posted
For the longest time, because of LDS teachings, I assumed at the death of the 12 apostles that the early church quit being true. After some casual studies (book on tape) I later decided that the truth just slowly went away as the church leaders and members quit getting personal revelation. In fact, leaders in 200/300 (I can't remember dates--I think it was Origen) wrote that they knew they didn't have revelation anymore and that they knew it was the only thing that mattered, yet they couldn't get it back. And by Nicea, it was pretty much all gone.
However, I love the statement by Hugh Nibley. He said something like the Catholic church kept the memory of the early church alive, and we all owe them that.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Apostles pre-resurrection were followers, not leaders.
I disagree. When Jesus couldn't be found, people went to the Apostles for help.
quote:It's not in the Bible or history of the early Church that there's this obvious established thing that you need twelve direct successors to the Apostles that everyone but the LDS just ignored. It's fine to believe this, but recognize that it's an LDS concept and that other traditions have other ways of dealing with apostolic authority, such that they're not obviously all apostates.
"such that they're not obviously all apostates."
Why do you use this particular phrase? Do you believe that I'm arguing that other churches are apostate?
quote:As for your odd defintion of accept, I can't stop you from bending over backwards to take offense when none is meant. So go nuts. I never expected the apology you owe me anyway.
That's an interesting reaction, Squicky.
How have I offended you?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
It depends on what is meant by 'apostate.' As Jim-me pointed out in the Catholic thread, it's a very loaded word. To me, 'apostate' implies a willful turning away from God.
By that estimation, I don't think many churches currently running are apostate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that the Apostles were those disciples of Jesus that were sent out to spread the gospel. That is what the word means - to send forth. Some disciples stayed; 12 were sent forth. Once sent they established "outposts" - other Christian communities.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Isn't it official Mormon doctrine that other Christian churches are apostate?
Yes it is. You can look at the official Mormon site for people interested in learning about the Church.
quote: After Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, His Apostles continued to receive revelation from Him on how to direct the work of His Church. However, after they were killed, members changed the teachings of the Church that He had established. While many good people and some truth remained, this Apostasy, or general falling away from the truth, brought about the withdrawal of the Church from the earth.
Being apostate doesn't mean you are a bad person, just that the peopel turned away from all the "true" teachings--which encompass the saving ordinances.
quote: "Saving ordinances" are the ordinances required for salvation; they include baptism, confirmation, endowment, and sealing. Sealings are the LDS version of marriage - instead of the more common "till death do you part," a couple is "sealed" for time and all eternity to each other and to any children they might have under such a union. Endowments have no equivalent that I am aware of. While regular baptisms and confirmations are held in chapels, where anyone may attend and observe, endowments and sealings are performed only inside temples of the Church.
Saving ordinances require the priesthood in order to be legitimate. Losing the priesthood is the operative definition of apostasy.
quote: Throughout time, God has given His servants, the prophets, the authority to act in His name. This authority is called the priesthood. Jesus Christ gave the priesthood to His original Twelve Apostles, and they directed the work of His Church after Jesus ascended to heaven. But after the Apostles were killed, the priesthood gradually disappeared from the earth. In 1829 Joseph Smith received the priesthood authority to organize Christ’s Church. In 1830 the same Church of Jesus Christ that existed centuries ago was organized and restored to the earth.
posted
And this is why I stepped out. I said that I believe theology IS history. If I didn't think it was history than I wouldn't believe it was theology; or more directly truth.
On the other hand, I am not going to get into a debate about it either because those who don't have my faith will not agree with me and I will not agree with them. It isn't worth discussing either, because there are beliefs and assumptions each hold that can never be crossed no matter what evidence exists. The reason for this is the evidence is imprecise and wide open to interpretation. Add assumptions of stronly held faith and you might as well be blowing people up to win the argument.
At any rate - a few things that were directed to me. The reason the debate moved over here is because it started to become more LDS centric (as at least one person mentioned in passing) than Catholic. It jumped back to a defense of the Catholic idea of authority. Once you go down the path of discussion of religious authority than you might as well pick up a sword. I have never heard of a coming to understanding with that subject, but have heard of countless splits and hard feelings - and actual wars.
The best that can happen is that I say my peace and someone else says their peace and agree to disagree. Mormons believe strongly that living Prophets and 12 Apostles are essential to the organization of the Christian Church. Almost all other Christian religions do not. End of story.
