Christ-like?

[Aesa]

That's an interesting question Ben.
No particular version, I read the KJV, ESV, Icelandic, NIV, NKJV, and many others.

It's the Holy Spirit which speaks the truth of the text, not the actual words themselves. For, all our translations are but commentaries on the original. As, one would assume (being that the plates are real), the Book of Mormon is too.

[BenRaines]

Aesa,

So it is not the scripture that is infallible but the personal revelation of the spirit that is regarding the scriptures. If so and many have claimed to be influenced by Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit and have different views I can see how the world can be so confused.

Aesa, you mentioned something that perked up my ears. You have heard the little children of the Primary say that they know the church is true? Are you or were you LDS at one time? Just happen to attend a lot of testimony meetings or have a lot of friends that are LDS and their children have been around bearing testimony? I am curious. Thanks for indulging me.

Ben Raines

[Aesa]

No, actually, a friend said it in a youtube video.
She was about 14 and she'd been considering leaving the church and one weekend she decided to go to Sacrament with her father and it was testimony weekend.
She talks about how one little 3 year old girl was taken up to the mic and told by her mother what to say. Absolutely amazing.

That is not testimony, I don't care what you want to call it but I call that brainwashing.
Faith is not supposed to be blind.

In regards to "having been Mormon," I have been considering going to an LDS church one Sunday just to see what it's like.

[Elgama]

Originally Posted by Aesa

No, actually, a friend said it in a youtube video.
She was about 14 and she'd been considering leaving the church and one weekend she decided to go to Sacrament with her father and it was testimony weekend.
She talks about how one little 3 year old girl was taken up to the mic and told by her mother what to say. Absolutely amazing.

.

This bugged me until I became a parent and my daughter aged 2 asked me to take her up, when she got up there she blew a raspberry and said Mummy help lol so I asked her what she wanted to say and we worked out that way.

Do we know if the 3 year old girl had asked to go up and for help? My daughter at 5 can now get up and her testimony is simply I love Jesus he helps me, I love Mummy and Daddy and I love coming to church. But not every 5 year old is as self assured as our Ellie, my son at 2 cannot say more than a few words so he is not getting up anytime - he has chosen to expend his efforts serving the Lord by working out how his body works rather than through his voice.

-Charley

[Outshined]

Originally Posted by Aesa

She talks about how one little 3 year old girl was taken up to the mic and told by her mother what to say. Absolutely amazing.

That is not testimony, I don't care what you want to call it but I call that brainwashing.
Faith is not supposed to be blind.

I must assume you've never attended a church where children are taught the song Jesus Loves Me, among others. This would count as the same type of "brainwashing", would it not?

The first steps children take toward faith in God is the example they see in their parents.

[Aesa]

I must assume you've never attended a church where children are taught the song Jesus Loves Me, among others. This would count as the same type of "brainwashing", would it not?

The first steps children take toward faith in God is the example they see in their parents.

Ah, you're right. I apologise for the use of the word brainwashing. It's easy to look at one side of the coin.

I haven't actually, been to a church where that song is sung. Becuase I haven't been to an institutional Church since I went to a presbyterian church, and before that being raised on the Catholic church.

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by KristofferUmfrey

did those affidavits happen to take place after Marsh was ex'd and during the time Pratt was outisde of the church?

Originally Posted by KristofferUmfrey

It is as I say... Imagine that

The affidavits posted were given on October 24, 1838. Thomas Marsh was excommunicated on March 17, 1839. That means the affidavit was given 144 days before Marsh's excommunication (about 4.731006 months). Thomas B Marsh

Orson Hyde voluntarily left the Church on 19 October, 1938 (five days before the affidavit) and was later disfellowshipped for signing the affidavit. In the General Conference of October 6-8, 1839, Hyde was readmitted as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Orson Hyde

So at the time of the affidavit, neither had been subject to disciplinary action from the Church. Rather, both were concerned that the Spirit was no longer abiding in the Church.

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by Aesa

When has Christ stop turning His cheek?

For what it's worth, Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants deals with this issue. This section was received in August of 1833, a little over 5 years prior to the affidavit.

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;
24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.
25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.
26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;
27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.
28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;
30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.
32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.
38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

I'll interject a note of interest here. In the Book of Mormon, Nephi's brothers made multiple attempts on his life. After the death of their father, Lehi, the attempts became more serious, and Nephi's brothers began serious plots to murder him. At this point, Nephi would have been justified in defending himself. But he didn't. He packed up his things and left with everyone who chose to follow him. It wasn't until Nephi's brothers (and their followers) began hunting him and his people that he actually took up a sword in defense.

Just because bloodshed is justified doesn't mean it's the best course of action. Given what the Saints were going through at this time, I wouldn't be surprised if bloodshed was justified. At the same time, there may have been a better course of action that was difficult to see through the cloud of emotions being felt.

