Replies

If God chooses to reveal Himself to another group of people in another time and place shouldn’t we be glad to have a record of that?

There is only one Christ, but no reason why He can’t visit anywhere he chooses, or speak to whom he chooses. I have no reason to believe that the Bible is the only place his words and works are recorded.

Normandy

Especially since Christ Himself stated that such should in fact be the case:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" (John 10:16).

The idea that the "other sheep" refers to Gentiles is false, because the Gentiles were to be converted through the ministry of His disciples, who were of the tribes of Israel. Jesus Himself was not sent to the Gentiles. Therefore, the "other sheep" would be other descendants of the scattered tribes of Israel. The Book of Mormon reveals that one such group had migrated to the New World. Its account of His ministry there, which I have good reasons to believe was in Mesoamerica, is one of the greatest revelations of what Jesus is like, because it has some unfragmented narration that is stunningly beautiful. Yet there is at least a hundred times more of that ministry that is being held back until God knows that His people are spiritually ready to receive it.

I am not sure whether this greater knowledge will come prior to or after Christ confronts those supposed to be doing His work on Earth (Luke 12:35-48).

The idea that the "other sheep" refers to Gentiles is false...

Are you SURE?

The idea that the "other sheep" refers to Gentiles is false, because the Gentiles were to be converted through the ministry of His disciples, who were of the tribes of Israel. Jesus Himself was not sent to the Gentiles.

For this to be "so", John, would mean that you deem the Gentiles as having some other shepherd than Jesus Christ (your claim that "Jesus Himself was not sent to the Gentiles").

So, you not only buy into Joseph Smith's revelation that the Smith-church was...
..."the only true and living church on the face of the earth" [D&C]...
...oh, & btw, tell us John, which church is that? the Mormon version, the fLDS version, the RLDS, the CoC which emerged from the RLDS, or any of the restorationist offshoots?
...but you are now claiming that Gentile Christians have a shepherd other than Jesus because He wasn't sent to us, eh?

First, your Joseph Smith attacks us as having an implied false & dead church; and you've said "Amen" to that along with Normandy all your Smith-discipled lives...now you personally attack all Christians (especially on this thread) as being shepherdless Jesus Christ-wise.

And you've got some nerve & some gall accusing others on this thread of attacking Smith's disciples.

The idea that the "other sheep" refers to Gentiles is false, because the Gentiles were to be converted through the ministry of His disciples, who were of the tribes of Israel. Jesus Himself was not sent to the Gentiles. Therefore, the "other sheep" would be other descendants of the scattered tribes of Israel.

Btw, John, the grand-nephew of Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, said of Joseph Smith: "...that it is evident that he also had some Gentile blood in him, for it is written in the Book of Mormon, that it came forth, 'by way of the Gentile,'...[citing 1 Nephi 13:35, 39] (Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, p. 63, 1960/1979)

So...I guess Jesus wasn't sent for the entire blood-line of Joseph Smith (& his rlds kid-"prophet," grandkid-"prophet," & great-grandkid "prophet," since he's part-Gentile, eh? [I'd say ALL Gentile; but I'll play along for the moment as to how Mormons convey Smith to show you your argument re: John 10:16 just doesn't stick.]