Which Church!

[prisonchaplain]

Most Christians hear from God in one way or another. The question Maxel raises is whether Joseph did far more than that. Did he really receive the revelations and visions he claimed? Did God really show him a set of writings that were indiscernable to him, and then grant him the interpretation, purely by the power of the Holy Spirit? These are strong claims. What follows is even stronger. Quite frankly, my inclination would be to either believe it and join, or not believe it and not join. The middle position I see a few embracing (I remember the Baptist preacher who preached from the BoM that came by here)...I don't get them. If I don't believe God directed Joseph Smith to restore the Church, then why would I believe the BoM was inspired by God?

[bytebear]

It's one truth leading to another. If the Book of Mormon is inspired, then Smith was inspired as well. Then you need to look more closely to his mission as a prophet. Smith's experiences go far beyond a visitation by Moroni and the translation process. In fact, he was visited by many angelic messengers (often times with other witnesses). Then you look at the course of the church. Some argue that the Community of Christ (RLDS) could be just as legitimate as the LDS church. But, then I read prophecies about the last days, and the great work that precedes the second coming. The desert blooming as a rose, the gospel being preached to every nation. The Book of Mormon being available to every nation and every tongue. I only see these things fulfilled in the LDS Church. That gives me enough evidence to rely on a testimony of the Book of Mormon. Once you have that testimony, it isn't hard to gain a testimony of Joseph Smith and his mission, the visitations by angels, etc. One leads to the other. And that leads to a testimony of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. It is Christ's church led by a living prophet of God. I believe the baptism interview covers these aspects of a testimony, so I do think it takes more than just a single belief in the Book of Mormon, but I think one leads to the other.

I am reminded of a convert who joined the church, not because of the Book of Mormon, but because certain gospel doctrines (pre-existence, temple worship and proxy baptism, living prophets, and even eternal progression) were only taught by this church, and the Book of Mormon became a secondary issue.

[ViolinGirl]

sjdean,

Around Easter this year, I decided to go back to church, but I wasn't sure which one to attend. I simply prayed and asked God to lead me to where He wanted me to worship. The first Sunday, I went to a Baptist Church. The sermon was good, but I just didn't have that warm, comfortable feeling I thought I should. The next Sunday, I went to an independent church. As soon as I walked through the door, I just knew it was the right one...been going there ever since.

Start 'shopping around' for your church. Attend different services in your area. Ask God to lead you to the right place. He will and when He does, you'll know it in your heart.

[Guest]

I'm going to have to disagree ViolinGirl. Please don't take this wrong. I am not saying the independent church is wrong. I have a lot of very good friends who go there (okay, they call it non-denominational church, not really sure if it's the same).

In any case, I don't think the indication is that warm, comfortable feeling. At least, not in my experience. LDS was definitely not the warm, comfortable feeling. If that was the case, then the church I would be in is that International Church of Christ in my apartment building who were always playing volleyball at the beach, having kumbaya parties, and really awesome bible study groups. I spent a lot of my early twenties with them! Unfortunately, that's not what church is all about. I hung out with them for years. Even travelled with them to church (they didn't have a church building then - they would go to "conferences" all over the place!). But, I never did join the church. Well, years later, the church imploded.

Becoming LDS was not comfortable. It was DIFFICULT. But, I'm LDS. Not because it's comfortable, but because it is where I found the truth. So, yes, asking God to lead you to the right place is the thing to do. And to take the answer even if it is difficult and uncomfortable.

[Mason]

If I don't believe God directed Joseph Smith to restore the Church, then why would I believe the BoM was inspired by God?

Exceeding his divine mandate? Do we not have examples of fallen prophets in the Bible? Fallen Apostles? Disciples who go astray?

Or maybe, just maybe, the answer to this riddle comes from David Whitmer.

[Maxel]

Maxel,

Perhaps you should re-read my last post. I was pointing out the false dilemna of believing everything Smith claimed from God was automatically from God because the BoM is true.

You only underscored my point, not contradicted it.

The problem is, what you quoted (semodex's words from post 17) don't lead one to think semodex believes that God put the 'stamp of approval' on everything that Smith did. You took semodex's actual words and took them to the hyperbolic extreme- that's how I understood your post.

