To Doug Yancey (A Mormon) who tries to disprove Ed Decker (a Christian),
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Mormon (Doug Yancey)
It has become historically evident that like the L.D.S. Church, the New Testament Church contained sacred teachings that were not intended for the general public, but only for those mature in the faith. These teachings should only be taught after the Holy Ghost had been received by the Church, and then only to those who had prepared themselves to receive the "mysteries." These sacred teachings were not to be taught, except at the appropriate times, otherwise confusion would abound.
I disagree, for the church does not have anything secretly hidden. We are an open book for the Lord. There is no clergy in the church holding back information. The Word of God is given to all. The church is not holding back information until the Holy Spirit comes, for the Holy Spirit is already indwelling the church and whatever the Holy Spirit does reveal agrees with the Scriptures and shared freely. Since mormons are not saved, they would not be able to receive revelation of the Holy Spirit through this dispensation of grace or ever as they cling desperately to their false teachings that God is gods. No such idea is ever found in the Bible.
Quote:
Mr. Decker suggests that the LDS are really worshipping Satan because of their use of the word/name Mormon. Decker changes the name Mormon into the Satanic name Mormo. Mormo is a Satanic, or "Infernal Name," that appears in the Satanic Bible. The name is to be used when one is making certain covenants with the Devil. (The Satanic Bible, pp. 144-145.) Hence, "Mormons," or better, "Mormons," are really worshipping Satan. But, by the same standard, Christians are worshippers of a Canaanite god name Zedek. One of the Canaanite gods was named Zedek, (See The Bible Almanac, p. 109, an evangelical publication) whom the Canaanites worshipped along with their other gods.
Though the mormon similar name is used in the Satanic Bible which you admit, you would just be sinning bearing false witness against the Word of God since the Bible never says Sedek is God. "The LORD is our righteousness"-where righteousness is our
Sedeq. Having a good human king of the land as we have presidents of countries does not mean that king does not himself worship God, so this king of Salem is still accountable to God, but that he is a good king. So you can see your comparison easily falls apart.
Melchizedek = "my king is Sedek" the king of Salem and priest of the Most High God to whom Abram paid tithe after the battle he fought to free Lot; 'the order of Melchizedek' the order of the priesthood to which Christ belongs. The difference being though that Jesus is God.
Quote:
Notice, however, that Zedek was also worshipped by the Hebrews (and Christians) as well, as is indicated by the fact that the name of the great high priest Melchizedek means, "My King is Zedek;" and Jeremiah teaches that when Christ returns again at his second coming his name will be "Jehovah is our Zedek." (Jeremiah 23:6, Hebrew edition.) Also, Jerusalem, the Holy City will be called "Jehovah is our Zedek." (Jeremiah 33:16, Hebrew edition.)
It is interesting that at the time of Joshua's conquest the Canaanite King of Jerusalem was named Adonizedek, which means, "My Lord is Zedek." (Joshua 10:1).
Jer. 23.6 says Jehovah is our righteousness, nothing about Him being Zedek in the Hebrew edition, only that He is righteousness (or sedeq). See the Hebrew Bible for yourself... http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm. Joshua, a man of God, killed Adonizedek, so you contradict yourself since you can't have it both ways. Joshua did not kill a man of God. What this shows though is a person can actually have a name that says his god is righteousness, but he may not actually be a child of God. The context of what Joshua was doing is what matters. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jos/Jos010.html#top.
Quote:
The most sacred and difficult teachings of Jesus were not recorded in the four Gospels of the New Testament. They were not to be taught, Jesus said, until the coming of the Holy Ghost to the New Testament Church.
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will she w you things to come. (John 76:72-73).
There is no John 76 in the Bible, so any discussion of this claim can be disregarded as far as this verse numbers given are concerned. However, I do know you mean John 16.12-13 which I would be happy to respond to by saying that the Holy Spirit indwells me and guides me in agreement with God's Word to understand the truth. This is not privileged information for a clergy, but is provided for all Christians. No special gnosis knowledge is at play here. Revelation is forthcoming as God sees fit which never contradicts the Bible. According to God's timing the Holy Spirit will give revelation and additional information that builds on the foundation. But that information is not what mormons teach, which is easily shown. Moreover, Christ is to return to supply truth with His very presence in Person which is to make what the Bible says about the millennial kingdom well understood since the kingdom begins when Christ returns in Person. He will be here in Person on earth to reign with an iron rod over the nations.