Having said this, I refer back to one of my earlier posts that questions the validity of the statements. Unfortunately, I forgot to check The History of the Church last night. Please remind me, as I am somewhat curious if the Church had a response to the affidavit.

[Hemidakota]

The next chain of events after the murder of Peter, would have fell to James. He was the next senior Apostle. When James was beheaded, it would again fell to the next senior Apostle. Eventually, I could not see behind John since there was no leadership but the church eventually fell in pieces since there was no true replacement as a prophet and those apostles that were murdered.

Some background to the last days of Simon Peter...

With few exceptions the remaining years of Peter's life and ministry are not accounted for in the New Testament. He is dropped suddenly by Luke in the midst of his story. From this point on, we are dependent upon Paul and tradition for the few references available to us. The tradition is to some extent derived from non-canonical, apocryphal, or early religious literature, much of which is sheer fabrication or out and out forgery. From such sources, however, we do get a picture of the popular stories and accounts going the rounds in that day. Some of these are repeated and reinforced often enough that they cannot be ignored; they carry some weight, if only that of folklore consensus.

From the available sources it seems reasonable to conclude that Peter left Jerusalem to work among Jewish Christians in Judea and Samaria. That he did not formally abandon his ties and responsibilities is clear since he eventually returned before the council which convened there about A.D. 50 to consider the gentile question.

Here at Antioch, he had one of the most difficult experiences of his ministry, one which probably gave him more cause to think about his position, both ecclesiastically and theologically, than any other since the days when he had come under the direct tuition of the Savior himself.

Paul was very explicit when he declared in the second chapter of Galatians:

when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them. . . . I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? . . . Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ . . . If [we built] again the things [we] destroyed, [we] make [ourselves] . . . transgressors (11-12, 14, 16, 18).

Peter no doubt chafed under this and subsequently modified his position considerably since he eventually became a great missionary unto the Gentiles (although this has not been emphasized as part of the Petrine tradition).

It appears that his Antiochian ministry included missionary ventures into the north and west provinces of Asia Minor and Galatia en route to and from the city of Corinth. Although there is some disagreement among Catholic scholars, the consensus of Roman tradition has it that Peter arrived in Rome between A.D. 41 and 45, was the founder of the congregation, and continued to reside there as its bishop, presiding over the whole Church until his death, except for visits to the East and the Holy Land to attend the councils.

Since Peter could not have been in Rome while Paul was writing his epistle to the Romans, and since there is neither scriptural nor even legendary reference to any of the other Apostles having been there, this author senses the implication in Paul's letter to the Romans that no Apostle had yet visited that city. Paul insists that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles and will magnify his office (Romans 11:13). Since he does not preach the gospel where there has already been an apostolic witness "lest I should build upon another man's foundation" (Romans 15:20), it would be inconsistent for him to plan to preach in Rome if another Apostle had founded that branch. Therefore, there appears to be justification for the assertion that Peter could not have resided in Rome before A.D. 56-57. This would allow him at least five years for the Antiochian ministry and missionary activities prior to his arrival in Rome two or three years after Nero's ascension to the imperial throne, and at least that many years before Paul's arrival in the capital city. From this we can establish a plausible chronology: Peter left Jerusalem and began his Antiochian ministry, A.D. 51 Nero came to the throne, A.D. 54; Peter may have come to Rome, c. A.D. 56-57; Paul to Rome, A.D. 58-59, assuming he followed Peter.

It is also clear that neither Peter nor Paul could have been the founders of the church at Rome since in Paul's letter to the Romans he is corresponding with an already established community of Christian believers sharing some formal arrangement of congregational communion. This study must therefore concur with others of the same opinion that the Roman congregation may have been made up of Jews of the Diaspora, of the merchant and military class, probably converted by missionaries or during visits to the homeland. Some may even have been among those present on the day of Pentecost and had been converted or moved to investigation by Peter's sermon.

During at least part of the period of apostolic supervision and leadership in Rome, Peter shared veneration and recognition with Paul. A great deal of evidence is available, especially from fourth century mosaics, burial relics, and other archeological remnants, showing Paul on the right side of the Lord and Peter on the left. Nevertheless, Peter eventually came to be singularly recognized as the presiding Apostle in Rome.

In scant literary remains of the earliest time we have reference to these two united in closest conjunction as sharing in the development of the apostolic church in Rome.

St. Clement, within thirty-five years of their martyrdom, referred to them in this relationship while Gaius and Irenaeus allude to such before the end of the second century; Irenaeus went so far as to declare that when Matthew was publishing a written gospel for the Hebrews, Peter and Paul were anxiously engaged in the good work in Rome (Roberts and Donaldson 1:414).

In the confession of the Roman celebration of the Lord's Supper, both are still accorded recognition as Saints of the Roman church. There is both scriptural and traditional evidence enough to justify the conclusion that John Mark was also a close associate and assistant to both of the Apostles.

