Definition of the Term Christian when Referring to a Person

[Pyreaux]

16 hours ago, Reign Gurl said:

Are you trying to mislead anyone who reads this who is not a Mormon by writing this remark in this way? May I ask, if these "true" churches you're referring to aren't living in your opinion, does that imply that other Christian congregations that hold just the "truth" are dead? Does a baptism from one of the churches you're describing which possesses simply the "truth" but isn't living, satisfy the requirements to enter the presence of God after death?

By living, I refer to living divine authorities, many churches happily admit this distinction, they appeal to authorities long dead, they would acknowledge to being "dead" by that definition, those who reformed their church according to purely Biblical ideals. [And so, to these Reformers] The Bible's dead authors are a higher authority than the living Pope.

I honestly presume they there are other true churches, in as far as they preach and live according to the truth and knowledge they have, and if they do so they will be blessed and will certainly one day be saved and if they desire it, exaltation. Thier baptisms are accepted as far as they describe their baptism as their outward symbol of their inward commitment to Christ, they would admit it doesn't carry the same meaning for them as it does to us. Does it hold value? I believe there is plenty of scriptural precedent that God accepts all sorts of odd and even Gentile oaths and will reward faithfulness to their oaths.

Any "real" Latter-day Saint should already know; everyone will have opportunity to be in God's presence and receive exaltation, that is almost a guarantee for any faithful Christian of any denomination. For we may judge in the flesh, but we are no man's ultimate judge in the spirit. Because not only could today's anti-Mormon easily be tomorrow's brother in Christ. I dare believe some agents of our opposition could presently be, even unknown to themselves, agents of God foreordained to be our opposition (like Pharoh was to Moses). There is hope for us all who believe or could be made to believe.

Latter-day Saints are not Restrictivists, we are not as churches who damn the unbaptized nor the unevagelized. We are more "Wider-Hope Theory". While Exaltation does have certain pathways, it is universally accessible, but not universally obtained. Thus, neither are we Universalists. As C.S. Lewis put it, you have to accept that some people will be rebels to the end and those in hell are those who choose to be there.

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Chum]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:49 PM, Navidad said:

Greetings all. I am interested in reading your various definitions of the word Christian when applied to an individual, for example 'He is a Christian." I ask because it seems that like other terms, this word may mean different things to different of us. I am not as interested in what a dictionary says as what you all, the members of this forum mean when you use the term to refer to individuals. Or perhaps the word has the same meaning for you whether using it about a community, a faith, or a church in an adjectival or descriptive sense? Someone offered a definition earlier this week that he indicated was a "generic" definition. I am wide open to any or all input that you care to offer. Thanks so much.

It occurs to me - an appeal of defining other individuals as Christian is the ability to label unliked individuals as Not Christian.

[Chum]

10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

By living, I refer to living divine authorities, many churches happily admit this distinction, they appeal to authorities long dead, they would acknowledge to being "dead" by that definition. The Bible's dead authors are a higher authority than the living Pope. I honestly presume they there are other true churches, in as far as they preach and live according to the truth and knowledge they have, and if they do so they will be blessed and will certainly one day be saved and if they desire it, exaltation. Thier baptism is accepted as far as they describe their baptism as their outward symbol of their inward commitment to Christ, they would admit it doesn't carry the same meaning for them as it does to us. Does hold value? I believe there is plenty of scriptural precedent that God accepts all sorts of odd and even Gentile oaths and will reward faithfulness. Any "real" Latter-day Saint should already know; everyone will have opportunity to be in God's presence and exaltation, that is almost a guarantee for any faithful Christian of any denomination. For we may judge in the flesh, but we are no man's ultimate judge in the spirit. Because not only could today's anti-Mormon easily be tomorrow's brother in Christ. I dare believe some agents of our opposition could presently be, even unknown to themselves, agents of God foreordained to be our opposition (like Pharoh was to Moses). There is hope for us all who believe or could be made to believe.

