What Are The Requirements For Salvation?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 1 2005, 05:46 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Dec 1 2005, 08:58 AM

And to break it down I would say:

1. <scripture> is the absolute source of authority for all doctrine and practice.

2. <scripture> is ininfallible.

3. <scripture> is sufficient.

4. <scripture> is clear.

←

...

I usually argue for a narrow interpretation of what constitutes doctrine but I wouldn't simply limit it to only scripture. Joseph Smith received revelation and it was instantaneously accepted as the definitive word of God - canonization did not make it any more true. If the brethren today were to declare officially and in harmony that such and such were true - you needn't wait until it were canonized to make it equivelent to scripture.

←

Hallelujah! (and the crowd in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir goes wild)

Joseph Smith received revelation and it was instantaneously accepted as the definitive word of God - canonization did not make it any more true.

Exactly. Revelation from God is the word of God whether or not it is written down and included in our canon or standard works of scripture.

If the brethren today were to declare officially and in harmony that such and such were true - you needn't wait until it were canonized to make it equivalent to scripture.

Exactly. Official declarations from prophets of God are officially the word of God, and the only thing we need to know before knowing whether or not those declarations are the word of God is a personal witness from the Holy Ghost.

(And btw, I’m trying to remember in which thread we were debating this topic)

[prisonchaplain]

Even at ldstalk.com I give some posters more attention than others, and I'm not even LDS!

Heh, I think I could tell you what I think that means, but I'd rather hear it from you.

What did you mean by that?

Context is so important! Thank you Ray for highlighting my point. We were discussing the Scripture-Only vs. Scripture + Tradition debate. I was arguing that Scripture is our ultimate source of teaching, but that lessons offered by respected scholars and teachers obviously would carry more import than those offered by some unknown individual. Then came the quote above--the point being that even at this site, where theology is discussed primarily in a framework that is outside of my own faith tradition, I recognize that some here have garned more knowledge and understanding than others.

Ray...I was speaking positively, not negatively. That LDS laypeople can draw and hold the interest of a Protestant clergyperson should be seen as a compliment.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says: Personally, I wouldn’t agree to that. When I said the Bible was clear, I was trying to define the sola scripture position but I think the Bible is far from clear in the ways you just described.

In many cases it is morally confusing. For years the Bible was used by “good christians” to justify slavery. The Bible recommends beating children with a stick. The Bible promotes genocide of those of other religions. The Bible authorizes legal rape, the punishment of grandchildren of a sinner. It seems to allow for the murder of someone who practiced birth control, etc.

One of my arguments is that confusion comes most often when people try to force the Bible to directly answer questions it does not directly answer. Slavery is a perfect example. It was prevelent during biblical times. God's commandments about fair treatment of those who serve us is clear. Beyond that, people on both sides of the debate try to enlist the Bible as ammunition for their causes. For reasons that God knows, He did not offer a clearcut "Thou shalt not own slaves. Thou shalt oppose slavery wherever it is found." So, the Bible "was not clear" because proud men tried to use it for their own purposes. As for disciplining children, the Bible clearly calls for it. Corporal punishment, done properly, was far more effective than our current system, where children learn early to say, "You can't hit more or I'll call the police." Again, anyone who would use the Bible to say it's okay to beat a child or abuse him/her is not seeking God's will, but ammunition to buttress their own agenda. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Additionally, be careful of conflating some of the compromises that God allowed--i.e. divorce regulations, with God's perfect will.

Snow says: I don’t think it is a false dichotomy at all. You are free to interpret the Bible how you will but if you take something outside of the Bible and use it as a mandate to decide what the Bible means, you are no longer adhering to strict sola scriptura. Requiring one particular interpretation of the scriptures, puts that “creed” on par with the scriptures an that blows the whole principle.

Let me restate your dichotamy. Either, we allow 6 billion interpretations of the Bible, and consider them all equally valid, or we adhere to one interpretation, issued by God's ordained authority...at this point in your argument, either the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints.

