Rob Bowman Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Vance,You wrote:Not quite, we can't say that about Priesthood authority. EVs don't have it. Period!!How do you know? What puts you in a position to judge? Is this not between evangelicals and the Lord?Regarding evangelicals getting into the celestial kingdom, you wrote:Nah. They have to accept the Gospel some time to get to the Celestial Kingdom. And probably will.How do you know? What puts you in a position to judge? Is this not between evangelicals and the Lord?As for whether someone who rejects Jesus even in the afterlife can become a god, you replied:Nah. They have to accept Jesus, and His Gospel sometime to become a "god".How do you know? What puts you in a position to judge? Is this not between them and the Lord?Annoying, isn't it?
Mudcat Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) Seems the thread has gotten quite protracted since the weekend. I am going to try and get some posting done this evening. However, in the spirit of things as they stand. I would offer the following quote."I know you are, but what am I!" - P.W. Herman Edited August 31, 2011 by Mudcat
wenglund Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) I think Rob should post something like this on his website.It would be the reasonable and courteous thing to do. However, letting each side speak for themselves clearly doesn't fit Rob's pathology. Perhaps he is only capable of knocking down straw men. Who knows?Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited August 31, 2011 by wenglund
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 "I know you are, but what am I!" - P.W. Herman Dang.There goes my whole theory about how original my kids were while they were growing up!
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 wengland:One definition of insanity is arguing against yourself and loosing that argunment.
Vance Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) How do you know? What puts you in a position to judge? An understanding of the true gospel. How do you know? What puts you in a position to judge?An understanding of the true gospel. How do you know? What puts you in a position to judge?An understanding of the true gospel.Edited to add, As for whether someone who rejects Jesus even in the afterlife can become a god, you replied:Nah. They have to accept Jesus, and His Gospel sometime to become a "god".How do you know? What puts you in a position to judge? Is this not between them and the Lord?For it to be between them and the Lord? Wouldn't that require them to accept the Lord as the Lord? Edited August 31, 2011 by Vance
wenglund Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) To me, what is annoying is when someone repeatedly asks questions and makes comments while only pretending to let each side speak for themselves.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited August 31, 2011 by wenglund
wenglund Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 wengland:One definition of insanity is arguing against yourself and loosing that argunment. Good Point!Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Calm Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) And I sincerely believe that what I have stated is the LDS Church's position. And why are you even arguing with it? Because for some reason you think I am trying to spring a "gotcha" on you. Frankly, that's silly. Not me. I am only arguing with you because I think you are wrong even if it is a sincere bellef (alas, sincerity has never been a good measure of what is real, imo and often the more a person seems sincere, the more I become convinced they likely got it wrong since high emotion often clouds judgment). And I believe I have a right to have my beliefs represented properly if someone takes it upon himself to go out and teach others about them if he does so without permission from me or my church's leadership. All I am trying to show is that Mormons should be just as skeptical of an evangelical's testimony when it deviates from what Mormons think is true as evangelicals are skeptical of a Mormon's testimony when it deviates from what evangelicals think is true. What is so hard about that idea to accept?Why do we need to be concerned about someone else's spiritual belief in such a way? We can teach our beliefs just fine without having to prove someone's personal witness is wrong. It is not some competition where if they win, we somehow lose. Rather winning is accomplishing anything that brings them closer to the Lord, even if that means they become rededicated to becoming better Evangelicals or better Catholics. Even if they protest that they have received a witness that our teachings are false, the appropriate response is not to debate those beliefs, but to ask them to sincerely pray about both sets of belief, study and ponder them and compare them with their scriptures and in their heart and mind seeking inspiration from the Spirit to direct on which beliefs they should invest in. That's all as LDS we need to do to fulfill the goals of our missionary work (we are happy and grateful when they invite us to share their exploration and feel humbled---well most of us, but admittedly some young men have to work on this---when others look to us for guidance, but our work is to answer questions about our beliefs, not to critique or dismantle others'.If you can't see any differences between evangelical and Mormon testimonies, this ought to be as much a concern to you as it is to me. If we both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, and we both believe in Christ, why do our testimonies clash in their fundamental truth-claims? I have an answer to this question, and apparently some of you do not. If you don't feel any need to have an answer, that's your business. I happen to think it is a valid and important question.I have an answer to it as well, but since it doesn't provide any additional spiritual enlightenment and is more likely to create a diversion for someone trying to explore to the best of their ability their own spiritual questions, I feel no need to proclaim it far and wide on any message board as if there was anything inherently significant or profound in that analysis. Now if it was on a sociological or psychology board....that might be an appropriate place to discuss my findings.And if you desire to spend your time discussing the differences that's up to you. However, if there are so many fundamental differences as you claim, there should be no reason to have to alter any LDS belief to make it a neater fit your proposition and a great many reasons to work hard at getting them right and making use of all your resources to do---and coming on here to prove your presentation is right instead of how to make it more accurate isn't making good use of your resource, at least not if your intent is to open the hearts and minds of LDS to the Lord. Why not simply let LDS speak for themselves keeping commentary to a minimum and listening closely and working with criticism instead of trying to defend it so much that the errors are perpetuated and even inflated from what I've seen, not removed; that's where you go wrong not understanding the overall LDS context that is dependent not only on how a doctrine is taught, but how it is put into practiced since our beliefs are not static things to be dissected in some test tube, but more like performance art where the beauty is exposed through action. When you continue to stubbornly refuse to change your evaluation of the LDS position no matter how many LDS spend time challenging you on your 'translation' when there are plenty of other valid differences you could be focusing on....now that is silly....and likely counterproductive because it leads most LDS in my experience to discredit the rest of your work as they can't understand why you would insist on attacking something that doesn't exist if you actually had something else, something of value to attack.There have been a few nonLDS posters over the years that have made it clear it is possible to not only approach interfaith dialogue this way, but that it is the most successful way (if your goal is actually understanding and explanation and even persuasion). 3DOP and David Waltz (who has gone missing from the boards and who I miss dearly and hope all is well) are prime examples of great missionaries for their Catholic faith. I have incorporated some of their understandings into my own spiritual beliefs and if I ever come to doubt the LDS faith, I know I can quickly find a spiritual home within the Catholic one....something I would never had seriously considered before I met them. There have been a few Protestants who have attempted this style and level of dialogue, but haven't had as much opportunity to discuss so I don't believe I've had a chance to give them 'equal time', but I have no doubt given what kind of people these are that there will be many good reasons for me to seriously consider their faith.Which is in complete contrast to you, Mr. Bowman. Your approach leave me with no expectation that I would feel at home worshipping under the same roof as you or that I would find great comfort in the beliefs you hold as their purpose seems to be more about attacking others than creating an environment that welcomes the Spirit and opens the heart and mind to the Lord. And my response is a common one from what I've seen. So depending on what your actual goal is---if it is simply to make LDS look bad to scare off your own people from taking us seriously, keep going on just as you are, it's likely the greatest path to that type of success. You might even be able to pick off a few of the weak LDS sheep sadly to say. However, if you believe that you are teaching the Good News than it seems to me you should be eager to reach out to the devout and strong LDS believer and the only way to do that is to change your approach in dramatic ways. Go and study at the feet of others such as 3DOP and David Waltz and Mudcat and blueadept and if Paul H and Richard ever show up again and you will have much greater success in drawing others to the Lord as they have done because you will be doing so in a Christlike manner, rather than invoking the presence that appears when contention and conflict is the goal. Edited August 31, 2011 by calmoriah 2
