The LDS Church teaches the prophesy made by Malachi in Mal 4 concerning the coming of Elijah was fulfilled in the days of Joseph Smith when Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple in 1836.
To examine the truthfulness of this claim, let’s first take a look at the prophesy in Mal 4:1-6:
For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
So what we know from this prophesy is that a day is coming that shall burn as an oven and before that day comes Elijah the prophet will come. We also know that this prophesy was given about 400 years before the coming of the Messiah. We also know that the Jews, who are still waiting on the coming of the promised Messiah are also still waiting on this coming of Elijah because the two were connected.
Yet, in the Book of Mormon, Third Nephi Chapters 24 and 25, we have Jesus quoting Malachi in about 34AD. And according to the chapter headings this is a prophesy to be fulfilled “at the Second Coming” of Jesus Christ.
On the LDS Church’s website, this article, titled “Old Testament Prophets: Malachi”, also makes the same claim concerning this prophesy, saying it was a prophesy that would be fulfilled before the second coming.
In a study guide on the Church’s website, titled “3 Nephi 24-25: The Prophecies of Malachi”, we read how and when this prophesy was fulfilled:
“In fulfillment of this promise of the Lord through Malachi, Elijah returned to the earth in 1836 in the Kirtland Temple and committed keys of the priesthood making it possible to perform saving ordinances for those who have died (see D&C 110:13–16). He restored what is sometimes referred to as the sealing power of the priesthood. It is this power whereby families are sealed together for eternity.”
Further, this General Conference speech given in 1971 on “Elijah the Prophet”, tells us that the true meaning of turning the hearts of the children to their fathers and the hearts of the fathers to their children is genealogy and temple work or the redemption of the dead. And Mr. Hunter seems to imply that Malachi’s prophesy was always about the second coming of Christ. I find that interesting given Jesus himself tells us that this prophesy was fulfilled by John the Baptist.
Mat 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
Again we read in Mark’s account:
Mar 9:11-13
And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.
There is not a shred of ambiguity in either of these statements. Jesus clearly identified John as the fulfillment of the prophesy made by Malachi. But if you ask a Mormon about this they will point to the wording found in Matthew, with a bit of a twist, and claim that John would have been the fulfillment “if” they would have received him… but since they did not receive him, he was not the fulfillment.
They may quote Mat 11:14, which says: “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come” and claim that Jesus is saying: “if they had received him” THEN John would have been the fulfillment. But that is not what Jesus is saying at all.
Let’s take a look:
Mat 11:13-14:
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Jesus does not say that if they would have received John he would have been the fulfillment. He is clearly saying that “all the prophets and the law prophesied UNTIL JOHN” and “if ye will receive it” [THE TRUTH ABOUT JOHN], “this is Elias, which was for to come”.
John was the one sent to prepare the way for the Lord!! He was this ELIJAH which was to come!! So what does that say about “the great and dreadful day of the Lord”?
In Luke, we see Jesus in the synagogue reading from Isaiah:
Luk 4:17-29
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son? And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
Sounds almost like what Jesus said when he said: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Doesn’t it?
Turning back to Isaiah, chapter 61 tells us that “the acceptable year of the Lord” is connected to “the day of vengeance of our God” and Jesus, reading from Isaiah 61 says: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
So not only does the LDS Church deny that John was the fulfillment of this prophesy, as so stated by Jesus himself, they also deny “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John”, who was sent to prepare the way for the Lord, who is the one through whom God now speaks to mankind.
They tell us that God has “restored” to us living prophets and apostles, just as in the days of old, and ignore the fact that God no longer speaks to us through imperfect and fallible men. He no longer speaks to us through the law and the prophets, but now speaks to us “by His Son”. This is the very first thing we read in the book of Hebrews, a letter sent to those who were under the law and the prophets, those to whom the oracles of God were committed until the fulness of time was come – for God to send forth His Son.
