Can We Accept Christ . . .

[consiglieri]

One of the large dividing points between LDS Christianity and Evangelical Christianity is the concept of latter-day prophets and apostles.

The LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.

The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.

I think Jesus spoke to this issue in the following passages, which may serve as a good starting point to a lively discussion:

John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Matt.10:40

[LDSMusic483]

One of the large dividing points between LDS Christianity and Evangelical Christianity is the concept of latter-day prophets and apostles.

The LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.

The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.

I think Jesus spoke to this issue in the following passages, which may serve as a good starting point to a lively discussion:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think your quotes nail it on the head. If we truly do accept Christ, shouldn't we recognize those He has sent? If we don't recognize them...would we recognize Christ if He came to teach us Himself? For many members, it seems foreign to even attempt to try to separate the two. I imagine for many non-lds christians, it is foreign to try to join the two together. Their belief (to my understanding anyway) is that Christ has sent all those special witnesses He was going to send, and that their teachings are in the bible, and there is no more need to look for or accept other servants/representatives.

edited to add that the words of the song "Jesus was no ordinary man" kinda run through my mind about whether we could recognize Christ if He came today.

[3DOP]

I think your quotes nail it on the head. If we truly do accept Christ, shouldn't we recognize those He has sent? If we don't recognize them...would we recognize Christ if He came to teach us Himself? For many members, it seems foreign to even attempt to try to separate the two. I imagine for many non-lds christians, it is foreign to try to join the two together. Their belief (to my understanding anyway) is that Christ has sent all those special witnesses He was going to send, and that their teachings are in the bible, and there is no more need to look for or accept other servants/representatives.

edited to add that the words of the song "Jesus was no ordinary man" kinda run through my mind about whether we could recognize Christ if He came today.

If I were Evangelical, I would suggest that Evangelicals accept those to whom Christ was speaking in the passage, and were sent by Him. The passage need not imply a continuous line of "sent ones".

[3DOP]

If I were Evangelical, I would suggest that Evangelicals accept those to whom Christ was speaking in the passage, and were sent by Him. The passage need not imply a continuous line of "sent ones".

As an LDS, believing that there are indeed Latter Day Apostles and Prophets sent by Christ with equal with authority to those in Christ's days on earth, you have to admit that any adherence to Christ among non-Mormons, which rejects those who Christ has truly sent, is in some sense defective.

As a Catholic, I believe also in the obligation to identify those He has sent continually since the times of the Apostles. Like Mormons, we understand that an innocent ignorance can be a mitigating factor in determining how culpable one is for rejecting those Christ has sent. While we would have hope for anyone who rejects Christ's "sent ones", we must admit that they necessarily have a less than perfect acceptance of Christ's message, and therefore, a less than perfect relationship to Christ.

I think Catholics must admit that any individual believer, may by grace have acquired more sanctity than some individual Catholic who has actually "received those Christ has sent." Nevertheless, to "receive those Christ has sent" will always result in an even higher perfection of unity with The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

As a mormon apostate, I personally have no qualms about accepting those who I consider to be God's chosen. My bookshelf contains a book containing the comments of Gandhi. I study the Edgar Cayce material. I believe Richard Bach recieved the jonathan livingston seagull story in a vision. I even believed the people of findhorn talk to fairies for a while.

Each of the above (except findhorn) provided something of value. When I read there literature it produced a change in me. Through there writings they each provided guidance in dealing with others.

Which of the mormon leaders do you consider the most capable of providing counsel? How has there counsel helped you to forgive when you when you were wronged by your neighbor? Are you a better neighbor as a result of his/her writings?

[thesometimesaint]

sleepyhead:

Right now that would be Thomas S. Monson, and the other current Apostles. Read the latest General Conference reports.

[SilverKnight]

One of the large dividing points between LDS Christianity and Evangelical Christianity is the concept of latter-day prophets and apostles.

The LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.

The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.

It's a matter of de fact reality for Evangelicals. Since there are clearly no more Divinely Appointed representatives of Christ living on the earth today (as in prophets and apostles), we evidently are meant to accept Christ independent of any earthly representative.

[consiglieri]

It's a matter of de fact reality for Evangelicals. Since there are clearly no more Divinely Appointed representatives of Christ living on the earth today (as in prophets and apostles), we evidently are meant to accept Christ independent of any earthly representative.

