Lesson 17 - The Power of the Word - is the past still relevant for us today?

[mfbukowski]

On 6/10/2023 at 9:20 AM, teddyaware said:

There is only one way to be saved, and that is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In light of this incontrovertible fact, we’re told that Christ descended below all things in his suffering, which means that he descended lower in agony than even the sons of perdition. This might mean that in the eternities there may be an eventual way out for them, for why would Christ be required to suffer the pains of the sons of perdition if they are beyond all possibility of healing redemption?

But as I see it, they WANT to be there in total darkness perhaps "progressing" in evil and becoming eventually, perhaps, Satans in new universes.

They knowingly REJECT the atonement, and knowingly REFUSE what Christ did, in a sense REVERSING any good it could have done for them.

They would crucify the Lord again, and make it count for nothing, if they could?

One cannot have good without evil, = opposition in all things!

Therefore THEIR DESIRE is to become like their "Hellish Father" as we want to become as "Heavenly Father" is.

Pride takes the place of glory, in their attempt to bring to pass the spiritual mortality and eternal spiritual death of mankind.

Each wants to be the MOST EVIL being in their universe.

Could that be?

Edited June 11 by mfbukowski

[manol]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One cannot have good without evil, = opposition in all things!

Apparently such is the case at THIS (Telestial world) level, but do we know for sure it is the case throughout all of creation? 

I don't think we do.

Personally I think it's semantics to insist that "one cannot have good without evil".  One cannot have CONTRAST without there being "evil" relative to "good", but I hardly think that which is "good" ceases to exist in the absence of evil, except in a semantic sense which relies on the one to define the other. 

By way of example, arguably one cannot have "tall" in the absence of "short", but if all of us short guys disappeared you tall guys would not lose height; you'd merely lose the privilege of referring to yourselves as "tall".

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, manol said:

Apparently such is the case at THIS (Telestial world) level, but do we know for sure it is the case throughout all of creation? 

I don't think we do.

All evil will be absent from all God’s kingdoms since all are kingdoms of his Glory.  When we are one with God, there is no opposition. It does seem to me that the “rule” of opposition in all things will not exist in certain systems.  If Perdition is completely removed from the sphere of God as it appears SoP would desire it to be, where is the opposition left for either?

It is similar in my view to the Law of Entropy,  God appears to have overcome that issue with eternal progression as almost all his children and the environments that they exist in appear to move to higher level of organization. How can this be balanced?  And would it be godly to penalize in a sense those areas of greater disorder for the benefit of eternal progression for the rest?

My guess is entropy as we understand it at least disappears at the level God works at.

Edited June 11 by Calm

[manol]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

All evil will be absent from all God’s kingdoms since all are kingdoms of his Glory.  When we are one with God, there is no opposition.

Agreed!  And imo "on earth as it is in heaven" implies it's actually worth aspiring to in THIS life, on an individual basis if nowhere else just yet. 

My guess is that the muscles we develop doing isometric exercises against our limitations in this life become quite useful for much more creative endeavors in the next. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, manol said:

By way of example, arguably one cannot have "tall" in the absence of "short", but if all of us short guys disappeared you tall guys would not lose height; you'd merely lose the privilege of referring to yourselves as "tall".

Nope.

Unless everyone was the same height exactly, some would always be taller or shorter than others.

And if everyone was the same height, the concept itself would be usless, and not exist.

Different categories don't exist until someone notices them and defines the category.

For an example, what are people who hate to see feet with toes which have been amputated?

Lack-Toes Intolerant, of course.

 

Edited June 12 by mfbukowski

[manol]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And if everyone was the same height, the concept itself would be usless, and not exist.

Exactly!  In a realm where there is no evil, "good and evil" ceases to be a concept with any usefulness.  We will have moved on to other things.  We will no longer be tuned in to that lone, dreary radio station.

Edited June 12 by manol

[pogi]

15 hours ago, manol said:

Apparently such is the case at THIS (Telestial world) level, but do we know for sure it is the case throughout all of creation? 

I don't think we do.

