CV75 Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Just asking. For the record, is was personal asking that led to my current reading. At first, back in the 1980s I just wanted to know what the "and living" meant. None of the commentaries I checked paid any attention. Is it just a rhetorical flourish, or does it have a specific meaning to convey?Bethel Park, PAOften when the topic of the Great Apostasy comes up, I refer to John 12:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Of course this refers to Christ's death and resurrection, but I also think it applies to all things attributable to Him--everything dies in this world, the Christ, the Earth, everyone and everything in it, and His Church. And everyhting that is His will be raised up again. So I take the "living" Church" to correspond to the "Livng Christ"-- it was dead, but it was resurrected or restored (D&C 1:29-30). The dispensation of the meridian of time was for the death of the Church; the dispensation of fullness of times was for its resurrection and further use for gearing up for the Church of the Firstborn.
Stone holm Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Except it explicitly is not the same covenant, as described in Jeremiah 31: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke ...Would this be the new and everlasting covenant?
Gervin Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Would this be the new and everlasting covenant?I certainly equate it with Hebrews 8.
Stone holm Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 This one illustrates my point, though quite unintentionally.. Is the quote "straight from the D&C?" or is it actually a misquote, based on what a person thinks is there? Does the misquote make a difference in the meaning or not? Is there a difference between a "one and only true church" and a "true and living church" distinguished as the only well pleasing one? Is "one and only" a quote straight from any passage in D&C 1, or this an interpretive gloss? Does it matter?Just asking. For the record, is was personal asking that led to my current reading. At first, back in the 1980s I just wanted to know what the "and living" meant. None of the commentaries I checked paid any attention. Is it just a rhetorical flourish, or does it have a specific meaning to convey?FWIWKevin ChristensenBethel Park, PAI think what he was saying was that we sometimes try to be polite or feel like we are being arrogant so we avoid the claim, but we still make the claim.
Kevin Christensen Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 It's in the first section, verse 30:power to lay the foundation of this bchurch, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of cdarkness, the only true and living dchurch upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well epleased, fspeaking unto the church collectively and not individually—I know. I quote the actual text often on these boards, as this topic question comes regularly. My point is that when you put quotation marks around "one and only true church" you were not quoting D&C 1. For me, it makes a difference in the reading.FWIWKevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA 1
Stargazer Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Very clever, to space out the acronym so the board software doesn't hose the title up. Anyway, I prefer the title, "The Only Authorized Church". And, the answer to the natural consequential question is: authorized by the Lord. And allow me an oblique Heinleinism. Extra point if you can identify the novel wherein the original phrase occurs:"There is no such thing as an untrue Church; some are just more true than the others."The authority to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. That is what makes it the only true church.
3DOP Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 What about mine? Too late Darren! (I gave you one anyway.)Nobody who considers themselves to be the legitimate descendants of Christ's priesthood can neglect the patrimony that the Jews preserved until that time. Some Catholics, mistakenly in my opinion, have gone so far as to propose that ethnic Jews are saved by adherence to a separate covenant. I think this untenable, but it illustrates the importance of the Old Covenant, and reflects the teaching which says that in the end times, God will redeem the physical offspring of Abraham. 3
Darren10 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Too late Darren! (I gave you one anyway.)Nobody who considers themselves to be the legitimate descendants of Christ's priesthood can neglect the patrimony that the Jews preserved until that time. Some Catholics, mistakenly in my opinion, have gone so far as to propose that ethnic Jews are saved by adherence to a separate covenant. I think this untenable, but it illustrates the importance of the Old Covenant, and reflects the teaching which says that in the end times, God will redeem the physical offspring of Abraham.I very much agree. The very same covenant Christians use to follow Jesus Christ is the covenant God made with the Jews of antiquity. No "separate covenant"; only a difference in timing according to the Lord's time, not man's.
