What One Lds Distinctive Truth Is Most Essential?

[huma17]

So, here's my question:  What one LDS truth, if any, holds the rest together, and justifies belief that the COJCLDS is the restoration of the Christian church and gospel?

That Jesus is the Christ.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Jan 4 2006, 04:44 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Jan 4 2006, 03:23 PM

While some would say that imitation is a sincere form of flattery, others would say that nobody has the right to represent another person without that person’s authorization, no matter how good their intentions may be.  And in the name of Jesus Christ, I say that nobody has the right to represent Jesus Christ unless they receive or have received His authority.

This is another issue that is a "divide." I do have authority to represent Jesus, according to the biblical requirements for overseers or bishops, in that I have been ordained as a minister by leaders of my church. Of course, this claim is only persuasive if you recognize my church as a true Christian church, not an apostate one.

A more important reason why I and any other true believer in Jesus are qualified to represent him, is that we are all priests. All true Christians are qualified and commanded to represent him to a lost and dying world.

[9] But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: [10] Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1Pe 2:9-10 KJV)

This is not written to a segment of the church, or just to the leaders, but to all the believers. We're all called to be priestly representatives of Jesus.

←

The statement from you which I highlighted in bold text is a statement of one of your beliefs which I can honestly state is not supported by anything written in the scriptures, either in the Holy Bible or the Book of Mormon or any other collection of scriptures.

And while you have chosen to believe that Peter was speaking to you and anyone else who is simply a "believer" in Jesus Christ, you can not honestly say that the scriptures in the Bible support the idea that anyone who simply believes in Jesus Christ is thus endowed with His authority simply by virtue of their belief in Him, because neither that statement nor any like it are to be found in any of the Holy scriptures.

But as you said, this is another "divide" that separates us in our beliefs, and we both must come to know the truth if we are ever to become "one" with God.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 4 2006, 05:22 PM

And while you have chosen to believe that Peter was speaking to you and anyone else who is simply a "believer" in Jesus Christ, you can not honestly say that the scriptures in the Bible support the idea that anyone who simply believes in Jesus Christ is thus endowed with His authority simply by virtue of their belief in Him, because neither that statement nor any like it are to be found in any of the Holy scriptures.

←

Peter's initial audience was the church of his day. It was written to followers of Christ. While certain verses are clearly directed at individuals or small groups, the bulk of Scripture--especially in the New Testament--is written generally, to Christians.

I shouldn't need a verse that says, "And these things are written for everyone who reads these words." Normally, when the audience is restricted, the restriction will be specifically stated. When a letter is "open" the "to whom it may concern" need not be specifically stated.

[Ray]

1 Peter 1:1 tells us that Peter wrote his letter to “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,”, and while you and I may arrive at a different understanding concerning what Peter meant by referring to those people as “strangers”, it is obvious that he didn’t write an “open” letter to anyone else who also might read his letter.

And btw, the fact that Peter wasn’t writing his letter to other people doesn’t mean that other people can’t glean some truths from what he was saying to the people he said he was writing to, but it is important to understand the fact that he wasn’t writing his letter to us, just as nobody else was writing to us when they wrote their letters or “testimonies” to the people they said they were writing to, unless they specifically said that they were writing to other people.

Or in other words, there is no good reason to believe that Peter was writing his letter to you or me or anyone else other than the people he said he was writing to in his letter, and an honest person would easily be able to recognize and admit that fact.

[prisonchaplain]

This is real simple. If Peter was writing in general to the churches (not one, but several), and if he was writing to people he did not know (strangers, you said), and if the letter was not specifically addressed to the leaders, but was to the churches in general, then it's a pretty easy assumption that the "royal priesthood" was a term Peter applied to believers in general. He did not have a specific person, or subgroup of people in mind. Furthermore, since the audience was so general (again, to strangers), then the words do indeed apply to believers throughout the ages. The 'royal priesthood' was not a term limited to the first generation of believers.

The Bible is a collection of works written to specific audiences, yes. However, if we accept that Scripture is God's word--that God intended it for his people for all generations, then of course the words apply to us--UNLESS the context is clearly not generalized.

Bottom-line: When 1st Peter declares strangers in several area churches to be a royal priesthood, it's pretty clear that the term applies to all the believers in those churches, and more generally to all believers in all areas throughout the generations.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain

Bottom-line: When 1st Peter declares strangers in several area churches to be a royal priesthood, it's pretty clear that the term applies to all the believers in those churches…

Exactly, if I understand you correctly.

Or in other words, when Peter used the word “strangers” to refer to the people he was writing to, he was referring to the “people” in those churches he was writing to when he said that those people were a chosen generation and that they had the “royal priesthood”.

…and more generally to all believers in all areas throughout the generations.

If I understand you correctly, yes again.

The term “royal priesthood” may be used to refer to what other people have if they have what the people Peter was referring to had, in all areas and throughout all other generations…

but it would not be correct to say that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ inherently has the royal priesthood simply by virtue of the fact that they believe in Jesus Christ.

I will now give you some more references and recommend that you read, study, ponder, and pray about them, if you sincerely want to know the truth.

Laying on of Hands

[Red]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 4 2006, 07:22 PM

And while you have chosen to believe that Peter was speaking to you and anyone else who is simply a "believer" in Jesus Christ, you can not honestly say that the scriptures in the Bible support the idea that anyone who simply believes in Jesus Christ is thus endowed with His authority simply by virtue of their belief in Him, because neither that statement nor any like it are to be found in any of the Holy scriptures.

But as you said, this is another "divide" that separates us in our beliefs, and we both must come to know the truth if we are ever to become "one" with God.

←

I am one with God. I and the Father are one. "The one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:17). I did not just pick up some ideology on day and start peddling it, I am actually one with God and have the authority, privilege and duty to represent Him anywhere, any time.

I would contend that the LDS leadership actually has no authority. They presume to hold the Melchisideck priesthood, the position of mediator between God and man, but Jesus is the only rightful holder of that:

"So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,

"YOU ARE MY SON,

TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU";

just as He says also in another passage,

"YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER

ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." (Hebrews 5:5-6, NASB)

"Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:20, NASB)

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 2:5, NASB).

They also presume to hold the Aaronic priesthood, but...

"Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." (Hebrews 7:11-12, NASB)

"...if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second...When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:7-13, NASB)

If the Law is obsolete and dissapeared because of Jesus fulfilling it, then the old priesthood which administered the Law is obsolete too, no longer with any authority. To try and continue in this priesthood is to deny the cleansing power of what Jesus did on the cross.

[Ray]

Red,

I suggest that you read, study, ponder and pray with God about the same scripture references I gave to prisonchaplain, along with any other insight you can get from people who have been enlightened by the Spirit of God which revealed how people received authority from God before.

And upon receiving that truth, you should then be able to honestly admit that you cannot take the name of our Lord upon yourself unless our Lord gives you His authority, either by His own hands or the hands of His duly authorized servants.

And you should then be able to also notice that there is an “order” of Melchizedek…

…and that one mediator between God and men doesn’t rule out the idea that there are many mediators between men and other men…

…and that while the priesthood after the order of Levi or Aaron doesn’t lead men to perfection, it doesn’t rule out the idea that priesthood after that order brings men closer to perfection than they would be without any priesthood, and that by receiving the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek men will be led even closer to perfection.

Or in other words, when someone has authority from our Lord, their authority or priesthood is after the “order” of either Aaron, or Levi, or Melchizedek, so even if you did have the most authority you could possibly have from our Lord, your authority or priesthood would be after the order of Melchizedek, because that is the order of priesthood which our Lord has Himself, as evidenced by the scriptures you quoted.

And btw, I also suggest that you include Doctrine & Covenants section 107 in your research.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 5 2006, 06:00 PM

Prisonchaplain says:  and more generally to all believers in all areas throughout the generations (are considered as a royal priesthood a holy nation according to 1st Peter).

Ray responds:  If I understand you correctly, yes again.

The term “royal priesthood” may be used to refer to what other people have if they have what the people Peter was referring to had, in all areas and throughout all other generations…

Peter is not referring to what the believers "have," nor to what we "have," but rather to what they and we "ARE."

but it would not be correct to say that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ inherently has the royal priesthood simply by virtue of the fact that they believe in Jesus Christ.

Just so that we are on the same page, some definitions are in order.

1. Priesthood, in Peter's context, is not an office. He's not referring to what LDS call the Aaronic or Melchizedek (sp?) orders. Rather, this is the more general idea of Christians representing Christ to a lost world. BTW Prof. Robinson (BYU) seems to agree, when he argues that true Christians not only have the experience of conversion, but also accept the obligations of Christian living (Jesus says obey my commands if you really love me, for example). Those Christians, office holders or not, who are living the Christian life, do represent the Savior to nonbelievers. How many converts to the LDS Church, for example, come because of invitations from regular members, as opposed to from referrals by missionaries?

2. When I speak of "everyone who believes in Jesus," let us assume the Mormon understanding of salvation--those believers who are "enduring to the end." In reading How Great the Divide, I've become convinced that on this issue at least, we're more in agreement than we realize. My own fellowship is predominantly Armenian in theology, so we too believe the follower of Christ, after conversion, must, well, follow Christ.

3. Differing church structures are creating a bit of confusion here, I believe. In the LDS system faithful men are ordained into the priesthood. To use evangelical terms, all faithful men are "lay ministers." In most evangelical churches, we accomplish similar results by teaching that we are all called to be witnesses of Christ, we are all called to study the Scripture, we are all called to pray, to give, to encourage one another, etc.

