God

[shalamabobbi]

In context here, shalamabobbi was referring to persons who actually were in heaven and came down from heaven to make authorized appearances on God's behalf. He was not referring to persons living on earth who have heavenly authorization to present the gospel to people.

Initially when no one on earth has any authority, persons do have to return from heaven to confer that authority. Once the keys are here the work can go forward.

In that sense, I myself claim to have such heavenly authorization; as I've explained elsewhere, all disciples are authorized to preach the gospel in order to make more disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), and I am a disciple; therefore, I am authorized to preach the gospel.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe some day you'll believe it.

Romans 10:14-15

Again, who sent you??

That authorization comes from someone who literally did come down from heaven, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Matt 28:18-20

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It is quite an arrogation of power to state that this is applicable to yourself. Do you understand English? Do you understand the phrase "spake unto them" and how that differs from say "spake unto all mankind" or "spake unto anyone who is yet to be born who feels they are my disciples"?

That is a far better authorization than the claims that John the Baptist or three apostles or Moses or Nephi or whomever appeared to Joseph Smith.

Speaking of "claims" we just heard a whopper of one..

These resurrected personages, yes they had physical bodies so that eliminates satanic impersonation, function under the direction of Who do you suppose?

In any case, if Jesus Christ authorized the preaching of the gospel by all disciples, then I am authorized to preach the gospel

If? Equivocation is a fallacy in reasoning..

You are not preaching the gospel so no worries.

I don't need to have seen a messenger who came down from heaven to have that authorization, as even shalamabobbi has admitted.

No, you need to have been called and sent by revelation by someone with authority acting under someone who has the keys to direct the work.

Equivocating by saying that Monson is an authorized servant whose authority came from heaven or who are "directed from heaven" doesn't negate my point.

His authority can be traced back to the restoration where the keys were delivered again to the earth, fulfilling Daniel's prophecy and John's prophecy and countless other prophecies of the latter days that speak of the restoration of all things and the gathering again of Israel from among the nations where they have been scattered.

[Calm]

If one gets authority simply by reading Christ's instructions in Matthew and then choosing to act on them, then anyone who reads it and acts has the same level of authority....even nonChristians logically speaking.

[Vance]

shalamabobbi, Vance, and CV75,

Equivocation is a fallacy in reasoning. Look it up.

Yes, it is. But unfortunately for you, the one using equivocation is you.

It is you that is trying to limit the mean of a phrase to your own end.

In context here, shalamabobbi was referring to persons who actually were in heaven and came down from heaven to make authorized appearances on God's behalf.

There you go, attempting to tell shalamabobbi what he is saying, rather than actually paying attention or asking for clarification.

You apparently didn't get the context he provided in post #51. You know, the whole prophet thing.

You are either a true prophet or a false prophet.

. . . that we all need to become prophets in our own right, we all need the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Thou "unprophetable" servant..

. . .

No prophets, no priesthood, no keys of the kingdom, sola scriptura which is the biggest logical contradiction of all being totally unscriptural.

. . .

Salvation is in Christ. Either He contacts us with the offer(through authorized servants sent from heaven) or we are left in the dark.

The Community of Christ is a great example of what happens without true prophets. They have joined the throng of psuedo-churches that have nothing to offer but plagiarized misinterpreted texts from the true church..

Without a true church being upon the earth at some point, with true authority from God, being actually directed by Him through actual - heaven to earth - revelation, you would have nothing to plagiarize, misinterpret, and reconstruct into a worthless caricature without salvific power, fulfilling Gal 1:6-9..

Paul I know and Christ I know but who are ye?

Then, you also said,

The offer was made by the One who came down from heaven, Jesus Christ himself. Can't get any higher or better than that. You can't possibly mean that each one of us must be personally contacted by an authorized servant sent from heaven. Talked to any heavenly messengers lately?

So, here is where you begin your equivocation.

He was not referring to persons living on earth who have heavenly authorization to present the gospel to people.

He obviously was referring to persons living on the earth.

Especially when he added this,

Well let's start here. First if you are ridiculing the idea of authorized messengers sent from heaven we can throw out the new testament altogether.

. . .

Why if Christ is the direct intermediary for everyone now were keys given to Peter??

Paul after his visit on the road to Damascus was sent to these men who held the keys of authority over the kingdom to receive instruction through the proper channels as to what to do.

