What to do when you question a book of scripture?

[ehkape]

The only infallible church is The Church of the Firstborn, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "True" can mean useful, like a 'true' arrow is useful. This view of yours WILL fail. You need to be more flexible and practical, or you will go down with your previous false faith.

What do you mean? Almost fell off my chair when I read this. Help! Let me see if I get you right: The LDS church - which we belong to - is not infallible but the church of the Firstborn is the place to be. So why don't we all belong to that one then? I don't get it...

"true" can be "useful"... Sure, truth is always useful, but if I claim to belong to the "only true and living church" then "true" can't just be useful. It has to be true in the sense of "correct". Just imagine being asked "Do you believe the Book of Mormon is true?" and the answer would be "Oh, its quite useful." To me thats saying I don't believe in it a for a second as the word of God, but the stories are nice and I like the pictures

"be more "flexible" - What? You mean bend the truth? Thats the worst advice I've ever heard...

but if you do not revise your approach, you're headed for a big fall.

tough words.

I was always taught at sunday school that we shouldn't lower our standards if our performance is poor just to have the impression to still be in line.

I feel you are lowering the standard of the churches self-definition of being the only "true and living" church big time!

[rameumptom]

The Church of the Firstborn is not upon the earth right now. It is the perfect Church of Christ, where all those who worship therein are Firstborn with Christ.

You will not find in the scriptures nor the writings of the prophets that the Church and its prophets are infallible. In fact, both the BoM and D&C note the weaknesses of prophets, through which God works. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "only true and living Church", upon the face of the earth, with whom God is well pleased. When broken down correctly, it suggests that there can be more than one "true and living Church" but that God is less pleased or annoyed with other true and living churches.

I am thankful for a fallible Church and prophets. Why? Because if they are good enough for God to work through, then there is hope for me.

I am also thankful that the Church and its prophets are inspired of God and given His authority. Why? Because I can gain from them the ordinances, doctrines, and truths necessary for my salvation.

[Finrock]

rameumptom and HiJolly.

Good afternoon gentlemen! :)

Although I appreciate the points you two are making countering sd22 assertion, I do think your arguments are equivocating. Let me try to show why I think this. Please consider:

sd22 is making the following assertion:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect."

In response it seems to me that you two are making the following assertion:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint is not perfect because individuals X, Y, Z have committed sin and are imperfect."

sd22 is speaking to a "church". Your counter arguments are speaking to "individuals". Your counter arguments are therefore irrelevant to sd22's position. May I suggest that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exist independently of the individual members. If you are to contend that the actual Church is imperfect, then you must illustrate it independent of the individual members. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect and infallible, but I also believe that not all of it's members are perfect and infallible.

Now you also are making some points concerning the Church of the Firstborn. I'm not sure how relevant they are and I'm also not sure your explanation or apparent understanding of the subject matter is authoritative.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 18, 2010 by Finrock
Changed wording to clarifying my intended meaning.

[ehkape]

Ok, this is getting interesting...

I am thankful for a fallible Church and prophets. Why? Because if they are good enough for God to work through, then there is hope for me.

Isn't that the exact reason why the true church had to be restored to the earth? Because all other churches fell away from the truth? Because their teachings changed over time? Because their prophets/leaders were fallen? Didn't the Lord say to Joseph in answer to his prayer:"

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”

How can you be thankful for a fallible church? I don't get it! The church of Jesus Christ was restored to overcome all the other fallible churches. Are you saying our church has fallen too? If so, why and how can it STILL be a church with wich the "Lord is well pleased"?

Your comment about different churches that please the Lord intrigued me. Do you believe he could be pleased with a church at one time, and a decade or two later with another?

Take the original church after Christs death. I bet God was pleased with Peter and his apostles. What about Christianity lets say 100 years later? Still pleased or not?

Now, what about the early LDS times. He was pleased with the church in 1831 as he says. What about 1841, 1900 or 2010? The thought just came to my mind.

[HiJolly]

What do you mean? Almost fell off my chair when I read this. Help! Let me see if I get you right: The LDS church - which we belong to - is not infallible but the church of the Firstborn is the place to be. So why don't we all belong to that one then? I don't get it...