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Not me. I am only arguing with you because I think you are wrong even if it is a sincere bellef (alas, sincerity has never been a good measure of what is real, imo and often the more a person seems sincere, the more I become convinced they likely got it wrong since high emotion often clouds judgment). Why do we need to be concerned about someone else's spiritual belief in such a way? We can teach our beliefs just find without having to prove someone's personal witness is wrong. It is not some competition where if they win, we somehow lose. Rather winning is accomplishing anything that brings them closer to the Lord, even if that means they become rededicated to becoming better Evangelicals or better Catholics. Even if they protest that they have received a witness that our teachings are false, the appropriate response is not to debate those beliefs, but to ask them to sincerely pray about both sets of belief, study and ponder them and compare them with their scriptures and in their heart and mind seeking inspiration from the Spirit to direct on which beliefs they should invest in. That's all as LDS we need to do to fulfill the goals of our missionary work (we are happy and grateful when they invite us to share their exploration and feel humbled---well most of us, but admittedly some young men have to work on this---when others look to us for guidance, but our work is to answer questions about our beliefs, not to critique or dismantle others'.I have an answer to it as well, but since it doesn't provide any additional spiritual enlightenment and is more like to create a diversion in someone trying to explore to the best of their ability their own spiritual questions, I feel no need to proclaim it far and wide on any message board as if there was anything inherently significant or profound in that analysis.And if you desire to spend your time discussing the differences fine. However, if there are so many fundamental differences as you claim, there should be no reason to have to alter any LDS belief to make it a neater fit your proposition. Why not simply let LDS speak for themselves keeping commentary to a minimum because that's where you go wrong not understanding the LDS context that is dependent not only on how a doctrine is taught, but how it is put into practiced since our beliefs are not static things to be dissected in some test tube, but more like performance art where the beauty is exposed through action. When you continue to stubbornly refuse to change your evaluation of the LDS position no matter how many LDS spend time challenging you on your 'translation' when there are plenty of other valid differences you could be focusing on....now that is silly....and likely counterproductive because it leads most LDS in my experience to discredit the rest of your work as they can't understand why you would insist on attacking something that doesn't exist if you actually had something else, something of value to attack.There have been a few nonLDS posters over the years that have made it clear it is possible to not only approach interfaith dialogue this way, but that it is the most successful way (if your goal is actually understanding and explanation). 3DOP and David Waltz (who has gone missing from the boards and who I miss dearly and hope all is well) are prime examples of great missionaries for their Catholic faith. I have incorporated some of their understandings into my own spiritual beliefs and if I ever come to doubt the LDS faith, I know I can quickly find a spiritual home within the Catholic one....something I would never had seriously considered before I met them. There have been a few Protestants who have attempted this style and level of dialogue, but haven't had as much opportunity to discuss so I don't believe I've had a chance to give them 'equal time', but I have no doubt given what kind of people these are that there will be many good reasons for me to seriously consider their faith.Which is in complete contrast to you, Mr. Bowman. Your approach leave me with no expectation that I would feel at home worshipping under the same roof as you or that I would find great comfort in the beliefs you hold as their purpose seems to be more about attacking others than creating an environment that welcomes the Spirit and opens the heart and mind to the Lord. And my response is a common one from what I've seen. So depending on what your actual goal is---if it is simply to make LDS look bad to scare off your own people from taking us seriously, keep going on just as you are, it's likely the greatest path to that type of success. You might even be able to pick off a few of the weak LDS sheep sadly to say. However, if you believe that you are teaching the Good News than it seems to me you should be eager to reach out to the devout and strong LDS believer and the only way to do that is to change your approach in dramatic ways. Go and study at the feet of others such as 3DOP and David Waltz and Mudcat and blueadept and if Paul H and Richard ever show up again and you will have much greater success in drawing others to the Lord as they have done because you will be doing so in a Christlike manner, rather than invoking the presence that appears when contention and conflict is the goal.YES!To everysingleword!
Vance Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 When you continue to stubbornly refuse to change your evaluation of the LDS position no matter how many LDS spend time challenging you on your 'translation' when there are plenty of other valid differences you could be focusing on....now that is silly....and likely counterproductive because it leads most LDS in my experience to discredit the rest of your work as they can't understand why you would insist on attacking something that doesn't exist if you actually had something else, something of value to attack.Well said.But I think Bowman's approach is more along the lines of "death by 1000 cuts" rather than a single "coup de grace" attack. Of course, he is driven to this approach because there isn't a single "coup de grace" attack available to him. (But neither is the "death by 1000 cuts").
Calm Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Well said.But I think Bowman's approach is more along the lines of "death by 1000 cuts" rather than a single "coup de grace" attack. Of course, he is driven to this approach because there isn't a single "coup de grace" attack available to him. (But neither is the "death by 1000 cuts").Repeating his approach will only strengthen the observation that he has little of actual substance to offer, which I believe is wrong having learned of Evangelical beliefs from others and benefited greatly from those discussion, but any interest that I might have in them is lost and overwhelmed during the distractions that Mr. Bowman gives up in his offerings.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) calmoriah:My experience has been that it is never a good thing to tell other people what they believe. Edited August 31, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Calm Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 calmoriah:My experience has been that it is never a good thing to tell other people what they believe.It's a great idea if you want to tick them off and then play the innocent victim. Seen that happen so many times over and over again with the same people, they must be getting some great reward out of it.
jo1952 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I would say that anybody that says there is no constant companionship of the Holy Ghost after recieving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, simply does not understand the Gift of the Holy Ghost. While there are varying degrees of intensity, there is always influence from him while having the gift, whether members of the church realize it or not. Thats my personal doctrine and I believe anybody who does not agree simply does not fully understand it in my opinion. Bring out whatever scripture you want, whatever reference you will, I have a sure knowlege of this concept. But, nonetheless, I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the church, so my knowlege is my own opinion.Hi Messenger:I believe there are even further distinctions and understandings to be had concerning this. When we "receive the Holy Ghost" and are confirmed as members of the Church by the laying on of hands, I believe it is then our responsibility to live worthily in order to keep Him as our constant companion. As mentioned earlier by someone else in the thread, however, it is impossible to remain worthy constantly (at least until we are perfected). I think at those times the Holy Ghost does withdraw from us, for we must be a clean vessel for Him to stay within us. However, this does not equate to His having abandoned us. I think that even though He withdraws from us, we are then in the same type of condition as before we "received" Him; IOW, He is still near us, but He is not "in" us, and will not return until we are again worthy.Now, I have not read every single post - wow did this thread get a lot of posts in the last few days!! -- so I apologize if someone has already brought up what I am going to offer at this time.I believe that inasmuch as we are not able to remain worthy 24/7, the Holy Ghost will continue to depart from us until such time as we have actually been completely "healed" and the desire to sin has totally left us. This would be at a point where our spirit has finally managed to control our physical body, our minds, our hearts, etc., and our tabernacle of flesh becomes a vessel that has been "sealed" from the inside to the outside. At that time we will experience what has been referred to as "having our calling and election made sure"; or, also referred to as being "sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise". THAT is when we remain constantly filled with the Holy Spirit and we are able and capable and actually DO experience "exaltation". I think there are not that many who have been able to experience this fullness while in the flesh. I also believe that there are times when we can catch a glimpse of what it will be like ALL of the time as "exalted" beings during those brief moments when the Holy Ghost opens our minds to the very Kingdom of God. Those are very much "WOW" moments we are privileged to enjoy when Father chooses to reveal these glimpses to us. They are also times which I describe as receiving an epiphany because I also receive an understanding of a specific knowledge not previously revealed to me. They are moments of indescribable pure joy, clarity, a feeling of "oneness" with the spiritual world, humility, love....I simply do not have the words to express them. However, our physical bodies are not capable of remaining in this "state of being" until we HAVE been completely transformed and healed. I think that there are those who have had the opportunity to experience this for longer periods of time. They would be those who have been "changed" temporarily so that they can withstand being in the presence of God; otherwise, their physical body would have been destroyed. Those, like Moses, or John the Beloved when he received the Apocalyptic Revelation, would have been changed in this way.We are in the process of preparing ourselves for "exaltation" when the Holy Ghost works with us - it is what is happening from inside of us, purifying us and healing us until we are finally able to get our "vessels" to the point where the Holy Spirit can fill us and stay there. As we progress in our understanding line upon line, precept upon precept, this cleansing and healing is taking place inside of us, preparing us for exaltation until we achieve being sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise. Like you, I express and share my thoughts as I have come to understand these things according to my own personal experiences; therefore, I do not speak of, or represent, them as official Church doctrine. Best regards,jo
jo1952 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Seems the thread has gotten quite protracted since the weekend. I am going to try and get some posting done this evening. However, in the spirit of things as they stand. I would offer the following quote."I know you are, but what am I!" - P.W. Herman Hi Mudcat!!I'm looking forward to you getting caught up on the thread - it really took off!!Regards,jo
