The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[wenglund]

Can you really say that our modern-day leaders would EVER receive such confirming revelation?  Has it happened in the last century of the Church?  Or is HF now only working through "established channels"?

 

And let's be clear, I'm not claiming that Denver Snuffer is the Lord's anointed.  I'm simply saying that our current structure precludes HF from calling him or anyone else as an apostle.  Now, perhaps HF has decided that Peter Drucker was right after all and that He has now adopted 20th century business practices in running His Church.   Or perhaps, His HUMAN servants have began to take on the ways of the (business) world.

 

I wonder who has changed not ...

 

Do you really believe that God is so inept in directing the affairs of his Church, or the leaders are so deaf to hearing the God who chose them, that he needs self-appointed community organizers to take over and whip his Church into shape--as if they know what is best and are in a position to do so?

 

I could be mistaken, but I am smelling whiffs of prideful "Jesus Complex," which is nothing like, and far less sweet, than humbly "coming unto and becoming like Christ."

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[teddyaware]

Paul had a vision in which he proclaimed that the Savior personally commanded him to go forth and preach the Gospel.  Are you honestly telling me that someone in our Church could approach the leadership with their vision and be given over, say, the equivalent of the Roman Empire as its chief apostle?  No way in heck!

 

In fact, I'll prove it to you with two words -- DENVER SNUFFER.

 

In last conference, didn't Elder Nelson try to explain to us why we have no need to fear if one of the apostles is incapacitated?  Isn't it because we have a deep "bullpen" of GAs, who have been groomed through three and four decades of experience?

 

"The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.17 Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils."

 

To me, this does not seem to show some great willingness to turn the reigns over to some new convert who had a vision.  Which senior leader of the church "tutored" Paul?

 

In our current church, we wouldn't let Paul lead a primary class, nevertheless assume the role of apostle.  No way.  No how.  And if you claim CFR, then perhaps you can prove me wrong by showing me ONE example in the last half century of an LDS apostle who had served less than 20 YEARS in the Church before being called as apostle.

 

Bueller?  Anyone?  Bueller?

You're being presumptuous. If some non-member (remember Paul was a non-member when He received his vision, so there's a precedent) were to experience a genuine heavenly vision, similar to Paul's, there's no reason to discount the possibility that the presiding prophets of the Church would also receive a revelation from God to inform them that the said non-member had just received a great vision and that the leaders of the Church should receive and believe the man when he arrived at Church headquarters. In case you didn't know, this is precisely what happened when Paul received his vision. Though consisting of 13 verses, I hope you will carefully read and consider following from the Book of Acts because these words utterly lay to waste your specious argument.

5 And he (Paul) said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9)

So as anyone can plainly see, Saul (later Paul) didn't go off on his own volition after receiving his vision because the vision wasn't enough to make him a member of the Church, bestow upon him the gift of the Holy Ghost or send him off as a ordained missionary. Rather, a local authorized Church Priesthood leader, Ananias, had a vision that informed him the non-member and Church persecutor Saul had just received a vision and that he, Ananias, was to baptize Saul and lay hands upon him give him the gift of the Holy Ghost, and this that Saul might receive a remission of his sins and be filled with the gifts and powers of the Spirit. Please note that after his vision Paul didn't go off half cocked on his own, as if all that was needful was already done, but that the vision had to be authenticated by an existing priesthood leader.

Edited October 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[mormonnewb]

On many, many occasions I have been given to know ahead of time by God that I needed to prepare myself for a particular calling, including the one I currently occupy. Personal revelation and revelation from God to His chosen leaders support one another.

 

No doubt that church leaders sustain your callings.  From what I can tell by our conversations on this board, you are a "team player," who follows the rules and only acts within the proper channels of authority.  From my reading of scripture, Paul wasn't such a man.

 

I can only imagine that the early apostles were suspicious of Paul; and who could blame them?  He was a notorious anti-Christian.  However, he seems to have eventually won their confidence and was even sent off to Antioch with a letter from the head apostle, Peter.