Personally I think it's semantics to insist that "one cannot have good without evil".  One cannot have CONTRAST without there being "evil" relative to "good", but I hardly think that which is "good" ceases to exist in the absence of evil, except in a semantic sense which relies on the one to define the other. 

By way of example, arguably one cannot have "tall" in the absence of "short", but if all of us short guys disappeared you tall guys would not lose height; you'd merely lose the privilege of referring to yourselves as "tall".

I’m not so sure.  If we are to become Gods and go through the same process of creation, evil will exist among us in the pre/mortal world of our creation and we will be acutely aware of and interact with evil in a more intimate way than we have ever known before as we Father/Mother our children.  We too will be God’s who weep over evil.  I’m not sure how a physical separation makes much of a difference when we are in some sense omnipresent and omni-aware.  Evil will exist in an even more painful reality than it does now.  We are able to tune out most of it in our own little worlds and protect our children from it for the most part, but as Gods?  The thought scares me.  Sounds like hell honestly.  I think experiencing your children go through such hell on such a large scale is the price of exaltation and ultimate glory.  It is such opposition that we must pass through, I think, that makes the opposite possible.  I think growth and progression will eternally require opposition in some sense.

[theplains]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:25 AM, InCognitus said:

"And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up.   And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.  Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;  Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.  But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center."   (Doctrine and Covenants 10:52–56)

Here the Lord says he will "establish my church among them", and he says "I do not say this to destroy my church but I say this to build up my church".  

Remember, this was a year before the restored church was organized.  So which church is Christ talking about when he says "I do not say this to destroy my church"?

Including @marineland

Maybe this is talking about a church that is not a visible organization like The Church 
of  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but rather an invisible body of true believers.

As for the destruction of his church, Jesus said, "And I say also unto thee, That thou 
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it".

For quite some time the LDS church taught the church of Christ was destroyed; the gates 
of hell prevailed against it.  This was in the 1997 version of Gospel Principles. This verbiage
was removed in the current version. Either the LDS church still views it as true but wanted
to de-emphasize it or it wanted to remove the teaching because they finally realized it was
false.

"The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. 
More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church 
was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is 
called the Great Apostasy" (chapter 16).

The church I attend has only one living high priest.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

For quite some time the LDS church taught the church of Christ was destroyed; the gates 
of hell prevailed against it.  This was in the 1997 version of Gospel Principles. This verbiage
was removed in the current version. Either the LDS church still views it as true but wanted
to de-emphasize it or it wanted to remove the teaching because they finally realized it was
false.

"The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. 
More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church 
was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is 
called the Great Apostasy" (chapter 16).

 

If you can’t represent our beliefs correctly, you should stop doing so.  This happens too often.  You likely are relying on a critical site that isn’t that careful about truth for your sources rather than actually using our own materials as this was a nobrainer to find.

It hasn’t been de-emphasized or found to be false.  It’s there as it was before, with minor changes for accuracy and clarity.

The current manual:

Quote

Throughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. This happened while the Apostles were still alive and supervising the young, growing Church. Some members taught ideas from their old pagan or Jewish beliefs instead of the simple truths taught by Jesus. Some rebelled openly. In addition, there was persecution from outside the Church. Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed or otherwise taken from the earth. Because of wickedness and apostasy, the apostolic authority and priesthood keys were also taken from the earth. The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

Edited June 12 by Calm

[manol]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

If we are to become Gods and go through the same process of creation, evil will exist among us in the pre/mortal world of our creation and we will be acutely aware of and interact with evil in a more intimate way than we have ever known before as we Father/Mother our children.  We too will be God’s who weep over evil... Evil will exist in an even more painful reality than it does now... The thought scares me.  Sounds like hell honestly.   [emphasis manol's]

I understand the concept of the God who weeps, who risks losing his beloved children that they may have free agency, and who, depending on the specifics of one's paradigm, ends up losing some, most, or nearly all of them. Thus God's pain is vastly worse than any of ours. It is a concept both beautiful and sad... and perhaps even terrifying if "graduating" into that role is the future we aspire to and are working towards.

Let me toss out a thought.

If one starts with a set of premises, and follows those premises to their logical conclusion, and that logical conclusion is a Heaven that “sounds like hell”, them maybe some of those premises are not the highest level of truth on the subject, even if they have served well as teaching devices.

