Elements Of The True Church?

[wysteria]

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 

 

Dear 3DOP,

 

I have thought a lot about your responses to what I wrote...

 

1.  Lord Acton certainly Would have said that about politicians or Catholic church leaders.  He believed in checks and balances and transparency in all institutions.... the ability for power, money and influence to corrupt even very good men is very true and seen over and over throughout history.  Why my 'interpretaion' of what he said or meant is not valid in your eyes is just not correct.  I certainly do understand a universal truth put so succinctly quite well.

 

Acton was a Catholic; and, a Catholic in England was at a considerable political disability.7 However, this disability was significantly offset because of family connections.8 Though a lifelong Catholic, his beliefs did not jibe with the characteristic doctrines of Catholic orthodoxy. Acton was one of a group of Catholics labeled, "Liberal Catholics."9 They were critical of the church in respect to its authoritarian organization (specifically, the Infallibility of the Pope10), and critical too of its past history (as for example: the Index, the Inquisition and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew11). Much of Lord Acton's writings dealt with these matters. His positions were to get him into difficulty with Rome and he came very close to being excommunicated, indeed, his mentor, Dr. Dollinger, did get excommunicated. As for Acton, he was one of the laity (unlike Dollinger), and one with high connections in the Protestant countries of Great Britain and Germany. Though his views were unorthodox, Acton, nonetheless, was a professed Catholic and the church recognized how important it was to it to have him in the ranks.12

 

 

2.  I NEVER said it referred to God, just humans as leaders of his church organization.

 

3.  Just because a Catholic bishop says the Pope does not have the authority to convey priesthood to females does NOT infer that he has not the authority to lead God's church or that it is not legitimate.  Obviously the JCOLDS church is facing same issue, and no one is questioning the president/Prophet's legitimacy as head of the church or legitamacy of LDS religion because of a disagreement within....

 

4.  I absolutely never proposed anarchy or the lack of church/religion/or a true church.

 

5.  You have taken the idea that it is moral or okay to jump churches to get whatever you want to do blessed or easily approved is a real stretch...certainly most of them have held fast to the beliefs as set forth in the Bible, by Jesus, and later reaffirmed by the council.  You have stated that you were at one point Baptist minister, a Catholic, member of the true church, etc.  Why would you assume that I would see 'church-hopping' would be ethical, moral, or within the bounds of Christ-like behaviours?  

 

I just don't think I understand some of your jumps in logic from what I said and what I believe, and where I asked for help from Teddyaware...to what you wrote in reply.

I think I just don't follow or know you well enough to understand some of you deeply held beliefs.

 

Again, I'm just trying to learn better what God wants from me and what the elements and truths of the LDS church.  

I hope I haven't been disrespectful, just trying to understand what you said and clarify where I see disparity in our views.

 

Perhaps if you said it again in a different way, I would be able to follow more easily.

Thank you for replying to my inquiries in the first place.  It was very kind of you.

 

Wysteria

 

(PS. Please forgive typing errors...using tablet while laptop not available.  Miss my keyboard..)

[danielwoods]

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?

 

Your point is that John is used as Christ's representative to those churches. I agree with this point (always have, and never have stated that I disagreed with it). Additionally, one can see that Jesus deals directly with his churches and people, even in the passages you referenced. 

[3DOP]

Dear 3DOP,

 

I have thought a lot about your responses to what I wrote...

 

1.  Lord Acton certainly Would have said that about politicians or Catholic church leaders.  He believed in checks and balances and transparency in all institutions.... the ability for power, money and influence to corrupt even very good men is very true and seen over and over throughout history.  Why my 'interpretaion' of what he said or meant is not valid in your eyes is just not correct.  I certainly do understand a universal truth put so succinctly quite well.