So no, we don't each individually need to be visited by angelic ministration. But we do need to receive the kingdom from men who hold the keys of the same and who have been sent through the authorized channels.

His kingdom is one of order and not of chaos. It has ever been so. Read how Moses led the kingdom in his day and you may learn something. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

. . .

Unfortunately when Christ sends servants whom He has authorized directly with a message and keys of authority and those servants are rejected, those who reject them have effectively rejected Him who sent them. So they have no claim to faith in the Sender.

If past prophets were sufficient there would have been no need of any besides Christ in New Testament times. There is nothing at all in scripture that gives any credence to the idea that a need for living prophets has come to an end.

. . .

Romans 10:14-15

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Rob Bowman, who sent you??

Yup, it is Bowman doing the equivocating here.

[IloveaMormon]

God is Alpha and Omega. He is the Creator everlasting. There are no 'Gods'. Only the One now and forever.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth

"translations" of men will come and go

but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

Isaiah 40:8

[bluebell]

If one gets authority simply by reading Christ's instructions in Matthew and then choosing to act on them, then anyone who reads it and acts has the same level of authority....even nonChristians logically speaking.

One of the biggest issues i have with the 'priesthood of all believers' is that it contradicts how Christ gave authority to act in His name. I think Rob is highlighting here how weak his position is when it comes to this issue.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

If one gets authority simply by reading Christ's instructions in Matthew and then choosing to act on them, then anyone who reads it and acts has the same level of authority....even nonChristians logically speaking.

That has to be one of the screwiest criticisms I have seen in a while, and that's saying something. Anyone who acted on Christ's instructions (believing in Christ and submitting to his authority as Lord, getting baptized as a disciple of Christ, and committing to obey all that Christ commanded) would surely no longer be a non-Christian, "logically speaking"!!

[CV75]

Equivocation is a fallacy in reasoning. Look it up.

You said, “There must be some equivocation going on here. Just who was the messenger from heaven who baptized you?” Are you now chiding me for having asked you to clearly state what you meant by “equivocation” (as you know, there are several meanings) even though I took the effort to explain what I meant by the phrase authorized messenger from heaven?

Would it have not been less guileful to simply ask, “Just who was the messenger from heaven who baptized you?” You could have even left the “Just” out. Or even better, ask me, “Exactly what do you mean by the phrase authorized messenger from heaven?”

Now what does negate your point (without negating mine) is that yours relies on a terribly big “if” (“if Jesus Christ authorized the preaching of the gospel by all disciples, then I am authorized to preach the gospel…”) and a convoluted explanation of what “authorized” means to you.

[Vance]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

That has to be one of the screwiest criticisms I have seen in a while, and that's saying something. Anyone who acted on Christ's instructions (believing in Christ and submitting to his authority as Lord, getting baptized as a disciple of Christ, and committing to obey all that Christ commanded) would surely no longer be a non-Christian, "logically speaking"!!

Thus dodging the main point being made.

If one gets authority simply by reading Christ's instructions in Matthew and then choosing to act on them, then anyone who reads it and acts has the same level of authority.

Bowman has no more authority than anyone who "simply by read(s) Christ's instructions in Matthew and then choos(es) to act on them". This is a fact that he diligently avoids.

[shalamabobbi]

That has to be one of the screwiest criticisms I have seen in a while, and that's saying something. Anyone who acted on Christ's instructions (believing in Christ and submitting to his authority as Lord, getting baptized as a disciple of Christ, and committing to obey all that Christ commanded) would surely no longer be a non-Christian, "logically speaking"!!

I'll say..

You're quite taken with yourself

Anyone who acted on Christ's instructions (believing in Christ and submitting to his authority as Lord,

Well that's the rub isn't it? What is it that constitutes submitting to His authority? Would someone not acknowledging the Keys given to Peter to direct the church be "submitting" to Christ's authority?

committing to obey all that Christ commanded

Yes, good then why do you not follow the pattern establish by Christ?

Matt 16:17-19

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And once again,

Romans 10:14-15

Just one Bible passage please where the scriptures were used to "send" someone. Please establish this precedent from the scriptures themselves.

If you can't, then your "authority" derives from nothing more than an ad-hoc argument that is not biblical.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

I had assumed you had read the previous posts in the discussion and would know what meaning of equivocation applied in this context. I should not have made such assumptions.