Mudcat Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Hi Mudcat!This issue you bring up is a sore spot between believers and LDS believers. It is perceived by non-LDS as some type of put-down by the LDS. Admittedly, I have seen LDS use this issue in a way which saddens me, because I don't think they fully understand it themselves. Unfortunately, I have seen them wave it around as though they have received some right-of-passage which places them into an elitist religious club. If I may elaborate on the concept itself, I will try to explain what I see is happening; though I am certainly no expert about what God has or has not revealed to mankind regardless of any man's particular choice of religious institution.Hi Jo!Sorry for the delay. I do agree, that it is a sore spot of sorts. But whenever people of faith run into to people that don't agree completely on matters of faith, then there will always be some sore spots. I don't mind discussing the issue, but it's a sore spot, so to speak, in that we hold differing views. Hopefully we won't feel rubbed raw by the conversation.The LDS believe (and I think it is easily supported by the Bible), that the receiving of the Holy Ghost to a specific individual, is an ordinance which is performed by someone who has the power and authority to do so. For the purposes of this post, I am not going to use any other canon then what you also accept as canon. There are indeed instances in the Bible where it appears that it was not necessary for this event to take place by the laying on of hands. You have already pointed to Cornelius. On Pentecost, as well as at other group gatherings, the Holy Ghost did descend upon entire gatherings and was manifested, for instance, through speaking in tongues. Yet there are also passages in the Bible where only those who had the power and authority to do so, would perform the ordinance for new converts who had only been baptized by water, to then use the laying on of hands for the purpose of those converst to receive the Holy Ghost. It definitely appears easy to understand how confusion, and even conflict, is being taught in the Bible. I appreciate you appealing to the Bible to make your point. However, bold mine, I do have trouble with this statement. From what I have read, what you are suggesting isn't Biblically supportable. We see instances where the apostles laid hands on people to give such a thing and we also see instances where this was not the case. What we don't see is an injunction that this gift comes only at the hands of authorized people. In fact Pentecost and Cornelius' would stand as strong evidence against even the implication of it. Furthermore LDS seem to believe such a gift must be by a Melchizedek priest and I don't think there is a Biblical sanction for that. We certainly do see the apostles laying hands on people.. giving them the Holy Ghost, but what we don't see is anything that tells us that these apostles were authorized to do this because they had become Melchizedek priests.. or something like that. Of course we also have Matthew's charge that Christ is the one who will offer such. "Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:". This charge finds correspondence in both Mark and Luke. Underline mine. I disagree. I don't see the Bible as a collection of confused and conflicted teachings. This is not to say that confusion and conflict aren't possible, however I would suggest that such confusion and conflict comes strictly from predispositional biases of the reader rather than lay such a charge on God's word.. We also believe that the Holy Ghost is the witness on the earth - whenever anyone is drawn to exercise faith and believe in Christ, it is the witness of the Holy Ghost who brings them conviction to their heart and mind that Jesus is indeed the Christ. I also believe, and this has been verified by various Church leaders, that the Father uses the Holy Ghost to teach truth to anyone who is sincerely seeking it. It does not matter who you are or what your religious affiliation is in order to be led to truth. Obviously, when Joseph Smith prayed in the woods about which church to join, HE was not LDS because there was no such thing as the LDS Church. I agree with much of what you have said and I think it is an interesting point that you bring up, in that JS was not LDS when he prayed in the woods. I suppose at that point was the “proto” LDS. But if we take his purported visions, appointment by God as a modern times prophet and so forth, would you agree that JS encounters with God were likely on a level that most people do not experience?The difference in the LDS Church is that the ordinance of "receiving the Holy Ghost" is one which allows the Holy Ghost to be a constant companion through the laying on of hands. However, this does NOT guaranty that the recipient is going to do their part to allow continual guidance by the Holy Ghost to take place. However, those who DO experience this learn to discern His presence if they are paying attention. The process that then follows is best described as the baptism by fire. But I do not believe this happens all at once; rather it happens over time. I have seen this, and have personally experienced this happening before I had ever even heard of the LDS Church. The Holy Ghost was already changing me from the inside. However, once I found the Church and "received the Holy Ghost" by the laying on of hands, I can tell you that it was "different" after that. The "way" it was different is that I became more aware of His presence and I experienced His guidance in a more conscious and more apparent way than I had before that time. Bold mine. I can't argue against your experiences but in the same token I don't have to assert them as authoritative. Certainly it seems you believe you have greater access to the HS than prior to your confirmation. Your statements are beyond objective proof. LDS seem to believe that they have a guarantee that the HS will be a constant companion to them. However LDS also believe that faith is a conditional matter, in that we can reject belief..ergo excommunication. So at best, the perceived gift of the Holy Ghost is conditional upon belief rather than an actual guarantee it seems to me that it is more of an agreement of sorts.As I see it, this gift is claimed to be something quite different than what any other religious claims offer, in that it is exclusively a feature of the CoJCoLDS. But in a practical sense, does this claim hold actual value? By that I mean. How does this gift create some positive distinction between the worst LDS you know vs. the most Christlike non-LDS that you know? Now, to add to the confusion, I have known many believers who are NOT LDS who have, what appears to me anyway, a better relationship with the Holy Ghost than members of the Church do. Since God is not a respector of persons, I do not believe He is going to withhold any Truth that a person is ready for and able to bear. In fact, as leaders of the Church have already taught, Father teaches Truth wherever He wills it; NOT just within the LDS Church. However WHAT Truth they have revealed is merely a different portion of the "whole" Truth than a portion that is revealed to a member of the Church. IOW, if we put all of the Truths together which have been revealed to various people in various denominations we would actually wind up with a bigger portion of the "whole" Truth; so, what we have all received is still Truth. I believe that we will soon be seeing the Holy Ghost manifesting more and more in these latter days in fulfillment of prophecy:Bold mine. I appreciate your generosity to those who are not LDS but are faithful.However, the question pervades, even more so with your statement. If a non-LDS can have a better relationship with the Holy Spirit than an LDS then of what value is it to be LDS in regards to a relationship with the Holy Spirit?Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Obviously, not all believers are LDS; so obviously the Holy Ghost is working all over the earthI would agree.I would say that the ordinance wherein we "receive the Holy Ghost" by the laying of hands is not only a blessing we receive as members of the Church, it is also a necessary ordinance just as any ordinance is required due to the belief that God's House is a House of Order. And there are just specific and required steps which are necessary to be met. However, the purpose of the Temples is to accomplish these steps for ALL of mankind; not just for the individual members of the Church. Therefore, believers from all over the earth will have that work done; their righteousness and the Truth they have had revealed to them does NOT equate to whether or not they are a member of the Church. Therefore, their progression is not hampered just because they did not join the Church while in the flesh. Nor is the "amount" of Truth which can be revealed to them determined by what church they belong to. The LDS Church has received revelation through latter-day Prophets. But these revelations are available to the entire world. We just want to share them so that others can enjoy the knowledge and extra joy that can be had in this lifetime. I certainly understand your desire to share your faith with others. And perhaps I am understanding your belief that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is necessary for something. But I don't see that it is a relational issue, if as you admit, some non-LDS can actually have a better relationship with the Holy Spirit than LDS. Let me ask you something Jo. Taking a look at a non-LDS that you seem to feel is really in tune with the Spirit vs. any LDS that you feel is out of step with the Spirit. Why do you feel that such a non-LDS is actually lacking such a gift?Before I close this post I would like to re-iterate some teachings you are most likely already aware of. What the LDS try to describe when speaking about how their lives are effected once they receive the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands is actually expressed very well in the Bible. John 15:15 (Jesus is speaking) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.I offered that one because I find it so interesting that Jesus tells His Apostles that He has made know unto them all that Father had told Jesus to tell them. The following passage is different, and changes gears:John 16:12-14 (again, Jesus is speaking)12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.Even though in chapter 15, Jesus claims He has taught the Apostles what Father wanted them to be told, in chapter 16, Jesus tells them that He has many more things to say (IOW, it appears there are things Jesus wants to teach them which are beyond what Father told Him to tell them). HOWEVER, they are not yet able to bear them. They have reached their then current capability to either understand or have anything more revealed to them. But when the Holy Ghost comes, He will teach them whatever He is told to teach them. Once more, we see that another member of the Godhead is not going to reveal what HE knows, He is going to wait for instruction and tell only what He is told to reveal. Interesting, huh? I also believe that not everything is going to be taught to the Apostles or anyone all at once. Just as Jesus did not teach them everything all at once, the pattern has been established concerning HOW they will continue to be led to all truth.In general I understand what you are saying. Milk, then meat.. so to speak. Progressional knowledge based upon our the growth of our faith is something I agree with. At any rate, even the Apostles weren't able to bear having anything additional revealed to them at that time. This fascinates me because I believe they had already been taught a great deal by the time Jesus has this conversation with them. Can you imagine the things they were taught? But then they were also warned against sharing everything they HAD learned. We find out why, here:1 Corinthians 3:1-6 (this is Paul speaking; emphasis added)1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.Also,Hebrews 5:11-14 (this Paul speaking, emphasis added)11Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.IOW, it was difficult for Paul to tell them, but he did so anyway, explaining that they were "dull of hearing". Remember, these were members of the church he was speaking to.And also,1 Peter 1:22-25 AND 1 Peter 2:3 (this is Peter speaking; emphasis added)22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.1 Peter 21 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.When you say they were warned not to share information, I am assuming you are referring to Mark 8:30. But I do look at this warning quite differently. They were, IMO charged with silence on the matter not because of their understanding and that fact that others couldn't understand what it meant. Rather, they were charged with silence because of their lack of understanding of what being "the Christ" actually meant. Christ wasn't about to send them out to speak on the fact that he was Christ, when they didn't really know what that fully meant.Their misunderstanding on the matter was openly revealed in the next chapter, when they suggested building two shrines to the prophets of old and one for Jesus. Later in the chapter (Mark 9:10) their uncertainty about the resurrection becomes rather blatant.Mar 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. Mar 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean. Obviously the later came to grips with whole matter though. But I think there is a lesson to be learned in it for us as well. If Christ felt the apostles should not speak past their understanding, then it would be a good idea for us to follow suit. For clarification, it is NOT the LDS who came up with the idea that some people are only able to bear certain Truths because they are not yet ready to understand more or have more revealed to them. This is a teaching that comes straight from the Bible. In fact, I would apply this same teaching to ALL believers, regardless of whether they are LDS or not.Well it doesn't really matter who came up with the idea. The only thing relevant, is if the idea is correct. Respectfully,Mudcat
