Authority

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman@Nov 12 2005, 12:16 PM

Snow;

once again you have a good point.

To actual evidence--on a personal note, I have been told numerous times by lds that since i deny JS and the BoM--I can not be saved----I Ve also been told many times my water baptism is of no valve---a condition of lds salvation. In reality only a saved person should claim the name of Christ

On a grander scale lds doctrine and beliefs tell me I'm no christian--because true Christianity only comes thru the lds church---hence the authority issue of this thread.

The only point I would make is that my Christianity is based on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ----as revealed by God ----and the witness of scripture

  While --as I understand it anyway---lds is based on an organization---works and the testimony of JS

  Other than that I agree with you

←

Roman,

You're incautious and thus inaccruate when talking about Mormonism. I doubt that any Mormon has told you that you won't be saved because you don't accept JS and the BoM. In our theology, neither one of those things has any salvific properties. Besides which, we believe in a universal salvation. We believe you will be saved whether you like it or not. There might be some obscure Mormon that doesn't know that but I have never met one.

Likewise, I have never ever heard of a Mormon refer to a non-Mormon Christian as not being a Christian. It is not part of our jargon. We don't talk or think like that - sure not all Mormons are exactly the same but I have been a Mormon is 3 states and 2 countries and I know how we think and speak. You - Roman - are as Christian as anybody in Mormon thinking.

[roman]

Originally posted by Outshined+Nov 12 2005, 02:20 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-roman@Nov 12 2005, 02:16 PM

On a grander scale lds doctrine and beliefs tell me I'm no christian--because true Christianity only comes thru the lds church---hence the authority issue of this thread.

←

Source?

←

The claim of mormonism that they are the ONLY and ONE true church. It doesn't take much reasoning apart from that--that since lds say we have no authority---that then all other church are false-----or wrong---or all still in the great apostasy

[Outshined]

Originally posted by roman+Nov 12 2005, 02:26 PM-->

Originally posted by Outshined@Nov 12 2005, 02:20 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-roman@Nov 12 2005, 02:16 PM

On a grander scale lds doctrine and beliefs tell me I'm no christian--because true Christianity only comes thru the lds church---hence the authority issue of this thread.

←

Source?

←

The claim of mormonism that they are the ONLY and ONE true church. It doesn't take much reasoning apart from that--that since lds say we have no authority---that then all other church are false-----or wrong---or all still in the great apostasy

←

In other words, you've misinterpreted that as meaning you aren't considered Christian by the LDS Church. Wrong.

I recommend you do some in-depth reading on LDS doctrines. Start at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons for some good reading.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 12 2005, 02:24 PM

Likewise, I have never ever heard of a Mormon refer to a non-Mormon Christian as not being a Christian. It is not part of our jargon. We don't talk or think like that - sure not all Mormons are exactly the same but I have been a Mormon is 3 states and 2 countries and I know how we think and speak. You - Roman - are as Christian as anybody in Mormon thinking.

←

If only all churches were as tolerant/understanding of beliefs they do not share...

[roman]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 12 2005, 02:24 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-roman@Nov 12 2005, 12:16 PM

Snow;

once again you have a good point.

To actual evidence--on a personal note, I have been told numerous times by lds that since i deny JS and the BoM--I can not be saved----I Ve also been told many times my water baptism is of no valve---a condition of lds salvation. In reality only a saved person should claim the name of Christ

On a grander scale lds doctrine and beliefs tell me I'm no christian--because true Christianity only comes thru the lds church---hence the authority issue of this thread.

The only point I would make is that my Christianity is based on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ----as revealed by God ----and the witness of scripture

  While --as I understand it anyway---lds is based on an organization---works and the testimony of JS

  Other than that I agree with you

←

Roman,

You're incautious and thus inaccurate when talking about Mormonism. I doubt that any Mormon has told you that you won't be saved because you don't accept JS and the BoM. In our theology, neither one of those things has any salvific properties. Besides which, we believe in a universal salvation. We believe you will be saved whether you like it or not. There might be some obscure Mormon that doesn't know that but I have never met one.

Likewise, I have never ever heard of a Mormon refer to a non-Mormon Christian as not being a Christian. It is not part of our jargon. We don't talk or think like that - sure not all Mormons are exactly the same but I have been a Mormon is 3 states and 2 countries and I know how we think and speak. You - Roman - are as Christian as anybody in Mormon thinking.