Except it was 14 YEARS after his conversion before he received Peter's stamp of approval.  So what did he do in the interim?  Did he dutiful serve his superiors, acting only within the bounds of the authority bestowed upon him from leadership?  Not even close.  He travelled throughout the Mediterranean, establishing churches (presumably under his own authority).  And these seemed to be PAUL'S churches, not churches he established under the priesthood keys of Peter.

 

As you know, about a third of the NT is Paul writing letters to HIS churches, expounding on various points of theology and church practice.  In many of these letters, his teachings are in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles.  In fact, Paul went so far as to publicly rebuke Peter.

 

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.... I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:11-16

 

As you remember, this was the great Gentile circumcision debate of 51 A.D.  Can you honestly imagine a current apostle, say Elder Bednar, confronting President Monson publicly and basically telling him that we can do away with, say, the Word of Wisdom?  No, I can't imagine it either, because Elder Bednar has been better "tutored" than that.  After a lifetime of Church service, he knows how to sustain the prophet.  He's been chosen for that very purpose.

 

This is why I say that Paul would have been ex'd in today's Church.  Because as soon as he began to publicly criticize the prophet and began building support, for say, Ordain Circumcision, they would have received a call from his stake president.

 

It is my understanding that it wasn't always that way in the early days of this Church.  In fact, I once heard that there was quite a bit of public disagreement between BY and another senior apostle over Adam-God.  But I think Peter Drucker ended all of that nonsense in a business school talk sometime in the early 20th century.  But I could be wrong ... 

[mormonnewb]

You're being presumptuous. If some non-member (remember Paul was a non-member when He received his vision, so there's a precedent) were to experience a genuine heavenly vision, similar to Paul's, there's no reason to discount the possibility that the presiding prophets of the Church would also receive a revelation from God to inform them that the said non-member had just received a great vision and that the leaders of the Church should receive and believe the man when he arrived at Church headquarters. In case you didn't know, this is precisely what happened when Paul received his vision. Though consisting of 13 verses, I hope you will carefully read and consider following from the Book of Acts because they utterly lay to waste your specious argument.

5 And he (Paul) said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9)

So as anyone can plainly see, Saul (later Paul) didn't go off on his own volition after receiving his vision because the vision wasn't enough to make him a member of the Church or empower, bestow upon him the gift of the Holy Ghost and send him off on as a ordained missionary. Rather, a local, authorized Church Priesthood leader, Ananias, had a vision that informed him the non-member and Church persecutor Saul had just received a vision and that he, Ananias, was to baptize Saul and lay upon hands to give Saul the gift of the Holy Ghost, and this that Saul might receive a remission of his sins and be filled with the gifts of the Spirit. Please note that after his vision Paul didn't go off half cocked on his own, as if all that was needful was already done, but that vision had to be authenticated by an existing priesthood leader.

 

Agreed.  Paul was given the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands of someone in proper authority.  But is it your claim that Ananias also bestowed upon Paul the keys to go out and establish churches throughout the Mediterranean?  Did Ananias hold those keys?  And did Ananias also give Paul the authority to publicly rebuke Peter and begin to teach his own doctrines, even if they directly conflicted with those of Peter and the other apostle?

 

Let's face it.  Paul "went rogue."  And while we officially affirm some of his rogueness today, we wouldn't stand for a 21st century Paul.  No way.  No how.

Edited October 14, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

Do you really believe that God is so inept in directing the affairs of his Church, or the leaders are so deaf to hearing the God who chose them, that he needs self-appointed community organizers to take over and whip his Church into shape--as if they know what is best and are in a position to do so?

 

I could be mistaken, but I am smelling whiffs of prideful "Jesus Complex," which is nothing like, and far less sweet, than humbly "coming unto and becoming like Christ."

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

 

HF seemed to need Paul to come in and whip the apostles into shape about circumcision and other aspects of the Law.  Or perhaps, Paul was some "self-appointed community organizer" who should have kept quiet.  After all, as you would have told Paul, "Peter is not so deaf as to not hear from HF himself.  If HF wants to change strict observance to this law, He will tell those He has chosen to lead His Church, not some Judas-come-lately with a Jesus Complex!"

