7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[BlueDreams]

@Navidad Okay, I said I had examples. I'll stick with eternal families since you  mentioned it earlier. There is the basic practice, which is at this point creating families of mothers fathers and kids usually. A family like this fits into orthopraxy. But this orthopraxy is guided by a belief in who God is and how we related to them. Where we are spirit children of heavenly parents (A Mother and Father)....reflections of a sacred pattern. So our personal families can become personal windows into understanding how God relates to us. The doctrine promotes the practice and the practice informs the doctrine. 

Likewise for power and authority. I can't remember my baptism well and was young anyways so I'm going to focus on my endowment (another actions expected to be done with proper authority). The endowment itself is a form of practicing doctrine. It talks and frames doctrinal points (knowledge, certain covenant, the creation, etc) into a fundamental practice via ritual. But these covenants are then meant to encourage us to act...in a sense consecrating our lives into a doctrinal framework and purpose.  The doctrine fuels our practice and the practice expands our understanding of purpose making this in function a living gospel because our understand of doctrine will grow as our actions and lives are disciplined in the Gospel of Christ. What this means for me, personally, is access to greater capacity power and understanding....particularly at transitional points in my life. I've seen both in myself and others how incorrect understandings can trip up practice and then reinforce incorrect doctrines. For example when someone becomes a bit scrupulous and begins to focus on doing actions rigidly and perfectly. Their view of God begins to move from one of loving to one of excess judging and conditionality, reinforcing their anxious and rigid approach to faith. I not-so-jokingly call this Checklist Jesus. And It creates a stuck faith;one that runs quickly into limits of power, sanctification, growth, etc. 

So for better or worse, doctrine and practice aren't easily separated they fuel and create from each other. I think that may be what you're seeing in the church. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 22, 2023 by BlueDreams

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

@Navidad Okay, I said I had examples. I'll stick with eternal families since you  mentioned it earlier. There is the basic practice, which is at this point creating families of mothers fathers and kids usually. A family like this fits into orthopraxy. But this orthopraxy is guided by a belief in who God is and how we related to them. Where we are spirit children of heavenly parents (A Mother and Father)....reflections of a sacred pattern. So our personal families can become personal windows into understanding how God relates to us. The doctrine promotes the practice and the practice informs the doctrine. 

Likewise for power and authority. I can't remember my baptism well and was young anyways so I'm going to focus on my endowment (another actions expected to be done with proper authority). The endowment itself is a form of practicing doctrine. It talks and frames doctrinal points (knowledge, certain covenant, the creation, etc) into a fundamental practice via ritual. But these covenants are then meant to encourage us to act...in a sense consecrating our lives into a doctrinal framework and purpose.  The doctrine fuels our practice and the practice expands our understanding of purpose making this in function a living gospel because our understand of doctrine will grow as our actions and lives are disciplined in the Gospel of Christ. What this means for me, personally, is access to greater capacity power and understanding....particularly at transitional points in my life. I've seen both in myself and others how incorrect understandings can trip up practice and then reinforce incorrect doctrines. For example when someone becomes a bit scrupulous and begins to focus on doing actions rigidly and perfectly. Their view of God begins to move from one of loving to one of excess judging and conditionality, reinforcing their anxious and rigid approach to faith. I not-so-jokingly call this Checklist Jesus. And It creates a stuck faith. 

So for better or worse, doctrine and practice aren't easily separated they fuel and create from each other. I think that may be what you're seeing in the church. 

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for the examples. I can relate to both of them. I think that to one degree or another in every Christian faith, orthopraxy and orthodoxy (doctrine) inform each other in walk, faith, and trust. I know of no Christian faith that doesn't include covenants with Christ. That is doctrine. They then of course influence our walk. It is also true in Islam and Judaism. My specific interest with the LDS was that I have been told from Rochester to Boise by Saints that they are more orthopraxic than orthodox. In the ranking of the two, it leads me to believe that orthopraxy is more an identifier for the Saint, yet there is a loyal adherence to doctrine that I also see emphasized. It actually reminds me of my own upbringing where Mennonite doctrine and culture were constantly intermingled and confused, especially by Mennonites. Our own version of the Word of Wisdom was all-powerful in both doctrine a lived life. I also think I tend to interact more with LDS history scholars who may very well be more culturally LDS than doctrinally. Doctrinal variance is present, but perhaps more of an "less said the better" concept. That used to be true in the Mennonite church, but not so much anymore. Best wishes.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

My specific interest with the LDS was that I have been told from Rochester to Boise by Saints that they are more orthopraxic than orthodox

I would say we choose to judge each other, judge someone’s worthiness (both eligibility and righteousness judgments) by behaviour more than by belief.  We tend to ask more about what people are doing than what they believe.  For example, while the first three required questions of the temple recommend interview are about belief/faith (do you have a testimony…), the rest are about behaviour.  The fourth question is not if you believe the president and apostles are prophets, seers, and revelatory, but rather “do you sustain…” them and other leaders.  Other questions follow the form “do you obey” or “do you follow”, “do you support or promote”, “do you strive”.

In that sense we focus more on practices, in part I believe because we assume that practice comes from belief.  Our faith described in the first three questions is what motivates us to act in the ways associated with the other 12 questions. The assumption we typically operate on from what I have seen is correct beliefs will led to these practices, the reality is also correct practices or rather attempts at correct practices will help us come to correct beliefs through the spirit and experience (as described by Bluedreams above).