 

Acton was a Catholic; and, a Catholic in England was at a considerable political disability.7 However, this disability was significantly offset because of family connections.8 Though a lifelong Catholic, his beliefs did not jibe with the characteristic doctrines of Catholic orthodoxy. Acton was one of a group of Catholics labeled, "Liberal Catholics."9 They were critical of the church in respect to its authoritarian organization (specifically, the Infallibility of the Pope10), and critical too of its past history (as for example: the Index, the Inquisition and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew11). Much of Lord Acton's writings dealt with these matters. His positions were to get him into difficulty with Rome and he came very close to being excommunicated, indeed, his mentor, Dr. Dollinger, did get excommunicated. As for Acton, he was one of the laity (unlike Dollinger), and one with high connections in the Protestant countries of Great Britain and Germany. Though his views were unorthodox, Acton, nonetheless, was a professed Catholic and the church recognized how important it was to it to have him in the ranks.12

 

 

2.  I NEVER said it referred to God, just humans as leaders of his church organization.

 

3.  Just because a Catholic bishop says the Pope does not have the authority to convey priesthood to females does NOT infer that he has not the authority to lead God's church or that it is not legitimate.  Obviously the JCOLDS church is facing same issue, and no one is questioning the president/Prophet's legitimacy as head of the church or legitamacy of LDS religion because of a disagreement within....

 

4.  I absolutely never proposed anarchy or the lack of church/religion/or a true church.

 

5.  You have taken the idea that it is moral or okay to jump churches to get whatever you want to do blessed or easily approved is a real stretch...certainly most of them have held fast to the beliefs as set forth in the Bible, by Jesus, and later reaffirmed by the council.  You have stated that you were at one point Baptist minister, a Catholic, member of the true church, etc.  Why would you assume that I would see 'church-hopping' would be ethical, moral, or within the bounds of Christ-like behaviours?  

 

I just don't think I understand some of your jumps in logic from what I said and what I believe, and where I asked for help from Teddyaware...to what you wrote in reply.

I think I just don't follow or know you well enough to understand some of you deeply held beliefs.

 

Again, I'm just trying to learn better what God wants from me and what the elements and truths of the LDS church.  

I hope I haven't been disrespectful, just trying to understand what you said and clarify where I see disparity in our views.

 

Perhaps if you said it again in a different way, I would be able to follow more easily.

Thank you for replying to my inquiries in the first place.  It was very kind of you.

 

Wysteria

 

(PS. Please forgive typing errors...using tablet while laptop not available.  Miss my keyboard..)

 

Hi again Wysteria,

 

Thank you for the reply. I understood you to be arguing from Lord Acton, that a one true church was something none of us could want.

 

If I am mistaken, I stand corrected. I did not expect you or anyone to say that God would be included among those who would tend to be corrupted by power. Given that assumption, it seemed like since the proposal of Acton would not for most extend so far as God, it might be important to take note that among those who believe in one true church, Christ is the Head and the only one with absolute authority. That being the case, the unhappy tendency referred to in the quote would not apply to the one true church since God was the absolute authority. It would of course depend on the accuracy of the claim, but it would make the believer think that his particular organization would be exempt from the tendencies that afflict other powerful figures or institutions. I know this would apply to Roman Catholicism and presumably also to Mormonism and Eastern Orthodoxy. You appeared to me have been asking why anyone would want one true church, in light of Lord Acton's maxim. Because of the supernatural leadership, we could easily believe our own church to be providentially preserved from such corruption as Lord Acton spoke about.   

 

I'll try to clarify a couple of other comments too. 

 

Undoubtedly Acton was against the definition of papal infallibility. As it happens, so would I have been. Not that it is untrue, but the definition of papal infallibility has resulted, in my opinion, in more confusion than clarity. To be against the definition of papal infallibility is not the same as to be against the idea of one true church. As it happens, Acton's famous quote was not made until 1887, seventeen years after the definition.

 

The citation I referred to about women's ordination was not from just any bishop. It was a pope of recent memory. I made mention of that so that you would see an example of a Supreme Pontiff, after close on two thousand years of "tendency to corruption" proclaiming that their are limits to the authority of the pope and of a "one true church". I think we are still waiting for this corruption to appear. If anything these "power figures" are tending to reduce their authority claims in our own day and I could give you references if that would help.