 

I think we can both agree that it's a good thing that neither one of us was around back in the early days of the Church.

[teddyaware]

Agreed.  Paul was given the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands of someone in proper authority.  But is it your claim that Ananias also bestowed upon Paul the keys to go out and establish churches throughout the Mediterranean?  Did Ananias hold those keys?  And did Ananias also give Paul the authority to publicly rebuke Peter and begin to teach his own doctrines, even if they directly conflicted with those of Peter and the other apostle?

 

Let's face it.  Paul "went rogue."  And while we officially affirm some of his rogueness today, we wouldn't stand for a 21st century Paul.  No way.  No how.

And so you've fallen into my trap.

1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 ¶So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13)

I've repeatedly encouraged you to study the scriptures before going off on your rampages on this board, but it seems my advice has fallen of deaf ears.

[mormonnewb]

And so you've fallen into my trap.

1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 ¶So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13)

I've repeatedly encouraged you to study the scriptures before going off on your rampages on this board, but it seems my advice has fallen of deaf ears.

 

I mentioned just this commission in my earlier post.  Yet, this was in 51 AD, about 14 years after Paul's conversion experience.  During the intervening years, Paul had already been to Antioch and built the Church there.  It was on Paul's return to Antioch that he was given this "authority."

 

So where did I fall into your trap again?  Because Paul was eventually officially commissioned to do a job that he had already been doing for YEARS?

[mfbukowski]

On many, many occasions I have been given to know ahead of time by God that I needed to prepare myself for a particular calling, including the one I currently occupy. Personal revelation and revelation from God to His chosen leaders support one another.

For the record, I have had the same experience several times.

[mfbukowski]

No doubt that church leaders sustain your callings.  From what I can tell by our conversations on this board, you are a "team player," who follows the rules and only acts within the proper channels of authority.  From my reading of scripture, Paul wasn't such a man.

 

I can only imagine that the early apostles were suspicious of Paul; and who could blame them?  He was a notorious anti-Christian.  However, he seems to have eventually won their confidence and was even sent off to Antioch with a letter from the head apostle, Peter.

Except it was 14 YEARS after his conversion before he received Peter's stamp of approval.  So what did he do in the interim?  Did he dutiful serve his superiors, acting only within the bounds of the authority bestowed upon him from leadership?  Not even close.  He travelled throughout the Mediterranean, establishing churches (presumably under his own authority).  And these seemed to be PAUL'S churches, not churches he established under the priesthood keys of Peter.

 

As you know, about a third of the NT is Paul writing letters to HIS churches, expounding on various points of theology and church practice.  In many of these letters, his teachings are in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles.  In fact, Paul went so far as to publicly rebuke Peter.

 

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.... I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:11-16

 

As you remember, this was the great Gentile circumcision debate of 51 A.D.  Can you honestly imagine a current apostle, say Elder Bednar, confronting President Monson publicly and basically telling him that we can do away with, say, the Word of Wisdom?  No, I can't imagine it either, because Elder Bednar has been better "tutored" than that.  After a lifetime of Church service, he knows how to sustain the prophet.  He's been chosen for that very purpose.

 

This is why I say that Paul would have been ex'd in today's Church.  Because as soon as he began to publicly criticize the prophet and began building support, for say, Ordain Circumcision, they would have received a call from his stake president.

 

It is my understanding that it wasn't always that way in the early days of this Church.  In fact, I once heard that there was quite a bit of public disagreement between BY and another senior apostle over Adam-God.  But I think Peter Drucker ended all of that nonsense in a business school talk sometime in the early 20th century.  But I could be wrong ... 

This does not even address hamba's comment

[teddyaware]

I mentioned just this commission in my earlier post.  Yet, this was in 51 AD, about 14 years after Paul's conversion experience.  During the intervening years, Paul had already been to Antioch and built the Church there.  It was on Paul's return to Antioch that he was given this "authority."