Finally there are some scholars that I have had in mind when mentioned and others asked about. H. A. Drake "Constantine and the Bishops," Richard E rubenstein "When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome," J. Dominic Crossan, Bart D. Ehrman, and Elaine Pagels. Some of what they say I don't agree with (especially J.D. Crossan), and some of what I conclude from their writings they wouldn't agree with. However, I don't think ideas on the history of Christianity can be considered set in stone as some seem to currently insist.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Nobody is picking up swords here. Or blowing people up. I believe that at least understanding the point of view of others is a very good way to avoid those things. My point is that there is a difference between disputing interpretation of historical fact for reasons of theology and disputing the historical facts themselves.
Thanks for giving me the names of those scholars. I am somewhat familiar with Crossan (and I generally do agree with him) and look forward to checking out the others. It sound like you might be interested in Paula Fredrikson as well. Her "From Jesus to Christ" has a lot of interesting information.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, can you explain what you mean that "it's used as a historical term only?"
Scott, I mean that in most Protestant churches it is a term that applies to certain people in the Bible. Not to a role that exists today.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think the problem here is that it hasn't made clear that the integrity of the Catholic Church is not dependent on a central authority, being completely organized, or even (on many issues) "uniformity of belief and practice". This is a common misconception.
We were the Catholic Church before "the Pope" was "the Pope".
And our understanding does grow and change. I would hope so. As I've said, God is not something we can ever completely understand.
I know many catholics, and I have even gone to Rome and The Vatican and I was very impressed with much of the beauty of the Christian sites there.
One of the most "KEY" things (no pun intended for the point I am making.) Is that Jesus passed his authority to lead to Peter. That is why every picture of Peter usually shows him grasping a set of keys, representing his authority to lead the church and pass those keys on. At least thats what every Catholic tour guide and church representative said when they explained the role of Peter.
The apostles are on NUMEROUS occasions refered to as "The Twelve." Why is it so important that the 12 named apostles always be grouped together if not for some special purpose?
In The Acts we see Peter taking the lead in the affairs of the church. He receives the revelation about the neccesity of accepting that the Law of Moses no longer was in effect. He presided during the councel at Jerusalem. Whether you interpret the saying of Jesus when he says "Upon this rock will I build my church" as pertaining to revelation or to Peter, the result is still the same Peter was receiving revelation for the Church.
As for Apostles that were ordained post ressurection:
Mathias was ordained an apostle by the other apostles. They were acting as a special group, not as a bunch of diciples. Paul is also eventually ordained an Apostle according to his own words. The entire book of The Acts states that it is a record of the "Acts" of the apostles not just mere deciples.
I guess my main point is that if you want to argue that the 12 Apostles were just significant men in the early christian church and not leaders groomed and prepared by Christ himself, I think there is more evidence against you then for.
The catholics I have personally talked to all declare without reservation that the pope of today can trace his authority DIRECTLY to Peter and that the church led by the apostles survived in its correct form all the way until today. They also hold to the idea that if the Catholic church were to change in any degree it would cease to be that one true church.
I won't contend so much about whether the Catholic church has EVER changed a dogma or belief, but I will contend that Jesus's original church was led by Apostles and as early as 200AD not one apostle was left, who then would regulate the church and prevent false teaching from being propagated?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess my main point is that if you want to argue that the 12 Apostles were just significant men in the early christian church and not leaders groomed and prepared by Christ himself, I think there is more evidence against you then for.
I don't think the two ideas are incompatible - although the is nothing "just" about being significant in the early church.
As for the art - well, remember who commissioned it. While apostolic succession is important, our authority is derived from God in Christ and in the Holy Spirit.
And (though some Catholics are loathe to admit it) even a cursory look at Catholic history will show that Church teaching changes and continues to change (God willing). And thank goodness! We no longer teach, for example, that Jews eat Christian babies. That doctrine changes means that we are a living, growing institution - the people of God - rather than a monument.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that a church needs to adapt for the emerging needs of its members. Not so much that one day we wont need Jesus for example, but whether people should or should not be circumcized is not a problem anymore.
My only contention is that seeing as how God "Is not the author of confusion." Who is he now directing in the affairs of his church? The Deist's "Clockmaker" is not something I accept as God is an unchangeable being. (I say all this from my own personal beliefs of course.)
