Got Authority?

[mfbukowski]

The beliefs of mainstream Christianity are rather frightening. What's worse? The God they worship or the adherents that are willing to worship such a being?

I have to hope that the majority of them don't think too deeply about what it is they believe..

None of it ever made since to me either.

[mfbukowski]

I find the part about "reach out in love to those outside the church with the truth" to be very disturbing and very disingenuous. I find the debate ignited by Pastor Jeffress that Mormons are not Christian and are a cult very disturbing, bigoted and not Christian. And that goes for all the brainwashed followers who feel the same because Mormons have been smeared about what we believe. To tell you the truth....I'm just not feeling the love in your so-called truth.

And how about those people who picket dead soldiers funerals? What a fine bunch of folks! And then they come to Salt Lake to picket Mormons and put on seminars like Rob's? No thanks.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

And you think evangelicals who express concerns about having a Mormon in the White House are akin to Muslims who kill other Muslims over their religious differences?

Yes, what the heck are you talking about?

Stop intentionally misrepresenting what I said in order to feign offense. It is in a microcosm what you do to Mormons every day with your "ministry". It is dishonest and terribly offensive.

The parallel I made was the trouble that is caused when two factions of a religious belief square off against each other over theological differences. This leads to prejudice at least and murder and war at worst.

Those evangelicals weren't just expressing concerns. They were using falsehoods to demonize a candidate. Just as you use falsehoods to demonize my religion. Ironically just as you used a false hood to demonize me in this thread.

That may be bold but it is neither compassionate or Christian.

Edited October 18, 2011 by DaddyG

[mfbukowski]

My experience is that the beliefs in this area (fate of the dead) are quite varied, more so as time goes on as well.

There is a wonderful article on Americacatholic.org titled Life After Life: What will we do for an encore? for example.

I believe the Catholic faith leaves it up to God whether or not someone dies in a state of Grace and thus is saved, it has been awhile but iirc even those who are not intellectually aware of Christ may be spiritually aware of him and thus may be saved, they do not judge by outward appearance who is saved and who is damned.....and if you talk about mainstream Christianity you have to include Catholics as the largest denomination and Orthodox as one of the oldest, not just focus on Protestants.

If more "good" Protestants were out there explaining their faith, instead of those who are just running down other's faiths, perhaps the world would be a much better place.

[ERayR]

And how about those people who picket dead soldiers funerals? What a fine bunch of folks! And then they come to Salt Lake to picket Mormons and put on seminars like Rob's? No thanks.

And how about those who have nothing better to do than show up everywhere telling me I am "going to hell because i am a Mormon".

[mfbukowski]

It is regrettable that you take such a dim view of the God of orthodox Christianity, but your comment illustrates why many of us who do think very deeply about what we believe regard the LDS Church as another religion. As you indicate, we have very different views of the gospel and in effect worship different Gods.

I certainly have not "felt the love" when I have been subjected to scorn, derision, and anger. But I don't expect to feel love in an online forum discussing our important theological differences. It would be nice, however, not to feel the contempt.

You get what you give.

And deserve. These posts are about a half hour apart. Which Bowman do we believe?

Edited October 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

And how about those who have nothing better to do than show up everywhere telling me I am "going to hell because i am a Mormon".

When I was about to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I asked my parents support. I had been raised Methodist and my parents and brother were still of that faith.

My father wanted me to answer one question before he offered his unconditional support. "Does this somehow make you "more saved" than your brother?"

I pondered for a second and answered honestly. "Not really Dad. If anything being the recipient of more knowledge makes me more accountable for what I know. That is why I must become a Mormon and act on the promptings of God."

My family put their unconditional support behind my baptism and have been great supporters of my decision and lifestyle ever since. Of course I get my share of Mormon jokes (without guile) but that's just their way of loving me!

Quote a contrast between this (compassion, concern and true Christlike love) and the counterfeit (false judgement and condemnation).

[mfbukowski]

When Rob Bowman first came here, many were ready to "give him a chance" and hear him out, myself included.

That seems to have changed.

Gosh, I wonder why.

