The choice is yours. I respect your opinions even if I don’t respect the way in which they’re delivered. At this point, I will wish you & yours the best & hope you have a good weekend.

[tantiboh]

Regarding #328

Fantastic response. I learned a lot.

[Colofornian]

I'll address your faith-works dichotomy tomorrow. But allow me to respond to two of your paragraphs:

You, as well as many others here, often claim that everything is in the Bible.

What? You openly disagree with the apostle Peter? You slander Peter's perspective before all the world? What did Peter say?

For His divine power has given us EVERYTHING REQUIRED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS, through the KNOWLEDGE OF HIM who called us by His OWN glory and goodness [Yeah, I know, you think the celestial kingdom calling will be thru a Mormon's own glory & goodness]. [2 Peter 1:3]

See, for Christians knowing Jesus the Great Prophet of prophets is enough. [For LDS, they put down Jesus as a yesteryear prophet who didn't know how to keep a church today as Joseph Smith boasted to be the ONLY man how to keep a church together]. But for us, we take John 5:39 to heart:

You search (or pore over) the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about me.

You somehow think that more revelational Scriptures layered upon more revelational Scripture is somehow the advertised "magic" strobe light show. I've got news for ya: Jesus the Light is enough!

You, as well as many others here, often claim that everything is in the Bible.There is no need for a prophet today as in days of old. No offense, but I can't think of a time when a prophet is more needed than today.

See, you're wrong. I've repeatedly said, we already have a prophet today...: But tell me, why does Hebrews 1:1-2 apply to us Christians but NOT you Mormons?

Heb. 1:In the past [past means PAST] God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days [last days means LAST DAYS] he has spoken to us by his Son, [the Son speaks, not some 14 year old boy pretending to play prophet games] whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

You see the test of the Head Hauncho Prophet status now is to ask Him: Did you create this universe? (If he answers, "no"--then tell him he's "old school" & to quit trying to overshadow the Creator)

No offense, but I can't think of a time when a prophet is more needed than today.

OK, how many Hinckley prophetic revelations for the world-wide church are recorded in the D&C or Pearl of Great Price? [Oh, "0" I guess we agree, after all, about Hinckley as some great "prophet"]

Going back to Brigham Young, how many LDS "prophets" have THEMSELVES placed REVELATIONS from God in the D&C or Pearl of Great Price? [Of course, I don't think you'll answer this for FREEPERS across the board...it's kind of an embarrassing track record after your big play-up of the need for a prophet today]

You also claim that those scriptures are not talking about the church-at-large. What church-at-large are you referring to, seeing there are literally hundreds if not thousands of Christian churches who have.

OK, on this point you make, why is it I can fall back on a Book of Mormon worldview to prove you wrong, and your understanding is not backed by the Book of Mormon?

Question 1: How many churches does the Book of Mormon acknowledge?

Answer?: Only two--one true; one false; one of the Lamb (Jesus); one of the devil

Question 2: Where is this found?

Answer? 1 Nephi 14:10 clearly says "two churches only." Not 1500 or 2000 or 7000 or whatever. Two. 1 Nephi 14:9 tells of an "abominable church...whose foundation is the devil."

Question 3: According to LDS leaders/commentators' opinion, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the "church of the lamb?"

Answer? Yes, which leaves for Mormons (only) the Church at-large to be the church [singular] ”whose foundation is the devil." (For further confirmation, see Bruce McConkie, LDS apostle, Mormon Doctrine)

Question 4: On other BoM references, does it continue to cite a single non-Lamb church?

Answer?: Yes. See (1 Nephi 13:6, 32; 2 Nephi 6:12; 10:16; 28:18; see also D&C 88:94)

Question 5: Where did LDS general authorities like Orson Pratt get a term like "whore" as he applied it to the Christian church at large?

Answer? From the Book of Mormon, especially the following two verses: "abominable church...whore of all the earth" (2 Nephi 28:18); and "whore of all the earth" (2 Nephi 10:16)

Question 6: Where did Orson Pratt derive his concept of one big family-wide church --a great whore church (the Catholic church) that would have "harlot daughters" (the Protestant church)?

