Wow, Ryan, thank you. It's nice to have some sort of conclusion to an argument (however temporary), instead of having arguments ignored or someone getting angry at you. And I know what you mean about "getting caught up in the thrill of the hunt" - I've been guilty of it myself on occasion. I look forward to continuing the discussion upon your return.

Point to Ryan for good sportsmanship. Logical fallacies do indeed work as long as you aren't caught, but to use them as such is intellectual dishonesty.

I think Matthew has done a good job answering all the questions. The only thing I think he's left out is this - If Christ's commission to preach to all nations of the earth at the end of Matthew was apparently so clear that no one could misunderstand it, then why on earth did he need to send a revelation to Peter in Acts 10? And if you disagree about the interpretation of the revelation in Acts 10 being a command to take the gospel to all the Gentiles as well, fine. It still fits the bill as a doctrine changing. Christ did nothing to indicate that foods deemed as unclean by the Jews were to be considered clean by Christians. So this revelation, with the least broad interpretation, still eliminates Kosher practices for Christians - in other words, it still represents a doctrinal shift.

UKC - Go to Amazon.com and try to find a book by James Talmage called "The Great Apostacy." This book sort of explains why we Mormons consider Catholicism to be so messed up. It's a quick read and you can probably find a used copy for not too much - If you're interested that is.

I hope that it is not lost in all the debate that while, as Ryan stated, we Mormons may have "out-argued" him, that is not our intention. I think all of us who have posted here would concur that the sole reliable means whereby a person can discern the truth or fiction of the LDS church is to honestly and without bias read the Book of Mormon, and then pray and ask God if it is true. In short, we don't expect nor want to win the debate.

Probably not my place but I admire Ryan for his admition and his choosing to bow out for a while. He's an honorable man and obviously to me anyhow a good Christian.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> TH,
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
So what would be the defination of Prophet?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm certain that my definition will be refuted, but here's what I think: The best way to define a prophet is to look at the Prophet's we all agree upon. We are most familiar with and agree upon the prophetic call of the Old Testament Prophets. It is clear from the Biblical account that their work was to act as God’s messenger and make known God’s will . The message was usually prefaced with the words “Thus saith Jehovah.” (Moses, Isaiah, Noah are all excellent examples of this) Prophets taught about God’s character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past.(Isaiah and Jeremiah are very good examples of this) Prophets preserved and edited the records of the nation’s history; and such historical books as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and 2 Kings were known by the Jews as the former Prophets. (Obviously Moses, Samuel and Nathan were good examples here) It was also the prophet’s duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. (Again Moses is a good example as is Nathan in his correction of King David and Jeremiah and Joel) A prophet was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. (certainly Moses, Noah, Abraham, Jeremiah qualify) In certain cases prophets predicted future events, for example, there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah’s kingdom (Isaiah & Moses, Malachi, Ezekiel); but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller (Noah). Meaning he was more likely to address current problems than run around predicting the future. We are also instructed by Jesus how in part we can judge the claims of self proclaimed prophets in Matthew 7:15-20 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See....here I am chiming in days and days later, . From the above description you gave where would the Mormon Church place Joseph Smith?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

I think Matthew has done a good job answering all the questions. The only thing I think he's left out is this - If Christ's commission to preach to all nations of the earth at the end of Matthew was apparently so clear that no one could misunderstand it, then why on earth did he need to send a revelation to Peter in Acts 10? And if you disagree about the interpretation of the revelation in Acts 10 being a command to take the gospel to all the Gentiles as well, fine. It still fits the bill as a doctrine changing. Christ did nothing to indicate that foods deemed as unclean by the Jews were to be considered clean by Christians. So this revelation, with the least broad interpretation, still eliminates Kosher practices for Christians - in other words, it still represents a doctrinal shift.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can it be considered a doctrinal shift or change? Jesus Himself began the ministry when he met the woman at the well, she was Samaritan. One of Jesus' more well-known parables was about the 'Good Samaritan', at the end he asked "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

Jesus lived the doctrine/ great commission while here on earth. And He taught His followers to do the same:

Luke 24: 45-49
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Another example, how can it be anymore plain than that? Matthew's scripture are showing the same thought progression going forward into Acts. "I want you to preach to all people, but you aren't quite ready yet. Stay here until you have the power to do this."

Hello McFly? Anybody home?