4. As an FYI, most evangelical ministers have had the "laying on of hands." And all Pentecostal ministers should have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Once again, then, we should be pretty close on this...unless you consider my church apostate, and do not really believe that non-LDS can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or be part of Peter's royal priesthood.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain, Jan 6 2006, 05:14 PM

Bottom-line: When 1st Peter declares strangers in several area churches to be a royal priesthood, it's pretty clear that the term applies to all the believers in those churches…

Me, Jan 5 2006, 06:00 PM

If I understand you correctly, yes again.

The term “royal priesthood” may be used to refer to what other people have if they have what the people Peter was referring to had, in all areas and throughout all other generations…

prisonchaplain, Jan 6 2006, 02:41 PM

Peter is not referring to what the believers "have," nor to what we "have," but rather to what they and we "ARE.

Me, now:

Okay, I’ll rephrase what I meant.

The term “royal priesthood” may be used to refer to people in all areas throughout other generations who are of the same “order” of people that Peter was writing to …

but it would not be correct to say that everyone who simply believes in Jesus Christ is of the same “order” as those people who comprised the royal priesthood Peter was writing to, simply by virtue of the fact that other people might also believe in Jesus Christ.

prisonchaplain, Jan 6 2006, 02:41 PM

Just so that we are on the same page, some definitions are in order.

1. Priesthood, in Peter's context, is not an office. He's not referring to what LDS call the Aaronic or Melchizedek orders. Rather, this is the more general idea of Christians representing Christ to a lost world. BTW Prof. Robinson (BYU) seems to agree, when he argues that true Christians not only have the experience of conversion, but also accept the obligations of Christian living (Jesus says obey my commands if you really love me, for example). Those Christians, office holders or not, who are living the Christian life, do represent the Savior to nonbelievers. How many converts to the LDS Church, for example, come because of invitations from regular members, as opposed to from referrals by missionaries?

Me, now:

Priesthood, in it’s true context, is the authority God gives to Man so that Man can do what God has authorized Man to do, and while every member of the true church of Christ has some of that authority to a certain extent, some members have more authority than other members, at least in certain areas of responsibility, in doing some of what God wants to be done.

For instance, it would not be proper for me to walk into President Hinckley’s office and tell him that it’s my turn to be the President of the Church now, even though I have the same order of Priesthood that he has, any more than it would be proper for a member of your church to walk up to you and tell you that they will start doing your job now.

prisonchaplain, Jan 6 2006, 02:41 PM

2. When I speak of "everyone who believes in Jesus," let us assume the Mormon understanding of salvation--those believers who are "enduring to the end." In reading How Great the Divide, I've become convinced that on this issue at least, we're more in agreement than we realize. My own fellowship is predominantly Armenian in theology, so we too believe the followers of Christ, after conversion, must, well, follow Christ.

Me, now:

I do not disagree with anything you have said here.

prisonchaplain,Jan 6 2006, 02:41 PM

3. Differing church structures are creating a bit of confusion here, I believe. In the LDS system faithful men are ordained into the priesthood. To use evangelical terms, all faithful men are "lay ministers." In most evangelical churches, we accomplish similar results by teaching that we are all called to be witnesses of Christ, we are all called to study the Scripture, we are all called to pray, to give, to encourage one another, etc.

Me, now:

Okay, but I think you will admit that even members of your church have more authority than some of the other members, in certain areas of responsibility.

prisonchaplain, Jan 6 2006, 02:41 PM

4. As an FYI, most evangelical ministers have had the "laying on of hands." And all Pentecostal ministers should have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Once again, then, we should be pretty close on this...unless you consider my church apostate, and do not really believe that non-LDS can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or be part of Peter's royal priesthood.

Me, now:

Sorry, but I thought you already understood that LDS do in fact believe what I have highlighted in bold text.

We [LDS] believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the only true church of Christ upon the face of this Earth, meaning that this church is the only church which has been given authority from our Lord to do the work of our Lord as His duly authorized servants.

We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.

Secondly, while we do believe that other people can receive gifts from the Holy Ghost, in the sense that the Holy Ghost can reveal His mind and presence to anyone whether or not they are members of the true church of Christ, we [LDS] do not believe that other people have “the gift” of the Holy Ghost, in that we do not believe that other people have been given the right to receive those gifts.

Or in other words, as it was once explained to me, which may also be of some benefit to you, it is as if God is on one side of a door and all of us are either on the same side of the door, or the other side. Those of us who have the gift of the Holy Ghost are on the same side of the door with the Holy Ghost and are thus more enabled to receive gifts and communications from our Lord and our heavenly Father, while those who are on the other side of the door must Ask to have the door opened unto them, at which time our Lord has promised that He will open the door.

Or in other words, God is with us, or those of us who are members of His true church, more than God is with anyone else, but God will come or go to those who are outside of His church upon request, either personally or through the instrumentality of His duly authorized servants.

And btw, the greatest gift of the Holy Ghost is the gift of revelation, and those of us who have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost have been given not only the right to receive that gift, but can more easily obtain that gift because we have been given the right to receive that gift.

Or in other words, by the virtue and authority of the priesthood our Lord has given to Man upon this Earth, Man has now been authorized to do everything our Lord has given Man the authority to do, including the authority to bring Man into the presence of God.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM

We [LDS] believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the only true church of Christ upon the face of this Earth, meaning that this church is the only church which has been given authority from our Lord to do the work of our Lord as His duly authorized servants.

I thought I understood a lot of things when I first came to this site. However, it is safer to respond to what people say, rather than what I think they believe. You have clarified yourself.

Here's a thought. God can do what he needs to himself, but he has chosen to use his creation to accomplish his work amongst us. I grant you that it is possible that he would limit himself to using the LDS Church, with the faithful amongst its 12 million. However, I'd rather believe he was using the faithful amongst the roughly 2 billion souls that compromise the greater Christian community. We know that many so-called Christians are not. They name the name, but Jesus will say to them one day, "Depart from me, I never knew you." This is likely true, even in the LDS church. I'm guessing that curse will be from failure to truly embrace his love, not from failure to align with the most accurate church.

We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.

I'd simply point out that Prof. Robinson (BYU) has argued that terms like apostate, abomination etc. are reserved for corrupt creeds and those who willfully elevate them above Holy Scripture. He suggests that sincere Christians themselves are simply wrong on some teachings (such as the restoration).

Secondly, while we do believe that other people can receive gifts from the Holy Ghost, in the sense that the Holy Ghost can reveal His mind and presence to anyone whether or not they are members of the true church of Christ, we [LDS] do not believe that other people have “the gift” of the Holy Ghost, in that we do not believe that other people have been given the right to receive those gifts.

100-500 million Pentecostals/Charismatics who call themselves Spirit-filled, because they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost...all wrong. Yes, it's possible. I'm wondering what this means for them. Can they get into the terrestial kingdom and live forever with Jesus, even though they claim to have something from God, and they don't?

And btw, the greatest gift of the Holy Ghost is the gift of revelation, and those of us who have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost have been given not only the right to receive that gift, but can more easily obtain that gift because we have been given the right to receive that gift.

The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses. He wants us to win souls, not set up a hierarchy. He told would-be leaders to grab a towal and wash feet. He said whoever wants to be great should serve. I am part of a royal priesthood, a holy nation. I belong to a good fellowship--one in which most of the people and leaders are simply hungry to serve God, to win souls, and to love--not by might, nor by power, but by God's Spirit, as Zecharia informs us.

John 14:6 says Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I know the LDS church believes this, and that there are parallel verses in the Standard Works. And yet, the church would take on the role of gatekeeper. You want to get to the Father, go through the Son. BUT...if you want to get to the Son, you must come through us. You might help me get, but I'm not sure it HAS to be your church leading the way.

[Ray]

Ray, Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM

We [LDS] believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the only true church of Christ upon the face of this Earth, meaning that this church is the only church which has been given authority from our Lord to do the work of our Lord as His duly authorized servants.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

I thought I understood a lot of things when I first came to this site. However, it is safer to respond to what people say, rather than what I think they believe. You have clarified yourself.

Here's a thought. God can do what he needs to himself, but he has chosen to use his creation to accomplish his work amongst us. I grant you that it is possible that he would limit himself to using the LDS Church, with the faithful amongst its 12 million. However, I'd rather believe he was using the faithful amongst the roughly 2 billion souls that compromise the greater Christian community.

We know that many so-called Christians are not. They name the name, but Jesus will say to them one day, "Depart from me, I never knew you." This is likely true, even in the LDS church. I'm guessing that curse will be from failure to truly embrace his love, not from failure to align with the most accurate church.

Ray, now

Instead of looking at it as “God limiting himself to using only members of the “LDS” church <in this day and age>”, try looking at it as “God is limiting himself to using everyone <in this day and age> who is willing to become a member of the “LDS” church,” with the understanding that anyone <in this day and age> can become a member of the “LDS” church, and with the understanding that <in this day and age> the “LDS” church is the true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth.

And yes, while it may be true that there are some members of the true church of Christ who are not true disciples of Jesus Christ, as I suspect that there some bad apples in every bunch, the people who are in the true church of Christ have a better opportunity to hear and accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than hearing a version which has been corrupted by the precepts of men, because the true church of Christ does have many members who are true disciples of Jesus Christ with the authority that Jesus Christ has given them.

Ray, Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM

We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

I'd simply point out that Prof. Robinson (BYU) has argued that terms like apostate, abomination etc. are reserved for corrupt creeds and those who willfully elevate them above Holy Scripture. He suggests that sincere Christians themselves are simply wrong on some teachings (such as the restoration).

Ray, now

I know there are some people who don’t know the truth of all things on certain issues, and thus their teachings do not reflect a complete understanding of all truth on those issues, but those people “who willfully elevate [corrupt creeds] above Holy Scripture” are people who teach for doctrine the commandments and precepts of men, denying or corrupting the truth that is taught in the Holy Scriptures and from men who speak as they are moved by the power of the Holy Ghost.