In other words, imo it is at least theoretically possible that at some point a different way of seeing things will seek you out and present itself to you. 

 

Edited June 12 by manol

[pogi]

1 hour ago, manol said:

I understand the concept of the God who weeps, who risks losing his beloved children that they may have free agency, and who, depending on the specifics of one's paradigm, ends up losing some, most, or nearly all of them. Thus God's pain is vastly worse than any of ours. It is a concept both beautiful and sad... and perhaps even terrifying if "graduating" into that role is the future we aspire to and are working towards.

Let me toss out a thought.

If one starts with a set of premises, and follows those premises to their logical conclusion, and that logical conclusion is a Heaven that “sounds like hell”, them maybe some of those premises are not the highest level of truth on the subject, even if they have served well as teaching devices.

In other words, imo it is at least theoretically possible that at some point a different way of seeing things will seek you out and present itself to you. 

 

Another option is that the premises are correct and what “sounds like hell” is relative.  Without grasping the other side of the coin, it may not seem worth it to us, but given an enlightened perspective replete with all glory and goodness.  It could be like how some humans are relatively able to endure hardship and perceive pain in a way that causes less suffering.  To one something might be “hell” but to another it is very tolerable given their experience and perceptions/judgments etc.  perhaps that is why it takes so long to learn our exaltation, because without the proper experience and perspective, Heaven really would be like a hell for us.

Edited June 12 by pogi

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Including @marineland

You are all (@marineland, @theplains, @TheTanakas, @telnetd) the same to me (see my posts here and here).   So you don't need to bother with that.  

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Maybe this is talking about a church that is not a visible organization like The Church 
of  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Christ's church went "into the wilderness" (Revelation 12:6 and 14) for a time, but there were still some sincere believers in Christ around (they were just misguided because there was no authorized leadership around to guide them).

4 hours ago, theplains said:

but rather an invisible body of true believers.

What exactly is a "true" believer?  A believer in "true" doctrine?  Or a sincere believer in Christ?   If the latter, I agree with you. 

Those who sincerely believe in Christ and try to follow him comprise the "body" of Christ.  And since it is by their actions and caring for others that their love for the Savior is manifest to others, it's not really "invisible" in that regard.  

But Christ's church was "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:19-22), and the offices of apostles and prophets (and evangelists, pastors, and teachers) were intended to continue in the church until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man", so that we will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:11-14).  With most of the foundation removed, it would no longer be an organized body of believers, and people could go off on their own interpretation of doctrines.  So with no authorized leadership of the church at that time, is that what you mean by an "invisible" body?

5 hours ago, theplains said:

As for the destruction of his church, Jesus said, "And I say also unto thee, That thou 
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it".

For quite some time the LDS church taught the church of Christ was destroyed; the gates 
of hell prevailed against it.

Matthew 16:18 says that the "gates of hell [hades] shall not prevail against" the church.   What is "hades" and what is the purpose of its gates?  Are the gates of hades supposed to be used as a weapon against the church?  Or does the gate serve some other purpose to the realm of hades?  Do you know the difference between hades and gehenna in the New Testament?

I'll answer some of these questions....

Hades is:  G87  ᾅδης hadēs, n. [10] Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”:– Hades (8), realm of the dead (2)

And a gate is used to control passage, either into or out of a particular place.  In this case the gates of hades (the realm of the dead or the grave) are to prevent the dead from leaving that location.  

So when Jesus says that the gates of the realm of the dead will not prevail against the church, he's not saying the church will never die or be destroyed, he's saying that death will not have power over the church, and the gates of the grave will not prevail against it.  Jesus has the keys of hades and of death (Revelation 1:18).  So this is a promise from Jesus that the church will ultimately triumph over death and all the evils of the world, not that it will be preserved in all times and places.

The bottom line?  No, the LDS church has never taught that the gates of hades have prevailed against the church.

6 hours ago, theplains said:

This was in the 1997 version of Gospel Principles. This verbiage
was removed in the current version. Either the LDS church still views it as true but wanted
to de-emphasize it or it wanted to remove the teaching because they finally realized it was
false.

