quote: [Tom] the church itself is divided on the issue, and because a lot of OTHER churches think it's their business.
Actually, the problem exists because there is a very liberal church hierarchy and conservative parishes. Of course this rule doesn't always apply. But there is a growing schism between the layman and the church officials. Several churches have already split over this, and I expect more to follow.
<puts $.02 in slot>
Unless he can explain how his actions are not sinful in the eyes of God (using the Bible, since it is God's word), he should not hold that position. I will not accept any, "well Paul was wrong and I'm right" argument in this situation.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why, btw? Why isn't there one? It obviously is topical, affects people on many fronts, and the lack of a position is raising controversies.
It’s got a lot to do with the history of the Anglican church. I’ve got to go now, but I’ll write up a short answer when I get back, if no one beats me to it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, I really believe it goes back to the prejudice of many people that homesexuals are, or will be, sex offenders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, I don't believe that. I think that's a pet issue for you,"
It is not necessary to be condescending to me, Katharina. I already stated it as a belief, which means it is, obviously, a "pet" issue for me.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really believe it goes back to the prejudice of many people that homesexuals are, or will be, sex offenders.
Sorry about the condescending.
*thinks* I don't agree with you, but there's no way to resolve this. You believe something about hidden motivations, and there's really nothing to say to that. If they are true, they would be hidden, and if they are not, then they would be absent, which looks like hidden.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
You say "using the Bible" The question is actually one of pre-definitions, and the premises used for Biblical interpretation. You see, the conservative non-Catholic, Non-LDS Christians, tend to see the Bible as the LITERAL word of God with strict interpretation of the literal words in the actual language. Even then they diverge in interpretation between Reformed (believe the Church has taken the place of Isreal and all prophecies to Isreal now apply to the church) and Dispensational (believe that Isreal is just on hiatus and the Church will be Raptured and then God will go back to using Isreal as his main means of communication with the world.)
The more liberal churches view the Bible as a collection of stories, some true, used for teaching morals and values, they tend to be more tolerant of the concept of evolution as a result. So it depends on how strictly one interprets the Bible as to what conclusions arrive.
A classic example: You could say that during the Civil War the South was interpreting the Bible more literally because the Old Testament has specific laws on slaves. The North could come up with as many anti-slavery passages that said what they wanted it to say. At no point that I am aware of in the Bible does it specifically give a moral judgment to slavery. Personally I would say the South went too far because it stopped valuing slaves as human beings, and the Bible makes it clear that slaves are indeed human, but that is just my opinion.
Catholicism is acutally in the middle on this issue IMO. The Catholic Church "spiritualizes" and re-interprets lot of passages that the Fundamentalists take literally, (and have the Marian doctrines) but at the same time (in doctrine) they still hold the hard core lines on homosexuality, chastity, birth control etc.
In the American Catholic churches I have observed though, women are give in a much more equal status in the church leadership than in the Fundamentalist churches I grew up in. Women are allowed to lead committees that include men, and are often deeply involved in managing local church finances etc. responsibilities that are considered male-only domains in many fundamentalist circles. There is also the separate, unique category of Nun, which there is no equivalent to in Protestant circles that I am aware of other than being a spinster missionary.
AJ
(edit to add, I'm not speaking to the LDS positions because I know I don't know enough about them, and because I believe their Biblical interpretations are according to their more recent revelations in their other scriptures)
posted
Ron and I were also married in the Episcopal church. The minister is still on my short list of really cool people whose lives match their supposed religious beliefs.
There are lots of things the Bible condemns that we ignore. There was the thing about women wearing braids, or speaking in church, or wearing coverings over their heads in church.
The Bible was used to justify slavery, for crying out loud. Many churches did not ALLOW people of color to be ministers, even well after most moral authorities found the practice abhorrent.
Most of these things we rationalize because of cultural differences. If the world stands, I think such questions will become moral no-brainers in the next century or two.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:*hug* That's a question for yourself, dear. I do sympathize.