But if that is their point of view, how does that square with their belief that they have reconstituted original New Testament Christianity?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[notJoeKing]

So I have been lurking for a while but this post inspired me to register and post.

As an inactive Mormon, my biggest doubts regarding the LDS church are doubts about the inspiration of LDS leaders (bishops thru prophets, past and current).

Assuming the LDS church is God's church, does that mean my doubt of their inspiration = doubt of Christ? Right now I feel like my belief in Christ + my doubt of the inspiration of leaders = The LDS church is not God's church.

So I guess my question is, when the leaders of the LDS church do a plethora of uninspired things (blessings, callings, etc.) where you would expect inspiration, what else can it possibly mean other than denying that these men are inspired by Christ?

Yes, I have been lurking so I fully expect to be looked down on/chastized/etc. by certain posters here... the attitudes and actions of many of the members of the LDS church (both locally and on the internet) are only a minor issue of mine compared to the issue of the actions and attitudes of the leaders.

[SilverKnight]

But if that is their point of view, how does that square with their belief that they have reconstituted original New Testament Christianity?

Do they believe this?

I was under the impression that the Bible, the remnant of Christianity that matters, has been preserved and serves as their Guide. So instead of living representatives they have a living word - the bible.

[SilverKnight]

So I have been lurking for a while but this post inspired me to register and post.

As an inactive Mormon, my biggest doubts regarding the LDS church are doubts about the inspiration of LDS leaders (bishops thru prophets, past and current).

Well the relative inspiration of LDS church leaders isn't what determines the truth or falsity of the LDS church - it's the testimony (or fabrications) of Joseph Smith.

I think your issues have less to do with the church and more to do with God - why isn't he showing you powerful supernatural evidences of LDS leaders inspiration.

Will you find evidence of inspiration anywhere? I don't think so.

Assuming the LDS church is God's church, does that mean my doubt of their inspiration = doubt of Christ? Right now I feel like my belief in Christ + my doubt of the inspiration of leaders = The LDS church is not God's church.

Well you are doubting LDS leaders cause you fail to see anything supernatural in their actions - but are willing to give Christ the benefit of your doubt. That's fine.

So I guess my question is, when the leaders of the LDS church do a plethora of uninspired things (blessings, callings, etc.) where you would expect inspiration, what else can it possibly mean other than denying that these men are inspired by Christ?

This an excellent synopsis of why atheists/agnostics believe organized religion is a bunch of bunk.

In your opinion have LDS leaders ever done anything inspired?

The religion Joseph Smith created, was it inspired?

Yes, I have been lurking so I fully expect to be looked down on/chastized/etc. by certain posters here... the attitudes and actions of many of the members of the LDS church (both locally and on the internet) are only a minor issue of mine compared to the issue of the actions and attitudes of the leaders.

No need to start with a chip on your shoulder. There are many critics on this board.

Perhaps you should start a thread about "the actions and attitudes of the leaders" that you disagree with it and see what people have to say, both from believers and critics. That's the whole purpose of this forum.

[3DOP]

So I have been lurking for a while but this post inspired me to register and post.

As an inactive Mormon, my biggest doubts regarding the LDS church are doubts about the inspiration of LDS leaders (bishops thru prophets, past and current).

Assuming the LDS church is God's church, does that mean my doubt of their inspiration = doubt of Christ? Right now I feel like my belief in Christ + my doubt of the inspiration of leaders = The LDS church is not God's church.

So I guess my question is, when the leaders of the LDS church do a plethora of uninspired things (blessings, callings, etc.) where you would expect inspiration, what else can it possibly mean other than denying that these men are inspired by Christ?

Yes, I have been lurking so I fully expect to be looked down on/chastized/etc. by certain posters here... the attitudes and actions of many of the members of the LDS church (both locally and on the internet) are only a minor issue of mine compared to the issue of the actions and attitudes of the leaders.

You set the rules...assuming the LDS Church is God's Church...

I don't think it implies that you doubt Christ, but you doubt those Christ sent, the Latter Day Apostles, which is a serious defect if the Scripture quotes from the opening post mean anything. I am not Mormon now. Under your groundrules, assuming the LDS Church is God's Church, it could be admitted that I have a relationship to Christ that is limited because of my failure to recognize those Christ has sent. In other words I don't partake of the ordinary means of grace available to active, believing LDS. I see this as a reasonable and even necessary position from their perspective.

