Denominations?

[AnthonyB]

Some LDS posters seem perturbed by denominations; here are some thoughts I’ve had on the topic. It is still a work in progress and I apologize for its length….

I see the redemptive work of God as central to God’s plan. Creation, Fall, Redemption is a recurring theme in the Bible.

God sets up a perfect situation

People mar God’s perfection by allowing sin or its effects to ravage/corrupt the situation.

God redeems. Redemption does not restore or reform but rather transforms the brokenness/failedness into something wonderfully new. (God does not merely remake the broken pot but rather create an exquisite mosaic from it which is far more precious and beautiful then the original.)

God’s plan was for the church to be one, Jesus specifically prayed for it.

Due to brokenness and failings of his people the church failed to remain one.

I think we can all agree the church (the followers of Jesus) is now not one as Christ intended it.

The question then becomes how does God redeem his church? LDS (and other restorationist groups) see this redemption as coming through their church, that they are the redemptive work of God in His Church. IMHO a presupposition of this view is that the redemption will bring a restoration of the “one church” of the NT times. (Through new revelation to restore the original doctrines and practices in LDS case, or a return to NT teachings in church of Christ)

However an alternate view is that the redemption will not just bring a restoration of NT unity but somehow a transformation of our sin of disunity into a blessing to God’s people. That through the redemptive work of God He is transforming our disunity into a diverse unity. That recognizes that we are one church with various expressions.

The biblical/historical example that comes to mind is Babel. People were one nation and through sinfulness God divided people into nations. God in his redeeming nature developed various cultures through which we can glimpse the creative nature of God expressed through these diverse nations. We still sometimes see the negative outworking of this sin in the strife between nations. IMHO God’s answer to this is not that people should become one nation (with a single culture, language and custom). Rather that we should recognize our unity as humans (the beings made in his image) whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that humanness.

The parallel to the church is that we were once a single church. We sinned and failed to stay unified. This often led to strife to between Christians. Rather than seeking to return to one church, we should see the redemptive work of Christ in all our churches. We should recognize our unity as disciples of Christ whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that faith.

[Islander]

AnthonyB:

I appreciate your attempt to find logic and meaning wihtin the "brokeness" of the Christian diaspora. Although your argument is eloquent it fails to recognize a number of issues. I should also point that the tower of Babel itself, to use your own analogy, was the SIN. To build a tower in an attempt to reach and challenge God man's way. That was the sin that caused God to judge the people.

Thru recorded Christian history the splits and contentions within the Christian church were caused by the desire of wicked men to reach control and preeminence of the congregations (3 John 9-11). They were so bold and shrewd that even before the Apostles were all gone they began to challenge them for authority in the church. I doubt you will say that was God's design.

By the first council of the early church in the 3rd century AD the argument had reach riot-like pitch. Doctrine was being changed, corrupted and new doctrine introduced. The Eastern church splits from the church at Rome and some years later a larger, more significant split takes place during the Reaffirmation giving birth to the Protestant movement. Since then, several other splits along denominational lines have occurred over interpretation, application and observance of the faith. Again, doubtful that God is the author of such chaos, divisions and contention. You fail to recognize that sectarian divisions within Christiandom have resorted to violence to assert a theological and doctrinal point. Once more, not of God.

Yes, our claim to the truth is bold. But so has been since the beginning of time when God had a prophet on the earth. Prophets are not timid, they are not politically correct or are commanded to observe civic sensitivities to pacify the people and preserve the social status quo. Prophets call to repentance, to turn to God and the right way and to the truth as reveal by Him who sent him. Speculating has no real value and philosophical abstractions have led men to destruction and away from God since the beginning of time. By far, that is what other denominations have done with the Gospel of Christ.

Truth is always difficult to deal with, especially when we are seriously invested on a position contrary to it. Regardless of whether we know it or not.

I tend to avoid the theological arguments since I rather concentrate on what God hs revealed to me personally thru the Spirit. The issue at hand is simple. Either Joseph saw The Father and The Son or not. The evidence for the Book of Mormon rests within the pages of the book itself. We invite ALL to search and inquire of God, who is the creator and arbiter of ALL truth if such testimony as the one we bare is also true.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Islander

[AnthonyB]

Islander,

Thank you for your reply. I do realise that your claim rests on the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's revelation. However one of your selling points is the disunity of the rest of the Christian church. Posting this in the Christian Beliefs board is not designed to change your mind but to discuss an alternative way of viewing things on this topic. That I think it is possible to see the redeeming action of God working through the denominatons to bring glory to God.