Darren10 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) The cool thing about obsidian is that if you wear it around your neck, it isn't a "concealed weapon"- it magically becomes "jewelery". Ah- what's in a name?I won't tell anyone in DC if you won't./Sssssshhhhhhhhhhhh.... Edited May 29, 2013 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) Except it explicitly is not the same covenant, as described in Jeremiah 31: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke ...Doen't a "new" covenant here mean a renewal and / or an expantion ofthe old covenant? Was not the ancient covenant for Israel to follow YHWH and only YHWH, who is the very Jesus Christ Christians believe in? I can scarcely contemplate God making any covenant with anyone outside of these bounds. Edited May 29, 2013 by Darren10 1
Stone holm Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Doen't a "new" covenant here mean a renewal and / or an expantion ofthe old covenant? Was not the ancient covenant for Israel to follow YHWH and only YHWH, who is the very Jesus Christ Christians believe in? I can scarcely contemplate God making any covenant with anyone outside of these bounds.Except most Christians other than us believe that YHWH is Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ.
blackstrap Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 So we are saying that all roads eventually lead to Rome's Appian Way and the main and only gate into Rome is guarded by the Elders Of Israel. Some roads are much more circuitous and some have more detours and some are much bumpier . But all will eventually have to get on the strait and narrow way and enter the Kingdom through baptism by those with the authority. The LDS Church ( ya I know ! ) just happens to be the most direct route. ???
Stargazer Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Too late Darren! (I gave you one anyway.)Nobody who considers themselves to be the legitimate descendants of Christ's priesthood can neglect the patrimony that the Jews preserved until that time. Some Catholics, mistakenly in my opinion, have gone so far as to propose that ethnic Jews are saved by adherence to a separate covenant. I think this untenable, but it illustrates the importance of the Old Covenant, and reflects the teaching which says that in the end times, God will redeem the physical offspring of Abraham.Oh, and just in case you might have read my preceding post and been annoyed at my insistence that the Church of Jesus Christ is the most true church in the world, let me assauge your annoyance by ceding your own church as possessing second place. This is perhaps small comfort, but it is the best I can do. And it is a lovely little church, I will also concede. 2
3DOP Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Oh, and just in case you might have read my preceding post and been annoyed at my insistence that the Church of Jesus Christ is the most true church in the world, let me assauge your annoyance by ceding your own church as possessing second place. This is perhaps small comfort, but it is the best I can do. And it is a lovely little church, I will also concede. Heh. I would be disappointed with you if you thought otherwise Stargazer...and of course, you know it cuts the other way too. God bless.3DOP 2
Robert F. Smith Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Except most Christians other than us believe that YHWH is Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ.Except that most Christians believe that YHWH is both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
Avatar4321 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Yes. But you don't have to take my word for it. The Lord will be more than willing to answer your question if you put it to Him.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) 3DOP, on 28 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:Too late Darren! (I gave you one anyway.)Nobody who considers themselves to be the legitimate descendants of Christ's priesthood can neglect the patrimony that the Jews preserved until that time. Some Catholics, mistakenly in my opinion, have gone so far as to propose that ethnic Jews are saved by adherence to a separate covenant. I think this untenable, but it illustrates the importance of the Old Covenant, and reflects the teaching which says that in the end times, God will redeem the physical offspring of Abraham.I very much agree. The very same covenant Christians use to follow Jesus Christ is the covenant God made with the Jews of antiquity. No "separate covenant"; only a difference in timing according to the Lord's time, not man's.Which covenant do Christians use to follow Christ? And, if that is the same covenant which God made with the Jews of antiquity, which covenant was that? Are you speaking of the Mosaic covenant (Sinai) or the Davidic covenant? Or both? And, if the Mosaic and Davidic covenants are conditional, what then do we do with the unconditional covenant of Abraham (Gen 17)?After all, Romans 11 and LDS theology (Jacob 5) seem to be in agreement that there is indeed a special, unconditional covenant (brit) applied to Israel, such that Joseph sent Orson Hyde to Palestine in 1841 to dedicate the land to the gathering of the Jews -- a gathering which continues apace in these latter-days.*This reminds me that at the 2012 Society for Mormon Philosophy & Theology annual mtg at USU in Logan, Utah, Grant Hardy made some comments on the lack of supersessionism in the BofM, along with the lack of the Davidic covenant: understandable in light of Lehi being a Manassite and the Book of Mormon being a northern E document -- thus Lehi mentions the covenant of Joseph instead.* Steven Epperson, “Some Problems with Supersessionism in Mormon Thought: A Review Essay,” BYU Studies, 34/4 (1994-95), 125-136; Epperson, Mormons and Jews: Early Mormon Theologies of Israel (SLC: Signature, 1992); Seymour Cain, “Judaism and Mormonism: Paradigm and Supersession,” Dialogue, 25/3 (1992), 57-65; Jon Levenson, Death and Resurrection, x. Edited May 29, 2013 by Robert F. Smith 1
Stargazer Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Except that most Christians believe that YHWH is both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.Zing!