←

Snow ---well I've met many who say that I'm not Christian---I agree with you in part that it is not in the lds lingo---"that you are aquantied with"----but I know some ;as to prove that ----how can I? --I guess telling to the Joe Bubba and his friends in St Loius on Feb.2 1998 said it to me ---well you get my point.

Thanks---i guess for calling me a Christian

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 12 2005, 01:41 AM

prisonchaplain,

Okay. Would he also be happy when one Church has hate literature about another church in it’s foyer or sells (on the Sabbath) anti-[fill in the name of a church] in it’s bookstore?

There are two issues here:  the selling OF hate literature, and the selling ON the Sabbath.  The short answer to the first issue is that one person's "hate" is another person's "apologetics."  Is it hateful to say that we disagree, and you are so wrong, that we do not share spiritual fellowship?  Keep in mind that for evangelicals there is no 2nd or 3rd heaven.  It's heaven or hell.  So, what you perceive as hateful and personal, the author probably perceives as fair warning.  Disagree, argue, but understand that the writer's of so-called anti-Mormon literature believe in their hearts they are doing you a service by trying to convince you to change.  Again, disagree--vehemently if needed.  But don't accuse them all of hate.  You do not know their hearts.  BTW--I realize that some obviously are full of hate.  They underline, use lots of bold print, and are intentionally inflammatory, perhaps to sell books more easily.  Don't think me naive.

Issue two is quicker:  Most evangelicals believe that Sunday is "the Lord's Day," and that we are not subject to the same work and bartering restrictions that Jews were bound to under the Old Testament law.  However, if the church teaches Sabbath observance and also sells books on their day of worship, you would be right to charge them with hypocrisy.

I live in California and our local interfaith councils are dominated by Mormons and Catholics but in other parts of the county where some evangelicals hold sway, Mormons (and plenty of other Christians) are excluded from their National Days of Prayer.

I suppose it depends on how the day is advertised.  I attended one in Springfield, MO (buckle of the fundamentalist/pentecostal/evangelical Bible belt, and they had a rabbi and a Buddhist monk take part in the prayers.  If it's billed as a strictly Christian event...well despite the LDS claim to be Christian, it has set itself apart with its Restoration of the True Church doctrine.  Even most corrections systems have a separate listing for Mormon, vs. Protestant or Catholic.

I attend other Church’s from time to time. Last year at a “Christian” service the pastor had a dandy sermon about “those liars, the Mormons.”

Of course there are dozens of web sites and “ministries” whose express and only purpose is to harm The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I'm sure anybody could do a hatchet job on any religion or denomination they disagreed with.  Perhaps you'll have to do as Jesus said, and "Love your enemies."  If you feed on the bitterness of your history, it will poison your soul, and it will not hurt the 'anti-Mormons' one bit.  They'll probably contend that your angst is "the conviction of the Holy Spirit."  Also, remember, that those that speak vehemently against Mormonism truly believe it is heresy.  If the bottom-line is "heaven or hell," right or wrong, they're trying to pull you out of the fire.  What you see as hate might simply be poorly executed and very passionate disagreement.

Not to say that Mormons are unique but we, as a people - historically- have been persecuted in some extreme ways - murder, assassination, a governmental extermination order, driven from our homes  and cities and driven from the next and the next.

Lord Acton was right.  Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Protestants, evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons...we can all be corrupted by power, and commit what later is revealed as heinous crimes.  We must get our power from the Holy Ghost, not from Caesar.

Looking back a bit more, the religious and protestant wars were as bloody and any war. The St. Bartholomew Massacre saw the most bloody and systematic extermination of non-combantats in European history up until WW II.

It's always a shame when believers succumb to political pogroms against others.  Even if we disagree, Jesus taught us to love, preach, and invite--not conquer or destroy.  BTW, I would argue that atheistic wars have been the mostly deadly.  Hitler's 12 million dead came as the result of a call to nationalism and racial purity.  Stalin's purges killed some 30 million.  Mao's brutal reforms killed 10s of millions.  Pol Pot's revolution killed 2 of the 6 million in that country. 

That makes me think of something that happened somewhat recently. The President of the Fuller Seminary spoke in Salt Lake and apologized on behalf of Evangelicals for the lies, mischaracterization and bad-mouthing they have done against Mormons. ... In response, Evidence Ministries said sarcastically:

“If Mormonism is not Satanically inspired, then what is it's origin?”