Mormons are constantly complaining about evangelicals saying that Mormons are not Christians. Well, are evangelicals Christians? Are we disciples of Jesus Christ? If we are his disciples, then we are authorized to make more disciples, are we not? I don't see a big "if" in my argument.

You said, “There must be some equivocation going on here. Just who was the messenger from heaven who baptized you?” Are you now chiding me for having asked you to clearly state what you meant by “equivocation” (as you know, there are several meanings) even though I took the effort to explain what I meant by the phrase authorized messenger from heaven?

Would it have not been less guileful to simply ask, “Just who was the messenger from heaven who baptized you?” You could have even left the “Just” out. Or even better, ask me, “Exactly what do you mean by the phrase authorized messenger from heaven?”

Now what does negate your point (without negating mine) is that yours relies on a terribly big “if” (“if Jesus Christ authorized the preaching of the gospel by all disciples, then I am authorized to preach the gospel…”) and a convoluted explanation of what “authorized” means to you.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

I'm not going to argue with you about biblical texts when you can't manage to comment on what I say in a civil manner.

I'll say..

You're quite taken with yourself

[shalamabobbi]

shalamabobbi,

I'm not going to argue with you about biblical texts when you can't manage to comment on what I say in a civil manner.

Well good, that gives you an excuse, doesn't it?

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

Well good, that gives you an excuse, doesn't it?

It should be obvious to anyone who actually reads my posts that I am not afraid of any question that might be posed to me. Your disrespectful comments are a violation of forum rules; my choice not to continually subject myself to mistreatment by people like you is not a violation of those rules. The problem here is your behavior.

[Vance]

Mormons are constantly complaining about evangelicals saying that Mormons are not Christians.

A very legitimate complaint.

Well, are evangelicals Christians?

Sure, why not? You claim to be, that is good enough for me.

Are we disciples of Jesus Christ?

I think we would have to judge on an individual basis. "Disciple" expresses actions rather than beliefs. Do evangelicals as a group act like disciples?

If we are his disciples, then we are authorized to make more disciples, are we not?

Nope! Not necessarily.

Sorry but your logic is flawed. The "then" part of your if-then statement doesn't necessarily follow from the "if" part.

I don't see a big "if" in my argument.

Irrelevant, because the "then" part does NOT necessarily follow the "if" part.

[DJBrown]

bluebell,

You wrote:

My goal is to bring as many people to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. That goal is not a negative one, but it does have negative implications for any religious institution or individual that teaches a gospel at variance with that true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

I agree that if there were a true prophet on the earth today, that God's people should follow what he teaches. I will go further: if there were a true prophet on the earth today, God's people would follow what he teaches. But as you surely understand, from my perspective the LDS Church presidents are not true prophets of God. Regretfully, I am convinced that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and as you correctly state, one need not and should not follow a false prophet.

One of the many indications that the LDS Church prophets are not from God, in my understanding, is precisely that they teach that temple ordinances are essential to live forever in the presence of God the Father. This is an unbiblical teaching. The temple rituals of the old covenant, which were utterly unlike Mormon temple ordinances, were mere foreshadowings of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, our eternal and heavenly high priest, who offered himself as the final and ultimate sacrifice for sins (Heb. 7-10). True Christians do not need man-made temples; the church is God's "temple," the temple not made by human hands, constructed not of rocks but of the "living stones" of believers united together through their union with Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:3-8 ).

Actually, the temple ordinances are not necessary to live with God according to LDS doctrine. They are necessary for exaltation, which is experienced by those in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. To enter that Kingdom, the basic requirements are to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of one's sins, be baptized, received the Holy Ghost and endure to the end. All who do those things will enter the Celestial Kingdom. But some in that Kingdom will be exlated, for which the temple ordinances are necessary. This is according to our doctrine.

[Vance]

It should be obvious to anyone who actually reads my posts that I am not afraid of any question that might be posed to me.

Let's see.

How can your authority be any greater than anyone else who reads reads and believes the NT?

[shalamabobbi]

It should be obvious to anyone who actually reads my posts that I am not afraid of any question that might be posed to me. Your disrespectful comments are a violation of forum rules; my choice not to continually subject myself to mistreatment by people like you is not a violation of those rules. The problem here is your behavior.

I'm not disrespectful of you, I am disrespectful of your "office"..

