Elements Of The True Church?

[danielwoods]

So, through a letter from an Apostle is "directly"?

Who knew?

 

I'm close to not responding. It doesn't sound like a serious response. If you read the passage you can see Jesus deals directly with the person he's talking about. Then in the recorded revelation, John reveals what is going on, as well. 

[teddyaware]

I'm certainly guilty of following a line of New Testament scholars, like Dr. Wayne Meeks, who paint a picture of the early urban Christian governance as not following a cohesive or consistent governance system.  Are there any LDS New Testament scholars who have written on early church governance structure?

In his analysis is Meeks speaking of the post-New Testament Church (the church after the Revelation of Saint John was disseminated to the seven churches in Asia), or is he speaking of the Church as it existed during the period of leadership of the Apostles? If he is speaking of the post-apostolic church, then I and my Latter-day Saint brethren and sisters would agree with Mr. Meeks. The LDS Church believes that after the deaths of the Apostles, who were the Lord's chosen leaders of the Apostolic Era Church, the congregations of believers in Christ were set adrift by the unfortunate loss of the presiding prophetic overseers and were then forced to fend for themselves without the leadership of the Apostles and Prophets that Christ originally placed at the head of His Church.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12)

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief

corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: (Eph 2)

 

Without a Church structure  built upon the foundation of living Apostles and Prophets as Christ intended, local congregations, as independent entities, would eventually flounder and founder.

Edited May 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Notice the words though to the church of Thyatira:

 

"²⁰ Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. ²¹ I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. ²² So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. ²³ I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

 

 

Notice it doesn't say, "my authority, John... will do this and that..." nope. It states very clearly, "I [Jesus] will... " do this or that... 

 

To his own master he stands or falls. We have only one master. Jesus.

There is nothing at all new in the fact that the Lord reveals His will the members of the Church primarily in two ways: First by revelation given to the Apostles and Prophets, who reveal God's will to the members in order to lead and guide them in the paths of righteousness (think the writings of the New Testament); and He also guides the members of the Church by direct personal revelation given to each member as individuals. This is a foundational doctrine of the LDS Church: each member of the Church is encouraged to be a prophet in his or her own right, but while also acknowledging the presiding authority of the Apostles and Prophets who are authorized and empowered to receive revelation for the Church at large.

But again you seem to miss the obvious: The Lord gave the Apostle John His words of warning to the church at Thyatira -- He did not come down and speak to the saints at Thyatira in person. John dutifully recorded the Lord's solemn call to the Thyatirians to repent of their wickedness; and through this same John, as messenger, the people of that congregation learned that God was giving them time to repent of their adulterous association with the apostate doctrines of Jezebel. If it weren't for John functioning as messenger, the members at Thyatira wouldn't have known how terribly displeased the Lord was with their behavior, and they also wouldn't have known He was giving them a window of time to repent before He would most assuredly come down in dreadful judgment upon those who would ultimately refuse to heed John's warning from God to repent. 

 

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee (here the Thyatirans learn of this, the Lord's displeasure with them, through John), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit badultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds (and here, through John as messenger, they learn of their opportunity to repent).

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works (here, again through John, the Thyatirans learn the specific penalty the Lord will administer for a refusal to repent is physical and spiritual death).

24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden (through John as messenger, the Thyatirans learn not all of them are under the same condemnation pronounced upon the followers of Jezebel).

25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

 

Again, this is the way the Lord has always run His kingdom on earth and in heaven. He speaks to us through prophets and He also speaks to us individually. But you seem to want to put all the emphasis exclusively on the Lord speaking to us personally while minimizing the importance of revelation given to the Church at large through the presiding Apostles and Prophets. Remember, it is by this latter method of revelation that the Church was given the writings of the New Testament.

Edited May 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

There is nothing at all new in the fact that the Lord reveals His will the members of the Church primarily in two ways: First by revelation given to the Apostles and Prophets, who reveal God's will to the members in order to lead and guide them in the paths of righteousness (think the writings of the New Testament); and He also guides the members of the Church by direct personal revelation given to each member as individuals. This is a foundational doctrine of the LDS Church: each member of the Church is encouraged to be a prophet in his or her own right, but while also acknowledging the presiding authority of the Apostles and Prophets who are authorized and empowered to receive revelation for the Church at large.