We know that for a while Paul had refused to be bothered with Mark after the young man had deserted him in the midst of their first missionary journey. But even though they had parted asunder, we find that when the Epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul from Rome A.D. 60-61, he makes reference to the fact that Mark is with him and is a fellow worker and a comfort to him (4:10). Papias, through Eusebius, tells us that during this time Mark was also interpreter for Peter, who was residing in Rome, albeit in a separate house. And, the First Epistle of Peter alludes to the affectionate association of Peter with Mark (1 Peter 5:13).

Although the church members in Rome sustained both Apostles during the apostolic period, and Paul may have had many Jewish converts as well, he seems to have looked for most of his support among the gentile converts. He admits that this was true in certain places even outside of Rome when he states in I Cor. 1:12, some said, "I am of Paul;. . . and I of Cephas." In Colossians, while referring to Mark as one of his fellow workers and comforters, Paul also makes it clear that Mark is one of only three of ecclesia circumciionae who are with him. The rest seem to be gentile converts.

Now, one final consideration. Did Peter live and die in Rome? The Roman tradition can be affirmed with an unequivocal yes. The weight of both historical and traditional evidence supports the claim.

On the other hand, however positive the evidence and tradition seem to be as to his presence and death in Rome, the facts as to his burial are lacking. Here, the evidences made available through archeological findings and tradition, including folklore, must be employed.

Some scholars believe that when Tacitus discussed the multitudo ingens of Christians who died "among ourselves," there was an implied reference to Vatican Hill as Peter's place of death (Lowrie 108). This, together with the claim in 1st Clement, makes an interesting combination.

The examination of mounds of material from Gaius, Zephyrinus, Proklos and the Montanist cults, the Petrine and Pauline cults of the third century, the records of the Ecclesia Apostolorum, the Epigram of Damascus, the Diggings of 1917, 1949, and the most recent archeological findings at the Vatican, provide convincing evidence that the Roman congregations of the third century had no united understanding. There was no consensus of opinion about the actual burial place of Peter, although there was no question in their minds that he had been buried somewhere in Rome.

It is reasonable to conclude that of two current theories pertaining to the burial of Peter, the less popular may be the more reliable. The consensus of Vatican scholars is that Peter was crucified on Vatican Hill. It is further claimed that he was buried there and that Constantine's Basilica was built over his tomb. Later, because of the threat of vandalism and persecution, the remains were temporarily removed to a spot under St. Sebastian's Church on the Appian Way, and then finally moved back to Vatican Hill. The present Cathedral of St. Peter was built over the burial place.

An alternative theory, based on this author's composite sequence information derived from inferential data in the catacomb beneath St. Sebastian's Church, together with evidence compiled by diggers and researchers ad catacumbus, suggests the possibility that Peter was crucified along the Appian Way. His body was claimed by Christians who buried him in a shallow, temporary grave near the roadside. His remains were later entombed in the catacomb over which St. Sebastian's Church was built and subsequently removed to Vatican Hill. The altar of the present Cathedral of St. Peter was built approximately 75 feet above the location of Peter's entombment. Finally, the concern is not with the present whereabouts of his bones, but whether this may have been the location of his final resting place. An interesting apocryphal account found in the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, claims that Peter met Paul on the Appian Way while they were both on the way to execution. After they embraced and parted with good feelings Paul was led away to a more distant place and was beheaded. "And seeing each other they wept for joy; and long embracing each other, they bedewed each other with tears" (Roberts and Donaldson 8:479).

Notwithstanding all this, there are numerous questions left unanswered with reference to certain others who must have figured prominently in the life of Peter. For those of us whose minds remain restless over such, as yet, unsolved problems, there will be the anticipation that some future researcher historian will be able to tell us more about Perpetua, said by Clement of Alexandria to have been the wife and companion of Peter on many missionary journeys. What was her final fate? According to Clement, Peter saw his wife led away to her death and called out to her as a parting word of comfort and admonition, "Remember thou the Lord" (Ibid. 2:541).

How did the missionary couple of Aquila and priscilla end their lives after years of service? Their home was open to the brethren and other members—a place of refuge and assembly. Flavia Domitilla, and her husband, Senator Flavius Clemens, were Christians, but were also relatives of the Emperor Domitian, and their sons were claimants to the imperial throne. Their house (Flavian) was a central gathering place in Rome for leaders and laity alike. As with much of Peter's story, it is likely that more was buried with them than has ever yet been uncovered.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Originally Posted by Aesa

That's an interesting question Ben.
No particular version, I read the KJV, ESV, Icelandic, NIV, NKJV, and many others.

It's the Holy Spirit which speaks the truth of the text, not the actual words themselves. For, all our translations are but commentaries on the original. As, one would assume (being that the plates are real), the Book of Mormon is too.

You obviously haven't read the Book of Mormon if you assume it's a book of Biblical commentary.