For instance, there are some people who teach the "word of God" from only the Holy Bible, simply not knowing that scriptures are also contained in books other than the Holy Bible, and thus not teaching with the added insights which can be gained from those other books. But there are other people who teach that the word of God is contained ONLY in the Holy Bible, or that the Book of Mormon is NOT a collection of inspired scripture, and those people will be held accountable for teaching false doctrine.

Ray, Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM

Secondly, while we do believe that other people can receive gifts from the Holy Ghost, in the sense that the Holy Ghost can reveal His mind and presence to anyone whether or not they are members of the true church of Christ, we [LDS] do not believe that other people have “the gift” of the Holy Ghost, in that we do not believe that other people have been given the right to receive those gifts.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

100-500 million Pentecostals/Charismatics who call themselves Spirit-filled, because they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost...all wrong. Yes, it's possible. I'm wondering what this means for them. Can they get into the terrestial kingdom and live forever with Jesus, even though they claim to have something from God, and they don't?

Ray, now

First of all, the number of people who accept certain doctrines doesn’t necessarily indicate that what they accept is true.

Secondly, I believe our Lord will judge us more by what we have done than by what we know.

Thirdly, I believe our Lord will continue to give us opportunities to learn the truth and Repent from everything we have ever done or believe to be wrong.

Ray, Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM

And btw, the greatest gift of the Holy Ghost is the gift of revelation, and those of us who have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost have been given not only the right to receive that gift, but can more easily obtain that gift because we have been given the right to receive that gift.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses…

Ray, now

There you go again, thinking that a record of someone saying something to someone else is a record of someone saying something to you.

In this case, the record shows that our Lord was telling His apostles that [they] would receive power or authority when the Holy Ghost came to [them]. And while someone else may also receive power or authority from the Holy Ghost by the Holy Ghost coming to them, it does not mean that you have received power or authority from the Holy Ghost by simply believing the Holy Ghost has come to you, or that the Holy Ghost only comes when He wants to give power or authority to someone else.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

…He wants us to win souls, not set up a hierarchy…

Ray, now

Who is this “us” you speak of, and where did you get those ideas?

From the records we have in the scriptures, I can see that our Lord laid his hands upon certain people and then authorized [them] to go out and teach other people what He taught them and would continue to teach them, with those people occasionally giving other people that authority by laying their hands upon them.

I do not see how that means our Lord authorized or continues to authorize everybody to go teach whatever they believe, even if everybody teachs whatever they believe that sounds good.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

…He told would-be leaders to grab a towel and wash feet…

Ray, now

Yes, our Lord did tell [some people] who would be leaders to grab a towel and wash each other’s feet, as He had done to them, but our Lord did not tell everybody in the world to go out and wash other people’s feet.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

…He said whoever wants to be great should serve…

Ray, now

Yes, our Lord did teach certain people that they should serve other people, and we can honestly take that as a general “principle” which can and should apply to everybody, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who thinks they are serving the Lord is actually serving Him.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

…I am part of a royal priesthood, a holy nation. I belong to a good fellowship--one in which most of the people and leaders are simply hungry to serve God, to win souls, and to love--not by might, nor by power, but by God's Spirit, as Zecharia informs us.

Ray, now

While you may indeed belong to a church or group of people who truly desire to serve God, I believe you have not received any authority from our Lord and His authorized servants to represent our Lord as one of His authorized servants.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

John 14:6 says Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I know the LDS church believes this, and that there are parallel verses in the Standard Works. And yet, the church would take on the role of gatekeeper. You want to get to the Father, go through the Son. BUT...if you want to get to the Son, you must come through us. You might help me get, but I'm not sure it HAS to be your church leading the way.

Ray, now

Once you understand and accept the fact that “my church” is actually the true church of Jesus Christ, and that His church includes people who have authority from our Lord to help Him in His work, you should be able to see that you can become “closer” to our heavenly Father with the help of our Lord and those whom our Lord has authorized to help Him in His work.

And btw, if you sincerely do desire to become closer to our Lord and help Him in His work, you are welcome to become a member of His church and receive authority from Him through one of His authorized servants, just as soon as you show that you know we are teaching the truth.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 9 2006, 02:50 PM

Instead of looking at it as “God limiting himself to using only members of the “LDS” church <in this day and age>”, try looking at it as “God is limiting himself to using everyone <in this day and age> who is willing to become a member of the “LDS” church,” with the understanding that anyone <in this day and age> can become a member of the “LDS” church, and with the understanding that <in this day and age> the “LDS” church is the true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth.

My comment here might be worthy of a whole new string, but here it is: There is not one true religious organizational structure that serves as a gatekeeper between Jesus and humanity. There is one true universal church--but it is made up of the followers of Jesus, not the followers of a human organization, regardless of how accurately it may reflect God's truths.

And yes, while it may be true that there are some members of the true church of Christ who are not true disciples of Jesus Christ, as I suspect that there some bad apples in every bunch, the people who are in the true church of Christ have a better opportunity to hear and accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than hearing a version which has been corrupted by the precepts of men, because the true church of Christ does have many members who are true disciples of Jesus Christ with the authority that Jesus Christ has given them.

Snow has often asked me this question, so I'll offer to you as well: what are the minimum true doctrines one must agree to before s/he is saved? In other words, if grace is not sufficient, if accepting the "true gospel" is required, how close do you have to get?

Again, salvation--and I know your church teaches this--is through Jesus Christ, not through something called "the true Christian church." The church offers community, education, support, a forum to love God's people, a means of uniting with other believers to work towards fulfilling the Great Commission.

We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.

While there certainly were/are apostates and heretics, and while the Church (first 1000 years or so), and the churches have had failures and disappointments, I am much more optimistic about my fellow believers from roughly 70AD - 1820-30AD than you are.

For instance, there are some people who teach the "word of God" from only the Holy Bible, simply not knowing that scriptures are also contained in books other than the Holy Bible, and thus not teaching with the added insights which can be gained from those other books.  But there are other people who teach that the word of God is contained ONLY in the Holy Bible, or that the Book of Mormon is NOT a collection of inspired scripture, and those people will be held accountable for teaching false doctrine.

So, if I have not received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that the BOM, D&C and PoGP are modern revelations, and I am asked about them, and respond that to this point God has not revealed to me, nor to the Christian community at large the authority of these writings, where does that leave me? Am I merely wrong, as I understood Prof. Robinson to suggest? Or, will I be held accountable for teaching false doctrine? If the second is so, what do you believe that judgment will entail?

Ray, Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM

Secondly, while we do believe that other people can receive gifts from the Holy Ghost, in the sense that the Holy Ghost can reveal His mind and presence to anyone whether or not they are members of the true church of Christ, we [LDS] do not believe that other people have “the gift” of the Holy Ghost, in that we do not believe that other people have been given the right to receive those gifts.

You've touched upon a distinctive of my own church. So, I'll share it. Ray, have you spoken in tongues, as the Spirit gives utterance? For, this is the initial physical evidence that one has truly been baptized in the Holy Ghost. Throughout the book of Acts, when the Holy Ghost is poured out, the sign of speaking in tongues is either specifically mentioned, or it is implied. In one case, when Gentiles are baptized in the Holy Ghost, Jewish believers if this is even possible. The apostles reply, we know they have received the Holy Ghost, for they spoke in tongues as we did. So, this questioning of who has and has not received the gift and baptism in the Holy Ghost can go multiple directions.

First of all, the number of people who accept certain doctrines doesn’t necessarily indicate that what they accept is true.

You are correct. However, the LDS Church often cites its growth as a sign of God's blessing, if nothing else. To see a ragtag group of "wrong side of the track" Christians who probably numbered in the low 1000s in the 19-teens have grown to be the largest non-Catholic Christian grouping...well could we not rightly say it may be a sign of God's blessing?

Secondly, I believe our Lord will judge us more by what we have done than by what we know.

Amen to that. Christian missionaries have brought literacy, schools and universities, hospitals, liberty from the caste system for India's untouchables, food, shelter, and a simple gospel of salvation by grace through Christ, throughout the world. Furthermore, Wycliff Bible translators believes it will have translated the entire Bible into every language in the world by 2038. I could go on, but you get the point. For all your disagreements with non-LDS Christian doctrines, the churches have done much that is good.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 9 2006, 02:50 PM

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses…

Ray, now

There you go again, thinking that a record of someone saying something to someone else is a record of someone saying something to you.

In this case, the record shows that our Lord was telling His apostles that [they] would receive power or authority when the Holy Ghost came to [them]. And while someone else may also receive power or authority from the Holy Ghost by the Holy Ghost coming to them, it does not mean that you have received power or authority from the Holy Ghost by simply believing the Holy Ghost has come to you, or that the Holy Ghost only comes when He wants to give power or authority to someone else.

Perhaps the following citation will help. Emphasis in bold is mine.

And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Matthew 28:18

Any discussion about who has authority or power is mute. The authority belongs to Jesus.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Ray, your big question right now would be, "Who is Jesus addressing?" My answer, "The disciples." Your point, "So, this command is for the disciples, not you." My rebuttal:

Teaching THEM to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you...

The things which Jesus told the eleven disciples to do, he wanted those 11 to pass on to their disciples, who would pass them on to their disciples, etc. etc.

These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

…He wants us to win souls, not set up a hierarchy…

Ray, now

Who is this “us” you speak of, and where did you get those ideas?

See the reference above (Matthew 28:18-20)--also known as the Great Commission.

From the records we have in the scriptures, I can see that our Lord laid his hands upon certain people and then authorized [them] to go out and teach other people what He taught them and would continue to teach them, with those people occasionally giving other people that authority by laying their hands upon them.