One could hope that we *are* members of the Church of the Firstborn.

Someday, if we prove faithful in all things, we will be. I recommend you go to the Church's website ( The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ) and go to the scriptures page and search on "church" and "firstborn". It is the fulfillment of the Church that Nephi describes as the "Church of the Lamb of God." See 1 Nephi 14

This goes to the truth that all outward ordinances are preparatory to the fulfillment thereof. Just as a temple marriage sealing is not eternally binding until the Holy Spirit of Promise witnesses of it, so too other ordinances such as baptism and conferral of the Priesthood are not sealed with power from on high until this witness is given. Thus, baptism by water is followed by baptism of fire.

"true" can be "useful"... Sure, truth is always useful, but if I claim to belong to the "only true and living church" then "true" can't just be useful. It has to be true in the sense of "correct". Just imagine being asked "Do you believe the Book of Mormon is true?" and the answer would be "Oh, its quite useful." To me thats saying I don't believe in it a for a second as the word of God, but the stories are nice and I like the pictures

No, truth is NOT always useful.

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

Elder Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle if Far, Far Greater than the Intellect"

In this quote, President Packer is quoting one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers in world history -- Immanuel Kant. They are *both* right!

We live in an imperfect world. Note my comment concerning our parents, and our belief in their perfections when we were children. This is very important.

"be more "flexible" - What? You mean bend the truth? Thats the worst advice I've ever heard...

I don't mean to bend the truth. I mean to flow with reality. To understand that the realm of perfection is not this earth.

I was always taught at sunday school that we shouldn't lower our standards if our performance is poor just to have the impression to still be in line.

I feel you are lowering the standard of the churches self-definition of being the only "true and living" church big time!

It is not the Church that laid out that definition. It was a prophet who was relaying the mind of God the best way he knew how. It is true, but is not an image to be worshipped.

I hope you can see that the Spirit of God is not rigid and dogmatic, but bending, flowing, recognizing all truth wherever it is found. Truth is a terrible and awesome master. It is a two-edged sword that cuts at both the opponent AND the one who wields it. The price for pure truth from the Holy Ghost is high, but oh so worth it.

For me, the Holy Ghost not only declares truth, but also declares those so-called truths within myself that I believe but yet are not truth, and must be laid aside. Only then can I receive truth from God as it is -- and then I can see as I am seen, and know as I am known.

D&C 76:94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Although I appreciate the points you two are making countering sd22 assertion, I do think your arguments are equivocating.

I understand. I don't agree that you understand me, but I do understand how it looks to you.

Let me try to show why I think this. Please consider:

sd22 is making the following assertion:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect."

In response it seems to me that you two are making the following assertion:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint is not perfect because individuals X, Y, Z have committed sin and are imperfect."

This is not what we are saying.

sd22 is speaking to a "church". Your counter arguments are speaking to "individuals". Your counter arguments are therefore irrelevant to sd22's position. May I suggest that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exist independently of the individual members. If you are to contend that the actual Church is imperfect, then you must illustrate it independent of the individual members. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect and infallible, but I also believe that not all of it's members are perfect and infallible.

So, individuals do not determine the Doctrine of the Church? Is that your view?

Now you also are making some points concerning the Church of the Firstborn. I'm not sure how relevant they are and I'm also not sure your explanation or apparent understanding of the subject matter is authoritative.

Regards,

Finrock

Thanks. The Church of the Firstborn is VERY important. I'm sure no one on this board wants to be taken as "authoritative". I certainly do not.

I simply wish to discuss the topics at hand from my viewpoint.

HiJolly

Edited March 19, 2010 by HiJolly

[Finrock]

Good afternoon HiJolly! I hope you are well today. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. :)

I understand. I don't agree that you understand me, but I do understand how it looks to you.

This is not what we are saying.

If you are not saying what I've presented, then what are you saying?

So, individuals do not determine the Doctrine of the Church? Is that your view?

I wasn't speaking to that at all. The point I am making is that the Church of Jesus Christ isn't the collection of it's members. It exist independent of it's members. So saying that a member of the Church did this or that sin does not affect the Church's ontological position.