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) What we don't see is an injunction that this gift comes only at the hands of authorized people. In fact Pentecost and Cornelius' would stand as strong evidence against even the implication of it. Furthermore LDS seem to believe such a gift must be by a Melchizedek priest and I don't think there is a Biblical sanction for that. We certainly do see the apostles laying hands on people.. giving them the Holy Ghost, but what we don't see is anything that tells us that these apostles were authorized to do this because they had become Melchizedek priests.. or something like that. Of course we also have Matthew's charge that Christ is the one who will offer such. "Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:". This charge finds correspondence in both Mark and Luke. Well seeing this with LDS eyes, I see these accounts quite differently than you do, in fact I see here strong evidence in favor for what you are arguing against.In fact, it is clear that Cornelius sent for Peter; I am wondering why you think he did that? I see it as indicating that Peter in fact had some authority that Cornelius lacked. Could it be that Peter had the authority? I think so!Furthermore of course we believe that the Bible in fact speaks of the Melchizadek priesthood as being given to men- I am sure you are familiar with the verses, if not I will be glad to quote them- it's just that at the moment I am in a bit of a rush.And of course we think the Matt 3 scripture you quoted, and the others in Mark and Luke, in fact are evidence that another "more mighty" in fact, Christ himself of course, who, I think we all will acknowledge DID have the "Melchizadek Priesthood" (whether or not you think it is the universal priesthood of believers or not) would come and bring that "baptism with fire". We of course think that authority was necessary to do that.Another evidence is right there in Acts 10 where it says: 44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. What was it about Peter's word which caused the Holy Ghost to fall on them? Why did Cornelius send for Peter if authority was not necessary ?Of course it doesn't say anything about the laying on of hands, but yet it doesn't preclude the possibility that Peter laid hands on those who "heard the word" either. On that point it is not clear, but I see that scripture quite differently than you do.Furthermore, my understanding of Pentecost is that it was a visitation of the Holy Spirit to those who were "unsaved"- using EV terminology- so it was more like the "altar call" experience you Evangelicals could potentially have, and I think some charismatics might in fact believe that as well.I would see that as a kind of Moroni 10: experience where the apostles who personally knew Jesus were so "fired up" (pun intended) that an incredible manifestation of the spirit occurred - but it was not in principle different from, in an LDS context, someone who receives a "testimony" of Jesus Christ and the truth of modern day prophets at say a General Conference meeting- something which is known to happen all the time.Many have testimonies of the truth of the Church while hearing the testimony of the prophets.So I see these Biblical passages as evidence in our favor, and not at all as you see them. Edited September 1, 2011 by mfbukowski
Mudcat Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Mudcat,I just wanted to give some closing thoughts. I don’t wish to debate every aspect more than I already have with regards to the differences between EV and LDS.Hi Messenger,Thanks for the thoughtful post. Sorry for the delay.. life has been busy. But (bold mine), you have offered a well stated post. If you don't wish to debate, then don't respond to my post. Much earlier in the thread you offered a post to me that I let get swept away, so to speak. But I did read it. I have thought about it and this post holds the same tang, though the edge is quite different. I want to address the recurrent thought here. In the like vein, there are some things that EV’s miss out on by not being a member.1) Understand the importance of the organization and the authority: Lets face it, when we need to get something done, we get organized. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not leave it all up to us. Without having the Gift of the Holy Ghost and having Jesus Christ actually at the head of the church, there’s not much efficiency. The authority, having Jesus Christ actually at the head, gives direction to those that do his work. While it is true, that all can be inspired, without the authority and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the traction of the organization is limited.2) Gift of the Holy Ghost: I’ve mentioned this above several times. Again, it’s the intelligence and direction of thought that boosts the authority and gives traction to his direction.I actually don't think EV's are missing out in this respect. Rather I think it is LDS. Referencing Ephesians..Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13 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 fullness of Christ: I emphasized the "he" in verse 11. Paul isn't asserting that he called himself to be an apostle nor do I think he is asserting that he has the power to call people to do anything. The power to do so lays upon the shoulders of who Paul refers.This power to give someone the ability to fulfill a role for the Kingdom of God isn't by the hand of any man, nor as I read it, is it given through any man, save Christ. And this he does directly through the Holy Spirit. There is good reason for this. That being, men with "authority" fail and fall short. This side of the veil, they always have and always will. Now for a story that describes all of the above. When I was a missionary in Australia, I had only 4 years of experience being a member. I had more experience being a Born Again Christian. One day I was walking with my companion in a wooded neighborhood near Midland, Western Australia. When walking up a steep hill in a residential area, we stopped to rest. An older man, who at first seemed kind, started talking about religion. We seemed to have some things in common, and then his demeanor changed. His face actually got quite ugly and my spiritual alarm started going off. He got quite loud, in fact, I had a spiritual insight that neighbors could be watching us and that it might appear that we were arguing with him, when all we were actually doing was listening to him yell at us, and try and demean us. I asked, in a silent prayer in my mind, while he was yelling at us, what we should do. The impression was to walk away. So I did, and my companion followed. As we walked up the steep hill, the old man followed us, even at our quick pace. I again, got the impression that others that may look would see that we might appear to be running away from this man after starting an argument. I said a quick prayer about what I should do. I then got a stronger, almost urgent impression that he was going to have a heart attack unless I did something. In my mind I said these words, “Heavenly Father, by the power of the priesthood I hold, and in thy name, silence the man so that he can not speak, so that he may feel his efforts are futile, and also that he may not have a heart attack and also that the false impression that we might have given it to him wouldn’t be believed by the neighborhood.”I closed the silent prayer and kept walking at our normal quick pace. I turned around while walking up the hill to see the old man, with his mouth moving, but no words coming out, slowing down and finally stopping. My companion turned when I did, and he viewed it as well. We walked another 50 yards or so and got into our car. My companion was senior. He sat in the driver’s seat and said, “What just happened?” I gave a quick answer and we drove off to the next area. We never talked about it again. But when I came home after my mission, I was asked if I had any spiritual experiences regarding the priesthood. I told the story.Messenger, I appreciate what you are saying. And from my POV if you are believer, then you are not without the priesthood of Christ, so I don't hold your statement without merit. Though I do intend to challenge your particular view. Since we are telling stories, I do have one. It came by way of my FIL. He served on a quorum that excommunicated a fellow. The only reason he told me the story was that it was a big press issue and the details were open the public on a number of levels. He didn't speak of the details of the meeting. However he tell me an LDS college professor was caught in a sting operation. Trading sex for grades, IIRC. He was male and so were those seeking better grades. He was a prominent LDS in the community, from what I remember, I think he served as a Branch President, Stake President, Bishop or something before. Regardless, he had been in positions to "call" people to do things. I can't imagine how those who were "called" by him to do something actually felt about that. I can't imagine how the guy who "called" him to do what he was doing felt about that.. nor even then the guy that "called" the guy that called him to do what he was doing felt.. and so on.It's not like EV's don't have similar stories. I don't mean to single LDS out in that. But there is a difference, the EV perspective is that authority rests on the shoulders of God until He sets it upon our own. We bypass line the troubled line of men and their posited God given authority that LDS put seem to put so much authority merit in.Mudcat, I don’t think the Satan would ever want you to know the potential power you would have in bringing understanding to people about Jesus Christ as a result of having the Authority of the Priesthood, as well as the Gift of the Holy Ghost. And by the way, that doesn’t make me any better than you, but it does want me to share it with you. You know, and I know that Jesus Christ loves us all – We all need to realize that he wants us to grow as well.Messenger, bold mine. I believe I have both the authority in Christ's priesthood and I believe that Holy Spirit is indwelling within me. I do appreciate you sharing with me and I agree that we all need to grow in faith.Regards,Mudcat Edited September 1, 2011 by Mudcat