If there is a living God and he does direct his followers (as I am sure he does) what process or structure has he setup for this? There are hundreds of thousands of people who have claimed that God spoke to them. Who do we trust and what process does God use to show us who we ought to trust?
I have merely been arguing that God setup the Prophet model long ago whenever his children needed revelation. If there are true prophets then there are also false ones (and I imagine vice versa).
If there is a genuine prophet who establishes God's true church, I do not find it difficult to believe he would use Jesus's model of 12 apostles in that same churches administration.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My belief is that God uses all of us in directing the affairs of His Church.
Here is something on a Catholic understanding of "apostolic".
quote: Every activity of the Mystical Body with this in view goes by the mane of "apostolate"; the Church exercises it through all its members, though in various ways. In fact, the Christian vocation is, of its nature a vocation to the apostolate as well.
With the Holy Spirit to guide us. I think that God does speak to all who will listen and that we sometimes get it right and sometimes miss the mark and everything in between.
I think that leadership is important, because any organization requires structure, but that structure is not to be confused with the organization itself.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And (though some Catholics are loathe to admit it) even a cursory look at Catholic history will show that Church teaching changes and continues to change (God willing).
There are differences in changing doctrine, changing understanding of doctrine, and changing currents of thought-- all of which might come under the heading of changing "teachings."
Certainly the church is not infallible as a whole... The church burned Joan of Arc at the stake as a witch before it coanonized her as a saint.
I wonder if the church's infallibility is as narrowly defined as the pope's -- e.g. only when explicitly declared?
I don't think it is. I know the official definition is "infallible when teaching on matters of morals or doctrine" but what does that mean from a practical standpoint?
for those of you who don't recall, this particular question is of more than passing interest to me.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is a genuine prophet who establishes God's true church, I do not find it difficult to believe he would use Jesus's model of 12 apostles in that same churches administration.
I don't find it difficult to believe that either (if it's possible to not find something difficult to believe which one does not actually believe), but I also don't find it difficult to believe that Christ would put authority into certain people and allow that authority to succeed to new people without being rigidly tied to the number 12.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: (110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.
So, I suppose that if we ever all agree on anything, we are likely to be right.
Have I mentioned recently that I am crazy about John XXII? (I know he had passed by this time, but he called the Council.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Dagonee! Glad you've joined us! We could use an expert! (So six original apostolic communities?)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So: what does LDS mean by apostasy, specifically, the kind that LDS says took over in the early days of Christianity, leading Christ to "remove his priesthood from the church"? What were the particular beliefs, or nonbeliefs?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is a genuine prophet who establishes God's true church, I do not find it difficult to believe he would use Jesus's model of 12 apostles in that same churches administration.
I don't find it difficult to believe that either (if it's possible to not find something difficult to believe which one does not actually believe), but I also don't find it difficult to believe that Christ would put authority into certain people and allow that authority to succeed to new people without being rigidly tied to the number 12.
I can agree with this, but it might be nice if there had been some sort of prophet figure declaring that change, as well as the reasoning behind it.
Maybe its not so important that there be exactly 12 apostles, but to me its important that in order to avoid confusion any change to things important as say the selection of God's mouthpiece(s) follow some sort of organized fashion, rather then it just being accepted as gospel based on a lengthy tradition.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So: what does LDS mean by apostasy, specifically, the kind that LDS says took over in the early days of Christianity, leading Christ to "remove his priesthood from the church"? What were the particular beliefs, or nonbeliefs?
sorry for double posting,
Mormons hold that the authority (they call it "The Priesthood")to speak for and in God's behalf was completely lost as those authorized to do so were all killed/died of old age.
People began ordaining themselves as ministers,bishops, etc and disregarded the established order for such things. They then went on to propagate their own philosophies as God's teachings, many of which survive today (Mormons specifically cite the docterine of the 3 in 1 trinity model)
They made unauthorized changes to gospel ordinances (baptism, sacrament/communion, etc) These alterations destroyed the symbolism of the ordinances, that coupled with the fact people who did not posess the true authority to administer these ordinances, did so anyway.
Mormons hold that in subsequent translations of the Bible, some translators (both intentionally and unintentionally) changed the text of the Bible to such a degree that many of these principles have become obscured as to be difficult to comprehend.