Heb 1:1-4
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Paul speaks of Israel’s redemption from under the law in Galatians:
Gal 4:1-6
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Again, please note that the coming of Christ in the flesh also pertains to the coming of “the fulness of the time”, which is something else the LDS Church claims has to do with days of Joseph Smith and the “restoration” which, supposedly, took place less than 200 years ago through him – almost 2000 years after the coming of Elijah, the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the ushering in of the Kingdom of God.
They say we need modern-day prophets and apostles, for God does not speak to the church except through his prophets and apostles. They refuse to see the Truth! God is no longer sending SERVANTS. He has sent us HIS SON. Just as the parable of Jesus speaks in Mat 21. He is the stone that the builders rejected and “is become the head of the corner” and “whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”
There is but ONE GOD and ONE MEDIATOR between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time:
1Ti 2:1-7
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
As I stated in my previous blog entry, though the LDS Church does embrace a more liberal understanding of the Father’s plan of salvation with regard to its scope, they still do not preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ because they do not preach that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of ALL MEN, in the fullest sense.
1Ti 4:9-11
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. These things command and teach.
Not only do they not preach Jesus Christ as the Savior of all men, they do not even have a proper understanding of just exactly who the Messiah, their Redeemer, is.
These are just a few more ways in which the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fail.
Where Mormon Doctrine Falls Apart 
shematwater
January 3, 2015 at 11:28 am
I don’t know where you are getting your understanding of LDS doctrine, but let me point out a few things.
John did not fulfill Malachi’s prophecy, because Malachi was prophesying that the great Prophet Elijah, who had been taken into heaven in a fiery chariot, would return to the Earth and turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. John is not Elijah, and thus he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.
In John 1: 19-23 we read “And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.”
John the Baptist denied being the Prophet Elijah who was to fulfill the prophecy of Malachi. Why would he deny it if he was fulfilling it? But who did he say he was. He was the one sent to restore all things in preparation for the coming of Christ. (see Isaiah 40: 3). This is Elias, and while it shares the name of Elijah, it is not the same person, as John clearly states.
Now, Elijah did appear to Jesus and to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, as recorded in Matthew 17. At this time he conferred the keys of Priesthood, just as he would later do when he appeared to Joseph Smith. Both instances were a fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 4, 2015 at 9:08 am
I don’t know what you think I got wrong about LDS Doctrine, Shem. I provided references and links that go directly to the LDS Church website. Even The Book of Mormon speaks of the one who would be crying in the wilderness to prepare the way for the Lord. Are you telling me this is not speaking of John the Baptist?
I find it strange that I would quote Jesus Christ, who said that John was Elijah and the fulfillment of the Malachi prophesy and you would counter that claim with the words of John who said; “I am not.” Do you believe John’s words carry more weight than Jesus’ words?
Let’s take a look at something else Jesus said: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” (John 5:31). This is something that even Job understood in the OT when he said: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.” (Job 9:20) Note that God himself already declared Job to be “perfect and upright” in Job 1:1.
Jesus spoke of those who say “I see” and he said their sins remained. Better is it, I suppose, to be blind. But I see Mormons all the time saying: “I see.” And not only do they claim to be able to see, they seem to believe they can see into and judge other people’s hearts, as “I see” is oftentimes followed with: “Pray with a sincere heart and real intent and the Holy Spirit will tell you the truth, too.” To me, such statements are full of self-righteous condescension and should never be uttered by those claiming to hold the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. But I hear them all the time, particularly among those who like to debate with the non-LDS.
Paul understood this, as well, when he said: “Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Notice that he continues: “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.” (Php 3:13-17)
So, yes, John denied being Elijah. But one greater than John bore witness of John. Do you really want to deny His witness?
LikeLike
shematwater
January 6, 2015 at 2:51 pm
“But if you ask a Mormon about this they will point to the wording found in Matthew, with a bit of a twist, and claim that John would have been the fulfillment “if” they would have received him… but since they did not receive him, he was not the fulfillment.”
You don’t understand LDS doctrine because you are failing to separate out Elijah and Elias as the LDS do. I have never heard this explanation that you ascribe to the LDS, because the LDS know better.
In the Bible Dictionary (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/elias?lang=eng&letter=e) you read about Elias and how it is used in the scriptures, which I explain in my last post.