Mudcat Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 I believe that preparation for the the specific principles of truth that are unique to the Restored Gospel is independent of church membership. For anyone, receiving truth depends on a) the spiritual characteristics of the individual (see the parables of the sower and the talents); b) the opportunities he has to exercise those characteristics on specific principles of truth (Acts 17:26-28); and c) his openness to receiving the new or next undiscovered truth (Matthew 9:16-17; 18:4). The same would be true for the imperceptible stages one undergoes in developing characteristics and opportunities that eventually lead to acquiring the full truth (John 8:31-32; 1 Peter 5:6-11).The parables show that anyone can consciously prepare to receive more truth by honoring the truth he possesses (John 7:17). Because this preparation appears to be relative to one’s circumstances (Luke 12:48), only the Lord can judge what one has or hasn’t done to receive the truth in a time and place that accords with His plan and will for him.While we rightly invite one another to partake of the truth that we possess, and invite each other to try the methods by which that truth may be known, no man can rightly tell the other what he has or has not done to know the truth, unless he has been given the keys to do so. So when the truth is rejected, it is safest to assume that John 9:3 applies.CV, That was a great post. I won't forget it, for sure.Respectfully,Mudcat
coolrok7 Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 We prefer that you use the proper name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as "the Mormon Church."To accommodate your objection of me referring to, “the Mormon Church” (or, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, the official name of the Church you belong to), the following is provided for you (others too) to understand that your own leadership has referred to the Church/themselves in that way. Early on in their history, Mormons (Latter-day Saints) began to be referred to as “Mormons” (there have been three Different names for the Church; initially called the “Church of Christ”): I would like to speak of the institution. . .The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes known as the Mormon Church. That is not the Church’s correct name; it is only a nickname derived from our belief in the Book of Mormon, . . .—Elder Russell M. Nelson (AN APOSTLE’S TESTIMONY pamphlet, p.2)the name of the Church on the title pages of the first three printings of the revelations: “The Church of Christ- (Book of Commandments) 1833, “The Church of the Latter-day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1835), and “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1844).” (The Ensign, January 1979, p.13)Note the, “MORMON CHURCH” advertisement from a past Reader’s Digest (from last page of an insert about “Mormon Missionaries” entitled, “When You Open the Door”):FREE 150-page BOOK answers more questions about Mormons than any other book we could send you.clip, fill-in, mail this coupon to:MORMON CHURCHP.O. Box 30700, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150shows picture of book here-Please check one or more boxes belowPlease send me the FREE BOOK “A MarvelousWork and a Wonder” OR CALL TOLL FREE1-800-331-1750and ask for “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”I would like to talk with Mormon Missionaries(NOTE: No one will visit unless you check here.)My phone__________________(personal Address information here) LDS 1980”A Missionary ChurchThis explains why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must, of necessity, be a missionary church and why our missionaries take their message to other Christians, even though they are often criticized for so doing with the query, “why do you not go to the heathens? We already have Christianity.” The answer must obviously be: “Because we believe in a restored, revealed religion and church.” (A MARVELOUS WORK and a WONDER, LeGrand Richards, p.2) In a pamphlet entitled, “WHAT OF THE MORMONS?” this question is asked: Protestants or Catholics? Mormons are generally classed as Protestants, since they are not Catholics. Actually they are no closer to Protestantism then they are to Catholicism. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, p.1)Latter-day Saints are taught/believe that they are the (I’m not satisfied that it is and so far believe it is one of many groups the Bible forewarned believers about):only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. (D&C 1:30)People are invited to (which I’ve done as asked and which leads me to arrive at the above conclusion so far):explore it, to test it, to pray and search and seriously consider. . . .To the extent that you realize the importance of obtaining these answers, you will be prompted to inquire concerning their source—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (YOUR PRE-EARTH LIFE pamphlet, p.10)
Calm Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) By the way, those of you who are outraged when an evangelical presents his understanding of LDS doctrine, where were you when Mormons here were offering their obviously false spins on what evangelicals believe? Why didn't some of you object when Mormons tried to argue in this forum that Trinitarians believe in four persons--and continued to insist on this claim even after being refuted? That's just one recent example that comes to mind.The only reason I wouldn't have responded is that I hadn't read the thread at all or just that section (I don't always read all of a thread and sometimes I accidentally skip over posts like this one because of how the board marks new responses or rather in some cases does not mark new posts). If anyone has been reading my posts for very long, they should be aware I always speak up (unless I don't have time and then I use the report function and let the mods take care of it) if I see this happen. Feel free to use the report function as the mods generally are pretty strict when this happens in my experience, it also seems to me few people use the function (i do know that there has been a response every time I've reported it).I know several other posters who do the same thing, LDS and nonLDS. Edited September 1, 2011 by calmoriah
jo1952 Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Hi Jo!Sorry for the delay. I do agree, that it is a sore spot of sorts. But whenever people of faith run into to people that don't agree completely on matters of faith, then there will always be some sore spots. I don't mind discussing the issue, but it's a sore spot, so to speak, in that we hold differing views. Hopefully we won't feel rubbed raw by the conversation.Hi Mudcat!I have also found that many times “sore spots” are created by misunderstanding of exactly what another’s belief looks like. And let’s not worry about feeling rubbed raw until we resemble that remark!I appreciate you appealing to the Bible to make your point. However, bold mine, I do have trouble with this statement. From what I have read, what you are suggesting isn't Biblically supportable. We see instances where the apostles laid hands on people to give such a thing and we also see instances where this was not the case. As a result of your comment, I can now see that both you and I realize that if there appears to be conflict or confusion, then the problem is with us and how we interpret the Bible, rather than the problem being that there is real conflict or confusion. I was unaware of whether you saw conflict concerning the receiving of the Holy Ghost. I am so used to dealing with anti-LDS who actually refuse to admit that the Bible teaches that there is more than one method people received the Holy Ghost. More of this point is discussed after your next comment.What we don't see is an injunction that this gift comes only at the hands of authorized people. In fact Pentecost and Cornelius' would stand as strong evidence against even the implication of it. Furthermore LDS seem to believe such a gift must be by a Melchizedek priest and I don't think there is a Biblical sanction for that. We certainly do see the apostles laying hands on people.. giving them the Holy Ghost, but what we don't see is anything that tells us that these apostles were authorized to do this because they had become Melchizedek priests.. or something like that. Here are some passages which I believe support the belief that a person needs to have the power and authority required for whatever the calling might be. You are probably already aware that we believe that within any particular calling that there are certain duties attached to the calling itself. As such, not everyone who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood is able to perform duties which are NOT attached to the calling he has been given. Now, rather than focusing on whether or not it was the Melchizedek Priesthood that the Apostles or various other disciples held, let us first see what the NT has to say about power and authority in general. Perhaps once that has been established, we can then move on to the LDS belief that it was the Melchizedek Priesthood which was held through which this power and authority was administered. Acts 1:21-22 (emphasis added) 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.Though this does not specify “power and authority”, it nevertheless does indicate that something was special about the Apostles inasmuch as they needed to be ordained to be an Apostle. This passage just doesn’t go into any detail of what is entailed in this ordination. This is just a piece of information which, when combined with other pieces, begins to reveal a bigger picture. Acts 10:37-38 (emphasis added) 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.Notice that this passage does NOT say “the power of the Holy Ghost”; it DOES say “with the Holy Ghost AND with power. This was the power Jesus used to perform miracles; i.e. “doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil”. I would offer that “for God was with him” is an indication that God (Father) was with Jesus by means of the “power” he was anointed with.Acts 18:24-25 (emphasis added) 24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.I love this passage because it supports two things which I believe. One, is that Apollos had not yet received the Holy Ghost which is indicated where it says “knowing only the baptism of John”. He had not yet received the Holy Ghost. The second is that, even though Apollos had not yet “received the Holy Ghost”, he was STILL “fervent in the spirit”. IOW, it is not necessary to have “received the Holy Ghost” in order to be “fervent in the spirit”. The receiving of the Holy Ghost is an ordinance. As such it is a requirement to fulfill Jesus’ teaching that we need to be baptized with water AND the spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God. However, it seems obvious that this passage is teaching us you can learn about the Kingdom of God through the power of the Holy Ghost without having yet gone through the “official” ordinance of “receiving the Holy Ghost” by the laying on of hands. In Apollos’ case, since he had only received the baptism of John (by water), then he must not have been in any of the groups wherein the Holy Ghost was received “en masse”.He was so hot (which is the meaning of “fervent”) with the Holy Ghost, members of the church who had seen and heard him preaching, exhorted the Apostles to receive him, expounding also on his success with converting Jews to Christ. I wish that I could have met him!! I love to be in the presence of those who are “fervent” with the Holy Ghost!! Acts 19:1-6 (emphasis added) 1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.I don’t think I can expand on that passage.1 Timothy 4:14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.Here is the definition of “presbytery”:G4244πρεσβυτέριονpresbuterionpres-boo-ter'-ee-onNeuter of a presumed derivative of G4245; the order of elders, that is, (specifically) Israelite