The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Chum said:

Yeah. We've got 400 words for love and they're all spelled the same.

And about half those words describe something predatory.

[Chum]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And about half those words describe something predatory.

When it involves me and sushi, yeah.

[Chum]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Jonah wasn’t a coward. He was worse. He didn’t want to preach in Assyria because he was worried God would forgive them and not destroy them as Jonah believed they so richly deserved.

Otherwise completely agree but not so sure on Isaiah there. I think Isaiah was more just a geopolitical nerd.

I would love someone to deconstruct Isaiah the way the Hundred Acre Wood characters were.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

I would love someone to deconstruct Isaiah the way the Hundred Acre Wood characters were.

Do I dare read that or will it ruin Christopher Robin and friends for me?

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do I dare read that or will it ruin Christopher Robin and friends for me?

I don't know about that but I can provide you with an article that demonstrates that the Winnie the Pooh corpus was in fact composed by four separate authors of varying ideologies and motives.

New Directions in Pooh Studies: Überlieferungs- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Pu-Buch

Prime Quotes: 

Quote

There is little need, at the present stage of scholarship, to attempt a justification of the principle that the dogma of unitary authorship for works of literature must be totally abandoned. In all confidence we may say that a priori we may expect the Pooh corpus (viz. Winnie-the-Pooh, hereafter abbreviated W, containing traditions of higher antiquity than the Deutero-Pooh book, The House at Pooh Corner, hereafter abbreviated H) to be of composite origin; even if there were such a person as A.A. Milne, traditionally the 'author', we may be sure that he did not write the Pooh books. His name does not occur once within the narratives themselves, and we can hardly be expected to take a title-page, manifestly a later addition, seriously.

Quote

 

If we add to these three sources JED the work of the redactor of the Pooh corpus, to whom we might conveniently attach the siglum P (Pooh), we have the classic four-source theory that is the objective of all literary analysis.

Quote

Since on the earthly level the chief focus of attention in the corpus is the hero Pooh, on the mythological plane great importance must be attached to the deity whom he worships. Pooh is of course a devotee of the goddess Honey. The stated time of her service he observes with unfailing regularity – as we learn from H 5.82 it is 11am (a traditional time for divine service). He speaks of this hour as the time when 'I generally get home. Because I have One or Two things to Do.' Naturally he speaks indirectly of his faith when addressing an unbeliever (Rabbit), but the capitalization makes plain that the things to be done are the performance of sacred acts. Pooh is no ordinary lay worshipper of Honey, but obviously a priest dedicated to her service; his so-called 'house', liberally furnished with 14 or 15 cult-objects (pots) (H 3.35), which he speaks of as 'comforting' to him (H 3.36) – which is the very function of religion – is undoubtedly a sanctuary, a 'house' or temple, of Honey.

Edited July 30, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Calm]

I adore it. 

[OGHoosier]

Lest I forget:

 

Quote

Eeyore's wisdom is philosophical or speculative wisdom; he thought about things.

Sometimes he thought sadly to himself Why?, and sometimes he thought Wherefore?, and sometimes he thought Inasmuch as which?, and sometimes he didn't quite know what he was thinking about (W 4.39-40).

This is arguably the best account that has ever been given of the nature of philosophical thought.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 7/27/2022 at 11:57 AM, teddyaware said:

I’ve always found it fascinating how non-LDS Christians, who really have no excuse for not knowing better,  seem to take it for granted that apostles and prophets are not essential to the true Church of Christ; and they continue to believe this even though the Bible makes it crystal clear that the true Church of Christ cannot exist without living apostles and prophets presiding over the Church. I find it difficult to imagine how someone with critical thinking skills could read and digest the following powerful testimony of the Apostle Paul and not come to the realization that living apostles and prophets are absolutely necessary to the proper function of the true Church of Christ (I suppose that they miss the obvious meaning of scriptures like the following simply because, at least in their experience, the church’s they attend have no apostles and prophets).

This seems to be one of the primary areas of confusion between Latter-day Saints and Catholics (and also between LDS and the Orthodox). Maybe I can help clear it up a little, at least to the extent that dialogue is possible. I'll try to represent a Catholic understanding accurately, but briefly. I'll also try to compare/contrast this understanding with LDS understanding. I could be prone to error regarding LDS understanding, but at the very least you all may be able to enlighten me. 