 

So where did I fall into your trap again?  Because Paul was eventually officially commissioned to do a job that he had already been doing for YEARS?

So if your version of the story is to be believed,  after his baptism and confirmation by submission to the priesthood leadership of Ananias, our "rogue" disciple Paul decides to go off on his own ministry without officially being called to such by the Church leaders. Then sometime later in his Church life, for some strange reason he uncharacteristically submits to the Church priesthood leaders who called him to serve as a missionary?

 

I'm wondering why If in the beginning Paul submitted to the inspired priesthood leadership of Ananias, and then later also submitted to the revelatory priesthood leadership of those prophets in Acts 13 who called him by revelation to embark on a mission, what makes you believe that following the inspired direction of priesthood leaders wasn't always the pattern followed by this great man of God. After all, Paul expected others to submit to his priesthood leadership; and if he went rogue, why the hypocrisy and inconsistency on his part? His epistles plainly reveal he expected the Church members at large to submit to his priesthood leadership, as well to the leadership of the other apostles and prophets of the Church. Why then would he be one of those exasperating folks who, according to your take, tell others to "do as I say but not as I do."

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Paul)

 

All the above mentioned priesthood leaders are listed in the plural and so it certainly doesn't sound like Paul is a "lone ranger" Apostle to me.

 

You admit Paul did submit, at the Lord's own solemn command, to priesthood leadership at the beginning of his ministry, and then submitted to the priesthood leaders again later on in his ministry, yet for reasons that are beyond me you also believe he mysteriously and incongruously went rogue, ignoring and disrespecting the duly constituted priesthood leaders during the span of time between the two aforementioned sacred events of humble submission on his part -- so Paul the rogue seems very unlikely 

 

By the way, Peter loved and supported Paul. They were not the bitter enemies, as some rebels searching for justification attempt to portray.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

 

Just because these two had one recorded encounter, that does not mean they were doctrinal opponents and bitter enemies.

Edited October 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[wenglund]

HF seemed to need Paul to come in and whip the apostles into shape about circumcision and other aspects of the Law.  Or perhaps, Paul was some "self-appointed community organizer" who should have kept quiet.  After all, as you would have told Paul, "Peter is not so deaf as to not hear from HF himself.  If HF wants to change strict observance to this law, He will tell those He has chosen to lead His Church, not some Judas-come-lately with a Jesus Complex!"

 

I think we can both agree that it's a good thing that neither one of us was around back in the early days of the Church.

 

If memory serves me correctly, Paul was called to be an apostle prior to his dispute with Peter over circumcision  So, until you have been seized by a profound personal visitation from Jesus Christ, during which was issue ironically a command to submit yourself to Church authorities, and you are latter called to be an apostle by God through his chosen leaders, and are thus given rightful audience by the prophet, your invoking Paul is thoroughly unwarranted--your presuming to the authoritative stature of Paul notwithstanding. Calling yourself to be a community organizer to school God's chosen leaders, is worlds apart.

 

Besides, Paul's experience occurred early on in the 1st Century Church, when the organization and beliefs and scriptures of the Church at the time were somewhat in flux and in the early stages of development, as opposed to you coming late on the scene centuries after the Church was reestablished in the later days, and the organization and beliefs and canon of the Church had, under God's capable hands, for all intents and purposes pretty much solidified and long been near fully developed. So, here again there is no meaningful comparison. It may have made some sense to have measured and constructive dissension from certain members when the Church was in its infancy, but it doesn't make much sense for a mature adult Church to defer to seemingly endless streams of whines and unsolicited advice from self-proclaimed newbies and the metaphoric equivalent of rebellious teens. 

 

Furthermore, Paul presented his rare opposing case in the company of Peter, and presumably had his case confirmed by God to his chosen leaders, as opposed to you griping and complaining incessantly to a bunch of yahoo fellow saints on an internet discussion board, and this well outside the presence of the prophet and without the least indication of God's authoritative confirmation. Thereby once more making the comparison absurd.