Sanhedrim or Christian “presbytery”: - (estate of) elder (-s), presbytery.Further, here is the definition of the word which presbytery is derived from. I think this is crucial to understand:G4245 (emphasis added)πρεσβύτεροςpresbuterospres-boo'-ter-osComparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.Hebrews 6:1-2 1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.Notice that the word “baptisms” is plural AND there is a “comma” after baptisms, which indicates to me that the next group of words (also followed by a comma), inidicates this is a list of the “doctrines” Paul is speaking about. Thus, I believe that Paul is including both baptism by water AND baptism by the Holy Ghost. THEN we see how Paul adds “and of laying on of hands”; IOW, the “laying on of hands” appears to be a doctrine in and of itself. When Jesus was teaching, He proclaimed the need for two baptisms; i.e., one by water AND one by the Holy Ghost; Jesus says nothing about the “laying on of hands”. Yet, it is the Apostles and later the Presbytery who USED the “laying on of hands” doctrine to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, we can surmise that there was some type of power and/or authority given to those who administered this doctrine of laying on of hands. We can also see that it did not only cover the responsibility of a person’s baptism by the Holy Ghost. It was used for other purposes as well. Acts 8:5-17 5Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8And there was great joy in that city. 9But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. There is so much to be learned in this story. We see that Philip had the power to perform miracles and to baptize with water. However, he did NOT have the power to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. We see that Simon, who was a sorcerer, is baptized by water and follows Philip, wondering at the miracles and signs that he saw which were done by Philip. More importantly, we see that the people had to wait until Peter and John came in order to receive the Holy Ghost. So we can see that the power and authority that Philip had (which was great, indeed, as he was able to perform miracles) was limited in that he could only baptize with water and not baptize with the Holy Ghost. Apparently, Peter and John DID have that power and authority; and again we see that this was accomplished by the “laying on of hands”.Of course we also have Matthew's charge that Christ is the one who will offer such. "Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:". This charge finds correspondence in both Mark and Luke. Underline mine. I disagree. I don't see the Bible as a collection of confused and conflicted teachings. This is not to say that confusion and conflict aren't possible, however I would suggest that such confusion and conflict comes strictly from predispositional biases of the reader rather than lay such a charge on God's word.. I have already addressed the issue of “confusion and conflict” which I believe is an aberration of misinterpretation. I don’t personally believe there IS confusion and conflict, even if I can see how some people might think the Bible contains some. As I said, I believe the problem lies within the person who sees it; and I believe it is caused by misinterpretation. However, I DO freely admit that there are still passages that are in the Bible which I do not yet understand. In particular, I still struggle with Isaiah, though as time passes and I continue to ponder and pray for guidance, my blindness to understanding Isaiah is slowly melting away. I firmly believe that there is much I am still blind to. The thing about increasing my knowledge is that it leads me to realize there is so much more to learn. And whatever I haven’t learned yet, I am blind to; otherwise, I would already know it. (What??)Since we can see that the Apostles also had the power and authority to baptize people with the Holy Ghost by “the laying on of hands” (which, according to Paul, is a doctrine), I would ask you where did the Apostles get their power and authority from? It appears to me that they received that power and authority from Christ. I would also ask you why you think there were only certain individuals able to give the gift of the Holy Ghost and not every disciple who worked in the ministry and/or who taught the Gospel message? I agree with much of what you have said and I think it is an interesting point that you bring up, in that JS was not LDS when he prayed in the woods. I suppose at that point was the “proto” LDS. But if we take his purported visions, appointment by God as a modern times prophet and so forth, would you agree that JS encounters with God were likely on a level that most people do not experience?I think there are very few who get to have these types of encounters with God. However, I do think that these or similar types of encounters with God will increase as we get closer to the end times. I believe the Holy Ghost will be revealing more and more knowledge to mankind in a way that is not the average way or amount of experiencing Him. As Satan revs up his efforts, I believe that God will send a balance of good to offset the evil. BUT, I also believe that the camp of who is serving God and the camp of who is serving Satan are going to become very polarized; much more distinctively than is readily seen today.Bold mine. I can't argue against your experiences but in the same token I don't have to assert them as authoritative. Certainly it seems you believe you have greater access to the HS than prior to your confirmation. Your statements are beyond objective proof. LDS seem to believe that they have a guarantee that the HS will be a constant companion to them. However LDS also believe that faith is a conditional matter, in that we can reject belief..ergo excommunication. So at best, the perceived gift of the Holy Ghost is conditional upon belief rather than an actual guarantee it seems to me that it is more of an agreement of sorts. I would never expect you or anyone else to accept my experiences with the Holy Ghost as authoritative. Our journey is traveled as individuals – not as groups. My relationship with God is my own personal relationship. It is unique to me. Everyone’s journey is unique to them. I don’t think that I have a “greater” access to the Holy Ghost than the next person. I am struggling with how to explain this, so please repeat back to me what you think I am saying, until I feel satisfied that you do understand what I AM trying to say. Please have patience with me. God is not going to hold back any truth from anyone if He thinks they are ready to bear and understand that part of truth He wants to reveal. Also, God doesn’t take into consideration what church you belong to when determining what He will reveal to you. In fact, I think that there are many who would be great members of the LDS Church; however, that is NOT where God wants them to be. He puts you where He needs you. However, if you decide you are not happy where you are and sincerely ask Him to guide you, then He will. And guess what, that may still not be to guide you to the LDS Church. He will guide you not only to where He thinks you will be happiest (after all, He knows everything about you better than you do yourself), He will also conveniently happen to place you where you will also be able serve His purposes. The very cool thing about all of this is that your ordinances will still be done. It’s a win-win situation.I have ALWAYS loved God – I cannot remember a time in my life, even as a child, when I was not aware of God, who He was, and what He meant to me in my life. My personality is such that, even with all of my flaws, I am a driven individual. I will share something with you (and I am sure I will never hear the end of it if someone wants to use this against me…but so be it). From the time of my first memories, I was abused physically and emotionally; when I got older I was sexually abused by a female neighbor. Of course, I didn’t know that I was being abused in ANY way; I thought that is what everybody’s life was like; I had nothing to compare my life with. Part of the emotional abuse was being what I would now call almost criminally ignored. Yet heavy responsibilities were placed on me, and if I did not do things perfectly I was severely punished and left on my own to consider my wickedness (yet I realize now that I was a very good child – even though I had been brainwashed into thinking otherwise). I was pretty much a slave; not allowed to socialize, etc. My outlet for expression was school. At school I learned that if I did well, at least my teachers would notice and praise me. At home I was invisible. In fact, for the most part, as a result of my experiences, I have felt invisible for much of my life. I think my maternal grandmother realized something wasn’t right, and whenever she came to visit she would talk to me about God and would take me to the little Lutheran church that was in walking distance. She would read to me from the Bible, and as soon as I learned to read, she bought me my first Bible which I devoured. So it is that I cannot remember a time when I didn’t love God.I remembered what the Bible was teaching me, even though I could only understand the simpler teachings since I was so young, So when I was hurting physically or stinging from rejection (I seriously cannot remember being held or hugged as a child – not until I became a teenager did some things start to change) and loneliness, I would remember what the Bible taught me I and distinctly, oh so many times, remembered making the mental choice to not allow what was happening to me to change me. Somehow I still managed to remain a loving child even though I did not feel loved by the most important people in my life; my family. My teachers loved me (which was confusing to say the least), and I was smart. I excelled in school; it was my refuge, even though I didn’t realize that this is what was going on. I was very competitive in academics; and I used that same competiveness in pursuing and trying my best to be obedient to God, which very much included understanding what beliefs looked like. When I discovered (as I have mentioned before) that at the age of 13, the Lutheran church did not teach as doctrine the same interpretations I had of the Bible, I was surprised and disappointed. Although I continued to attend the Lutheran church, because I wanted to worship my God whom I loved so much, I was seeking out other denominations and learning what they taught. This went on for several years. I had pretty much decided that I was not going to find a church that taught the Bible the same way that I understood it. Nine years after I started searching I happened to attend a tryout for a new group being put together for the purpose of performing a new musical which had been written about a man’s conversion to Christ. Now, the only reason I was at the tryout (because it was by invitation only), was because my husband at the time had been invited to tryout. I had tagged along with him. Now, I had had a lot of experience singing in choirs from grade school on; and I had also learned to play the clarinet and had played in orchestras and in marching bands. So, I could read music and had a fairly decent singing voice (as it turns out, I have perfect pitch….who knew??). It turned out that their alto singer wasn’t able to make the tryout/rehearsal. So the director asked me if I could read music and if I could sing the alto part so that he could get a better feel for the how the voices blended of those people who had been invited. So, as a favor, I agreed. Lo and behold the director kept leaning into me to hear my voice. Both my husband and I were given parts in the musical! It was a multi-denominational group represented by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, two