There are a good number more examples, we can debate them if you like, but please answer these first...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Luke 24: 45-49
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Another example, how can it be anymore plain than that? Matthew's scripture are showing the same thought progression going forward into Acts. "I want you to preach to all people, but you aren't quite ready yet. Stay here until you have the power to do this."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See, the problem with that is that they were still preaching only to the Jews when they left Jerusalem. Would you agree that Christ "endowing them with power from on high" occurs either in Acts 2 (at the day of the Pentecost - I think that's the most common interpretation of that verse) or sometime before that? So, then, after they were given this power, and were now ready to preach to all nations, they still only preached to the Jews - look in Acts 11:19. The disciples went to Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch (those aren't Jerusalem), preaching only to Jews. At this point in time, "all nations" did not mean "all people," clearly, because of the actions of the disciples. If Christ had meant "all people" they would not have preached to the Jews only, they would have included the Gentiles. And the verse in Matthew 24 says that the gospel getting preached to all people is a sign that the second coming is close, so how could it have happened that early?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
There are a good number more examples, we can debate them if you like, but please answer these first...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please take your own advice. You have yet to respond to any bit of my initial argument (or my second argument about Matthew 24) except with a single-line, unbased statement and a bunch of sarcasm. I'm going to repost the important points of both of them right below this because it's on the previous page, and it's just about the only active topic, since Ryan has conceded for the moment (sorry TH, I think I'll let Joel take your post - he'll do a better job than me at that topic, especially since it was his argument to begin with).

Taken from two previous posts:

1:

Allen - I see your point. Christ did command His disciples to preach the Gospel to every nation. But if you take it that literally, Acts 10 doesn't make sense. Sure, Peter was not astonished that the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost, but all of the other Jews around him were. If they had been preaching to the Gentiles for all this time, don't you think they'd have had at least one person that accepted their message? But no Gentile had been baptized (see v. 47) or received the Holy Ghost, or else they wouldn't have been astonished. I think it's too much of a stretch to say that they had been preaching to the Gentiles yet not had a single convert. This can be evidenced by how quickly they got converts once they started preaching to them.

So, I would say that when Christ told His disciples to preach to every nation at the end of Matthew, He still intended for them to follow His previous commandment to only preach to the Jews. Remember, the Jews were spread out over all nations, so you can keep both commandments at the same time. It was not until Peter received revelation changing Christ's commandment that they started preaching to the Gentiles.

Further evidence of this can be found in Acts 11. There Peter is reporting back to the rest of the apostles about his experience with the Gentiles. In verse 1 it says that the apostles "heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God." Clearly it is implied in that verse that they hadn't received the word of God beforehand. If you assume they had, the verse doesn't really make any sense. The same can be said of verse 18. But neither are as clear as verse 19:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, remember that Stephen was martyred in Acts 7, so these people that were scattered because of the persecution that arose left about that same time period. That was before Peter received his revelation in Acts 10 to preach to the Gentiles. So, what we have are people that are preaching only to the Jews, because that was the commandment that they had to follow, not having heard of Peter's revelation. I don't think you can get much clearer than that. Up until Acts 10, when God commanded Peter to change the doctrine, Christ's disciples only preached to Jews, and not to Gentiles.

So this sets a very nice precedent of God changing doctrine through revelation to His prophet, as has been done by modern-day prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sure, it is not done often - only twice in the history of the church (which is a good thing, because doctrine is not something that is changed lightly) - but it has Biblical precedent. Ryan was incorrect in his statement:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The people who followed him heard god but they received no revelation about new doctrine. Everything they said was based upon the teachings of Jesus, not revelation. And they certainly didn’t say anything that contradicts what was already set by Jesus.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Peter received revelation about new doctrine, which was contrary to a previous commandment given by Christ. Which is ok, because it was Christ changing His commandments because now the Gentiles were ready to hear the gospel and the Jews were ready to preach it to them. Before this they weren't.

2:

I'm sorry, I didn't really notice the verse in Matthew 24, I was so caught up in explaining Acts 10, but it looks much easier to explain than Matthew 28.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you're saying this verse means Christ was saying the Jews were ready to preach to the Gentiles at the time of Christ? I think you're guilty of "quoting verses out of context," Allen, something you love to accuse us of. If you look in the whole beginning of Matthew 24, what is Christ talking about? He's talking about how people can know when His second coming is close - in verse 3 His disciples ask Him "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Then Christ proceeds to talk about wars, natural disasters, false prophets, persecution of the church, and a few other things. And in the middle of it He says "and this gosple of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." When read in context, it is very obvious Christ is using this as a sign of when His second coming is close.