Here are some areas of confusion:

• For Catholics, the titles "Apostles" and "Bishops" are identical in office. As Bishop Duane Hunt of Salt Lake City wrote in 1959, "The first officials of the Church were known as Apostles, from the Greek word which means 'one who is sent'. The successors of the Apostles were and are known as bishops, from the word which means 'an overseer'. Both titles refer to the same office, the ruling office which our Lord created as an essential part of His Church." My understanding as a Catholic is that Apostles and Bishops are the same in office, that is, they are the same officials because they have the same authority from our Lord. Exactly what the office is called isn't important compared to the notion that Apostles and Bishops have the same authority.
• Catholics believe that the Apostles perpetuated their office in the first meeting after the Lord's Ascencion (and as recorded in Acts 1). St. Peter presided at this meeting and a successor to Judas was chosen. St. Peter cited Psalm 69:25 regarding Judas, and said: “Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take” (Acts 1:20, KJV emphasis mine). Catholics find clear and significant biblical support for this idea. One place for this support is in St. Paul's address to the clergy of Ephesus in Acts 20. In that passage St. Paul says, “Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God…” (Acts 20:28, emphasis mine). The Greek word that the KJV translates as “overseers” is “bishops.”
• With regard to prophets, teachers, evangelists, etc., the Catholic perspective is that "The officials of the Church organization are, and at all times have been, priests and bishops...in the narratives of the early Church other titles are mentioned, such as prophet, evangelist, teacher and pastor, but it is evident that these do not refer to officials who were distinct from priests and bishops." (Duane Hunt, 1959). Hence a Catholic priest can also have the title of pastor, and St. Paul has the authority of an Apostle/Bishop to give instructions to prophets in 1 Cor. 14.
• I believe that in the LDS understanding, prophets, teachers, etc. can be titles and/or offices, depending on context. For example, a teenage boy could hold the office of Teacher, but an adult woman could have a title of Teacher, but without holding the LDS office of Teacher. Similarly, I believe that the LDS office of Church President includes the title of Prophet, and that it isn't an issue for Latter-day Saints that "President" isn't mentioned as an office in the New Testament or Book of Mormon. 

Bishop Hunt's article can be found here: Continuity.PDF (transporter.com). It was written in response to the Mormon Doctrine book back in the 50s, and was intended to articulate Catholic understanding for Catholics in Utah who were hearing that their LDS neighbors thought of them as members of the church of the devil, apostates, etc. Bishop Hunt was a longtime friend of LDS President David McKay. My LDS family have assured me that the notions about Catholics in Mormon Doctrine, while probably still out there, aren't really LDS doctrine. You might anticipate my confusion when the book is called "Mormon Doctrine."

Please do correct any misunderstandings I may have and know that I'm trying to articulate what I believe to be key aspects of the confusion in a respectful manner.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

This seems to be one of the primary areas of confusion between Latter-day Saints and Catholics (and also between LDS and the Orthodox). Maybe I can help clear it up a little, at least to the extent that dialogue is possible. I'll try to represent a Catholic understanding accurately, but briefly. I'll also try to compare/contrast this understanding with LDS understanding. I could be prone to error regarding LDS understanding, but at the very least you all may be able to enlighten me. 

Here are some areas of confusion:

• For Catholics, the titles "Apostles" and "Bishops" are identical in office. As Bishop Duane Hunt of Salt Lake City wrote in 1959, "The first officials of the Church were known as Apostles, from the Greek word which means 'one who is sent'. The successors of the Apostles were and are known as bishops, from the word which means 'an overseer'. Both titles refer to the same office, the ruling office which our Lord created as an essential part of His Church." My understanding as a Catholic understanding is that Apostles and Bishops are the same in office, that is, they are the same officials because they have the same authority from our Lord. Exactly what the office is called isn't important compared to the notion that Apostles and Bishops have the same authority.
• Catholics believe that the Apostles perpetuated their office in the first meeting after the Lord's Ascencion (and as recorded in Acts 1). St. Peter presided at this meeting and a successor to Judas was chosen. St. Peter cited Psalm 69:25 regarding Judas, and said: “Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take” (Acts 1:20, KJV emphasis mine). Catholics find clear and significant biblical support for this idea. One place for this support is in St. Paul's address to the clergy of Ephesus in Acts 20. In that passage St. Paul says, “Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God…” (Acts 20:28, emphasis mine). The Greek word that the KJV translates as “overseers” is “bishops.”
• With regard to prophets, teachers, evangelists, etc., the Catholic perspective is that "The officials of the Church organization are, and at all times have been, priests and bishops...in the narratives of the early Church other titles are mentioned, such as prophet, evangelist, teacher and pastor, but it is evident that these do not refer to officials who were distinct from priests and bishops." (Duane Hunt, 1959). Hence a Catholic priest can also have the title of pastor, and St. Paul has the authority of an Apostle/Bishop to give instructions to prophets in 1 Cor. 14.
• I believe that in the LDS understanding, prophets, teachers, etc. can be titles and/or offices, depending on context. For example, a teenage boy could hold the office of Teacher, but an adult woman could have a title of Teacher, but without holding the LDS office of Teacher. Similarly, I believe that the LDS office of Church President includes the title of Prophet, and that it isn't an issue for Latter-day Saints that "President" isn't mentioned as an office in the New Testament or Book of Mormon. 

Bishop Hunt's article can be found here: Continuity.PDF (transporter.com). It was written in response to the Mormon Doctrine book back in the 50s, and was intended to articulate Catholic understanding for Catholics in Utah who were hearing that their LDS neighbors thought of them as members of the church of the devil, apostates, etc. Bishop Hunt was a longtime friend of LDS President David McKay. My LDS family have assured me that the notions about Catholics in Mormon Doctrine, while probably still out there, aren't really LDS doctrine. You might anticipate my confusion when the book is called "Mormon Doctrine."

Please do correct any misunderstandings I may have and know that I'm trying to articulate what I believe to be key aspects of the confusion in a respectful manner.

Very simply, the Latter-Day Saints hold the three apostles of the First Presidency and the twelve apostles who compose the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to be ‘prophets, seers and revelators’ in exactly the same sense that the Apostles Peter, John and Paul were prophets, seers and revelators to the Church in their day (i.e. men who are divinely authorized and empowered to receive new revelation from God to lead the Church in the correct divinely ordained gospel path). Until one understands that the Latter-Day Saints believe in continuous revelation, and that the canon of scripture is still wide open to further revelatory light and knowledge from God — divine light and knowledge on equal footing with any of the writings of any of the previous apostles and prophets found in the Bible — they will not be able grasp the difference. Is it not true that while the Latter-Day Saints are taught that many more new revelations and many more books of scripture are going to be added to the Standard Works of Scripture we already have, that the Catholic church teaches its members there will be no more revelations and books of scripture added to the canon beyond what’s already in the Bible?

Edited July 30, 2022 by teddyaware

[Ranch2727]

58 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

This seems to be one of the primary areas of confusion between Latter-day Saints and Catholics (and also between LDS and the Orthodox). Maybe I can help clear it up a little, at least to the extent that dialogue is possible. I'll try to represent a Catholic understanding accurately, but briefly. I'll also try to compare/contrast this understanding with LDS understanding. I could be prone to error regarding LDS understanding, but at the very least you all may be able to enlighten me. 

Here are some areas of confusion:

