Saints Alive Posted October 30, 2012 Author Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) You don't seem to understand. Protestants don't give a whoop about priesthood authority. That's why they aren't Catholic. Most Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists would disagree with you. They aren't catholic because they don't believe that the Bishop of Rome has the final say, they believe all bishops are equal.I think you are the one who doesn't understand. Edited October 30, 2012 by Saints Alive
Bart Burk Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Most Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists would disagree with you. They aren't catholic because they don't believe that the Bishop of Rome has the final say, they believe all bishops are equal.I think you are the one who doesn't understand.But no one is saved because of the authority of their Bishops -- people are saved because of their belief. The authority they claim is just act as overseers in their churches. Their authority isn't necessary to save anyone.
Ahab Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 You don't seem to understand. Protestants don't give a whoop about priesthood authority. That's why they aren't Catholic.You don't seem to understand. It's not as if Methodists believe they don't have God's authority to do what they do. ... and it's not as if Methodists believe they need to be Catholic to do what they believe God wants them to do.Priesthood authority is all about having authority from God to act for God, and they believe they have it while believing we don't.
Saints Alive Posted October 30, 2012 Author Posted October 30, 2012 But no one is saved because of the authority of their Bishops -- people are saved because of their belief. The authority they claim is just act as overseers in their churches. Their authority isn't necessary to save anyone. I think that is a epidemiological, chicken or egg, question. All three believe baptism is necessary for salvation and the same could be applied to us.
Ahab Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 But no one is saved because of the authority of their Bishops -- people are saved because of their belief.And how do you think they know what they're supposed to believe? They believe what their bishops tell them they should believe, which is why they are Methodists instead of being members of some other Church. Other churches have their own bishops (or some kind of preacher if not called by that name) who tell those churches what they should believe, too, you know. It's not as if Methodists (or Catholics) are the only ones out there in the world who believe that what they believe is what God wants them to believe.The authority they claim is just act as overseers in their churches.And why do you think they think they have overseers in their churches? What do you think they think they have if not priesthood authority?Their authority isn't necessary to save anyone.True priesthood authority is, though. Priesthood authority is all about having the authority of God, and God does in fact have the authority to determine who is saved and who isn't.
volgadon Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 If you are talking about Kabbalistic speculations on the meaning of the word "tsohar" (often translated as "window") in Gen. 6:16, then I guess it's possible that Smith was aware of that tradition in 1829. But I don't think that's likely, given that in his translation of the Bible, he used the word "window" in the point corresponding to Gen. 6:16.There is a lot more to what I am saying about the myth of the light than that, but you keep bandying about the term "Kabbalistic" when it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. You can't really call the Babylonian Talmud or the Targum Yonathan Kabbalistic.But there is a much more mundane explanation, derived from magic rather than Kabbalah. Smith was fascinated by magic stones. He saw himself as a "seer," meaning that he had a clairvoyant ability with respect to such stones. He found his own stone in a well in 1822, and he evidently believed there were many others to be found in the Americas. The Book of Mormon is full of references to magic stones, and the story of Ether 3 is a sort of origin story for 18 of them.Which origin story just happens to closely correspond to the same kind of traditions about the Tzohar, right?As to the "Nauvoo theology" references in the book of Moses, I'm not sure what you are talking about.The kind of things people mean when they talk about Nauvoo Theology, those tend to be found in the Book of Moses already. 1
Seraphim32 Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 At my university we once held a panel discussion between Methodist pastors and representatives from the LDS institute off campus. The Methodists were very set on highlighting the differences between the two faiths, while the LDS representatives were very set on highlighting the similarities. I personally came away thinking that while there are similarities between the two, there are serious divisions that should not be understated.In Christ,Seraphim 2
Ahab Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 At my university we once held a panel discussion between Methodist pastors and representatives from the LDS institute off campus. The Methodists were very set on highlighting the differences between the two faiths, while the LDS representatives were very set on highlighting the similarities. I personally came away thinking that while there are similarities between the two, there are serious divisions that should not be understated.In Christ,SeraphimI think it's about making lemonade from lemons. Representatives of the Church are aware of the differences between our Church and other churches, but it's often kinda like they're trying to say:We know you're not right on all points, but these are some points you do have right and if you want more truth [here] is where to find us.
Recommended Posts