Jesus wants all to be saved. He wants his message to go to the ends of the earth. Somehow the idea of Jesus and the disciples casually "occasionally" making other disciples, does not mesh with the whole idea of a GREAT COMMISSION.

You send out 60,000 missionaries a year. My group has about 1400 full-time, about 30K clergy, and we have empowered all 33 million of our adherents to take part in this great work of being discipled and of making disciples. There's no exclusivity or elitism in this great work.

I do not see how that means our Lord authorized or continues to authorize everybody to go teach whatever they believe, even if everybody teachs whatever they believe that sounds good.

Okay, we won't say Jesus told the disciples to do that. Instead, we'll say he told the disciples to go and make everyone who will respond into disciples, and then empower all who will respond to do likewise, and that they all would teach whatever JESUS commanded.

Ray, nowWhile you may indeed belong to a church or group of people who truly desire to serve God, I believe you have not received any authority from our Lord and His authorized servants to represent our Lord as one of His authorized servants.

Ray, you are a lot pickier than Jesus is. "Whosoever will, may come." "The workers are few...pray for laborers...the fields are ripe unto harvest." There's too much to do, and too few people to do the work, for me to embrace the gatekeeper role you seem to find for the church. Jesus wanted the gospel message and work to expand, not to be limited.

Once you understand and accept the fact that “my church” is actually the true church of Jesus Christ, and that His church includes people who have authority from our Lord to help Him in His work, you should be able to see that you can become “closer” to our heavenly Father with the help of our Lord and those whom our Lord has authorized to help Him in His work.

A key obstacle is that I'm not convinced there is one human organization that adaquately qualifies as being the true church of Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of others. If this concept of a gatekeeper church is taken too far, it could result in idolatry (requirement to revere the object (organization) rather than the one around whom it is organized (Jesus Christ). In other words, my focus for truth and exclusivity is not on THE CHURCH of Jesus Christ, but rather on THE JESUS CHRIST of the church.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 08:53 PM

My comment here might be worthy of a whole new string, but here it is: There is not one true religious organizational structure that serves as a gatekeeper between Jesus and humanity.

I agree. And since Jesus does not have anyone preventing Him from working with humanity, Jesus does work with humanity to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity.

Or in other words, there is nobody who can prevent Jesus from revealing Himself or His will to humanity, so Jesus can reveal Himself and His will to humanity, with those people of humanity being formally known as “prophets”.

Or in other words, anyone can become a prophet, because nobody can prevent anyone from becoming a prophet, with the understanding that a prophet is simply someone who receives revelation from Jesus Christ.

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 08:53 PM

There is one true universal church--but it is made up of the followers of Jesus, not the followers of a human organization, regardless of how accurately it may reflect God's truths.

I agree. The true church of Jesus Christ spans the universe and is made up of the followers of Jesus Christ, not the followers of a merely human organization, regardless of how accurately the followers of that human organization may accurately reflect God’s truths.

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 08:53 PM

…what are the minimum true doctrines one must agree to before s/he is saved? In other words, if grace is not sufficient, if accepting the "true gospel" is required, how close do you have to get?

To be saved by Jesus Christ you must have a true testimony of Jesus Christ and Repent of all you know that isn’t in agreement with His will. That testimony is often simple at first, but once you know that Jesus is the Christ, and you have a sincere desire to know Him better, He will continue to teach you more about Him and His will until you come to know everything there is to know that He has and will continue to reveal to you.

Or in other words, you have to get close enough to personally know Jesus Christ, never stopping or damning yourself from knowing all that He has and will continue to reveal.

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 08:53 PM

Again, salvation--and I know your church teaches this--is through Jesus Christ, not through something called "the true Christian church." The church offers community, education, support, a forum to love God's people, a means of uniting with other believers to work towards fulfilling the Great Commission.

The true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth consists of prophets who receive the will of our Lord through revelation, apostles who are authorized by our Lord to teach other people the good news of Jesus Christ, and other people who have various gifts and callings with which they establish and build and regulate the church of Christ on this Earth.

Ray, Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM

We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 08:53 PM

While there certainly were/are apostates and heretics, and while the Church (first 1000 years or so), and the churches have had failures and disappointments, I am much more optimistic about my fellow believers from roughly 70AD - 1820-30AD than you are.

I have said nothing pessimistic about anybody who believes in Jesus Christ.

I have simply said that not everybody who believes in Jesus Christ has received authority from Jesus Christ or His duly authorized servants.

And I have also said that simply knowing someone doesn’t give someone else the authority to represent that someone as a duly authorized representative.

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 08:53 PM

So, if I have not received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that the BOM, D&C and PoGP are modern revelations, and I am asked about them, and respond that to this point God has not revealed to me, nor to the Christian community at large the authority of these writings, where does that leave me? Am I merely wrong, as I understood Prof. Robinson to suggest? Or, will I be held accountable for teaching false doctrine? If the second is so, what do you believe that judgment will entail?

If you only admit that God has not revealed to you that certain things are true, you can only be held accountable for admitting that you don’t know the truth about those things, but if you teach that the truth of those things is unknowable, or that those things are NOT true, you will be held accountable for teaching false doctrine, or for teaching doctrine which is not true.

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 08:53 PM

You've touched upon a distinctive of my own church. So, I'll share it. Ray, have you spoken in tongues, as the Spirit gives utterance? For, this is the initial physical evidence that one has truly been baptized in the Holy Ghost. Throughout the book of Acts, when the Holy Ghost is poured out, the sign of speaking in tongues is either specifically mentioned, or it is implied. In one case, when Gentiles are baptized in the Holy Ghost, Jewish believers if this is even possible. The apostles reply, we know they have received the Holy Ghost, for they spoke in tongues as we did. So, this questioning of who has and has not received the gift and baptism in the Holy Ghost can go multiple directions.

Yes, I have spoken in tongues as the Holy Spirit has given me utterance.

Have you ever seen a pillar of fire above your head?

And btw, I believe it is not true to state that everybody who receives power and authority from the Holy Ghost receives the gift of being able to speak in tongues, and I also believe there is no good reason for everybody to receive that gift. As I said before, the best gift is to be able to receive revelations from our Lord through the power of the Holy Ghost, and with that gift you should then be able to speak about whatever the Holy Ghost has revealed to you in either your own tongue or the tongue of another people.

prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM

The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses…

Ray, Jan 9 2006, 03:50 PM

There you go again, thinking that a record of someone saying something to someone else is a record of someone saying something to you.

In this case, the record shows that our Lord was telling His apostles that [they] would receive power or authority when the Holy Ghost came to [them]. And while someone else may also receive power or authority from the Holy Ghost by the Holy Ghost coming to them, it does not mean that you have received power or authority from the Holy Ghost by simply believing the Holy Ghost has come to you, or that the Holy Ghost only comes when He wants to give power or authority to someone else.

prisonchaplain, Jan 9 2006, 09:35 PM

Perhaps the following citation will help. Emphasis in bold is mine.

And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Matthew 28:18

Any discussion about who has authority or power is mute. The authority belongs to Jesus.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Ray, your big question right now would be, "Who is Jesus addressing?" My answer, "The disciples." Your point, "So, this command is for the disciples, not you." My rebuttal:

Teaching THEM to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you...

The things which Jesus told the eleven disciples to do, he wanted those 11 to pass on to their disciples, who would pass them on to their disciples, etc. etc.

So far so good, but while Jesus indeed wanted His apostles to teach other people the truth and “pass on” their authority to other people, that does not mean that it would have been right for everyone on Earth to presume that our Lord and His authorized servants had authorized them to teach other people, even if our Lord and His authorized servants had actually taught them all the truth.

Or in other words, it was still necessary for the apostles and those whom they did authorize to “pass on“ their authority to other people before those other people could claim to have any authority, and it would not have been proper for anyone, even anyone living back then, to simply presume to have received authority from our Lord and His authorized servants, even if they personally knew and were taught by our Lord and his duly authorized servants.

And now I have an example for you, which I hope will help you see my point.

Suppose a man is unmarried.

Suppose that man reads a book written by people who taught that marriage can be wonderful.

Suppose that book was written by people who were authorized to perform marriage ceremonies.

Suppose that book gives some examples of how those people received authority to do that.

Suppose that book also gives some examples of how those people performed marriage ceremonies.

Suppose that man believes marriage can be wonderful and he chooses to become married.

Suppose that man chooses a woman to marry, and she chooses to marry him too.

Suppose she has also read that book and she also believes marriage can be wonderful.

Suppose that man meets another man who has read that book, and understands every detail.

Suppose the first man asks the second man to perform the marriage ceremony for him and his fiancé.

Now, what honest answer would you expect the first man to hear from the second man if he had not received the authority to perform marriage ceremonies from someone who had the authority to authorize other people to perform marriage ceremonies?

And btw, while I can see how an authorized representative of the state of Washington might have given YOU the authority to perform marriage ceremonies in Washington, by having a greater knowledge of what that authority entails I can also see that you cannot give that authority to someone else unless a representative of the state of Washington authorizes you to give that authority to someone else, and you then use the authority you have been given to actually give that authority to someone else.

Or in other words, person A cannot receive authority to do something person B can do simply by knowing that person B has received the authority to do that, even if person B teaches person A everything he knows about how to do that, because authority does not come by merely receiving knowledge of how to do things.

Or in other words, the fact that the apostles were authorized to teach other people what our Lord had taught them didn't give the people who the apostles taught the authority to teach other people what they had been taught, in and of itself, unless or until the apostles actually gave those "students" the authority to become "teachers". And if those new teachers later made mistakes when teaching other people, the apostles would have had the authority or power to correct those other teachers, even revoking the "teaching" status of those other teachers, if necessary, because the apostles were given the authority to teach all people the truth.