I'll see your example about fallen prophets and raise you the examples of prophets who did not fall (which, not coincidentally, are greater in number in the Bible than examples of fallen prophets). And even if a prophet did fall, are we not still bound by his actions done as a prophet? And doesn't the Lord remove fallen prophets sooner rather than later? Tell my why a loving God who knows how to give good gifts to His children would dilute the message of His latter-day words (the Book of Mormon) by allowing Smith to fall away and start a false church in the Lord's name?

Either the Book of Mormon is true and, by correlation, so is the LDS Church; the Book of Mormon is false and, by correlation, so is the LDS Church; or God is a fool who cannot give good gifts to His children. There is no defendable middle ground.

The preceding should not be construed that the Lord put His stamp of approval on everything Joseph Smith did- but we should be wise and understand that whatsoever a prophet does in the Lord's name is right, especially regarding the establishment and maintaining of the Lord's Church.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Maxel

[pam]

Exceeding his divine mandate? Do we not have examples of fallen prophets in the Bible? Fallen Apostles? Disciples who go astray?

Or maybe, just maybe, the answer to this riddle comes from David Whitmer.

Would you like to explain or clarify what you mean by this exactly?

[Guest]

Yeah, I'm not sure anymore what Mason and Maxel, et.al. are disagreeing about... is it just the authenticity of the BofM or is it the validity of Joseph Smith as the Prophet?

If we're talking just about the authenticity of the BofM, I don't see how David Whitmer would be a case against it...

So, it has to be the latter. Okay, so I still don't see how David Whitmer would be a case against Joseph Smith as a true prophet... unless, of course, Mason believes that to be a true prophet, you must be like Jesus Christ - perfect. Which, of course, is not the case because Mason is catholic, so he knows being human is part and partial of being a prophet. So, yeah, I have no idea what we're talking about here...

[Moksha]

First, I have the problem that I can't be 100% sure if the LDS Church is true, 100% true for me, or even just true enough for me to follow it.

Thanks

Simon

Makes sense, we all have had an approach/avoidance reaction to things in our lives. Some of us have a great reluctance for any change at all. That this push-me pull-you thing would follow with a religious coversion is very understandable.

Two ideas that have aided me in the past:

1. If it meets my spiritual needs then it is worthy of my consideration.

2. The wisdom of the Sutra given to the questions seekers of Kamala by the Buddha.

• Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it,

• Nor traditions because they are old and have been handed down from generation to generation and in many locations,

• Nor in rumor because it has been spoken by many,

• Nor in writings by sages because sages wrote them,

• Nor in one’s own fancies, thinking that it is such an extraordinary thought, it must have been inspired by a god or higher power,

• Nor in inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption made by us,

• Nor in what seems to be of necessity by analogy,

• Nor in anything merely because it is based on the authority of our teachers, masters, and elders,.

However, after thorough observation, investigation, analysis and reflection, when you find that anything agrees with reason and your experience, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, and of the world at large; accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it; and live up to it.

Hope this helps. I know it helped me (especially the experience part - Mormons can be such wonderful people, which is the key part of Jesus' teachings) in accepting the LDS brand of Christianity.

:)

Edited September 9, 2009 by Moksha

[Traveler]

Most Christians hear from God in one way or another. The question Maxel raises is whether Joseph did far more than that. Did he really receive the revelations and visions he claimed? Did God really show him a set of writings that were indiscernable to him, and then grant him the interpretation, purely by the power of the Holy Spirit? These are strong claims. What follows is even stronger. Quite frankly, my inclination would be to either believe it and join, or not believe it and not join. The middle position I see a few embracing (I remember the Baptist preacher who preached from the BoM that came by here)...I don't get them. If I don't believe God directed Joseph Smith to restore the Church, then why would I believe the BoM was inspired by God?

You point out a most interesting question about religion. Jesus indicated that a prophet is seldom accepted and honored until after they are dead. I believe your question goes much deeper. That is if the ancient leaders of Israel were lead by the Holy Spirit and wrote by the Holy Spirit that we now have Biblical scriptures.

That being the case – were ancient times any more important than current times? That is if Joseph Smith is not directed by the Holy Spirit – then who is? And if so – is there divine testimonial on par or to surpass the divine testimonials of Joseph Smith?

The most common answer I have to such question is that we do not need leaders directed by the Holy Spirit – we have the Bible. To which I ask the next question – Can you read the ancient languages? Do you know which of the ancient documents are the most accurate – since there are many? Who translated those documents if it was not someone to do so – not with the learning of man (scholarship) but with the Holy Spirit.

