"What does it mean that this is the true Church?"

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm quite well acquainted with Doctrine and Covenants 13. When I was ward choir director, I even set the words to music for our choir to sing.

So how did you miss, or choose not to quote in this thread the fact that the priesthood will be taken from the earth as mentioned in that section?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

So how did you miss, or choose not to quote in this thread the fact that the priesthood will be taken from the earth as mentioned in that section?

The section doesn't say that.

 

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The section doesn't say that.

 

1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

[Navidad]

On 9/1/2018 at 1:56 PM, CV75 said:

Since He’s speaking of the Church collectively, I would say the Church is the collective of delegated keys bestowed upon His servants, who can only use them in this world as long as they are living. And likewise, they keys can remain in this world only as long as there are servants living to hold them. By “true” I would say the keys are delegated in accordance or alignment with His will.

But yes, God's expressed desire to you, and your alignment with that, makes it true and living also. I think this could be the summation of the other verses in the same 17-39 passage.

It seems to me that since He is talking to the "church collectively" He is talking about the collective Church and don't forget he said "not to the individual church." So it seems to me a reasonable interpretation of 1:30 is my collective church (all Christian churches) are the only true and living church. I am not speaking to the individual church (the LDS church, or the Mennonite church, for examples). That is an interpretation that makes much more sense to me. Then all the Christian churches based on their shared commitment to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ are God's only true and living church. All other doctrinal variations are individualized beliefs that aren't essential to name the name of Christ.

[SouthernMo]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not going to provide such a list.

I doubt there is an objective list beyond what is asked in the temple recommend questions.

Most of the time, we just judge others who don’t believe like we do, and condemn their beliefs as inadequate or misguided.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

So it says the priesthood and gospel won't be taken from the earth before the Second Coming and the events attendant thereto (including the sons of Levi making an offering to the Lord).

The cross reference in Section 13 directs the reader to the footnote in Joseph Smith History 1:71 (in the Pearl of Great Price), Oliver Cowdery's report of the experience, in which he quotes John the Baptist as saying,

Quote

Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon the earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer  an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

(Emphasis mine.)

I believe that both accounts express the same thing, though the wording in Oliver Cowdery's quotation is arguably a bit clearer.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I doubt there is an objective list beyond what is asked in the temple recommend questions.

Most of the time, we just judge others who don’t believe like we do, and condemn their beliefs as inadequate or misguided.

I'm not misguided on this point.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholics agree, though we wouldn't use the word prophet, but instead the magisterium, the bishops in union with the pope. In other words, we both agree that understanding of scripture and doctrine requires authority and the power of the Holy Ghost.

Miserere - I think you bring up an important point - that of the involvement of the Holy Spirit in the magisterium or logically extending that, in the church councils. That concept seems to be anathema to the Saints (I don't want to speak for you all); but that is something in my discussions with Saints that is never accepted. The Holy Spirit simply allowed men to overly Hellenize the gospel as if He (the Holy Spirit) were an impotent bystander. There was only as much of an apostasy as God allowed for His own purposes. He was and is in control. His control is the authority and the order that limits chaos.

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it says the priesthood and gospel won't be taken from the earth before the Second Coming and the events attendant thereto (including the sons of Levi making an offering to the Lord).

Scott - you seem disingenuous here.  You have shifted your position from the priesthood never being taken from the earth to now claiming (after I share scripture with you) that it won’t be taken before the second coming.

You seem to be moving the goalposts, and your credibility is waning.

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not misguided on this point.

All of us with pride say things like this!

And it’s hard to take your position seriously when you can’t provide this list of what a member must believe to be a ‘believing member’ (even though I’m not sure what this means, or why you draw a distinction).