These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus.

I disagree with the point you are trying to make. I believe you have not been given the authority to represent our Lord and bring people into His church, because I believe you have not been given any authority from our Lord or from any of His duly authorized servants.

But if you choose to go on believing that our Lord has given you authority to help Him do His work, I hope you will at least try to come up with a better way to explain why you believe our Lord was giving you authority while He was authorizing other people to go and teach what He taught them.

[Serg]

May i add,

What is to be saved through Jesus?

To say "I believe He saved me, i repented of my sins"?

What the Church teaches, is that although ultimately is ONLY through His sacrifice and grace we are saved, yet eternal life is pictured by Jesus as: "to KNOW GOD , the TRUE GOD< and HIS SON WHOM HE HAS SENT"> but again, what is it to KNOW God? Is it not to get to know his mind? Is it not to behave the way He does? Is it not to LEARN of Him and us? Now, there is a wide difference between "having heard of" and "knowing". So its not enough to hear of Jesus to be saved, but to know about Him, and Him ourselves.

Now why, while reading Acts, do you suppose that Luke, that after all while coverin a period of almost 25 years, will take the time and space to comment "and the Apostles preserved the PURE doctrine" in the Church?

Why? Is it not because after all, doctrine, and by this i mean not only just knowledge but revelation, is essential?

Well, in fact we do not hold that salvation comes only through knowing every acpect of the doctrine(because after all, its a lot, and not everyone is born in the church).... the requisites for salvation is faith, repentance, baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost(which sanctifies us and justifies us thanks to Christ's merits.)...all who get to do these are "lawfully candidates for the celestial kingdom"("The Church restored", a book of the Church, and also Believing Christ, a very well explained doctrine over mormon salvation)

So what does Jesus imply with "he who does not (spends?) with me, (wastes?) ? Or he who is not with me is against me?

Or more over, the ambulant exhorsists in Acts, did they not mention the name Jesus ? Did they went after all matters of troubles(being ambulant) in finding people to help, and yet when they "used'their authority the Devil said "Paul i know, and Jesus i know, but you, who are you"?

How can you say the didnt have faith? But yet it was vanished, for being based upon an unexistant authority.

So when we say the TRUE and ONLY Church, is because it is the TRUE Church. Not viewed by us as "The" Organization, but rather as "Jesus's Institution" , Jesus' Way. While reading the Didache, you'll find in the very first verse "there are Two Ways, ....the Way of Death and the Way of Life', now, not only this but also what the BoM espresses "there are only Two Churches, the Church of the devil and the Church of God" , now this is not to hurt, but to save, certanely while in your protestant campaigns, you dont preach about sin being punished to scare people off, but to concentrate on the salvation that comes to them once they accept Jesus. So is the same.

Why do you think, that the angel in Apc.14 went over the world to preach, if in fact ALL the churches had it cool?

Sincerely we might wanna think it more before judging our Church as "Imperialist" or "Absolutist"(LOL).

Regards,

[prisonchaplain]

'Ray' date='Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM': To be saved by Jesus Christ you must have a true testimony of Jesus Christ and Repent of all you know that isn’t in agreement with His will. That testimony is often simple at first, but once you know that Jesus is the Christ, and you have a sincere desire to know Him better, He will continue to teach you more about Him and His will until you come to know everything there is to know that He has and will continue to reveal to you. Or in other words, you have to get close enough to personally know Jesus Christ, never stopping or damning yourself from knowing all that He has and will continue to reveal.

By your definition most of those who are sincere evangelical Christians--who made Jesus both Savior and Lord (getting saved and growing in salvation) would seem to qualify. An additionally theme I read into your answer is the process of developing a personal, growing relationship with Jesus. I say "amen," to that! I would be curious to hear from you and others here how you go about that, beyond the obvious--attending church functions, doing good works.

The true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth consists of prophets who receive the will of our Lord through revelation, apostles who are authorized by our Lord to teach other people the good news of Jesus Christ, and other people who have various gifts and callings with which they establish and build and regulate the church of Christ on this Earth.

Random thoughts on apostles and prophets:

1. Prophets: Many churches, especially African-American ones, do have those called prophets and apostles.

2. In a stricter sense, there was no prophet mentioned in the Holy Bible since about 400 BC--none that I know of in the New Testament. Old Testament prophets were usually commissioned to call the political leaders, and the people at large to repent and return to the way of God.

3. Apostles, as a word, is defined as follows: a sending, a mission," signifies an apostleship, Act 1:25; Rom 1:5; 1Cr 9:2; Gal 2:8. Note: Pseudapostoloi, "false apostles," occurs in 2Cr 11:13. This from Strong's. As a result of this understanding, a common modern usage of the word apostle is missionary--one sent to represent the gospel. With this understanding, the LDS Church has 60K+ apostles, and most evangelical churches also have numerous ones.

Concerning the gifts and callings: Amen to your comments. We do see the gifts and callings of the Spirit alive today: gifts of tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, etc. And yes, sometimes there are gifts that regulate--such as the gift of discernment--"Sorry, brother, but that particular word is not of God."

We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.

I'm wondering what this term apostasy means. As Professor Robinson explains it, my sense is that I'm pretty safe. If I never receive a testimony that the LDS theological package (new revelations, restoration, moder prophets, etc.) is true, and I continue along my current path, I will enjoy eternity in the TERRESTIAL kingdom, in the presence of Jesus Christ, though not the Father. I will indeed not marry, or give in marriage. I will end up as I currently expect to end up. On the other hand, if the LDS gospel is true, Ray may perform a baptism for the dead, on my behalf, and since I have a good and sincere heart, at that point I'll humbly accept it, and still get in the CELESTIAL kingdom.

On the other hand, if apostasy is more serious--as it's traditionally understood to be--then I am a heretic. Directly or indirectly, I lead people away from the LDS Church (come to my church...it's not lds). Ergo, I'm a corrupt preacher, teaching abominable creeds and doctrines. My "reward" may end up looking more like punishment.

Those who adapt the second stance (call them fundamentalist mormons if you want) end up putting the Church into an odd place. On the one hand it says to Christians, "Of course we are Christians. How could you accuse us of not being so?" On the other hand, (again, from the hardline viewpoint), the Church says, "Oh, and you others really are not Christians. You are excluded. You do not follow the truth. You rebel against God."

So, where are we at? Are we all God-seekers, all attempting to follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Is it just that one side is wrong on some things, as Prof. Robinson says, and in need of "additional truth." Or is one side non-Christian, an enemy of the true gospel, and in need of total repentence and conversion?

Yes, I have spoken in tongues as the Holy Spirit has given me utterance. Have you ever seen a pillar of fire above your head?

A pillar of fire is not the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost. That phenomenon only appears once in the Scriptural accounts of believers receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost. The speaking in tongues sign appears specifically three out of the five episodes in Acts, and is specifically cited as a sign--we know they were baptized in the Holy Ghost because they spake in tongues as we did.

And btw, I believe it is not true to state that everybody who receives power and authority from the Holy Ghost receives the gift of being able to speak in tongues, and I also believe there is no good reason for everybody to receive that gift.

Yes, it is true. Many walk with the Holy Spirit, but those who have been baptized have spoken in tongues. You can get to heaven without doing so, but it is the physical sign. There is a good reason for this sign to be used. First, it is God's choice. Second, the most powerful muscle in our bodies is the tongue. We use it to praise God, and to destroy one another. James says if we can control our tongues we can be perfect. Ergo, it is a beautiful irony that God choses a sign that requires us to totally reliquish control of that muscle that can do so much good or ill.

As I said before, the best gift is to be able to receive revelations from our Lord through the power of the Holy Ghost, and with that gift you should then be able to speak about whatever the Holy Ghost has revealed to you in either your own tongue or the tongue of another people.

That may be a good gift, or even a "best gift." I have had a few occasions to offer a word of prophecy (revelation). It was a powerful time of blessing, no doubt. However, the greatness of the gift of prophecy, or of interpeting tongues, does not diminish God's use of tongues as a sign of the baptism in the Holy Ghost.

Prisonchaplain says: The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses…

Ray responds: So far so good, but while Jesus indeed wanted His apostles to teach other people the truth and “pass on” their authority to other people, that does not mean that it would have been right for everyone on Earth to presume that our Lord and His authorized servants had authorized them to teach other people, even if our Lord and His authorized servants had actually taught them all the truth.

Are Mormons, regardless of their church office, not expected to bear witness to the restored gospel, whenever the opportunity arises? Are members not urged to at least bring references for the missionaries? Yes, it is appropriate for all Christians to embrace the work of making disciples--not of themselves, but of Christ.

Or in other words, it was still necessary for the apostles and those whom they did authorize to “pass on“ their authority to other people before those other people could claim to have any authority, and it would not have been proper for anyone, even anyone living back then, to simply presume to have received authority from our Lord and His authorized servants, even if they personally knew and were taught by our Lord and his duly authorized servants.

God does the calling, the church does the confirming.

Or in other words, the fact that the apostles were authorized to teach other people what our Lord had taught them didn't give the people who the apostles taught the authority to teach other people what they had been taught, in and of itself, unless or until the apostles actually gave those "students" the authority to become "teachers". And if those new teachers later made mistakes when teaching other people, the apostles would have had the authority or power to correct those other teachers, even revoking the "teaching" status of those other teachers, if necessary, because the apostles were given the authority to teach all people the truth.

Again, God does the calling, the church does the confirming. And, sometimes, the church does the correcting.

Prisonchaplain says: These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus.

Ray responds: I disagree with the point you are trying to make. I believe you have not been given the authority to represent our Lord and bring people into His church, because I believe you have not been given any authority from our Lord or from any of His duly authorized servants.