daz2 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 I believe that the Church is true and living. It is true and living in that the members and leaders honestly strive to seek God's will and to carry it out. It is true and living in that I believe God inspires its leaders and members through revelation to serve God and God's creations, and that includes carrying out rites and rituals imbued with God's power and that God recognizes. While I have a confidence or testimony that the Church is true and living and pleasing to God, I don't have a testimony that other faith traditions are not true, or living, or pleasing to God. I have never asked God for such a witness (i.e., that other faith paths are not true or living), and I do not know how God would answer the question for me. I have friends in other faith traditions who are quite confident that God has revealed or inspired them to follow those paths; who am I to question what they perceive as God's revelation to them? I believe in the same passage cited by the Prophet Joseph from James, about seeking God's wisdom and that God will grant it as asked. I believe that millions, if not billions of people have sought that wisdom over time and have ended up in different faith paths than my own. If they have misinterpreted what God told them, I will leave it to God to straighten them out. In the meantime, I respect and honor their beliefs, and it does not trouble me to accord their religious paths the same respect and honor that I do my own. 1
Darren10 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) Which covenant do Christians use to follow Christ? And, if that is the same covenant which God made with the Jews of antiquity, which covenant was that? Are you speaking of the Mosaic covenant (Sinai) or the Davidic covenant? Or both? And, if the Mosaic and Davidic covenants are conditional, what then do we do with the unconditional covenant of Abraham (Gen 17)?I was thinking of the Abrahamic covenant plus the explicit instruction by YHWH upon Israel to follow Him and Him only.Robert F. Smith, on 28 May 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:Except that most Christians believe that YHWH is both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.Zing!Correct but I wonder if in being or in person? Even in LDS theology, there's historical and doctrinal precedent to refer to bot the Father and the Son as YHWH / Lord / I AM, etc. Edited May 29, 2013 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Heh. I would be disappointed with you if you thought otherwise Stargazer...and of course, you know it cuts the other way too. God bless.3DOPThat's funny.
Darren10 Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 I'll invite 3DOP to vouch for the accuracy of this post:The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: 'theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh' (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people." - (Nostra Aetate, 4; Second Vatican Council, October 28, 1965)http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-church-is-israel.html
Damien the Leper Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I don't much care for such claims. It is as presumptuous and audacious a claim as Evangelicals claim that that Christianity is the one true world religion. It is a worldview and not an indisputable fact.
Stone holm Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I believe that the Church is true and living. It is true and living in that the members and leaders honestly strive to seek God's will and to carry it out. It is true and living in that I believe God inspires its leaders and members through revelation to serve God and God's creations, and that includes carrying out rites and rituals imbued with God's power and that God recognizes. While I have a confidence or testimony that the Church is true and living and pleasing to God, I don't have a testimony that other faith traditions are not true, or living, or pleasing to God. I have never asked God for such a witness (i.e., that other faith paths are not true or living), and I do not know how God would answer the question for me. I have friends in other faith traditions who are quite confident that God has revealed or inspired them to follow those paths; who am I to question what they perceive as God's revelation to them? I believe in the same passage cited by the Prophet Joseph from James, about seeking God's wisdom and that God will grant it as asked. I believe that millions, if not billions of people have sought that wisdom over time and have ended up in different faith paths than my own. If they have misinterpreted what God told them, I will leave it to God to straighten them out. In the meantime, I respect and honor their beliefs, and it does not trouble me to accord their religious paths the same respect and honor that I do my own.Gave you a bump on that. We need to avoid the arrogance that we sometimes are guilty of with regards to the beliefs of others.
Stargazer Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I don't much care for such claims. It is as presumptuous and audacious a claim as Evangelicals claim that that Christianity is the one true world religion. It is a worldview and not an indisputable fact.Well, it is easy enough, and perhaps natural, to dismiss it as a mere worldview. I don't fault you for that.I happen to know that it is a fact, however. I don't expect you to agree with me, of course.
Recommended Posts