 

Even so, I love you as a brother and respect your desire to bring about much good, though I take exception to your misplaced trust and seemingly counterproductive methods.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

If memory serves me correctly, Paul was called to be an apostle prior to his dispute with Peter over circumcision  So, until you have been seized by a profound personal visitation from Jesus Christ, during which was issue ironically a command to submit yourself to Church authorities, and you are latter called to be an apostle by God through his chosen leaders, and are thus given rightful audience by the prophet, your invoking Paul is thoroughly unwarranted--your presuming to the authoritative stature of Paul notwithstanding. Calling yourself to be a community organizer to school God's chosen leaders, is worlds apart.

 

Besides, Paul's experience occurred early on in the 1st Century Church, when the organization and beliefs and scriptures of the Church at the time were somewhat in flux and in the early stages of development, as opposed to you coming late on the scene centuries after the Church was reestablished in the later days, and the organization and beliefs and canon of the Church had, under God's capable hands, for all intents and purposes pretty much solidified and long been near fully developed. So, here again there is no meaningful comparison. It may have made some sense to have measured and constructive dissension from certain members when the Church was in its infancy, but it doesn't make much sense for a mature adult Church to defer to seemingly endless streams of whines and unsolicited advice from self-proclaimed newbies and the metaphoric equivalent of rebellious teens. 

 

Furthermore, Paul presented his rare opposing case in the company of Peter, and presumably had his case confirmed by God to his chosen leaders, as opposed to you griping and complaining incessantly to a bunch of yahoo fellow saints on an internet discussion board, and this well outside the presence of the prophet and without the least indication of God's authoritative confirmation. Thereby once more making the comparison absurd.

 

Even so, I love you as a brother and respect your desire to bring about much good, though I take exception to your misplaced trust and seemingly counterproductive methods.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think it was Foghorn Leghorn who said it best, "I think we have a failure to communicate here."  You think that I equate myself with Paul, and that I believe that the Savior has appeared to me personally and told me to reorganize this Church.  I assure you that I make no such claim.

 

And as you astutely noted, had the Savior made such a request of me, I suspect He'd be more than a little upset that I was choosing this discussion board as a substitute for making "real" reform.  At no point in scripture, do I remember reading, "And now go to the four corners of the Internet and get rep points in my name."

 

Rather, my point is simply that if the Savior does approach someone with such a mission, then that person better have a law degree (or the correct last name) because those "uneducated 14-year-old boy in a sacred grove" days are over (Elder Ballard explained as much in reassuring us about the stable nature of our leadership).

 

Quite frankly, as someone who is a natural skeptic, I don't find our Fortune 500 system to be terribly alarming.  We might miss out on a Paul or two, but we'll also avoid a Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones, or worse, ME.  So if all of you are fine with it, I withdraw my criticisms.  After all, I have a law degree.  

[Guest]

Paul had a vision in which he proclaimed that the Savior personally commanded him to go forth and preach the Gospel.  Are you honestly telling me that someone in our Church could approach the leadership with their vision and be given over, say, the equivalent of the Roman Empire as its chief apostle?  No way in heck!

 

In fact, I'll prove it to you with two words -- DENVER SNUFFER.

 

In last conference, didn't Elder Nelson try to explain to us why we have no need to fear if one of the apostles is incapacitated?  Isn't it because we have a deep "bullpen" of GAs, who have been groomed through three and four decades of experience?

 

"The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.17 Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils."

 

To me, this does not seem to show some great willingness to turn the reigns over to some new convert who had a vision.  Which senior leader of the church "tutored" Paul?

 

In our current church, we wouldn't let Paul lead a primary class, nevertheless assume the role of apostle.  No way.  No how.  And if you claim CFR, then perhaps you can prove me wrong by showing me ONE example in the last half century of an LDS apostle who had served less than 20 YEARS in the Church before being called as apostle.

 

Bueller?  Anyone?  Bueller?