Well...I was. In fact, I just got my renewed credentials card in the mail about three weeks ago. My calling came from the Lord, and his duly authorized servants confirmed that calling. Our highest church official layed hands on me, and confirmed me to the chaplaincy. It was a powerful, Holy Ghost anointed experience--one I'll never forget.

But if you choose to go on believing that our Lord has given you authority to help Him do His work, I hope you will at least try to come up with a better way to explain why you believe our Lord was giving you authority while He was authorizing other people to go and teach what He taught them.

Actually, you are one of the few that has called my calling into question. And, of course, this all really goes back to the question of just what it means for non-LDS Christianity to be apostate. Are we wrong, and in need of added truths? Or, are we teaching abominable doctrines and creeds, perhaps putting ourselves (at least those of us who are clergy and church leaders) in danger of hellfire?

Ray, you've shared here how embracing the LDS gospel cost you dearly, in your relationship with your family. Perhaps that has hardened your views on non-LDS believers--particularly those of us who are clergy, like some in your family? However, consider the reverse. If you ever decided to return to the "faith of our fathers," would it not also cause some to abandon you? Friends you've made since your conversion. Likewise, if one of your prodiges decided to discontinue, and start attending a Church of Christ--how would you respond? S/he would be an EX--an apostate--perhaps a Son of Perdition. Would you not be forced to abandon him?

[prisonchaplain]

Why? Is it not because after all, doctrine, and by this i mean not only just knowledge but revelation, is essential?

Revelation is essential for salvation? Well, yes...if what is meant is a revelation of one's sinfulness, one's need for salvation. Furthermore, a revelation that Jesus is the way of salvation. "Forgive a sinner like me, because Jesus shed his blood, and died for me." That revelation leads to the conversion moment.

Everything after that moment entails growing in salvation. Salvation is already complete in Christ, yet is is growing towards perfection, as we learn, commune with Jesus, and as we do what God asks of us.

Well, in fact we do not hold that salvation comes only through knowing every acpect of the doctrine(because after all, its a lot, and not everyone is born in the church).... the requisites for salvation is faith, repentance, baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost(which sanctifies us and justifies us thanks to Christ's merits.)...all who get to do these are "lawfully candidates for the celestial kingdom.

Faith and repentence are prerequisites to what I described above as the moment of salvation. The Holy Ghost does indeed abide with all believers, so that is a given--if the faith and repentence are true. As for water baptism, I would argue that this sacrament is one of the first acts of obedience the saved person partakes in. Salvation is a result of repentence and faith. Baptism is a public testimony to the salvation. God's forgiveness and embrace comes as we say "Yes" to his gift--his Son. God does not suspend the gift until we go under the water. There is no spiritual power in the material of creation (water, for example). Salvation is in Christ.

Or more over, the ambulant exhorsists in Acts, did they not mention the name Jesus ? Did they went after all matters of troubles(being ambulant) in finding people to help, and yet when they "used'their authority the Devil said "Paul i know, and Jesus i know, but you, who are you"? How can you say the didnt have faith? But yet it was vanished, for being based upon an unexistant authority.

The sons of Sceva did NOT have faith in Jesus. They attempted to use his name as some sort of magic incantation. They prayed, "In the name of Jesus...whom Paul preaches." They openly admitted they had no relationship with Christ. To put it more directly, even Satan "believes in Jesus." The authority comes with relationship, not with having picked the right Christian denomination to join.

So when we say the TRUE and ONLY Church, is because it is the TRUE Church. Not viewed by us as "The" Organization, but rather as "Jesus's Institution" , Jesus' Way.

You call it the True Church, the true Institution, and believe this is different from saying the True Organization. What's the difference. Well...yes, you'd have competition. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim they have 'Jehovah's Organization.' At it's worse--if these human entities become gatekeepers between humanity and Jesus--they can become idols.

Sincerely we might wanna think it more before judging our Church as "Imperialist" or "Absolutist"(LOL).

When I read Prof. Robinson I wonder if perhaps the LDS Church merely considers itself a holder of "added truth," that is is willing to share with evangelicals, and any who "have ears to hear," then I think that perhaps some have overstated the divide between Mormonism and evangelicalism. However, when I read some comments about the One true Church, and I see the term APOSTATE used in a sense that could mean far more than merely "in error on some points," then I revert to my concern about mere humans trying to pose as spiritual gatekeepers.

[Laureltree]

Wow ! Great minds think alike.....

I'm going to add a few....

1.) Faith ( belief we have a higher power and he is here for us. )

1.) A personal relationship with our heavenly father. (Faithfully praying to him and asking of his help and guidance.)

2.) Personal revelation ( Awaiting his answer/ excepting it. )

etc/........Everything in life is built as if it was a temple, each stone in place holding together the next, making it so all things have a solid foundation...One could not be more important than the next....Because we need them all for it to work. Without faith, we could not have a personal revelation, because the faith in revelationt would not exist if we didnt have it.....Everything fits as the gospel should, the lord knew that each would help pull us closer to where we needed to be and giving us strength along the way...

My crazy perception lol lol

[Ray]

Ray, Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM

To be saved by Jesus Christ you must have a true testimony of Jesus Christ and Repent of all you know that isn’t in agreement with His will. That testimony is often simple at first, but once you know that Jesus is the Christ, and you have a sincere desire to know Him better, He will continue to teach you more about Him and His will until you come to know everything there is to know that He has and will continue to reveal to you. Or in other words, you have to get close enough to personally know Jesus Christ, never stopping or damning yourself from knowing all that He has and will continue to reveal.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

By your definition most of those who are sincere evangelical Christians--who made Jesus both Savior and Lord (getting saved and growing in salvation) would seem to qualify.

Ray, now

I think so too, as long as they do not stop or damn themselves from knowing all that our Lord has and will continue to reveal.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

An additional theme I read into your answer is the process of developing a personal, growing relationship with Jesus. I say "amen," to that! I would be curious to hear from you and others here how you go about that, beyond the obvious--attending church functions, doing good works.

Ray, now

You can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in the same way you can have a personal relationship with anyone else, which is by personally communicating with Him and receiving personal communication from Him. And while you may not see Him in Person, unless He chooses to appear to you, you CAN know His voice when you hear it, and of that I have no doubt.

And btw, attending certain functions and doing good things doesn’t equate to a personal relationship with anybody, although you can get to know people by doing that if you actually talk with them.

Ray, Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM

The true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth consists of prophets who receive the will of our Lord through revelation, apostles who are authorized by our Lord to teach other people the good news of Jesus Christ, and other people who have various gifts and callings with which they establish and build and regulate the church of Christ on this Earth.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Random thoughts on apostles and prophets:

1. Prophets: Many churches, especially African-American ones, do have those called prophets and apostles.

Ray, now

I was using the word “prophet” to refer to people who receive personal communication from Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

2. In a stricter sense, there was no prophet mentioned in the Holy Bible since about 400 BC--none that I know of in the New Testament. Old Testament prophets were usually commissioned to call the political leaders, and the people at large to repent and return to the way of God.

Ray, now

I suggest that you study Paul’s letter to the Ephesians to see how he used that word.

See especially Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; and Ephesians 4:11

I also suggest that you study the other scriptures which reference the key word “prophet” from the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, which you can find at this LINK

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

3. Apostles, as a word, is defined as follows: a sending, a mission," signifies an apostleship, Act 1:25; Rom 1:5; 1Cr 9:2; Gal 2:8. Note: Pseudapostoloi, "false apostles," occurs in 2Cr 11:13. This from Strong's. As a result of this understanding, a common modern usage of the word apostle is missionary--one sent to represent the gospel. With this understanding, the LDS Church has 60K+ apostles, and most evangelical churches also have numerous ones.

Ray, now

I was using the word “apostle” as a reference to people sent by our Lord with His authority, not as a reference to people sent by other people who have not been authorized by Him.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Concerning the gifts and callings: Amen to your comments. We do see the gifts and callings of the Spirit alive today: gifts of tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, etc. And yes, sometimes there are gifts that regulate--such as the gift of discernment--"Sorry, brother, but that particular word is not of God."

Ray, now

Yes, I have seen other people say they have received those gifts, but the fact that some people say “that particular word is not of God” does not mean that that particular word is not of God, because some people do not know the word of God even when they hear it.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

I'm wondering what this term apostasy means. As Professor Robinson explains it, my sense is that I'm pretty safe. If I never receive a testimony that the LDS theological package (new revelations, restoration, modern prophets, etc.) is true, and I continue along my current path, I will enjoy eternity in the TERRESTIAL kingdom, in the presence of Jesus Christ, though not the Father. I will indeed not marry, or give in marriage. I will end up as I currently expect to end up. On the other hand, if the LDS gospel is true, Ray may perform a baptism for the dead, on my behalf, and since I have a good and sincere heart, at that point I'll humbly accept it, and still get in the CELESTIAL kingdom.

Ray, now

You can know where you will end up later by receiving personal revelation from Jesus Christ now, as He communicates how He feels and what He thinks about where you are in your life now. Or in other words, you don’t have to be in the dark about this.

And btw, there is no guarantee given by God stating that you will be able to recognize the truth later, if you weren't able to recognize the truth now, or before. Or in other words, as far as I know, we are simply told that everyone will have the opportunity to hear the gospel and know that it is true, and that the way to know the truth is through Jesus Christ.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

On the other hand, if apostasy is more serious--as it's traditionally understood to be--then I am a heretic. Directly or indirectly, I lead people away from the LDS Church (come to my church...it's not lds). Ergo, I'm a corrupt preacher, teaching abominable creeds and doctrines. My "reward" may end up looking more like punishment.

