Latter-day Saint Prophet as Prophet Over All Christianity .

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not your mate. You are too unkind and mocking for me to allow you to call me that ... I am trying to emulate the sarcasm you have displayed to me over the years. How am I doing, "mate"?

Once again, you make it clear that you do not know us as a people, and you certainly do not understand my heart. At all. I'm genuinely sorry about that.

[Navidad]

My reply wasn't kind.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Once again, you make it clear that you do not know us as a people, and you certainly do not understand my heart. At all. I'm genuinely sorry about that.

I have nothing but the highest regard for my LDS friends and acquaintances. You, on the other hand have never shown me your heart. You have belittled, mocked, and demeaned me for years on this forum. I am no longer going to be offended and hurt by that. I hope that it is not too unkind for me to say I have never seen your heart! Certainly not in any posts to me.

I am also genuinely sorry. I just can't continue on this forum, allowing folks to berate me and my intent for being here at their will and seemingly at their pleasure, and then shut down the computer and not sleep all night. I want to believe you are a good man. I want you to see me as a good man. Please let's try together to do better. I promise I will. Neither of us honor the God we claim to love and honor by any of this. I am genuinely sorry as well.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Protestants are going to protest....

You know that is actually a brilliant truism!  I mean tautologies are usually so....  tautological!  

They are what they are! 

Their story is always "There was no apostasy!"  And that makes sense if there was never any authority to pass on

Logically I suppose there are at least two ways to argue for an absence of continued authority in the church- 1) It never existed or 2) It existed but it was lost.

The Protestants go with argument 1, and we go argument 2, and of course Catholics believe it was never lost.

Yet the scriptures say "one faith and one baptism" so someone has to have it wrong I suppose.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

You have belittled, mocked, and demeaned me for years on this forum ... I just can't continue on this forum, allowing folks to berate me and my intent for being here ...

I am willing to believe that you are sincerely mistaken, but you have nonetheless borne false witness against me, as I have done none of the things that you accuse me of.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Logically I suppose there are at least two ways to argue for an absence of continued authority in the church- 1) It never existed or 2) It existed but it was lost.

Or, as my Very Reverend (Episcopal) explained it in Confirmation Class when my parents suddenly had us start going to church to keep us from being influenced by my newly-baptized older brother away at college: 3) it existed but wasn't needed anymore!

In retrospect, the same logic (I guess, I was 12 at the time) that as the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so did the dispensation of the fulness of times (Ephesians 1:10) fulfill the law of the early church.

Edited July 7, 2020 by CV75

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know that is actually a brilliant truism!  I mean tautologies are usually so....  tautological!  

They are what they are! 

Their story is always "There was no apostasy!"  And that makes sense if there was never any authority to pass on

Logically I suppose there are at least two ways to argue for an absence of continued authority in the church- 1) It never existed or 2) It existed but it was lost.

The Protestants go with argument 1, and we go argument 2, and of course Catholics believe it was never lost.

Yet the scriptures say "one faith and one baptism" so someone has to have it wrong I suppose.

 

 

 

Continue to insist that Protestants are a monolithic group!? If there is anything, which I sincerely doubt that "they" might agree on, it would be that there was indeed an apostasy in Christianity, just not one that ever became total. The crimson or scarlet thread was never plucked out of the tapestry. As far as authority, the Bible fits that bill quite nicely, not discounting in any way the debate over a few inter-testament books. I believe the LDS Church, by its adoption of the King James version has also been a participant in that debate. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Navidad

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sometimes I think we all talk too much in abstracts. I prefer to get a bit more nitty gritty and am always willing to offer myself as the guinea pig. So my question is how does President Nelson have any authority, administrative or sacred over my own agency as to how I respond to the claims of the LDS Church? Are you saying he has authority such as would effect a supernatural work to change my mind as the Spirit does?

Okay, well if that's what you have in mind as what it means for someone to have power or authority over someone else... a power or authority to compel some other person to respond in some particular way or change their mind about something ... then I would say nobody has that kind of power because each person is always free to respond however they want, without changing their own mind if they do not want to change it. Not even God can do that, because he has already given us the power to make up our own mind, even if he has indicated that he does not agree or approve of our decisions, and he can't contradict himself.

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Or does he has the power to petition the Spirit to move directly and specifically in my life and mind? In my wife's too? That would be a good starter. I think of those things as having power over the non-LDS person (me).

To petition is to ask, and all of us can ask for that if that is something we want to ask for, but God will not override your own will and no that does not mean you can do whatever you want to do because you may want to do something you do not have the power to do.

[The Unclean Deacon]

sad in light of that that those same leaders seem so focused on utah and american politics and seem to not spend much time at all speaking to the world at large other then to say gay is bad.