Honestly it does appear to me that religion in general has abandoned the notion that leaders ought to be dependent on the Holy Spirit so that if and when one that does is called of G-d – no one will believe it. And such a people would believe ought to be chased from civilization to take refuge in the wilderness - perhaps even a place called “the Top of the Mountains”.

But the other question is – how to validate in the same manner that ancient leaders (Peter, James, John and Paul) were validated?

The Traveler

[Mason]

Yeah, I'm not sure anymore what Mason and Maxel, et.al. are disagreeing about... is it just the authenticity of the BofM or is it the validity of Joseph Smith as the Prophet?

If we're talking just about the authenticity of the BofM, I don't see how David Whitmer would be a case against it...

So, it has to be the latter. Okay, so I still don't see how David Whitmer would be a case against Joseph Smith as a true prophet... unless, of course, Mason believes that to be a true prophet, you must be like Jesus Christ - perfect. Which, of course, is not the case because Mason is catholic, so he knows being human is part and partial of being a prophet. So, yeah, I have no idea what we're talking about here...

We were discussing the Mormon theory of once a true prophet, always a true prophet. David Whitmer's address To All Believers IN Christ

(LINK DELETED BY MODERATOR) offers numerous reasons why this theory is erroneous.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Mason
Fix moderator blunder so that the post is readable.

[allredcon]

It's funny I should run across this post tonight.

I just got ordained an elder, and I don't feel any different than I did 4 hours ago. But -- this post is almost spot on to how I feel. And I think the second poster was correct. Overanalyzing.

I think even I am over analyzing the ordination. Thinking I should feel different, or spiritually high. But, just because you don't have a spiritual high does not mean that it's not true. The church is true, and you always will have satan pushing you away from a good thing. I have resolved my past but sometimes I still feel unworthy. I like to refer to D&C 58. That always brings me to good spirits. Another thing is just to pick up some of the standard works and just read, from anywhere, for as long as I need to to feel better.

I hope that my story somewhat helps you.

[Hemidakota]

Hi Guys,

My previous post came out a little misconstrued I think, so I thought of a better way of explaining my dilemma I think.

First, I have the problem that I can't be 100% sure if the LDS Church is true, 100% true for me, or even just true enough for me to follow it.

Despite the draw that I feel for the Church, I feel something pushing me away.

So the confusion I have, is the draw or the pushing away from God? That's why I keep looking for a little bit more, that little bit of extra guidance, something that is significant to me, no matter what it might be.

But the next problem I have, at the moment, while I appreciate the idea about making the next step in going to church, the problem I have, is which church do I select?

Im interested in three different religions. Should I go to them all and see what they're like? I know God wants me to go to church, but which one?

So that's why I've been looking for some signs, or some kind of revelation, say asking God if I can be inspired to be in a certain place at a certain time and see something or hear something that makes sense and get to discuss things, but it has to be something unique, something that doesn't happen every day, it can't be coincidence or routine.

As I say, one of the problems, is what's from God? If I read any significance into seeing an LDS Church and seeing the Mormon Missionaries on the streets, then by the same token, isn't seeing a Catholic Church at random significant? Jehovas Witnesses coming to the door, is that significant? Is one more significant than the other?

If none of these are significant or signs, then maybe receiving the Book of Mormon wasn't a sign? If that wasn't a sign, then maybe God isn't drawing me to the church at all?

So that's my problem(s). I really don't know.

Should I just go to all the churches Im considering and see what they're like and try and feel the spirit? At least do something towards the next step?

Thanks

Simon

Do you wish to serve the only living true GOD or man?

[prisonchaplain]

...were ancient times any more important than current times? That is if Joseph Smith is not directed by the Holy Spirit – then who is? And if so – is there divine testimonial on par or to surpass the divine testimonials of Joseph Smith?

Something wonderful has happened since the Old Testament. It really hit me in my reading of Leviticus the other day. The Holy Spirit had descended upon 70 leaders for a one-time event, and these were prophesying. Voices arose for them to cease, since they were not Moses, after all. Moses responded that he wished everyone would prophesy!

Fast forward to the day of Pentecost. Peter proclaims that as the disciples were praising and prophesying, "THIS IS THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel." What Joel had said was that in the last days the sons, daughters, men servants and maidservants would prophesy. Old men would see dreams, young men visions.

So, who is prophesying? God's people! Rather than one prophet for a nation, we now see most churches that are blessed with multiple people who prophesy. And, rather than the Holy Spirit descending, and then departing--He lives within us!