Thanks. The Church of the Firstborn is VERY important. I'm sure no one on this board wants to be taken as "authoritative". I certainly do not.

I do not deny that the Church of the Firstborn is very important I only contend that I do not see how it is relevant to the dicussion or why it matters in context. In so far as authoritative, I only mean that the understanding that is being presented about the Church of the Firstborn is simply being asserted as being correct without any authoritative support for why that point of view is correct.

Regards,

Finrock

[marts1]

@ Finrock..There are different meanings to the word church and one of them is the people. I know your using it as another meaning of which you are correct.

[Finrock]

Hello marts1! I'm not sure if we've interacted with each other before, but it is a pleasure tomeet you. :)

@ Finrock..There are different meanings to the word church and one of them is the people. I know your using it as another meaning of which you are correct.

I agree. This is why my first post to HiJolly and to rameumptum suggested that some equivocation might be going on here.

Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

Good afternoon HiJolly! I hope you are well today. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. :)

If you are not saying what I've presented, then what are you saying?

I'm saying that the Church is an earthly institution legally organized according to the laws of the State of New York, and that the Church today (in 2010) vigorously pursues remaining a valid incorporated legal entity in the world, both legally and practically speaking. And to that claim, there is a great deal of evidence. It is not merely an opinion, it is a demonstrable fact.

According to the law, this could not occur without individual involvement: in 1830 that meant 6 individuals were required to make the formation of the Church legal. So, the Church on April 6, 1830 included both a legal entity, and 6 individual entities, in one. In the ensuing years, people decided to join the Church. They added themselves to the Church, deepening and broadening the Church.

Do you see the necessary blending of the two elements?

I would like to say that I don't believe the Church would have been formed on April 6, 1830 without God's direct and overwhelming involvement. I have a testimony that God wanted Joseph to set it up and gave much assistance, revelation and inspiration to make it happen, so that the faithful people of the region (and, eventually the earth altogether) would have a more proper, more effective and truly authorized Church to bring His children home to Him.

I would think it would be obvious none of this could have happened without the people through whom God worked. I think it quite harmful to separate the people who did God's will in the process then, and who still maintain the Church today.

I wasn't speaking to that at all. The point I am making is that the Church of Jesus Christ isn't the collection of it's members. It exist independent of it's members. So saying that a member of the Church did this or that sin does not affect the Church's ontological position.

And of course, I agree that the sins of members of the Church are not and cannot be reasons to lessen or take away from the truthfulness of the Church. Although it *is* my belief that Donatism is NOT a heresy, contrary to the Roman Catholics.

I rather like the position the leaders of the Church have made concerning personal worthiness, RE: Donatism. I think it is in accord with God's will.

I would like to hear more on your view concerning the Church not being dependent on it's members. How does that work, exactly? Of course, I say that because I can't imagine how you can be correct in this assertion, yet I am willing to be taught.

I do not deny that the Church of the Firstborn is very important I only contend that I do not see how it is relevant to the dicussion or why it matters in context. In so far as authoritative, I only mean that the understanding that is being presented about the Church of the Firstborn is simply being asserted as being correct without any authoritative support for why that point of view is correct.

Regards,

Finrock

It is exactly relevant because it is real and extant, and it is the ONLY Church in existence that is infallible, or that can be infallible. That was the claim made, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is infallible. I denied the proposition, and in a goodwill effort I proffered the only Church I know of that meets the criteria of infallibility.

The scriptures attest to THAT Church being perfect, and not the LDS Church. That is not bad. That is not faithless. That is simply the truth.

True does not = perfect. It simply is what is. And if it is not useful, it is not necessary to declare, as the prophets demonstrate over and over in the scriptures. If you believe the Church is perfect, perhaps you need to believe that. Perhaps I am not saying anything useful to you. If so, I am sorry. I was trying to help sd22.

D&C 93: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

"Many things can be true and yet harmful to man. Not all truth is useful." (p.43 Lectures on Logic, (translated by J. Michael Young))

-- Immanuel Kant

HiJolly

[Finrock]

Before I respond I want to add some precision to my language. I alluded to this fact in my first post to this thread, but I wish to more precisely state that I believe that the Church exist independent of it's mortal members.