[smac97]

Just now, The Unclean Deacon said:

sad in light of that that those same leaders seem so focused on utah and american politics and seem to not spend much time at all speaking to the world at large other then to say gay is bad.

Oh, don't be silly.  See here:

Quote

Church’s COVID-19 relief passes 630 projects worldwide, says new video featuring Bishop Caussé
By Tad Walch@Tad_Walch  Jun 30, 2020, 1:22pm MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — In a new video released Tuesday, Bishop Gérald Caussé said COVID-19 pandemic-related relief aid provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues to expand.

The church now has more than 630 humanitarian aid projects underway around the world in more than 130 countries, according to the video featuring Bishop Caussé, who is the church’s presiding bishop.

In the United States, the church has sent 15 additional truckloads per week of food and other commodities to food banks and other organizations around the nation. Each truckload provided enough food to feed 1,400 people for a week, he said.

The church also provided funding, trucks and other support for ProjectProtect, in which church members were among 50,000 volunteers who provided 900,000 hours of work to sew 5 million masks for Utah’s health care workers.

The faith’s pandemic relief efforts have expanded rapidly over the past few months.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Continue to insist that Protestants are a monolithic group!? If there is anything, which I sincerely doubt that "they" might agree on, it would be that there was indeed an apostasy in Christianity, just not one that ever became total.  The crimson or scarlet thread was never plucked out of the tapestry.

Yep, that's one of the things they collectively agree on.  Once they believe it became total, on this planet, with nobody on this planet having authority from God to administer in his kingdom, they have become members of our church.

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

As far as authority, the Bible fits that bill quite nicely, not discounting in any way the debate over a few inter-testament books. I believe the LDS Church, by its adoption of the King James version has also been a participant in that debate. 

Yep, that's something else all Protestants agree on. That all of the authority from God they need comes from interpreting the text of the Holy Bible however they interpret it.  As LDS we participate in debates to disagree with that idea.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, don't be silly.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Where are the MASK Police when they are needed???

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

sad in light of that that those same leaders seem so focused on utah and american politics and seem to not spend much time at all speaking to the world at large other then to say gay is bad.

Do you look at the Church news in other countries?  Maybe it isn’t church leaders that are so focused, but America Saints.   You would need to go back a year to see how much traveling is done, this year being a bit odd.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Calm

[The Unclean Deacon]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you look at the Church news in other countries?  Maybe it isn’t church leaders that are so focused, but America Saints.   You would need to go back a year to see how much traveling is done, this year being a bit odd.

i'm not speaking to traveling.  I am speaking to content.

 

[Calm]

Just now, The Unclean Deacon said:

i'm not speaking to traveling.  I am speaking to content.

 

So am I. Leaders give sermons and speeches while traveling. Such is part of the content. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yep, that's one of the things they collectively agree on.  Once they believe it became total, on this planet, with nobody on this planet having authority from God to administer in his kingdom, they have become members of our church.

Yep, that's something else all Protestants agree on. That all of the authority from God they need comes from interpreting the text of the Holy Bible however they interpret it.  As LDS we participate in debates to disagree with that idea.

I was simply suggesting that at some point in time in the church's history (I don't know exactly when), the LDS Church adopted the 66 book King James Bible as their authorized (with authority) Bible and scripture (in addition to the other three). That decision made them a participant in the debates over "which" Bible to use. They made a different choice than the Community of Christ for example. Not a big deal!

Edited July 7, 2020 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Or, as my Very Reverend (Episcopal) explained it in Confirmation Class when my parents suddenly had us start going to church to keep us from being influenced by my newly-baptized older brother away at college: 3) it existed but wasn't needed anymore!

In retrospect, the same logic (I guess, I was 12 at the time) that as the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so did the dispensation of the fulness of times (Ephesians 1:10) fulfill the law of the early church.

Ah, thanks, I never thought about that one before!  I am not a student of Protestant theology.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Continue to insist that Protestants are a monolithic group!? If there is anything, which I sincerely doubt that "they" might agree on, it would be that there was indeed an apostasy in Christianity, just not one that ever became total.

So there was no need then for a "Reformation" then with all its anti-Catholic rhetoric and indeed millions killed in sectarian wars. 

It becomes a semantic issue then

But then I don't think you need me to remind you of the history of Anabaptists.

The very facts of History confirm that they are not a monolithic group.

 

[Ahab]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I was simply suggesting that at some point in time in the church's history (I don't know exactly when), the LDS Church adopted the 66 book King James Bible as their authorized (with authority) Bible and scripture (in addition to the other three).