twin Baptist minister’s sons, and Mormons (Whom I had really no knowledge about). Neither my husband nor I were happy going to the Lutheran church. It turns out he had been seeking for a church as well. We would join Bible study groups with different friends in different denominations and were prayerfully seeking God’s guidance. As it turns out we were extremely impressed with the Mormons in the group. This was back in the early 1970’s when free love, drugs, communal living, was rampant in our age group. Those Mormons had their heads on straight, were clean cut, were happy, were obviously in love with God because that is all they would talk about when they were sitting in their group during breaks. We knew one or two of them from high school – but only in passing. So we didn’t really know them very well at all. We had been in the group for a few months and had started live performances of the musical which we performed at various church buildings for several different denominations. It was so exciting every single time to play out and sing and dance about this guy’s conversion. We had a lot of fun while being spiritually enriched by every performance. After we got back home one of the performances, we got to talking about how “different” the Mormons were from the rest of the group. Even though everyone there was obviously there because they also loved God, there was something special about the Mormons. We were drawn to them. Now, remember, that we had been praying and asking God’s guidance since we had gotten married about two years before we got involved with the group. We decided that night that we would call one the girls in the group who was one of the people we had known (sort of) from high school. We were so nervous to make that call. We had no idea what to say or what she would say back. Picture it, and imagine what you would say to someone who already had accepted Christ and explain to them you wanted to know what they believed exactly. We didn’t even know if she knew what her beliefs were, as we had discovered was the case with many of our other Christian friends. I got to be the one to place the call and words sort of tumbled out of my mouth. I told her I didn’t want to put her on the spot, so she could always say no and I would understand; but was there any way she could answer some questions we had about her beliefs, or did she have any written material we could read. OMG, she didn’t speak; instead she wept! I felt so badly, thinking I had really overdone it and crossed the line. So while she was crying, I tried to gracefully get off of the phone and was telling her not to worry about it, that this wouldn’t affect our friendship, etc. She finally caught her breath and was able to speak, telling us “no, no, it’s alright. I would be happy to answer questions for you. So after a few questions she asked if it would be okay to send a couple of young guys over whose job it was to teach what the Church taught. This rather surprised us because we had only been familiar with JW’s who proselyted in our “modern” day. But I can tell you that it seems I had just hung up the phone when two young missionaries showed up on our doorstep. And guess what??? That first lesson/discussion I learned that they taught the same interpretations of the Bible which I had learned from my own personal studying. I was stunned! It had taken me nine years of searching, two of them with my husband, which we had been doing together prayerfully and sincerely. The circumstances of our being introduced to and invited to try out for the musical (and me by mere coincidence) surely smacks of God’s hand being involved. Through the years I had had personal experiences with the Holy Ghost. So, when I was asked to pray about the Book of Mormon (and I might add, since I really didn’t know anything about the LDS Church before being given the discussions, accept for the great examples the Mormon members of the musical were); I had NO preconceptions about them. I had no clue that there was controversy surrounding the Church. I went in with my eyes wide opened, with great faith which I had already established with God from childhood. It was the first time I had ever fasted; but I did so in preparation for that prayer. In private, I knelt at the side of my bed. Quietly I pondered what the answer might be, I already had faith I would get an answer; but I didn’t know what answer it was going to be. I just really, really, wanted to know if the Book was true or not. Finally, I started to pray, and immediately I felt a very strong energy which seemed to enter me from the very center and top of my head. It spread through my body to every extremity, even down through my toes. I suppose I could express that it was like electricity because I had the sense that I was filled with and glowing from light, only there was no pain involved. This was way stronger than I had ever felt the Holy Ghost before. In the same moment, my emotions were a combination of awe, humility like I had never felt before, strength, and all consuming joy. Just recalling this again now some 37 years later, it is like it happened yesterday – still fresh – still an all consuming joy, the same sense of awe, humility, etc. Now, remember that this was just a confirmation to me that the Book of Mormon was exactly what it claimed to be; a Second Testimony of Christ. I had not yet been baptized by water and had not yet received the Holy Ghost. Strange as this may seem I had not yet reached any decision nor had I prayed about Joseph Smith being a Prophet. Of course, it should logically lead a person to believe that if the Book of Mormon was truly of God, then obviously JS must be a Prophet. But I was still a babe in what I understood. My testimony of Joseph Smith would come later. Today, I am continually receiving affirmation that He is a True Prophet of God as I continue to study and grow and acquire more and more understanding through what the Holy Ghost reveals to me. As I see it, this gift is claimed to be something quite different than what any other religious claims offer, in that it is exclusively a feature of the CoJCoLDS. But in a practical sense, does this claim hold actual value? By that I mean. How does this gift create some positive distinction between the worst LDS you know vs. the most Christlike non-LDS that you know? To be quite honest, when I was confirmed (after being baptized in water) and received the Holy Ghost by the laying of hands, I thought I was going to have a repeat performance of the manifestation of the Holy Ghost that I had received when I prayed about the BoM. I actually didn’t feel anything – I felt no different at that moment than I had the moment before. It took me time to learn that I needed to always be humble and sincere. I needed to learn what a contrite spirit was. I also studied scripture much more and for longer periods of time than I had ever done before . I learned how to fast one Sunday each month. I found that I was much more involved with what was going on at Church – more meetings and groups than I had ever experienced before. I soon learned that joining the Church was joining a way of life. In fact everything about my life changed. I used to be terrified to get up in front of a group of people and give a talk or teach a lesson. But these things gave me good experience and taught me that I could do more than I used to think I could. Slowly, as I incorporated all these changes in my physical life, my spiritual life was also undergoing a change. No other church had ever really taught me how to say personal prayers, although I had prayed so often to God before I found the Church, I felt that we were not strangers. So, I would say that whatever you or an LDS ultimately receives from the Holy Ghost is based on the effort you put into the relationship, your dedication to keeping the commandments, your sincerity and humility in prayer, having a contrite spirit, asking prayerfully for guidance every time you study scripture, etc. I tell you all this because I want to get back to the point that I don’t see that gift of the Holy Ghost gives me special access to the Holy Ghost. I think it is the changes I have personally made in HOW I approach prayer, the manner and sincerity which I pray with, the faith of knowing God is listening to my prayers, that I strive to have a contrite spirit when I pray….THESE are the things which prepare ME to be able to receive more understanding. THESE ARE STEPS WHICH EVERYONE CAN TAKE. You don’t have to be LDS to take these steps. All I can tell you is that they work. If there are times that I don’t feel like praying, I try to pray anyway, and then I stay on my knees until I am of the mind to pray. When I miss prayer, I feel like part of me is missing and incomplete. God does not stray from me; but time to time I feel I am straying from Him. Prayer gets me back to where I like to be; feeling close to Heavenly Father, and feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost.Bold mine. I appreciate your generosity to those who are not LDS but are faithful.However, the question pervades, even more so with your statement. If a non-LDS can have a better relationship with the Holy Spirit than an LDS then of what value is it to be LDS in regards to a relationship with the Holy Spirit?Again, “receiving the Holy Ghost” is an ordinance based on a two-way agreement, if you will. If I keep my end of the bargain by staying worthy, then God will allow the Holy Ghost to stay. If I break commandments or slip in other ways, I can feel His absence. My relationship with the Holy Ghost is or can be the same as it with anyone else. It is in learning to be the type of vessel which has been prepared to receive more guidance and personal revelation which is the basis for Father’s choice to reveal more to us. The more we experience the Holy Ghost, the more easy it becomes to discern even His quietest messages. The non-LDS who are being guided and directed by the Holy Ghost, who are receiving personal revelations and epiphanies, are those who are taking the same steps I am taking to prepare ourselves to receive whatever Father is ready to reveal to us. They, too, will at some point need to have the ordinance of receiving the Holy Ghost performed – but I doubt that is going to make much of a change in the relationship they already enjoy with Him. You see, even thought I loved God and prayed and studied scripture, I didn’t do it with the discipline that the LDS Church taught me. I didn’t know what a contrite spirit was. I know that I was not as humble and sincere as I should have been. Also, because I went through the process of the ordinance, this focused my mind ON the Holy Ghost more so than I had before by virtue of the fact that it was a step I had never taken before. But no one had ever taught me about this either. When I was baptized into the Lutheran church, I do not remember anything about receiving the Holy Ghost. Once I improved my habits of preparing myself to be able to receive more, I did. The value of receiving the Holy Ghost to the LDS person is that this completes the baptism process. But it is still up to the individual to choose what he is going to do about it. If he does nothing, or only does a minimal amount of the work it takes to develop a deep relationship with the Holy Ghost, then all it becomes is a completion of a necessary ordinance. Unfortunately, he is not going to reap any of the benefits that anyone else can have when they DO put in the effort.I certainly understand your desire to share your faith with others. And perhaps I am understanding your belief that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is necessary for something. But I don't see that it is a relational issue, if as you admit, some non-LDS can actually have a better relationship with the Holy Spirit than LDS. Let me ask you something Jo. Taking