This verse actually hurts your case and helps mine, so thank you for bringing it up. It says that one of the signs of the second coming is that the gospel will be preached unto all nations (something that should be occuring about now, right? 'Cause now we're getting close to the second coming) - it wouldn't make a lot of sense if it was done right at the time of Christ's first appearance on the earth, now, would it? Shouldn't then the end have come sometime in 100 AD or so? 'Cause the verse says that the end of the world will come shortly after the gospel is finally preached to all nations.

------

One last additional response to why Christ preached to the woman at the well - the Samaritans were actually of the house of Israel, so everything I've already said applies to them as well (as Christ said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"). Notice when the Gentile centurian came up to Him He didn't try to preach to the guy, He just healed his son, or servant, or whichever it was; but He preached to the Samaritan 'cause she was an Israelite. The Jews hated them because they were only half-blood, but they did have the blood of Israelites in them. It was perfectly legitimate in keeping with His previous sayings and commandments to preach to the Samaritan.

You are confusing teachings with actions, revelation with works. There's plenty of instances where Jesus tells them to preach to everyone, it takes a vision for Peter to finally say 'oh yeah, that... I've been meaning to get around to that'.

It's not a change in revelation, it's a continuation of the same... I'm not understanding why this is difficult to grasp. Here's another:

Luke 16:15
"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."

In Luke 24, the second half of that chapter many samaritans come to believe. In John chapter 12, Greeks come to worship.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matthew:
It was perfectly legitimate in keeping with His previous sayings and commandments to preach to the Samaritan. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only a non-Jew would say that.

Jews at that time considered Samaritans to be lower than dogs. They would rather one lay and die in a ditch than stop to rescue them. It was against Jewish law to have anything to do with anyone non-jewish. Jesus changed that when He welcomed the Samaritans and the Greeks.

Going back to John, chapter 3:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There's no stipulations where God only loves/ saves the Jews, it's whoever believes.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matthew:


2:

I'm sorry, I didn't really notice the verse in Matthew 24, I was so caught up in explaining Acts 10, but it looks much easier to explain than Matthew 28.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you're saying this verse means Christ was saying the Jews were ready to preach to the Gentiles at the time of Christ? I think you're guilty of "quoting verses out of context," Allen, something you love to accuse us of. If you look in the whole beginning of Matthew 24, what is Christ talking about? He's talking about how people can know when His second coming is close - in verse 3 His disciples ask Him "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Then Christ proceeds to talk about wars, natural disasters, false prophets, persecution of the church, and a few other things. And in the middle of it He says "and this gosple of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." When read in context, it is very obvious Christ is using this as a sign of when His second coming is close.

This verse actually hurts your case and helps mine, so thank you for bringing it up. It says that one of the signs of the second coming is that the gospel will be preached unto all nations (something that should be occuring about now, right? 'Cause now we're getting close to the second coming) - it wouldn't make a lot of sense if it was done right at the time of Christ's first appearance on the earth, now, would it? Shouldn't then the end have come sometime in 100 AD or so? 'Cause the verse says that the end of the world will come shortly after the gospel is finally preached to all nations.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That wasn't the point. The scripture plainly states that all will be preached the Gospel, He's not saying only the Jews. Once again, it's showing a natural progression of spreading the Gospel - Jews ==>> Gentiles ==>> All the World. Foreshadowed in *many* *many* scriptures of Jesus' teachings.

Just a bit more on Matthew 10:5-6, the origination of the discussion within the discussion:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For some reason the discussion over the last couple of pages was about Jesus not wanting them to preach to the gentiles, completely left out were His warnings to not even enter a Samaritan town. He's telling them to not visit the Samaritans either, but, as discussed above, as they mature He sends them to the samaritans as well... and the samaritans come to believe, in droves. When Jesus healed the 10 men with leprosy (luke 17), the one who came back and thanked Him was a Samaritan.

John 4:39-42
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers.
They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The discples were with Jesus as this was going on... He lived His teachings in front of them.

Yes, I agree with that progression. My point was that there was a change in commandments that was made in the middle of that progression. At the beginning they did preach only to the Jews (as is very clear in my previous arguments), then when Christ commanded them otherwise, they continued in the progression and preached to the Gentiles, and in later days went to all the world. I agree with what you said, but the point is that a new commandment was given that transcended the old one.