• For Catholics, the titles "Apostles" and "Bishops" are identical in office. As Bishop Duane Hunt of Salt Lake City wrote in 1959, "The first officials of the Church were known as Apostles, from the Greek word which means 'one who is sent'. The successors of the Apostles were and are known as bishops, from the word which means 'an overseer'. Both titles refer to the same office, the ruling office which our Lord created as an essential part of His Church." My understanding as a Catholic understanding is that Apostles and Bishops are the same in office, that is, they are the same officials because they have the same authority from our Lord. Exactly what the office is called isn't important compared to the notion that Apostles and Bishops have the same authority.
• Catholics believe that the Apostles perpetuated their office in the first meeting after the Lord's Ascencion (and as recorded in Acts 1). St. Peter presided at this meeting and a successor to Judas was chosen. St. Peter cited Psalm 69:25 regarding Judas, and said: “Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take” (Acts 1:20, KJV emphasis mine). Catholics find clear and significant biblical support for this idea. One place for this support is in St. Paul's address to the clergy of Ephesus in Acts 20. In that passage St. Paul says, “Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God…” (Acts 20:28, emphasis mine). The Greek word that the KJV translates as “overseers” is “bishops.”
• With regard to prophets, teachers, evangelists, etc., the Catholic perspective is that "The officials of the Church organization are, and at all times have been, priests and bishops...in the narratives of the early Church other titles are mentioned, such as prophet, evangelist, teacher and pastor, but it is evident that these do not refer to officials who were distinct from priests and bishops." (Duane Hunt, 1959). Hence a Catholic priest can also have the title of pastor, and St. Paul has the authority of an Apostle/Bishop to give instructions to prophets in 1 Cor. 14.
• I believe that in the LDS understanding, prophets, teachers, etc. can be titles and/or offices, depending on context. For example, a teenage boy could hold the office of Teacher, but an adult woman could have a title of Teacher, but without holding the LDS office of Teacher. Similarly, I believe that the LDS office of Church President includes the title of Prophet, and that it isn't an issue for Latter-day Saints that "President" isn't mentioned as an office in the New Testament or Book of Mormon. 

Bishop Hunt's article can be found here: Continuity.PDF (transporter.com). It was written in response to the Mormon Doctrine book back in the 50s, and was intended to articulate Catholic understanding for Catholics in Utah who were hearing that their LDS neighbors thought of them as members of the church of the devil, apostates, etc. Bishop Hunt was a longtime friend of LDS President David McKay. My LDS family have assured me that the notions about Catholics in Mormon Doctrine, while probably still out there, aren't really LDS doctrine. You might anticipate my confusion when the book is called "Mormon Doctrine."

Please do correct any misunderstandings I may have and know that I'm trying to articulate what I believe to be key aspects of the confusion in a respectful manner.

 

 

HEBREWS

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; We really must break out of this attitude. We mustn’t have this primitive attitude to our God and His Son and His word, the Bible. We must study it for ourselves, and be unafraid to question those who claim to speak or to have spoken God’s word in recent times. Many of the new Christian sects members have come to some true conclusions regarding doctrine (e.g. that the trinity is not a Bible teaching). Maybe this is a stepping stone to a true relationship with God. Because we put it to you: now you need to analyse the words of your prophets, compare them with the Bible, study the Bible teaching about prophets and the Holy Spirit gift of prophecy; and then go forward to greater truths and eventually come into a true relationship with God and a certain Hope of being in His Kingdom.    HERE IS A QUESTION?         Has the prophets of your church stopped talking to God?  The reason I ask is you would think that every once in a while your prophets would make a prophecy. I understand that they are also there to guide you, but come on nothing other than advise about masks, Covid shots?  and most things that are common sense.  One more question, have you ever looked at your past prophets or apostles?  Unless I just missed it in my research, all are very successful men, not a bag boy, clerk, truck driver, I always thought that was odd.  Just some thoughts I’ve had.

 

[Chum]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Do I dare read that or will it ruin Christopher Robin and friends for me?

It'll reveal what you always knew deep down, that Pooh's ADHD would benefit from a Ritalin Rx.

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, Ranch2727 said:

One more question, have you ever looked at your past prophets or apostles?  Unless I just missed it in my research, all are very successful men, not a bag boy, clerk, truck driver, I always thought that was odd.  Just some thoughts I’ve had.

Upper leadership offices tend to be occupied by former bishops. Bishops tend to be men who've demonstrated some ability to organize and to manage complex situations - typically in employment / business.

I imagine hard lessons were learned before those qualities were prioritized.

[Ranch2727]

29 minutes ago, Chum said:

Upper leadership offices tend to be occupied by former bishops. Bishops tend to be men who've demonstrated some ability to organize and to manage complex situations - typically in employment / business.

I imagine hard lessons were learned before those qualities were prioritized.

So they are not really a calling from God but appointed by the Church? Also you’re saying that people that work in low paying jobs are not organized people and can’t handle complex issues? Interesting!!!

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Ranch2727 said:

So they are not really a calling from God but appointed by the Church?

I don't think Gotcha!s give you the power that you think they do.

1 hour ago, Ranch2727 said:

Also you’re saying that people that work in low paying jobs are not organized people and can’t handle complex issues?

You said that. I said different words.

