Gray Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 14 hours ago, jwhitlock said: Not likely. Public denunciation of the church simply isn't compatible with wheat status. That would put a lot of Biblical and BOM prophets into "tare" status if true
jwhitlock Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 3 hours ago, Gray said: That would put a lot of Biblical and BOM prophets into "tare" status if true I doubt it.
Teancum Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 18 hours ago, jwhitlock said: Not likely. Public denunciation of the church simply isn't compatible with wheat status. Well here is the rub. You think you are wheat. You think those who disagree with you are tares. The fact that you cannot see this as problematic as well as a fair does of hubris speaks volumes to how those who think they have God's truth view the world and those who differ from them. 2
Gray Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 20 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: I doubt it. Haranguing the church was kind of the job description of Biblical prophets (Samuel the Lamanite too)
Calm Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 7 minutes ago, Gray said: Haranguing the church was kind of the job description of Biblical prophets (Samuel the Lamanite too) Haranguing the church or the members of the church? 3
Gray Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Haranguing the church or the members of the church? What's the difference?
Teancum Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 1 hour ago, jwhitlock said: I doubt it. Of course you do. You are convinced you and your views are among the wheat. Nice to be one of the special ones.
jwhitlock Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Well here is the rub. You think you are wheat. You think those who disagree with you are tares. The fact that you cannot see this as problematic as well as a fair does of hubris speaks volumes to how those who think they have God's truth view the world and those who differ from them. No hubris at all. It's simple logic, and has nothing to do with "those who disagree" as you've tried to expand it. If you embrace the ways of the world in opposition to the church God has set up on earth in preparation for the Second Coming, then you're not part of the wheat. It's really as simple as that.
jwhitlock Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 1 hour ago, Gray said: Haranguing the church was kind of the job description of Biblical prophets (Samuel the Lamanite too) I see no evidence in the scriptures for your claim.
Calm Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 1 hour ago, Gray said: What's the difference? One is attacking the organization and all its leaders, policies, etc. The other is condemning individuals for not living an appropriate life, possibly including not fulfilling their church duties successfully. 2
jwhitlock Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 38 minutes ago, Teancum said: Of course you do. You are convinced you and your views are among the wheat. Nice to be one of the special ones. I made no such claim about myself. I was talking about those who publicly denounce the church as not being part of the wheat. I also see that the only response I'm getting is "denigrate the messenger". While I understand that's SOP for those who oppose the church, it's still a very simple fact that those who embrace the world and denounce the church simply are not going to be counted among the wheat. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.
Teancum Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 57 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: No hubris at all. It's simple logic, and has nothing to do with "those who disagree" as you've tried to expand it. If you embrace the ways of the world in opposition to the church God has set up on earth in preparation for the Second Coming, then you're not part of the wheat. It's really as simple as that. You have an a priori assumption that you have the truth and that your view is really what God wants. That is hubris especially considering the fact that the LDS church is one among thousands of truth claims and one not all that successful. Just read your words above....the church God has set up on the earth.......etc....it is as simple as that. For you all other views are tares. Yet you think there is no hubris in that? 1
Teancum Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 57 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: I made no such claim about myself. I was talking about those who publicly denounce the church as not being part of the wheat. I also see that the only response I'm getting is "denigrate the messenger". While I understand that's SOP for those who oppose the church, it's still a very simple fact that those who embrace the world and denounce the church simply are not going to be counted among the wheat. It's really not a difficult concept to understand. And what is your SOP?
jwhitlock Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 38 minutes ago, Teancum said: You have an a priori assumption that you have the truth and that your view is really what God wants. That is hubris especially considering the fact that the LDS church is one among thousands of truth claims and one not all that successful. Just read your words above....the church God has set up on the earth.......etc....it is as simple as that. For you all other views are tares. Yet you think there is no hubris in that? Go back and re-read what I posted. Your representation of it is not at all accurate. Other than that, the real hubris comes from those who pass judgment on and denounce the Lord's prophets.