The "LDS Church" (presumably you are referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) approved the use of the King James version of the Holy Bible back in the days when Joseph Smith was still alive because that was the most common version of the Bible that was familiar to all of the people who were living back in those days.  And it is accurate as long as it is translated and interpreted correctly.  And I am making this point to combat the idea that the Bible, any version of the Bible, conveys any type of authority or authorization to another person.  I know Protestants like to try to make a point to say they get their authority from the Bible, or from people who wrote the Bible, but neither the Bible nor any person who wrote any part of the Bible ever authorized or gave any authority to any Protestant or any other person who simply read what they had written.  That is not how the authority/authorization of God is conveyed to another person, just as a person doesn't become a lawyer or police officer by reading a book or books of law.  Regardless of how much Protestants would like that idea to be true.

 

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That decision made them a participant in the debates over "which" Bible to use. The made a different choice than the Community of Christ for example. Not a big deal!

We believe we can use any version of the Holy Bible and that it doesn't really matter which version we use as long as we read it with the aid of the Holy Spirit to help us correctly understand what was written.  And still, even when the Holy Bible is correctly understood through the aid of the Holy Spirit, neither the Bible or anyone who wrote any part of the Bible gave or gives any of God's authority to someone who is simply reading what was written.  So Protestant should try to come up with a better idea for how they can or could get any authority from God.  Simply understanding what was written or telling others what was written doesn't convey any authority from God.

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The very facts of History confirm that they are not a monolithic group.

Thank you. They indeed were and are not. As soon as you read "Protestants believe . . . " you know to be on guard. The writer may not know what he or she is talking about. There are of course certain essentials on which Protestants are united (and they are not found in creeds by the way), but there are a whole bunch of things on which there are variety of beliefs, including interpretations of specific Biblical passages. Me thinks my LDS friends see that as a weakness. I think it is a strength because Biblical interpretation is the most important and probably the most difficult thing we do. It is powerfully enlightening to read different interpretations on your way to understanding a particular passage.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But then I don't think you need me to remind you of the history of Anabaptists.

Well, the history of the Anabaptists was especially interesting because they were pariah and killed by both Catholics and Protestants. Methinks they were anti-Catholic as you say, mostly because Catholics killed them , their wives, and their children, as did the Calvinists and followers of both Zwingli and Luther. The earliest Anabaptists however also had a militia and tried to establish a Zion with glossalalia and limited plural marriage. Their intent was not to reform, but to restore. That was a distinction that was not without a difference.

So I always  tease my LDS friends that they came along almost exactly 300 years too late! That is why the Whitmers were so valuable to the prophet! Perhaps they introduced him to the word "restoration" and forever after the LDS church is a restorational church! I wonder where that verbiage came from ??????? Hmmmm..........I wonder. I have to be careful however. I am partly serious and partly teasing. I did get chastised once for asserting that the Whitmer family, as those with Anabaptist heritage (both Mennonite and Brethren) had an influence on the development of Joseph's theology. I would bet a nickel that one day sitting around the fireplace they recounted their Anabaptist heritage with him over s'mores or snickerdoodles and talked about restoration instead of reformation. He picked up on it and the rest is history! The last large scale purge of Mennonites was in the Ukraine in the 1030's. Perhaps 30,000 or so were killed, banished to Siberia or simply disappeared.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So there was no need then for a "Reformation" then with all its anti-Catholic rhetoric and indeed millions killed in sectarian wars. 

It becomes a semantic issue then

But then I don't think you need me to remind you of the history of Anabaptists.

The very facts of History confirm that they are not a monolithic group.

 

One more thing. Please remember the reformation was not just about religion and faith. There were land, economic, class, and enlightenment kinds of issues that each contributed to the reformation. As a collective they were probably more important in 16th century Europe than was religion.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

The "LDS Church" (presumably you are referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) approved the use of the King James version of the Holy Bible back in the days when Joseph Smith was still alive because that was the most common version of the Bible that was familiar to all of the people who were living back in those days.  And it is accurate as long as it is translated and interpreted correctly.  And I am making this point to combat the idea that the Bible, any version of the Bible, conveys any type of authority or authorization to another person.  I know Protestants like to try to make a point to say they get their authority from the Bible, or from people who wrote the Bible, but neither the Bible nor any person who wrote any part of the Bible ever authorized or gave any authority to any Protestant or any other person who simply read what they had written.  That is not how the authority/authorization of God is conveyed to another person, just as a person doesn't become a lawyer or police officer by reading a book or books of law.  Regardless of how much Protestants would like that idea to be true.

 

We believe we can use any version of the Holy Bible and that it doesn't really matter which version we use as long as we read it with the aid of the Holy Spirit to help us correctly understand what was written.  And still, even when the Holy Bible is correctly understood through the aid of the Holy Spirit, neither the Bible or anyone who wrote any part of the Bible gave or gives any of God's authority to someone who is simply reading what was written.  So Protestant should try to come up with a better idea for how they can or could get any authority from God.  Simply understanding what was written or telling others what was written doesn't convey any authority from God.