But again you seem to miss the obvious: The Lord gave the Apostle John His words of warning to the church at Thyatira -- He did not come down and speak to the saints at Thyatira in person. John dutifully recorded the Lord's solemn call to the Thyatirians to repent of their wickedness; and through this same John, as messenger, the people of that congregation learned that God was giving them time to repent of their adulterous association with the apostate doctrines of Jezebel. If it weren't for John functioning as messenger, the members at Thyatira wouldn't have known how terribly displeased the Lord was with their behavior, and they also wouldn't have known He was giving them a window of time to repent before He would most assuredly come down in dreadful judgment upon those who would ultimately refuse to heed John's warning from God to repent. 

 

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee (here the Thyatirans learn of this, the Lord's displeasure with them, through John), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit badultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds (and here, through John as messenger, they learn of their opportunity to repent).

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works (here, again through John, the Thyatirans learn the specific penalty the Lord will administer for a refusal to repent is physical and spiritual death).

24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden (through John as messenger, the Thyatirans learn not all of them are under the same condemnation pronounced upon the followers of Jezebel).

25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

 

Again, this is the way the Lord has always run His kingdom on earth and in heaven. He speaks to us through prophets and He also speaks to us individually. But you seem to want to put all the emphasis exclusively on the Lord speaking to us personally while minimizing the importance of revelation given to the Church at large through the presiding Apostles and Prophets. Remember, it is by this latter method of revelation that the Church was given the writings of the New Testament.

 

You assume too much. You don't know what Jesus told the church at Thyatira personally (and to be fair, neither do I). Nor do we know who exactly in that church did Jesus communicate to directly. All we have is the written record of John. 

 

Your point then is to try and tell me that I'm denying that John as an apostle was used of God? I'm not. 

 

While I may be emphasizing the personal over the public, I'm doing this to point out, that no matter your belief in some monolithic organization, nothing can replace our personal connection to Christ. I'm not saying that the public documents we have (called the New Testament) are not important, they are immensely so, for by them we understand the personal connection we can all have to our Savior. 

[saemo]

Lest someone actually believe this is correct, let me say that it is not. I don't have time to list all the references, but a two minute search on LDS.org will yield many quotes such as these:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/heirs-to-the-kingdom-of-god?lang=eng&query=body+of+Christ

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1987/09/caring-for-members-who-are-not-very-active?lang=eng&query=body+of+Christ

I made reference to the priesthood of all believers, which is an important understanding of the invisible church. If there is no priesthood there is no church. The church is more than a congregation of like believers. We are, by our baptism, made prophets, priests/esses) and kings. This is what Mormonism denies.

The non-denominational Christian view is that there is only the priesthood of all believers. Organization and administration may, or may not, be present, but are not functions specific to an ordained priesthood.

Edited May 3, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

You assume too much. You don't know what Jesus told the church at Thyatira personally (and to be fair, neither do I). Nor do we know who exactly in that church did Jesus communicate to directly. All we have is the written record of John. 

 

Your point then is to try and tell me that I'm denying that John as an apostle was used of God? I'm not. 

 

While I may be emphasizing the personal over the public, I'm doing this to point out, that no matter your belief in some monolithic organization, nothing can replace our personal connection to Christ. I'm not saying that the public documents we have (called the New Testament) are not important, they are immensely so, for by them we understand the personal connection we can all have to our Savior.

So once again our dialogue brings us to a place of mutual agreement and understanding. For in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, personal interaction with the Lord and personal revelation is just as important and indispensably necessary as is the revelation that is given to the living Apostles and Prophets who stand at the foundation and head of the Church. In the LDS religion, neither of these two forms of revelation can effectually flourish and bear fruit without the other. Each member is encouraged and ultimately expected to be a prophet in his or her own right. In fact, it is upon this very principle (each member becoming a prophet) that Moroni's famous challenge in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon is based...

2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost YE MAY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ALL THINGS. (Moroni 10)

Edited May 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

So once again our dialogue brings us to a place of mutual agreement and understanding. For in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, personal interaction with the Lord and personal revelation is just as important and indispensably necessary as is the revelation that is given to the living Apostles and Prophets who stand at the foundation and head of the Church. In the LDS religion, neither of these two forms of revelation can effectually flourish and bear fruit without the other. Each member is encouraged and ultimately expected to be a prophet in his or her own right. In fact, it is upon this very principle (each member becoming a prophet) that Moroni's famous challenge in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon is based...