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the examples. I can relate to both of them. I think that to one degree or another in every Christian faith, orthopraxy and orthodoxy (doctrine) inform each other in walk, faith, and trust. I know of no Christian faith that doesn't include covenants with Christ. That is doctrine. They then of course influence our walk. It is also true in Islam and Judaism. My specific interest with the LDS was that I have been told from Rochester to Boise by Saints that they are more orthopraxic than orthodox. In the ranking of the two, it leads me to believe that orthopraxy is more an identifier for the Saint, yet there is a loyal adherence to doctrine that I also see emphasized. It actually reminds me of my own upbringing where Mennonite doctrine and culture were constantly intermingled and confused, especially by Mennonites. Our own version of the Word of Wisdom was all-powerful in both doctrine a lived life. I also think I tend to interact more with LDS history scholars who may very well be more culturally LDS than doctrinally. Doctrinal variance is present, but perhaps more of an "less said the better" concept. That used to be true in the Mennonite church, but not so much anymore. Best wishes.

I don't doubt that other faiths have similar things. Believing there's a unique version of that doesn'teab I believe we're the only version of it. I was actually thinking of Jewish practice a little while writing. I think the difference within Christian faiths and ours that may seem in contrast like we lean towards orthopraxy for us is that there does seem in aggregate among at least leaders in the larger Christian faith a stronger focus on static doctrines as key. There's more of an emphasis on something being this or that doctrinally and LDS theology gives more of a glorified "yes and" or "sure maybe" or "ehh kinda." We can oversimplify to a degree that gives more of an illusion for certainty (illusion to ourselves, not in the sense of being manipulative towards others). But it's not exactly true. For example the godhead v trinity. There's the simplified version that we give (3 beings one in purpose) that basically sounds to some like social trinitarianism. But that's not the full story. Along with explaining the nature of HF, JC, and the HG we also have a scripture that assumes some ambiguity about what we really know about the makeup of God: "A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest." And of course there's Heavenly Mother which seems like a big neon sign pointing to the idea that there's more to be understood about God. Where that makes us fit in the theistic etiology is blurry. Pragmatically it means in our doctrine, diversity of thought is ingrained or at the very least should be expected. It's not a bug but a feature. I think certain sections of our religious body struggle with this feature when it becomes apparent or it conflicts with their assumptions of what should happen in our faith. Because latter-day saints tend to be pretty assertive of their beliefs it can be difficult for some to make adjustments. But that's probably truenfor everyone to some degree or another. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by BlueDreams

[Stargazer]

On 6/20/2023 at 12:37 PM, Navidad said:

I am not sure I am following you and I want to do so. Are you saying that believe no non-member of the church has ever made a covenant with God that they remind themselves of when taking the sacrament wherever and whenever?

Of course not. Anyone can make a covenant with God, and use any act as a symbol and reminder of that covenant.

It is a matter of question, however, as to whether or not the Lord is a true party in a given covenant, or if His authority has been warrantlessly assumed, usurped, or falsified, even if unknowingly. This is because a covenant is a mutual promise, and both parties must consent for it to be valid. One might decide to make a covenant with God. But without authority, who can bind God in a covenant that He has not consented to be bound to?

However, who am I to claim that you have not truly covenanted with God? So, I do not. That's between you and Him.

On 6/20/2023 at 12:37 PM, Navidad said:

Certainly a non-LDS person cannot renew the exact same covenants as the LDS, but that doesn't mean they haven't made other similar, or in some way almost identical covenants. The Sacrament is the Lord's supper patterned after a general command from Christ himself. It is not the exclusive domain of any church, is it? It is neither the Mennonite nor the LDS's table - it is the Lord's supper.

Yes, it is the Lord's Supper. So who else, besides the Lord's anointed, has authority over it?

Let's go back to first principles.

Who is offering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? The Lord. After His resurrection and return to Heaven, to whom was the authority of the Lord's Supper (and baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost) vouchsafed? Apparently, it was the Apostles. As I've mentioned before, there was one instance where Peter found 12 disciples who claimed to have been baptized according to "John's baptism," but knew nothing about the Holy Ghost. It seems that because of their ignorance Peter didn't accept their claim to have been baptized by John. So he baptized them. Again, but why? If authority was unimportant, he should not have bothered, but should just have given them what they lacked, which was the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Acts has other references to authority. Remember the case of Simon Magus? He witnessed the giving of the Holy Ghost (and may have received it himself), and desired to have the authority to do it, too. He said "Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost," and offered money for the privilege This offer was rejected. Rather vehemently. But here's the clincher: Simon saw that the power (authority) to confer the Holy Ghost was something that could be given. He did not presume that it was something he could simply appropriate on his own. And Peter, in rejecting his offer, made clear that it was authority that could be given, but not for money. This answers the false notion of the "priesthood of all believers" that some Protestants claim to be true. Because if such a thing existed, Peter should have said, "Keep your money; you already have that power." But he didn't.

I should mention that in a certain sense, there is a kind of "priesthood of all believers," though it is not a "priesthood," per se. There was an incident recorded in Luke:

Luke 9:49-50 -> "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

There is power over evil in Jesus's name. It seems that if you have faith in Jesus Christ, even though you are not baptized ("followeth not with us"), you have the power to use the name of Jesus Christ to cast out devils. Though you better truly be a believer, or suffer the fate of the sons of Sceva:

Acts 19:14016 -> "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."