I'm saying that the Church is an earthly institution legally organized according to the laws of the State of New York, and that the Church today (in 2010) vigorously pursues remaining a valid incorporated legal entity in the world, both legally and practically speaking. And to that claim, there is a great deal of evidence. It is not merely an opinion, it is a demonstrable fact.

I see. Then this is precisely the cause of our disagreement. I do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is only an earthly institution. I do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is contingent upon it being legally established and recognized by governments.

According to the law, this could not occur without individual involvement: in 1830 that meant 6 individuals were required to make the formation of the Church legal. So, the Church on April 6, 1830 included both a legal entity, and 6 individual entities, in one. In the ensuing years, people decided to join the Church. They added themselves to the Church, deepening and broadening the Church.

Again, this goes back to the metaphysical disagreement that we have. Joseph Smith only restored God's church as an institution on this earth. The Church of Jesus Christ did not come in to existence in 1830 from a state of non-existence. It was simply restored to the earth.

And of course, I agree that the sins of members of the Church are not and cannot be reasons to lessen or take away from the truthfulness of the Church. Although it *is* my belief that Donatism is NOT a heresy, contrary to the Roman Catholics.

I rather like the position the leaders of the Church have made concerning personal worthiness, RE: Donatism. I think it is in accord with God's will.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'm making no claims regarding personal worthiness in any context.

I would like to hear more on your view concerning the Church not being dependent on it's members. How does that work, exactly? Of course, I say that because I can't imagine how you can be correct in this assertion, yet I am willing to be taught.

I hope my clarification in the beginning of this post helps. Also, let me state that I believe God's Church exist because God exist. It does not exist because of the members.

It is exactly relevant because it is real and extant, and it is the ONLY Church in existence that is infallible, or that can be infallible. That was the claim made, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is infallible. I denied the proposition, and in a goodwill effort I proffered the only Church I know of that meets the criteria of infallibility.

The scriptures attest to THAT Church being perfect, and not the LDS Church.

Well, because something "is real and extant" does not make that something necessarily relevant to the topic of discussion. Nonetheless, I think I understand more completely the reason the Church of the Firstborn was brought up during this discussion. If I understood you correctly, you were offering the CoF as being the Church that is infallible as opposed to the CoJC.

Well, that is an assertion, for sure, but still I'm not sure it's authoritative. And even if it were a given that your assertion about the CoF is true I'm still not sure how that fact speaks yea or nay of the idea that the CoJC is also infallible. That is where my question about relevancy comes in.

That is not bad. That is not faithless. That is simply the truth.

I've made no claims to this effect. I do not see where these statements fit in.

True does not = perfect. It simply is what is. And if it is not useful, it is not necessary to declare, as the prophets demonstrate over and over in the scriptures. If you believe the Church is perfect, perhaps you need to believe that. Perhaps I am not saying anything useful to you. If so, I am sorry. I was trying to help sd22.

D&C 93: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

HiJolly

I'm not sure I know what this statement means: "Truth does not = perfect". I do know I have not attempted to make such claims. When you say, "If [truth] is not useful, it is not necessary to declare..." to what point that I have made is this being addressed to?

As far as your comments about what I believe it seems in context that you are implying that I believe something that is false yet my survival, presumambly my survival in the Church, requires this false belief. I would categorize a comment like that as a condescending comment. In any case, it isn't relevant so I will discard it.

Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

Finrock, I can see it's time to part ways.

You've re-defined what Church we are discussing. That's a foul.

To quote you: "In any case, it isn't relevant so I will discard it."

HiJolly

[Finrock]

Good evening HiJolly! :)

Finrock, I can see it's time to part ways.

I don't see why, but, OK.

You've re-defined what Church we are discussing. That's a foul.

Will you show me how? I regard the Church of God, the Church of Jesus Christ, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be one in the same. I've been using these terms synonymously.

To quote you: "In any case, it isn't relevant so I will discard it."

HiJolly

What is the subject of your "it" in that statement?

Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

rameumptom and HiJolly.