This is a general rundown, I admit my discription of the logic is not the best, but its the best I could do with the time I have. Back to work!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We could use an expert! (So six original apostolic communities?)
I'm totally non-expert in such thing.
quote:I can agree with this, but it might be nice if there had been some sort of prophet figure declaring that change, as well as the reasoning behind it.
The point being we don't consider it a change. The apostles passed on their responsibilities, authority, and power. It was the first succession, so it wasn't a change.
quote:Maybe its not so important that there be exactly 12 apostles, but to me its important that in order to avoid confusion any change to things important as say the selection of God's mouthpiece(s) follow some sort of organized fashion, rather then it just being accepted as gospel based on a lengthy tradition.
Well, the fact that we've been doing it this way since St. Peter died makes it seem pretty organized to me. You believe that God told a prophet to do it this way. We believe that Christ told the apostles to do it this way (or, more possibly, authorized Peter to decide specifically how it would be done from a mechanical standpoint). I'm not quite sure how yours is more organized.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sacraments have certainly been administered and received by those that misunderstood or failed to appreciate them. Or even those who have misused them. And administered and received in unorthodox ways, but with good intent. I don't believe that the Sacraments themselves are dependent on our entire understanding of them and I trust they are beyond our ability to harm.
I know that they remain a conduit of God's grace to me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "Apostacy" Mormons mean a general falling away from the truths and authority established by Jesus and given to his Apostles. There really is no specifics about this to give. The problem we are having here is that it is a theological belief that was never argued by existing facts. Not that I don't believe the fact are there, its just dependant on interpretations.
The background might help. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, listened to the different Christian religions of his day. He noticed the many divisions and sects and wanted to know what Christian church was the correct one to join. He decided the way to find out was to go ask God, who should know if anyone does. The answer to his prayer, according to him, was a direct visit from God The Father and Jesus Christ (seperate entities) who told him none of the Christian Churches were divinely authorized.
After that, Joseph Smith never articulated what was missing, when it was missing, or how it became missing - other than it had to do with the loss of "God's Stamp of Approval" for saving ordinances and theological beliefs. It would be easier to answer the question of "what particular beliefs and non-beliefs" by understanding LDS Theology and comparing them to Orthodox Christianity. Its just too large a topic with too few explanations.
It would help, and I say this not just because I think its a great book, to read "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard L. Bushman. He does a great job exploring Joseph Smith's theological beliefs and developments. And, really, to understand Mormonism is to understand what he taught.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess, kmbboots, for a Latter-day Saint Authority isn't something. It is everything. Without that, no ordinances (no matter how well done, close to the truth, or good the intentions) are acceptable before God. As crude as the comparison might be, for Mormonism you might as well take a bath as be baptised the good things will be if there is no Priesthood Authority.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I can understand that. But do you see the difference between saying, "Constantine so badly screwed up the Catholic Church that it no longer has 'God's stamp of approval'" and, "Constantine founded the Catholic Church"? One is a matter of theological debate. The latter is a misrepresentation of historical fact.
edit to add: this was in response to the first post.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Authority has been a big thing (although not nearly everything) in Catholicism, too. It still is to many Catholics. Where that authority resides is also something on which faithful Catholics differ.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I dislike the idea of authority being the be-all-end-all of Mormonism. It isn't.
Christ-like love is the be-all-end-all of Mormonism. Prophecy will end; the church will eventually be dissolved; and even 'authority' will cease to mean anything one day, when all speak authoritatively with God's will.
Priesthood isn't dependent on lineage or blessing, solely-- power in the priesthood relies on the righteousness of its holder.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Priesthood isn't dependent on lineage or blessing, solely-- power in the priesthood relies on the righteousness of its holder.
If that were true, then woman could have the priesthood. If that were true, then "blacks" could of had the priesthood pre 1960s.
Priesthood is defined as a power that is given through blessings. While it is true that it is withdrawn if someone seeks to use it improperly, righteousness is not the "power" of priesthood.
The power and authority of the priesthood is what defines the church as a “restored” church—and that is VERY significant when comparing the church to other religions.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Prophecy will end; the church will eventually be dissolved; and even 'authority' will cease to mean anything one day, when all speak authoritatively with God's will.
You mean that everyone will be prophets, right?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We could use an expert! (So six original apostolic communities?)