Ray, now

If you were to say something which is not true about our Lord or His Church, after hearing some representatives of our Lord tell you what our Lord would tell you Himself about those things, you would in fact be saying something which would lead people away from the truth of those things, and you would also be accountable to Him for your actions, but instead of saying that that type of behavior is a result of “apostasy”, I would say that it is more a result of “rebellion.”

Or in other words, I would say that “apostasy” is to reject something after knowing it is true, while “rebellion” is to fight against knowing whether or not something is true.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Those who adapt the second stance (call them fundamentalist mormons if you want) end up putting the Church into an odd place. On the one hand it says to Christians, "Of course we are Christians. How could you accuse us of not being so?" On the other hand, (again, from the hardline viewpoint), the Church says, "Oh, and you others really are not Christians. You are excluded. You do not follow the truth. You rebel against God."

Ray, now

Whatever you call it, it should be clear that we can only be saved by accepting what our Lord tells us we must do to be saved, either personally or through His authorized servants, and if we reject or fall away from the truth, after it has been revealed to us, we are only damning ourselves.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

So, where are we at? Are we all God-seekers, all attempting to follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Is it just that one side is wrong on some things, as Prof. Robinson says, and in need of "additional truth." Or is one side non-Christian, an enemy of the true gospel, and in need of total repentence and conversion?

Ray, now

I think that is a personal question that each of us has to answer for ourselves, with the help of personal revelation from Jesus Christ. And although those of us who know the truth can also know that other people don’t know it, we cannot judge their hearts or determine why they have not learned the truth, unless our Lord reveals that to us too.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

A pillar of fire is not the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost. That phenomenon only appears once in the Scriptural accounts of believers receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost. The speaking in tongues sign appears specifically three out of the five episodes in Acts, and is specifically cited as a sign--we know they were baptized in the Holy Ghost because they spake in tongues as we did.

Ray, now

I was curious to know whether or not you had seen that sign, wondering if people in your church consider that sign as the only way of being able to determine whether or not someone had received the gift of being able to speak in other tongues.

And as I was saying, being able to speak in other tongues is not the only indication that a person has received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Many walk with the Holy Spirit, but those who have been baptized have spoken in tongues. You can get to heaven without doing so, but it is the physical sign. There is a good reason for this sign to be used. First, it is God's choice. Second, the most powerful muscle in our bodies is the tongue. We use it to praise God, and to destroy one another. James says if we can control our tongues we can be perfect. Ergo, it is a beautiful irony that God chooses a sign that requires us to totally relinquish control of that muscle that can do so much good or ill.

Ray, now

I do not believe it is true to state that everyone who receives that particular gift of the Holy Ghost which enables someone to speak in other tongues is the only sign someone can receive to let them know they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Furthermore, your idea that God inspires others to relinquish control of their tongue is not in harmony with what I believe about what our Lord has revealed about why that gift is given. And to put it simply, I believe the gift of being able to speak in other tongues is given so that we can communicate with others in their own tongue, not so we can speak gibberish and then have someone tell us what that gibberish supposedly means.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

[Revelation from God] may be a good gift, or even a "best gift." I have had a few occasions to offer a word of prophecy (revelation). It was a powerful time of blessing, no doubt. However, the greatness of the gift of prophecy, or of interpreting tongues, does not diminish God's use of tongues as a sign of the baptism in the Holy Ghost.

Ray, now

I was trying to say that the gift of tongues is not the only indication that a person has received a gift of the Holy Ghost, and that the best indication that someone has received a gift of the Holy Ghost is the gift of personal revelation from Jesus Christ, which the Holy Ghost receives from Him and can reveal to you.

prisonchaplain says:

The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses…

Ray responds:

So far so good, but while Jesus indeed wanted His apostles to teach other people the truth and “pass on” their authority to other people, that does not mean that it would have been right for everyone on Earth to presume that our Lord and His authorized servants had authorized them to teach other people, even if our Lord and His authorized servants had actually taught them all the truth.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM:

Are Mormons, regardless of their church office, not expected to bear witness to the restored gospel, whenever the opportunity arises? Are members not urged to at least bring references for the missionaries? Yes, it is appropriate for all Christians to embrace the work of making disciples--not of themselves, but of Christ.

Ray, now

Yes, members of the Church are urged to give references to missionaries of people who are interested in hearing about the gospel of our Lord and His Church, so the missionaries can teach them, with the understanding that missionaries have been given the authority and responsibility of teaching investigators, while members are urged to share what they [we] know with others with the understanding that what they [we] share may not be officially recognized as a true representation of the gospel of our Lord and His Church.

Or in other words, when leaders of the Church ordain people to serve as missionaries, the people who serve as missionaries are recognized as official representatives of our Lord and His Church, while everyone else in the Church retains their freedom to share whatever they [we] think, or believe, or know about something.

Try thinking of the analogy of you being an American citizen, but without the authority to establish or build or regulate American policy, unless you are given the authority that comes with a certain position through duly authorized representatives of the American government, while still being subject to the higher authorities of that government.

Ray, Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM:

Or in other words, it was still necessary for the apostles and those whom they did authorize to “pass on“ their authority to other people before those other people could claim to have any authority, and it would not have been proper for anyone, even anyone living back then, to simply presume to have received authority from our Lord and His authorized servants, even if they personally knew and were taught by our Lord and his duly authorized servants.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

God does the calling, the church does the confirming.

Ray, now

In the Church, our Lord and His authorized representatives do the calling and confirming, with the common consent of the Church.

Ray, Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM

Or in other words, the fact that the apostles were authorized to teach other people what our Lord had taught them didn't give the people who the apostles taught the authority to teach other people what they had been taught, in and of itself, unless or until the apostles actually gave those "students" the authority to become "teachers". And if those new teachers later made mistakes when teaching other people, the apostles would have had the authority or power to correct those other teachers, even revoking the "teaching" status of those other teachers, if necessary, because the apostles were given the authority to teach all people the truth.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Again, God does the calling, the church does the confirming. And, sometimes, the church does the correcting.

Ray, now

Again, our Lord and His authorized representatives do the calling and confirming and correcting, with the common consent of the Church.

Or in other words, when some members and leaders think or do something which doesn’t represent the will of our Lord, our Lord and His authorized servants have the authority to correct those members on those issues.

Prisonchaplain says:

These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus.

Ray responds:

I disagree with the point you are trying to make. I believe you have not been given the authority to represent our Lord and bring people into His church, because I believe you have not been given any authority from our Lord or from any of His duly authorized servants.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Well...I was. In fact, I just got my renewed credentials card in the mail about three weeks ago. My calling came from the Lord, and his duly authorized servants confirmed that calling. Our highest church official layed hands on me, and confirmed me to the chaplaincy. It was a powerful, Holy Ghost anointed experience--one I'll never forget.

Ray, now

Okay, I can now see how you have received authority from the representatives of your church, but I still cannot see how you, or any of the other representatives of your church, have received authority from Jesus Christ.

Ray, Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM

But if you choose to go on believing that our Lord has given you authority to help Him do His work, I hope you will at least try to come up with a better way to explain why you believe our Lord was giving you authority while He was authorizing other people to go and teach what He taught them.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Actually, you are one of the few that has called my calling into question. And, of course, this all really goes back to the question of just what it means for non-LDS Christianity to be apostate. Are we wrong, and in need of added truths?

Ray, now

I believe so. Yes.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Or, are we teaching abominable doctrines and creeds, perhaps putting ourselves (at least those of us who are clergy and church leaders) in danger of hellfire?

Ray, now

A person is only teaching abominable creeds if he is teaching something which is not true.

For instance, if you teach other people that the Book of Mormon was NOT written by people who wrote it as they were inspired by God, and the Book of Mormon was in fact written by people who wrote it as they were inspired by God, then you would be teaching something which is not true, and you would thus be held accountable for that before God.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

Ray, you've shared here how embracing the LDS gospel cost you dearly, in your relationship with your family. Perhaps that has hardened your views on non-LDS believers--particularly those of us who are clergy, like some in your family? However, consider the reverse. If you ever decided to return to the "faith of our fathers," would it not also cause some to abandon you? Friends you've made since your conversion. Likewise, if one of your prodigies decided to discontinue, and start attending a Church of Christ--how would you respond? S/he would be an EX--an apostate--perhaps a Son of Perdition. Would you not be forced to abandon him?

Ray, now

I will never abandon anyone I love, no matter what they choose to believe, and I will continue to love them and try to help them to see what I see that they do not see.

Heh, but enough for now. Give what I have already said some more thought and I’ll get back to YOU later, when I think you’re ready to hear more. :)

[Laureltree]

OMG I think it's a marathon in here, who's running the mile ?

[prisonchaplain]

OMG I think it's a marathon in here, who's running the mile ?

Okay Administrator Laureltree (note the extreme respect and the deep bow I offered as I make my inquiry), it's time to let us know if you realize how long these last few posts really were. Can you summarize what Ray and I are talking about in 50 words or less?

[Ray]

Heh, summaries leave out some details. :)

[prisonchaplain]

EXTREME EDIT ALERT! I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO BRING OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC DIALOGUE BACK DOWN TO BOOK LENGTH WITH THIS RESPONSE.

Prisonchaplain says: 1. Prophets: Many churches, especially African-American ones, do have those called prophets and apostles.

Ray, now

I was using the word “prophet” to refer to people who receive personal communication from Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost.... I was using the word “apostle” as a reference to people sent by our Lord with His authority, not as a reference to people sent by other people who have not been authorized by Him. ... Or in other words, when leaders of the Church ordain people to serve as missionaries, the people who serve as missionaries

So, bottom-line: If they ain't Mormon they ain't prophets, apostles, missionaries, or overseers (bishops)? So, here's a question: Why do Mormons get consternated when Christians, who believe (rightly or not) that Joseph Smith was a false prophet--and that the whole set of Mormon distinctives is at least wrong--question whether or not the LDS Church is Christian? If I read you right, Ray, Mormons believe they not only are Christian, but ultimately, that all other churches are not.