[Ares]

This thread has gone personal. Any more posts misrepresenting what others said or including personal comments will result in suspensions or thread closures.

[mfbukowski]

And how about those who have nothing better to do than show up everywhere telling me I am "going to hell because i am a Mormon".

With such a persuasive argument, how could they possibly be wrong? These people should be in sales!

Edit: Didn't see the above mod comment until after this was posted, but it's not personal anyway.

I am still waiting for a reply on Evangelical authority, and will restrict myself to the OP

Edited October 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

Back to the OP

In the "Highest Authority" thread a claim was made by an Evangelical Christian that they had authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian.

I would like any Evangelical to elaborate on this idea. When did God give Evangelicals (or any one Evangelical) the authority to judge others "Christianity"?

FYI - The idea that the LDS priestood was conferred upon us by the power of God is recorded in our doctrines, but no where in our doctrines do I see where we claim authority to declare others "Christian" or not.

I would like someone to explain this scripturally and not with a long list of assertions...

Where does their authority come from to judge others hellbound. Rob claims it is from God. I'd like to see the passages in the Bible that back that opinion up. I will even let them use the Book of Mormon, D&C and PGP if they are so inclined.

[zerinus]

Of course. But that doesn't mean it's not God's decision. I believe we are to let God deal with such matters. Another person's eternal destiny is between that person and God, and is no business of ours.

Who said anything about anybody's "decision"? I was quoting what the scripture says. What is wrong with that?

Edited October 18, 2011 by zerinus

[shalamabobbi]

We "mainstream Christians" don't believe the dead will miss out merely because they didn't get dunked in water.

Nor do we, hence the ordinances of the temple which will be provided for every soul who ever lived.

Without baptism for the dead you don't have a leg to stand on because the absolute requirement of baptism is VERY biblical.

The opportunity to accept or reject the gospel will be given to everyone whether this side of the veil or the next.

However, by his sheer grace, his judgment will be canceled for billions on the basis of what Christ did for them.

It's not the application of grace I find disturbing but the failure of that process for other billions and the rather random nature of that failure as it supposedly happens in mainstream Christianity.

Paul would be the first in line to acknowledge that he did not get what he deserved (1 Cor. 15:8-10; 1 Tim. 1:15). The judgment that he deserved based on what he had done was canceled by grace. That's the gospel. Your comments illustrate the deep chasm between your understanding of the gospel and ours.

And had not the event on the road to Damascus occurred, Paul would not have received any grace and would according to mainstream Christianity suffered forever. Nice.

It is regrettable that you take such a dim view of the God of orthodox Christianity, but your comment illustrates why many of us who do think very deeply about what we believe regard the LDS Church as another religion. As you indicate, we have very different views of the gospel and in effect worship different Gods.

That which we are willing that our fellowmen should suffer, God will return upon our own heads..

[Vance]

I would like someone to explain this scripturally and not with a long list of assertions...

Well, when all you have is assertion, that is all you can provide.

I would like to see some sort of coherent explanation of why his "authority" is higher or more valid than mine or anyone else who accepts the New Testament as scripture.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

As I said in post 36, if there was no Apostasy as Rob contends, there was no need for a Reformation.

On the other hand, if the Catholics lost authority, the Protestants don't have it either.

I have never been able to understand that one. And yet in post 36, Rob uses the apparent "authority" of "traditional" (ie: to him, Protestant) Christianity as "disciples of Christ" - true disciples- to judge who and who is not Christian.

I thought the traditional Protestant position was that authority was not necessary because of the "priesthood of all believers", and yet he cites it as some kind of "authority" about who gets to judge who is and who is not "Christian".

If one believes that we are "believers", then the Protestant position should be that we also have the "priesthood of all believers".

But of course we are not because we worship the "wrong Christ" whatever that is supposed to mean. It is clearly a question begging definition- crystal clear as can be. We are not believers because we are not believers in the "right" Christ- precisely on no more authority than their assertion of it.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

I cannot for the life of me see where they get any notion that their authority for their interpretation of the Bible is any better than ours- that is the central point.