Not everyone can handle the complexities of a bishop's calling without melting down. It comes with some brutal responsibilities and is best fulfilled by people with resilience and reliable clarity. As a counter example, I sometimes have very good clarity and sometimes have none at all. God calling me to be bishop would probably indicate widespread issues with the applicant pool.

Regarding God's choice process:  Throughout Christianity it is recognized that whom God calls, God qualifies. Qualification typically takes a long time; some abilities are tied to the makeup of the body itself. Again, these beliefs aren't strictly LDS but can be seen across Christianity. God plays a long game.

I imagine the reason God usually does things in a paced manner is to teach us how it's done. Instantly cramming someone full of ability doesn't teach us much that's useful - which may be why that card is rarely played.

1 hour ago, Ranch2727 said:

Interesting!!!

I wouldn't call primary school debating tactics 'interesting'. They're certainly not worth 3 exclamation points. Try to do better.

[Ranch2727]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I don't think Gotcha!s give you the power that you think they do.

You said that. I said different words.

Not everyone can handle the complexities of a bishop's calling without melting down. It comes with some brutal responsibilities and is best fulfilled by people with resilience and reliable clarity. As a counter example, I sometimes have very good clarity and sometimes have none at all. God calling me to be bishop would probably indicate widespread issues with the applicant pool.

Regarding God's choice process:  Throughout Christianity it is recognized that whom God calls, God qualifies. Qualification typically takes a long time; some abilities are tied to the makeup of the body itself. Again, these beliefs aren't strictly LDS but can be seen across Christianity. God plays a long game.

I imagine the reason God usually does things in a paced manner is to teach us how it's done. Instantly cramming someone full of ability doesn't teach us much that's useful - which may be why that card is rarely played.

I wouldn't call primary school debating tactics 'interesting'. They're certainly not worth 3 exclamation points. Try to do better.

 

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I don't think Gotcha!s give you the power that you think they do.

You said that. I said different words.

Not everyone can handle the complexities of a bishop's calling without melting down. It comes with some brutal responsibilities and is best fulfilled by people with resilience and reliable clarity. As a counter example, I sometimes have very good clarity and sometimes have none at all. God calling me to be bishop would probably indicate widespread issues with the applicant pool.

Regarding God's choice process:  Throughout Christianity it is recognized that whom God calls, God qualifies. Qualification typically takes a long time; some abilities are tied to the makeup of the body itself. Again, these beliefs aren't strictly LDS but can be seen across Christianity. God plays a long game.

I imagine the reason God usually does things in a paced manner is to teach us how it's done. Instantly cramming someone full of ability doesn't teach us much that's useful - which may be why that card is rarely played.

I wouldn't call primary school debating tactics 'interesting'. They're certainly not worth 3 exclamation points. Try to do better.

Not trying to do a Gotcha at all, just asking a question that I thought about. So not a calling from God? Even though I don’t believe in prophets and apostles today what you said makes sense. I just find it interesting without !  

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, Ranch2727 said:

So not a calling from God?

Again, that originates from you. I never said made that case. 

We may have puzzled out some of the criteria God is using. If so, God can still use it.

In this same vein, I believe God is a pragmatist. I routinely find that spiritual instruction yields concrete, secular advantages. In taking principles out of their spiritual packaging, I often find they they work exactly the same.

The take away is that 'good' often is more universal than we assume.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Chum

[Ranch2727]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Again, that originates from you. I never said made that case. 

We may have puzzled out some of the criteria God is using. If so, God can still use it.

In this same vein, I believe God is a pragmatist. I routinely find that spiritual instruction yields concrete, secular advantages. In taking principles out of their spiritual packaging, I often find they they work exactly the same.

The take away is that 'good' often is more universal than we assume.

That might be your take away but not mine.  If I had to break it down from your answers is that the church and God work together in making decisions on who is in what role in the church. Another take away for me is you need to be successful to hold a major role. Thanks for the insight.

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Ranch2727 said:

So they are not really a calling from God but appointed by the Church? Also you’re saying that people that work in low paying jobs are not organized people and can’t handle complex issues?

1 Tim 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Tim 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Tim 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Tim 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1 Tim 3:6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1 Tim 3:7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Just because there are qualifications specified for the office of bishop, it doesn't mean they are not called of God.