My contention is that there are not 6 billion valid interpretations of Scripture, nor two billion (the # of those claiming Christian affiliation), but rather that most Christian denominations have, over history, concurred on certain key teachings, and that the differences over key theological questions are remarkably few.

Snow says: I didn’t actually do that [argue for choosing between Scripture Only or Scripture + Tradition]. Personally I have no great respect for tradition... that is if by tradition we are obligated to accept the creeds and councils of 1600 years ago.

Actually, for Mormons, if I'm not mistaken, the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is discarded as having been corrupted. Instead, the traditions, history, and pronouncements of LDS prophets becomes the tradition that is held co-equal with Scripture. I believe you said as much in a different response to someone else--that you would not need to wait for canonization if Mormon prophets or leaders concurred on a matter.

Snow says: You like Mormons to the fratricidal Cain, I say that is absurd and you retort something about victimization...

No, you drew the conclusion. What I said was that if God has indeed revealed himself to humanity, and anyone rejects that revelation in favor of his/her own tradition or understanding, then that rejection is similar to Cain's error. Cain's initial error was not killing his brother, but offering a sacrifice to God that was not according to God's dictates.

I went to say that the warning against wrongly worshiping God is not directed at Mormons. It goes out to anyone who would forsake a true revelation of God in favor of their own tradition or upbringing.

Indeed, though the consequences of not doing following God as revealed are far less severe in your theology, Mormons offer the same alarm to the world--you need to join us, we have the true revelation of God, through our prophet Joseph Smith, and those who followed him.

Snow says: That is precisely the difference between mainstream Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ. You can’t/won’t say that you are right.

Actually, "We" are right. However, "we" is not the General Council of the Assemblies of God. We Christians are right in declaring Jesus Christ as the one Way, the one Truth, the one Life. We know who he is. We worship him, commune with him, are guided by him, live and die by him. Some of us are martyred for his glory. Others are jailed. Others lose jobs, family, friends, and suffer humiliation. We look forward to gathering together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, for a great reunion. I look forward to dining with men of my brothers and sisters--yes from various denominations--but all followers of the Way.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Dec 2 2005, 01:55 PM-->

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 1 2005, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 1 2005, 03:45 PM

Even at ldstalk.com I give some posters more attention than others, and I'm not even LDS!

Heh, I think I could tell you what I think that means, but I'd rather hear it from you.

What did you mean by that?

I was arguing that Scripture is our ultimate source of teaching, but that lessons offered by respected scholars and teachers obviously would carry more import than those offered by some unknown individual.

Ray...I was speaking positively, not negatively. That LDS laypeople can draw and hold the interest of a Protestant clergyperson should be seen as a compliment.

Heh, yeah, that’s what I thought you meant.

It brought to my mind another comment you made earlier in this thread:

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain

@Nov 28 2005, 08:20 PM

… Protestants hold that Scripture alone is the final authority, and that all believers should "study to show themselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God."

That said, of course tradition, church history, and even creeds carry some weight. God has given some a gift of teaching. There are learned men and women who have dedicated their lives to the study of the word, who have mastered the biblical languages, and who's writings deserve respect.

… Furthermore, learned teachers with recognized training bare more careful attention than a layperson who thinks they've discovered something.

Which also brought to my mind several of the statements made by my Dad and his parents, who with disdain wondered how I could possibly refute their understanding of the Bible, when I told them that I had discovered the truth of certain things for myself.

(And in case I haven’t told you, my Dad and his parents also went to college to study the Bible, after which they spent their lives (and in the case of my Dad, is still spending his life) trying to share their understanding of the Bible in what they call the "Church of Christ".

Which also brought to my mind some of the statements made by Joseph Smith, when he told his Mother and other people how he had discovered the truth for himself.

As well as several of the statements made by Jesus, who talked about how we can know the truth for ourselves, despite what certain “professors” of religion have taught.