I do see the schisming of the church as a sin, which is part of the point of my post, how God deals with that sin. I’d agree that the violence perpetrated on people because of their beliefs is a sin. I'm from a restoration tradition, so I'd even agree that the Council of Nicea attempts to create a unified church by means of imperial dictates was a sin and not of God. I’d also say that Christians should cease all practices and beliefs which are contrary to the New Testament.

However I think you rather miss part of my point, I’m not denying that sin has occurred but I’m discussing God’s response to it. God does not author sin and he does not design for it to occur. However despite this he does redeem people and in doing so has a habit of using/transforming the effects/results of that sin/failing so that it serves his own purpose and glorifies himself.

God does not wait until the individual is sin free and has perfect doctrinal understanding before he begins redeeming an individual. Neither do I think God would wait till a denomination ( or movement, faith tradition) is error free and sinless before he can begin redeeming the group. Where God's redemption may take the people of God I know no more then where God redemption and work in my life may finally lead me (excepting with the grace of God into His presenceafter mortality). However given how scripture repeatedly describes how God works it will not be merely IMHO be back to the original state but to a state that somehow transforms our combined failings into something that honours and glorifies His name.

(PS In case it wasn’t a typo the Protestants came about during the “reformation”.)

Edited August 28, 2008 by AnthonyB

[Traveler]

Some LDS posters seem perturbed by denominations; here are some thoughts I’ve had on the topic. It is still a work in progress and I apologize for its length….

I see the redemptive work of God as central to God’s plan. Creation, Fall, Redemption is a recurring theme in the Bible.

God sets up a perfect situation

People mar God’s perfection by allowing sin or its effects to ravage/corrupt the situation.

God redeems. Redemption does not restore or reform but rather transforms the brokenness/failedness into something wonderfully new. (God does not merely remake the broken pot but rather create an exquisite mosaic from it which is far more precious and beautiful then the original.)

God’s plan was for the church to be one, Jesus specifically prayed for it.

Due to brokenness and failings of his people the church failed to remain one.

I think we can all agree the church (the followers of Jesus) is now not one as Christ intended it.

The question then becomes how does God redeem his church? LDS (and other restorationist groups) see this redemption as coming through their church, that they are the redemptive work of God in His Church. IMHO a presupposition of this view is that the redemption will bring a restoration of the “one church” of the NT times. (Through new revelation to restore the original doctrines and practices in LDS case, or a return to NT teachings in church of Christ)

.......

The parallel to the church is that we were once a single church. We sinned and failed to stay unified. This often led to strife to between Christians. Rather than seeking to return to one church, we should see the redemptive work of Christ in all our churches. We should recognize our unity as disciples of Christ whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that faith.

I like your analogy of a fall and return. May I expand your thought and perhaps add one other. It is quite evident that the church and organization established by Christ did fall and the result was as much or more pagan (of the world) than of what Christ established (created).

The “restoration” of man from his fallen state begins with a covenant we call baptism. Through this covenant fallen man becomes reborn and through the restoration of spiritual rebirth man is changed and becomes a new creature of G-d. Does this mean that the new man will not ever sin and need repentance and forgiveness? No – but it does mean that he has put off his old self and become a new (restored) creature under covenant with G-d.

Likewise the Christian church fell and became corrupt. The method of G-d was not a reformation but a restoration. It was necessary for the Christian church to be restored as a new church in the same manner that fallen men become a new creature. The restored church must put off (forsake) its old self and become a new church. Just as many do not want to give up some of their old self – even after their baptism; there are many Christians that hold on to their old denomination and paganized traditions. Likewise just as a newly Baptized saint will sin and must be forgiven; the newly restored Church will also error and require correction and change as specified by G-d.

The other matter that you have overlooked is the oath and covenant given by G-d in the restoration of his priesthood.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm in agreement with Anthony that denominations may be God's Babel for the church. By allowing us to be diverse in human organization, we are forced to seek our broad unity in Christ, rather than unifying ourselves under human leadership, which could lead to spiritual rebellion against God.

Note that I am not endorsing contention, hatred, divisiveness that is bitter, but rather, I'm agreeing that our unity is in the person of Christ, and that God forsaw the difficulties of uniting humans organizationally, and may well have ordained denominations as a means of uniting groups, without allowing for the corruption that one grand human organization might have been prone to.