Or, as Calm said in her post, it was to clarify the language of the manual.  "The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed [the leadership of the church was destroyed], and confusion resulted [obviously]". 

And given what is said in Ephesians 4:11-14 about the apostles and prophets (and other appointed leaders) being the basis for leading the church into a unity of the faith and to prevent it from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine", the consequences of that loss of leadership should be no surprise to anyone.

6 hours ago, theplains said:

The church I attend has only one living high priest.

So how do you become kings and priests unto God in Revelation 1:6?

[teddyaware]

59 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

You are all (@marineland, @theplains, @TheTanakas, @telnetd) the same to me (see my posts here and here).   So you don't need to bother with that.  

Christ's church went "into the wilderness" (Revelation 12:6 and 14) for a time, but there were still some sincere believers in Christ around (they were just misguided because there was no authorized leadership around to guide them).

What exactly is a "true" believer?  A believer in "true" doctrine?  Or a sincere believer in Christ?   If the latter, I agree with you. 

Those who sincerely believe in Christ and try to follow him comprise the "body" of Christ.  And since it is by their actions and caring for others that their love for the Savior is manifest to others, it's not really "invisible" in that regard.  

But Christ's church was "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:19-22), and the offices of apostles and prophets (and evangelists, pastors, and teachers) were intended to continue in the church until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man", so that we will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:11-14).  With most of the foundation removed, it would no longer be an organized body of believers, and people could go off on their own interpretation of doctrines.  So with no authorized leadership of the church at that time, is that what you mean by an "invisible" body?

Matthew 16:18 says that the "gates of hell [hades] shall not prevail against" the church.   What is "hades" and what is the purpose of its gates?  Are the gates of hades supposed to be used as a weapon against the church?  Or does the gate serve some other purpose to the realm of hades?  Do you know the difference between hades and gehenna in the New Testament?

I'll answer some of these questions....

Hades is:  G87  ᾅδης hadēs, n. [10] Hades, the grave, the place of the dead, “the underworld”:– Hades (8), realm of the dead (2)

And a gate is used to control passage, either into or out of a particular place.  In this case the gates of hades (the realm of the dead or the grave) are to prevent the dead from leaving that location.  

So when Jesus says that the gates of the realm of the dead will not prevail against the church, he's not saying the church will never die or be destroyed, he's saying that death will not have power over the church, and the gates of the grave will not prevail against it.  Jesus has the keys of hades and of death (Revelation 1:18).  So this is a promise from Jesus that the church will ultimately triumph over death and all the evils of the world, not that it will be preserved in all times and places.

The bottom line?  No, the LDS church has never taught that the gates of hades have prevailed against the church.

Or, as Calm said in her post, it was to clarify the language of the manual.  "The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed [the leadership of the church was destroyed], and confusion resulted [obviously]". 

And given what is said in Ephesians 4:11-14 about the apostles and prophets (and other appointed leaders) being the basis for leading the church into a unity of the faith and to prevent it from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine", the consequences of that loss of leadership should be no surprise to anyone.

So how do you become kings and priests unto God in Revelation 1:6?

Two times in the Book of Revelation it’s declared that God makes his faithful followers kings and priests (obvious allusions to  the Melchizedek Priesthood) and in another verse it’s proclaimed that the saved in heaven are priests. Other verses in the Book of Revelation reveal that those who overcome the world will wear royal crowns and sit on the very throne of Almighty God himself. Why would John testify that those who overcome the world are made kings and priests, with the right to wear divine crowns and sit on God’s throne, if Christ is the only ordained king and priest in the church?  The answer? It’s obvious that Christ isn’t the only ordained priest and king in heaven, King Melchizedek being numbered among the many.

The apostle Peter testifies that the priesthood of Christ was for all the believers, and even refers to the priesthood organization as a royal priesthood, another obvious allusion to the holy order (a divinely established  organization of ordained individuals) of the Melchizedek Priesthood. For those who say the priesthood of Jesus Christ isn’t a holy order of many united individuals, I’m curious to know why they discount or ignore the following difficult to misunderstand verses of holy writ?