But, hey, if you only want to pay attention and respect those people who you think know the truth, instead of listening to those of us who are telling you that you should only pay attention to God and what He can reveal to you through the power of the Holy Ghost, that’s up to you.

I simply wanted to make sure that I understood what you were saying.

[Ray]

We [LDS] would say exactly what you have just said, even though some of your beliefs do not agree with ours.

Or in other words, We [LDS] Christians are right in declaring Jesus Christ as the one Way, the one Truth, the one Life. We know who he is. We worship him, commune with him, are guided by him, live and die by him. Some of us are martyred for his glory. Others are jailed. Others lose jobs, family, friends, and suffer humiliation. We look forward to gathering together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, for a great reunion. I look forward to dining with many of my brothers and sisters----yes, from various denominations--but all followers of the Way.

And btw, do you realize that all "denominations" are not of equal value?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 2 2005, 12:13 PM

Exactly.  Official declarations from prophets of God are officially the word of God, and the only thing we need to know before knowing whether or not those declarations are the word of God is a personal witness from the Holy Ghost.

(And btw, I’m trying to remember in which thread we were debating this topic)

←

Yes - we have debated this before. What I argue against is Mormons who think that whatever Brethren say has to be true/word of God. Some think that applies to anything said is General Conference.

My position is that what they say could be true and is very likely true but is not necessarily true.

[prisonchaplain]

Ray says: But, hey, if you only want to pay attention and respect those people who you think know the truth, instead of listening to those of us who are telling you that you should only pay attention to God and what He can reveal to you through the power of the Holy Ghost, that’s up to you.

Frankly I liked the first 90% of your post so much. You really seemed to have heard me. Then, you brush aside all nuance, and insinuate that I would totally disregard what laypeople have to say.

Ray, I'm a Pentecostal. Our movement actually started AFTER the LDS did. Our founders were mostly of low education, low status, and little or no income. Our churches we on the wrong side of the tracks. Tar and feathering were common welcomings for our early pioneers. Many of our pastors and missionaries were jailed for practing medicine without a license (praying for the sick).

That said, of course I believe that God can--and often does--speak through humble but willing servants. I strongly believe in the lead and direction of the Holy Ghost. If we really say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we had better be letting the Spirit's voice direct us as we study it

And, as an aside, I don't know you, your age, or your background, but I have indeed found your postings some of the most intriguing and heartfelt.

[Snow]

Let me restate your dichotamy. Either, we allow 6 billion interpretations of the Bible, and consider them all equally valid, or we adhere to one interpretation, issued by God's ordained authority...at this point in your argument, either the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints.

No, that’s not exactly what I am saying. You can consider various interpretations valid or not valid. It is just illogical to be a sola scripturian and think that your own interpretation should be valid for anybody else besides yourself, especially when what you have to go on is human understanding, rather than divine revelation.

My contention is that there are not 6 billion valid interpretations of Scripture, nor two billion (the # of those claiming Christian affiliation), but rather that most Christian denominations have, over history, concurred on certain key teachings, and that the differences over key theological questions are remarkably few.

I am not persuaded. If you are trying to convince me that the Eastern Orthodox system is, in the sight of God, pretty much the same as, say, The Crouch’s, Benny Hinn and company, then you and I see things through very different lenses.

Actually, for Mormons, if I'm not mistaken, the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is discarded as having been corrupted. Instead, the traditions, history, and pronouncements of LDS prophets becomes the tradition that is held co-equal with Scripture. I believe you said as much in a different response to someone else--that you would not need to wait for canonization if Mormon prophets or leaders concurred on a matter.

Um - no. If something is truly on par with scripture, then we canonize it and it becomes scripture and as canon is the measuring stick against which all else is measured. While the mainstream Christian canon is only theoretically open, our canon is absolutely open and active. We do not limit God’s ability to communicate with us. When a prophet speaks, what he speaks can be on par with scripture but is not necessarily on par with scripture.