The Earthly humans who can unarguably declare whether someone belongs to a faith are those belonging to the unarguable authority of that faith.  Faiths without authority are without authority.

[Saint Bonaventure]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

By living, I refer to living divine authorities, many churches happily admit this distinction, they appeal to authorities long dead, they would acknowledge to being "dead" by that definition, those who reformed their church according to purely Biblical ideals. The Bible's dead authors are a higher authority than the living Pope.

 

Hi, Pyreaux--

I'm trying to understand what you've written here, and I'm not making sense of it. Can you unpack this a little?

 

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend - I guess you will disagree, but I think each and every true and living Christian church (the church collectively) is . . . . well, a true and living church collectively. No one individual church is THEE true and living church - but the church collectively, not the church individually is THEE true and living church as pretty clearly stated in D&C 1 - reference the rest of the passage in D&C 1 that none of my LDS friends ever seem to quote.

A true and living church is one composed of individuals who are (some of whom are leaders) directed by continuing revelation from Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit via both general and special revelation - continuing revelation ascertained by prayer, supplication, seeking God's will, meditation, pouring over Scripture, etc. I am not sure why my LDS friends continue over and over to insist that non-LDS Christians reject continuing revelation and that they are strongly motivated by creedalism (a separate conversation). This seems to be a deeply engrained belief in the LDS psyche that is not accurate. The only training I ever received in all my years of seminary and graduate school in the creeds was in Church History classes. I remember well when the Mennonite church was trying to formulate a policy/doctrine over LGBTQ issues, the insistence of the leaders that those with voting rights in conferences seek revelation from God on the issue. If that wasn't continuing revelations, I am not sure what the term means.

I actually don't disagree with you on this part.  Another aspect of it being a "living" church is for individuals that abide in Christ and produce fruit, and that certainly does happen with Christians apart from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It's the John 15:5 concept, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."  Abiding in the vine is "living" in Christ, and doing so gives life by bearing fruit.  And I definitely recognize that individuals in other churches can and do receive revelation.  But I think the next part of what I said (that you picked up on) is also essential:

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

To be fair, you added "including the possibility of more scripture." I would have to agree with that part in some sense. I don't know of any other Christian church besides the LDS that is open to "more scripture" or even to its possibility. I am not saying there are none, I just can't think of any right now. There certainly are, however disagreements on the exact number of books in the Biblical canon. I don't know of any Christian group (notice the word group) that declares those who accept more or less books in the Biblical canon as "non-Christian." Take care.

This is where I think most Christian groups draw the line.  There are many hard line statements declared in Christianity about the Bible being all of God's word, and there can't be anymore given as scripture.  

This statement from the Ligonier Ministries website (Reformed theology) at the end of the article on The Canon of the Bible seems typical, and even hints that those who add to the canon of scripture are not Christian:

Quote

While the church has had some disputes over exactly which books belonged in the Canon, it always agreed that the Canon was closed with the death of the last apostle. While no Christian today seeks to add to the Canon, there are those within the visible church who claim to have new, direct, binding words from God. Beware of this dangerous heresy in the modern church.

But this is all arbitrary and assumed based on tradition, since God hasn't made any declaration on the closing of the canon of scripture, in the Bible or elsewhere.  And if the "Canon was closed with the death of the last apostle" as it says above, what happens when God decides to call new prophets and apostles?  "Well, God won't do that, because we have all we need in the Bible", or so they say.  But that's just begging the question.

The various arguments against an open canon of scripture all seem to be directed at maintaining control over Christian teaching, and certainly there is truth in the principle that scripture is one of the measuring rods of truth.  But for men to claim on their own that God's word is complete in the Bible is quite presumptuous.  It's an attitude that limits them to what God has already given them, and prevents them from receiving what God may want to give them.  This is why I see this as a huge detractor from the "living church" concept.

So is a person who believes in an open canon of scripture a Christian or not?  The New Testament Christians certainly believed in an open canon of scripture.  So why not today?