 

I am only suggesting that if Lord Acton meant that he was against the idea of one true church it would seem to have been rather inconsistent of him. I suggest that written in the context of "great men being bad", he was probably talking mostly politics in 1887. He was Catholic and I don't see how he could apply that rule to the papacy. Which popes before 1887 could he have pointed to as being partially or absolutely corrupt because of this supposed power that comes with being a leader of the one true church? I think we are on pope number 266. There are some rascals. Maybe ten. They are all well known because anti-Catholics love to talk about them and not the other 250 plus decent to saintly men. But the bad ones gave indications of being what they were even before they took office. I think Lord Acton would have been very hard-pressed to show us an instance of a decent or good man who became a tyrant because of the supposed power that a pope holds as the believed-to-be leader of one true church before 1887.

 

In closing I ask, how can the Mormons get away from being the one true church? They believe that they are alone in the entire world who have an ordained priesthood with the validity to administer baptism. The Catholics and Orthodox can possibly say that the other is in a sense, part of the one true church because we hold to the validity of the other's sacraments. But how can we possibly allow that every church is equal when we can't possibly believe that they have officers who are properly ordained to administer the Sacraments to the faithful? Other churches don't have any kind of claims to have apostolic succession, where the officers descend in a chain that extends to the Apostles, not unlike the priestly chain which made Zachary, father of John the Baptist, a valid priest after the law of Moses. The only way to get rid of the idea of one true church, is to get rid of the idea of a valid priesthood. 

 

Thanks again wysteria...if I have misunderstood you...don't give up on me. I'll try again. One does make assumptions on this kind of medium, and they are ordinarily pretty reliable. If I have made mistakes, my apologies.

 

Rory

 

PS: I think one true church is the result of believing in a valid priesthood. Nobody that believes they have it is going to give it up...nor should they over the historical concerns of Lord Acton. 

Edited May 3, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

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

Well I am a convert myself so I can relate. I was Catholic and then an atheist until God let me know that he hadn't given up on me yet, and this church fit perfectly with all I had learned in my life, and here I am.

I have a little different perspective than most but have had a lot of experience in understanding the church and how it runs, so if you have any questions please feel free to ask.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind, it's not worth it.

Edited May 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited May 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

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. 

If you read the passage you see that Jesus is communicating to John what to tell the person.  Jesus is NOT in direct contact with the person at all.  Only John makes the contact.

 

You have it all wrong, and it is obvious.

[Vance]

 

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.

In fact, we don't even know if Jesus communicated directly with them at all.

 

But what we do know is that Jesus communicated THROUGH THE APOSTLE JOHN!  It is therefore OBVIOUS that John had been given authority OVER THOSE WHO HE ADDRESSED (incuding ALL of the local leadership).

[Vance]

I made reference to the priesthood of all believers, which is an important understanding of the invisible church.

A false doctrine fabricated by Martin Luther.

 

If there is no priesthood there is no church.

Agreed.

 

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.

Correct.  We don't believe that Baptism is what makes a person a prophet/prophetess, priest/priestesse or king/queen.

 

[Vance]

Good Lord, it is right there in the Bible.

 

You will need to show me what you are talking about.

[Vance]

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.

Perhaps you could just provide verses in the Bible, IF you can find any.

[Vance]

Additionally, one can see that Jesus deals directly with his churches and people, even in the passages you referenced. 

 

So now you are seeing something that is NOT there.

[wysteria]

Dear 3DOP,

Thank you so much for the further explanation about the Church, pope, priesthood holders and Acton.  You put a great deal of thought and time and I think I have a much better understanding of what you were trying to convey.  I guess in many ways it is easier to see the fallibility of man rather than faith that he represents and conveys the wishes of the godhood.  It is a little overwhelming at times.

I obviously have a very long way to go and much to learn.

Thank you,

Wysteria

[wysteria]

Well I am a convert myself so I can relate. I was Catholic and then an atheist until God let me know that he hadn't given up on me yet, and this church fit perfectly with all I had learned in my life, and here I am.

I have a little different perspective than most but have had a lot of experience in understanding the church and how it runs, so if you have any questions please feel free to ask.