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, as a Catholic, I'd have to say that yes, protestant theology is full of errors  

You're just jealous. But as an Anabaptist, I am confident that Catholics and Protestants are less than. 😁 After all the Saints complain about innocent persecution when thousands of Anabaptists were martyred by both Catholics and Protestants! And yes, Anabaptists are the true restorationist church. Protestants just wanted to reform from outside, Erasmus sought the same from inside, but before all that, Anabaptists were on the scene working to restore the Church to its primitive state. We were the first, he says humbly, because humility is a key (yes we have keys) virtue of Anabaptism.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

All of us with pride say things like this!

 

It's not a matter of pride. It's a matter of knowing the doctrine.

Quote

And it’s hard to take your position seriously when you can’t provide this list of what a member must believe to be a ‘believing member’ (even though I’m not sure what this means, or why you draw a distinction).

Non sequitur. What does my willingness to give you a list have to do with whether or not I am wrong on this point?

 

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I doubt there is an objective list beyond what is asked in the temple recommend questions.

Most of the time, we just judge others who don’t believe like we do, and condemn their beliefs as inadequate or misguided.

Yes you do; I have certainly felt the sting of that!

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a matter of pride. It's a matter of knowing the doctrine.

Non sequitur. What does my willingness to give you a list have to do with whether or not I am wrong on this point?

 

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong - simply that you have provided no evidence or even reasoning for me to take your position seriously.

 

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a matter of pride. It's a matter of knowing the doctrine.

Please share with me how this is doctrine?  How does it relate to faith, repentance, baptism, or the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Just by saying it is doctrine does not make it so.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong - simply that you have provided no evidence or even reasoning for me to take your position seriously.

 

Please share with me how this is doctrine?  How does it relate to faith, repentance, baptism, or the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Just by saying it is doctrine does not make it so.

I provided a scriptural passage. That seems doctrinal enough for me. If you won't accept it, well, I'm not going to beat my head against a wall.

 

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I provided a scriptural passage. That seems doctrinal enough for me. If you won't accept it, well, I'm not going to beat my head against a wall.

 

That’s fair - it all depends on what one accepts as doctrine, and how revelation is interpreted.  I admit I don’t believe all scripture literally.  Here’s how I follow your logic in this case:

Prophet says something => Scott interprets it to mean something => Scott believes his interpretation to be the only correct and doctrinal view => Scott calls those who don’t share his interpretation as not “fully believing members.”

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It seems to me that since He is talking to the "church collectively" He is talking about the collective Church and don't forget he said "not to the individual church." So it seems to me a reasonable interpretation of 1:30 is my collective church (all Christian churches) are the only true and living church. I am not speaking to the individual church (the LDS church, or the Mennonite church, for examples). That is an interpretation that makes much more sense to me. Then all the Christian churches based on their shared commitment to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ are God's only true and living church. All other doctrinal variations are individualized beliefs that aren't essential to name the name of Christ.

Yes, that is a reasonable interpretation and accords with the “church of the lamb of God / church of the devil” dichotomy described in the Book of Mormon, summarized most succinctly in 1 Nephi 14:10. However:

The “book of the Lamb of God” (see 1 Nephi 13:24-onward), which became the Bible, upon which the church of the Lamb of God relies, became significantly compromised. While the Bible and these churches will continue through the last days as the better option to the church of the devil, the Lord did say that He would restore that which was taken away through what would become the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a key sign of the coming forth of the  “only true and living church” (D&C 1:29, 30).

What makes D&C 1:30 about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not the broader church of the Lamb of God is her connection with and reliance upon the Book of Mormon, and upon the same power by which it as well as the Church were brought forth: “And also those to whom these commandments [to bring forth the Book of Mormon] were given, might have power [the restored priesthood] to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness [the other Christian denominations of the day were operating quite openly in America, but this church had been lost in the wilderness of apostasy], the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—"

These concepts were first mentioned in D&C 20, which was received several months before D&C 1, so I think we need to take D&C 1 in that context. This takes nothing away from the significance and roles of the church of the Lamb of God or the Bible.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/1/2018 at 10:46 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I also find it odd that the LDS stance is that in the 2000 year history of Christianity, true Christianity has only been around for what, 100 years after Christ plus 200 years of the LDS church. The idea of the great apostasy rests on the idea that Christ did a terrible job of setting up His Church originally, but now has done a perfect job with the restoration (since there will not be another apostasy). I find that illogical and somewhat insulting to God to believe that He didn't know how to do it right the first and most important time, the time when He Himself was physically here to do it.