Thanks, I appreciate it. It's just something I've struggled with for a while.
quote:Q, you aren't even allowed to lead or teach in a group of other women? Even the churches I grew up in allowed women to teach other women. They just weren't allowed to teach men.
This is the part that bugs me about my church, the tetrapylocatmist attitude. Yes, women can teach women in my church - as they can also teach children under the apparently magical age of twelve.
If a woman speaks knowledgeably in a mixed-gender Bible study class and informs the class of something previously unknown, however, it's apparently not teaching because she is not listed as the "teacher" for that quarter. She can read scripture if in the context of Bible class - for instance, if each member of the class was taking a turn reading a verse or so during study, or if she wanted to make a point and used the text to back it up, but the same woman couldn't read from the same Bible to the same people if it's in the auditorium during worship.
Oy. It gets to the point where I wish they'd enforce complete silence or at least admit the drawing of lines that don't exist. So much of it is so arbitrary. And I don't think they (my church specifically) realize how hurtful it is to the younger women, the girls I work with at teen camps, the girls who doubt the worth of their own souls and don't know that they're allowed to pray simply because when the boys are taught to begin to lead, the girls are taught nothing. They're simply stuck in spiritual stasis, apparently in hopes that they'll just combust one day and spontaneously become ideal wives for the upcoming leaders.
Sorry to get completely off topic, but this tromps on a well-exposed nerve of mine. The parallels bug the snot outta me.
posted
Q, this is one of the very reasons why I am no longer fundamentalist.
/rant
One of the things that I resented is that I would not be consdered an adult (not even by my own family) until I was married. That until I was married my father was "spiritually" responsible for me. At what point did I reach the accountable age where I was responsible for myself? I feel bad because now that I have "rebelled" (as a college graduate at the age of 22 mind you, not at 15 or 16, when it is forgivable) my father is beating himself up for being a spiritual leadership failure, when he wasn't. But at the age of 23 when I am supporting myself and living 1000s of miles away from my family (also unacceptable to a lot of fundamentalists for a girl to be so far away from her family) aren't I responsible for my own spiritual well being. They would argue that me wanting to take responsiblity of my own spiritual life is rebellion in and of itself, and maybe it is according to their standards.
Another thing that annoys me beyond belief that ties in with the speaking thing is that women aren't truly given credit for being intelligent, and that it is some kind of crime to use your education after you've gotten it, rather than becoming a wife and mother. (Understand I'm not knocking being either a wife or a mother I have the utmost respect for both, but the fact that it was virtually REQUIRED, or you were worthless as a woman unless you were a missionary of some sort.)
Thirdly, being an intelligent female, since I couldn't help it, guys won't have anything to do with you because when you know more Bible verses than they do then they aren't qualified to be your "spiritual leader" barring marrying a pastor.
Fourthly being an intelligent female, and being able to spout off Bible verses and find all sorts of appropriate insights in scripture passages (I think this was what made me good at poetry analysis in my English classes btw) you are automatically considered "spiritual" and nobody actually bothers to inquire what you are actually feeling and thinking. While I was in their church, I was not a hypocrite. I genuinely was trying to do everything to the best of my ability. But while sincerely doing all of the "disciplines of the faith" reading the Bible, praying, and fellowshipping with others of like faith, instead of experiencing deeper "spiritual growth" it began to ring hollow. If doing the "disciplines" that supposedly guarantee growth doesn't cause spiritual growth, but regression, then something is wrong.
Maybe it is with me, maybe it is the church. I live in a much scarier more uncertain world than I did when I was nestled safe in the cocoon of the church. Sometimes I wish I could go back, but the only way to go would be to act repentant. Even if I do one day agree that that particular way is correct, I don't believe I will regret the time away and feel repentance is necessary, so that still leaves me with too much pride and unfit for that congregation.
posted
AJ, I know what you mean in a lot of ways. Our situations are somewhat different. Out of curiosity, were you a member of a fundamental Baptist congregation?
I'm considered responsible for my own spirituality UNTIL I'm married, essentially. Then the husband is the head, the spiritual leader.
Though it's pretty well agreed that a woman should seek to be married, and those who aren't are odd.