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1)

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection : on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20)

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3)

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: (1 Peter 2)

Edited June 13 by teddyaware

[marineland]

On 6/9/2023 at 12:54 PM, mfbukowski said:

I am sorry you take it so literally, I also disagree apparently with your definition of "tare", and see God as merciful 

I don't see mercy extended to the tares in this church teaching.  It is briefly talked about in points
8 and 9.  Then another section starting with In Doctrine and Covenants 86, the Lord explains these
additional details and gives more information on the first details has more about the tares.
 

[marineland]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You are all ... ) the same to me (see my posts here and here).   So you don't need to bother with that

Another conspiracy guy.  You obviously don't consider that people can borrow from other
forum posters and add additional comments to them by including them without being
the same person.  

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Another conspiracy guy.  You obviously don't consider that people can borrow from other
forum posters and add additional comments to them by including them without being
the same person.  

Copying from another person's post is not what you are doing.  

You all use the same anti-Mormon website for your sources, including @TheTanakas, who used to claim to be a member of the church.  The copying from the PDF file on that website titled, "The Masonic Lodge - To be or not to be a Freemason?" is undeniably the same source for two of you (TheTanakas and theplains), and that can't be blamed on copying each other's posts because it was from different portions of the same PDF (see here).  And both you and theplains have quoted directly from the Vincent Poldrugovac book (as pointed out here), and you were using the same misleading quote (attributing text from the manual to Joseph Smith) even as far back as when you were posting as the user orion88.  And there is no small coincidence that one of the authors on that website has the name "Tony".

[Navidad]

On 5/31/2023 at 2:46 PM, InCognitus said:

If you lived in those times and dismissed the living apostles and prophets of your day and relied on the scriptures alone to "convey the word of God directly to [you]",

I find this really interesting. If I lived in a time, place, and day where I had the Bible and also people who claimed to be living apostles and prophets, I would not "dismiss" them, but would carefully measure what they said against what the Bible says because I have assurance it is the indeed the Word of God as directed by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and practice (orthodoxy and orthopraxy). I would not measure the Bible against what those who claimed to be "living apostles and prophets" said. Just the opposite would be my instinct. Far too many have made claims about their authority that did not prove to be completely true. If somehow I magically lived in the time of a New Testament apostle and had the completed Bible (which of course would not have been possible), I would still measure what the apostle said against the Bible, not the other way around. I am pretty sure both Peter and Paul spoke in and out of the Spirit. We really do have a very different position on this. I find that very interesting. Of course there has never been a Mennonite apostle or prophet. Some bishops, pastor-teachers, deacons, and elders, but never any prophets or apostles. I will say however, over the past five years or so, I have seen an increased tendency to ordain very Godly people in Evangelical churches as prophets in a forth-telling sense. I would still sift anything they said through Scripture.

[Navidad]

On 6/5/2023 at 2:06 PM, InCognitus said:

whether or not they fight against Zion. 

what does that mean?

 

[InCognitus]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I find this really interesting. If I lived in a time, place, and day where I had the Bible and also people who claimed to be living apostles and prophets, I would not "dismiss" them, but would carefully measure what they said against what the Bible says because I have assurance it is the indeed the Word of God as directed by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and practice (orthodoxy and orthopraxy).

That's the correct attitude to have.

I was using living in the time of Jeremiah or the apostle Paul in my example.  I was pointing out that listening to Jeremiah or Paul would be the most important thing to do at that time, even with the scriptures that were available in that day.  I believe, as you do, that reading the scriptures that were available in those places and times would be very important to do to check if what is being said is true, but not if it was to the exclusion of listening to the living apostles and prophets.  Many of the people who had the scriptures at the time of Jeremiah and Paul rejected what Jeremiah and Paul had to say simply because it didn't line up with their expectations and their interpretation of the scriptures.  The problem was not with the scriptures, but with the people trusting in their own traditions and prejudices and not being willing to expand their understanding by testing what the prophets and apostles had to say.  There were exceptions to this, of course (the Bereans are the most famous example).

41 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would not measure the Bible against what those who claimed to be "living apostles and prophets" said. Just the opposite would be my instinct.