[Rob Bowman]

DJ,

You wrote:

Actually, the temple ordinances are not necessary to live with God according to LDS doctrine. They are necessary for exaltation, which is experienced by those in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. To enter that Kingdom, the basic requirements are to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of one's sins, be baptized, received the Holy Ghost and endure to the end. All who do those things will enter the Celestial Kingdom. But some in that Kingdom will be exlated, for which the temple ordinances are necessary. This is according to our doctrine.

Could you comment on the following statement, please?

"But if we are to live forever with our families in Heavenly Father’s presence, we must do all that the Savior commands us to do. This includes being baptized and confirmed and receiving the ordinances of the temple."--Gospel Principles (2009), 233.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Let's see.

How can your authority be any greater than anyone else who reads reads and believes the NT?

I don't say that it is.

That was easy.

[Vance]

Vance,

You asked:

I don't say that it is.

That was easy.

Well, that looks like another dodge.

You don't say that it is, but will you admit that it isn't?

[shalamabobbi]

Vance,

You asked:

I don't say that it is.

That was easy.

Something I can finally agree with..

I'm on my way out the door. I just read the US constitution and am about to take action in the name of the USA..

Edited October 25, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[DJBrown]

DJ,

You wrote:

Could you comment on the following statement, please?

"But if we are to live forever with our families in Heavenly Father’s presence, we must do all that the Savior commands us to do. This includes being baptized and confirmed and receiving the ordinances of the temple."--Gospel Principles (2009), 233.

To live with God is to live in the Celestial Kingdom. To be exalted is to live as a family in the highest degree of that Kingdom. One can live in that kingdom without being exalted.

[LeSellers]

I'm on my way out the door. I just read the US constitution and am about to take action in the name of the USA..

I, on the other hand, held a commission from the President, and could act on behalf of the united States of America. But I'm sure God is not as organized as a geographical government.

Lehi

[CV75]

Mormons are constantly complaining about evangelicals saying that Mormons are not Christians. Well, are evangelicals Christians? Are we disciples of Jesus Christ? If we are his disciples, then we are authorized to make more disciples, are we not? I don't see a big "if" in my argument.

Yes, evangelicals are Christians, and disciples (followers) of Christ after a fashion (since there are so many denominations that also follow Him).

Assuming “disciple” means “follower” and not one who is formally called and authorized (ordained) as the twelve disciples were in Matthew 10 (verse 1—He called and gave hem power; verse 5 (and 16)—sent them forth with a command and counsel that go on for the rest of the chapter; verse 40—“He that receiveth you receiveth me”), any Christian has the right, privilege and even obligation to encourage people to become and remain followers of Christ. But doing so is not the same as being authorized or being ordained of Christ (Matthew 7:29, Mark 3:16, John 15:16, Acts 1:22; 14:23; 16:4) as He gave it to the twelve disciples “to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof (Articles of Faith 5).”

I believe there is a formal, physical ordinance to grant priesthood authority (such as laying on of hands, anointing, or some other action) required to do this, as evidenced in the Old Testament ordination of priests. Yes, the Law of Moses was done away, but ordinances such as baptism, the ordaining in Acts and the Lord’s Supper also rightly remained in place after the Lord’s mortal ministry.

So I do not see ordination or authority as a general invitation to come unto and follow Christ. These only come after one has followed Christ and received His authorized servants, who in turn call and ordain others according to Lord's instruction to them.

But I’ll stop here as I think it may be time to start a new thread since this point doesn’t directly address whether “God was once a man” is critical doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

I'm on my way out the door. I just read the US constitution and am about to take action in the name of the USA.

Funny, but you miss the point. I never said that the scriptures sent or authorized me to preach the gospel. That is one of several misrepresentations of my views that you have expressed in your posts alongside your disparaging and disrespectful comments.

My authorization to make disciples of Jesus Christ comes from Jesus Christ himself. I have a personal relationship with him. He is my Lord and Savior. I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in my heart, the same Spirit who inspired the Scriptures, the very Spirit whom Jesus sent as another Paraclete to be with all of his disciples following Jesus' ascension. The Father is my Father by his gracious adoption of me as his child through my faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has called me to be his disciple. His instructions to all of his disciples, which includes me, are found in the Scriptures, which are his word. As a child of God the Father, a follower of Jesus Christ, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, my participation in the life and mission of the church of Jesus Christ is part of my personal relationship with the true and living God.