Actually, "We" are right. However, "we" is not the General Council of the Assemblies of God. We Christians are right in declaring Jesus Christ as the one Way, the one Truth, the one Life. We know who he is. We worship him, commune with him, are guided by him, live and die by him.

We as in we Pope Bendict XVI, Jimmy Swaggart and everyone in between all together as one big happy family united in truth and light? Not in my opinion.

[prisonchaplain]

It is just illogical to be a sola scripturian and think that your own interpretation should be valid for anybody else besides yourself, especially when what you have to go on is human understanding, rather than divine revelation. ... Um - no. If something is truly on par with scripture, then we canonize it and it becomes scripture and as canon is the measuring stick against which all else is measured. While the mainstream Christian canon is only theoretically open, our canon is absolutely open and active. We do not limit God’s ability to communicate with us. When a prophet speaks, what he speaks can be on par with scripture but is not necessarily on par with scripture.

I'm plowing through "How Wide the Divide" right now, and realize we are discussing some of the same issues the book raises. I may have more to say about the issue of Scripture canonization and interpretation once I finish the book. In fact, I'll probably start a new post, with the book review as #1.

I am not persuaded. If you are trying to convince me that the Eastern Orthodox system is, in the sight of God, pretty much the same as, say, The Crouch’s, Benny Hinn and company, then you and I see things through very different lenses. ...  We as in we Pope Bendict XVI, Jimmy Swaggart and everyone in between all together as one big happy family united in truth and light? Not in my opinion.

Despite the glaring differences in style and approach to worship services, and some substantial disagreements regarding some doctrines, there is also an incredible amount of concurence amongst these groups.

This issue of differences and similarities within the Christian family, especially in regards to the doctrine of God and of salvation, is also covered in "How Wide the Divide," and I hope to add some fresh insights with my book review of it. In the mean time, Merry Christmas!

[Snow]

PC,

Okay,

Happy reading - I think it is a very good book and often use material from it in some of our discussions.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 2 2005, 11:07 PM

If something is truly on par with scripture, then we canonize it and it becomes scripture and as canon is the measuring stick against which all else is measured. While the mainstream Christian canon is only theoretically open, our canon is absolutely open and active. We do not limit God’s ability to communicate with us. When a prophet speaks, what he speaks can be on par with scripture but is not necessarily on par with scripture.

I don’t know where you got the idea I highlighted, Snow, but I don’t know of anything written by a prophet of our Lord to support what you are saying.

Or in other words, the words of God from prophets of our Lord do not need to be included in the “canon” to be regarded as scripture. The words of God in the “canon” or “standard” works are merely the standard by which we can “measure” whether or not the words of men are the words of God, aka scripture.

Or in other words, the fact that we [as a Church] haven’t added more scriptures to the “standard” works doesn’t mean that we [as a Church] haven’t been continually guided by more scripture.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain

And, as an aside, I don't know you, your age, or your background, but I have indeed found your postings some of the most intriguing and heartfelt.

I would thank you for that compliment if I didn’t think it would encourage you to believe that I feel “honored” for having a “clergyman” think that the words of this “layman” have some merit.

Or in other words, I have the feeling that you think most “clergymen” are more correct than "laymen" in their understanding of God and His gospel simply because most “laymen” do not go to college to study these things, as if that has anything to do with giving someone an understanding of the truth and authority from God.

p.s. I'm attaching an article written by a noted LDS scholar to let you know how much I value a college education. And btw, I'm also a college graduate.

[prisonchaplain]

I would thank you for that compliment if I didn’t think it would encourage you to believe that I feel “honored” for having a “clergyman” think that the words of this “layman” have some merit.

Or in other words, I have the feeling that you think most “clergymen” are more correct than "laymen" in their understanding of God and His gospel simply because most “laymen” do not go to college to study these things, as if that has anything to do with giving someone an understanding of the truth and authority from God.