Mouw's comments were controversial because, from evangelical eyes, he was make broad-brush accusations against many apologetics efforts that did not participate in hate-mongering, intentional lying, or unseemly tactics.  One again, one man's hate-mongering is another's "defending the faith."  Obvious 'hit jobs' should be condemned.  However, passionate disagreement should not always be labeled bigotry.  As for the quote--keep in mind, again, that for evangelicals, the bottom-line is heaven or hell.  If they perceive that Mormon teaching is so heterodox as to be outside the original and true gospel, they will conclude that the source is opposite of God.  Smith's statement that all Christian churches and denominations and clergy were wrong, is also perceived by many Christians as inflammatory and hateful.  Rather than argue, who's meaner or more insensitive, we ought to bare witness to what we know, and let the Holy Ghost do the convincing.

So yeah prisonchaplain, I think that there’s plenty of bigotry and dissension between the churches. I applaud ecumenicalism but if I were designing a body of believers, it’s not how I’d do it and I doubt that in the time of  Christ or of the ancient prophets that “truth” was a function of an appeal to popularity.

←

I would just point out that if Christians took that attitude throughout history, there never would have been a renegade Martin Luther, a Protestant Reformation, a Salvation Army to minister to street people because the historic churches wouldn't do it. There never would have been a Pentecostal revival, that now claims 500 million adherents. And...the never would have been a Joseph Smith. If denominational, organization, doctrinal unity were meant to be absolute and enforced by men then so many of the blessings of the last several centuries would have been squelched. Key doctrines have not changed. Key sacraments have not changed. There is a wonderful unity in the church universal. But, strife, and other man-made difficulties were prophesied to remain in the church until Christ's return. I'm not being fatalistic. That's why I'm here. We can do better. But, a one-denomination Christian world would not necessarily be more powerful than what we have now.

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman+Nov 12 2005, 12:26 PM-->

Originally posted by Outshined@Nov 12 2005, 02:20 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-roman@Nov 12 2005, 02:16 PM

On a grander scale lds doctrine and beliefs tell me I'm no christian--because true Christianity only comes thru the lds church---hence the authority issue of this thread.

←

Source?

←

The claim of mormonism that they are the ONLY and ONE true church. It doesn't take much reasoning apart from that--that since lds say we have no authority---that then all other church are false-----or wrong---or all still in the great apostasy

←

Okay - so you don't have any source and since I, a Mormon, know better - I reject your claim out of hand.

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman@Nov 12 2005, 12:32 PM

Snow ---well I've met many who say that I'm not Christian---

Thanks---i guess for calling me a Christian

←

Frankly I just don't believe it. I have been a Mormon and a Mormon Missionary and Mormon Clergy for 40 plus years in numerous parts of the world and we just don't think and talk like that. You may know some odd guy who is not representative but to say you know many?

Nonsense. It wouldn't happen, it doesn't have the ring of reality. The only ones that Mormon apologists refer to as non-Christian are anti-Mormons and that basically a polemical ploy.

[roman]

snow;

What you believe or chose not to believe is well---out of my hands.

I do agree with you that as for today in the lds church, for the most part that lds do accept others as Christians. But to deny the thought that there is a wide range of thought and practice in the lds church in that would there may be some that would totally disagree with you and the typical lds and say that nonlds are not christians.

In the past history of the lds church it was commom practice to say nonlds were not Christians.

Do you want me to drag out the direct quotes of:

BY---called nonlds---heathens

Orson Pratt----nonlds most corrupt of all people

Bruce McConkie------no salvation outside of lds church

George O Cannon---nonlds churches belong to Bayblon and God is not their founder.

Your point stands--for the typical lds of today----But so does mine from the history of the lds church and from personal history. Just saying that some nut is telling me this is not a good defence of your argument---these may just take the lds history a bit more serious than others.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by roman@Nov 13 2005, 05:33 AM

In the past  history of the lds church it was commom practice to say nonlds were not Christians.

Do you want me to drag out the direct quotes of:

Bruce McConkie------no salvation outside of lds church

←

To pick but one accusation, this one is demonstrably false. From McConkie's Mormon Doctrine:

Salvation

Unconditional or general salvation, that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists in the mere fact of being resurrected. In this sense salvation is synonymous with immortality; it is the inseparable connection of body and spirit so that the resurrected personage lives forever.This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons of perdition. In their case, after their resurrection, "they shall return again to their own place" (D. & C. 88:32); after coming forth in immortality and standing before the judgment bar, because they are "filthy still, ... they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end." (2 Ne. 9:13-16.) They are resurrected but they are not redeemed from the devil. "They shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption." (Alma 12:18.) Thus it is that the Lord "saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him." (D. & C. 76:40-48.) All others are saved from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment. (2 Ne. 9:18-27.)