I'm sorry. I'm 23; marriage isn't what I want to do right now. I'm happily making my life and gaining some more education before "settling down." I think I'd like to be married someday, but I'm not in any rush. I got so tired of hearing "you'll be a great resource and help to your husband" while I was in college pursuing a Bible degree. I don't mind being a help and a resource, but that's not all I am. I'm not an encyclopedia, for Pete's sake.
I wish sometimes that I had the talents that make it "easy" for women in my church. I wish I were good with little children and toddlers. I wish cooking, card writing, nursery-tending, marriage-y stuff were what I was good at. That way I could fit in.
I've tried to be the "ideal" c of C woman. It was a disaster. And it was a lie. I don't want to spend my entire life trying to pretend I'm someone I'm not simply so my church will think I'm acceptable. God knows who I am, no matter how well I hide it from the deacons, preacher, brothers and sisters. I'm not maternal, I'm not the demure, silent type. I'm not "like them."
But every time I think of leaving, I remember why I'm there. It's just hard sometimes.
quote: wish sometimes that I had the talents that make it "easy" for women in my church. I wish I were good with little children and toddlers. I wish cooking, card writing, nursery-tending, marriage-y stuff were what I was good at. That way I could fit in.
I know what you mean. It would be so much easier if I were somehow different.
I can't be, though. I've even tried, but I just can't keep it up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw’s severely abridged history of the English Reformation as it relates to the topic of the thread and Kat’s question about why the Episcopal church doesn’t have an official position on same-sex weddings:
The English Reformation was different than the Protestant Reformation in the rest of Europe in that it was at first entirely political and not theological. King Henry didn’t want to be under the rule of Rome, but he was a defender of Catholic theology against the protestants. Which was a huge disappointment to those who wanted England to go protestant. After his death England went back and forth from officially Catholic to officially Protestant, and there were significant groups of each. Finally Elizabeth I and her advisors decided that for the purposes of a State Church it didn’t matter if everyone agreed on theology as long as they could worship and pray together. Even today there are Anglicans/Episcopalians who consider themselves Catholic (Anglo-Catholic, not Roman-Catholic) and those who consider themselves Protestant.
Ever since then the Church of England and its sister denominations have been marked by liturgical conformity and theological diversity. It’s telling that while other denominations have a “Book of Order” or “Book of Discipline,” the uniting document of the Anglican Communion is The Book of Common Prayer.”
***
I also want to add that, while it comes across as a political process, it really is a theological issue for both sides. It’s just that often the media don’t understand the theological issues involved, or don’t have time/column space to get into them, or don’t find them as exciting a story as a political battle.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The structure is very different, then. *thinks* Most of my objections don't apply then, because it isn't an organization that sees a need to agree on doctrinal matters. By that description, it isn't a matter of local control, because there is nothing BUT local control.
In which case, the question appears to be "Should we pray together still?"
What are the advantages, then, of remaining an organization?
I mean, does saying, "I'm Anglican." actually mean anything? Is it mostly history? Cultural?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, according to Eddie Izzard, "It's more of a hobby, really."
But all joking aside, I've known Episcopalians who run the line from devout to hobbyist, just like anywhere else. One of the most spiritual people I know is an Episcopal convert. One of the least spiritual people I know is an Episcopalian turned Baptist.
The Episcopal church won't divide because doctrinal cohesiveness isn't seen as an essential to unity. Ironically, churches that get "up in arms" about various doctrinal issues are constantly dividing into molecular subsets.
[edited to say that dkw said it better. But maybe that should go in the 'thread to state the obvious' thread.]
quote:Ironically, churches that get "up in arms" about various doctrinal issues are constantly dividing into molecular subsets.
Well, sometimes...
dk: Okay.
Nothing I said applies, then.
That's so-o-o different... I can't even wrap my brain around it. *rests head on desk*
----
Added: *picks head up* Okay, this is the part where I might offend people, and if so, I apologize. But I was thinking.
How is that different from a social club? I mean, I love Hatrack, and I even partially self-identify myself as a Jatrequera, and I have that "Good Hatracker?" people-filter that is proving more and more reliable, but it isn't a religion.