Edited November 27, 2022 by InCognitus

[manol]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But [the idea that the canon was closed with the death of the last apostle] is all arbitrary and assumed based on tradition, since God hasn't made any declaration on the closing of the canon of scripture, in the Bible or elsewhere. 

Agreed!

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The various arguments against an open canon of scripture all seem to be directed at maintaining control over Christian teaching, and certainly there is truth in the principle that scripture is one of the measuring rods of truth.  But for men to claim on their own that God's word is complete in the Bible is quite presumptuous.  It's an attitude that limits them to what God has already given them, and prevents them from receiving what God may want to give them.  This is why I see this as a huge detractor from the "living church" concept.

So is a person who believes in an open canon of scripture a Christian or not?  The New Testament Christians certainly believed in an open canon of scripture.  So why not today?

How "open" do you think the "canon" is today? 

In other words, can (and does) God speak today through channels which are outside of the LDS Church?  

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by manol

[InCognitus]

30 minutes ago, manol said:

How "open" do you think the "canon" is today? 

In other words, can (and does) God speak today through channels which are outside of the LDS Church?  

I think it's possible, but more probably it will be that we will obtain more scripture from the prophets of the scattered tribes of Israel, as it says in 2 Nephi 29:

Quote

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.
12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.
14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.
(2 Nephi 29:7–14)

[manol]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I think it's possible, but more probably it will be that we will obtain more scripture from the prophets of the scattered tribes of Israel, as it says in 2 Nephi 29:

Perhaps "the prophets of the scattered tribes of Israel" are among us today, though not recognizable by name.  But whatever the lineage may be, if God "shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it", then could that process not be ongoing even today? 

In other words, perhaps being open to truth from wherever it may come is not a bad idea.  Perhaps it is no accident that the LDS Church has uniquely well-prepared its members to recognize truth, via teachings such as Alma Chapter 32 and Moroni's Promise, and via the Gift of the Holy Ghost being the first thing one receives after baptism. 

[InCognitus]

28 minutes ago, manol said:

Perhaps "the prophets of the scattered tribes of Israel" are among us today, though not recognizable by name.  But whatever the lineage may be, if God "shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it", then could that process not be ongoing even today? 

In other words, perhaps being open to truth from wherever it may come is not a bad idea.  Perhaps it is no accident that the LDS Church has uniquely well-prepared its members to recognize truth, via teachings such as Alma Chapter 32 and Moroni's Promise, and via the Gift of the Holy Ghost being the first thing one receives after baptism. 

That seems quite possible to me, yes.

[Pyreaux]

59 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Hi, Pyreaux--

I'm trying to understand what you've written here, and I'm not making sense of it. Can you unpack this a little?

 

Yes, the last part was poorly written, I meant it to be an example of a common Christian belief that should not cause them to be offended if they are excluded from being a "living" church, such as Christians who are aware that they believe dead authorities in scripture trumps the living authorities in their church. This was not a standalone statement of my views.

It seems plainly understood that Protestantism was founded on the idea that Biblical authority could be used to protest and break away from Catholic authorities. They are keenly aware there are churches who claim to be distinct from Protestantism by "living" apostolic authorities, like the Catholic Pope or LDS Prophet. Not having "living" authorities, thus not being a "living" church is not a bad thing from their prospective if they don't know if there is a living authority. Nor is it ultimately a bad thing from our perspective when it comes to salvation, as no one is damned in ignorance and everyone will one day understand the truth and will have plenty of time and opporitunity to take advantage of it unto exaltation.

[Reign Gurl]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

They are keenly aware there are churches who claim to be distinct from Protestantism by "living" apostolic authorities, like the Catholic Pope or LDS Prophet

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure. I'm still unsure of what distinguishes a "living" church. Are you claiming that a church is "living" if it has an alive figurehead who claims to have Heavenly Authority?

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

. Not having "living" authorities, thus not being a "living" church is not a bad thing from their prospective if they don't know if there is a living authority.

Really?