"Claim CFR", he was calling for a CFR...where are you trying to go for this. The CFR was for you to answer where GA's or anyone here or any member you have ever known who called Paul and apostate. Believe me if the GA's knew a member or convert were called by Christ in such away he would indeed be worthy to serve as a primary teacher and much more. The fact is after Paul had his vision and for a long time the Apostles and member in the early Church feared him. Paul barley spent anytime with Peter and other Apostles...most of his training came from local leaders. Again why do you persist with this...sorry if you feel people should have a shortcut to to central leadership...but we need men of experience and those who have been refined in the furnace of affliction. In our early history as well as the early Church in the Bible, men we certainly called as Apostles with very few years of membership in the Lord's Church.

[halconero]

To me, this does not seem to show some great willingness to turn the reigns over to some new convert who had a vision.  Which senior leader of the church "tutored" Paul?

 

Anaias first, then Barnabas.

[Kenngo1969]

I think it was Foghorn Leghorn who said it best, "I think we have a failure to communicate here."  ...

If you're going to quote The Great Foghorn Leghorn, at least have enough respect for him to quote him accurately:

 

“What we got hea— I say, what we got heah is a failyuh to communicate!”

 

Sorry; couldn't resist!

 

Carry on!

Edited October 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

 

 

No doubt that church leaders sustain your callings.  From what I can tell by our conversations on this board, you are a "team player," who follows the rules and only acts within the proper channels of authority.  From my reading of scripture, Paul wasn't such a man.

 

I can only imagine that the early apostles were suspicious of Paul; and who could blame them?  He was a notorious anti-Christian.  However, he seems to have eventually won their confidence and was even sent off to Antioch with a letter from the head apostle, Peter.

Except it was 14 YEARS after his conversion before he received Peter's stamp of approval.  So what did he do in the interim?  Did he dutiful serve his superiors, acting only within the bounds of the authority bestowed upon him from leadership?  Not even close.  He travelled throughout the Mediterranean, establishing churches (presumably under his own authority).  And these seemed to be PAUL'S churches, not churches he established under the priesthood keys of Peter.

 

As you know, about a third of the NT is Paul writing letters to HIS churches, expounding on various points of theology and church practice.  In many of these letters, his teachings are in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles.  In fact, Paul went so far as to publicly rebuke Peter.

 

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.... I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:11-16

 

As you remember, this was the great Gentile circumcision debate of 51 A.D.  Can you honestly imagine a current apostle, say Elder Bednar, confronting President Monson publicly and basically telling him that we can do away with, say, the Word of Wisdom?  No, I can't imagine it either, because Elder Bednar has been better "tutored" than that.  After a lifetime of Church service, he knows how to sustain the prophet.  He's been chosen for that very purpose.

 

This is why I say that Paul would have been ex'd in today's Church.  Because as soon as he began to publicly criticize the prophet and began building support, for say, Ordain Circumcision, they would have received a call from his stake president.

 

It is my understanding that it wasn't always that way in the early days of this Church.  In fact, I once heard that there was quite a bit of public disagreement between BY and another senior apostle over Adam-God.  But I think Peter Drucker ended all of that nonsense in a business school talk sometime in the early 20th century.  But I could be wrong ... 

 

 

Your understanding has certainly been collored by your personal perspectives.

[mormonnewb]

Your understanding has certainly been collored by your personal perspectives.

 

I freely acknowledge that my views on scripture are colored by my personal perspective, as is true of everyone.  This is the point I've been trying to make for more than 1,000 posts -- that MEN (even those called by HF) see the truths of God through their own lenses, which are colored by their life experiences.

 

I'm glad that my work here is finally bearing fruit. 

[Boanerges]

I freely acknowledge that my views on scripture are colored by my personal perspective, as is true of everyone.  This is the point I've been trying to make for more than 1,000 posts -- that MEN (even those called by HF) see the truths of God through their own lenses, which are colored by their life experiences.

 

I'm glad that my work here is finally bearing fruit. 

  Me, too.

[teddyaware]

I freely acknowledge that my views on scripture are colored by my personal perspective, as is true of everyone.  This is the point I've been trying to make for more than 1,000 posts -- that MEN (even those called by HF) see the truths of God through their own lenses, which are colored by their life experiences.