The most common answer I have to such question is that we do not need leaders directed by the Holy Spirit – we have the Bible. To which I ask the next question – Can you read the ancient languages? Do you know which of the ancient documents are the most accurate – since there are many? Who translated those documents if it was not someone to do so – not with the learning of man (scholarship) but with the Holy Spirit.

I would contend that our Bible is inspired of God, and that God's anointing was upon the translators. I care not for the arguments about misprints, and the small number of translation controversies. The true arguments are not over translation, but interpretation. Our Bibles are sound. BUT...absolutely, even to read them devotionally, we need the on-going direction of the Holy Spirit. And, we must needs be submitted to spiritual leadership, also anointed of the Holy Spirit.

[rameumptom]

Something wonderful has happened since the Old Testament. It really hit me in my reading of Leviticus the other day. The Holy Spirit had descended upon 70 leaders for a one-time event, and these were prophesying. Voices arose for them to cease, since they were not Moses, after all. Moses responded that he wished everyone would prophesy!

Fast forward to the day of Pentecost. Peter proclaims that as the disciples were praising and prophesying, "THIS IS THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel." What Joel had said was that in the last days the sons, daughters, men servants and maidservants would prophesy. Old men would see dreams, young men visions.

So, who is prophesying? God's people! Rather than one prophet for a nation, we now see most churches that are blessed with multiple people who prophesy. And, rather than the Holy Spirit descending, and then departing--He lives within us!

I would contend that our Bible is inspired of God, and that God's anointing was upon the translators. I care not for the arguments about misprints, and the small number of translation controversies. The true arguments are not over translation, but interpretation. Our Bibles are sound. BUT...absolutely, even to read them devotionally, we need the on-going direction of the Holy Spirit. And, we must needs be submitted to spiritual leadership, also anointed of the Holy Spirit.

On this we can all agree. The Bible must be read under the influence of the Spirit, or it cannot be truly understood. Sadly, there are some Christian churches that do not believe in the Gifts of the Spirit today.

Having said that, in each case you cite, while many were prophesying, there still was a head prophet: Moses and Peter. And these leaders still gave overall inspired guidance to the Church/Nation, while each individual then received personal inspiration to guide their own lives.

Joseph Smith said that the way he governed the Church members was to teach them correct principles, and then let them govern themselves through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So it should be with all people: given general principles by Prophets (capital P), while they are prophets for themselves and families in order to receive specific guidance to their personal life events.

[Guest]

Something wonderful has happened since the Old Testament. It really hit me in my reading of Leviticus the other day. The Holy Spirit had descended upon 70 leaders for a one-time event, and these were prophesying. Voices arose for them to cease, since they were not Moses, after all. Moses responded that he wished everyone would prophesy!

Fast forward to the day of Pentecost. Peter proclaims that as the disciples were praising and prophesying, "THIS IS THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel." What Joel had said was that in the last days the sons, daughters, men servants and maidservants would prophesy. Old men would see dreams, young men visions.

So, who is prophesying? God's people! Rather than one prophet for a nation, we now see most churches that are blessed with multiple people who prophesy. And, rather than the Holy Spirit descending, and then departing--He lives within us!

I would contend that our Bible is inspired of God, and that God's anointing was upon the translators. I care not for the arguments about misprints, and the small number of translation controversies. The true arguments are not over translation, but interpretation. Our Bibles are sound. BUT...absolutely, even to read them devotionally, we need the on-going direction of the Holy Spirit. And, we must needs be submitted to spiritual leadership, also anointed of the Holy Spirit.

But see, PC, this still begs the question... Which Church? Because, we all know, each church have their own different interpretation which conflicts/contradicts/debates another church. So, one church with their "spiritually inspired" membership and leadership claims the truth while another with their "spiritually inspired" membership and leadership claims a different truth. They both carry the same Bible. They can't be both true, can they? I wouldn't think that God has abandoned us so that we are left to contend one with the other with no hope of unity under one Truth. This became very evident in the early 1800's with the onset of freedom of religion in the new United States. It became even more so when churches sprang up with paid clergy. Let's see... Jeremiah Wright leads a church, right? He claims to be spiritually inspired. But the words coming out of his mouth while preaching on the pulpit makes me wonder, is he really? I could marginally accept it if he was speaking off the pulpit - as a man, not as a preacher. But that isn't the case. And there are thousands of people who believe strongly in the spiritual inspiration of Jeremiah Wright... So, again, Which Church?