I think you are missing at least two points here- the most important is that it is of NO consequence of the salvation of mankind that the "true church" has been on this planet such a short time if one understands that true doctrine will be taught to ALL in the afterlife anyway, so what they believed here becomes pretty irrelevant!  No harm, no foul.

Secondly in the days before world wide communications if you read the epistles again and again we see their writers admitting again and again that even in their lifetimes the doctrines were being lost.

The objective I believe of Catholicism, and I am sorry if this is offensive, is to preach a "preparatory" message - and is a mission it fulfilled admirably.  Without even printing presses or communications, the message got out that 1- Jesus is God 2- Jesus is the savior 3- Prayer for the dead is efficacious.  Those simple 3 points spread throughout the world in preparation for a time when a pure message could be disseminated properly.

No one was harmed because they learned the true gospel in its fullness on the other side.

God the Supreme Teacher knew EXACTLY what he was doing in getting out a worldwide message during a period of primitive communications through mouth-to-mouth advertising of the benefits of believing in Christianity and overthrowing the Roman Empire and enshrining Christian morality in its place- a miracle by any measure, with no communications tools but the Holy Ghost!

Then even the so-called "Reformation" carried forward the same simple message- "through the atonement of Jesus we are saved."

When the time came for the deep stuff- He saw what needed to be done:  Teach that-   God has a body and is in some sense immanent in the universe.  Exaltation- because we are already like God in a small way- we are of the same species.  Work for the dead., and therefore virtually universal salvation. Guided leaders are necessary but one must confirm them for oneself and not follow blindly, as one would follow an Emperor because disobedience in that case is instant death.  Essentially a "democratic" way of seeing religion as an individual responsibility.

Just as in Alma 32, the seeds were planted and the tree was growing awaiting the full fruit.  And then it came.  Alma 32 suddenly explained itself in the second installment of the Plan of Salvation- in the Second Witness.

Quote

 

Obviously we're not going to agree on this nor change each other's mind, since the foundational difference between our churches, that you aptly call "Explanation Zero," is the idea of the apostasy. No apostasy means the LDS church is not what it claims. Apostasy means the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (that Pope St. John Paul II called the two lungs of Christianity) are not what they claim.

 

Of course they are.  They are the worldwide foundation for taking the gospel farther, and all part of the plan in times less primitive, which allows a more complex explanation to survive.  Literacy.  Printing. Internet.

Quote

 

After all these years I still don't understand the LDS hatred of creeds. I can totally understand saying that the Christian creeds are incorrect (obviously, or you'd be a part of Credal Christianity), but the idea that creeds in and of themselves are abominable strikes me as quite odd and somewhat contradictory. You have the Articles of Faith, which begin "We believe." That is a creed.

 

Not by a long shot!  Joseph himself is the one who hated creeds- and I can look up that quote if you insist.  He essentially wrote a summary of our doctrine in a letter to the editor of a newspaper who wanted to know what we believed.  It is not exhaustive by any means and since Joseph hated "Creeds" then why would he write a letter that was eventually taken to BE one?  Obviously that was not his intent.

Actually when you read it, it is written to be "politically correct" for his day and skirts the most important doctrines- that might have been controversial.  There is NOTHING about God being the Father of our Spirits or the pre-existence.  There is nothing about God having a physical body.  There is nothing about exaltation or the temple!

To me it is more like a billboard ad to bring in interested people than anything like a "Creed".  Nothing controversial and VERY Protestant in doctrinal explication.  "Hi everybody!  We are just like you!  Come check out our church! " is what I see when I read it.  Honestly I have never memorized it nor do I think it should be.  It is terribly elementary and clearly designed to be such.