 

I'm glad that my work here is finally bearing fruit. 

The goal is not to see God's truths through imperfect spiritual lenses distorted by the fallen nature. We should not rejoice in or be satisfied with an amalgam of truth mingled with error, just because the unique admixture feeds the pride native to the smug carnal mind.

Rather, our goal should be to see and understand God's truths in the way He sees and understands them -- perfectly and with very deep humility -- without the distortions of imperfect spiritual lenses that, if not handled with enough care, all too often generate contentious behaviors that issue forth when one is  prematurely convinced he has a complete picture of the facts, when he really doesn't. In reality, there actually is real, perfectly defined, unalloyed truth out there waiting to be found and utilized to much greater benefit than truths that are incomplete and/or alloyed with error.

In the Restored Church of Christ, there are few things more obnoxious than the spectacle of newly arrived members who in their immaturity and fallen human pride presume to think they perceive truth more clearly and divine the truth more wisely than those Apostles and Prophets at the head of the Church, even those who have been properly called of the Lord and have lifetimes of experience in learning to hear, comprehend and heed the voice of the Lord's Spirit.

5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. (James 4)

In the above words of divine wisdom, uttered by the Lord's own brother, there is a crucial word of wisdom for me, you and anyone else who seeks to come unto the Lord with the proper frame of mind.

Edited October 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

I freely acknowledge that my views on scripture are colored by my personal perspective, as is true of everyone.  This is the point I've been trying to make for more than 1,000 posts -- that MEN (even those called by HF) see the truths of God through their own lenses, which are colored by their life experiences.

 

I'm glad that my work here is finally bearing fruit. 

 

But you do not seem to understand it is their perspective that God has called to lead the church,  Not yours or Denver Snuffers or anybody else.  Just theirs.

[Avatar4321]

So Paul submitted to church authority, only to go rogue and then once again submit to church authority and the scriptures dont mention this at all

[3DOP]

Mormonnewb

In many of these letters, his teachings are in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles.  In fact, Paul went so far as to publicly rebuke Peter.

 

3DOP

HiMormonnewb.

 

I think what you have provided here is a very debatable example of "teachings in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles." I hope you will consider an argument that actually requires that Peter and Paul are in agreement doctrinally for the episode to really make any sense. Here goes...

 

The necessary reason for Paul's rebuke isn't disagreement with Peter's teaching at all. It is a fraternal correction about Peter's inconsistent behavior inspired derived from human respect. Paul is pointing out that Peter's actions don't match his beliefs. He wasn't rebuking Peter for false doctrine but for cowardly action:  "For before that same (St. Peter) came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation."

 

Dissimulation occurs when one's actions do not mirror one's beliefs. Peter had right beliefs and his actions needed to be similar with his beliefs. In this instance Paul is agreeing with Peter's beliefs. Indeed, he is insisting that Peter's beliefs are correct! We are also told why Peter's actions were dissimilar from his beliefs: "fearing them who were of the circumcision". Many good lessons can be drawn from this story, but none of them entails the slightest indication that Paul and Peter are in anything but full doctrinal agreement.

 

I hope you can see why I can't agree that this particular episode is helpful in showing that St. Paul's "teachings are in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles."

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited October 14, 2014 by 3DOP

[mormonnewb]

But you do not seem to understand it is their perspective that God has called to lead the church, Not yours or Denver Snuffers or anybody else. Just theirs.

And when I have ever disputed this fact? I have not called for a recall or a coup (or even sedan). However, sustaining their leadership of the Church does not prevent me from questioning the wisdom of some of their decisions.

For example, when I'm driving in the car with my wife, she sustains me as the driver of the car by not grabbing the steering wheel or trying to slam on the brakes. Yet, as she has told me MANY times, she retains the right to make "helpful suggestions." And she unquestionably has the right to THINK that I'm in the wrong lane or following too close to the car in front (which I'm not).

In this context, I'm not ripping the mantle of leadership from the Brethren. I'm not even shouting instructions from the passenger seat. I'm simply posting my "helpful suggestions" on an obscure Internet message board, that seems to me to have been created for this very purpose.