I'm totally non-expert in such thing.
quote:I can agree with this, but it might be nice if there had been some sort of prophet figure declaring that change, as well as the reasoning behind it.
The point being we don't consider it a change. The apostles passed on their responsibilities, authority, and power. It was the first succession, so it wasn't a change.
quote:Maybe its not so important that there be exactly 12 apostles, but to me its important that in order to avoid confusion any change to things important as say the selection of God's mouthpiece(s) follow some sort of organized fashion, rather then it just being accepted as gospel based on a lengthy tradition.
Well, the fact that we've been doing it this way since St. Peter died makes it seem pretty organized to me. You believe that God told a prophet to do it this way. We believe that Christ told the apostles to do it this way (or, more possibly, authorized Peter to decide specifically how it would be done from a mechanical standpoint). I'm not quite sure how yours is more organized.
Sorry to be so vague. I guess the point I was trying to make was that Jesus ordained 12 apostles, and according to my understanding of the scriptures those apostles went on to become the leaders of Christ's church. When Apostles died/or fell away from the church, new ones were ordained. To me this suggests the importance of keeping a full quorum. I don't think the very backbone of the church is the 12 apostles, so much as the idea that if God no longer wanted to use 12 apostles he would have revealed that change in protocol and it would have become binding.
I know of no Pope even that preports to have received such a revelation, so who made that change? (Not to sound like a baptist but) The early Catholic church baptised people using immersion, and there is alot of debate that that is exactly how it was performed in the Bible. Who authorized the less symbolic sprinkling? Again you might argue its the spirit that matters, and not the literalism of the ordinance (maybe so) but its not my job to argue why God designed his ordinances a certain way, its your job to explain who authorized the change, and were they in fact inspired to make that change.
To sum up (I apologize for sucking at being concise) the specific changes to docterine and ordinances to me, are side effects of a larger problem. That problem being either 1 of 2. 1: The Catholic church is not authorized to make the changes it has. Or 2: The proper protocols for making such changes as outlined in the Bible have not been obvserved by anybody (except the Mormons obviously since I personally hold Joseph Smith to be an authorized prophet of God.
I guess I just attribute the mass confusion that exists within Christianity to be a direct result of a lack of guidelines for who can receive actual revelation from God and how.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry to be so vague. I guess the point I was trying to make was that Jesus ordained 12 apostles, and according to my understanding of the scriptures those apostles went on to become the leaders of Christ's church. When Apostles died/or fell away from the church, new ones were ordained.
One was ordained to replace Judas. Do you have any evidence that other ordainations were done to replace someone who died or fell away? Paul is widely regarded as an apostle, and he was ordained while the other 12 (incl. Judas's replacement) were alive.
You ask "who made the change?" What I'm asking is where was the fact "there are 12" raised up over every other common factor the apostle's shared. All 12 were Jewish. Does that mean apostle's must be Jewish?
The Church grew rapidly, thanks in large part to one of the apostles who was in fact the 13th active apostle at the time. Peter was told to run the Church. I don't see anywhere he was told "and keep exactly 12 apostles."
quote:(Not to sound like a baptist but) The early Catholic church baptised people using immersion, and there is alot of debate that that is exactly how it was performed in the Bible. Who authorized the less symbolic sprinkling?
Technically, Latin-rite Catholics baptize by infusion, not sprinkling. Beyond that, your argument here founders at the same place: on the contention that immersion was somehow enshrined as the only way to baptize, even by the apostles.
3,000 people in Acts were baptized at the same place in Jerusalem, in a place where there was not enough water for immersion. There are instructions on baptism that date back to 70 AD that endorse sprinkling or pouring. And there are many uses of the word for baptism that refer to pouring, not immersion.
quote:To sum up (I apologize for sucking at being concise) the specific changes to docterine and ordinances to me, are side effects of a larger problem.
But the changes as evidence of this "larger problem" comes from views of what was in place that lack evidentiary foundation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You mean that everyone will be prophets, right?"
Right, and then some.
I have to agree with lem on this one in respect to Priesthood. Although I understand what you are saying Scott, ultimately the only thing that seperates the LDS Church from other churches - besides some differences in theology - is its belief in the restoration of Priesthood Authority. I think you really need to read "Rough Stone Rolling" to get an idea of how important this point was to Joseph Smith. Of course, you could always argue against the book's major points on this subject. My own studies over the years have confirmed for me the author's major points. Joseph Smith didn't care even half about preaching as much as he did organizing the Church under Priesthood governance.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ultimately the only thing that seperates the LDS Church from other churches - besides some differences in theology - is its belief in the restoration of Priesthood Authority.