And by the way, I've been waiting to see if you would respond to my last post to you, and answer the questions I asked you.  I'd really like to know how you say your beliefs fit in harmony with the teachings from the Bible that I posted.

[Saint Bonaventure]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

• Very simply, the Latter-Day Saints hold the three apostles of the First Presidency and the twelve apostles who compose the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to be ‘prophets, seers and revelators’ in exactly the same sense that the Apostles Peter, John and Paul were prophets, seers and revelators to the Church in their day (i.e. men who are divinely authorized and empowered to receive new revelation from God to lead the Church in the correct divinely ordained gospel path). Until one understands that the Latter-Day Saints believe in continuous revelation, and that the canon of scripture is still wide open to further revelatory light and knowledge from God — divine light and knowledge on equal footing with any of the writings of any of the previous apostles and prophets found in the Bible — they will not be able grasp the difference. Is it not true that while the Latter-Day Saints are taught that many more new revelations and many more books of scripture are going to be added to the Standard Works of Scripture we already have, that the Catholic church teaches its members there will be no more revelations and books of scripture added to the canon beyond what’s already in the Bible?

Thank you for your response and question. I'll try to balance accuracy with brevity and very much hope to continue this conversation with you and with others.

I'm going to respond in such a fashion that I'm going to share what I'm thinking as I read what you've written:

• I find it refreshing to have a discussion with Latter-day Saints because they value authority and people needing to have it.
• The differences between LDS and Catholics regarding prophets, revelation, the canon and so on seem to me to indicate very different ideas about God. For me, the revelation of God through Christ is the culmination of God's revelation. God himself was revealed! In this sense, I see the Old Testament prophets as anticipating and gesturing to Christ, as indicated in Hebrews 1: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (1-2).
• I also recall New Testament indications of the completeness of the teachings of Christ, such as in Jude 3, which teaches to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints, and Galatians 1:8, which instructs the Galatians not to accept any gospel other than what has already been preached. The gospel is complete because God himself was revealed veiled only in the flesh of the person of the Son, and the truth of that revelation is what Catholics are referring to when we speak of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. If the deposit of faith is not complete, then the implications would be dire: what was revealed in the Son of God was somehow inadequate. Consequently, a closed canon is theologically consistent with an all-true, unchanging God who revealed himself in the person of the Son. 
• When LDS folks insist on the need for modern prophets for new revelation, what I hear as a Catholic is an insistence that the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ somehow needs to be corrected or improved upon. For me, Jesus Christ is the new and everlasting covenant, He is the New Testament (in a sense that includes but goes beyond the written words of Scripture. Christ is Scripture, the Word written in flesh).  
• Prophecy and revelation do have a place in the Catholic Church, just not in a fashion that would purport to correct, supplement, or complete the Christian faith because that faith was completed in the Incarnation of Christ and the consequent deposit of faith. Acts 15:32 indicates that Judas (not Iscariot) and Silas are prophets, and while they are valuable and prophecy is integral, they are not in charge of the Church or described as holding an office of prophet. Of course, Paul gives instructions for prophecy in the Church, and in so doing exercises his authority over it. Private revelations are abundant in the Catholic Church, from St. Catherine of Siena and St. Francis of Assisi, to the apparitions (think "heavenly visitations") at Fatima and Lourdes, to many, many other private revelations. These prophecies, revelations, visions, etc. are beautiful and true, but they won't correct, supplement, or complete the faith that was fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and faithfully communicated to the Church. At least, that's my understanding as a Catholic. 

I appreciate our conversation and hope I'm clarifying where I'm coming from. I'm also intrigued by what you mention as still additional books of scripture. Perhaps you'll add the deuterocanonical books? Sirach, Baruch, and Tobit were all part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Ranch2727]

On 7/28/2022 at 7:55 PM, InCognitus said:

I think you are using the wrong definition of "work" in this context.  You seem to be thinking that "work" must be hard to be called "work".  "Work" in this context simply means DOING something other than sitting on your couch and thinking happy thoughts about your imagined standing with God.  That's not showing love for God.   Nor can anyone "know" God by doing nothing.  In fact, the Bible says that you can't "know" God unless you keep his commandments (quoted earlier).  And it says that if you say you know God but don't keep his commandments, you are a liar!  (I'm not saying you are this, but this is what the Bible says about those who say they know God but don't keep his commandments - 1 John 2:3-6).