2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost YE MAY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ALL THINGS. (Moroni 10)

 

If you think we are in agreement. I'm ok with that. 

[mfbukowski]

I can't fathom it either. Because that's not what I said. As I noted Jesus was working both through his prophet, and directly disciplining the offending false teacher. You deny the later?

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.  There is nothing there about a false teacher who Jesus is "disciplining".  Where is it?  And how is that relevant in any way?

 

Edit: Ok I found it- you are talking about the woman prophet who was apparently actually a prostitute.

 

Again you miss the whole point.   I am not talking about ONE PASSAGE of the Book of Revelation - there is much much more, written to all of the 7 churches as reprimands from Christ to John as Christ's representative to pass onto the churches.

 

It is not one single instance!  Have you ever read it?

Edited May 3, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 We are, by our baptism, made prophets, priests/esses) and kings. This is what Mormonism denies.

 

Absolutely not.

You have no conception of the higher ordinances.  It is all there

[mfbukowski]

On the other hand, if this is what you mean, thank God Mormons are not Neoplatonists.  But I promised 3DOP that we would not go there.  I added the emphasis.

 

The invisible church or church invisible is a theological concept of an "invisible" body of the elect who are known only to God, in contrast to the "visible church"—that is, the institutional body on earth which preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments. Every member of the invisible church is saved, while the visible church contains some individuals who are saved and others who are unsaved. According to this view, Bible passages such as Matthew 7:21-27, Matthew 13:24-30, and Matthew 24:29-51 speak about this distinction.

This concept has been attributed to St Augustine of Hippo as part of his refutation of the Donatist sect.[1] He was strongly influenced by the Platonist belief that true reality is invisible and that, if the visible reflects the invisible, it does so only partially and imperfectly (see Theory of Forms).[2] Others question whether Augustine really held to some form of an "invisible true Church" concept.[3]

The concept was insisted upon during the Protestant reformation as a way of distinguishing between the "visible" Roman Catholic Church, which according to the Reformers was corrupt, and those within it who truly believe, as well as true believers within their own denominations. John Calvin described the church invisible as "that which is actually in God's presence, into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption and true members of Christ by sanctification of the Holy Spirit... [it] includes not only the saints presently living on earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world." He continues in contrasting this church with the church scattered throughout the world. "In this church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance..." (Institutes 4.1.7)

Pietism later took this a step further, with its formulation of ecclesiolae in ecclesia ("little churches within the church").

Roman Catholic theology, reacting against the Protestant concept of an invisible Church, emphasized the visible aspect of the Church founded by Christ, but in the twentieth century placed more stress on the interior life of the Church as a supernatural organism, identifying the Church, as in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi[4] of Pope Pius XII, with the Mystical Body of Christ.[5] In Catholic doctrine, the one true Church is the visible society founded by Christ, namely, the Catholic Church under the global jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

This encyclical rejected two extreme views of the Church:[6]

(1) A rationalistic or purely sociological understanding of the Church, according to which it is merely a human organization with structures and activities, is mistaken. The visible Church and its structures do exist but the Church is more, as it is guided by the Holy Spirit:

Although the juridical principles, on which the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given to it by Christ and contribute to the attaining of its supernatural end, nevertheless that which lifts the Society of Christians far above the whole natural order is the Spirit of our Redeemer who penetrates and fills every part of the Church.[7]

(2) An exclusively mystical understanding of the Church is mistaken as well, because a mystical "Christ in us" union would deify its members and mean that the acts of Christians are simultaneously the acts of Christ. The theological concept una mystica persona (one mystical person) refers not to an individual relation but to the unity of Christ with the Church and the unity of its members with him in her.[8]

Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky too characterizes as a "Nestorian ecclesiology" that which would "divide the Church into distinct beings: on the one hand a heavenly and invisible Church, alone true and absolute; on the other, the earthly Church (or rather 'the churches'), imperfect and relative".[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church

[wysteria]

I may be very wrong to post my opinions, but I think in a way, you are all missing the forest for the trees.  In my humble opinion, the OT was written for an earlier man that had much to learn about how to coexist in societies, how to live, eat, survive, and given 10 very firm basic commandments of absolutes. There was the beginnings of higher thought processes, things to reach for and promises of salvation, repentence for mistakes, the responsibility of free will.