All throughout the New Testament we see instances of men with divine authority administering ordinances particular to salvation. Why did Jesus go to John for baptism? Because John held the priestly authority to do so, as the son of a priest under the priesthood of Aaron. Did John confer the Holy Ghost? No, he didn't, because he didn't have that authority. The Holy Ghost was conferred upon Jesus by the Father Himself immediately after Jesus's baptism, as evidenced by the Holy Ghost descending upon Him in the form of a dove. Jesus subsequently conferred that authority upon His disciples. This is seen in John 15:16 -> "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

And this was done. Acts 16:4 -> "And as they [Paul and Timothy] went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily."

The authority was conferred, not assumed to be had. Not handed over implicitly at the moment of baptism. Paul in his letters recounts several times that he was ordained. He did not assume authority due to his baptism, or even his vision of the Christ. He was numbered in the company of the Apostles not by his choice, but by theirs. Because they had the authority to do so.

It isn't mentioned in the New Testament that authority was necessary to perform the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. A lot of things aren't mentioned there, simply because the New Testament is a damaged document, and incomplete. Our current canon had to be assembled piecemeal from presumed authoritative/correct sources. Some parts were doubted to be genuine, for example, Revelation, and what came to be called the Apocrypha. Consider that the resurrected Christ spent 40 days teaching His Apostles. What did he teach them? We don't know.

I believe we can assume that the administration of the Lord's Supper required that the minister have authority to do so. No post-Apostolic Christian church prior to the Protestant Reformation ever operated otherwise, so I think we can assume that this was a valid point of doctrine and practice from the beginning. But of course, they had lost true authority subsequent to the Apostle's demise.

Well, I can see that I am indulging in my tendency to lecture. 

On 6/20/2023 at 12:37 PM, Navidad said:

Could you not personally renew your LDS covenants in a Lord's table ordinance that I was leading?

Sorry, no. Unless you at least held the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. Please understand that this has nothing to with your personal righteousness. I assume that you are no less "worthy" in the sense of personal righteousness than I. Perhaps you are even more righteous than I. 

When the people of Israel came to the temple to offer their sacrifices, did they cast lots to see which one of their company should perform the ordinances of the Law of Moses? Or ask for volunteers? No, because they did not have authority. That authority resided in the priests after the order of Aaron (for example, Zacharias). We read in 1 Samuel 13 that Samuel was expected to show up to make a burnt offering but was delayed. King Saul took it upon himself to do the offering. But when Samuel arrived, did he say to Saul, "That's alright. You have just as much authority as I do"? No, he didn't. He said "What hast thou done?" and "Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." 

When do the scriptures state that authority to perform the ordinances of salvation is a matter of personal feeling? To be assumed upon a man feeling "called"? Never at any time.

On 6/20/2023 at 12:37 PM, Navidad said:

What would my worthiness (to use your term) have to do with your own devotion at the table. If you pray while in a Baptist church, will God refuse to hear your prayer? If you pray in a movie theater or at a baseball game won't God hear your prayer. I am not following you. Please help me.

In these matters, it isn't the building or the location. And God hears all prayers, no matter who say them or where they are said. 

Anyone has full authority to pray. As God has granted you free agency to believe or not and obey or not, as seemeth you good, you have the authority in yourself to hear, believe, repent, consent to baptism, and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. But neither men nor women may assume upon their own initiative the authority to administer in God's Kingdom. There are mechanisms handed down from generation to generation, and outside those mechanisms authority cannot be conferred. Before Moses, there was the line of authority of the Patriarchs: from Adam to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses the Melchizedek priesthood came down not by descent, but through those who held the keys of that priesthood. In the time of Moses, the Lord ordained that a lesser priesthood, named after Aaron, and residing in the tribe of Levi, should descend father to son. The last legitimate holder of that priesthood, holding its keys, was John the Baptist. After Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, the Melchizedek priesthood again became generally available, and as in the past descended not from father to son, but from keyholder to keyholder, Peter being the first after Christ. But it was subsequently lost, and the church fell into apostasy.

The Lord was very careful to restore true Christian worship and authority through divine ministrations through those who held the authority anciently. The resurrected John the Baptist and then the resurrected Peter, James, and John upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. And from there the keys continued to this day.

God is not the author of confusion. He is a God of Order. 

 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course not. Anyone can make a covenant with God, and use any act as a symbol and reminder of that covenant.

It is a matter of question, however, as to whether or not the Lord is a true party in a given covenant, or if His authority has been warrantlessly assumed, usurped, or falsified, even if unknowingly. This is because a covenant is a mutual promise, and both parties must consent for it to be valid. One might decide to make a covenant with God. But without authority, who can bind God in a covenant that He has not consented to be bound to?

However, who am I to claim that you have not truly covenanted with God? So, I do not. That's between you and Him.

Yes, it is the Lord's Supper. So who else, besides the Lord's anointed, has authority over it?

Let's go back to first principles.

Who is offering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? The Lord. After His resurrection and return to Heaven, to whom was the authority of the Lord's Supper (and baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost) vouchsafed? Apparently, it was the Apostles. As I've mentioned before, there was one instance where Peter found 12 disciples who claimed to have been baptized according to "John's baptism," but knew nothing about the Holy Ghost. It seems that because of their ignorance Peter didn't accept their claim to have been baptized by John. So he baptized them. Again, but why? If authority was unimportant, he should not have bothered, but should just have given them what they lacked, which was the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Acts has other references to authority. Remember the case of Simon Magus? He witnessed the giving of the Holy Ghost (and may have received it himself), and desired to have the authority to do it, too. He said "Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost," and offered money for the privilege This offer was rejected. Rather vehemently. But here's the clincher: Simon saw that the power (authority) to confer the Holy Ghost was something that could be given. He did not presume that it was something he could simply appropriate on his own. And Peter, in rejecting his offer, made clear that it was authority that could be given, but not for money. This answers the false notion of the "priesthood of all believers" that some Protestants claim to be true. Because if such a thing existed, Peter should have said, "Keep your money; you already have that power." But he didn't.