Ray, you won't thank me for saying I find your posts heartfelt and intriguing, because I'm a clergyperson? Look, I'm no elitist. I come from a movement that has struggled with just the opposite...anti-intellectualism. So, I suppose my comments about having respect for those whom God has gifted with education, a call to teach, and the talents to comment intelligently on matters of theology came across a bit strident to you. I meant the compliment to you both seriously and simply, and meant no condescension whatsoever.

[Ray]

Then in light of your last post, I will now state that I am thankful for the compliment you gave me, and I will also state that I am thankful that I had the wrong idea before when I thought you were exhibiting the same attitude my parents and grandparents exhibited, and still exhibit, when I tell them that I know the truth of some things they do not agree with.

It is nice to be wrong occasionally. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 5 2005, 11:58 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 2 2005, 11:07 PM

If something is truly on par with scripture, then we canonize it and it becomes scripture and as canon is the measuring stick against which all else is measured. While the mainstream Christian canon is only theoretically open, our canon is absolutely open and active. We do not limit God’s ability to communicate with us. When a prophet speaks, what he speaks can be on par with scripture but is not necessarily on par with scripture.

I don’t know where you got the idea I highlighted, Snow, but I don’t know of anything written by a prophet of our Lord to support what you are saying.

Or in other words, the words of God from prophets of our Lord do not need to be included in the “canon” to be regarded as scripture. The words of God in the “canon” or “standard” works are merely the standard by which we can “measure” whether or not the words of men are the words of God, aka scripture.

Or in other words, the fact that we [as a Church] haven’t added more scriptures to the “standard” works doesn’t mean that we [as a Church] haven’t been continually guided by more scripture.

←

Oh boy.

Then define scripture in that context. And no, you can't say that scripture is anything that is spoken by the Brethren when the are inspired because there is no inspiratmeter to tell us when they are inspired. And, you can't say that they are speaking scripture when their words are in harmony with the canon because then they are merely giving correct explanation of scripture. Just give me the measure, objective criteria.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 5 2005, 12:25 PM

p.s.  I'm attaching an article written by a noted LDS scholar to let you know how much I value a college education.  And btw, I'm also a college graduate. 

←

Ray,

Have you read that article? Do you know what it is about?

It's Hugh Nibley's rebuke of the Brethren and BYU.

[Nasho]

I know the KJV of the bible is the accepted version of the Bible ( as translated correctly) The arguments from others don't add up. There are thousands of translations, each different in some ways or the other. Not to mention the fact that phrases have also changed, meanings may be different than what we know them to mean now. Words have vastly different meanings than they did from when I was a child so how much have they changed in hundreds of years? So how can it be argued that our phrase "as it is translated correctly" be so far fetched? If the bible is 100% correct what about all the other translations? Are they then wrong? Is the KJV the only correct one? What about what it was translated from? King james admitted it was different in some ways. Why? Read more history about King james and you'll find he was at times corrupt and encouraged Priests to be too. Also if belief in God is all that's necessary to be saved then Cain and Satan are saved. Who knows better than they who God is? Preachers have for years said no matter what , no matter how, if you believe you are saved , no matter the sin.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 5 2005, 07:28 PM-->

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 5 2005, 11:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 2 2005, 11:07 PM

If something is truly on par with scripture, then we canonize it and it becomes scripture and as canon is the measuring stick against which all else is measured. While the mainstream Christian canon is only theoretically open, our canon is absolutely open and active. We do not limit God’s ability to communicate with us. When a prophet speaks, what he speaks can be on par with scripture but is not necessarily on par with scripture.

I don’t know where you got the idea I highlighted, Snow, but I don’t know of anything written by a prophet of our Lord to support what you are saying.

Or in other words, the words of God from prophets of our Lord do not need to be included in the “canon” to be regarded as scripture. The words of God in the “canon” or “standard” works are merely the standard by which we can “measure” whether or not the words of men are the words of God, aka scripture.

Or in other words, the fact that we [as a Church] haven’t added more scriptures to the “standard” works doesn’t mean that we [as a Church] haven’t been continually guided by more scripture.

←

Oh boy.

