Elements Of The True Church?

[Gervin]

How could you possibly find the bible to be inspired if all your scholars show you that no one who we though wrote it actually wrote it? 

I didn't say that no one who we thought wrote the Bible actually wrote the Bible.  I didn't say it wasn't inspired.  I was responding to the claim made here that the NT was written by Apostles and Prophets. Perhaps if teddyaware responds to my CFR then an actual discussion can take place.

  

 

I am not judging anyone.

 

Maybe I've misconstrued your desire to "stir the pot." When I'm told what I believe or don't believe or that I'm doing what I "need to do to keep cognitive dissonance in check" my reaction is to not give much credence to whatever else you might be saying.  I should just do a better job of ignoring you.

 

You keep trying to divert the issues with clever come-backs but that doesn't fool anyone.       

Divert?  I don't have the luxury of time, or desire, to spend hours upon hours on this board.  I hardly think I'm diverting anyone's attention to issues. 

 

As usual, no comment on the argument, just personal attacks and the reason the fonts didn't match.

 You insinuated that I was plagiarizing and I decided to defend myself.  Personal attack?  Hardly.

 

 

Do you believe in the bible, or bible scholars and why- that is the question you have repeatedly ignored.

I believe in the Bible. 

Edited May 6, 2014 by Gervin

[Vance]

However, even they taught that it was Jesus who was building his church, as in, "On this rock *I* will build my church". Not on this rock you will build it.

As if this somehow helps your case or undercuts ours.

[Vance]

The benefits of a unified authoritative approach is no different than an assortment evangelical opinion, of

WOW! Talk about a bald assertion.

[Vance]

James wasn't an Apostle.

Paul called him one. See Gal 1:18-19

[danielwoods]

I am not trying to tell you you are wrong at all, just inconsistent.

I do not know what is true for you, either. But if you believe that you should not be here in the first place since our opinion is as good as yours.

That's the whole problem here and where your inconsistency lies. You say that all Christian approaches are fine as long as they are based on Christ, EXCEPT ours of course.

If you don't believe in authority you have no basis for criticizing ours.

In other words, quoting you above- YOU have no authority to tell us we are wrong. In fact you have no authority in any religious matter at all anyway, totally proving that this is just a waste of time.

 

 

Where did I say that all approaches are fine except yours (LDS) of course? 

 

I agree with you, that I believe that all approaches are fine, as long as they are based on Christ. And to the extent that the LDS church is based on Christ, I agree with it. 

 

Telling others they are wrong or right. 

 

My approach to truth is based on evidence. Yours is based on personal testimony. 

 

Based on the evidence one can tell another that their ship is sinking. You can disagree and say you have a personal testimony that the ship won't sink. And that's where we all stand or fall to our own master. And because, I'm not God, nor do I play one on TV.  So, no it's not about having authority to judge or "tell" people things, at least for me. It is simply about what is true. 

 

This thread was interesting to me. I started reading it and I heard the Spirit say to me, "See there is no "true church organization"" and it hit me. I responded by saying you know you're right, I had never really thought about that before! So you may see this as me contriving this idea, when all I am doing is agreeing with what the Spirit is teaching me. 

[danielwoods]

Paul called him one. See Gal 1:18-19

 

I'm not sure Paul is calling him one or not. James was the head of the Jerusalem Church (pastor/bishop), whether he was called an Apostle or not, I don't see it yet.  

 

It was one of the main points of contention for whether to allow the book of James in the Cannon or not. That he wasn't an Apostle. 

Edited May 6, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

It was one of the main points of contention for whether to allow the book of James in the Cannon or not.

I think you are confusing what Martin Luther (and perhaps some of the other reformers) wanted to do with James with what the Catholic Church did do with James. It was the former that wanted to remove James from the canon and NOT the latter. And Martin Luther's objections had NOTHING to do with status of James as an Apostle. Edited May 6, 2014 by Vance

[pogi]

My approach to truth is based on evidence. Yours is based on personal testimony. 

 

So you may see this as me contriving this idea, when all I am doing is agreeing with what the Spirit is teaching me. 

 

Hmmmm...what was that you were just saying? 

[Gray]

More elements of the true church:

 

Baby changing tables

Pergolas

Hardwood podium

Ramp access

Stain resistant carpets

[teddyaware]

In post # 276 - You said, "the fact that Paul communicated with the Corinthian Church so frequently strongly indicates that local congregations absolutely needed revelation and guidance from the governing central authorities of the Church -- the local prophets were not sufficient."

 

I guess I misconstrued what you meant, that they were sufficient?