I should mention that in a certain sense, there is a kind of "priesthood of all believers," though it is not a "priesthood," per se. There was an incident recorded in Luke:

Luke 9:49-50 -> "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

There is power over evil in Jesus's name. It seems that if you have faith in Jesus Christ, even though you are not baptized ("followeth not with us"), you have the power to use the name of Jesus Christ to cast out devils. Though you better truly be a believer, or suffer the fate of the sons of Sceva:

Acts 19:14016 -> "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."

All throughout the New Testament we see instances of men with divine authority administering ordinances particular to salvation. Why did Jesus go to John for baptism? Because John held the priestly authority to do so, as the son of a priest under the priesthood of Aaron. Did John confer the Holy Ghost? No, he didn't, because he didn't have that authority. The Holy Ghost was conferred upon Jesus by the Father Himself immediately after Jesus's baptism, as evidenced by the Holy Ghost descending upon Him in the form of a dove. Jesus subsequently conferred that authority upon His disciples. This is seen in John 15:16 -> "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

And this was done. Acts 16:4 -> "And as they [Paul and Timothy] went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily."

The authority was conferred, not assumed to be had. Not handed over implicitly at the moment of baptism. Paul in his letters recounts several times that he was ordained. He did not assume authority due to his baptism, or even his vision of the Christ. He was numbered in the company of the Apostles not by his choice, but by theirs. Because they had the authority to do so.

It isn't mentioned in the New Testament that authority was necessary to perform the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. A lot of things aren't mentioned there, simply because the New Testament is a damaged document, and incomplete. Our current canon had to be assembled piecemeal from presumed authoritative/correct sources. Some parts were doubted to be genuine, for example, Revelation, and what came to be called the Apocrypha. Consider that the resurrected Christ spent 40 days teaching His Apostles. What did he teach them? We don't know.

I believe we can assume that the administration of the Lord's Supper required that the minister have authority to do so. No post-Apostolic Christian church prior to the Protestant Reformation ever operated otherwise, so I think we can assume that this was a valid point of doctrine and practice from the beginning. But of course, they had lost true authority subsequent to the Apostle's demise.

Well, I can see that I am indulging in my tendency to lecture. 

Sorry, no. Unless you at least held the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. Please understand that this has nothing to with your personal righteousness. I assume that you are no less "worthy" in the sense of personal righteousness than I. Perhaps you are even more righteous than I. 

When the people of Israel came to the temple to offer their sacrifices, did they cast lots to see which one of their company should perform the ordinances of the Law of Moses? Or ask for volunteers? No, because they did not have authority. That authority resided in the priests after the order of Aaron (for example, Zacharias). We read in 1 Samuel 13 that Samuel was expected to show up to make a burnt offering but was delayed. King Saul took it upon himself to do the offering. But when Samuel arrived, did he say to Saul, "That's alright. You have just as much authority as I do"? No, he didn't. He said "What hast thou done?" and "Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." 

When do the scriptures state that authority to perform the ordinances of salvation is a matter of personal feeling? To be assumed upon a man feeling "called"? Never at any time.

In these matters, it isn't the building or the location. And God hears all prayers, no matter who say them or where they are said. 

Anyone has full authority to pray. As God has granted you free agency to believe or not and obey or not, as seemeth you good, you have the authority in yourself to hear, believe, repent, consent to baptism, and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. But neither men nor women may assume upon their own initiative the authority to administer in God's Kingdom. There are mechanisms handed down from generation to generation, and outside those mechanisms authority cannot be conferred. Before Moses, there was the line of authority of the Patriarchs: from Adam to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses the Melchizedek priesthood came down not by descent, but through those who held the keys of that priesthood. In the time of Moses, the Lord ordained that a lesser priesthood, named after Aaron, and residing in the tribe of Levi, should descend father to son. The last legitimate holder of that priesthood, holding its keys, was John the Baptist. After Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, the Melchizedek priesthood again became generally available, and as in the past descended not from father to son, but from keyholder to keyholder, Peter being the first after Christ. But it was subsequently lost, and the church fell into apostasy.

The Lord was very careful to restore true Christian worship and authority through divine ministrations through those who held the authority anciently. The resurrected John the Baptist and then the resurrected Peter, James, and John upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. And from there the keys continued to this day.

God is not the author of confusion. He is a God of Order. 

 

I commend you for the time and thought you put into this response to me. I receive it as your genuine and thoughtfully held doctrine. I appreciate the energy it took, and for what it is worth, I don't feel lectured to at all. Take care. I believe you are from the London area, but I may be wrong. Perhaps when I am there, you would allow me to buy you breakfast or dinner, so we could enjoy some fellowship. I will be going to Canterbury in Kent and don't really know the distances of difficulties in traveling in your area. I am a huge Winnie the Pooh fan. I believe his territory was in Sussex, but am not sure.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Navidad

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It isn't mentioned in the New Testament that authority was necessary to perform the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. A lot of things aren't mentioned there, simply because the New Testament is a damaged document, and incomplete. Our current canon had to be assembled piecemeal from presumed authoritative/correct sources. Some parts were doubted to be genuine, for example, Revelation, and what came to be called the Apocrypha. Consider that the resurrected Christ spent 40 days teaching His Apostles. What did he teach them? We don't know.