So, we do not deny that John the baptist was Elias, but, as John said, he was not Elijah. He did not fulfill Malachi’s prophecy, but Isaiah’s. Making this claim is not denying the witness of Christ, because understood this just as much as John did and thus their words are in perfect harmony with each other.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 6, 2015 at 8:05 pm
Shem, even the article you link points out the fact that “Elias” is the Greek form of the Hebrew “Elijah”. The reference is to Elijah. That is who the disciples of Jesus are asking about. And Jesus very clearly tells them that Elijah did come and it was John. Malachi is not a prophesy concerning the second coming. It is a prophesy concerning the day of the Lord. That day has dawned. It is called “today”.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 6, 2015 at 8:08 pm
And what I said about being told that had they accepted John then he would have been the fulfillment, but since they didn’t he wasn’t, is a direct quote from a member of the church, whether it is the official position of the church or not.
LikeLike
shematwater
January 6, 2015 at 8:21 pm
“a direct quote from a member of the church”
I actually don’t doubt that, which is why my original post does not say you were wrong, but asked where you got the information. I admit my second post had some poor choices of words, and for that I apologize.
As to the use of the term Elias, we acknowledge that it is the Greek form of Elijah. However, the Apostles were not asking about the coming of the Old Testament Prophet. If John the Baptist and Christ understood the distinction between Elijah and Elias than it is not unreasonable to say the apostles did as well. Actually, the article I referenced makes this clear.
John came in the Spirit and Power of Elias, as Gabriel declared to Zacharias (Luke 1: 17) “to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
This is very different than being the prophet Elijah who would be sent.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 6, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Well, I certainly was not suggesting that John was actually the OT prophet Elijah. So, yes, I agree that he came in the spirit and power of Elijah.
But how can you use the fact that John claimed not to be Elijah when asked by the disciples as your proof in one hand that he was not, but then turn around and claim that Jesus’ response to the same question has nothing to do with the same prophesy the disciples were asking about. And how is that prophesy not clearly from Malachi when it is worded almost exactly the same?
Again, the Jews were expecting Elijah to come before the Messiah. They wanted to know why he hadn’t, when the prophets said he would, if Jesus was the Messiah. And Jesus’ response was that he did come; they just did not know him.
The article you link states: “These passages are sufficiently clarified to show that anciently two Eliases were spoken of, one as a preparer and the other a restorer.” I did not go read the JST, but the KJV clearly identified the preparer and the restorer as the same person and John as the one who came to restore all things.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias [Elijah] truly shall first come, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS. But I say unto you, That ELIAS [Elijah] IS COME ALREADY, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. (Mat 17:11-12)
Jesus is, here, talking about John. And I believe that John the Baptist is the one who restored “the years that the locust hath eaten,” spoken of in Joel 2:25. I believe this is why we are told that “John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.” (Mat 3:4)
LikeLike
shematwater
January 8, 2015 at 3:15 pm
And again, the Jews were expecting both Elias and Elijah to come before the coming of the Messiah. When they asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah John denied it, but did state that he was the one sent to prepare the world for Christ, telling them that he was Elias.
Later, after Elijah had already appeared to the Peter, James, and John, the apostles asked about the coming of Elias, because they had known the doctrine of Elias who was also to come. In response Jesus affirmed John as Elias who was to come.
There is no contradiction in any of this, and there is no confusion. The apostles did not ask Jesus the same question that the pharisees had asked John. They were asking about two different prophecies, and the prophecies are not worded anywhere near the same.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 10, 2015 at 5:06 am
I’m not going to argue with you Shem. There is no “Elias” in the OT. It’s the Greek transliteration for Elijah and the prophesy in Isaiah and the prophesy in Malachi are not about two different comings of the Lord. They are both prophesies concerning the coming of the day of the Lord, of which there is only one. And the one who prepared the way for the Lord was Elijah, who Jesus himself identified as John the Baptist.