I know you also believe that works are necessary, because in another post you acknowledged that a person can lose their salvation.  You said if a person stops worshiping God, then they would lose their salvation.  What does a person need to "do" to worship God?  You also said by "denying God" you could lose your salvation.  You remember how the Bible says a person denies God, right?  And what Jesus said would happen to such a person?

Jesus said:  Mat 10:33  "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

Paul said:  2 Tim 2:12  "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us"

And Paul said how people deny Jesus:  Titus 1:16  "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."  (There's that "work" word again).

How do you respond to this, and how can these Bible teachings possibly be in harmony with what you have been teaching here?  (And please answer this time).

I thought I did answer your question, maybe it didn’t post. So I will try again.   My relationship allows me to sit on the couch and do nothing, but if I’m on my couch, fishing or drinking coffee in the morning and thinking happy thoughts about God he will be pleased.  I’m not sure how that’s not showing love for God.  As I have said before so listen and wait for it, I can’t keep the commandments. Not sure how you do but I’m guilty of them all.  Remember if you break one you are guilty of them all.  Because of his gift I can do whatever I want, the difference is because I’m born again I choose not to. I would say to someone that tells me they keep the commandments that they are a liar.  As far as losing your salvation, sure one can by knowing God then denying him.   Works has nothing to do with that for me.  Just because you do all this work for your church doesn’t mean God is pleased with you.  We shouldn’t do work to get noticed “hey God look at me”. By working or not working has  nothing to do with denying Him.  Yes in your works you can deny him, like doing things that go against him. Our salvation was a gift (gift word again) that I know you have heard of but not after we do all we can, it’s a gift. When you give someone a gift do you then tell them… well you need to work the rest of your life for it. Not much of a gift.

sometimes I have to remind myself that we believe in a different Jesus. “We don’t believe in the traditional Jesus of the Bible” Good old Gorden B My Jesus is God, my Jesus is not my spirit brother and brother to satan. My Jesus said believe in me and you are saved, my Jesus said you have to go through him to see God.  Your prophet said you must have a passport if JS to see God. Your prophet said he has done more than Jesus ever did because my people haven’t run from me yet.  I have freedom in Christ and that’s where I will rest.  That’s the best answers that I can offer you. 

[Chum]

recap:

3 hours ago, Chum said:

I believe God is a pragmatist. I routinely find that spiritual instruction yields concrete, secular advantages. In taking principles out of their spiritual packaging, I often find they they work exactly the same.  The take away is that 'good' often is more universal than we assume.

 

1 hour ago, Ranch2727 said:

That might be your take away but not mine.

Okay.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Consequently, a closed canon is theologically consistent with an all-true, unchanging God who revealed himself in the person of the Son. 

Why is any canonized scripture written about events after Christ died and was resurrected accepted then?

Edited July 30, 2022 by Calm

[Ranch2727]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

1 Tim 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Tim 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Tim 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Tim 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1 Tim 3:6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1 Tim 3:7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Just because there are qualifications specified for the office of bishop, it doesn't mean they are not called of God.

And by the way, I've been waiting to see if you would respond to my last post to you, and answer the questions I asked you.  I'd really like to know how you say your beliefs fit in harmony with the teachings from the Bible that I posted.

A bishop must be blameless?

So all the bishops are innocent of all wrongdoing and without guilt? Wow they are some really good men. I’ve known bishops that were not very nice men. My dad was a bishop and although he was a very nice guy he had his human faults, not sure he was without guilt. Anyone know bishops kids that drank and did drugs or had sex? I knew plenty growing up in Happy Valley, I guess they didn’t rule over their kids.  A bishop in an old ward was a very successful business man but went to prison for embezzlement, I guess he was a little greedy.  Not sure these men were called of God to take good care of there church.  I’m not sure those scriptures posted helped your point, or maybe I just don’t understand.