Lord Acton was right--absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Islander]

I'm in agreement with Anthony that denominations may be God's Babel for the church. By allowing us to be diverse in human organization, we are forced to seek our broad unity in Christ, rather than unifying ourselves under human leadership, which could lead to spiritual rebellion against God.

Note that I am not endorsing contention, hatred, divisiveness that is bitter, but rather, I'm agreeing that our unity is in the person of Christ, and that God forsaw the difficulties of uniting humans organizationally, and may well have ordained denominations as a means of uniting groups, without allowing for the corruption that one grand human organization might have been prone to.

Lord Acton was right--absolute power corrupts absolutely.

PC: I understand the "logic" of AnthonyB's argument. But it is a a rather "humanistic" view of the historical past. It fails to recognize that regardless of what we may think, God sets His own order and rule as to the affairs of His church. Although Paul/Saul had a vision of the resurrected Christ and a verbal exchange with the Savior, he was not given latitude to go and start preaching the Gospel of his own right and accord. He was instructed to go and receive baptism from an obscure servant but duly authorized to dispense the ordinance. He in fact by so doing joined the previously organized and constituted church of Jesus Christ.

The divisions and contentions, claims and organizations subsequently created by men departed and coninued on a different path than God had established. Once you deviate from the desired course, regardless of you good will, intentions and effort, you will not arrive at the place you intended since you lost your way some time back.

The Laterday claim is unique. Our church is not led by mere men, not our authority to officiate in the things of God and direct His affairs on the earth. We declare that Christ is at the head of the church, that everything we do in carrying out our mission has been revealed and inspired by the Savior and not after the design. We believe that all men that love God and declare that Jesus is the Christ and the Redeemer of the world will be saved. We, in fact, unite our strength with all desiring to further the cause of salvation, to care and to nurture the children of God wherever there is suffering and need. But we also declare that certain truths have been restored by revelation and we desire ALL to partake.

[Traveler]

I'm in agreement with Anthony that denominations may be God's Babel for the church. By allowing us to be diverse in human organization, we are forced to seek our broad unity in Christ, rather than unifying ourselves under human leadership, which could lead to spiritual rebellion against God.

Note that I am not endorsing contention, hatred, divisiveness that is bitter, but rather, I'm agreeing that our unity is in the person of Christ, and that God forsaw the difficulties of uniting humans organizationally, and may well have ordained denominations as a means of uniting groups, without allowing for the corruption that one grand human organization might have been prone to.

Lord Acton was right--absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I am not against the concept that the ancient church was divided - each with important parts but lacking fullness without the others. This is how I see the religions of our era. It may surprise you to know that I believe that there are likely truths in other faith that need to be learned by the LDS. I do not believe that all that is necessary has been restored to the LDS yet but I believe it will be.

I believe that the work or "gathering" will and has begun to take place and that at some point those that gather to accept the return of the Christ will not be divided into denominations or religions. I do not think the faithful Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Christians and Buddhist will divide themselves. But as near as I can determine the LDS are the only possibility of the organization of the kingdom that is necessary for the return of the King.

The Traveler

BTW the only absolute power that I believe exist - is G-d. The others are pretenders and pretending is and always will be corruption - no exceptions.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Traveler

[ErikJohnson]

Perhaps the definition of "church" is too narrow. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:24). All believers are a part of it (1 Corinthians 12:27). Salvation doesn't hinge on one's association with the Reformed or the Charismatic, the Presbyterian or the Pentecostal...

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler & Island...the main unique claims of your church are exclusive authority, and of course, that it has restored the Christian church to fullness. Those eloquent words about Christ as the head, about uniting all God-seekers with their Maker, about seeking God's leadership and ways, not men's, etc...nearly all Christian churches would lay claim to doing likewise. :-) ON a personal note, I don't preach/teach and do chaplaincy because I want to, but because God called me. My church did not call me, nor did it bestow authority upon me. Rather, it recognized what God had already done. Of course, when people claim to be ordained by God, and the church does not recognize what God has already done, then it does become a serious question as to whether God was indeed ordaining.