If the sense of community and not the beliefs is what is holding the church together, is that different at all from a social club?
posted
It really is based on belief, not a social club. It’s just that the particular beliefs that are most emphasized have to do with unity as the Body of Christ. (There are doctrinal standards too, they’re just quite broad, and anything that fits within them or is not covered by them is fair game.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Most of the churches I attended with my parents were part of the IFCA- Independent Fundamental Churches of America. The family currently goes to an Evangelical Free Church. Felt very similar when attending fundamental Baptist churches though they tended to have a few more altar calls.
AJ
P.S. In theory they sub-scribe to the "in the world but not of the world" view on life. The problem being that many of them cocoon themselves so much that they don't realize what "reality" for most people is and how far it diverges from their views. My own mother is an example of this.
quote:It really is based on belief, not a social club. It’s just that the particular beliefs that are most emphasized have to do with unity as the Body of Christ. (There are doctrinal standards too, they’re just quite broad, and anything that fits within them or is not covered by them is fair game.)
What is the difference, then, between, say, Hatrack and a religion that isn't really defined?
I mean, we certainly have rules here at Hatrack, although they are only occasionally codified. They are formed and changed by the community. The only rules that are enforced are those set by the mods. In a way, Hatrack is MORE of a religion.
In that case, even the mods are elected. How is that different from a social club?
*shakes head* I'm not trying to be offensive. Just... who decides what are a deal-breakers? "This is Anglican, this doesn't matter, but once you believe this, you're no longer Anglican."
I mean, if a group is defined in part by beliefs, then what beliefs are the defining ones?
quote:XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.
The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered."
So why is there even a controversey?
Behavioral commandments are not part of the definition of the church, and even if they were, the worthiness of the leaders doesn't matter.
posted
It’s not that the worthiness of the leaders doesn’t matter, it’s that sacraments performed by leaders later found “unworthy” are still valid. That was a big deal historically, when a bunch of priests were deposed and people were worried about whether or not their baptisms were valid.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t think there should be a controversy. But obviously some Episcopalians feel strongly enough that homosexuality is wrong that they’re willing to make one. I think you might still be looking at this from the point of view of a church that is a little more hierarchical on doctrinal matters. You seem to expect everyone to agree with their church’s positions. (or lack thereof)
And there is authority, it just isn’t the style of authority you’re used to.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kind of authority, then? To extend the Hatrack analogy, same kind as the mods? The mods can edit views and ban people if they are so out there they no longer fit the definition of acceptable Hatrack behavior. That kind?
Or the kind of authority that CT or Papa Moose have, the authority of those who have been here so long, been so exemplary, or embody the idea of Hatrackiness to such an extent that they have a non-formal ability to end a discussion point.
*thinks* Is this controversy the equivalent of us electing Otaku as a mod?
(I know I'm looking at the from the point-of-view of a more hierarchical structure. I couldn't stop if I tried, so I'm trying to work with it.)
posted
*thinks* Somewhere in between the authority of the mods and CT and Papa Moose?
I’m getting a little uncomfortable speaking for Anglicans, since my denomination broke off from the Church of England in 1784 (darn that Revolutionary War). I know a lot about them historically, but my modern knowledge is more general. What the specific powers of the Bishops and Archbishops are, I do not know. I can look it up, if you want me to. If it’s a more general question of how a church that isn’t as doctrinally hierarchical functions, could we switch the specifics to the UMC? I’m much more current on that polity.
On the thread topic – it’s worth repeating that the current controversy isn’t over sexual orientation, it’s over whether Rev. Robinson is guilty of “inappropriate touching” of someone at a conference.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, interesting discussion that I missed out on.
The Presbyterian church split over issues some time ago, fragmenting into the PC-USA and the PCA. There are smaller groups too, like Cumberland Presbyterians.
PCA churches to this day are still much more conservative than their USA brethren, allowing of course, that some individual denominations may vary some from the national teachings.
My husband's grandfather was a presbyterian minister so I've heard all the history behind it. The church I go to split from the Presbyterian church and went independent when all the squabbling and infighting began.