In the NT, Jesus came to give us the "good news" which in a nutshell was love, forgiveness and unity and service to those less fortunate so that communities could truly thrive.  Jesus needed to learn about man's suffering, temptations, shame/guilt, urges and trevails....to help them to a new higher consciosness and direct connection with God.

When I see schisms, division, corruption, wars, disconnection....they are always based on ego, greed, lust, ignorance, grasping for power and being better than the next person.  ALWAYS man-made (natural man)....and destructive.  So much hate, war, death.

There are many religions that are much older and have so much to offer in terms of wisdom, experience, tolerance, grace, and universal truths...

After Jesus died, many of the church went to spread the wonderful lessons of Jesus and the love and forgiveness he taught...the connection with a l oving and understanding and forgiving God...  They were persecuted and had to hide and set up churches in d stant lands.  After @400 years, many of the wisest saw the corruption and corrupted messages and mis steps in such a huge venture over the years...(as Jesus pointed out) and differences in customs/languages etc.  They came together to try and reunify and get back to the true messages of Jesus..

The Catholic church was based on lineage to Peter, Christ's strongest and favoured apostle...through revelation, scriptures, and inspiration and love and revelations to John etc.  The use of the body/hands/feet etc....is saying that we all have our gifts and can use them and our differences to enhance the Church...not divide it.

Again, after many years of greed and power struggles and division and wars and politics, many were very unhappy with the Catholic church's "intervention" into their ability to talk/pray/commune with God without paying for dispensations and permission from some corrupt priests....thus when Luther and others left...they kept the basic concepts of love, caring for others, repentance and free agency that Jesus taught... Many of these congregations still say the Nicean Creed of faith and belief in the trinity as taught by Jesus.

JS's parents were Methodist.  

Many things said here or in church about other religions are not correct.  The LDS curch does not teach them nor does it want its members to learn about them in depth...yet wants to convert so many away from them.  I don't know of any other religions that are so adamant that their members not be open to the wisdom of other religions....and demands such faithfulness to doctrine that many members don't even understand nor question.  So many missionaries are so ill-trained and unable to speak on core tenants of the JCOLDS.  

 

My point here is to say that we are supposed to be learning from each other, loving others, living in peaceful, productive, healthy ways.....

The contentiosness and personal attacks on the intelligence of others on the board, are exactly what Jesus preached against.  Many of the points of contention between you are miniscule in comparison to the greater good that could be happening in your discourses.  You are intelligent men, but trying to prove some things is impossible.  Some of the Bible was written for practical purposes, relayed originally through centuries of verbal histories, written in parables to drive home some truths, and some are just corrupted over time and have to be understood in context of author, translations or historical significance, etc.

 

It just seems sad to me that you cannot seem to have genuine exchanges of wisdom, see the points of concord not discord, and the need to scream how right you are...or your interpretations of the Bible or whose church is the "only" church and "only" way to relationship with God.

 

Love and connection are the ultimate right answers.  They are divine.

 

I truly do believe that "absolute power absolutely corrupts."  In that light, why would you want it?  

 

No one man or church can be the only path to Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.  As you have testified quite clearly and unintentionally with your arguments.  I only hope you will try to find the wisdom and truths that almost all religions have to offer.  The classifications, divisions, contentions, schisms and ego are all of man's devices.  

Love, forgiveness, and connection to God and others IS the forest.  

 

Most respectfully, 

Wysteria

[teddyaware]

I may be very wrong to post my opinions, but I think in a way, you are all missing the forest for the trees.  In my humble opinion, the OT was written for an earlier man that had much to learn about how to coexist in societies, how to live, eat, survive, and given 10 very firm basic commandments of absolutes. There was the beginnings of higher thought processes, things to reach for and promises of salvation, repentence for mistakes, the responsibility of free will.

In the NT, Jesus came to give us the "good news" which in a nutshell was love, forgiveness and unity and service to those less fortunate so that communities could truly thrive.  Jesus needed to learn about man's suffering, temptations, shame/guilt, urges and trevails....to help them to a new higher consciosness and direct connection with God.

When I see schisms, division, corruption, wars, disconnection....they are always based on ego, greed, lust, ignorance, grasping for power and being better than the next person.  ALWAYS man-made (natural man)....and destructive.  So much hate, war, death.

There are many religions that are much older and have so much to offer in terms of wisdom, experience, tolerance, grace, and universal truths...