a look at a non-LDS that you seem to feel is really in tune with the Spirit vs. any LDS that you feel is out of step with the Spirit. Why do you feel that such a non-LDS is actually lacking such a gift?I think they are only lacking the ordinance, which will be done for them vicariously after they have died if they don’t join the Church while they are in the flesh.When you say they were warned not to share information, I am assuming you are referring to Mark 8:30. But I do look at this warning quite differently. They were, IMO charged with silence on the matter not because of their understanding and that fact that others couldn't understand what it meant. Rather, they were charged with silence because of their lack of understanding of what being "the Christ" actually meant. Christ wasn't about to send them out to speak on the fact that he was Christ, when they didn't really know what that fully meant.Their misunderstanding on the matter was openly revealed in the next chapter, when they suggested building two shrines to the prophets of old and one for Jesus. Later in the chapter (Mark 9:10) their uncertainty about the resurrection becomes rather blatant.Mar 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. Mar 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean. Obviously the later came to grips with whole matter though. But I think there is a lesson to be learned in it for us as well. If Christ felt the apostles should not speak past their understanding, then it would be a good idea for us to follow suit. I believe the above was an entirely different situation. BTW, I agree with you on what you have said above. What I was referring to was that it was up to the Apostles to determine when the different church groups were ready for more doctrine and more spiritual insight connected with the doctrine---they were expected to know when the members were ready for milk vs meat. This, of course, would have been separate from what the Holy Ghost might be teaching them personally. Also, as the church grew it was suffering typical problems related to growth. Some of the issues were about how to administer the affairs of the church. And so, being bogged down in the administrative aspects and problems which needed to be addressed, there was probably precious little time left over to do a lot of teaching.Well it doesn't really matter who came up with the idea. The only thing relevant, is if the idea is correct. I think that through the verses I shared in the first post about the difference between milk vs meat is an indication that the principle itself is true. Also, inasmuch as the Apostles themselves were unable to bear and receive anymore as taught by Jesus, that He was clear that it would be the Holy Ghost who be doing the leading to all truth. So far, it has been my experience that it is indeed the Holy Ghost who communicates Heavenly truths to me. I hope I have been able to clearly present my understanding about the ordinance of receiving the Holy Ghost vs anybody’s ability to be directed and guided to truth by the Holy Ghost if the proper steps are taken to prepare yourself to receive that guidance.Best Regardsjo
Ahab Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) All,I don't claim to be able to speak for the LDS religion. However, I do claim to be able to read. And if the LDS Church says that the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost comes after one has received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by a Mormon male priesthood holder, well, I accept this as the LDS position. And if someone else comes along and tells me that this is not the LDS position, I have every right to ask why that person's opinion trumps what the LDS Church itself says.Those of you who are running with this objection to my line of argument are taking a very strange position. You claim to agree with the LDS Church's teaching that the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those baptized and confirmed in the LDS Church, and that the gift gives those persons the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost if they remain obedient, and yet you then turn around and claim that this doesn't mean that non-Mormons can't have that constant companionship. You did notice that some of us were saying that a person who hasn't received "the gift" of the Holy Ghost doesn't have the RIGHT to the constant companionship to the Holy Ghost, didn't you? That's the difference. A person who hasn't complied with our Lord's ordinance involving having hands laid upon their head by those who have the authority to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost doesn't have the RIGHT to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost because they havne't complied with that ordinance as our Lord has commanded, but they may still have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost wants to stay with them, for as long as the Holy Ghost wants to stay with them, because it's up to the Holy Ghost to determine how long he wants to stay with a person.Lots of words there, I know, and I can see how the words and terms may cause some confusion, but there is a distinct difference between having the "right" to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and simply having the companionship of the Holy Ghost, either constantly or as long as the Holy Ghost wants to stay with a person.Wade writes: "They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals." Well, fine! But you could say that about anything. Yes, because it's always between God and those individuals, but our Lord has given us a few guidelines to help us know on what basis God makes his judgments.Can evangelicals who hear but never accept the LDS gospel get to the celestial kingdom? "They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals." The answer to that question is No, never, because when people are old enough to choose to be "evangelicals" and also choose to "never" accept the "LDS gospel" (which is the true gospel of Jesus Christ) along with the ordinances which are associated with accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ, then they have cut themselves off from being admitted into the Celestial region of heaven. Certain ordinances are required for "evangelicals" who are hear the gospel, so those who hear them but never accept them don't have even the slightest chance to get there.Can a person never believe in Jesus, never be baptized, reject the gospel in the afterlife, and still become a god? "They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals."It depends on what you mean by "a god". There are gods many, and lords many, but to us there is only one God and you can't become like him if you never believe in Jesus and never accept his gospel.You see, such statements are merely confusing when your religion clearly teaches that certain things are necessary for entrance to the celestial kingdom or for becoming a god.I can see how the statements can be confusing to people like you, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to correctly understand our Lord's doctrine even with people like us proclaiming it.And likewise such statements are confusing when your religion clearly teaches that certain things are necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.If you don't understand, keep trying, and while you keep trying ask God to give you some more wisdom so that you can understand what is true.I'm done arguing this point. You can all believe whatever you want. It's up to you. I'm also free to believe whatever I want, right?Right, but there are going to be consequences to whatever we choose to believe and God will give you all of the tools you need to help you make the right decisions.And I sincerely believe that what I have stated is the LDS Church's position.You were very close, at least on some points. I think you just had a bit of trouble distinguishing the "right" to having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and having his companionship, either constantly or otherwise.And why are you even arguing with it?I think we're trying to help you understand our doctrine when it appears that you don't correctly understand it. That's what the "arguing" is all about, I think.Because for some reason you think I am trying to spring a "gotcha" on you. Frankly, that's silly.People having silly thoughts is common, even among some LDS.ll I am trying to show is that Mormons should be just as skeptical of an evangelical's testimony when it deviates from what Mormons think is true as evangelicals are skeptical of a Mormon's testimony when it deviates from what evangelicals think is true. What is so hard about that idea to accept?Skeptical? Why be skeptical? I'll flatly reject what I understand you to be saying when what you seem to be saying deviates from what the Holy Ghost has clearly told me.If you can't see any differences between evangelical and Mormon testimonies, this ought to be as much a concern to you as it is to me. If we both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, and we both believe in Christ, why do our testimonies clash in their fundamental truth-claims?Sometimes it's because some of us have received the truth only in part, and sometimes it's because we (both sides) aren't very good at conveying our thoughts in words which the other can clearly understand.I have an answer to this question, and apparently some of you do not.Some of us do, too.If you don't feel any need to have an answer, that's your business. I happen to think it is a valid and important question.I think so, too, and I believe I have answered your question. Edited September 1, 2011 by Ahab
altersteve Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) To accommodate your objection of me referring to, “the Mormon Church” (or, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, the official name of the Church you belong to), the following is provided for you (others too) to understand that your own leadership has referred to the Church/themselves in that way.True, the Church has stated that the it is "sometimes referred to" as the Mormon Church, meaning that the nickname is often used by others, but it has always and will always refer to itself as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Because "Mormon Church" not the name, and the Church itself has asked that people refrain from referring to it as such:The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines:In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".Please avoid the use of "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or the "Church of the Latter-day Saints".When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged.When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable."Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as "Mormon pioneers."The term "Mormonism" is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms "Mormons," "Mormon fundamentalist," "Mormon dissidents," etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."http://newsroom.lds.org/style-guideEarly on in their history, Mormons (Latter-day Saints) began to be referred to as “Mormons” (there have been three Different names for the Church; initially called the “Church of Christ”):Why do you assume that we are not aware of this? The fact that there have been three names for the Church is irrelevant (although there have actually been four: The Church of Christ, the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; note the hyphen and capitalization).The Church takes no issue with the term "Mormon" when used to refer to its members, as stated in the above quotation from the LDS Newsroom. But we object the usage of the term to refer to the Church as a whole. There is no problem with insisting that our Lord's Church be presented properly. Edited September 1, 2011 by altersteve 1
Recommended Posts