Quote:
The Holy Ghost was not given during the mortal ministry of Jesus. (John 7:39). Jesus said that he must go away so that the Holy Ghost could come unto them. (John 16:7). Only when the Holy Ghost had come could Jesus teach the "many things" they could not bear. (As a point of question, when were these hard to bear doctrines taught to the Apostles? And what were these esoteric teachings? What does the "Christian" world know about them? And why aren't they teaching them today?)
Whatever the Holy Spirit guides the church in, it is in agreement with the Word of God. The church is in concordance with the Word remaining in the Holy Spirit with God's life, so why accuse falsely? There is no esoteric teachings that only clergy of mormonism can know. The reason the church doesn't teach mormon esoteric teachings is because they don't agree with God's Word.
Quote:
The Bible does give us a few clues as to what these hard to bear teachings might be. When Luke, writing to his friend Theophilus, began his Acts of the Apostles he mentioned a forty day ministry of Jesus that followed his crucifixion and resurrection.
The former treatise have l made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach. Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he spewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 7:7-3)
What things did Jesus teach "pertaining to the kingdom of God" during these forty days he ministered to the Apostles? Where in scripture do we have an account of more than just a glimpse of this forty day ministry? Without question these teachings of the forty day ministry were the very same things that Jesus promised to the Apostles when he said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." They could only be taught to the disciples after they had received the Holy Ghost. (John 10:22).
This is an incorrect teaching of the Bible that you attempt. There is much disclosed in all the post-resurrection accounts of Jesus which you can read for yourself. Therefore, the idea there is some concealed information the church is totally incorrect.
Quote:
Similarly, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refrained from teaching certain doctrines about Jesus and the Melchizedek Priesthood because they were "hard to be uttered" and because the people were "dull of hearing."
Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Therefore leaving principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Of the doctrines of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 5:70 - 6:2; see also l Cor, 3:7-3).
These things were already disclosed in the Bible, but that those being spoken to were not listening, so there would be no point of continuing further explanation of what has already been disclosed in God's Word. Do you see how you misunderstand God's Word? Try not to assume more than what is plainly said.
Quote:
Notice that these unmentioned doctrines would lead those who "have their senses exercised" on to perfection. But they would do so only "if God permit." The reasoning being that once they were enlightened and having "tasted of the heavenly gift," and being made "partakers of the Holy Ghost," and of the "good word of God, and the powers of the world to come," if they were to fall away they could not be renewed again unto repentance.
There is great responsibility connected with the teaching of these "hard to utter" and "hard to bear" doctrines. That is why Paul said that the Apostles were the "stewards of the mysteries of God."
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. (1 Cor. 4:7).
These are not unmentioned doctrines, but explanations of understanding about Melchisedec. Also, if they were to fall away, it doesn't say anything about not being renewed again unto repentance, for once-saved-always-saved. To fall away in the church never means to lose eternal life. Heb. 6.1-2 says, "let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance..."; that is, stop rehashing doctrine that you should know already by now or have already known. Once you have repented (from dead works) and been baptized (come out of the world) and understand resurrection (from the dead), learn to grow from there in those truths, not regressing backwards into them as though you forgot them. Still no indication exists of any hidden information. All was disclosed through the 66 books of God's complete Word. What revelation comes makes clearer what has already been presented. The return of Christ in Person for the millennial reign will also expound on what we already know of the millennial reign (Rev. 20.4) where the lamb and the lion will lay down together in peace. The nations will no longer war (v.3).
Quote:
...God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD. (l Cor. 2:70).
There certainly is justification for believing that certain special and sacred teachings were not taught openly, or publicly, but only to those that could bear
Early Christian writings indicate that there was a concern about the things taught in private, or secretly by the early church. Various sects of the pristine church claimed to know these secrets. (See The Mormon Faith Un-Decker-ated for a few references to these Christian writings.)