After Jesus died, many of the church went to spread the wonderful lessons of Jesus and the love and forgiveness he taught...the connection with a l oving and understanding and forgiving God...  They were persecuted and had to hide and set up churches in d stant lands.  After @400 years, many of the wisest saw the corruption and corrupted messages and mis steps in such a huge venture over the years...(as Jesus pointed out) and differences in customs/languages etc.  They came together to try and reunify and get back to the true messages of Jesus..

The Catholic church was based on lineage to Peter, Christ's strongest and favoured apostle...through revelation, scriptures, and inspiration and love and revelations to John etc.  The use of the body/hands/feet etc....is saying that we all have our gifts and can use them and our differences to enhance the Church...not divide it.

Again, after many years of greed and power struggles and division and wars and politics, many were very unhappy with the Catholic church's "intervention" into their ability to talk/pray/commune with God without paying for dispensations and permission from some corrupt priests....thus when Luther and others left...they kept the basic concepts of love, caring for others, repentance and free agency that Jesus taught... Many of these congregations still say the Nicean Creed of faith and belief in the trinity as taught by Jesus.

JS's parents were Methodist.  

Many things said here or in church about other religions are not correct.  The LDS curch does not teach them nor does it want its members to learn about them in depth...yet wants to convert so many away from them.  I don't know of any other religions that are so adamant that their members not be open to the wisdom of other religions....and demands such faithfulness to doctrine that many members don't even understand nor question.  So many missionaries are so ill-trained and unable to speak on core tenants of the JCOLDS.  

 

My point here is to say that we are supposed to be learning from each other, loving others, living in peaceful, productive, healthy ways.....

The contentiosness and personal attacks on the intelligence of others on the board, are exactly what Jesus preached against.  Many of the points of contention between you are miniscule in comparison to the greater good that could be happening in your discourses.  You are intelligent men, but trying to prove some things is impossible.  Some of the Bible was written for practical purposes, relayed originally through centuries of verbal histories, written in parables to drive home some truths, and some are just corrupted over time and have to be understood in context of author, translations or historical significance, etc.

 

It just seems sad to me that you cannot seem to have genuine exchanges of wisdom, see the points of concord not discord, and the need to scream how right you are...or your interpretations of the Bible or whose church is the "only" church and "only" way to relationship with God.

 

Love and connection are the ultimate right answers.  They are divine.

 

I truly do believe that "absolute power absolutely corrupts."  In that light, why would you want it?  

 

No one man or church can be the only path to Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.  As you have testified quite clearly and unintentionally with your arguments.  I only hope you will try to find the wisdom and truths that almost all religions have to offer.  The classifications, divisions, contentions, schisms and ego are all of man's devices.  

Love, forgiveness, and connection to God and others IS the forest.  

 

Most respectfully, 

Wysteria

I appreciate your sentiments and understand where you're coming from. If you will take the time to closely follow how I've comported myself on this thread, you'll see I, for one, do try to find points of agreement and common ground. You'll also observe I very often use the scriptures to bolster my positions and the points I'm trying to make.

Though it may take some real time and effort on your part to do so, I would appreciate it if you would repost your post above, but this time try to find scriptural references that will validate the specific ideas and concepts and you express. I can see how in today's politically correct age your notion that there is no need for one true church would resonate with many. But as seemingly persuasive and self-evident as your line of argument might seem to some, I would be genuinely thankful if you could find passages in the New Testament that argue for your "all Christian sects are equal valid before God" approach that you seem to endorse. If your approach is the correct one, there should be many New Testament verses that will back you up.

 

Please note that I'm not asking you to go through this exercise because I want to be argumentative and start a "Bible bash." I'm simply interested to know if your position can be persuasively defended by drawing references from the writings of the New Testament to support your ideas.

Edited May 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[saemo]

Absolutely not.

You have no conception of the higher ordinances. It is all there

By our BAPTISM.

Baptism.

Edited May 3, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

On the other hand, if this is what you mean, thank God Mormons are not Neoplatonists. But I promised 3DOP that we would not go there. I added the emphasis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church

Good Lord, it is right there in the Bible.

You have a weird fascination with Plato...and what, Mormons do deny the priesthood of all believers because you read the word Plato at Wikipedia?

Edited May 3, 2014 by saemo

[wysteria]

Dear Teddyaware,

I appreciated your thoughtful response and would like to do as you ask, but much of what I wss trying to say is based on wisdom from other churches and other religions and scholary articles etc.  I can probably get links ti much of the information, but it might take a bit of time.  My ideas about some of the intent of t h e old testament can obviuosly be seen in Hebrew, Judges and the like.  It cannot be denied hiw many times the new testament talks about love "my geatest commanment is love.." etc.