california boy Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 3 hours ago, Calm said: One is attacking the organization and all its leaders, policies, etc. The other is condemning individuals for not living an appropriate life, possibly including not fulfilling their church duties successfully. So were does that put Christ? Is He wheat or tare? He pretty much spent his entire ministry attacking the organization and its leadesrs, policies etc. 2
Teancum Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, jwhitlock said: Go back and re-read what I posted. Your representation of it is not at all accurate. Other than that, the real hubris comes from those who pass judgment on and denounce the Lord's prophets. I have not passed judgement on the prophets just your interpreting who are wheat and tares. Edited December 8, 2015 by Teancum
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) 55 minutes ago, california boy said: So were does that put Christ? ... He pretty much spent his entire ministry attacking the organization and its leadesrs, policies etc. Jesus didn't attack His church and its leaders. He certainly corrected Peter and the other apostles when He needed to, but the Saviour's 'attacks' were directed at the man-made organisations that had arisen as a result of Judah's earlier rejection of authorised prophets. Edited December 8, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 8 hours ago, Calm said: Haranguing the church or the members of the church? 8 hours ago, Gray said: What's the difference? 7 hours ago, Calm said: One is attacking the organization and all its leaders, policies, etc. The other is condemning individuals for not living an appropriate life, possibly including not fulfilling their church duties successfully. The situation today is quite different than in ancient times in that the church today is not in a state of general apostasy. Some might claim that it is, but in so saying, they themselves are on the road to apostasy if not having already arrived at the destination. 2
california boy Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Jesus didn't attack His church and its leaders. He certainly corrected Peter and the other apostles when He needed to, but the Saviour's 'attacks' were directed at the man-made organisations that had arisen as a result of Judah's earlier rejection of authorised prophets. Really? At what point in history did the Jewish church stop being His church? I thought He was the one revealing His will through His prophets? 1
Gray Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 15 hours ago, jwhitlock said: I see no evidence in the scriptures for your claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_the_Lamanite Quote After attempting to preach to the people in Zarahemla, and being rejected, he was told by revelation to return and prophesy to the people. He was not allowed into the city. In one of the more iconic stories of the Book of Mormon, he preached on the wall of the city, calling the people to repentance for their sins, prophesying about the impending advent of Jesus Christ in the Old World, and warning of the destruction of the Nephite nation. The people in the city tried to kill him by throwing stones and shooting arrows, but he was protected from harm by divine providence.
Gray Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 15 hours ago, Calm said: One is attacking the organization and all its leaders, policies, etc. The other is condemning individuals for not living an appropriate life, possibly including not fulfilling their church duties successfully. A church is a body of believers. The leadership is just another part of that body. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) 3 hours ago, Gray said: A church is a body of believers. The leadership is just another part of that body. In one sense, that is true. However, it is more than that. It is an institution with priesthood authority and keys from Jesus Christ to preach His gospel and administer saving ordinances to men and women, both living and dead. Conceivably, the "body of believers" -- or a portion thereof -- could fall away into apostasy, at which time they would cease to be a part of the Church. In that event they could be said to have displaced themselves from the "Rock" upon which Christ said He would build His church. Edited to add: And no, a group of dissidents, however large it might be, could never be preeminent -- or even equal to -- the leadership of the Church acting in the authority of their callings, if that's what you're meaning to imply with this. Edited December 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: A church is a body of believers. The leadership is just another part of that body. Those who repented after hearing Samuel were then baptized into the Church. The disbelievers he was harangueing were not members. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/16?lang=eng Iirc, at that time the percentage of the population that were church members among the Nephites was small. Edited December 8, 2015 by Calm 2
Gray Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 2 hours ago, Calm said: Those who repented after hearing Samuel were then baptized into the Church. The disbelievers he was harangueing were not members. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/16?lang=eng Iirc, at that time the percentage of the population that were church members among the Nephites was small. Thanks Calm, I think you're right. But the pattern is there for the OT prophets.
jwhitlock Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Jesus didn't attack His church and its leaders. He certainly corrected Peter and the other apostles when He needed to, but the Saviour's 'attacks' were directed at the man-made organisations that had arisen as a result of Judah's earlier rejection of authorised prophets. Bingo! I think this particular important distinction is purposely ignored by those who justify their criticisms of the church and its leaders.
Recommended Posts