That was a good post and a good explanation of authority.

For what you say in the quote above, I think there is another explanation for why some things aren't mentioned directly in the Bible, which is that the Bible texts that we have were never written for the intention of including every detail of every doctrine and procedure.  In fact the texts portray themselves as being written to people who were already believers, to people who already had a basic understanding of the gospel through the verbal teachings of the prophets and apostles, and they make it clear that much of what was taught was done in person and not by epistle (i.e. 1 Thes 2:13, 2 John 1:12, 3 John 1-13-24).  Even the book of Acts is addressed to “Theophilus”, a Greek word that means friend of God or a “Christian”.   These books and epistles were intended supplement the verbal teachings, and not to be a General Handbook of Instructions for how to operate the church.  They were never intended to be stand alone texts to reinterpret the teachings from the ground up.

This is also why different people can read the Bible and come away with so many different interpretations.  

Edited June 23, 2023 by InCognitus

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That was a good post and a good explanation of authority.

For what you say in the quote above, I think there is another explanation for why some things aren't mentioned directly in the Bible, which is that the Bible texts that we have were never written for the intention of including every detail of every doctrine and procedure.  In fact the texts portray themselves as being written to people who were already believers, to people who already had a basic understanding of the gospel through the verbal teachings of the prophets and apostles, and they make it clear that much of what was taught was done in person and not by epistle (i.e. 1 Thes 2:13, 2 John 1:12, 3 John 1-13-24).  Even the book of Acts is addressed to “Theophilus”, a Greek word that means friend of God or a “Christian”.   These books and epistles were intended supplement the verbal teachings, and not to be a General Handbook of Instructions for how to operate the church.  They were never intended to be stand alone texts to reinterpret the teachings from the ground up.

This is also why different people can read the Bible and come away with so many different interpretations.  

Maybe also the Bible isn't an exhaustive handbook because God primarily wanted us to trust and have faith in Christ as the answer, not have all the answers. What then happened is that humanity, in our infinite needs to know, understand, and be seen as special, weren't and aren't satisfied with trust and faith, coupled with the void of answers that fill our needs to know, so we create the answers on our own, complete with new interpretations of existing texts that meet our needs and new texts that meet our new interpretations and shazaam, a new branch of Christianity, more complete, more comprehensive, with more answers is born.

And then, for increased certainty we declare it to be divinely inspired. And then the next group comes along and voila a new branch of Christianity, more complete, more comprehensive with more (or different) answers is born. And on and on. It has been happening for two thousand years. So now we have umpty-ump gospels, interpretations, and answers of which we all are a part and for which we all are to blame. Of course we then, from our own individual perspective, criticize what has become our own creation - the maze or forest of Christianity in which we dwell, assuring ourselves that the maze is a "circus" of which we have no part, all the while standing in front of the crowds with our own megaphones hollering "come one come all to the greatest gospel show on earth."

We can follow the trail from 30AD to the divergent camps of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Reformers, Pentecostalism, Apostolic Movements, and the most recent resurgence of Fundamentalist Baptists in the US over the last decade. Then there are the Restorationist branches with their own offspring, the Anabaptists starting in the late 1400s with all their offspring, the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, and yes, dare I say the LDS with all the groups generated out of it since its founding in 1830, especially from the 1920's continuing on today. Oh My! In the words of Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he (they) is us." In the words of theologian Peter Enns, "Trust is not marked by unflappable dogmatic certainty, but by embracing as a normal part of faith the steady line of mysteries and uncertainties that parade before our lives and seeing them as opportunities to trust more deeply." Amen!

Edited June 24, 2023 by Navidad

[Stargazer]

On 6/15/2023 at 2:44 PM, MustardSeed said:

This is my personal definition as well, and I can’t verify this but I believe (IMO) this is what most people think about when they state their Christianity.  So much of this thread is wayyyy over the heads of most human understanding of Christianity IMO. 

You are certainly correct.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 6/23/2023 at 4:52 AM, Navidad said:

I commend you for the time and thought you put into this response to me. I receive it as your genuine and thoughtfully held doctrine. I appreciate the energy it took, and for what it is worth, I don't feel lectured to at all. Take care. I believe you are from the London area, but I may be wrong. Perhaps when I am there, you would allow me to buy you breakfast or dinner, so we could enjoy some fellowship. I will be going to Canterbury in Kent and don't really know the distances of difficulties in traveling in your area. I am a huge Winnie the Pooh fan. I believe his territory was in Sussex, but am not sure.

Thanks!

At this precise moment I am actually back in the US temporarily, in Washington state. Had to come back to see to my house, which is inhabited by a couple of my adult sons. I return to the UK next week, thank goodness. 

Milne's Hundred Acre Wood was inspired by the Five Hundred Acre Wood in Ashdown Forest in East Sussex. The closest large city to my residence is Brighton, and Brighton is about 91 road miles from Canterbury. It would be nice to meet you there!