[Traveler]

Traveler & Island...the main unique claims of your church are exclusive authority, and of course, that it has restored the Christian church to fullness. Those eloquent words about Christ as the head, about uniting all God-seekers with their Maker, about seeking God's leadership and ways, not men's, etc...nearly all Christian churches would lay claim to doing likewise. :-) ON a personal note, I don't preach/teach and do chaplaincy because I want to, but because God called me. My church did not call me, nor did it bestow authority upon me. Rather, it recognized what God had already done. Of course, when people claim to be ordained by God, and the church does not recognize what God has already done, then it does become a serious question as to whether God was indeed ordaining.

PC: I regret deeply that I have missed the opportunity to met with you personally and spent some time discussing with you some of your views. Communication over the internet is not the best in such circumstances. Perhaps some time I may make an effort to come visit you and take you and your family to dinner – if any of our old family favorites still exist – or perhaps we may select one of your family favorites.

I do not doubt but that you are doing an excellent and inspired work. I believe many are doing inspired work to bring goodness and peace. I count among such a devout Hindu, a very dedicated Buddhist priest involved with the Dali Lama, an Islamic scholar with family and ties and friends in war devastated places like Iraq as well as you. All are certain that G-d has called them and directed them to administer spiritual and physical aid.

I believe we are all allies in a desperate struggle facing overwhelming darkness and evil. I know that you and I differ in many key and important ideas including that you expect to find sanctuary and relief from the struggle at the most desperate hour, as does my Islamic friend. In contrast I believe a small stone was cut out from the traditional mountain of religious thinking (when the empire of Iron and clay {Roman empire of medieval and pre-modern Europe} was divided into 10 kingdoms) by the hand of G-d and is quietly rolling forth in our day gathering strength according to prophesy. I believe that to preserve family and the sacred institution of marriage (among other things) as ordained by G-d there will come a time where there will remain only one place for faithful to gather in the house hold of Ephraim as restored by the prediction of ancient prophesy and established by modern prophets ordained by actual face to face encounters with angles known from the past and sent to complete what was started anciently. If I still have breath at what appears as the last desperate hour – I hope to be there.

As the ancient prophesies unfold, I fully expect that you will continue and not abandon the cause to which you feel inspired. I am quite sure – as I think you also believe – that there is only one kingdom that will inherit and welcome the King when he returns.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

Traveler,

I’d agree wholeheartedly that the new covenant begins with baptism; it is where in God’s design we obtain remission of sins and enter the covenant.

I’d agree the church was much more pagan (and parts of it remain much more pagan) then they should be.

I don’t know whether you got my distinction between restoration and redemption, so I’ll run through some biblical examples of how I see God works and why I think my thoughts are the kind of thing He is likely to do.

Adam and Eve lived in the garden in innocence, a garden which God visited. They ate gained the knowledge of good and evil and were expelled.

Restoration: Would be to return man to the garden and return us to innocence.

Redemption: Giving us a new home with God, and using the knowledge of good and evil to be used that we may have a deeper relationship with God.

Jesus was physically abused and murdered by man.

Restoration: Would be giving Him His human body back and healing/removing all the wounds.

Redemption: Is giving Him a resurrected body, and leaving the wounds as an eternal reminder of the love of God for man.

A restoration takes things back to (or as near as possible) its original condition. Redemption (as God seems to do it in the scriptures) uses part of the negative and turns it into a greater positive then could have been achieved by merely restoring.

(As for the priesthood restoration, that is something we will never agree on, else one of changes our faith tradition.)

Edited August 31, 2008 by AnthonyB

[prisonchaplain]

PC: I regret deeply that I have missed the opportunity to met with you personally and spent some time discussing with you some of your views. ...

I do not doubt but that you are doing an excellent and inspired work. I believe many are doing inspired work to bring goodness and peace. I count among such a devout Hindu, a very dedicated Buddhist priest involved with the Dali Lama, an Islamic scholar with family and ties and friends in war devastated places like Iraq as well as you. All are certain that G-d has called them and directed them to administer spiritual and physical aid.

I too have worked with religious volunteers and clergy from many faith traditions, including yours, including Jehovah's Witnesses, and including many faiths outside the Christian tradition. And, yes, the all observe the Golden Rule, and would all likely practice the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:37-40) as they understood them. But, they did not all offer the Way, Truth and Life. We did not argue or debate who's gospel is right, however, We all let our lights shine, as we ministered to inmates, according to the dictates of our faith.