Malachi is not prophesying of a second coming before the first coming even happened. And the disciples referred specifically to “Elijah” (not “Elias”) when asking Jesus about the prophesy and he clearly told them that Elijah has come already and that was John the Baptist. If you would rather believe the words of Joseph Smith over the words of Jesus Christ, especially when there is absolutely no ambiguity in what Jesus said, then I don’t know what else to tell you.
Study “the day of the Lord” and maybe you will come to see that we are not waiting for it to come. It is always present. We simply have to enter into it, which we do by faith through grace. And we do it “today”. This is why Jesus said to the thief on the cross” “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” TODAY is THE DAY OF SALVATION. And once the darkness is past it is “as yesterday” and “as a watch in the night”. Read Psa 90:4 and you will see its connection to “a thousand years” being as “one day” to the Lord.
LikeLike
shematwater
January 10, 2015 at 10:42 am
I have read the scriptures, and I am very familiar with the Day of the Lord.
If you look back at what I said you will see that I stated the Elijah’s visit on the Mount of Transfiguration was a fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy, as was his visit in Kirtland. The prophecy was fulfilled twice. The same is true of Isaiah’s prophecy and the coming of Elias. Prophecy frequently is fulfilled more than once.
Also, I would say that every time the phrase “The Day of the Lord” is used in the Bible it is referring to the second coming.
You can claim there is no ambiguity, that the Bible clearly says what you claim. But I could, and actually, I do say the same things. Malachi’s prophecy clearly says that the ancient prophet Elijah would return to the Earth (which is why he never died, but was taken up in a fiery chariot). Thus, for John to have fulfilled this prophecy he would have had to literally be Elijah, and he wasn’t.
You also say that Isaiah and Malachi are prophesying the same thing. Yet, John denies fulfilling Malachi’s prophecy, and at the same time he declares he is fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. So, according to your logic, John didn’t under the scriptures very well.
I realize there is little point in continuing, as it is devolving into an argument, but I just wanted to clearly express my view on the subject.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 10, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Shem, I don’t really see what there is to argue over. What can you say that will change the fact that the disciples asked Jesus about Elijah, not Elias? What can you say that will change the fact that Jesus told them John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come? Where is that prophesy found? In the book of Malachi! Pointing out that Elijah never died and insisting on a literal interpretation of the coming of Elijah doesn’t change that fact either. And while Elijah appeared with Moses on the mount of transfiguration, Jesus never pointed to that as the fulfillment of the prophesy. Did he?
And since Moses did appear with Elijah on the mount of transfiguration it would not appear that physical death would hinder any such appearing. But, it seems to me that the lives and deaths (or non-deaths) of these two men speak volumes when it comes to spiritual truths, as Moses died at 120 years (the number of years after which God said that would strive with man no more) and Elijah was “translated”, not seeing death (as we are to translated into the kingdom of the God, without seeing death). No?
That day on the mountain Moses and Elijah typified “the law and the prophets”, which have clearly been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus tells us that “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John”. John (the last prophet) “prepared the way for the Lord” and now we are to “hear Him”. This is why they disappeared and only Jesus was left standing there.
Paul understood this that’s why he wrote to the Hebrews (to whom and out of whom the prophets came): “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Heb 1:1-3)
God is no longer speaking through the law and the prophets. He is speaking to us through His Son.
That John did not claim to be Elijah is no proves that he wasn’t or that he did not know the scriptures very well. Quite the opposite, if you ask me, because we have clear scripture proof that he was and the scriptures also tell us WHY he would NOT claim to be Elijah but would allow Jesus Christ (and the work that he was doing) to be his witness. So should we just ignore Jesus’ witness, that John was the Elijah which was to come?
When Jesus said:”Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death,” the Jews said: “Abraham is dead, and the prophets.” So today we have men quoting the Jews (just as you quote John) to prove their own false doctrines about soul sleep. Just because we can quote something from scripture doesn’t mean that the words we are quoting are ‘the truth’.