Christians who do not study their own history may not be aware of the growing challenge they face to defend their own beliefs. The somewhat quiet writings of the scholarly world is beginning to put a crack in the foundation of traditional Christianity. An example is the discovery of a secret gospel of Mark. (See professor Morton Smith's books, The Secret Gospel, Clearlake, Calif.: The Dawn Horse Press, 1973, 1982; and his sequel, Jesus the Magician, Harper & Row, 1978.)
It is traditional Christianity, not the restored gospel of Jesus Christ that is most seriously threatened, because current trends in New Testament research at this point seem to fit comfortably with basic L.D.S. premises, but some are extremely challenging to many traditional Christian beliefs.
There is no justification for teaching that certain teachings were held back. Satan likes to operate in such vagaries. When someone in the church has a truth to share, but it is sensed another is not responsive to this information, then it need not be disclosed. It does not mean the information is hidden. It only means the hearer is not ready to listen to it. For example, if you are in grade 6 and I try to teach you complex calculus, that would not do, because you could not understand it. You need foundational teaching in place first. The secret gospel of Mark is false of course since Jesus is not a homosexual, lol. This would not be in keeping with the character of Christ and God of the OT we know and love, so you know it is false, http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ecretmark.html. To even bring it up, shows you are not in the truth. There is no restored gospel of homosexuality. Nor has anything been said to justify mormonism. Traditional Christianity is well and good, that Jesus died on the cross, He is deity, and was resurrected on the third day; He was not a homo. But nice try.
Quote:
Professor Smith suggests that one of the secret, or esoteric teachings of Jesus, pertained to baptism. Perhaps a better guess would include baptism for the dead. Latter-day Saints do not consider this a secret doctrine but a sacred doctrine. But looking at its history it is quite likely that it belonged to the more esoteric part of the Christian kerygma, since it is only mentioned once in scripture but more frequently in Christian history. Baptism for the dead is practised in L.D.S. temples, hence it could be considered to be somewhat esoteric. Early Christian writings attest to the fact that baptisms for the dead were performed, and that not only Jesus, but the Apostles, preached to the dead. After their death the apostles visited Hades in order to preach there to such as had not heard the gospel and to baptize the righteous. (NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA, p. 43. also in THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, vol. 2, p. 49).
Kerygma is merely the preaching of the gospel of Christ: His death, deity and resurrection. There is no esoteric part. All Paul means regarding baptism in relation to the dead, is that when a Christian has died on the cross with Christ, we then get baptized, that is buried, as are dead people. So you practice falsely in performing baptisms for the dead people. The dead need no baptism for they are already buried. There is nothing in Christianity about performing baptisms for dead people. The apocrypha is not part of God's 66 books of His Word, so it may be disregarded. You can see why the books of the Apocrypha are denied.
Quote:
Do not the Scriptures show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept `in ward and guard'? And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord; preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that He should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrew, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. . . . If, then, He preached the Gospel to those in the flesh that they might not be condemned unjustly, how is it conceivable that He did not for the same cause preach the Gospel to those who had departed this life before His advent? (THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, vol. 2, pp. 490-492.)
Epiphanius said that the Marcionites practised baptism for the dead. (Heresies XXVIII:7).
In spite of the historical evidence for the practise of baptism for the dead, the 397 A.D. Council of Carthage, Sixth Canon, declared baptism for the dead heretical and prohibited any further practise.
There is ample justification for a belief in the sacred doctrine of baptism for the dead and the preaching of the gospel to the dead by the Savior and his apostles. It is academic immaturity to belittle the beliefs of the L.D.S. Church when there is a genuine historical and scriptural foundation for them. Unbelief could be understandable, but not ridicule.
Don't believe everything you hear as necessarily correct teaching. If you can't show it in the Bible, then men practicing these false teachings through the centuries are considered of no account. Marcionites are not Christians. They believe there are two gods, one of the old and one of the new testament. There is historical evidence for the baptism of the dead, except that it is not Christian. It is mormon though. There is no evidence from Jesus or the apostles for baptism of the dead. If you can't show it, you know you are wrong. We as Christians don't belittle you, but merely say that you are deceived and in need of our help to show you the love of Christ and salvation is available to you if you are willing to receive it.