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Nor is it ultimately a bad thing from our perspective when it comes to salvation, as no one is damned in ignorance and everyone will one day understand the truth and will have plenty of time and opporitunity to take advantage of it unto exaltation

I apologize, but I find this to be a really demeaning statement. In essence, you're advising Christians to relax about the possibility of not having a "living" church while on earth. Since God has built a place for them in heaven called Spirit prison, where the Mormons will teach them everything they need to know alongside every other religion that the Earthly authorities so mischievously forced onto its adherents, you can go there to learn everything you need to know so one day you'll become a member of the actual "living" church. 

Is that what you mean when saying, don't worry, you'll have plenty of time  and opportunity to figure it out? You're referring to spirit prison?

[Niblo]

12 minutes ago, Reign Gurl said:

I apologize, but I find this to be a really demeaning statement. In essence, you're advising Christians to relax about the possibility of not having a "living" church while on earth. Since God has built a place for them in heaven called Spirit prison, where the Mormons will teach them everything they need to know alongside every other religion that the Earthly authorities so mischievously forced onto its adherents, you can go there to learn everything you need to know so one day you'll become a member of the actual "living" church. 

Is that what you mean when saying, don't worry, you'll have plenty of time  and opportunity to figure it out? You're referring to spirit prison?

Agreed. 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Chum said:

It occurs to me - an appeal of defining other individuals as Christian is the ability to label unliked individuals as Not Christian.

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at? Can you amplify a bit?

 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

By living, I refer to living divine authorities, many churches happily admit this distinction, they appeal to authorities long dead, they would acknowledge to being "dead" by that definition, those who reformed their church according to purely Biblical ideals. [And so, to these Reformers] The Bible's dead authors are a higher authority than the living Pope.

I honestly presume they there are other true churches, in as far as they preach and live according to the truth and knowledge they have, and if they do so they will be blessed and will certainly one day be saved and if they desire it, exaltation. Thier baptisms are accepted as far as they describe their baptism as their outward symbol of their inward commitment to Christ, they would admit it doesn't carry the same meaning for them as it does to us. Does it hold value? I believe there is plenty of scriptural precedent that God accepts all sorts of odd and even Gentile oaths and will reward faithfulness to their oaths.

Any "real" Latter-day Saint should already know; everyone will have opportunity to be in God's presence and receive exaltation, that is almost a guarantee for any faithful Christian of any denomination. For we may judge in the flesh, but we are no man's ultimate judge in the spirit. Because not only could today's anti-Mormon easily be tomorrow's brother in Christ. I dare believe some agents of our opposition could presently be, even unknown to themselves, agents of God foreordained to be our opposition (like Pharoh was to Moses). There is hope for us all who believe or could be made to believe.

Latter-day Saints are not Restrictivists, we are not as churches who damn the unbaptized nor the unevagelized. We are more "Wider-Hope Theory". While Exaltation does have certain pathways, it is universally accessible, but not universally obtained. Thus, neither are we Universalists. As C.S. Lewis put it, you have to accept that some people will be rebels to the end and those in hell are those who choose to be there.

 

Lots in there to think about - especially "We may judge in the flesh, but we are no man's ultimate judge in the spirit." I have to ponder on that for a while. Thanks.

 

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I

 

 

17 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I actually don't disagree with you on this part.  Another aspect of it being a "living" church is for individuals that abide in Christ and produce fruit, and that certainly does happen with Christians apart from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It's the John 15:5 concept, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."  Abiding in the vine is "living" in Christ, and doing so gives life by bearing fruit.  And I definitely recognize that individuals in other churches can and do receive revelation.  But I think the next part of what I said (that you picked up on) is also essential:

This is where I think most Christian groups draw the line.  There are many hard line statements declared in Christianity about the Bible being all of God's word, and there can't be anymore given as scripture.  