[Tacenda]

22 hours ago, Navidad said:

Maybe also the Bible isn't an exhaustive handbook because God primarily wanted us to trust and have faith in Christ as the answer, not have all the answers. What then happened is that humanity, in our infinite needs to know, understand, and be seen as special, weren't and aren't satisfied with trust and faith, coupled with the void of answers that fill our needs to know, so we create the answers on our own, complete with new interpretations of existing texts that meet our needs and new texts that meet our new interpretations and shazaam, a new branch of Christianity, more complete, more comprehensive, with more answers is born.

And then, for increased certainty we declare it to be divinely inspired. And then the next group comes along and voila a new branch of Christianity, more complete, more comprehensive with more (or different) answers is born. And on and on. It has been happening for two thousand years. So now we have umpty-ump gospels, interpretations, and answers of which we all are a part and for which we all are to blame. Of course we then, from our own individual perspective, criticize what has become our own creation - the maze or forest of Christianity in which we dwell, assuring ourselves that the maze is a "circus" of which we have no part, all the while standing in front of the crowds with our own megaphones hollering "come one come all to the greatest gospel show on earth."

We can follow the trail from 30AD to the divergent camps of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Reformers, Pentecostalism, Apostolic Movements, and the most recent resurgence of Fundamentalist Baptists in the US over the last decade. Then there are the Restorationist branches with their own offspring, the Anabaptists starting in the late 1400s with all their offspring, the Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, and yes, dare I say the LDS with all the groups generated out of it since its founding in 1830, especially from the 1920's continuing on today. Oh My! In the words of Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he (they) is us." In the words of theologian Peter Enns, "Trust is not marked by unflappable dogmatic certainty, but by embracing as a normal part of faith the steady line of mysteries and uncertainties that parade before our lives and seeing them as opportunities to trust more deeply." Amen!

In a beautiful nutshell right here, well said. Now for those that are not believers that Jesus is the Saviour but do still believe Him to be a prophet or ? Are they going to be condemned? I feel in my heart that they won't. I might be condemned as well then, because I'm not totally sure of much. But do believe He existed and changed the world for the better. And I deeply hope for Him to be on my side as He was for so many that were outsiders. 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In a beautiful nutshell right here, well said. Now for those that are not believers that Jesus is the Saviour but do still believe Him to be a prophet or ? Are they going to be condemned? I feel in my heart that they won't. I might be condemned as well then, because I'm not totally sure of much. But do believe He existed and changed the world for the better. And I deeply hope for Him to be on my side as He was for so many that were outsiders. 

As long as He is reaching out to you to improve upon the light you have, you are not condemned no matter what you believe (and condemnation is in the eye of the recipient: many are happy with less).

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 6/14/2023 at 4:12 PM, BlueDreams said:

A small follow up: I've been running into the primary characteristics/beliefs of Christianity in terms of doctrine quite a bit lately (it's run parallel to my studies). But I've noticed most of these have a very solid protestant bend in language and emphasis. What do you see as essential? 

There's so much here, but I think there are three key categories. Based on interest, I can recommend tons of books/videos/podcasts in each of these vital areas:

• Church history from the New Testament through the Council of Nicaea. 
• Catholic belief and theology. Belief is to "architecture and interior design" what theology is to "structural and metallurgical engineering." 
• Catholic exegesis (scriptural interpretation).

I apologize for my delayed response. 

[Couganova]

Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed for 2000 years. You can't just show up and change the definition. About 10 more posts before I can send mail.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Couganova said:

Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed for 2000 years. You can't just show up and change the definition. About 10 more posts before I can send mail.

Actually, the Nicene Creed showed up after 250 years and changed the definition.  So why is it wrong to change the definition back to what it was before?

Why are you so intent on wanting to send mail? 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Couganova said:

Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed for 2000 years. You can't just show up and change the definition. About 10 more posts before I can send mail.

There is a significant part of Christianity that does not and has never defined itself by the Nicene or any other Creed. I certainly don't. Much of Protestant Christianity is not creedal at all. I know I am not. If I had to choose one, I would much prefer the Apostolic Creed over the Nicene, but I choose neither! Take Care.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Couganova said:

Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed for 2000 years. You can't just show up and change the definition. About 10 more posts before I can send mail.

Gosh, you sound like a Pharisee. No offense intended, but wasn't that their stance? We've been following the Law of Moses for 2000 years. You can't just show up and fulfill it! 

The Nicene Creed was formulated at the command of the pagan emperor Constantine I. Because he wanted to make Christianity the state religion, but couldn't do it effectively without ironing out all the bumps in belief throughout Christendom. So a committee was formed to decide who or what God is. What authority did the committee have? The authority of a pagan monarch. 

Pardon me if I don't feel particularly inspired by the outcome.

[Sara H]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

There is a significant part of Christianity that does not and has never defined itself by the Nicene or any other Creed. I certainly don't. Much of Protestant Christianity is not creedal at all. I know I am not. If I had to choose one, I would much prefer the Apostolic Creed over the Nicene, but I choose neither! Take Care.

I've already cited this Jeffrey Holland presentation in another post, but I believe it still holds true here. He emphasises that while Christians do not adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history, the LDS church does, and that as a result of the gospel's return to earth, we are currently the only church that does. He continues by explaining how the Nician Creed and later creeds created a God who is not recognised in the gospel. Again, the audience LDS members chuckle at Holland's definition of the Christian God, which has never sat right with me. Is Holland correct, then? Is the Christian God illogical, obscure, and unknowable? In essence, he is suggesting that the God of Christianity is a created deity, not the God we worship.  

 

A lot of people have written to me asking what a TRUE Christian is, and in this address, Holland kind of describes what a true Christian is. He claims that anyone who rejects the idea of an embodied God is also rejecting  the crucified Christ. 