They would have a case if they said: "We get our authority from this source: blah blah" but they don't.

They simultaneously believe that authority is not necessary- there is no priesthood and all men get to read and interpret the Bible according to their own consciences- AND that they have the authority to judge who is and who is not Christian.

All are free to interpret the Bible for themselves, as long as they are not Mormon.

What's that about?

Edited October 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

If one believes that we are "believers", then the Protestant position should be that we also have the "priesthood of all believers".

But of course we are not because we worship the "wrong Christ" whatever that is supposed to mean. It is clearly a question begging definition- crystal clear as can be. We are not believers because we are not believers in the "right" Christ- precisely on no more authority than their assertion of it.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Circular reasoning to be sure.

A1) How can they say we worship a wrong Jesus? B1) Because they have authority to judge from the Bible.

B2) How do they know their authority is more valid than mine? A2) Because they worship the right Jesus.

A1) How do they know they worship the right Jesus? B1) Because they have authority to judge from the Bible.

:crazy:

[mfbukowski]

Circular reasoning to be sure.

A1) How can they say we worship a wrong Jesus? B1) Because they have authority to judge from the Bible.

B2) How do they know their authority is more valid than mine? A2) Because they worship the right Jesus.

A1) How do they know they worship the right Jesus? B1) Because they have authority to judge from the Bible.

:crazy:

Yup!

What could be clearer than that?

[Russell C McGregor]

Hi Rob,

Just a couple of points:

While you as a Mormon don't claim to judge who is a "Christian" and who is not, you do claim to judge who is in a true church and who is not.

Well, yes. Church membership is a matter of record; it can be established impartially, without having to rely upon abstruse theological arguments, unshareable intuitions, or special pleading.

For me as an orthodox Christian, there is no difference. No one who is not part of the true church of Jesus Christ is a Christian, and all Christians are part of the true church.

That's delightfully circular. But how is it testable? What does it actually assert? That the two things are just different names for each other?

The true church is not a single denomination or institutional religion, but is the body of Christ, composed of all genuine believers in Jesus Christ who have accepted the biblical gospel and united themselves through baptism and church fellowship to other believers in that gospel.

There is always a risk that a metaphor, once adopted, can come to overwhelm what it is supposed to represent.

When Paul compared the Church to a human body, and the members of the Church as "members," i.e. body parts, like organs or appendages, he was actually describing something that is exactly the opposite of what you describe. For Paul, the "body of Christ" wasn't something invisible, ubiquitous and mysterious; it was a single, visible organic unity. The members of the Church, like body parts, are in perfect accord with each other because they all obey the commands coming from the head; just as your fingers obey the commands of your brain when typing on your keyboard, so the Saints obey the direction of those whom God has placed at the head of the Church. We each do our part, and we each need each other in order for the body to be whole.

But it's a body, not just a spirit.

[Calm]

Zombie alert

[JLHPROF]

And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

 

Yep.  The rock is revelation through those holding the priesthood keys.  And unless the Church is built on revelation and correct priesthood authority it cannot be God's church.

Thanks for the reminder.

Edited July 5, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Vance]

And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

I was once schooled by a retired Catholic Priest about that verse.  He explained the Greek to me and how it was impossible for Peter to be the "rock" upon which the Church would be built.  It has to do with the gender of the words used.  Peter or "petros" is masculine and refers to a small stone, where as the rock or "petra" upon which the Church was to be built is feminine and refers to a large or a bedrock.

 

I have no reason to not believe what he taught me.

[Avatar4321]

Personal testimony is the rock the church is built on. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion on authority.

We know a man must be called of God and cannot take this honor upon Himself.

Personally on not as focused on authority as much as power from God right now. It seems to me that without that the fact we are ordained is meaningless.

[mfbukowski]

Zombie alert

After 4 years in the grave yet.

 

Oy Vey.

Edited July 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Russell C McGregor]

Hey, where did Hopeless Thomist's posts go?

[Calm]

I wonder if he is a recurring sock puppet so they deleted him to encourage him not to repeat his performance.