I believe we are all allies in a desperate struggle facing overwhelming darkness and evil. I know that you and I differ in many key and important ideas including that you expect to find sanctuary and relief from the struggle at the most desperate hour, as does my Islamic friend. In contrast I believe a small stone was cut out from the traditional mountain of religious thinking (when the empire of Iron and clay {Roman empire of medieval and pre-modern Europe} was divided into 10 kingdoms) by the hand of G-d and is quietly rolling forth in our day gathering strength according to prophesy. I believe that to preserve family and the sacred institution of marriage (among other things) as ordained by G-d there will come a time where there will remain only one place for faithful to gather in the house hold of Ephraim as restored by the prediction of ancient prophesy and established by modern prophets ordained by actual face to face encounters with angles known from the past and sent to complete what was started anciently. If I still have breath at what appears as the last desperate hour – I hope to be there.

As the ancient prophesies unfold, I fully expect that you will continue and not abandon the cause to which you feel inspired. I am quite sure – as I think you also believe – that there is only one kingdom that will inherit and welcome the King when he returns.

The Traveler

Your experiences and your grasp on my perspective, those of others, and, your own confident expression of faith are all admirable.

[MrNirom]

Funny.. restoration and redemption.

Prior to the 2nd coming.. the earth will be "restored" to its paradisaical Glory. And then at the end of the millennial reign.. it will be redeemed and resurrected to become the celestial body it was designed for.

The earth has already been born.. then baptized. It only needs the Baptism of Fire.. redemption and resurrection. Just like us. :-)

[Islander]

Traveler,

I’d agree wholeheartedly that the new covenant begins with baptism; it is where in God’s design we obtain remission of sins and enter the covenant.

I’d agree the church was much more pagan (and parts of it remain much more pagan) then they should be.

I don’t know whether you got my distinction between restoration and redemption, so I’ll run through some biblical examples of how I see God works and why I think my thoughts are the kind of thing He is likely to do.

Adam and Eve lived in the garden in innocence, a garden which God visited. They ate gained the knowledge of good and evil and were expelled.

Restoration: Would be to return man to the garden and return us to innocence.

You apply a very narrow definition to "Restoration" here. To restore an antiquity work of art, for example, is not to re-do it as if it were new. It is to bring back its former brightness, contour, form or pieces/portions that have been damaged/missing.

Redemption: Giving us a new home with God, and using the knowledge of good and evil to be used that we may have a deeper relationship with God.

Jesus was physically abused and murdered by man.

Restoration: Would be giving Him His human body back and healing/removing all the wounds.

Again, we refer to Restoration as far as the doctrine as they were in the ancient church not referring to the Savior.

Redemption: Is giving Him a resurrected body, and leaving the wounds as an eternal reminder of the love of God for man.

A restoration takes things back to (or as near as possible) its original condition. Redemption (as God seems to do it in the scriptures) uses part of the negative and turns it into a greater positive then could have been achieved by merely restoring.

(As for the priesthood restoration, that is something we will never agree on, else one of changes our faith tradition.)

You apply a very narrow definition to "Restoration" here. To restore an antiquity work of art, for example, is not to re-do it as if it were new. It is to bring back its former brightness, contour, form or pieces/portions that have been damaged/missing. Jesus was NOT Redeemed from the cross. WE are redeemed or in other words, Christ paid thru the Atonement the penalty for sin, which is eternal death and damnation. We are redeemed by HIM

As far as the keys of the priesthood and prophesy you may want to read 2Kings 2:11-14 as an example that they exist and that they are passed on according to the will and order of God. But again, since this is a new concept, perhaps, for you it may be difficult to grasp unless you can allow for the possibility that it may be a true concept and doctrine set forth from God. We refer to Restoration as far as the doctrine as they were in the ancient church not referring to the Savior.

.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Islander

[Traveler]

I too have worked with religious volunteers and clergy from many faith traditions, including yours, including Jehovah's Witnesses, and including many faiths outside the Christian tradition. And, yes, the all observe the Golden Rule, and would all likely practice the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:37-40) as they understood them. But, they did not all offer the Way, Truth and Life. We did not argue or debate who's gospel is right, however, We all let our lights shine, as we ministered to inmates, according to the dictates of our faith.

Your experiences and your grasp on my perspective, those of others, and, your own confident expression of faith are all admirable.

Your statement:

all observe the Golden Rule, and would all likely practice the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:37-40) as they understood them. But, they did not all offer the Way, Truth and Life.