 

Holland goes on to say that the true gospel was restored to the earth on the day that the Gods appeared to Joseph Smith, implying that all of Christianity had been grovelling in the dark for thousands of years prior to the first vision, which is precisely what I have been attempting to explain about how we are the true Christians and our doctrine is based on the notion that we are the only true Christians. 

 

He ends his testimony by declaring that anyone who want to seek the same confirmation is welcome to do so, and that everyone can know the one and only true God via the power of the Holy Spirit, again hinting that the Christian God is a man-made deity. 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Sara H

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've already cited this Jeffrey Holland presentation in another post, but I believe it still holds true here. He emphasises that while Christians do not adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history, the LDS church does, and that as a result of the gospel's return to earth, we are currently the only church that does. He continues by explaining how the Nician Creed and later creeds created a God who is not recognised in the gospel. Again, the audience LDS members chuckle at Holland's definition of the Christian God, which has never sat right with me. Is Holland correct, then? Is the Christian God illogical, obscure, and unknowable? In essence, he is suggesting that the God of Christianity is a created deity, not the God we worship.  

 

A lot of people have written to me asking what a TRUE Christian is, and in this address, Holland kind of describes what a true Christian is. He claims that anyone who rejects the idea of an embodied God is also rejecting  the crucified Christ. 

 

Holland goes on to say that the true gospel was restored to the earth on the day that the Gods appeared to Joseph Smith, implying that all of Christianity had been grovelling in the dark for thousands of years prior to the first vision, which is precisely what I have been attempting to explain about how we are the true Christians and our doctrine is based on the notion that we are the only true Christians. 

 

He ends his testimony by declaring that anyone who want to seek the same confirmation is welcome to do so, and that everyone can know the one and only true God via the power of the Holy Spirit, again hinting that the Christian God is a man-made deity. 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

 

Hi Sara: I mean no offense, but Elder Holland is no expert on church history, the history of Christianity, or non-LDS systematic theology proper (The Study of God). If I wanted information on classic American literature of the 19th century, especially Mark Twain, he might be my go-to guy.

You ask - Is the Christian God illogical, obscure, and unknowable? Certainly not to me, nor to any non-LDS Christian I know - neither cognitively nor by any measure of trust or faith, the latter being much more important than the former. As you so well say, his talk was a testimony, not an exposition on the broad and diverse non-LDS Christian understanding of the Godhead. I have never in my 74 years "grovelled in the dark" except perchance once in a cave while spelunking in Arkansas.  I might even take a slight offense at that remark, as might you if I said that about my LDS friends, which of course, I never would. Neither LDS-Christians, nor Non-LDS Christians are caricatures. We are not cartoon characters void of sense, intellect, heart, faith, trust, desire, yearnings, spiritual sensitivity, and wisdom. Of course we share all those characteristics with our LDS-Christian friends. Take care and best wishes. I have to go and meet with some Church History folks who are here from SLC to scan documents from the Mormon Mexican colonies.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The Nicene Creed was formulated at the command of the pagan emperor Constantine I. Because he wanted to make Christianity the state religion, but couldn't do it effectively without ironing out all the bumps in belief throughout Christendom. So a committee was formed to decide who or what God is. What authority did the committee have? The authority of a pagan monarch. 

Hi my friend. I mean no offense, but I am not quite sure this is an accurate summary of the role of the emperor Constantine in the creation of the canon, theological constructs, or even of the Nicene creed of the Christian church. The Nicene Creed as used by Catholics and others today was finalized in 381 BC (I think it was), fifty years after Constantine's death. Also, we must remember that the Nicene Creed is only authoritative for those Christians who adhere to it.

The Anglican church, which I am sure you know better than me, uses two different creeds at different services. While I am not creedal at all, I would strongly prefer the Apostle's Creed which was developed and refined for centuries after Constantinople died. It might be more accurate to say the Emperor Charlemagne had more to do with the finalization of the Apostles Creed! There are also those who believe it is older, perhaps having been formalized in its initial draft by the Apostles themselves, hence its title. It is also shorter and says nothing about baptism being salvific. Hence, my preference and that of most Evangelicals for it over the Nicene Creed - understanding again that we are not creedal at all. BTW, it was the Apostles Creed that was recited at the funeral of Anglican George HW Bush.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Navidad

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've already cited this Jeffrey Holland presentation in another post, but I believe it still holds true here. He emphasises that while Christians do not adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history, the LDS church does, and that as a result of the gospel's return to earth, we are currently the only church that does. He continues by explaining how the Nician Creed and later creeds created a God who is not recognised in the gospel. Again, the audience LDS members chuckle at Holland's definition of the Christian God, which has never sat right with me. Is Holland correct, then? Is the Christian God illogical, obscure, and unknowable? In essence, he is suggesting that the God of Christianity is a created deity, not the God we worship.  

 

A lot of people have written to me asking what a TRUE Christian is, and in this address, Holland kind of describes what a true Christian is. He claims that anyone who rejects the idea of an embodied God is also rejecting  the crucified Christ. 

 

Holland goes on to say that the true gospel was restored to the earth on the day that the Gods appeared to Joseph Smith, implying that all of Christianity had been grovelling in the dark for thousands of years prior to the first vision, which is precisely what I have been attempting to explain about how we are the true Christians and our doctrine is based on the notion that we are the only true Christians. 