Good afternoon gentlemen! :)

Although I appreciate the points you two are making countering sd22 assertion, I do think your arguments are equivocating. Let me try to show why I think this. Please consider:

sd22 is making the following assertion:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect."

In response it seems to me that you two are making the following assertion:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint is not perfect because individuals X, Y, Z have committed sin and are imperfect."

sd22 is speaking to a "church". Your counter arguments are speaking to "individuals". Your counter arguments are therefore irrelevant to sd22's position. May I suggest that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exist independently of the individual members. If you are to contend that the actual Church is imperfect, then you must illustrate it independent of the individual members. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect and infallible, but I also believe that not all of it's members are perfect and infallible.

Now you also are making some points concerning the Church of the Firstborn. I'm not sure how relevant they are and I'm also not sure your explanation or apparent understanding of the subject matter is authoritative.

Regards,

Finrock

I just don't know what to say, Finrock. How can you dissemble and claim you didn't mean to say what you said, over and over again? There's no point.

HiJolly

[rameumptom]

rameumptom and HiJolly.

sd22 is speaking to a "church". Your counter arguments are speaking to "individuals". Your counter arguments are therefore irrelevant to sd22's position. May I suggest that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exist independently of the individual members. If you are to contend that the actual Church is imperfect, then you must illustrate it independent of the individual members. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect and infallible, but I also believe that not all of it's members are perfect and infallible.

Now you also are making some points concerning the Church of the Firstborn. I'm not sure how relevant they are and I'm also not sure your explanation or apparent understanding of the subject matter is authoritative.

Regards,

Finrock

While the members are imperfect, the Church is not perfect, either. That is why we continue having prophets and apostles (imperfect but inspired people) leading it. The Church has changed a lot since Joseph Smith first founded it on April 6, 1830.

Since then it has changed from being led by two elders, to a First Presidency, Twelve Apostles, etc. Seventy quorums were at one time attached to stakes as missionary specialists. Since the 1980s, it has changed so all the 70 are now General Authorities. Joseph Smith once stated that the 70 should never be high priests, but they all are now high priests.

The Church used to have Assistants to the Twelve, Regional Representatives, and a Patriarch of the Church. No longer. We now have Area Authorities and stake patriarchs only.

It once required a member of the 12 to set apart missionaries, stake patriarchs, and to dedicate a church building. Now stake presidents can do all of this.

Under Brigham Young, the temple endowment included a portion that suggested his belief in the Adam-God concept. We no longer believe in it, nor do we teach it anywhere.

These are all issues of the Church. The Church is NOT perfect. It is ever evolving via revelation and sometimes trial and error, to improve itself and manage new events and issues.

Finally, the Church is made up of imperfect people. Without people, there is no church. Given it is guided by imperfect people, mistakes happen in it, even in official things.

[marts1]

Hello marts1! I'm not sure if we've interacted with each other before, but it is a pleasure tomeet you. :)

Good to meet you too, thanks...If we have met before you probably didn't agree with something I said like many others have done.:)

[marts1]

The missionaries are instructed to teach the church is perfect but the people of course are not. The word church can be used in many different ways that it is almost senseless to discuss at times. To me the church is perfect because of its teachings, its doctrine, its authority, not because of administration.

[rameumptom]

Ok, this is getting interesting...

Isn't that the exact reason why the true church had to be restored to the earth? Because all other churches fell away from the truth? Because their teachings changed over time? Because their prophets/leaders were fallen? Didn't the Lord say to Joseph in answer to his prayer:"

How can you be thankful for a fallible church? I don't get it! The church of Jesus Christ was restored to overcome all the other fallible churches. Are you saying our church has fallen too? If so, why and how can it STILL be a church with wich the "Lord is well pleased"?

Can you read what I wrote in the way I meant? The Church and prophets are not fallen. They just are not perfect. They are, however, acceptable to God.

In D&C 1, the Lord tells us this is the only "true and living Church with whom the Lord is well pleased." Nowhere in that statement or in any other statement does it state that prophets or Church are perfect.

They don't need to be perfect. They just have to be inspired and good enough to provide us with the teachings and ordinances of exaltation.