 

I definitely noticed that are a calming and non-belligerent poster as are a few others...but some are not nearly as open and can be ver y condescing which is understandable when talking about religious views....obviouslt we all have a lot invested in salvation and our relationship with God.

 

I only disagree with one a assumption that you made.  I do not believe that EVERY christan religion is equally correct or right...obviously there are many that have skewed the words and meaning of the Bible to suit there own agendas.  Obviously this also happens in Judaism, Islam, etc.  The Koran does NOT preach violence in the ways that some militant groups proclaim, indeed peace and love are again t the main theme of much of it.  I was really speaking towards universal truths about wisdom, right and wrong, tolerance, forgiveness, a pure heart, temptation etc....  Any data can be skewed, stories misinterpreted, historical events seen by many witnesses almost never have the same details etc reported the same.  That is just common sense.

 

The JCOLDS tells me to listen to my heart, the Holy Spirit, and teachings to verify what is true...I am trying very hard to do so.  I am trying very hard to keep my heart and mind open.  I read and pray and listen...  I am in NO way against the JCOLDS church or its members.  I love those i have met...

 

I am not the Bible scholar that you all are, but I didn't come to this information on my own either.  Perhaps you could help me a little by directing me on which points are weakest and need more substance and biblical references etc.  I did not want to make over generalizations, but also was asking for some others to take a step back and think on the meaning and relavance in what they were studying/discussing...

 

I would really appreciate your input...

 

Wysteria

 

Respectfully,

 

 

 

 

[teddyaware]

Dear Teddyaware,

I appreciated your thoughtful response and would like to do as you ask, but much of what I wss trying to say is based on wisdom from other churches and other religions and scholary articles etc.  I can probably get links ti much of the information, but it might take a bit of time.  My ideas about some of the intent of t h e old testament can obviuosly be seen in Hebrew, Judges and the like.  It cannot be denied hiw many times the new testament talks about love "my geatest commanment is love.." etc.

 

I definitely noticed that are a calming and non-belligerent poster as are a few others...but some are not nearly as open and can be ver y condescing which is understandable when talking about religious views....obviouslt we all have a lot invested in salvation and our relationship with God.

 

I only disagree with one a assumption that you made.  I do not believe that EVERY christan religion is equally correct or right...obviously there are many that have skewed the words and meaning of the Bible to suit there own agendas.  Obviously this also happens in Judaism, Islam, etc.  The Koran does NOT preach violence in the ways that some militant groups proclaim, indeed peace and love are again t the main theme of much of it.  I was really speaking towards universal truths about wisdom, right and wrong, tolerance, forgiveness, a pure heart, temptation etc....  Any data can be skewed, stories misinterpreted, historical events seen by many witnesses almost never have the same details etc reported the same.  That is just common sense.

 

The JCOLDS tells me to listen to my heart, the Holy Spirit, and teachings to verify what is true...I am trying very hard to do so.  I am trying very hard to keep my heart and mind open.  I read and pray and listen...  I am in NO way against the JCOLDS church or its members.  I love those i have met...

 

I am not the Bible scholar that you all are, but I didn't come to this information on my own either.  Perhaps you could help me a little by directing me on which points are weakest and need more substance and biblical references etc.  I did not want to make over generalizations, but also was asking for some others to take a step back and think on the meaning and relavance in what they were studying/discussing...

 

I would really appreciate your input...

 

Wysteria

 

Respectfully,

Thanks for you excellent response. Busy now but I'll respond in detail later this weekend. All the best...

[mfbukowski]

Good Lord, it is right there in the Bible.

You have a weird fascination with Plato...and what, Mormons do deny the priesthood of all believers because you read the word Plato at Wikipedia?

Golly gee I searched the bible for "invisible church" and nothing came up! Somebody must have torn that page out!

If you really want to get into Platonism and transubstantiation we can do it on another thread, not here. But trust me- I don't need wikipedia for Plato.

[mfbukowski]

By our BAPTISM.

Baptism.

Yes I know. No baptism, no priesthood, no priestesses, no kings or queens.

You do not understand the higher ordinances. All will receive them. That is what temple work is for. All have the priesthood. We are a "royal generation". I have read Paul too.