Answer: From Joseph Smith himself, as found in LDS "scripture" (& elsewhere). I refer you, for example, to "that great church, the mother of abominations" (D&C 88:94).

Question 7: What is ONE reason why the LDS church is wrong about the answer to "Question 3" above?

Answer? Simple. 1 Nephi 14:9-10 talks about a church of the Lamb, right? Why can't this be the LDS church? Well, look at Revelation 19:7,9, which talks about the "marriage of the Lamb." Who's the "wife" according to Rev. 19:7-8 & 22:17? Why's it's the plural "Saints" who are in reality "one wife"--unified as one. Christians say marriage to a mortal is "for time"; LDS say it's for "eternity." Christians are free to submit & serve the Lamb in the most intimate spiritual relationship possible for eternity; LDS say to Jesus the Lamb, "We've already got a wedding ring or two or three, thank you. Go marry those Christian saints."

But, again, the key point above is: Why does the Book of Mormon recognize a great world-wide church that LDS commentators think isn't the Mormon church--but you don't? (Did you miss that at seminary or Institute Book of Mormon class?)

[Tennessee Nana]

John 8:12-30

Ezekiel 3:16-21, Ezekiel 33:2-9, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15, 16, Luke 21:47,

Sounds like you are concerned about the unsaved...Jesus has already told you to go and preach to them...

You need to go and warn them about their need to repent and be saved...

[Tennessee Nana]

“We know that the Lord taught those in the spirit world after His Crucifixion, to what end?”
______________________________________________________

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO we dont know that...

We know that jesus went down into hell and walked up to satan and said “Give me them there keys,” and Satasn/Lucifer said in a timid voice, “Yes sir” and handed them over.

Then Jesus didsnt dally around mamby pamby teaching “those in the spirit world” he had a mission to fulfill, and he was in a hurry to rise angain so we could enjoy salvation...

Jesus was just interesting in doing what was needed to be done to benefit His Bride, not the unsaved in Hell that were not His...

[Reno232]

Well, I can see where you're going here Colofornian. Straight out of the anti-Mormon handbook.

Where does Peter in 2 Peter 1:3 say that everything is in the Bible? You fully realize that the Bible didn't even exist then, right? You state that Jesus was the great prophet & that is enough. Where did the Lord indicate that he would never have prophets again? Amos 3:7 states "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets". ~"You search (or pore over) the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about me"~.

Scriptures, interesting term. What scriptures was the Lord referring to? Was the Bible around back then? Who made the decisions as to what scrolls would be included in the Bible in the 4th century A.D.? Was it the Lord? Why weren't all the books included? There are many books mentioned in the Bible that aren't there. Why not? The Lord never indicated that He wouldn't give us additional revelation, in fact the opposite. You use Hebrews 1:1-2, "1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds". Where does He state that there would be no more Prophets?

Your post really shows just how little you really know about the church. Revelation by prophets isn't just found in the Doctrine & Covenants or the BOM. I can see where you're going as far as this abominable church thing is concerned. I would refer you to the following for a thorough discussion relating to that topic which I doubt will help you, due to your intent, but it might be valuable to others reading along:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=168&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA.

Thanks for the occasion to discuss these points. I think I'm done for the evening. Busy day at church tomorrow. I wish you the best Colofornian. Have a wonderful Sabbath.

[Reno232]

~”You need to go and warn them about their need to repent and be saved...”~

I agree. Our missionaries go to accomplish just that. We haven’t been able to reach them all yet. So what of those that never had the chance to receive? What’s their consignment?

[Reno232]

1 Peter 3:19-21
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

So, why did He go to preach to those in prison?

[Saundra Duffy]

A friend at work told me something funny. When she was a young mom, one day she was out in her bikini washing the car. These two LDS Missionaries came over and one said, Hello, I’m Elder (whatever) and this is my companion, Elder (whatever). She said she thought it was strange they both had the same first name. Ha!

CTR