I believe that God accepts most Christian churches. Why? Because Terrestrial level organizations are pleasing to God. Terrestrial people and therefore their organizations, are the honorable men of earth (D&C 76). The Law of Moses is an example of a Terrestrial level law with which God was pleased, at least when the people obeyed it. However there are greater things which God would have people know, but only if they are ready to accept it (see D&C 84:15-24). Otherwise, he gives them something lesser, such as the Aaronic Priesthood or traditional Christianity to guide them.

Do you think the Lord was "well pleased" with the modern Church 100% of the time? How about when Joseph Smith lost the 116 pages? How about when they were being disobedient in Missouri? How about when stake presidents and bishops were involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre? How about when Bishop of the Church Charles Nibley borrowed millions of dollars on behalf of the Church in order to build the Hotel Utah with the intent of installing a bar in the basement to pay it off? I think the Lord puts up with a lot from us, just so the gospel continues forward.

Here are some examples:

D&C 68:31 Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion

D&C 90:35 Nevertheless, I am not well pleased with many things

D&C 98: 19 Behold, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with many who are in the church at Kirtland

But God will not let the Prophets lead us astray spiritually. At least not to the point where we lose the authority of God and the blessings of the gospel. We move in the general direction that God wants us to move, and He blesses us for it. We must remember that most of the revelations our Prophet receives on a frequent basis do not come as easily as some members think. He has to work for it and attempt to understand those revelations as best he can, within the framework of perspective and knowledge he currently has.

[Finrock]

Good evening HiJolly! I hope you are enjoying your weekend. :)

I just don't know what to say, Finrock. How can you dissemble and claim you didn't mean to say what you said, over and over again? There's no point.

HiJolly

You've lost me. I feel like I've taken some psychedelic drug and awoken in a foreign land...

Here is my synopsis of the arguments being made and my attempt to understand what has happened:

Legend

*Church=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or The Church of God or The Church of Jesus Christ

*Any statement that comes after a number is a conclusion

*Any statement that comes after a letter is a premise

Argument for the Church Being Fallible

1. The Church is fallible

a.) The Church is an earthly institution

b.) The Church has imperfect members

Counter Argument for Church Being Fallible

2. Conclusion 1 is false

a.) The Church isn't just an earthly institution

b.) The Church is independent of it's members

What do you think I claimed that I am now feigning that I didn't claim when I claimed it...over and over again?

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

Here is my synopsis of the arguments being made and my attempt to understand what has happened:

Legend

*Church=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or The Church of God or The Church of Jesus Christ

I don't really want to post more, but your 'kindness' is making me feel guilty. <sigh> I shouldn't give you such power over me.

Ok, so are you claiming that you are referring to the Church in it's historical setting of church names over time, as the following excerpt from Wikipedia explains it (see the red and the blue church names)? I can't imagine, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me. And if so, then you left out two other names, so it really doesn't make sense after all.

You wouldn't make up the other two church names out of thin air, would you? Knowing that there is no commonality of vocabulary, and thus confusing everyone but yourself? And realizing that there might actually be real churches (like our own) with those exact names, not in heaven or in some ill-defined imaginary place, but actually here on earth, as mentioned in the Wikipedia? I just can't imagine you doing that.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The church teaches that it is a continuation of the Church of Christ established in 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. This original church underwent several name changes during the 1830s, being called the Church of Jesus Christ, the Church of God,[60] and then in 1834, the name was officially changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints.[61] In April 1838, the name was officially changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.[62] After Smith died, Brigham Young and the largest body of Smith's followers incorporated the LDS Church in 1851 by legislation of the State of Deseret[63] under the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which included a hyphenated "Latter-day" and a lower-case "d".[64]"

60 (1905), History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 3, Deseret News, pp. 23–24, History of the Church of Jesus ... - Google Books .

61 Smith, Joseph, Jr.; Williams, Frederick G.; Cowdery, Oliver (1834), "Minutes of a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ, May 3, 1834", The Evening and the Morning Star 2 (20): 160, Evening and Morning Star Volume 2, Number 20 .