PS: Hey notJoe, welcome.

[Flyonthewall]

So I have been lurking for a while but this post inspired me to register and post.

As an inactive Mormon, my biggest doubts regarding the LDS church are doubts about the inspiration of LDS leaders (bishops thru prophets, past and current).

Leaders are just mortal men like you and me(assuming you are male). They are given a mantle of responsibiilty and authority for their given position, that is theirs to use, but they have to use it. Not all leaders use it all the time.

Assuming the LDS church is God's church, does that mean my doubt of their inspiration = doubt of Christ? Right now I feel like my belief in Christ + my doubt of the inspiration of leaders = The LDS church is not God's church.

I would take that to mean that "not all leaders are perfect".

So I guess my question is, when the leaders of the LDS church do a plethora of uninspired things (blessings, callings, etc.) where you would expect inspiration, what else can it possibly mean other than denying that these men are inspired by Christ?

An honest question, what would you consider an inspired blessing? How would you determine if a calling was inspired? By the way, not all callings are through inspiration, some are through desparation.

Even if a calling was made by inspiration, that person called, has the free agency to not act through inspiration.

Yes, I have been lurking so I fully expect to be looked down on/chastized/etc. by certain posters here... the attitudes and actions of many of the members of the LDS church (both locally and on the internet) are only a minor issue of mine compared to the issue of the actions and attitudes of the leaders.

No chastisement or downward looks...just need to get a feel of where you are coming from. Sometimes people expect more from others than is given, and that leads to personality conflicts.

[notJoeKing]

Well the relative inspiration of LDS church leaders isn't what determines the truth or falsity of the LDS church - it's the testimony (or fabrications) of Joseph Smith.

I disagree. A firm belief in JS's testimony does not make one LDS anymore than a firm belief in Christ's testimony makes one Catholic. Aside from that, simply believing in his testimony would not make me overlook the possibility that somewhere along the line the LDS church could have fallen away, nor negate the need for me to have a testimony that each of the prophets was indeed a prophet of the Lord.

I think your issues have less to do with the church and more to do with God - why isn't he showing you powerful supernatural evidences of LDS leaders inspiration.

Not at all. I don't need any supernatural evidence. I just need the actions of the leaders to not resolve to be the most uninspired action imaginable. I would list examples but I feel it would only serve to derail the thread.

Will you find evidence of inspiration anywhere? I don't think so.

Well you are doubting LDS leaders cause you fail to see anything supernatural in their actions - but are willing to give Christ the benefit of your doubt. That's fine.

This an excellent synopsis of why atheists/agnostics believe organized religion is a bunch of bunk.

I really don't think I'm looking for supernatural. I would be quite satisfied with "logical" or anything other than "decidedly uninspired".

In your opinion have LDS leaders ever done anything inspired?

Have they done things that could be called inspired? Absolutely. But I was watching a show about psychics the other day (for comical value) and I managed to predict 4 out of 4 predictions that they put forth before the commercial breaks. Does that make me psychic? Hardly.

The religion Joseph Smith created, was it inspired?

That's my question as well.

No need to start with a chip on your shoulder. There are many critics on this board.

I sincerely apologize. I regretted posting that. There are many on the board that I respect and look forward to talking with and only a few whose responses I already dread.

Perhaps you should start a thread about "the actions and attitudes of the leaders" that you disagree with it and see what people have to say, both from believers and critics. That's the whole purpose of this forum.

Good point. I will try to do that as time allows. My problem with posting my specific problems will be pat answers that will give me no assistance at all but I guess that is a risk worth taking as long as people don't mind hearing my specific complaints.

I don't think it implies that you doubt Christ, but you doubt those Christ sent, the Latter Day Apostles, which is a serious defect if the Scripture quotes from the opening post mean anything. I am not Mormon now. Under your groundrules, assuming the LDS Church is God's Church, it could be admitted that I have a relationship to Christ that is limited because of my failure to recognize those Christ has sent. In other words I don't partake of the ordinary means of grace available to active, believing LDS. I see this as a reasonable and even necessary position from their perspective.

PS: Hey notJoe, welcome.

Thanks for the welcome and the reply

[Lightbearer]

One of the large dividing points between LDS Christianity and Evangelical Christianity is the concept of latter-day prophets and apostles.

The LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.

The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.