Quote

Finally, I appreciate that you mention those of pure intentions. Often in discussions of apostasy I have found the focus is on vilifying the Catholic Church. I guess that makes sense from a rhetorical standpoint and obviously Catholics have done some pretty terrible things, but let's not let all the good that Catholics and the Church have done get parsed over. I'd argue that there isn't a single organization, at least in Western civilization, that has done more good. This encompasses individual morality -- helping individuals become better people, all the way through organizational morality -- think of all the Catholic schools, charities, hospitals, universities, religious orders, etc. Billions of Catholics over a time period of 2000 years trying to follow Christ's teachings and better themselves and those around them.

There is no excuse for vilifying Catholics even if the DO believe in the abominable doctrine of substance.  (JUST KIDDING!!) 

Without Catholicism Mormonism would not exist. 

Can you imagine "selling" the Book of Mormon when no one had even heard of a teacher named Jesus who worked miracles and was alleged to have forgiven sins by dying on a cross??

Imagine- no one has heard the name "Jesus" because there was no Catholicism.  There never WAS "Christianity".  Now Joseph comes along with the Book of Mormon:

"Ok, so here you have gold plates from a civilization for which we have no evidence, delivered by an angel, about some prophet who came to the Americas who cured people, claimed to be the son of God and who DIED to forgive  MY sins, today,  and all this happened you say, thousands of years ago, and this person flew here from Palestine, right?  Just rose up into the sky and flew here from Palestine and he was Jewish, right?  A flying rabbi?  And you are serious, right?  Go look for some UFO's- they have a far more believable story"

Without 2000 years of Christianity, Mormonism would not even be a starter. And we owe it all to the Catholics who did the impossible and passed down the Message through two-thousand years of darkness via a primitive game of "telephone".  Thank you Catholics for working a Miracle that saved the world!!

Edited September 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That’s fair - it all depends on what one accepts as doctrine, and how revelation is interpreted.  I admit I don’t believe all scripture literally.  Here’s how I follow your logic in this case:

Prophet says something => Scott interprets it to mean something => Scott believes his interpretation to be the only correct and doctrinal view => Scott calls those who don’t share his interpretation as not “fully believing members.”

“One and only correct doctrinal view”?  There cannot be more than one correct doctrinal view on this point. Either you believe there might be another general apostasy before the Second Coming or you believe there won’t be. There is no “your truth,” no “my truth.” Only THE truth. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“One and only correct doctrinal view”?  There cannot be more than one correct doctrinal view on this point. Either you believe there might be another general apostasy before the Second Coming or you believe there won’t be. There is no “your truth,” no “my truth.” Only THE truth. 

Scott - I really want to see your point. But, your principle that a prophet’s words have one, and one only interpretation just does not make sense to me.

Your position also strikes me as close-minded and exclusive when I believe the truth and method Joseph Smith taught to be expansive and inclusive.

Whenever I have the conviction you seem to have on this issue, I ask myself if I’m willing to go to hell if I’m wrong.  I usually am not, and realize that I’m just a guy who is poking around and figuring out here on most issues.

Edited September 2, 2018 by SouthernMo

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Scott - I really want to see your point. But, your principle that a prophet’s words have one, and one only interpretation just does not make sense to me.

Your position also strikes me as close-minded and exclusive when I believe the truth and method Joseph Smith taught to be expansive and inclusive.

Whenever I have the conviction you seem to have on this issue, I ask myself if I’m willing to go to hell if I’m wrong.  I usually am not, and realize that I’m just a guy who is poking around and figuring out here on most issues.

Oh yeah- I will take that bet.

God is smart enough to know how poor we are at interpreting anything- that is why he teaches using simple language and we can't even get that right.

God is not rigid, he is a loving father and if we are doing the best we can, genuinely, we will be fine.