Edited May 3, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I may be very wrong to post my opinions, but I think in a way, you are all missing the forest for the trees.  In my humble opinion, the OT was written for an earlier man that had much to learn about how to coexist in societies, how to live, eat, survive, and given 10 very firm basic commandments of absolutes. There was the beginnings of higher thought processes, things to reach for and promises of salvation, repentence for mistakes, the responsibility of free will.

In the NT, Jesus came to give us the "good news" which in a nutshell was love, forgiveness and unity and service to those less fortunate so that communities could truly thrive.  Jesus needed to learn about man's suffering, temptations, shame/guilt, urges and trevails....to help them to a new higher consciosness and direct connection with God.

When I see schisms, division, corruption, wars, disconnection....they are always based on ego, greed, lust, ignorance, grasping for power and being better than the next person.  ALWAYS man-made (natural man)....and destructive.  So much hate, war, death.

There are many religions that are much older and have so much to offer in terms of wisdom, experience, tolerance, grace, and universal truths...

After Jesus died, many of the church went to spread the wonderful lessons of Jesus and the love and forgiveness he taught...the connection with a l oving and understanding and forgiving God...  They were persecuted and had to hide and set up churches in d stant lands.  After @400 years, many of the wisest saw the corruption and corrupted messages and mis steps in such a huge venture over the years...(as Jesus pointed out) and differences in customs/languages etc.  They came together to try and reunify and get back to the true messages of Jesus..

The Catholic church was based on lineage to Peter, Christ's strongest and favoured apostle...through revelation, scriptures, and inspiration and love and revelations to John etc.  The use of the body/hands/feet etc....is saying that we all have our gifts and can use them and our differences to enhance the Church...not divide it.

Again, after many years of greed and power struggles and division and wars and politics, many were very unhappy with the Catholic church's "intervention" into their ability to talk/pray/commune with God without paying for dispensations and permission from some corrupt priests....thus when Luther and others left...they kept the basic concepts of love, caring for others, repentance and free agency that Jesus taught... Many of these congregations still say the Nicean Creed of faith and belief in the trinity as taught by Jesus.

JS's parents were Methodist.  

Many things said here or in church about other religions are not correct.  The LDS curch does not teach them nor does it want its members to learn about them in depth...yet wants to convert so many away from them.  I don't know of any other religions that are so adamant that their members not be open to the wisdom of other religions....and demands such faithfulness to doctrine that many members don't even understand nor question.  So many missionaries are so ill-trained and unable to speak on core tenants of the JCOLDS.  

 

My point here is to say that we are supposed to be learning from each other, loving others, living in peaceful, productive, healthy ways.....

The contentiosness and personal attacks on the intelligence of others on the board, are exactly what Jesus preached against.  Many of the points of contention between you are miniscule in comparison to the greater good that could be happening in your discourses.  You are intelligent men, but trying to prove some things is impossible.  Some of the Bible was written for practical purposes, relayed originally through centuries of verbal histories, written in parables to drive home some truths, and some are just corrupted over time and have to be understood in context of author, translations or historical significance, etc.

 

It just seems sad to me that you cannot seem to have genuine exchanges of wisdom, see the points of concord not discord, and the need to scream how right you are...or your interpretations of the Bible or whose church is the "only" church and "only" way to relationship with God.

 

Love and connection are the ultimate right answers.  They are divine.

 

I truly do believe that "absolute power absolutely corrupts."  In that light, why would you want it?  

 

No one man or church can be the only path to Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.  As you have testified quite clearly and unintentionally with your arguments.  I only hope you will try to find the wisdom and truths that almost all religions have to offer.  The classifications, divisions, contentions, schisms and ego are all of man's devices.  

Love, forgiveness, and connection to God and others IS the forest.  

 

Most respectfully, 

Wysteria

Thanks for your post, and I just want you to know that we all have previous histories here that you do not know about. In my opinion those I attack have attacked first on other posts or boards, perhaps years ago.

Yet you are right- I need to learn to forgive and forget, and have acknowledged this many times. Please don't let my personal weaknesses damage your understanding of our church.

[3DOP]

 

Hi Wysteria. I am going to give a try at answering an important question that you asked.

 

Wysteria

I truly do believe that "absolute power absolutely corrupts." In that light, why would you want it?