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Ranch2727 said:

I thought I did answer your question, maybe it didn’t post. So I will try again.   My relationship allows me to sit on the couch and do nothing, but if I’m on my couch, fishing or drinking coffee in the morning and thinking happy thoughts about God he will be pleased.  I’m not sure how that’s not showing love for God.  As I have said before so listen and wait for it, I can’t keep the commandments. Not sure how you do but I’m guilty of them all.  Remember if you break one you are guilty of them all.  Because of his gift I can do whatever I want, the difference is because I’m born again I choose not to. I would say to someone that tells me they keep the commandments that they are a liar.  As far as losing your salvation, sure one can by knowing God then denying him.   Works has nothing to do with that for me.  Just because you do all this work for your church doesn’t mean God is pleased with you.  We shouldn’t do work to get noticed “hey God look at me”. By working or not working has  nothing to do with denying Him.  Yes in your works you can deny him, like doing things that go against him. Our salvation was a gift (gift word again) that I know you have heard of but not after we do all we can, it’s a gift. When you give someone a gift do you then tell them… well you need to work the rest of your life for it. Not much of a gift.

sometimes I have to remind myself that we believe in a different Jesus. “We don’t believe in the traditional Jesus of the Bible” Good old Gorden B My Jesus is God, my Jesus is not my spirit brother and brother to satan. My Jesus said believe in me and you are saved, my Jesus said you have to go through him to see God.  Your prophet said you must have a passport if JS to see God. Your prophet said he has done more than Jesus ever did because my people haven’t run from me yet.  I have freedom in Christ and that’s where I will rest.  That’s the best answers that I can offer you. 

You're late to the party, Jesus is God now. Or that's what they're saying. So cross that off the list.

And one problem I have is this. How would your family feel if you really were a couch potato and didn't want to support your family. Don't you think that would disappoint God? So I don't think the analogy works so great. But of course like you said you wouldn't do that. But what of the others that don't have much of a moral compass but do accept Jesus as their personal Savior how would that sit with God. So there are rapists, murderers etc. but if someone tells a simple white lie, hey it's a lie, then they are put in the same category? I have to disagree. And maybe I misunderstand. 

There's a heck of a lot of people that need a God judging them to be able to do what is right, they don't always listen to their moral compasses, I tend to think that's why the Bible exists or was created because humans knew the damage that occur without the all seeing eye. 

Also, I believe JS was wrong to boast, that was dumb. But how about your clergy at the EV church you go to or maybe you don't go to any brick or mortar building, that's fine. I only go to Zoom so that's not the best. JS was a human, and IMO probably did what he wasn't suppose to do by using God sometimes to create a new church. I feel like sometimes he was in the right place with his wish for people in the world but went too far with polygamy. I think he didn't like the current churches telling people they're going to hell and would suffer fire and brimstone. Is that your God, no thanks! 

I know for a fact that the authors for the Bible wrote later on about Matthew, Luke and John and ? Kind of like playing telephone as a kid. And through the years the truth sort of fades and we're not always getting the truth, just man made stuff, to keep people from killing each other or keep people somewhat civilized. But the rest of the Bible stinks to high heaven when it puts women at a disadvantage...like women have to have long hair or aren't allowed to pray in church and women are made to marry someone they don't want to, or...you get the picture. You can keep that part of the Bible or the part of the Bible that makes it out that the blacks are the curse of Cain, keep that one or definitely burn that to a crisp. Do you believe the whole Bible? Does your God expect you to? 

That's not my God for sure. 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Tacenda

[Chum]

2 hours ago, Ranch2727 said:

 If I had to break it down from your answers is that the church and God work together in making decisions on who is in what role in the church.

Sure. I think most of Christianity holds that view or similar.

2 hours ago, Ranch2727 said:

Another take away for me is you need to be successful to hold a major role.

Okay. Not what I said but okay. Here you are presenting a generalized measure of success as a qualifier. Your equation runs something like 'Present success, Get considered for bishop'. Yet again, this is a notion that originates with you.

A longer form of what I said (not needed by most people) is that God qualifies men and the way those qualifications manifest themselves is thru ability. After a generation or so of being prepared by God, the way these men are likely to exhibit their qualification is thru concerns they are involved in. In our society, those concerns are most likely to be employment, business or similar endeavors.

So me: God prepares men for religious office and men who've been prepared tend to be good at things that require similar skill sets.

You (prior to now): Men need success to be considered.

Do you see where your reinterpretation isn't in harmony with my explanation?

Edited July 31, 2022 by Chum