I think Jesus spoke to this issue in the following passages, which may serve as a good starting point to a lively discussion:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think you answered your own question in the quotes you provided. But as a starting point I believe that this is the major dividing point between LDS with protestant Christianity and especially Evangelicals. The necessity for authority of the priesthood is totally lost on them. In fact their standing as a "real" Christian church depends upon the idea of a quasi-priesthood of all believers. The following comes to mind:

(2 Nephi 28:3-8 ) "For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lordâ??s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lordâ??s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lordâ?? And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance. And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men; Behold, hearken ye unto my precept; if they shall say there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles; he hath done his work. Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear Godâ??he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God."

By stating that there are no authorized representatives of Christ on the earth today they can like the Jews did in the time of Christ, cling to scripture as the "final authority" and say that since there is no priesthood to preform ordinances then ordinances (such as baptism) are not essential to salvation and so all one must do is just believe. A nice neat package, however it does deny the scriptures that you quoted or at least attempts to explain them away.

[Senator]

So I guess my question is, when the leaders of the LDS church do a plethora of uninspired things (blessings, callings, etc.) where you would expect inspiration, what else can it possibly mean other than denying that these men are inspired by Christ?

None!

The question then becomes; what are you going to do with them? It all becomes personal.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I knew you read my blog, consig!

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2007/09/he...ceiveth-me.html

[Tchild2]

The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.

What process would be used to determine the correct "earthly representatives" of Christ? It seems obvious to me that the if such a distinction could be made, people would follow. The reason they don't is precisely because that determination cannot be made with any objective criteria.

If I were an outsider being asked to determine if LDS leaders were true representatives, I might think that Jesus was into real estate and malls.

[consiglieri]

Yes, I have been lurking so I fully expect to be looked down on/chastized/etc. by certain posters here... the attitudes and actions of many of the members of the LDS church (both locally and on the internet) are only a minor issue of mine compared to the issue of the actions and attitudes of the leaders.

Hi, NJK!

If all this thread accomplishes is to woo you out of obscurity and into the light, it is a good thing in my opinion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

What process would be used to determine the correct "earthly representatives" of Christ? It seems obvious to me that the if such a distinction could be made, people would follow. The reason they don't is precisely because that determination cannot be made with any objective criteria.

You may be right about this, but from the evangelical view, what additional "objective criteria" would there be to accept the New Testament authors as Christ's true representatives?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[sleepyhead]

You may be right about this, but from the evangelical view, what additional "objective criteria" would there be to accept the New Testament authors as Christ's true representatives?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hello Consiglieri,

The additional criteria is that the individuals who wrote the NT are dead and there is no line of succession. There isn't the connection made that if one believes peter was God's representative that proves that oral roberts is god's representative. Each individual is evaluated independantly based on the value of the information they provide.

Actually we don't accept the NT authors as individuals. Some of their writings (not all) were determined to be scripture by a group of individuals and there selection became the official selection.

[thesometimesaint]

Sleepy Head:

See Ephesians 4:11-15 would seem to disagree.

Ephesians 4:11-14 (King James Version)

11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

[cksalmon]

One of the large dividing points between LDS Christianity and Evangelical Christianity is the concept of latter-day prophets and apostles.

The LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.

The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.

I think Jesus spoke to this issue in the following passages, which may serve as a good starting point to a lively discussion:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

But, then, EV's can simply deny the premise that Joseph Smith, for example, was a prophet of God. That is the reveal check and you're going to have move your king.

In other words, we're back to examining that very substantial LDS claim.

Best.

Chris

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ck- who are your prophets and apostles today?

[jadams_4242]

One of the large dividing points between LDS Christianity and Evangelical Christianity is the concept of latter-day prophets and apostles.

The LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.

The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.

I think Jesus spoke to this issue in the following passages, which may serve as a good starting point to a lively discussion:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I beleive that "all' religon regardless of affiliation would gladly wrap there souls around our prophet and apostles if they could get confirmation of the truth. They reject because they do not beleive, and they do not beleive because they have not confirmation, they have not confirmation because they are no allowed to ask and seek of heavenly fathers guidance . whereas the l.d.s church puts all its intergrity and emphazises on personal confirmation from the holy spirit. not to beleive in mans spoken word or even scripture, but to trust nothing but the Holy spirit. We do not teach our members about others beleifes, we teach excatly the opposite, we teach to seek,search,pray and ask the lord himself, not the pastor or bishop.