Then define scripture in that context. And no, you can't say that scripture is anything that is spoken by the Brethren when the are inspired because there is no inspiratmeter to tell us when they are inspired. And, you can't say that they are speaking scripture when their words are in harmony with the canon because then they are merely giving correct explanation of scripture. Just give me the measure, objective criteria.

←

Heh, okay. Aside from the scriptures in the "standard" works which serve as "examples" of what constitutes scripture, the "other" standard we should use to determine what constitutes scripture is the personal witness we can each receive from the Holy Ghost. And incidentally, the latter standard is the only standard that really matters, because that is the only standard we can honestly use to not only determine what should be regarded as "scripture", but also what should be regarded as "canon".

Or in other words, when people speak to us, we don't need to wait until their words are included in the "standard" works before knowing whether or not that person is a true prophet of God, and we also don't need to wait until then before knowing whether or not what that person has spoken constitutes "scripture".

To know that someone has indeed spoken what may truly be regarded as scripture, we can simply Ask God for a personal witness at that very moment when we hear anybody say anything, and then after receiving a personal witness from the Holy Ghost assuring us of the truth of those words, we can then know that that person is indeed a prophet of God and that what they have said is scripture.

And btw, please notice that I am not limiting my definition to the words of people who are "supposedly" prophets of God. Instead, I am telling you how to know whether or not someone actually is a prophet of God, based upon whether or not what that person is saying is in agreement with what you know to be true.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 6 2005, 12:00 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Dec 5 2005, 12:25 PM

p.s.  I'm attaching an article written by a noted LDS scholar to let you know how much I value a college education.  And btw, I'm also a college graduate. 

←

Ray,

Have you read that article? Do you know what it is about?

It's Hugh Nibley's rebuke of the Brethren and BYU.

←

I don’t agree with your assessment. I believe brother Nibley saw the “brethren” as true priesthood leaders, and not mere managers. And I also believe brother Nibley was NOT saying there is absolutely no value in a “college” or “university” education.

I also believe brother Nibley was mainly trying to warn any and all “university” graduates of the dangers in putting too much stock in a “university” diploma, or education, implying that gaining a “university” education has nothing to do with whether or not someone can gain true knowledge.

And the reason I brought it up for prisonchaplain was because I thought he was putting to much stock in his status as a “clergyman”, believing that by going to “college” he was able to learn more about God than any of us “laymen”.

And btw, I was hoping PC would particularly focus on this part of brother Nibley’s talk, although I included the complete talk because I like all the rest of it too.

…This is not the time or the place to pursue a subject in which Brother Packer wisely recommends a judicious restraint. I bring it up only to ask myself, "What if I appeared for an endowment session in the Temple dressed in this outfit I'm wearing now?" There would be something incongruous about it, of course, even comical. But why should that be so? The original idea behind both garments is the same - to provide a clothing more fitting to another ambience, action and frame of mind than that of the warehouse, office, or farm. The 109th section of the Doctrine and Covenants describes the function and purpose of the temple as much the same as those of a university. A house where all seek learning by study and faith, by discriminating search among the best books (no official list is given - you must search them out), and by constant discussion - diligently teaching "one another words of wisdom"; everybody seeking greater light and knowledge as all things come to be "gathered in one"-hence uni-versity (D&C 109:7, 14; 42:9; italics added).

Both the black and the white robes proclaim a primary concern for things of the mind and the spirit, sobriety of life, and concentration of purpose removed from the largely mindless, mechanical routines of your everyday world. Cap and gown announced that the wearer had accepted certain rules of living and been tested in special kinds of knowledge.

What is wrong, then, with the flowing robes? For one thing they are somewhat theatrical and too easily incline the wearer, beguiled by their splendor, to masquerade and affectation. In the time of Socrates the Sophists were making a big thing of their special manner of dress and delivery. It was all for show, of course, but it was "dressing for success" with a vengeance, for the whole purpose of the rhetorical brand of education which they inaugurated and sold at top prices to the ambitious youth was to make the student successful as a paid advocate in the law courts, a commanding figure in the public assemblies, or successful promoter of daring business enterprises by mastering those the irresistible techniques of persuasion and salesmanship which the Sophists had to offer.

