This is something that apostate Christendom, among many other things, seemed to forget all about. It's the last verses in the OT where God promises to send Elijah back to the earth prior to that "great and dreadful day of the Lord," or the second coming of Christ. It is recorded in the 110th section of the D&C where Elijah fulfills that promise by his appearing in the Kirtland temple on April 3, 1836. I have just been wondering what apostate Christendom thinks of that, or even if they do think of that. Maybe they are still waiting for him to come to them. Anyhow, I hope that they are not holding their breath.

For behold, yea, in the previous verse Elias appeared, even one of the great and glorious translation errors of King James Version!

LOL opps. I thought when I read his OP he may not know about that one.

What makes Christianity "apostate"?

If only Brother Joseph had known that Elias and Elijah were the same person.

I rather suspect Brother gdemetz knew...

Or he know dozen different "explanation" ... The writers of Bible Dictionary were hard workers, and McConkie made his homework in MD.

You need to read "Mormon Doctrine" and look up Elias and Elijah! The OT correctly states "Elijah," which is what I referred to! D&C also mentions "Elijah's return in fulfillment of that prophecy! Elias was a prophet in a earlier dispensation of which we know little about, however, the term "Elias" is also used to denote someone who is a messenger or a forerunner. You should look this term up!

Please don't use the personal pronoun "we" here. Use the singular.

As GBH did it:



BTW
...and You see nothing beyond the limits of Your Bible Dictionary.

We're not allowed to use 'Mormon Doctrine' because it's not Mormon Doctrine.
Ask bcspace.

uhh.... I suppose they would be quite the fools for not simply taking Joseph's and Oliver's word for it? Unfortunate they are not as intelligent as yourself in this regard.

Well, this is not merely something that I heard and swallowed immediately. I am a convert to the church who has investigated it as well as other churches for almost sixty years.

In terms of the factual things you have subsequently learnt about the Church since your conversion. - which do you think you should have been taught about by the Church as part of that process rather than finding out for yourself afterwards?

I'm thinking that you wouldn't have been taught about how the Book of Mormon was actually translated, why Joseph Smith was imprisoned, polyandry, etc etc.

Polyandry is something which I found out about much later myself, but I do understand why the church does not teach that, as well as certain other things, generally. I think that you would agree with me when I say that there are many members who are not that knowledgeable of church theology, or any theology for that matter, and consequently are not ready for deeper doctrines. I've had even high priests get upset with me when I would try to teach them some of the deeper doctrines of the church.

Personally, I think the Church deliberately withholds too much information from potential converts.
The Church expects them to convert to the Gospel without knowing the covenants they will be required to make to reach the Celestial Kingdom. That's wrong, that makes it a con job.

Then perhaps you believe that Christ was also since he withheld many things also because He knew that the people were not ready to hear them!

You do not know what Christ did or did not teach.
You only know what people reported Him teaching and they did so based on second or third hand accounts rather than personal experience.

I think Christ would be disappointed with how convoluted His Gospel has become inside Mormonism.

I basing that on all the written accounts concerning what He said. There is much more record of that that some of the secular things that you believe.

Sorry gd I do not know what this sentence is saying.

Do you mean you have writings other than the Standard Works of the Church that record what Christ did and said?

In terms of the second part, can you give me an example of something secular that I believe in that has less factual supporting evidence than that supporting what Christ did or didn't do?

That's the hasty, sloppy excuse they made for Joseph's blunder. Elias is simply the Greek form of Elijah. The NT (written in Greek originally) calls Elijah Elias. Joseph didn't know that, and so mistakenly thought they were two different people.

The fact that Joseph claimed visitations from BOTH Elias and Elijah is evidence he was fabricating his visions and revelations. They're the same person.

Are you claiming that Elijah need only to appear in a vision to Joseph and Oliver to fulfilll the the promise and that for Elijah to actually appear in normal reality to fulfill the promise is not required?