No mention of non-LDS not being "saved".

Also, from the same book:

Christians

True believers in Christ, both in America among the Nephites and in the old world beginning in apostolic times, were called Christians. (Alma 46:13-16; 48:10; Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16.) Probably the name was applied first in derision, but it found ready acceptance among the members of the Church because they rejoice in the privilege of taking upon themselves "the name of Christ, or Christians" (Alma 46:15.)As the day of the great apostasy set in, the term Christian continued to be applied to the supposed followers of Christ, even though in reality they had departed from the true doctrines. Today those who purport to believe in Christ though they may not actually accept him as the Son of God, are called Christians.

No denial of salvation outside the LDS Church, no denial of the name "Christian". B) I note that none of the others mentioned said such a thing either.

[Snow]

Roman,

Outshined showed that you were wrong about BRM and salvation, but what I want to know is whenever someone trys to argue about LDS intolerance, they quickly resort to: "Oh, yeah, well here's what a Mormon said a hundred years ago!"

Don't you have some current quotes about what we believe and think - something not imbued with the fiery rhetoric of yesteryear?

And as far as Mormons being a diverse people - not really, not in that sense. We have a comon language and whether it is Peru or Canada or Japan or Utah, words have a particular meaning in Mormondom. We don't use the word Christian like that.

Of course, there are Mormons from all over right here at LDStalk. Maybe you can get one of them to agree with you that you are not Christian (according to the many who called you that).

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 12 2005, 12:37 PM

I would just point out that if Christians took that attitude throughout history, there never would have been a renegade Martin Luther, a Protestant Reformation, a Salvation Army to minister to street people because the historic churches wouldn't do it.  There never would have been a Pentecostal revival, that now claims 500 million adherents.  And...the never would have been a Joseph Smith.  If denominational, organization, doctrinal unity were meant to be absolute and enforced by men then so many of the blessings of the last several centuries would have been squelched.  Key doctrines have not changed.  Key sacraments have not changed.  There is a wonderful unity in the church universal.  But, strife, and other man-made difficulties were prophesied to remain in the church until Christ's return.  I'm not being fatalistic.  That's why I'm here.  We can do better.  But, a one-denomination Christian world would not necessarily be more powerful than what we have now.

←

If for no reason other than being disagreeable, I would disagree with a much of that.

Martin Luther never intended to form a new church and resisted doing so.

500 million pentecostals is a gross-exaggeration - it's one of those "lying-for-the-Lord type of things. I am familiar with the sources for such a claim but the number just doesn't stack up. There are only about 5 to 6 hundred million Protestanst is the world, let alone pentecostals. There's lots of sources. Check them out, here's one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism..._of_Protestants

Doctrines have changed drastically - say from 8th century Germany to 21st century New York, but what I think is more important is from the 1st century till today - that change is even more dramatic.

[prisonchaplain]

Martin Luther never intended to form a new church and resisted doing so.

He may not have INITIALLY intended to form a new church. He may have resisted doing so. However, at some point he decided not to comply. So, he ultimately did intend and succeed in forming a new church. Had he believed that, under all circumstances, Christianity must remain a one-denomination faith--that organizational unity bested any qualms about doctrine, corrupt practices, or the other concerns he laid out in his 95 theses, then that 2nd denomination never would have been formed.

500 million pentecostals is a gross-exaggeration - it's one of those "lying-for-the-Lord type of things. I am familiar with the sources for such a claim but the number just doesn't stack up.

I believe the source is Barna. I see no need to defend his methods or conclusion, but it is a rather judgmental speculation for you to suggest his organization is lying. Disagree with their methods or conclusions...but beware of claiming to know the hearts of men. I am not even sure that Barna himself is Pentecostal. Additionally, it is an important distinction to note that I said Pentecostal/Charismatic. Keep in mind that many Charismatics are also mainstream Protestant, and some are even Catholics.

There are only about 5 to 6 hundred million Protestant is the world, let alone pentecostals.

I've been led to believe that number is closer to one billion. Again, many Charismatics are also Protestant, and some are even Catholic (another billion person pool there).