I was not suggesting that scripture should be measured by what the living prophets and apostles had to say, but only that we should be aware that our own understanding of scripture may be narrowly focused or incomplete (as was the case for both the people in Jeremiah's day, and many at the time of Paul).  We should be open to further spiritual understanding, some of which may come to us from an apostle or prophet at a crucial time.

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Far too many have made claims about their authority that did not prove to be completely true. If somehow I magically lived in the time of a New Testament apostle and had the completed Bible (which of course would not have been possible), I would still measure what the apostle said against the Bible, not the other way around.

You used the phrase "completed Bible".  What does that mean exactly, and how and when would you know it was "complete"?  And if you were living in New Testament times, what would be the "completed Bible" for you at that moment, or how would you know?

Part of my point is that people who lived at that time thought they had what they needed to know in the scriptures already (and they did to some degree).  But when and how do we know when it is all "complete"?

I'm not arguing against the idea of comparing what the apostles and prophets say against scripture (I agree with you on that).  But I am arguing against the assumption that people sometimes make in thinking they already have everything they need to know and are interpreting the scriptures correctly in every way, and therefore they think they don't need to listen to a Jeremiah or a Paul that comes along.   

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am pretty sure both Peter and Paul spoke in and out of the Spirit.

What do you mean by "out of the Spirit"?  You mean as just a normal guy talking to a friend?  (Just curious).

56 minutes ago, Navidad said:

We really do have a very different position on this. I find that very interesting.

Can you elaborate on what you see as our big differences?  If you are saying you are open to the possibility of God speaking to us further (I think I understand you to be saying that below), and we should listen carefully when that happens, then that's really the main point I'm trying to get across.

58 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Of course there has never been a Mennonite apostle or prophet. Some bishops, pastor-teachers, deacons, and elders, but never any prophets or apostles. I will say however, over the past five years or so, I have seen an increased tendency to ordain very Godly people in Evangelical churches as prophets in a forth-telling sense. I would still sift anything they said through Scripture.

We should always compare what is being said with the scriptures.  We just shouldn't exclude the prophets and apostles simply because we have scripture, because what they may be saying to us could be of immediate importance to our temporal or spiritual salvation (as in the case of Jeremiah or Paul).

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

On 6/5/2023 at 3:06 PM, InCognitus said:

whether or not they fight against Zion. 

what does that mean?

"Zion" can sometimes refer to a specific place, but in this context it is generally understood to be a group of people who are the "pure in heart" and of one heart and one mind, with no poor among them, and represents moving toward those ideals.  Those who fight against Zion are stirred up to anger against all which is good (as in 2 Nephi 28:16, 20).

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

That's the correct attitude to have.

I was using living in the time of Jeremiah or the apostle Paul in my example.  I was pointing out that listening to Jeremiah or Paul would be the most important thing to do at that time, even with the scriptures that were available in that day.  I believe, as you do, that reading the scriptures that were available in those places and times would be very important to do to check if what is being said is true, but not if it was to the exclusion of listening to the living apostles and prophets.  Many of the people who had the scriptures at the time of Jeremiah and Paul rejected what Jeremiah and Paul had to say simply because it didn't line up with their expectations and their interpretation of the scriptures.  The problem was not with the scriptures, but with the people trusting in their own traditions and prejudices and not being willing to expand their understanding by testing what the prophets and apostles had to say.  There were exceptions to this, of course (the Bereans are the most famous example).

I was not suggesting that scripture should be measured by what the living prophets and apostles had to say, but only that we should be aware that our own understanding of scripture may be narrowly focused or incomplete (as was the case for both the people in Jeremiah's day, and many at the time of Paul).  We should be open to further spiritual understanding, some of which may come to us from an apostle or prophet at a crucial time.

You used the phrase "completed Bible".  What does that mean exactly, and how and when would you know it was "complete"?  And if you were living in New Testament times, what would be the "completed Bible" for you at that moment, or how would you know?

Part of my point is that people who lived at that time thought they had what they needed to know in the scriptures already (and they did to some degree).  But when and how do we know when it is all "complete"?