I see it like trying to find North. You need 2 truths (points of reference) to find North. During the day, you find north from the position of the sun in relation to, say a stick. At night, you find north by orienting your body to the north star. It is almost impossible to find a direction by just one point of reference. So is the Bible one point of reference validated by another truth, the Book of Mormon.

[prisonchaplain]

But see, PC, this still begs the question... Which Church? Because, we all know, each church have their own different interpretation which conflicts/contradicts/debates another church. So, one church with their "spiritually inspired" membership and leadership claims the truth while another with their "spiritually inspired" membership and leadership claims a different truth. They both carry the same Bible. They can't be both true, can they?

Yes, they can--at least true in the sense of being under God's blessing, protection, and operating in his authority. What does it take for a church to be deemed "not in truth?" What type of error would be serious enough to say, "That one is not true, not of God?" Is the CoJCoLDS without error? Why is it that members here say the following:

1. For official doctrine go to LDS.org

2. The Journal of Discourses is not canon

3. Certain speeches made by past Presidents are not inspired, but were personal opinion

Etc. BTW, it's absolutely valid to make such distinctions. But, if so, it is as possible in the LDS movement to sit under a teaching that might contain error as it would be say, in my church.

So, perhaps, instead of asking which church (i.e. religious organization) is THE church, it would be better to ask, what disqualifies a church? For all the different interpretations of doctrine, there is actually some broad agreement about essentials amongst most Protestant churches--and even amongst them and the Catholic church. Most of us expect to see each other in heaven, and we mostly doubt very seriously that the structure and hierarchy of our individual denominations will carry over into heaven.

I wouldn't think that God has abandoned us so that we are left to contend one with the other with no hope of unity under one Truth. This became very evident in the early 1800's with the onset of freedom of religion in the new United States. It became even more so when churches sprang up with paid clergy. Let's see... Jeremiah Wright leads a church, right? He claims to be spiritually inspired. But the words coming out of his mouth while preaching on the pulpit makes me wonder, is he really? I could marginally accept it if he was speaking off the pulpit - as a man, not as a preacher. But that isn't the case. And there are thousands of people who believe strongly in the spiritual inspiration of Jeremiah Wright... So, again, Which Church?

Not familiar with Wright, but "paid clergy" has been the norm since NT times. Paul's tentmaking was the exception, not the rule. As for this contention you refer to, like I said, most of us expect to see each other in heaven, and we mostly agree on who God is, what book He gave us, that we need to love God and our neighbor, study his Word, live the life of Christ, and bring the message to the world.

I see it like trying to find North. You need 2 truths (points of reference) to find North. During the day, you find north from the position of the sun in relation to, say a stick. At night, you find north by orienting your body to the north star. It is almost impossible to find a direction by just one point of reference. So is the Bible one point of reference validated by another truth, the Book of Mormon.

Well...maybe the Old and New Testaments would be points of reference, since the BoM labels itself as "another testament?"

[Guest]

Yes, they can--at least true in the sense of being under God's blessing, protection, and operating in his authority. What does it take for a church to be deemed "not in truth?" What type of error would be serious enough to say, "That one is not true, not of God?" Is the CoJCoLDS without error? Why is it that members here say the following:

1. For official doctrine go to LDS.org

2. The Journal of Discourses is not canon

3. Certain speeches made by past Presidents are not inspired, but were personal opinion

Etc. BTW, it's absolutely valid to make such distinctions. But, if so, it is as possible in the LDS movement to sit under a teaching that might contain error as it would be say, in my church.

So, perhaps, instead of asking which church (i.e. religious organization) is THE church, it would be better to ask, what disqualifies a church? For all the different interpretations of doctrine, there is actually some broad agreement about essentials amongst most Protestant churches--and even amongst them and the Catholic church. Most of us expect to see each other in heaven, and we mostly doubt very seriously that the structure and hierarchy of our individual denominations will carry over into heaven.

You make good points, PC. And that's why I love you, brother. And yes, I agree that all of us will see each other in "heaven" so long as we live in righteousness.

Not familiar with Wright, but "paid clergy" has been the norm since NT times. Paul's tentmaking was the exception, not the rule. As for this contention you refer to, like I said, most of us expect to see each other in heaven, and we mostly agree on who God is, what book He gave us, that we need to love God and our neighbor, study his Word, live the life of Christ, and bring the message to the world.