I've always felt it was silly for denominations to get into headlocks over doctrinal issues, when they share the same core beliefs. It doesn't "bother" me that dkw is a pastor, even though in my conservative church a woman would never become one. We do however, allow women to speak to the entire congregation, I've even been asked to do some teaching to the entire church.
I think a woman's role in the church can move beyond keeping the nursery and teaching vacation bible school to youngsters. My husband is a fan of Joyce Meyer, he listens to her tapes and watches her shows. And Wes is about as conservative as it comes.
Why shouldn't a woman be called to do more than take care of kids? I certainly feel like I'm called forth to do something with my writing, and once I began focusing on faith-based writing I suddenly got published and other opportunities began coming my way. I think Joyce Meyer was called to preach, and I think dkw was called to ministry. I would love to attend one of her services. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was listening to NPR during my lunch break, and they had two people on speaking about this issue. One of the most interesting points made was that the Episcopalian Church is like a three legged stool, the legs being faith, tradition, and reason. To keep the stool standing correctly, they have to find the right balance.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:*thinks* Somewhere in between the authority of the mods and CT and Papa Moose?
I’m getting a little uncomfortable speaking for Anglicans, since my denomination broke off from the Church of England in 1784 (darn that Revolutionary War). I know a lot about them historically, but my modern knowledge is more general. What the specific powers of the Bishops and Archbishops are, I do not know. I can look it up, if you want me to. If it’s a more general question of how a church that isn’t as doctrinally hierarchical functions, could we switch the specifics to the UMC? I’m much more current on that polity.
Thank you for what you've said so far, dkw. This is great.
There really is a wealth of topics in here: what authority do church leaders have (and whence does it come - from God or from the congregation?), the role of women in church, how do modern churches decide what is doctrine, how sinless do we need our leaders to be, and how does a sin become not a sin anymore.
quote:On the thread topic – it’s worth repeating that the current controversy isn’t over sexual orientation, it’s over whether Rev. Robinson is guilty of “inappropriate touching” of someone at a conference.
He's been cleared of that, but it seems like the larger controversey is the leadership of the church is going in a direction that many of the members protest against. How to handle that?
That's where the authority bit comes in, and the bit about preaching by the polls. If his authority is from God, why doesn't he say so? If it is from the people, have enough people objected to make it invalid?
quote:I was listening to NPR during my lunch break, and they had two people on speaking about this issue. One of the most interesting points made was that the Episcopalian Church is like a three legged stool, the legs being faith, tradition, and reason. To keep the stool standing correctly, they have to find the right balance.
The most interesting part of that quote is the phrase "to stand correctly". What is correctly? What is it defined by?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't mean I'm not interested in hearing about the authority bit. I am, and I wanted to thank you for what you've said so far. I just am not going to able to post in a minute, and didn't want to start a conversation I'm not sure I can continue. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps balanced is a better word. I didn't use it because I thought it sounded funny to use it twice in the same sentence
And the ultimate argument here is what the best balance is, whether tradition should be followed, or whether reason shows the better path. I think that's what we're arguing here, really. But it was good to know that the Episcopalians find reason to be an important part of their church.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just am not going to able to post in a minute, and didn't want to start a conversation I'm not sure I can continue.
*relieved* I have to leave now too, and won't be free until late tonight. I was kicking myself for offering to start I discussion that I can't follow up on. Maybe some other day. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why shouldn't a woman be called to do more than take care of kids? I certainly feel like I'm called forth to do something with my writing, and once I began focusing on faith-based writing I suddenly got published and other opportunities began coming my way. I think Joyce Meyer was called to preach, and I think dkw was called to ministry. I would love to attend one of her services.
I'm glad you've found your place, Belle.
Most men at my church think Joyce Myers is anathema because to them, she not only spurns what they consider Biblical authority, but because they disagree with her on other matters, she confirms their view that if you let a woman have a pulpit, she'll only teach heresy. (Note: this is implied rather than explicit, usually).