I'm not arguing against the idea of comparing what the apostles and prophets say against scripture (I agree with you on that).  But I am arguing against the assumption that people sometimes make in thinking they already have everything they need to know and are interpreting the scriptures correctly in every way, and therefore they think they don't need to listen to a Jeremiah or a Paul that comes along.   

What do you mean by "out of the Spirit"?  You mean as just a normal guy talking to a friend?  (Just curious).

Can you elaborate on what you see as our big differences?  If you are saying you are open to the possibility of God speaking to us further (I think I understand you to be saying that below), and we should listen carefully when that happens, then that's really the main point I'm trying to get across.

We should always compare what is being said with the scriptures.  We just shouldn't exclude the prophets and apostles simply because we have scripture, because what they may be saying to us could be of immediate importance to our temporal or spiritual salvation (as in the case of Jeremiah or Paul).

Well said. I am with you on each point. Yes, just a normal biased guy with his own prejudices. I would simply add that. I also completely accept my example about living in the time of the canon and the early apostles as hypothetical. The canon has certainly gone through revisions and people I respect point out problems in what we do with what we have today. Then there is the matter of interpretation of what we have! It will all be complete in the eternities and not before - is my perspective. I do take a high view of the engagement of the Spirit in matters of faith in the Bible. I have a cousin who is running around Turkey and Iraq right now trying to find Sennacherib's circular war camps. - In so doing he found a camp on a mountain in extreme southeast Turkey where he believes the ark rested. Apparently so did centuries and perhaps millenia of early Jews, Muslims, Christians and their predecessors as well. I love reading his stuff. That is his thing. I live in Chihuahua and study religious Mexican history. That is my thing. I enjoy learning about the differences between the Franciscan and Jesuit missions here. Then the Protestants come, then the Mormons, then the Mennonites, then the Pentecostals, and then different kinds of Mormons, then the Third Convention, and on and on. Then of course there iare the preconquest faiths. My view of prophets in the NT and today are people identified by the Holy Spirit and recognized (not chosen) by human leaders with an ability to preach the gospel in a special way to which people can respond. We might disagree on that definition, and that is ok. Best to  you.

[theplains]

On 6/12/2023 at 2:38 PM, Calm said:

It hasn’t been de-emphasized or found to be false.  It’s there as it was before, with minor changes for accuracy and clarity.

How is the word destruction in the phrase "and soon the destruction of the Church was complete" inaccurate
and unclear?  And why would the church, after all these years, finally decide to use the word dissolution
instead?

[theplains]

On 6/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Or, as Calm said in her post, it was to clarify the language of the manual.  "The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed [the leadership of the church was destroyed], and confusion resulted [obviously]". 

Individual leaders were killed and were replaced from time to time.  But Christ's church was not
destroyed. He continued to build it.

[theplains]

On 6/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, InCognitus said:

With most of the foundation removed, it would no longer be an organized body of believers, and people could go off on their own interpretation of doctrines.  So with no authorized leadership of the church at that time, is that what you mean by an "invisible" body?

The church of Christ continued to grow after the times of Christ.  Right now, the church in China is growing
so fast, without any leadership that would be recognized by most or all of us in the West.  All we know is that
the only high priest in this invisible (underground in most cases) body of believers is Jesus Christ.  They do
not need to be organized like the LDS church with 12 or 15 apostles, quorums, or collection of high priests.

We have only one high priest.

[teddyaware]

31 minutes ago, theplains said:

Individual leaders were killed and were replaced from time to time.  But Christ's church was not
destroyed. He continued to build it.

In this instance, dissolution is the more accurate word to use, especially in light of the fact that the meridian church of Christ wasn’t actually totally destroyed due to the fact 4 ordained apostolic Melchizedek priesthood bearers,, the apostle John the three of the 12 Nephite disciples of Christ,, are still alive on the earth today. With an eye toward legal parlance, dissolution is the more correct and nuanced word to use. The LDS church has lots of highly trained lawyers in its employ.

From Wikidiff:

Destruction is a related term of dissolution.

As nouns the difference between destruction and dissolution is that destruction is the act of destroying while dissolution is the termination of an organized body or legislative assembly, especially a formal dismissal.

 

Edited June 15 by teddyaware