This statement from the Ligonier Ministries website (Reformed theology) at the end of the article on The Canon of the Bible seems typical, and even hints that those who add to the canon of scripture are not Christian:

But this is all arbitrary and assumed based on tradition, since God hasn't made any declaration on the closing of the canon of scripture, in the Bible or elsewhere.  And if the "Canon was closed with the death of the last apostle" as it says above, what happens when God decides to call new prophets and apostles?  "Well, God won't do that, because we have all we need in the Bible", or so they say.  But that's just begging the question.

The various arguments against an open canon of scripture all seem to be directed at maintaining control over Christian teaching, and certainly there is truth in the principle that scripture is one of the measuring rods of truth.  But for men to claim on their own that God's word is complete in the Bible is quite presumptuous.  It's an attitude that limits them to what God has already given them, and prevents them from receiving what God may want to give them.  This is why I see this as a huge detractor from the "living church" concept.

So is a person who believes in an open canon of scripture a Christian or not?  The New Testament Christians certainly believed in an open canon of scripture.  So why not today?

Thanks for your insightful (as always) reply. I think however, you are confusing (no offense) the concept for the non-LDS Christian of "Canon" versus "Revelation." There is a broad distinction between the two, as there is sometimes for the LDS. For example. Wilford Woodruff's desert revelation was declared (by the Brethren) to be useful for the general church, but not as Canon. It was never included in the D&C or added to the POGP as LDS canon. But it was acknowledged as revelation that was helpful for church members, and they were encouraged to read it. Read the text of their decision on this point and it was clear. Revelation - yes. Canon - no. 

Also notice Sproul's words (which for some reason did not copy over) that there are those within the "visible church" - that in and of itself implies they are Christians because for us, the visible church has nothing to do with any institution or organization, but refers to individuals collectively who are Christian, regardless of organizational affiliation. Going back to my former example with Wilford Woodruff, he had the vision when he was an apostle. He went before the Brethren with a copy of it. The declined to declare it to be canonical (the stuff that gets in the D&C or POGP). Then he became president. Could he have then declared it (the vision) to have been Canonical? Wouldn't he need the support the same (most) of the men who had decided otherwise eight years before? He never did that. I think the same folks may have equivocated when the made the decision to add his 1890 manifesto to the back of the D&C and of course later the family manifesto. They did not become new sections in the LDS approved canon, did they? I think their placement implies a difference?

Sproul used the word heresy - that is strongly worded, but doesn't mean "non-Christian." It goes way back even to the arguments about Origen. As many of his peers thought many of his statements were heretical, (why I object to them being considered normative), he has been defined as the "father of orthodoxy" and the "father of heresy." As one modern scholar has also written, he was "gifted, devout, and condemned." So it often is with the interpretation of revelation and the decision with regard to canon. Many new documents have been discovered over the last 1500 years. None, that I know of have ever been added to the "canon" of non-LDS Christianity. I always have to add things like "that I know of" because I don't believe anything is unarguable - a word someone used earlier. In Sproul's reformed PCA context, only a Christian could be heretical. I have had many Saints say to me that I cannot be an apostate, because I never accepted the truths of the LDS restoration and joined the church. I can only be and, as a matter of fact am a reprobate! I feel so much better! Take care.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On the 'possibility of more Scripture' aspect that some Latter-day Saints are connecting to a church being 'living':

I won't try to retrace official definitions or doctrines, but many members of historic Christian Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) are likely to push back on the 'possibility of more Scripture' angle for reasons that might not be apparent to Latter-day Saints. Specifically, the idea that the Old Testament prophets and their revelations were foreshadowing the ultimate revelation of the Son and Truth in the person of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1), and that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) by the Son and the apostles often leads historic Christians to conclude that the Truth has been revealed, and that while it can be subsequently clarified and elaborated, even authoritatively, there was nothing missing, concealed, or otherwise remiss in the Incarnation of the Son and the faith delivered to the saints. Catholics will typically view Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as taught by the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority) as intrinsic to apostolic succession and to the clarification and elaboration of Truth, and Protestants will see Scripture as fully revealing Truth in the person of the Son (Sola Scriptura).