This concept of not offering "the Way, Truth and Life" is of great interest to me. Many years ago while in college I was taking a Philosophy class when a question was raised. Most everyone at some point thinks they have access to truth that others (especially others that disagree) do not have. The question is, “What is the difference between truth and what is perceived as truth?” Or how do you determine when you know the truth from when you think you know the truth?

The logical answer is that when there is more than one that perceive the truth differently there are only two possibilities. Ether all are in error or there is one that perceives correctly and the rest are in error. I know that some argue that because of relativity that there are different perceptions of the same truth but they do not understand that the difference can be logically and accurately accounted for based on the frame of reference. If the difference cannot be accounted for, then there must, in “truth” be a difference.

The point I am trying to make – or ask; is how does one validate their access to the way, truth and life when others are just as sure that the first are in error in their perception and that some different way, truth and life is valid?

If you use the Bible for validation why would G-d change the method of validation of truth based on pre and post compilation of the Bible? And how is the Bible validated – especially when there are different versions both ancient and modern? Some argue that the difference is negligible – but if you are off by even 1 tenth of one percent on your way to the moon you will miss it completely. That kind of error to arrive at the next closest star would be a joke. How much error can there be in way, truth and life to eternity?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

How to validate truth? The Bible, of course, is a huge validator of truth, for most Christians. However, not only can you rightly ask about faith before the Bible, but you might also ask, how do we know the Bible is true?

To your first question, before the word was published, it was spoken and taught orally. Adam and Eve passed on instructions to their children, and their children interacted with God and continued to pass along information. Moses began his writings somewhere between 2000 - 1400 BC or so, though it's been suggested that Job predates Moses. So, there was the spoken word, there was the wisdom of the elders, and people had their personal interaction with God.

2. Today, we rely heavily on the Bible because it has proven itself over the course of centuries. Additionally, we continue to rely on oral proclammation, upon the counsel of our elders, and upon our personal interactions with God.

[Traveler]

How to validate truth? The Bible, of course, is a huge validator of truth, for most Christians. However, not only can you rightly ask about faith before the Bible, but you might also ask, how do we know the Bible is true?

To your first question, before the word was published, it was spoken and taught orally. Adam and Eve passed on instructions to their children, and their children interacted with God and continued to pass along information. Moses began his writings somewhere between 2000 - 1400 BC or so, though it's been suggested that Job predates Moses. So, there was the spoken word, there was the wisdom of the elders, and people had their personal interaction with God.

2. Today, we rely heavily on the Bible because it has proven itself over the course of centuries. Additionally, we continue to rely on oral proclammation, upon the counsel of our elders, and upon our personal interactions with God.

Again since there are many ancient oral traditions that make the same claim of origin with Adam and Eve and that also claim to have been proven over time (for example Judaism, Islam and Zoroasterism). How do you validate your interpretation of things over their claims or even the claims of Nestorian Christians – all of which claim to have maintained their traditions and scriptures (exception of Islam who have published their scriptures just slightly longer – but have not modified their versions since their first publication) longer than you have based on Western Christianity?

I have seen some of the debates between Dedot (Islam scholar) and Western Christian Scholars and to be honest Islam makes a much more compelling case for validity and consistency of scriptures for the last 1500 years. Also the argument the Pharisees and Scribes used to question the validity of Jesus was the same as yours. I do not say this because I do not understand your argument and your validation – it is my perception that to a hammer everything looks very much like a nail or something similar to a nail.

If someone’s arguments are as compelling as yours – do you validate their claim by your standard and expect them to not validate your claim by their standard? The golden Rule you previously spoke of? Has G-d left us with means (spiritual or otherwise) to seek truth – including scientific (physical) truths?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, let me start by saying that the LDS practice of praying for a witness of the Spirit is absolutely legitimate, despite what some fundamentalist Christian bretheren might say. Ultimately we believe because we cognatively find the faith compelling, and spiritually we feel it's truth and goodness.

As for the merits of the Bible vs. the Quran, the latter may "win" for consistency and the certainty that it's current form is as the prophet intended it. On the other hand, I see quite a miracle in the Bible, compiled over a 1400 year span of time by 40 different authors from varied backgrounds, written in 3 different languages, and with such a large pool of manuscripts that show very little variance. Discussing the "Catholic" books or the Nesotorian canon would move me will out of my expertise...but hopefully I've provided enough for folks to see my foundation.

[Hemidakota]

Islander,

Thank you for your reply. I do realise that your claim rests on the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's revelation. However one of your selling points is the disunity of the rest of the Christian church.