I won't debate any of this. I would simply suggest I have never seen another version of the Bible used by anyone in our ward. I know there are occasional quotes from the JS version, but always and always and always the King James is the version used in our ward. I have no knowledge of any other ward.

I would also suggest that the LDS source for its authority is no different in its origin than that of any other church. God is the source. He spoke and speaks to men and men wrote down under the direction and influence of the Spirit, and approved what was written as revelation. Some did that approving in councils; the saints did and do it in conferences. Not much difference there. Ever since those scriptures were written men have then sought to interpret them accurately. Pratt and Young had quite a ruckus about several things, didn't they? The concept of the gathering changed over time, didn't it?  Another ruckus was about plural marriage from 1890 to 1904. Interpretations were constantly in flux. There were even debated about how to interpret the interpretations wasn't there? Was President Woodruff's 1890 statement a proclamation, a statement, or a revelation? That made a big difference to some. How about the 1904 declaration? Same thing.  How about John Taylor's revelation of 1886? It took years for the church authorities to rule on that one - probably thirty or so. A large group of plural marriage advocates developed over those years. The proof is in the disparate directions given to the folks in the Mexican colonies, depending on who was providing the directions. Another was about blacks and the priesthood - interpretating and even changing specific words in LDS scriptures. There will be more coming I would guess, especially about the role of women in the Church. Those are new revelations you argue: sure they are and new revelations are what change how verses are interpreted in all churches. Sometimes the interpreters mix doctrine and culture. It happens in all churches. And that process still continues with all scripture. Interpretation of scripture no matter which of the scriptures we are talking about is not a settled matter in any church. That isn't a negative it is an exciting journey. I see the excitement on the faces of our ward members of what "new" thing will come out of conference. New wineskins are nothing new. See, we really aren't so very different are we?

I am just having an attack of stream of consciousness here. I don't you won't agree with anything I just wrote. That is ok. I had fun writing it off the cuff so to speak. Speaking about cuffs - Mennonites fought over how to interpret scripture so to allow or ban cuffs on men's shirts and pants! Look at all the photos of old Mennonite preachers - no collars, ties, or cuffs on shirts or pants and if I remember right, they always wore white shirts.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Why are you asking me? It wasn't my point that "for" is better than "over."

Well that was the word you used in the title to the thread wasn't it?  You must have thought then that the word was the best one for framing your question.

And then in the OP, you said, my emphasis added:

Quote

My last question is a bit harder to word. If he is thee Prophet for all of Christianity, what does that mean? How does that play out in the real world? How does he fulfill that role on a day to day basis? What is his pastoral or administrative authority as such, in and over the non-LDS portion of Christianity? 

It was this usage of "over" that began the mini-debate over "over".

My reply essentially was that for us the prophet's authority is God's authority.

If you think it through that should be obvious from the belief that the prophet is God's mouthpiece on earth.  We do not take the words of the Pope, even if ex cathedra, as God's representative on earth.  We do not take Billy Graham's words as God's words either.

We believe in continuing revelation which is on a par with scripture.   

The very question about whether or not prophets speak for God ignores the obvious link of the term "prophet" with those who wrote the bible and other scripture.

Yes, "prophets" are spokesmen for God- even a dictionary can tell you that- it is what the WORD MEANS!

Why would that word be the chosen word to describe our leader if we did NOT regard him as God's spokesman on earth?

Quote

 

proph·et

/ˈpräfət/

noun

1.

a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

"the Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah"

Similar:

seer

soothsayer

 

But "administrative authority"?

No he has accountants in the church office building who do that for him.

That's what I was trying to say in the post you quoted.

[Navidad]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well that was the word you used in the title to the thread wasn't it?  You must have thought then that the word was the best one for framing your question.

And then in the OP, you said, my emphasis added:

It was this usage of "over" that began the mini-debate over "over".

My reply essentially was that for us the prophet's authority is God's authority.

If you think it through that should be obvious from the belief that the prophet is God's mouthpiece on earth.  We do not take the words of the Pope, even if ex cathedra, as God's representative on earth.  We do not take Billy Graham's words as God's words either.

We believe in continuing revelation which is on a par with scripture.   

The very question about whether or not prophets speak for God ignores the obvious link of the term "prophet" with those who wrote the bible and other scripture.

Yes, "prophets" are spokesmen for God- even a dictionary can tell you that- it is what the WORD MEANS!

Why would that word be the chosen word to describe our leader if we did NOT regard him as God's spokesman on earth?

But "administrative authority"?

No he has accountants in the church office building who do that for him.

That's what I was trying to say in the post you quoted.

Sometimes I skim your posts to get down to the last two or three lines. They are the most entertaining. They are when you are at your best! There is always a punchline!