Dear mfbukowski,

 

Thanks again for the reply.  Your viewpoint and others from other faiths interacting and discussing the theology and tenants of the JCOLDS church have been so enlightening and a great resource for me lately...and a great way to trigger me to read more about the things that are hard to understand.  Also a huge challenge to keep trying.

 

I guess maybe that was one reason that I originally posted...it was hard to see/feel the acrimony I thought was there that might jeopardize the wonderful dialogue and exchange of ideas.  I do appreciate you and all the others taking time to answer my questions.  Sometimes long-standing or "raised in the faith" members, just don't fully get what a huge leap of faith it is to accept the differences in what they believe vs what others were raised to believe. 

 

Thank you kindly for the offer of assistance when I get stuck...

 

Gratefully,

Wysteria

[danielwoods]

If you read the passage you see that Jesus is communicating to John what to tell the person.  Jesus is NOT in direct contact with the person at all.  Only John makes the contact.

 

You have it all wrong, and it is obvious.

 

 

In fact, we don't even know if Jesus communicated directly with them at all.

 

But what we do know is that Jesus communicated THROUGH THE APOSTLE JOHN!  It is therefore OBVIOUS that John had been given authority OVER THOSE WHO HE ADDRESSED (incuding ALL of the local leadership).

 

Wait. The LDS believe that the spirit communicates to believers directly, right? 

 

Yet, you don't know if Jesus communicated directly to them, through the spirit? 

 

And who was going to make her suffer unless she repents? (Hint, it wasn't John- Rev 2:22)

[mfbukowski]

Through the looking glass; everything is bent.

[Gervin]

Through the looking glass; everything is bent.

I read this as a double entrende.

 

The apostate Christian church seems to be a cornerstone of the LDS Church.  What is the LDS scholarship that describes the early church structure and governance prior to it falling away?

[mfbukowski]

I read this as a double entrende.

Only double?

[mfbukowski]

The apostate Christian church seems to be a cornerstone of the LDS Church.  What is the LDS scholarship that describes the early church structure and governance prior to it falling away?

The bible itself.  We didn't have to make it up- it's all there.  I recall someone else saying that in another context.  Now your arguments rest on scholars.  Inconsistent.

[Gervin]

The bible itself.  We didn't have to make it up- it's all there.  I recall someone else saying that in another context.  Now your arguments rest on scholars.  Inconsistent.

well, the request was serious even if your response wasn't.

[teddyaware]

well, the request was serious even if your response wasn't.

With all due deference, when it comes to wanting to understand the organization of the Apostolic Era Church of Christ, what source could possibly be better than the New Testament itself? Wouldn't virtually all Christians of the many sects agree that the New Testament (the word of God) is the primary go-to source to learn about the organization and inner workings of the original post-ascension Church of Christ? What could possibly compare? The books of the New Testament were composed at a time when living Apostles and Prophets were yet upon the face of the earth, so how could non-prophetic "scholars" ever take the place of the inspired, duly-authorized leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ who were right there in the Holy Land as first-hand witnesses to what was taking place? 

Your response to mfbukowski leads me to wonder if you are possibly more reliant upon the theories and teachings of men than you are on the Bible itself? Perhaps this is not so, but what else could cause you to seem to treat the New Testament as if it were a secondary or tertiary source for things Christian?

 

When a Latter-day Saints reads the following, there is no doubt in the mind of the reader but that the Apostolic Church of Christ had a centralized leadership of inspired Apostles and Prophets who, if necessary, like the Apostle Paul, could write new scripture:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

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 Corinthians 12)

 

And again,

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 (remember, there were living Apostles and Prophets on the earth at the time, Paul being one of them) Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;

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

 

What else could the above verses possibly mean but that at the time of the living Apostles and Prophets there was only one unified Church of Christ under the leadership of the same Apostles and Prophets? It seems to me it would take an awful lot of mental gymnastics to construe Paul's meaning to be anything other than at the time of Paul (and the other revelator Apostles) there was one unified Church of Christ with centralized, top-down leadership.

 

But if the scholars you are referring to are speaking of the nature of the post-apostolic church (the church as it existed when there were no longer Apostles and Prophets at the helm), then the above scriptures would no longer apply and your scholars might very well be correct in their analysis. Latter-day Saints readily acknowledge there is a very big difference between the pre-apostasy Church of Christ, and the post-apostasy church.