 

3DOP

Firstly, I want One True Church because of the limitations of the meaning of the saying as it was understood by the man who made it. Unless one applies it to God, and the author didn't, it in no sense can be applied to the concept of One True Church. 

 

Secondly, even if I agreed with your apparent interpretation of the meaning of the expression quoted, I want One True Church because I hold that Christian Revelation proposes One True Church.

 

Thirdly, I want One True Church because there is no evidence that any one man in any of those institutions which claim to be One True Church holds "absolute power" anyway. On the contrary, the nearest claim to monarchy in any of these churches would be the bishop of Rome, who is limited by the Tradition that binds him and the Church he leads to his predecessors. This lack of authority in the popes is proven on the basis of procedures that should follow when a pope is suspected of heresy. This lack of authority, even with the Roman Pontiff is occasionally referenced by the popes:

 

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." (Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, par. 4, 22 May, 1994)

 

The person who gave us the expression "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", was a devout Roman Catholic, Lord Acton. Lord Acton never used this "maxim" as those who have followed him use it, as an argument against whatever authority they do not like. Anarchy is not the suggested remedy. The remedy is to be aware of the tendency and to counteract it. We recognize that every good thing can be abused or corrupted. Sure. We can get rid of gluttony by getting rid of food. But the cure is worse than the "tendency". The author of the expression would never in his life have thought of his observation as an argument against "one true church". The solution to Acton's observation is not the destruction of authority.

 

Some might not know that the quote is followed with a sentence that reads: "Great men are almost always bad men". Since the Head of the One True Church is Christ (whether we be Mormon, Orthodox, or Roman) we may put aside our worries about the tendency that power potentially has politically, or even among the human members of the One True Church. That is, unless one interprets Acton to be applying his rule to the One God as well. It seems clear that Acton understood his own thought as being compatible with One God, and One True Church, since he died in communion with a Church that claimed to be one and true. 

 

Thank you for your consideration,

 

3DOP 

Edited May 3, 2014 by 3DOP

[saemo]

Yes I know. No baptism, no priesthood, no priestesses, no kings or queens.You do not understand the higher ordinances. All will receive them. That is what temple work is for. All have the priesthood. We are a "royal generation". I have read Paul too.

Having been baptized into Christ, who is our high priest, I have no need to understand the pretended "higher ordinances" of Mormonism.

[saemo]

Golly gee I searched the bible for "invisible church" and nothing came up! Somebody must have torn that page out!If you really want to get into Platonism and transubstantiation we can do it on another thread, not here. But trust me- I don't need wikipedia for Plato.

I don't think you understand at all the theology surrounding the church visible and invisible and I don't have the time to school you.

Platonism and transubstantiation have nothing to do with each other. It is all in your mind. A delusion. A phantom. A monster under your bed.

[why me]

Having been baptized into Christ, who is our high priest, I have no need to understand the pretended "higher ordinances" of Mormonism.

Then why are you here if you have no need to understand the 'pretended' higher ordinances of mormonism or mormonism at all. I have seen your posts on a different forum and they are very hostile of mormonism. So, the question remains: why are you here? Do you wish to learn from mormons? Do you wish to convert mormons to your faith? I would think that some catholics are here to dialog with mormons for better understanding of them. What about you? Why are you here?

[mfbukowski]

Good Lord, it is right there in the Bible.

I don't think you understand at all the theology surrounding the church visible and invisible and I don't have the time to school you.

[wysteria]

Thanks for your post, and I just want you to know that we all have previous histories here that you do not know about. In my opinion those I attack have attacked first on other posts or boards, perhaps years ago.

Yet you are right- I need to learn to forgive and forget, and have acknowledged this many times. Please don't let my personal weaknesses damage your understanding of our church.

Thanks mfbukowski....

I appreciate your comments and can definitely understand the tone has to do with past experiences...

I would never judge a group by one individual's opinion or actions.  Every group has all types of people and personalities, and I have met too many wonderful JCOLDS members who are very kind and loving....others judgemental or ignorant...just wanted to better understand Godhood and other issues better as the church teaches them but also in light of my other studies and experience...

 

It is not as easy as some raised in the church think it is.  Sometimes when I hear names or readings and testimonies, I am surprised by pronunciations since I have done a lot of reading on my own and I'm so far off in my head.  (Yes, I know about the pronounciation guide...)

 

It was very genuine to apologize to me of all people who was probably being too judgemental in the first place.

 

Take care,

Wysteria