[Pahoran]

Paul had a vision in which he proclaimed that the Savior personally commanded him to go forth and preach the Gospel.

Did he?

Acts 9:

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Tell us again what the Lord told Saul in that vision?

Are you honestly telling me that someone in our Church could approach the leadership with their vision and be given over, say, the equivalent of the Roman Empire as its chief apostle?  No way in heck!

 

In fact, I'll prove it to you with two words -- DENVER SNUFFER.

Your "proof" only works if we accept the rather dubious assumption that Mr Snuffer is right and all of the Lord's anointed servants are wrong.

In my view, Mister Snuffer is not an apostle, but an apostate. Your citing of his name proves nothing.

Nothing about the Church, that is.

 

In last conference, didn't Elder Nelson try to explain to us why we have no need to fear if one of the apostles is incapacitated?  Isn't it because we have a deep "bullpen" of GAs, who have been groomed through three and four decades of experience?

 

"The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.17 Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils."

 

To me, this does not seem to show some great willingness to turn the reigns over to some new convert who had a vision.  Which senior leader of the church "tutored" Paul?

Evidently Peter did, among others. I suggest two things: first, that you actually read the chapters you are waving at me.

Second, I suggest that you try to compare like to like. Saul lived in the first generation of the early Church, when all of the leaders were converts like him. He is therefore best compared with those who joined the Church in the 1830's and 1840's. That is the parallel situation to Saul/Paul's time.

In our current church, we wouldn't let Paul lead a primary class, nevertheless assume the role of apostle.  No way.  No how.  And if you claim CFR, then perhaps you can prove me wrong by showing me ONE example in the last half century of an LDS apostle who had served less than 20 YEARS in the Church before being called as apostle.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot supply any references in support of your previous claim.

 

Bueller?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Who on earth is Bueller, and why on earth should I care?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

Mormonnewb

In many of these letters, his teachings are in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles. In fact, Paul went so far as to publicly rebuke Peter.

3DOP

HiMormonnewb.

I think what you have provided here is a very debatable example of "teachings in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles." I hope you will consider an argument that actually requires that Peter and Paul are in agreement doctrinally for the episode to really make any sense. Here goes...

The necessary reason for Paul's rebuke isn't disagreement with Peter's teaching at all. It is a fraternal correction about Peter's inconsistent behavior inspired derived from human respect. Paul is pointing out that Peter's actions don't match his beliefs. He wasn't rebuking Peter for false doctrine but for cowardly action: "For before that same (St. Peter) came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation."

Dissimulation occurs when one's actions do not mirror one's beliefs. Peter had right beliefs and his actions needed to be similar with his beliefs. In this instance Paul is agreeing with Peter's beliefs. Indeed, he is insisting that Peter's beliefs are correct! We are also told why Peter's actions were dissimilar from his beliefs: "fearing them who were of the circumcision". Many good lessons can be drawn from this story, but none of them entails the slightest indication that Paul and Peter are in anything but full doctrinal agreement.

I hope you can see why I can't agree that this particular episode is helpful in showing that St. Paul's "teachings are in direct contradiction to those of the other apostles."

Regards,

Rory

I see your point in this case, although I still contend that Paul acted in a way that is unthinkable for a modern Mormon apostle. I just can't imagine, Elder Ballard publicly chastising Pres. Monson for, say, hypocrisy in his teachings on modesty because he sometimes goes swimming in a Speedo.

Of course, as you know, many Biblical scholars have contended that Peter and Paul had significant conflicts in their theology. In fact, Peter is often referred to as the Apostle of the Catholics and Paul as the Apostle of the Protestants. In fact, in doing a TINY amount of research for this thread, I found some discussion as to whether or not Paul was a "false prophet," due to seemingly significant departures in theology.

That being said, there are just as many scholars who come down on your side of the ledger, so it is by no means a settled point. But what is fairly settled is that modern day LDS apostles do not publicly rebuke the President of the Church for ANY reason.