I work in the temple and cannot tell you how often patrons get it "wrong" and we know the atonement takes care of simple unintentioned mistakes.   We are told to correct the patron ONCE to teach them- if they get it wrong again- go on and don't worry about it.Words and their interpretation are a mess.  That is why we have the story of Babel- if we could speak "Adamic" and communicate clearly there would be no need for a story explaining the "confounding" of language.  It is a clear explanation that we CANNOT get it perfectly RIGHT on this side of the veil

If there was only ONE perfect interpretation we could not be tested- and that was the plan from the beginning!

God himself it is said, confounded language- Gen 11:

Quote

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

 

That was part of the plan:  "Through a glass darkly- but then face to face."

"BUT THEN"- not NOW!!

If there is only one interpretation, that disagrees with Joseph Smith and all he ever said about personal revelation.  That is "once for all time" literalistic sola scriptura.

Sorry- we don't believe that.   

I am by no means saying that that is what Scott meant- in fact I am sure that is NOT what he meant- but that is his business anyway.

It's like demanding a little child understand integral calculus and then getting punished for it if he gets it wrong.   No way.

Edited September 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Scott - I really want to see your point. But, your principle that a prophet’s words have one, and one only interpretation just does not make sense to me.

Your position also strikes me as close-minded and exclusive when I believe the truth and method Joseph Smith taught to be expansive and inclusive.

Whenever I have the conviction you seem to have on this issue, I ask myself if I’m willing to go to hell if I’m wrong.  I usually am not, and realize that I’m just a guy who is poking around and figuring out here on most issues.

Correction: A prophet’s words can have one and one only <true> interpretation (though they can have multiple applications).  Truth does not conflict with itself. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Correction: A prophet’s words can have one and one only <true> interpretation (though they can have multiple applications).  Truth does not conflict with itself. 

How can we use the scriptures in ways that would be very different from the original context then in your view?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

How can we use the scriptures in ways that would be very different from the original context then in your view?

I allowed in my post (see above) that they can have multiple applications. I’m saying they can’t have true but conflicting interpretations, as truth does not contradict itself. 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Protestant theology is full of errors? Now you have my attention . . . Essential Protestant theology is not a big body of beliefs; maybe around 10 or so. Some would hold as few as 5 The LDS has a central authorized authority and  yet individual Mormons believe wildly divergent things. I for one, don't hold that against them because first and foremost belief is a person individual thing. So now we have established that Protestant theology is full of errors and that individual Mormons believe wildly divergent things.

Yep. I am one of those "rebellious Mormons" I suppose who claims that Church Presidents have erred, so I do not exclude our Church. Indeed, I believe Pres Kimball's presidency disavowed Brigham Young's "Adam-God Doctrine," which I am somewhere in the middle on. Past Bishop's of Rome have called prior Pontiffs "anti-popes" and disavowed their teachings and office so as to claim they were never true Bishops of Rome. If Protestants are in such agreement, how come there are so many different denominations each teaching different things? 

Quote

  See the writings of Patrick Mason versus those of David V. Mason versus those of that famed LDS scholar Perry Mason. Oh, and you have established again that Protestants deny Mormons Christianity because Mormons don't believe in creeds. I would love to see some references from acknowledged Protestant theologians or scholars to that effect. If that were the case creedal Protestants would have to deny Christianity to 70% of fellow Protestants who are not creedal. That simply doesn't make sense.

I have been on the web some 20 years now. I have experienced most Christian forum sites try to pigeon hole me as a "Mormon." If I register as such, then I am not allowed to post on their Christian-only forums. There is nothing like personal experience to bring home the full extent of that prejudice. Some require you to avow the Nicene Creed, as their delineating line as whether you can register as a Christian for purposes of posting on their forums. One of the last I was on Christianforums.com  booted all LDS Christians off their controversial Christian theology forum because they ruled we were not Christians. One of the reasons given us is we are not Nicene Christians. You will find LDS posting there on the World Religions forum, because they are not allowed on the other Christian forums.  No offense, but you seem a bit oblivious to the extent of prejudice against LDS Christianity we experience. You, however, are a breath of fresh air, and I imagine, most Mennonites are similar to you.