There's lots of sources. Check them out, here's one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism..._of_Protestants

I'm not interested in debating who's sources are more accurate. The overall point would be the same if the number were 100 million.

Doctrines have changed drastically - say from 8th century Germany to 21st century New York, but what I think is more important is from the 1st century till today - that change is even more dramatic.

Essential doctrines have remained incredibly consistent. Who is God? Holy Trinity. The canon of Scripture remained consistent for over 1000 years. Around 1500 the Catholic church canonized some intertestamental books that Protestants have never recognized. Other than that, the Scriptures have remained the same.

Of course, there have been different takes on the exactly how the end times will play out, when to water baptize, etc. However, it is remarkable just how much unity and cooperation there is amongst Christian denomination. Our bookstores now sell both Protestant and Catholic materials. Groups like Promise Keepers enjoy cooperation from a wide spectrum of churches. There is great cooperation on social issues such as abortion.

←

Bottom-line: Yes, your disagreements may have some merit. However, my essential points remain true.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 13 2005, 11:49 PM

Roman,

Outshined showed that you were wrong about BRM and salvation, but what I want to know is whenever someone tries to argue about LDS intolerance, they quickly resort to: "Oh, yeah, well here's what a Mormon said a hundred years ago!"

Don't you have some current quotes about what we believe and think  - something not imbued with the fiery rhetoric of yesteryear?

←

No kidding; you mention nasty behavior of critics of the LDS faith, and they always have to run back a century or so for an argument. B)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Outshined@Nov 14 2005, 03:38 AM

No kidding; you mention nasty behavior of critics of the LDS faith, and they always have to run back a century or so for an argument. B)

←

Except in this case no one mentioned the nasty behavior of critics, we just tried to tell Roman that as far as we Mormons are concerned, he's a Christian.

[Snow]

prisonchaplain,

No, I don't think the source is Barna. I read Barna and think their stuff is pretty fair. I believe that the 500 million figure comes from a theologian named Harvey Cox. There are other estimates as well that go up to about 430 million, but others that go as low as 100.

Where you hear the 500 million figure the most is from the Pentecostals themselves. When other, more reliable, or more agreed upon and conservative figures are available, it suggests a certain lack of forthrightness to tout the 500 mil figure. (half that is more reasonable). That's what I mean by lying-for-the-Lord... not outright lying but less than perfect frankness - it serves their agenda to exorbitant in their claims.

But, Barna does support my contention about the wide variance of belief that is inherent in a fractured Christianity. According to Barna, here are some figures that show the variance of the low versus high percentage of what different denominations think about key doctrines or things:

Bible is totally accurate: low denomination = 22%; high = 81%

Christ was sinless: 28% vs 73%

God is an all powerful creator: 59% vs 96%

Satan is real: 17 vs 59

Works don't earn heaven: 15 vs 64

What's clear to me is that Christians don't agree too much.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 14 2005, 10:48 PM

prisonchaplain,

I believe that the 500 million figure comes from a theologian named Harvey Cox. 

... (half that is more reasonable).

Like I said, even at 100 million, my point that this movement would not have flourished, were it not for the willingness of Pentecosal pioneers to endure the humiliation of being put out of their denominations, of being labeled "demon possessed," of being arrested by local law enforcement for praying for the sick (practicing medicine without a license), etc.--they never would have risked so much to experience the restoration of Holy Spirit power--the kind they read about in Acts and 1 Corinthians.  If you're willing to give me 250 million, the point is even stronger.   

But, Barna does support my contention about the wide variance of belief that is inherent in a fractured Christianity. According to Barna, here are some figures that show the variance of the low versus high percentage of what different denominations think about key doctrines or things:

Bible is totally accurate: low denomination = 22%; high = 81%; Christ was sinless: 28% vs 73%; God is an all powerful creator: 59% vs 96%; Satan is real: 17 vs 59; Works don't earn heaven: 15 vs 64; 

What's clear to me is that Christians don't agree too much.

←

Allow me to fog up your clarity. You've quoted Barna's figures correctly, but misinterpreted what they represent. Barna's message to church leaders is that many of those who flock to our churches do not understand basic Christian teachings. Those % you quote are what lay people answered, in response to a questionnaire--NOT what the church leaders or denominations actually teach!