62 Smith, Joseph, Jr. (August 1838), Elders' Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1 (4): 52, 1838 Elders' Journal 4 . (1838) Manuscript History of the Church, book A-1, LDS Church Archives, 1838, p. 37 , reproduced in (1989), The Papers of Joseph Smith: Autobiographical and Historical Writings, 1, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, pp. 302–303 . (1994) Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1994, p. 160 .

63 The initial incorporation by the non-existent State of Deseret[1] was not legally valid, but was soon ratified by the Utah Territory in 1851 [2] and 1855. See Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Romney, 136 U.S. 44–45 (1890).

64 State of Deseret: An Ordinance, incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, February 4, 1851.

[rameumptom]

If the Church is perfect and infallible, as some suggest, then would it be an evolving Church? Would its doctrines change and evolve over time?

Brigham Young stated that polygamy was an eternal covenant that would not be taken from the earth. In 1890, the practice was stopped via revelation. Brigham Young also taught the Adam-God concept, and even had it as part of the temple ceremony. Pres Kimball said the theory was "wrong".

So, which part of this is perfect?

You see, it does not need to be perfect. You only get perfect with perfected beings. The Church as we have it is directed on earth by fallible people. We do not have every bit of doctrine and truth, nor all the keys God has. We do have the doctrines and keys necessary to exalt mankind - and that is sufficient.

What keys are we missing? Elder Bruce R. McConkie mentioned that we do not hold the keys of resurrection. That will clearly be an important key for us to have IF we ever wish to be exalted, don't you think? But we don't need it as of yet. Therefore the Church is not complete and perfect, but it is good enough for God's purposes.

And with that, I'm ending my part of this discussion, because I think we are talking past one another. I'm tired of clarifying and re-clarifying my statements, just so someone can take my statements in an entirely different (and incorrect) direction.

[marts1]

And with that, I'm ending my part of this discussion, because I think we are talking past one another. I'm tired of clarifying and re-clarifying my statements, just so someone can take my statements in an entirely different (and incorrect) direction.

This statement would apply to several here. Just a thought...It has been said that Jesus was a perfect man, lived a perfect, sinless life and yet He did not have all knowledge or power. So perhaps the word perfect can be used for the church as well or maybe we need to check the total meaning of every word and explain which one were refering to, making these posts even longer.lolol

[Finrock]

Good evening HiJolly! It's a pleasure to be able to respond to your post. :)

I don't really want to post more, but your 'kindness' is making me feel guilty. <sigh> I shouldn't give you such power over me.

Thank you for the compliment! Thank you also for taking the time to respond despite your reservations to do so. I do appreciate the show of respect.

Ok, so are you claiming that you are referring to the Church in it's historical setting of church names over time, as the following excerpt from Wikipedia explains it (see the red and the blue church names)? I can't imagine, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me. And if so, then you left out two other names, so it really doesn't make sense after all.

You wouldn't make up the other two church names out of thin air, would you? Knowing that there is no commonality of vocabulary, and thus confusing everyone but yourself? And realizing that there might actually be real churches (like our own) with those exact names, not in heaven or in some ill-defined imaginary place, but actually here on earth, as mentioned in the Wikipedia? I just can't imagine you doing that.

Please bear with me as I take some time to explain. First, please realize that there is no doubt that I'm a fallible man. Because of my inherent flaws I am prone to mistakes including mistakes in communication. Add on top of that the fact that we are attempting a conversation on an internet discussion forum and communication can sometimes become very difficult. I point this out in order to ask that if you would be charitable and allow for some benefit of the doubt that my intentions are to communicate fairly and honestly, and therefore give me an opportunity to fix my mistakes in communication when they arise.

Now, here is my attempt to clarify any confusion as to what I've been intending to communicate. I've been using the names "Church of God", "Church of Jesus Christ", and "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" interchangeably. To me these names all denote the same church. Even in the Wikipedia article you quoted, the name changes listed did not denote to different churches each time the name was changed, but rather it was simply a different way to name the exact same church. I assumed that this was common knowledge. Once I realized that this was causing some confusing, I wanted to clarify that when I was using those three different names of God's (Jesus') Church, I was always and in each case speaking of the exact same Church. This is why I created the Legend so that it would be more clear as to what I had intended to communicate.