 

James wasn't an Apostle. Luke wasn't an Apostle either. Both of them wrote what is now a portion of the New Testament. 

 

You know I agree with you to a point, that the Apostles of that time were the defacto leaders of the then new movement or church. However, even they taught that it was Jesus who was building his church, as in, "On this rock *I* will build my church". Not on this rock you will build it.

Here's how I'll clear up your misunderstanding: The Latter-day Saints believe priesthood leaders, like Bishops and Stake Presidents, are given sufficient priesthood keys of power and authority to enable them to lead and guide local congregations by the inspiration of the Lord. But we don't believe the keys of priesthood power these men hold make them autonomous as leaders. That's why two times a year, at General Conference, the Latter-day Saints (including all the Bishops and Stake Presidents) hear and receive counsel from the presiding Apostles and Prophets of the Church; and that's also why several times throughout the year the Bishops give an account of their stewardships to their Stake Presidents, and Stake Presidents give account of their stewardships to regional authorities who represent the Twelve Apostles and, ultimately, the First Presidency of the Church.

Keeping the above in mind, the local leaders of the Corinthian congregation had priesthood power and authority bestowed on them sufficient to lead and guide those whom they were called to serve. But that same conferred priesthood power and authority was not sufficient to enable them to function in their leadership responsibilities autonomously without any oversight, inspired counsel, and needed discipline by the living Apostles and Prophets who presided over the Church of Christ at large. That's why Paul repeatedly counseled, by the written word and also by personal visits, the Church at Corinth. Again I say, in the New Testament era Church, the local leaders were not autonomous. 

 

The penultimate leaders of the Church at Corinthian were the Apostles and Prophets, not the local leaders. That's why the Apostle Paul said no part of the body of Christ can say "I have no need of the other members of the body." And remember, the living Apostles and Prophets were placed first in order of priority to be at the critically important foundation of the Church.

 

But you need to understand that the Latter-day Saints believe the Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader of the Church. The Apostles and Prophets are his representatives who reveal the will and knowledge of Christ to the entire Church by virtue of their priesthood authority; but that priesthood authority can only be made alive and efficacious by means of the inspiration and power of the Holy Ghost who reveals the Son of God to mankind.    

Edited May 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

CFR

That fact that the New Testament is the inspired word of God is an officially codified tenent of the LDS Church. In addition, the Latter-day Saints believe only someone with proper priesthood authority, proper authorization and mighty inspiration by the Holy Ghost can function as a Prophet so as to write scripture that is binding upon the Church of Christ at large. These two facts being the case, it is understood by the Latter-day Saints that since the New Testament is the word of God, the writers of the New Testament were therefore Prophets.

 

Because we believe in continuous revelation and living Apostles and Prophets, the Latter-day Saints don't rely on speculating scholars to give us tentative answers to critically important Gospel questions. But if you want to rely on the suppositions of the learned men of this world, that is your prerogative.

 

And now I have a couple questions for you: Do you believe the Gospel of Mark is the word of God? And if you, do you believe the writer of Mark was a Prophet of God in his own right?

Edited May 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[pogi]

More elements of the true church:

 

Baby changing tables

Pergolas

Hardwood podium

Ramp access

Stain resistant carpets

 

Don't forget the carpet wainscoting treatment. 

[Vance]

More elements of the true church:

 

Baby changing tables

Pergolas

Hardwood podium

Ramp access

Stain resistant carpets

Hardwood Lecturn

[danielwoods]

I think you are confusing what Martin Luther (and perhaps some of the other reformers) wanted to do with James with what the Catholic Church did do with James. It was the former that wanted to remove James from the canon and NOT the latter. And Martin Luther's objections had NOTHING to do with status of James as an Apostle.

 

Yeah, my recollection was mixing up a couple of things. James wasn't an Apostle, though. 

[danielwoods]

Hmmmm...what was that you were just saying? 

 

Yes, the spirit teaches me using the available evidence. Cool huh?

[mfbukowski]

This thread was interesting to me. I started reading it and I heard the Spirit say to me, "See there is no "true church organization"" and it hit me. I responded by saying you know you're right, I had never really thought about that before! So you may see this as me contriving this idea, when all I am doing is agreeing with what the Spirit is teaching me.

You better look out. You are thinking like a Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

More elements of the true church:

 

Baby changing tables

Pergolas

Hardwood podium

Ramp access

Stain resistant carpets

You forgot abrasive burlap on the walls.