You and others correctly warned me not to base my understanding of LDS doctrine and theology upon the opinions of lay members here--but to go to the lds.org website, or invite a missionary who's been called to represent the church. Likewise, if you wish to investigate the doctrines of various Christian denominations, you ought to look to their statements of faith, not to the opinions of those who might warm a seat on a Sunday morning. http://www.ag.org, for example will give you the set of doctrine's my denomination holds to.

I'll give you a funny example to show my point. Seventh graders in Assemblies of God Sunday School take a 3-month course entitled "Foundations of Faith." In the class they learn the basic 16 fundamental doctrines we hold to. For fun I gave the final exam, a multiple choice questionnaire, to my friend, who happened to be a Jehovah's Witness. If I remember right he got 18 out of 20 "right." Trust me on this: there is no imminent merger coming between the Assemblies of God and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society!

SNOW: No doubt, you can find differences between Christian denominations, in what we teach, and how we go about worshiping God. However, there is also incredible cooperation, unity on core teachings, and love, trust and tolerance in most areas we disagree about. My best friend in the ministry, for example, happens to be a Southern Baptist minister.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 14 2005, 10:28 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Outshined@Nov 14 2005, 03:38 AM

No kidding; you mention nasty behavior of critics of the LDS faith, and they always have to run back a century or so for an argument. B)

←

Except in this case no one mentioned the nasty behavior of critics, we just tried to tell Roman that as far as we Mormons are concerned, he's a Christian.

←

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 14 2005, 11:57 PM

...No doubt, you can find differences between Christian denominations, in what we teach, and how we go about worshiping God.  However, there is also incredible cooperation, unity on core teachings, and love, trust and tolerance in most areas we disagree about.  My best friend in the ministry, for example, happens to be a Southern Baptist minister.

←

President Hinckley has expressed similar sentiments regarding other Christians too...

... that while there are differences between us and other Christians, in what we teach, and how we go about worshiping God... there is also incredible cooperation, unity on core teachings, and love, trust and tolerance in most areas we disagree about...

... but for some reason, I think you are saying what you are saying while not considering us to be among those other Christians.

[prisonchaplain]

... but for some reason, I think you are saying what you are saying while not considering us to be among those other Christians.

←

Actually the topic of LDS status in the broader Christian world was not part of the thread.

Oh well, since you brought it up. Barna says that 34% of LDS adherents who answered theological questions for his survey, did so in a manner that most evangelicals define as "born again." I find that interesting.

There are some LDS doctrines that track differently than what is often called "historic Christianity's" answers. Many of these different answers hit "core doctrines." The plan of salvation, the nature of God the Father, of God the Son, and of God, the Holy Spirit. The eternal progression of God. The pre-existence of each human. The role of Satan, of sin, and of course, the ultimate destiny of each of us.

What I've learned here is that in many ways evangelical Christian culture and LDS culture are similar. We practice a rigorous faith that effects our finances, our behavior, and our beliefs. We love our houses of worship, and the communities we worship with. We love to share and explain what we believe with others.

We also have liberal, open-minded, ecumenical types, and the more fundamentalist ones. Ironically, when it comes to music, movies etc., many here actually seem more liberal than the norm for my faith group.

All this to say, I'm doubtful that LDS theology could ever coalesce with my Pentecostal understandings, nor with most statements of faith in evangelical groups. However, there sure is plenty for us to talk about. And those conversations can certainly be friendly, informative and respectful. :)

[Ray]

Okay, going back to topic, considering that this thread started on the topic of authority, I find it interesting that we’re now trying to discuss the gospel truth and the groups of people who think they know it.

And if you want to know what I think, I think that even if everybody knew the gospel truth, knowing it would not give anybody the authority to proclaim it and administer the ordinances thereof.

For instance, although most of us know how to perform a marriage ceremony, we can’t go out and perform marriage ceremonies and have them binding upon the people who want to be married, unless we receive the authority to perform marriage ceremonies from someone who has the actual power to grant that authority.

And although most of us know when somebody is breaking the speed limit, we can’t go out and pull people over to give them traffic citations unless we receive the authority to issue traffic citations from someone who has the actual power to grant that authority.

Or in other words, knowing the truth doesn't give us any authority, because authority can only be given by those who have the actual power to grant authority to others.

Or in other words, while I can see how you may actually have authority to officate in your church, because the members of your church do have the power to authorize people to act as leaders in their behalf, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence from you or anyone else to suggest or explain how you (or your church) received your authority from God or our Lord Jesus Christ.