However, my point doesn't fall or stand on what God's Church is named. Therefore, in order to simplify and clarify any further communication I will use the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" from here on out and please know that by this I mean the Church that was established on this earth by Jesus Christ during His mortal ministry, which was subsequently lost from the earth, and then later restored through Joseph Smith in 1830 and which is currently known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." My reason for using the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" is because it is shorter to write and it correctly describes who's church I am talking about.

Is this acceptable to you?

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Good evening rameumptom! I hope all is well with you tonight. :)

If the Church is perfect and infallible, as some suggest,

then would it be an evolving Church?

I don't accept the premise that it is an evolving church. I believe only our understanding of truth and doctrine to be evolving. I do believe that it is a living Church in that what principles are applicable or in what way any respective principle is applied to it's mortal members changes. Truth does not change. The Church contains all truth even if we are not aware of it.

Would its doctrines change and evolve over time?

I don't accept that doctrines have changed nor that they have evolved. Again, only what principles are applicable, what principles we are aware of, how we understand a principle, and how each principle is applied, changes.

Brigham Young stated that polygamy was an eternal covenant that would not be taken from the earth. In 1890, the practice was stopped via revelation. Brigham Young also taught the Adam-God concept, and even had it as part of the temple ceremony. Pres Kimball said the theory was "wrong".

So, which part of this is perfect?

The practice of polygamy and the ending of it's earthly practice is not an example of evolving or changing doctrine. It is an example of a principle that is still true but not applicable to us during the current mortal period. Polygamy still exist in heaven.

I don't accept that Adam-God theory was ever doctrine. It was never vetted through the scriptural process to become binding doctrine. It was never canonical in any respect.

You see, it does not need to be perfect. You only get perfect with perfected beings. The Church as we have it is directed on earth by fallible people.

I think you are confusing the entity "Church" with the entities "individuals." A perfect Church with imperfect members can logically exist. And I suggest that this is precisely what the reality is.

We do not have every bit of doctrine and truth, nor all the keys God has. We do have the doctrines and keys necessary to exalt mankind - and that is sufficient.

I agree, but this doesn't help your point. We, individuals, do not have to have all keys or even be aware of all truths in order for the Church to be perfect.

What keys are we missing? Elder Bruce R. McConkie mentioned that we do not hold the keys of resurrection. That will clearly be an important key for us to have IF we ever wish to be exalted, don't you think? But we don't need it as of yet. Therefore the Church is not complete and perfect, but it is good enough for God's purposes.

You are simply speaking to the status of our knowledge and authority, not to the status of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ contains all truth and all authority. This does not necessarily mean that all truth is known to us or that all authority is given to us.

Now, The Church of Jesus Christ (please see my post to HiJolly to see how I am using this this name) is not simply an earthly institution. It existed during premortality, it existed during the time of Adam and Eve, it existed all through-out history, it even existed during the time of the Apostasy. Obviously there were times when it wasn't established on the earth, but the Church of Jesus Christ has always existed. Joseph Smith did not create a new church. God, through Joseph Smith, restored the Church of Jesus Christ on to the earth. Therefore The Church of Jesus Christ is not contingent upon it's mortal members in any way. One way to think of this is to imagine that the Church of Jesus Christ is a container that has always existed that contains all truth, all authority, and all keys. The mortals who join this Church are given those truths, those authorities, and those keys that are requisite to them at any given time. However, the status of the members' knowledge of truth, their authority, or their keys does not affect the container that has always existed and in which all truth, all authority, and all keys exist.

Speaking of what principles people are aware of, what principles are applicable, or what principles are law during any given time in mortality only speaks to the membership of the Church, but not to the Church itself. The Church of Jesus Christ is a perfect and infallible Church with imperfect and fallible members.

And with that, I'm ending my part of this discussion, because I think we are talking past one another. I'm tired of clarifying and re-clarifying my statements, just so someone can take my statements in an entirely different (and incorrect) direction.

You are, of course, free to do as you wish. Please note, however, that other than my initial post to this thread addressed to you and HiJolly, I've made no attempt other than now to address any of the points that you have made. So, if this point was addressed to me, realize that if a person has taken your "statements in an entirely different direction", it cannot have been me.

Regards,

Finrock