As to the day of the Lord, I think I will leave that to another day. Maybe I will write another blog on how I see that. But I will agree with you that it is, indeed, connected to the second coming of the Lord. Just remember that Paul said: “…unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” We are told to watch for his appearing, as he comes “as a thief in the night” (because he comes to those who sleep and those who sleep sleep “in the night”). Paul also wrote: “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” (Eph 5:14)
Again, I would recommend a study on the day of the Lord and how it relates to that which is called “today” and “yesterday” in the word of God, as you will begin to see that, although it is “one day to the Lord” it is one day that has been divided into two because God separated the light from the darkness and the light he called ‘the day’ (TODAY) and the darkness he called ‘the night’ (which is as YESTERDAY, once it is past). But God is THE SAME “yesterday, today, and forever” and He made a covenant with BOTH “the night” AND “the day”.
LikeLike
shematwater
January 12, 2015 at 3:07 pm
The point is that what you are calling facts are not facts, but interpretations.
Besides this your argument is self contradicting. You say that John would not have testified of himself, and that is why he denied being Elijah. Yet he clearly testifies of himself when he states he is fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. According to you Malachi and Isaiah were prophesying of the same thing, and thus in one breath John is denying being Elijah, and in the next he is declaring that he is. This would prove him a false prophet, according to you, because he is witnessing of himself.
You you have presented an argument that John contradicted himself, and proved himself a false prophet. I am not trying to offend, but this is the reasoning you have presented.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 16, 2015 at 10:09 pm
Shem, I don’t know what you think there is to interpret. I’m simply taking Jesus at his word when he says that John the Baptist was the Elijah which was to come, as prophesied in the OT scriptures (of whose coming the disciples asked). If you believe that Malachi was prophesying of the Jesus second coming before he even came the first time, i don’t know what to tell you. All I can suggest is that you study up on “the day of the Lord” (which the coming of Elijah was to PRECEDE) and how and when it “comes”.
LikeLike
shematwater
January 17, 2015 at 10:43 am
“I don’t know what you think there is to interpret.”
Well, first there is equating Isaiah’s and Malachi’s prophecies. There is nothing in either that direct links them, and thus to do so in an interpretation.
Second, the rational behind John’s denial of being Elijah is an interpretation.
Third, the insistence that every time the name Elias is used that it has to refer back to Malachi’s prophecy.
I could list a few more, but this give a good idea.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 17, 2015 at 11:38 am
1. They most certainly are linked as both are speaking of the coming of the Lord of whom ALL the law and the prophets do testify. Not only that, the words of the angel of the Lord given to John’s father, Zacharias, clearly link John to the prophesy made by Malachi when he said: “…he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias [ELIJAH], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children…” So even you made the link yourself when you said: “John came in the Spirit and Power of Elias, as Gabriel declared to Zacharias.” You simply can’t claim that John was the fulfillment of the prophesy (as Jesus does) because you have been taught to believe that the fulfillment took place when the actual prophet Elijah (supposedly) appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple in 1836,
2. It was not I, but Jesus, who said; “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” Is there more than one way to “interpreter” these words? Or shall we simply take them at face value? What do you believe these words mean, if they do not mean exactly what they say?
3. I never insisted on any such thing. I pointed out that “Elias” is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name “Elijah”. So while Elijah is the one prophesied in Malachi to come “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD” in order to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” (which you clearly admit is something that applies to John), that is certainly not the only place in which Elijah is mentioned. Nor is every mention of Elijah in the NT made in reference to this OT prophesy.
LikeLike
shematwater
January 18, 2015 at 1:56 pm
1. They are only connected if you insist on the name Elias always referring back to the Prophet Elijah, which is an interpretation in itself (see my third point). I do not agree with this interpretation, as I have said many times. Elias and the Spirit of Elias are different from Elijah and the Spirit of Elijah. John was Elias, but not Elijah, and he came in the Spirit of Elias, not the spirit of Elijah.
As to being connected through Christ, the same is true of every prophecy, as all scripture centers on Christ and thus all are connected through Him. However, they tell of very different events and the event described in Isaiah does not have a direct link to the event described in Malachi.
2. It cannot simply mean what you claim, because if it did it would make Christ a hypocrite, as he testified of himself constantly. What it really means is that if you are your only witness than the witness is false. Christ had an additional witness that verified all His claims. John the Baptist witnessed of himself, but also had Christ and the Spirit as witnesses of his mission.