And btw, nobody can receive authority by simply reading about how other people received their authority either, so quoting from the Bible which shows that Jesus Christ gave His authority to His apostles doesn't mean that He or they gave their authority to you.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 14 2005, 10:57 PM

Allow me to fog up your clarity.  You've quoted Barna's figures correctly, but misinterpreted what they represent.  Barna's message to church leaders is that many of those who flock to our churches do not understand basic Christian teachings.  Those % you quote are what lay people answered, in response to a questionnaire--NOT what the church leaders or denominations actually teach!

←

I understand what the figures represent and that makes my point all the more compelling. The "body of Christ" (so to speak) is not a collection of written documents but rather the collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of the adherents.

Where you see unity I see fracture and disagreement. Take a doctrine as fundmental as salvation, consider Evangelical beliefs vs Catholic beliefs vs Strict Calvinistic beliefs. What unity there is now, and I think it large compared to your small, is a relatively recent development.

[prisonchaplain]

Or in other words, while I can see how you may actually have authority to officate in your church, because the members of your church do have the power to authorize people to act as leaders in their behalf, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence from you or anyone else to suggest or explain how you (or your church) received your authority from God or our Lord Jesus Christ.

This issue of authority--which may well resonate more powerfully with Catholics--comes down whether we believe that God ordained the apostles to be office-holders, who would be succeeded by others throughout church history. In this particular post, you answer this with a rather passionate yes. I suppose Catholics would do likewise, believing for example, that the Pope is the spiritual descendent of Peter.

Most Protestants do not see apostolic succession as God's plan. LDS theologians look at the failures of Catholic church history and see the prophesied apostasy. Protestants simply see the failure of men. Ironically, one understanding of the word "apostle" is missionary. They were the ones to go out to other lands and spread the gospel, planting churches, building God's kingdom. They did not hold positions of grand administrative power, but rather, were privileged to walk with Jesus, and to be on the front-lines of evangelism after the ascension.

So where do we think we get God's approval to do gospel work? We see it in Jesus commands to spread his teachings. These commands were given to the apostles, yes. But, also to the 72. And, ultimately, all believers were to spread the Word.

Bottom line variance here: LDS theologians look for the authority to do gospel work, whereas Protestants--especially evangelicals--would consider a sin for any believer NOT to do gospel work.

And btw, nobody can receive authority by simply reading about how other people received their authority either, so quoting from the Bible which shows that Jesus Christ gave His authority to His apostles doesn't mean that He or they gave their authority to you.

If Jesus ONLY gave his authority to the apostles, you'd be right. However, Jesus gives authority to all his followers. He sends out the 72. He obviously blesses the efforts of the woman at the well (brand new to the faith mind you) to go and tell her village. He sends a man delivered from demons back to his city to spread the word. We see Jesus bestowing priesthood responsibilities to all believers.

←

[prisonchaplain]

I understand what the figures represent and that makes my point all the more compelling. The "body of Christ" (so to speak) is not a collection of written documents but rather the collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of the adherents.

By your reasoning, I should discern true LDS theology by comparing on the posters at this site who put LDS as part of the identification. Yet several here have told me please don't do this!

Where you see unity I see fracture and disagreement. Take a doctrine as fundmental as salvation, consider Evangelical beliefs vs Catholic beliefs vs Strict Calvinistic beliefs.

Salvation for Evangelicals and Calvinists is through faith in Jesus Christ and confession of sins. I believe that Catholics would possibly add that one must be water baptised. I know that there are different explanations as to how much of the salvation experience is dependent on God's will vs. our will, and what role other church sacraments have in the Christian life. But the bottom-line differences aren't as great as you suppose. Once again, this is why we have Catholics sometimes participating in Billy Graham crusades, Promise Keepers, etc. It's also why the Catholic church taps our theologians for discussions about what is going on with the Charismatic renewal--in the Catholic church! "Hey you guys--tell us what our people are doing!" Great stuff!

What unity there is now, and I think it large compared to your small, is a relatively recent development.

I'll grant you that Christian maturity, and seeing passed nonessentials differences for the sake of the kingdom, is a blessing that has come fairly recently. Don't you reckon that God is pleased?

←

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Or in other words, while I can see how you may actually have authority to officate in your church, because the members of your church do have the power to authorize people to act as leaders in their behalf, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence from you or anyone else to suggest or explain how you (or your church) received your authority from God or our Lord Jesus Christ.

I take it you don't think the written history of the church explains this?