Remember Anthony, not all us depend upon Joseph Smith revelation for our own testimony. It is matter of asking the GOD on what is true or not. Having enough faith, hope, and following the 'will of the FATHER', we can receive a personal answer.

[Traveler]

Traveler, let me start by saying that the LDS practice of praying for a witness of the Spirit is absolutely legitimate, despite what some fundamentalist Christian bretheren might say. Ultimately we believe because we cognatively find the faith compelling, and spiritually we feel it's truth and goodness.

As for the merits of the Bible vs. the Quran, the latter may "win" for consistency and the certainty that it's current form is as the prophet intended it. On the other hand, I see quite a miracle in the Bible, compiled over a 1400 year span of time by 40 different authors from varied backgrounds, written in 3 different languages, and with such a large pool of manuscripts that show very little variance. Discussing the "Catholic" books or the Nesotorian canon would move me will out of my expertise...but hopefully I've provided enough for folks to see my foundation.

Sometimes I count you the better man my friend PC. I feel that my mission and calling is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.

The Traveler

[jms.mills]

Perhaps the definition of "church" is too narrow. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:24). All believers are a part of it (1 Corinthians 12:27). Salvation doesn't hinge on one's association with the Reformed or the Charismatic, the Presbyterian or the Pentecostal...

If one uses this line of reasoning, then at least two questions can be raised:

1) Who are the "believers" mentioned in this scripture?

2) What qualified these people to be believers?

In order to make a proper definition of a term, one must be able to define all of the words used in the definition itself. In this case, if one asserts that "all believers are a part" of the church, then one must be able to define what it means to believe and what it was these ancient members believed. At least one ancient Christian (Paul) taught the unity of one faith based on the "unified" Gospel the Lord Jesus Christ taught during his mortal ministry, not on sectarian positions (1 Cor 1:12-23).

[ErikJohnson]

Are you objecting to my post, jms.mills? Do you disagree the church is the body of Christ and that all believers are a part of it? Kindly explain where I am in error, with any definitions you choose--if this is your intent.

[Moksha]

Perhaps the definition of "church" is too narrow. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:24). All believers are a part of it (1 Corinthians 12:27). Salvation doesn't hinge on one's association with the Reformed or the Charismatic, the Presbyterian or the Pentecostal...

Jesus was big on inclusiveness.

2) What qualified these people to be believers?

Their belief of course! :)

[jms.mills]

Are you objecting to my post, jms.mills? Do you disagree the church is the body of Christ and that all believers are a part of it? Kindly explain where I am in error, with any definitions you choose--if this is your intent.

I do not disagree that the church is the figurative body of Christ. I only seek clarification on who (in your line of reasoning) you would include in the category of believers of Christ. There could be many different ways in which a person could "believe."

For example (this list is by no means conclusive):

1) One person may say a believer is one who simply acknowledges the existence of Christ (knowledge of Christ)

2) Another may say that a believer must follow the teachings of Christ (works). Then again, one must be able to define what teachings one must follow (another discussion... for anther thread).

3) Still some may say that one must acknowledge the divinity of Christ and realize that he/she is a sinner and requires the atonement that Christ paid to be free from those sins. (faith).

4) Member of a certain religious organization

5) Or, a combination of any of the above.

Personally, I feel that a person must acknowledge that Christ is his/her Savior, and follow the teachings of Christ to the best of their knowledge and ability. As to what those teachings are... that is another discussion. In my opinion, as long as an individual is honestly trying to follow the teachings of Christ (as they understand them) then they are true believers. Then, the individual must ally themselves to an organization, so they can commune with other believers. In the end, only the individual and God knows the inner heart and intentions of one's soul.

That said, the early church was organized as one "body." There were no divisions at that time. Any divisions/conflicts that did arise were met with quick and firm correction (hence, the reason many of Paul's letters to clarify doctrine). In the context of the early church, the body was, indeed, "all believers" of Christ. Today, I do not feel that verse has near the same application that it did when Paul penned his letters. If you are trying to say that Paul is somehow allowing/dismissing denominational differences in this verse(s), this is where I disagree. To say that Paul is condoning a denominational fracture of the church, in my opinion, would be taking the scripture(s) out of context.

I am misunderstanding you?

JMS

Edited November 6, 2008 by jms.mills

[jms.mills]

sorry.. double post