3. I don’t think you grasped what I was saying here. I never said that you claimed Elijah was never mentioned except that once. I said that your interpretation of scripture is to say that any time the NT uses the name Elias it is referring back to Elijah from the OT. Now, whether this is in reference to Malachi has nothing to do with it. You have insisted that if the name Elias is used it refers to Elijah the prophet, and that is an interpretation not a fact.
LikeLike
mormondoctrinefails
January 18, 2015 at 9:53 pm
1. Do you own a Concordance, Shem? The word translated “Elias” in the NT comes from the Greek word “Hēlias”, which is a translation of the Hebrew word “Elijah”.
G2243
Ἡλίας
Hēlias
hay-lee’-as
Of Hebrew origin [H452]; Helias (that is, Elijah), an Israelite: – Elias.
H452
אליּהוּ אליּה
‘êlı̂yâh ‘êlı̂yâhû
ay-lee-yaw’, ay-lee-yaw’-hoo
From H410 and H3050; God of Jehovah; Elijah, the name of the famous prophet and of two other Israelites: – Elijah, Eliah.
Your own reference states: “There are several uses of this word in the scriptures. (1) It is the New Testament (Greek) form of Elijah (Hebrew), as in Luke 4:25–26, James 5:17, and Matt. 17:1–4. Elias in these instances can only be the ancient prophet Elijah whose ministry is recorded in 1 and 2 Kings.”
Of course, it then goes on to say: “The curious wording of JST Mark 9:3 does not imply that the Elias at the Transfiguration was John the Baptist, but that in addition to Elijah the prophet, John the Baptist was present (see Mark 9:4 note a)” And why is that? Because Joseph Smith’s translation of Mark 4 has “John the Baptist” on the mount of transfiguration with Moses. So the church’s explanation is that it wasn’t just Moses and Elijah (as the Bible says), but Moses, Elijah and John the Baptist. Later, your reference goes on to say :”(4) A man called Elias apparently lived in mortality in the days of Abraham, ….” They have to say “apparently” because there is no evidence for it, other than Joseph Smith’s claims that make Elijah and Elias two different men.
2. It can’t mean what I say it means, but (instead) “What it really means is that if you are your only witness than the witness is false. Christ had an additional witness that verified all His claims. John the Baptist witnessed of himself, but also had Christ and the Spirit as witnesses of his mission.” Hmmm…. and what did you think I was saying that it means? Jesus DID NOT bear witness of himself, it only appeared that way to those who did not know who he was. He was witnessed by the law and the prophets. And HIS WORKS (which were the work OF THE FATHER) bore witness of who He was.
3. I think it is you who is failing to grasp what is being said, as you keep rephrasing my words in order to make it appear as if I said something different. Where did I ever claim that you were accusing me of claiming “Elijah was never mentioned except that once.” I never said that, nor did I understand you to be saying that. What you did say was that I was “insist[ing] that every time the name Elias is used that it has to refer back to Malachi’s prophecy.” To which I replied: ” I never insisted on any such thing.” So your next statement: “I said that your interpretation of scripture is to say that any time the NT uses the name Elias it is referring back to Elijah from the OT,” is false because you said that I was insisting that “it has to refer back to Malachi’s prophecy.” So, to say now: “Now, whether this is in reference to Malachi has nothing to do with it,” is to change was you said (since that is exactly what said I was “insisting” on). And now you say: “You have insisted that if the name Elias is used it refers to Elijah the prophet, and that is an interpretation not a fact.” And to that I say (AGAIN), that is not what I said! How in the world can I be insisting that every reference to Elias in the NT refers to the OT prophet Elijah when I am saying that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophesy made by Malachi concerning the coming of Elijah? All I have said is that the name “Elias” in the NT (KJV translation) should read “Elijah” and it does in most, if not all, other English translations. That is not my “interpretation” that is A FACT. In the HEBREW it is ELIJAH! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias) If you want to believe that these are references to two different men with the same name, then go right ahead! But the name “Elias” comes from the Hebrew name “Elijah”.
LikeLike