Which, I believe is part of the lesson that Jesus was trying to tell us when he smashed the wares outside the temple.

Paid clergy is part of the apostasy, I would think. It surely was a huge problem with the Roman Catholic church charging for "prayers of intercession" and some such.

Well...maybe the Old and New Testaments would be points of reference, since the BoM labels itself as "another testament?"

Old and New Testaments is 1 point. 2 different laws for the same people. BofM is another point. Covers both OT and NT for a different people.

[LDSVALLEY]

I give up I replied 3 times already and they all disappeared before I hit post. I guess I am not supposed to answer this one.

[prisonchaplain]

Lucky you, LDSValley...I had a 3-paragraph response set on auto-post, just in case your's did get through. (LOL...j/k!)

[Justinator1]

A talk that may help the OP and any others with similar dilemmas can be found in the January 1983 Ensign by Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve (or, if you don't happen to have that particular issue sitting around, you can find it here) entitled "The Candle of the Lord". It was originally given to a group of Mission Presidents, and he starts by saying that he will address them as though they are missionaries themselves, but don't let that off-put you as there are some principles he teaches that I believe apply to many aspects of our lives in the gospel. Let me pull a few quotes out that I hope will help with the quandary of what next.

We do not have the words (even the scriptures do not have words) which perfectly describe the Spirit. The scriptures generally use the word voice, which does not exactly fit. These delicate, refined spiritual communications are not seen with our eyes, nor heard with our ears. And even though it is described as a voice, it is a voice that one feels, more than one hears.

You Cannot Force Spiritual Things

There is something else to learn. A testimony is not thrust upon you; a testimony grows. We become taller in testimony like we grow taller in physical stature; we hardly know it happens because it comes by growth.

It is not wise to wrestle with the revelations with such insistence as to demand immediate answers or blessings to your liking. You cannot force spiritual things. Such words as compel, coerce, constrain, pressure, demand, do not describe our privileges with the Spirit. You can no more force the Spirit to respond than you can force a bean to sprout, or an egg to hatch before it’s time. You can create a climate to foster growth, nourish, and protect; but you cannot force or compel: you must await the growth.

Do not be impatient to gain great spiritual knowledge. Let it grow, help it grow, but do not force it or you will open the way to be misled.

Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” is as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.” (Prov. 20:27.)

The Spirit Will Not Always Strive with Us

Now, once you receive it, be obedient to the promptings you receive. I learned a sobering lesson as a mission president. I was also a General Authority. I had been prompted several times, for the good of the work, to release one of my counselors. Besides praying about it, I had reasoned that it was the right thing to do. But I did not do it. I feared that it would injure a man who had given long service to the Church.

The Spirit withdrew from me. I could get no promptings on who should be called as a counselor should I release him. It lasted for several weeks. My prayers seemed to be contained within the room where I offered them. I tried a number of alternate ways to arrange the work, but to no avail. Finally, I did as I was bidden to do by the Spirit. Immediately, the gift returned! Oh, the exquisite sweetness to have that gift again. You know it, for you have it, the gift of the Holy Ghost. And the brother was not injured, indeed he was greatly blessed and immediately thereafter the work prospered.

Whew, give those a read over and tell me what you think. This has been a favorite talk of mine since I received it on entering the mission field.

[Mason]

But see, PC, this still begs the question... Which Church?

This is, I believe, a False dilemma. There was never a single, unified Church established by Jesus Christ in his lifetime, nor was there a single organic structure during the first few centuries AD.

There is absolutely no evidence of such a theory, and in fact the evidence shows that there were multiple teachings and practices from the very beginning, suggesting diversity as we see today in Christianity.

I would recommend the leading scholar in this field, Paul Bradshaw, to those who are interested.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Mason

[Guest]

This is, I believe, a False dilemma. There was never a single, unified Church established by Jesus Christ in his lifetime, nor was there a single organic structure during the first few centuries AD.

There is absolutely no evidence of such a theory, and in fact the evidence shows that there were multiple teachings and practices from the very beginning, suggesting diversity as we see today in Christianity.

I would recommend the leading scholar in this field, Paul Bradshaw, to those who are interested.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Because, Jesus established the 12 apostles. Is that not a church organization? Sounds like a very organic structure to me. There is one Christian teaching. It's whatever came out of Jesus' mouth. Whoever followed through after Jesus' death is what caused the diversity - not Jesus.

Edited September 18, 2009 by anatess