Matthew 10:5-6

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(Ok, so I have to retract my argument about the Samaritans, because He commanded His disciples not to preach to them either - I will offer a better argument in a minute - but notice He does distinguish between Gentile and Samaritan)

Christ gave them a commandment - only preach to the Jews. They followed it, as I've gone to great lengths to prove to you, and you have not refuted. Then Christ gave a new commandment - ok, it's time to preach to the Gentiles now (as was the next step in the progression, I agree). They followed it and preached to the Gentiles. What we see here is Christ giving a commandment, people following it, then when Christ is gone He gives a new commandment to His prophet, Peter, and His prophet tells the commandment to the rest of the disciples. That's my point. A key word you used is "forshadowed," and you're right - they were to do that in the future, but not yet, because Christ had not yet commanded it.

So, I think you meant Mark 16:15, and I couldn't find what you were talking about in Luke 24. With Mark 16:15 I still hold to my previous argument that Christ meant both commandments to be kept for the time being, the plan being that He would later command His people to expand their preaching. As far as why Christ did end up preaching to a few people He said He wasn't going to, I think Matthew 15 is enlightening. Verses 21-28:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think the main focus of that passage (for my point, anyway) is verse 26 - "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." In another place Christ also said to "cast not your pearls before swine." I think these were general statements concerning the Gentiles that Christ held His disciples to. But there are always exceptions, and Christ, being perfect, could discern that certain people were ready to hear the gospel before the rest of the Gentiles were.

Even if I accept your argument (which I don't), it still forwards the original argument that God reveals His will through prophets. According to you, Christ's disciples were misinterpreting His word, so who did He talk to in order to correct them? His prophet, Peter. God needed to talk to His church, so He did it through His prophet. You just admitted that in Acts (which is after Christ came and supposedly changed everything) Peter, the prophet, was God's go-to man to in matters of doctrine, whether it be changing or interpreting. If God is unchanging, why does He not still do the same thing?

OK, we're finally getting somewhere

The Jews considered non-Jews as little more (and probably less) than dogs. Pigs were another favorite comparison. But read a little further into what happened... her *faith* is what healed her daughter, not her nationality. So it was with the 10 lepers (at least one who was samarian), and so it was with all the people He healed. It had nada to do with their race, background, or anything else man looks on... it was all about faith/ belief. Jesus wanted her to confess with her mouth that she believed, she did and He healed her.


Tell me what are the significant differences between these passages:

Jesus:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and Peter:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection.
...
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">.

There are lots more that Jesus taught while here on earth that is background doctrine for His scripture above, some of which I've posted already. Doesn't it sound like Peter had heard the command to 'go into all the world' a few times before he had to finally be hit over the head with it to get his attention? It took a similar action for Paul and several minor players in the New Testament, so he's got good company

Answer that and we can go on from there.

I do believe God can reveal His will through prophets... but only as it lines up with Biblical scripture. He also reveals His will to anyone who prayerfully seeks it - again, only if it lines up with scripture. God doesn't usually reveal His will with an audible voice or handwriting on the wall, it's through strong 'feelings' we get. Those feelings must line up with the scripture we already have, His word. That's the only way we can test our feelings to see if they were ours or from God.

Yes, God is unchanging, that's the point of the last 2-3 pages (yea, even the whole 33+ pages of this thread where I've posted). He would not send 'new revelation' that doesn't line up with His already given revelation. He is not a spirit of confusion - Paul states it better in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33, 36-40

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.
...
Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The main point of this scripture (for my point anyway ) is that God is not the author of confusion. Yes, He is unchanging and His Word as well...

Ok, I think that's close enough to what I wanted to say that I can agree with it and move on. At least, I've given all of my argument and I don't care to keep on bickering, and I thought of a new approach to this that I think is interesting. So if I seem to ignore an argument you feel is important, I'm sorry, feel free to remind me of it and I'll do my best to answer it.

So, a few years ago someone explained to me the difference between principles, doctrine, and commandments (I think that's what they were called - I just remember there were three different levels). The principles are ideas like "God wants to save His children," or something like that. Then doctrines are how you would go about following those principles, like "preach the gospel." Neither of those change. But then you get to commandments, which are specific applications of doctrine that can change as the needs of the people change - like we've been discussing with preaching to the Jews and the Gentiles; at first Christ commanded them to only preach to the Jews, then it was expanded to the Gentiles when both parties were ready for it, and then the world. I think you can say the same thing of the Law of Moses - it was given to the Israelites who had just come out of Egypt because they weren't ready for the higher law of Christ; the law of Moses was to prepare them for it. The commandments change, but the doctrines and principles behind them do not change. Does that make sense? I know I didn't do as good a job of explaining it as the person who explained it to me, but I hope it was good enough that you understood my point.