When these ideas are considered with Galatians 1:8 (another gospel) and other passages, historic Christians frequently conclude that the LDS' Son is incomplete, or that he was not revealed as Truth (with a capital "T"), and when they hear about eternal progression and that LDS believe that Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition have been distorted or compromised, these Christians start drawing the Christian line with Latter-day Saints outside of it because of intrinsic differences at Christianity's foundation.

That's how the open canon idea is often discussed as intersecting the Nature of the Son.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, manol said:

Agreed!

How "open" do you think the "canon" is today? 

In other words, can (and does) God speak today through channels which are outside of the LDS Church?  

 

I think that perhaps a more important question is "How open do you think the canon is today in the LDS church?" When was the last time the LDS canon itself was changed by some new revelation? The family and Woodruff Manifesto (1890) were appended to the canon, not added in a new section in the body of the canon. Is that not correct? Outside of those two instances, when was something new added to the LDS canon? Sometimes, it seems to me that the LDS folks minimize or restrict the non-LDS Christians by virtue of the comments of a few, but then turn around and overstate the importance of something like continuing revelation for themselves, when I don't there has been any for years. If something is a possibility, but never happens, it simply remains a possibility not an actual occurrence. 

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Yes, the last part was poorly written, I meant it to be an example of a common Christian belief that should not cause them to be offended if they are excluded from being a "living" church, such as Christians who are aware that they believe dead authorities in scripture trumps the living authorities in their church. This was not a standalone statement of my views.

It seems plainly understood that Protestantism was founded on the idea that Biblical authority could be used to protest and break away from Catholic authorities. They are keenly aware there are churches who claim to be distinct from Protestantism by "living" apostolic authorities, like the Catholic Pope or LDS Prophet. Not having "living" authorities, thus not being a "living" church is not a bad thing from their prospective if they don't know if there is a living authority. Nor is it ultimately a bad thing from our perspective when it comes to salvation, as no one is damned in ignorance and everyone will one day understand the truth and will have plenty of time and opporitunity to take advantage of it unto exaltation.

I don't think we should ignore all the non-Catholic and non-LDS groups that believe in living apostolic authorities. The Oneness Pentecostals just wrapped up yesterday their annual conference in Los Angeles. It was a huge gathering. New missionaries were sent out all over the world. Their apostles blessed them all and dedicated them to their ministries. I saw some of it. It was quite inspirational. Many non-LDS and non Catholic groups have bishops. Our son was baptized by a Mennonite bishop. Many groups in the south have apostles in leadership. Believing in apostolic authority is not just a Catholic/Orthodox or LDS thing.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Reign Gurl said:

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure. I'm still unsure of what distinguishes a "living" church. Are you claiming that a church is "living" if it has an alive figurehead who claims to have Heavenly Authority?

Really?

I apologize, but I find this to be a really demeaning statement. In essence, you're advising Christians to relax about the possibility of not having a "living" church while on earth. Since God has built a place for them in heaven called Spirit prison, where the Mormons will teach them everything they need to know alongside every other religion that the Earthly authorities so mischievously forced onto its adherents, you can go there to learn everything you need to know so one day you'll become a member of the actual "living" church. 

Is that what you mean when saying, don't worry, you'll have plenty of time  and opportunity to figure it out? You're referring to spirit prison?

Isn't by definition, a living church is a church that is alive? A church that is alive is growing, ministering, impacting people's lives outside of their church. It is a church that is reproducing, teaching, publishing, and generally alive and well. I don't understand the insistence that for a church to be living, they must adhere to living "figureheads?"

[manol]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think that perhaps a more important question is "How open do you think the canon is today in the LDS church?"

Yes!  That's what I meant by my questions.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

When was the last time the LDS canon itself was changed by some new revelation? The family and Woodruff Manifesto (1890) were appended to the canon, not added in a new section in the body of the canon. Is that not correct? Outside of those two instances, when was something new added to the LDS canon? Sometimes, it seems to me that the LDS folks minimize or restrict the non-LDS Christians by virtue of the comments of a few, but then turn around and overstate the importance of something like continuing revelation for themselves, when I don't there has been any for years. If something is a possibility, but never happens, it simply remains a possibility not an actual occurrence. 