 

He ends his testimony by declaring that anyone who want to seek the same confirmation is welcome to do so, and that everyone can know the one and only true God via the power of the Holy Spirit, again hinting that the Christian God is a man-made deity. 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

 

I believe you have read that talk wrong. He is not saying we are not Christian.  He is giving reasons why we ARE Christian.  

When he is talking about "true Christians" he is not saying only our church is.  He is saying that any true Christian, in or out of the church, would believe those doctrinal things if they understood. That many have misunderstood the doctrine and that is why they say the church is not Christian.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've already cited this Jeffrey Holland presentation in another post, but I believe it still holds true here. He emphasises that while Christians do not adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history, the LDS church does, and that as a result of the gospel's return to earth, we are currently the only church that does. He continues by explaining how the Nician Creed and later creeds created a God who is not recognised in the gospel. Again, the audience LDS members chuckle at Holland's definition of the Christian God, which has never sat right with me. Is Holland correct, then? Is the Christian God illogical, obscure, and unknowable? In essence, he is suggesting that the God of Christianity is a created deity, not the God we worship.  

In the talk, the part that triggered the laugh was actually from a quote from the Althanasian Creed.  Here is what he said just before the laughter:

Quote

They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

Here is what one translation of the Althanasian creed says (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm)

Quote

The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible.

It actually does say "incomprehensible".

This joke (that Chrisitians believe in an incomprehensible God) is older than Elder Holland.  It is likely he picked it up from one of the earlier sources.  An example of an older source is  Dorothy L. Sayers in a satirical pamphlet called Strong Meat:

Quote

What is the doctrine of the Trinity? The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the whole thing incomprehensible.

Other translations of the Althanasian Creed will use "infinite" instead of "incomprehensible".  But the doctrine of the trinity is called a "mystery".  And that's because we really don't understand how it works.  Any simple explanation of the trinity is actually a heresy.

[webbles]

59 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I mean no offense, but I am not quite sure this is an accurate summary of the role of the emperor Constantine in the creation of the canon, theological constructs, or even of the Nicene creed of the Christian church. The Nicene Creed as used by Catholics and others today was finalized in 381 BC (I think it was), fifty years after Constantine's death. Also, we must remember that the Nicene Creed is only authoritative for those Christians who adhere to it.

The Anglican church, which I am sure you know better than me, uses two different creeds at different services. While I am not creedal at all, I would strongly prefer the Apostle's Creed which was developed and refined for centuries after Constantinople died. It might be more accurate to say the Emperor Charlemagne had more to do with the finalization of the Apostles Creed! There are also those who believe it is older, perhaps having been formalized in its initial draft by the Apostles themselves, hence its title. It is also shorter and says nothing about salvation being salvific. Hence, my preference and that of most Evangelicals for it over the Nicene Creed - understanding again that we are not creedal at all. BTW, it was the Apostles Creed that was recited at the funeral of Anglican George HW Bush.

The Nicene Creed was originally created at the first council of Nicaea in 325 AD at the behest of Emperor Constantinople.  What you are talking about is the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" which I don't believe is accepted by the western church.  It was possibly created in 381 and is an expansion on the original Nicene Creed.  https://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The Anglican church, which I am sure you know better than me, uses two different creeds at different services. While I am not creedal at all, I would strongly prefer the Apostle's Creed which was developed and refined for centuries after Constantinople died. It might be more accurate to say the Emperor Charlemagne had more to do with the finalization of the Apostles Creed! There are also those who believe it is older, perhaps having been formalized in its initial draft by the Apostles themselves, hence its title. It is also shorter and says nothing about salvation being salvific. Hence, my preference and that of most Evangelicals for it over the Nicene Creed - understanding again that we are not creedal at all. BTW, it was the Apostles Creed that was recited at the funeral of Anglican George HW Bush.

There isn't much in the Apostles' creed that I have a problem with.  The line about "the holy catholic Church" is a slight hangup, but that is because the word "catholic" can cause confusion because of the Catholic church.

What do you think of the Athanasian Creed?  I think that creed is the one that we (LDS) have the most issues with.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I mean no offense, but I am not quite sure this is an accurate summary of the role of the emperor Constantine in the creation of the canon, theological constructs, or even of the Nicene creed of the Christian church. The Nicene Creed as used by Catholics and others today was finalized in 381 BC (I think it was), fifty years after Constantine's death. Also, we must remember that the Nicene Creed is only authoritative for those Christians who adhere to it.

It is actually an accurate summary of Constantine's role. Eusebius's biography of Constantine makes this certain. Read about the First Council of Nicea HERE. As you say, this council initiated it. Of course, later versions of the creed were formulated after Constantine. But he's the one who started the ball rolling.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The Anglican church, which I am sure you know better than me, uses two different creeds at different services. While I am not creedal at all, I would strongly prefer the Apostle's Creed which was developed and refined for centuries after Constantinople died. It might be more accurate to say the Emperor Charlemagne had more to do with the finalization of the Apostles Creed! There are also those who believe it is older, perhaps having been formalized in its initial draft by the Apostles themselves, hence its title. It is also shorter and says nothing about salvation being salvific. Hence, my preference and that of most Evangelicals for it over the Nicene Creed - understanding again that we are not creedal at all. BTW, it was the Apostles Creed that was recited at the funeral of Anglican George HW Bush.

Understood!

Meaning no offense either, but I regard all of those creeds as sincere attempts to overcome the lack of continuing revelation in the years following the fading away of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which was the ruling body of the early Church.