So what I'm getting at is that the two changes in the Mormon church that have taken place were changes in commandment, not the doctrine itself. The application of the doctrine changed because the needs of the people changed. That's what I was trying to show has Biblical precedent with Peter.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I do believe God can reveal His will through prophets... but only as it lines up with Biblical scripture. He also reveals His will to anyone who prayerfully seeks it - again, only if it lines up with scripture. God doesn't usually reveal His will with an audible voice or handwriting on the wall, it's through strong 'feelings' we get. Those feelings must line up with the scripture we already have, His word. That's the only way we can test our feelings to see if they were ours or from God.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's interesting. Who's the prophet that leads your church today? And as it lines up with Biblical scripture - isn't it the prophet's job to hear from God what the correct interpretation of scripture is, so you can know what lines up and what doesn't? So how can you tell whether or not it lines up if you don't know what interpretation to use?

It's getting late and I'm getting tired, so I'm done for now. I hope what I posted made sense, and if it doesn't feel free to nail me on it and I'll fix it when I'm a little more coherent.

What you posted does make sense.

Principle
Doctrine
Commandment

Three different things.

The law of Moses being replaced by the Higher law of Christ is a good example of Principles and Doctrines remaining unchanged while the commandments relating to them are altered or fulfilled. And a very good biblical precedent for commandments changing.

Allen, perhaps doctrinal shift is too powerful a distinction for what occurred in Acts 10 with Peter. Perhaps the way it should be described is the Lord communicating with his Prophet indicating that it is time to take the Gospel to the Gentiles as he had previously been commanded.

Acts 11 actually demonstrates even further how this process is to work within the Lord's Church. A bunch of the Apostles and other bretheren (Jew-Christians for lakc of a better distinction) are asking Peter about the Gospel being taken to the Gentiles. He relates to them his vision and then in verse 18 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They heard the prophet (chief Apostle) speak and they obeyed.

In acts chapter 15 we learn a lot about the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles and the way Peter felt about it. He proclaims that it was by him the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, indicating that he thought it was definitely a new direction. We also learn about the matter of authority from the Apostles being necessary to go forth and legitimately teach. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This chapter is a textbook example of church government as established by Christ – there is no Biblical precedent for any other pattern of church government.

To summarize here’s how things are supposed to work.
If an issue of doctrine arises, it is to be taken to the Apostles to be decided on. The chief Apostle (Prophet) who has the right to receive revelation on behalf of the church, will decide the case and send authorized messengers to explain and verify the decision of the bretheren.

TH, to answer your question, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From the above description you gave where would the Mormon Church place Joseph Smith?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While many prophets have many of these attributes, and Joseph Smith is certainly no exception, I think the most pronounced duty or role that Joseph Smith played as a prophet was </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A prophet was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is primarily what we are about. We believe that the pattern of church governance put in place by Jesus and demonstrated in Acts and beyond by the Apostles was restored to the earth through Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was essentially a Modern day Peter - chief Apostle and leader of the church through whom the Lord would reveal his will by revelation and vision.

That being said, Joseph Smith also did act as God’s messenger and make known God’s will, teach about God’s character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with man in the past and present, brought forth lost records of recounting God's dealings with a remnant of the Tribes of Israel, denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs, and in certain cases Joseph smith predicted future events. However, as a rule Joseph smith was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. Meaning he was more likely to address current problems than run around predicting the future.

Most folks think we worship Joseph Smith. That's kind of sad. It would be better understood that we view him equal in stature with Moses, Noah, Abraham, Isaiah, Israel, Malachi, Peter, James, John the Revelator, and any other Prophet of the Bible. Moreover, we view our current Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley in the same way we view Joseph Smith.

I can agree mostly with everything except the Joseph Smith part

Wait, so if you agree with it, why doesn't it still happen? Where's the prophet that receives revelation from God on behalf of the church?

I didn't say the only teaching comes from a prophet, but teaching can come from one Everyone can receive God's will into their lives without a prophet there, Goid doesn't need an intermediary. We do have shepherds in the form of pastors, teachers and elders to lead tho

I'm sure you realize that us Mormon folk are very big on personal revelation for our own lives. It appears to me that where we differ is on the issue of God having a "spokesman" in the form of a Prophet to communicate God's will for the whole earth.

Is that an accurate assessment?

huh hah you said assessment.....that and the point where mormons believe they will be in control over there own planets when they die...and other stuff