That was the classical education which Christianity embraced at the urging of the great Saint Augustine. He had learned by hard experience that you can't trust revelation because you can't control it-the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and what the Church needed was something more available and reliable than that, something, he says, commodior et multitudini tutior - "handier and more reliable for the public"-than revelation or even reason, and that is exactly what the rhetorical education had to offer.

At the beginning of this century scholars were strenuously debating the momentous transition from Geist to Amt, from spirit to office, from inspiration to ceremony in the leadership of the early church, when the inspired leader, Peter, was replaced by the typical city bishop, an appointed and elected official - ambitious, jealous, calculating, power-seeking, authoritarian, an able politician and a master of public relations. We have an immense literature on this in the Patrologia. This was Saint Augustine's trained rhetorician. At the same time the charismatic gifts, not to be trusted, were replaced by rites and ceremonies that could be timed and controlled, all following the Roman Imperial model, as Alfoeldi has shown, including the caps and gowns.

And down through the centuries the robes have never failed to keep the public at a respectful distance, inspire a decent awe for the professions, and impart an air of solemnity and mystery that has been as good as money in the bank. The four faculties of theology, philosophy, medicine and law have been the perennial seedbeds, not only of professional wisdom, but of the quackery and venality so generously exposed to public view by Plato, Rabelais, Moliere, Swift, Gibbon, A. E. Housman, H. L. Mencken and others…

And btw, if you have the time, please read the complete message.

[prisonchaplain]

Rays says:  I also believe brother Nibley was mainly trying to warn any and all “university” graduates of the dangers in putting too much stock in a “university” diploma, or education, implying that gaining a “university” education has nothing to do with whether or not someone can gain true knowledge.

And the reason I brought it up for prisonchaplain was because I thought he was putting to much stock in his status as a “clergyman”, believing that by going to “college” he was able to learn more about God than any of us “laymen”.

I'll deal with Bro. Nibley later. First, for Ray!

The year is 1993. After nearly seven years of service as a missionary in South Korea, the Holy Spirit clearly leads me to enroll at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Within six weeks of enrollment, I'm sitting with six other new students, facing the President. Del Tarr, who had served many years as a missionary in West Africa, recounts to us the story of Jesus washing the feet of his twelve disciples. He then tells us that if we are to make God's best use of the advanced theological degrees we are pursuing, if we are to lead God's church in God's way, if we are to be counted worthy Shepherds, then we'd better learn the servant-leadership Jesus modeled. Bottom line? GRAB A TOWEL! And, he handed each of us a brand new towel. He then encouraged us not to wait until we graduated, wait until we'd dawned our 'penguine outfits' before we began ministry. Get out and do it now! Learn while you study!

I am pro-education, and it does sadden me when some laypeople despise the noble labor of study. But, quite frankly, a powerful testimony is often more convincing than the most carefully prepared lesson. Furthermore, a single moment of Holy Ghost-anointed insight can bring more life than month's of uninspired book work.

My school hit a great balance with its slogan: KNOWLEDGE ON FIRE! I hope this tale helps you understand my heart better, Ray.

[BenRaines]

To date I have not found anything wrong with your heart PC. As a matter of fact I think that you are the most open minded clergy that I have ever found. Most who come to this site look for ways to condemn or to try to pick a fight. I see you tryin to understand and sharing your viewpoint.

In my book I find you and what you say welcome here.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 6 2005, 05:04 PM

...a powerful testimony is often more convincing than the most carefully prepared lesson.  Furthermore, a single moment of Holy Ghost-anointed insight can bring more life than month's of uninspired book work.