And the claim of revelation. The Bible, church history, and philosophy are too vague to answer the questions about immersion, baby baptism, women holding the priesthood, the 12 apostles and whether or not the Catholic church still has the authority from God to act in his name and administer ordinances that would hold any weight when the person actually died and met God.
The core LDS belief is that we have more scripture than other people and we know the answers to these questions and more because God has told us what the answers are and will continue to answer our questions. We don't just have his authority to act in his name to do His will, we have God's ear more than anyone else on Earth. And this is a HUGE difference because it pisses people off because most people entertain the idea that God is unknowable and unapproachable, and LDS don't believe that at all.
It is a big claim and is hard to argue with, because it isn't suppose to be argued with. We aren't in the game of convincing of truth via logic, rhetoric, or historical evidence. We are in the game of convincing via sharing what we enjoy with others. He will let you know if our claims are truth.
posted
Problem is Dagonee, others do believe that. It is what Mormons gets slammed on more than anything else - the nature of God.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:it pisses people off because most people entertain the idea that God is unknowable and unapproachable
These threads generally go a lot better when you don't try to say what others believe.
Sorry, I didn't mean to start anything. I was trying to be un-assertive, in spite of the assertive stance that LDS take. It is a pet peeve of mine when LDS debate, because our possition is that we don't need to and that it is counter productive. Conversation is entirely different, which is what I was trying to do.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, you more than any other poster I can think of post misstatements about others' beliefs in the course of these threads. I would be surprised if many people (edit: non-Mormon Christians) consider God unapproachable - the approachability is one of the major effects of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection. In fact, the belief in the Trinity is at the heart of many Christians' beliefs in the approachability of God, because we believe that God was the one came to us in the Incarnation.
As to knowable, the word has too many connotations. I suspect that most Christians would be able to believe in the statements "God is unknowable" and "God is knowable" at the same time, depending on the specific type of knowing meant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the different I'm emphasising is the LDS stand on revelation. Here is the LDS belief. We don't believe that Mormons are the only ones who can have a relationship or even speak with God. But our prophet has authority to speak God's will for everyone on Earth. Nobody else has that authority. If anyone else besides our prophet (or your parents) claims to have revelation from God for you, that person is wrong. This is why LDS emphasize authority. But the authority is only half the equation. The other half is revelation and the claim that we have more truth because God has given it to us. The authority gives us the right to push it, er proselytise it to others.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the reason it "pisses people off" is not because everyone else believes God is unknowable and unaproachable but because other people also believe they have revelation from God that contradicts LDS teachings. So it can be annoying when LDS claim that what makes them "different" is that they believe in ongoing revelation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are told wrong. The mainline protestant denominations and the Catholic church certainly believed in revelation in the 1800s. There are some restorationist Protestant churches that believe that all revelation ended with the canonized books of the Bible.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. Well, I'm blaming the BYU professors. At least this is what they think makes them different. Well, I guess they all have their own opinions. I just believed the ones who had these opinions.
Even if most other churches believe they get revelation, I'm still going to say that LDS think they get more and they have priesthood authority and that is what they think makes them different. If everyone is like this, then well, I just I should take a religion class or something.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course LDS think they get more. That's why they're LDS. If you thought some other church got more revelation (or interpreted what they got more correctly) you'd be a member of that church.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee and dkw, you can claim I missrepresent more than anyone. Fine. But, frankly, I think you two missrepresent mainstream Christianity more than anyone I have ever heard who call themselves Christians. That isn't to say you don't believe what you say Christians believe. These days I admit that Christians have a lot of believes that would be considered blaspheme a little more than 50 years ago.
But, I have more than enough evidence to the contrary of what you say mainstream Christians believe. If it wasn't so - why all the theological antagnism against Mormonism by the mainstream Christians? Why so much of a rejection of Mormonism as a Christian religion? Why the attack against Mormonisms claims to Revelation, modern prophets, adding to the Bible, Priesthood, and most especially the physicality and humaness of God?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
it to others.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(I should be going to bed... I can barely spell.)