Excellent point!

Has God already said all he has to say?  I don't think so:  "my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever." (2 Nephi 29:9)

And, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (9th Article of Faith)

If this ongoing, present-tense revelation is not evident in the LDS church today (and as you point out the LDS canon has not been expanded for a long time), then where would it show up?

In books, and/or their modern equivalents:

"For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written." (2 Nephi 29:11)

Maybe LDS (and non-LDS) are supposed to actively search for what God does now reveal:  "Seek, and ye shall find." (Jesus Christ)

And maybe we all would do well to expand our search radius, for God is not done speaking to us; is now (present tense) speaking to us; and is not limited to speaking through only one religion. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by manol

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Maybe we all would do well to expand our search radius, as God is not limited to speaking through only one religion. 

I am not sure that God speaks through any organization. God speaks through individuals via the Holy Spirit. He may choose to speak via visions or theophanies (very very rarely), but again these are not mass visions, but individuals. There is something to be said for the still small voice after the thunder and earthquake. God spoke thusly (is that a word?) to Elijah when he was completely alone. If one believes in the visions received by Juan Diego, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, Joan of Arc, or any of them - one understands that God speaks not to committees, groups, or the masses, He speaks to individuals and those individuals may, as you suggest be in any or no faith group. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure that God speaks through any organization. God speaks through individuals via the Holy Spirit. He may choose to speak via visions or theophanies (very very rarely), but again these are not mass visions, but individuals. There is something to be said for the still small voice after the thunder and earthquake. God spoke thusly (is that a word?) to Elijah when he was completely alone. If one believes in the visions received by Juan Diego, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, Joan of Arc, or any of them - one understands that God speaks not to committees, groups, or the masses, He speaks to individuals and those individuals may, as you suggest be in any or no faith group. 

Exactly, can any of us imagine secluding any of our children away from our other children? I think not! Or excluding our children as well.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Tacenda

[manol]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

God speaks through individuals via the Holy Spirit. He may choose to speak via visions or theophanies (very very rarely), but again these are not mass visions, but individuals. There is something to be said for the still small voice after the thunder and earthquake.

Yes, visions and theophanies are not the only languages God speaks! 

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

God... speaks to individuals and those individuals may, as you suggest be in any or no faith group. 

Imo we are finally in an age when God can speak through a person who is not part of a faith group without the high probability of that person being silenced by an offended faith group.  Relative to times past I think we are living in a golden age, in this respect. 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Also notice Sproul's words (which for some reason did not copy over) that there are those within the "visible church" - that in and of itself implies they are Christians because for us, the visible church has nothing to do with any institution or organization, but refers to individuals collectively who are Christian, regardless of organizational affiliation.

Hi Navidad. I'm not picking on you or your words, I just want to clarify to readers that what you write is not the Catholic position. Catholicism believes that the visible church is the institution and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

Quote

771 "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men."The Church is at the same time: 
- a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ; 
- the visible society and the spiritual community; 
- the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches." 
These dimensions together constitute "one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element"

779 The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can accept.

 

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think that perhaps a more important question is "How open do you think the canon is today in the LDS church?" When was the last time the LDS canon itself was changed by some new revelation? The family and Woodruff Manifesto (1890) were appended to the canon, not added in a new section in the body of the canon. Is that not correct? Outside of those two instances, when was something new added to the LDS canon? Sometimes, it seems to me that the LDS folks minimize or restrict the non-LDS Christians by virtue of the comments of a few, but then turn around and overstate the importance of something like continuing revelation for themselves, when I don't there has been any for years. If something is a possibility, but never happens, it simply remains a possibility not an actual occurrence. 

This is something that I've pointed out a few times over the years when discussing how revelation in the LDS and Catholic Churches isn't really that different.