I think you touched upon the point I was trying to make in what I have just quoted from you, but just to make sure you understand my point, I want to make sure that you understand that I don't see any problem with studying, or of going to college or a university to learn some things, and I don't believe brother Nibley did either. As I said, I think he was mainly trying to warn college graduates about putting too much stock in receiving a degree or diploma, since knowledge about anything can be obtained without that.

Or in other words, a degree or diploma only shows that a person has learned what the teachers at a college or university tried to teach them, which isn't necessarily the truth... and I'm not suggesting that those teachers are going out of their way to try to teach something they know for a fact is not true, either.

Or in other words, to know the truth we simply need to commune with God and receive His assurance of the truth, although some information in books can help us to have something to think about as we seek His assurance.

And btw, if you don't know, brother Hugh Nibley died a little while ago, and even though I know he is still living, I refer to him as being dead since that seems to be the custom these days.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 6 2005, 05:04 PM

The year is 1993.  After nearly seven years of service as a missionary in South Korea, the Holy Spirit clearly leads me to enroll at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.  Within six weeks of enrollment, I'm sitting with six other new students, facing the President.  Del Tarr, who had served many years as a missionary in West Africa, recounts to us the story of Jesus washing the feet of his twelve disciples.  He then tells us that if we are to make God's best use of the advanced theological degrees we are pursuing, if we are to lead God's church in God's way, if we are to be counted worthy Shepherds, then we'd better learn the servant-leadership Jesus modeled.  Bottom line?  GRAB A TOWEL!  And, he handed each of us a brand new towel.  He then encouraged us not to wait until we graduated, wait until we'd dawned our 'penguine outfits' before we began ministry.  Get out and do it now!  Learn while you study!

And btw, don’t get the idea that your true knowledge and experiences in another religion wouldn’t benefit you as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, either. As President Hinckley has said, bring all the good you have with you, and see if we can add to it.

You did hear me when I said that I was once a member of another Christian church, didn't you?

[prisonchaplain]

And btw, don’t get the idea that your true knowledge and experiences in another religion [emphasis mine] wouldn’t benefit you as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, either.  As President Hinckley has said, bring all the good you have with you, and see if we can add to it.

Ray, you have unintentionally highlighted a key issue. Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints one of many denominations within the greater Christian family, or it it another religion? I suppose the answer is YES. It's another denomination, in that members affirm much of what the rest of Christianity does, including being born again. YES it's another religion, in that some of its distinctives are strong enough that even you refer evangelicalism (or perhaps Pentecostalism) as another religion.

I'm not quite sure yet how this tension gets resolved, but it sure does make the conversation interesting.

You did hear me when I said that I was once a member of another Christian church, didn't you?

I believe you mentioned the Church of Christ. So, does the LDS Church enjoy your acappello singing?

[prisonchaplain]

Or in other words, a degree or diploma only shows that a person has learned what the teachers at a college or university tried to teach them, which isn't necessarily the truth... and I'm not suggesting that those teachers are going out of their way to try to teach something they know for a fact is not true, either.

Ironically, what you say here is often quite accurate relative to Bible colleges. However, in graduate school seminaries it is less so. And I say this as one who did work at a denominational school! In undergraduate Bible study programs it is often the task of students to digest what the professor produces, do a bit of research, and to be able to restate the teacher's wisdom for exams. HOWEVER, at the graduate level, original research becomes much more important. Students must analyse for themselves. Exams are usually essay in nature, and occasionally, lengthy research papers serve in lieu of the exams.

Another interesting factor about seminary students--most of them are in the late twenties to mid-thirties. They are married, have children, and they work 25 hours per week. Most often, they are already clergypeople who have come to a place in their ministries where they want a fresh vision, fresh anointing...they want to study to show themselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God.

Or in other words, to know the truth we simply need to commune with God and receive His assurance of the truth, although some information in books can help us to have something to think about as we seek His assurance.

If you are speaking of simply knowing God or discerning his will, you might be correct generally. However, when it comes to discerning the Bible and to teaching God's people (whether as a lay-instructor, or as an overseer of a congregation), I would suggest heavy doses of anointed Scripture study.