[danielwoods]

Here's how I'll clear up your misunderstanding: The Latter-day Saints believe priesthood leaders, like Bishops and Stake Presidents, are given sufficient priesthood keys of power and authority to enable them to lead and guide local congregations by the inspiration of the Lord. But we don't believe the keys of priesthood power these men hold make them autonomous as leaders. That's why two times a year, at General Conference, the Latter-day Saints (including all the Bishops and Stake Presidents) hear and receive counsel from the presiding Apostles and Prophets of the Church; and that's also why several times throughout the year the Bishops give an account of their stewardships to their Stake Presidents, and Stake Presidents give account of their stewardships to regional authorities who represent the Twelve Apostles and, ultimately, the First Presidency of the Church.

Keeping the above in mind, the local leaders of the Corinthian congregation had priesthood power and authority bestowed on them sufficient to lead and guide those whom they were called to serve. But that same conferred priesthood power and authority was not sufficient to enable them to function in their leadership responsibilities autonomously without any oversight, inspired counsel, and needed discipline by the living Apostles and Prophets who presided over the Church of Christ at large. That's why Paul repeatedly counseled, by the written word and also by personal visits, the Church at Corinth. Again I say, in the New Testament era Church, the local leaders were not autonomous. 

 

The penultimate leaders of the Church at Corinthian were the Apostles and Prophets, not the local leaders. That's why the Apostle Paul said no part of the body of Christ can say "I have no need of the other members of the body." And remember, the living Apostles and Prophets were placed first in order of priority to be at the critically important foundation of the Church.

 

But you need to understand that the Latter-day Saints believe the Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader of the Church. The Apostles and Prophets are his representatives who reveal the will and knowledge of Christ to the entire Church by virtue of their priesthood authority; but that priesthood authority can only be made alive and efficacious by means of the inspiration and power of the Holy Ghost who reveals the Son of God to mankind.    

 

I appreciate the explanation. However, I don't get the feeling that Jesus came to set up a bureaucracy.

[mfbukowski]

Don't forget the carpet wainscoting treatment.

Dang. Beat me to it. But I like calling it abrasive burlap instead.

[teddyaware]

I appreciate the explanation. However, I don't get the feeling that Jesus came to set up a bureaucracy.

This is a perfect example of interpreting the scriptures in the light of one's own experience and understanding. Unlike the members of the Apostolic era Church, you have never lived under the leadership of living Apostles and Prophets who preside over the Church. So lacking that experience, and preferring another, you can't see, comprehend and appreciated what's right in front of your eyes.

Edited May 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

You forgot abrasive burlap on the walls.

I hate that stuff. I suspect it is used to keep the Children from rubbing their dirty little hands on the walls.

[Vance]

I appreciate the explanation. However, I don't get the feeling that Jesus came to set up a bureaucracy.

Of course not, He much preferred chaos and confusion.

[Gervin]

And now I have a couple questions for you: Do you believe the Gospel of Mark is the word of God? And if you, do you believe the writer of Mark was a Prophet of God in his own right?

I believe that the Gospel of Mark is the word of God.  I don't know who the writer of Mark was.  There may have been multiple writers.  If one, or more, I makes no difference what title you assign him/them; prophet, evangelist (this term comes up quite a bit in the book), teacher ... how am I to know what gifts were bestowed on this person(s) and why should it matter?  I don't testify to a person's title. Again, we don't know who wrote Hebrews - so what's more important - assigning an unknown author some title or assumed gift, or actually applying the words in Hebrews for a more complete understanding of faith?

 

Christ's call to follow Him is very straightforward and simple.  It's amazing, in my opinion, that people think it's too easy and must be made more complicated and nuanced to have any validity.

[Gray]

You forgot abrasive burlap on the walls.

 

Great for between-meeting exfoliation 

[danielwoods]

This is a perfect example of interpreting the scriptures in the light of one's own experience and understanding. Unlike the members of the Apostolic era Church, you have never lived under the leadership of living Apostles and Prophets who preside over the Church. So lacking that experience, and preferring another, you can't see, comprehend and appreciated what's right in front of your eyes.

 

You do the same. We all do. You said something yesterday that I'd like to respond to. 

 

Because we believe in continuous revelation and living Apostles and Prophets, the Latter-day Saints don't rely on speculating scholars to give us tentative answers to critically important Gospel questions. But if you want to rely on the suppositions of the learned men of this world, that is your prerogative.

 

No, the LDS rely on men just as much as anyone else does. Who are your Apostles and Prophets that you rely on? Men! 

 

The difference is it all comes down to a personal connection to God. No one has disagreed that to "our own master we stand or fall." and that master is Christ, not the LDS, Catholic, Eastern, or any other overseeing group that claims to be the true church. There is only one master to whom we all answer to, as believers in Christ.