In addition, my church doesn't really subscribe to a doctrine concering being "called" to anything in particular beyond the "priesthood of all believers." So deference to any compulsion I feel or any talents I may have is out of the question - it's not a valid argument. I remain wafflish on the idea of being called. I know that in some ways, what I feel is like "a fire, shut up in my bones," etc. But I even had one person tell me that this was a temptation I would have to struggle with, not a calling.
In other words, my desire to preach is apparently either due to an inherent weakness in my gender that makes us want what we cannot rightfully have ("And your desire will be for your husband and he shall rule over you" is used all to often here), or, expanding on that, my desire is the direct result of a temptation and therefore succumbing to it is the same as taking part in any other sin.
So for me to preach/teach God's word is sinful. Makes me wonder why my church is okay with men teaching wrongly, men who enter the ministry without any interest in being a minister, and men who use the pulpit as a political platform. . . simply because they're men.
posted
My aunt was an Episcopalian priest until her death. I went to her church several times and it seemed more Catholic to me that my grandmother's Catholic Church. The Catholic Church she went to when I was younger. . . now that was hard core Catholic. I liked the old days, when mass was in Latin.
But anyway, my aunt was one of the first female priests. So, things change. Just like the development of Prostestants (and all their splinter groups) the Episcopalians will either come out of this whole or separated.
Considering there are, what, 6,000 Protestant denominations, I don't understand why everyone is so baffled. People and the Churches they attend don't always agree. Hence, all the different denominations. Heck, even LDS is a splinter of Christianity.
Also, in reading on of AJ's links, was anyone else bothered by the fact that if you slander a married woman's name (say she wasn't a virgin) and are proven false, you have to pay 100 sheckles. But if you rape her, you have to pay only 50 and then she gets the pleasure of being married to you for the rest of her life?
Thank God things have changed. I hope they keep changing.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Main Entry: 1splin·ter Pronunciation: 'splin-t&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle Dutch; akin to Middle Low German splinte splint Date: 14th century 1 a : a thin piece split or broken off lengthwise : SLIVER b : a small needlelike particle 2 : a group or faction broken away from a parent body
Parent body. There was no breaking off. There's no parent body.
posted
Yes kat, we Protestants consider you to be a splinter. We keep trying to remove you, but you're dug in to deep. Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Parent body. There was no breaking off. There's no parent body."
Educate me!!
I really thought that a Christian sect that is not Catholic is a Protestant group. Are Protestant groups just ones that split off from the church around the time Henry left? Lutherans, Anglicans, etc?
(I feel a paradigm shift coming on...)
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He organized His Church. It was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). In addition to the Twelve Apostles, Christ appointed other leaders to assist the Apostles in the work of His Church. These included:
These officers were given the authority (or priesthood) necessary to do the work of Christ’s Church. They did missionary work, performed ordinances such as baptism, presided over congregations, instructed and inspired Church members, and helped unify them in their faith. As long as those who had the priesthood were alive, the Church grew and prospered. Early Church members referred to themselves as Saints (Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 1:2).
A general falling away from the truth occurred after the death of Christ’s Apostles. This is called the Apostasy. When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.
After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord took the priesthood authority and His Church from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.
The Apostles prophesied of the falling away or Apostasy. One example is Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:1–3).
The Apostle Peter prophesied of the “restitution of all things” before Christ’s Second Coming (Acts 3:19–21). Having been lost because of the Apostasy, Christ’s Church and His authority were to be restored to the earth. This Restoration would make available the opportunity for all to receive once again all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church. He has continued to reveal truths to His prophets and to restore the blessings that were taken from the earth for a time.
No, LDS is not protestant. We believe the true church of Jesus Christ, along with the priesthood, dissapeared from the earth after the apostles were killed. There was still the scriptures, the Spirit, and good people, but Christ's church was gone. The organization left was a human organization.
When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was formed in 1830, it was a restoration. For the first time since the days of the apostles, the church of Christ, complete with the authority of God (the priesthood), was on the earth.
So, no, it isn't a splinter. It didn't break off (protest) from a then-present organization. It is a restoration.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