Edited May 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

Wait. The LDS believe that the spirit communicates to believers directly, right?

It can, but does it always? NO! 

Yet, you don't know if Jesus communicated directly to them, through the spirit?

No, we don't know. Just because something is possible does not mean that it occurred. There is no record of it occurring in the Bible, and for a Bible only kind of guy like you, it is very strange that you are making extra-biblical claims about what was going on. 

 

And who was going to make her suffer unless she repents? (Hint, it wasn't John- Rev 2:22)

So, Jesus has to communicate directly with her to make her suffer?

LOL!!!

He could just turn her over to the devil, without communicating directly with her. I hear the devil excels at making people suffer.

[Vance]

Your response to mfbukowski leads me to wonder if you are possibly more reliant upon the theories and teachings of men than you are on the Bible itself? Perhaps this is not so, but what else could cause you to seem to treat the New Testament as if it were a secondary or tertiary source for things Christian?

I think he would prefer to use the Bible to support his arguments but in this case it doesn't, so he is left to only other sources. "Sola Scriptura" except for when it isn't convenient.

[danielwoods]

It can, but does it always? NO! 

No, we don't know. Just because something is possible does not mean that it occurred. There is no record of it occurring in the Bible, and for a Bible only kind of guy like you, it is very strange that you are making extra-biblical claims about what was going on. 

 

So, Jesus has to communicate directly with her to make her suffer?

LOL!!!

He could just turn her over to the devil, without communicating directly with her. I hear the devil excels at making people suffer.

 

In this case, and other examples in the biblical text we have a context that fills in the blanks that are implied in the text and context. 

 

For example, I think we can safely assume that Thyatira was similar to the other churches that Paul started during his ministry. Such as the Corinthian church. Where in Thyatira we have no letters addressed to them (from Paul), but in Corinth, we do. And in that letter Paul instructs them about prophecy, he says, "²⁹ Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. ³⁰ And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.³¹ For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. " (1 Cor. 14)

 

Given the backdrop of this context, the churches of that time were well connected and a acquainted with prophecy and revelation, direct from the Spirit of God. So, while we don't have any other letters to Thyatira, I think it's safe to assume that this letter from John only reiterated what was already being said by the prophets active in that church located in Thyatira. 

 

To assume the opposite would take some sort of additional contextual evidence to support that conclusion. Which I am open to as well. Of course you may disagree, and that's fine. I'm simply explaining why I believe what I do. 

Edited May 5, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

In this case, and other examples in the biblical text we have a context that fills in the blanks that are implied in the text and context. 

 

For example, I think we can safely assume that Thyatira was similar to the other churches that Paul started during his ministry. Such as the Corinthian church. Where in Thyatira we have no letters addressed to them (from Paul), but in Corinth, we do. And in that letter Paul instructs them about prophecy, he says, "²⁹ Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. ³⁰ And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.³¹ For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. " (1 Cor. 14)

 

Given the backdrop of this context, the churches of that time were well connected and a acquainted with prophecy and revelation, direct from the Spirit of God. So, while we don't have any other letters to Thyatira, I think it's safe to assume that this letter from John only reiterated what was already being said by the prophets active in that church located in Thyatira.

IF there were prophets active in that church THEN there would be no need for the LORD to direct John to issue direction, censure and warning.

The very fact that the LORD had to resort to using John is prima facie evidence that there were NOT active prophets within the congregation. 

 

To assume the opposite would take some sort of additional contextual evidence to support that conclusion. Which I am open to as well. Of course you may disagree, and that's fine. I'm simply explaining why I believe what I do.

There is no evidence supporting your position. All the evidence provided supports the opposite conclusion than the one you are espousing.

Incidentally, nearly all of Paul's letters were written to correct falsehoods/false doctrine that were overwhelming the so called "prophets active in that church". You should ask yourself why, if there were "prophets active in that church" (in the way in which you are claiming they operated), would the LORD need to have Paul or John write letters of warning/censure.