Here's how it sounds:

1. Hey, you can't say we're not Christians. Us too--we belong!

2. By the way, you are not Christians. You don't belong.

I believe that Professors Robinson and Blomberg have overcome this disconnect in their discussion, "How Wide the Divide?" Part of that overcoming includes an ability for both sides to see the other as, perhaps wrong, but sincerely seeking after God and the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

I suggest that you study Paul’s letter to the Ephesians to see how he used that word.

I did as you suggested. I saw two uses of the word prophet(s). It often refers to the Old Testament prophets. It can also refer to prophets in the church. My thought, since none is ever specifically mentioned--and certainly no New Testament prophet took leadership of the church, is that the New Testament prophet was one who exercised the gift of prophecy. As such, they were prophets--but not in the Old Testament sense of one great man of God standing up to the king and to the people at large and calling for repentence and righteousness. Rather, these prophets exercised their gifts to build up the local congregation. So, in some Pentecostal churches those who prophesy are called prophets, in most anglo Pentecostal churches were use the more cautious phrase, "S/he has the gift of prophecy." BTW, none of what I am saying is meant to argue against the possibility that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

I would say that “apostasy” is to reject something after knowing it is true, while “rebellion” is to fight against knowing whether or not something is true.

Perhaps the safe approach would be to say the judging is in God's hands, and that all those who seek God should seek for the fullest understanding possible.

prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM

So, where are we at? Are we all God-seekers, all attempting to follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Is it just that one side is wrong on some things, as Prof. Robinson says, and in need of "additional truth." Or is one side non-Christian, an enemy of the true gospel, and in need of total repentence and conversion?

I think that is a personal question that each of us has to answer for ourselves, with the help of personal revelation from Jesus Christ. And although those of us who know the truth can also know that other people don’t know it, we cannot judge their hearts or determine why they have not learned the truth, unless our Lord reveals that to us too.

There is an issue you have to grapple with, though, Ray. It's one I've been working out as well--both here--and through the "How Wide the Divide?" book. How do I approach an Latter Day Saint? How do you approach a non-LDS individual who claims to be Christian? Are we spiritual brothers? Am I "a weaker brother." Am I, like Apollos, "In need of more truth." Or, as an educated believer who claims to commune with the Holy Spirit, am I intentionally rebellious, and perhaps even apostate--perhaps even a Son of Perdition? How optimistically will you approach me, and I you?

Quite frankly, even ten years ago, I was probably an anti-Mormon, at least in my attitude. But ten years of ministry in which I engage with Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Catholics, and varying degrees of "no preference," have given me pause. I've decided to listen more and speak less (quite snickering Laureltree!). As it stands today, I'm still convinced of the basics of evangelicalism, and the 16 fundamental truths of my own movement (yes, it's more or less a creed). I do not have a testimony concerning Joseph Smith. But I stay, I listen, I share what I know, and I am optimistic that since nearly all who come this way are on some level seeking God. So, this is time well spent.

I do not believe it is true to state that everyone who receives that particular gift of the Holy Ghost which enables someone to speak in other tongues is the only sign someone can receive to let them know they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I know you don't. I do. This is a distinctive teaching of Pentecostal churches. It won't get you in or keep you out of heaven. But, again, I'd point out that in the five incidences of people receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost, tongues is specified in three of them, implied in one, and simply not pointed out in the fifth. It is the most consistent outward element that's repeated. Additionally, in one particular incident, where there was skepticism, the apostles point to tongues as proof that Gentiles had indeed been baptized in the Holy Ghost.

Furthermore, your idea that God inspires others to relinquish control of their tongue is not in harmony with what I believe about what our Lord has revealed about why that gift is given. And to put it simply, I believe the gift of being able to speak in other tongues is given so that we can communicate with others in their own tongue, not so we can speak jibberish and then have someone tell us what that jibberish supposedly means.

Only in Acts 2 do the tongues seem to be intelligible. None of the other incidences were like that. Also, in none of the five incidences were the apostles in a cross-lingual setting. The gift of tongues was never used as a way of speeding up the missionary task of learning a new language.

Also, I know you do not believe Pentecostals speak under the anointing of the Holy Ghost, but you should know that most Pentecostals, especially if they don't know you, would take offense at having something we consider sacred, reduced to nonsense language. Ironically, if we are right about what we do, you commit the same error the crowd did--thinking us drunk (babble, jibberish).

I will never abandon anyone I love, no matter what they choose to believe, and I will continue to love them and try to help them to see what I see that they do not see.

Amen.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain

…Many churches, especially African-American ones, do have those called prophets and apostles.

Ray,

I was using the word “prophet” to refer to people who receive personal communication from Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost... I was using the word “apostle” as a reference to people sent by our Lord with His authority, not as a reference to people sent by other people who have not been authorized by Him. ... Or in other words, when leaders of the Church ordain people to serve as missionaries, the people who serve as missionaries…

prisonchaplain

So, bottom-line: If they ain't Mormon they ain't prophets, apostles, missionaries, or overseers (bishops)?

Ray

Let’s put it this way:

No matter what other words you may choose to use when referring to someone, whether it’s “Mormon”, or “Evangelical”, or “Christian”:

If someone doesn’t receive personal revelation from Jesus Christ, that person is not a prophet of God, even if they might call themselves a “prophet”. And how can we determine whether or not someone truly is a prophet of God? By receiving personal revelation from God for ourselves, telling us whether or not what another person has said has been authorized by Him.

And while you might say that we should see if what someone says is in harmony with the Holy Bible, I say that without personal revelation from Jesus Christ, we can’t know if the Holy Bible is truly holy or not, or in other words, whether it was inspired by God or not.

Or in other words, without personal revelation from Jesus Christ, which nobody can prevent as long as we Ask, because our Lord has said that if we Ask we will Receive, nobody can know the truth, because all truth comes from Jesus Christ. Or in other words, He is the way, the truth, and the light, and we can only come to God through Him, with no other “gatekeeper” but Him.

prisonchaplain

So, here's a question: Why do Mormons get consternated when Christians, who believe (rightly or not) that Joseph Smith was a false prophet--and that the whole set of Mormon distinctives is at least wrong--question whether or not the LDS Church is Christian?

Ray

Some people probably have a different reason, but I personally do not like hearing people tell me that what I know to be true is false. Or in other words, I know that certain things are true because I have found out for myself, and to hear someone tell me that something is wrong when I know it isn’t wrong just doesn’t sit well with me.

Now, if they were to simply tell me that that do not believe what I believe, and then follow that up with some reasons why they do not believe in those things, I would be happy to discuss with them the reasons why I believe the things that I believe. But I have usually found that most people would rather just say that they believe something is wrong, and then walk away from the discussion, not really wanting to know what I think. Or in other words, some people say things like that simply to be antagonistic, not really wanting to change their minds, and that doesn’t sit well with me.

prisonchaplain

If I read you right, Ray, Mormons believe they not only are Christian, but ultimately, that all other churches are not.

Ray

I have never said that people in other churches are not Christians, or that other people do not worship Jesus Christ. I have simply said that not everybody who is a Christian, or who believes in Jesus Christ, has received authority from Him or from His duly authorized servants.

You still seem to be having trouble making the distinction between having beliefs and having authority, with the understanding that no matter how much you know, you still may not have authority.

prisonchaplain

There is an issue you have to grapple with, though, Ray. It's one I've been working out as well--both here--and through the "How Wide the Divide?" book. How do I approach an Latter Day Saint? How do you approach a non-LDS individual who claims to be Christian? Are we spiritual brothers? Am I "a weaker brother." Am I, like Apollos, "In need of more truth." Or, as an educated believer who claims to commune with the Holy Spirit, am I intentionally rebellious, and perhaps even apostate--perhaps even a Son of Perdition? How optimistically will you approach me, and I you?

Ray

I have been trying to approach you as someone who does not see something I see, while trying to help you see it, in a “proper and affectionate manner”. This does not make me better than you, however, and I do not feel that way. I simply know that I can see some things that you can’t see, and I am trying to help you see them.

And btw, I wasn’t always this nice, and I’m still trying to be even nicer.

prisonchaplain

… [speaking of speaking in tongues]…in Acts 2 the tongues seem to be intelligible.

Ray

I don’t know where you got that idea. The people who heard the disciples speaking in tongues said they heard them in their own language, and that they were all from Jerusalem.

prisonchaplain

None of the other incidences were like that. Also, in none of the five incidences were the apostles in a cross-lingual setting. The gift of tongues was never used as a way of speeding up the missionary task of learning a new language.

Ray

You seem to be making some assumptions, but I will study some more on this subject.

But in any event, the gift of speaking in tongues is only one of the gifts of the Spirit, and it is certainly not the best gift.

prisonchaplain

Also, I know you do not believe Pentecostals speak under the anointing of the Holy Ghost, but you should know that most Pentecostals, especially if they don't know you, would take offense at having something we consider sacred, reduced to nonsense language.

Ray

I did not say that Pentecostals speak gibberish. I was saying that the gift of speaking in tongues results in people who can speak in other tongues, not people who can speak in gibberish. So if a person is speaking in tongues, they are speaking in a tongue which can be understood by all other people who can speak in that tongue. And when it is properly interpreted by someone with the gift of discernment, everyone else can know whether or not what has been said is of God by asking God for themselves, without having to rely or trust the interpreter.

Or in other words, whether someone speaks in the same tongue we speak or in another tongue, once we property understand what someone has said, we can know whether or not what they have said is true by asking our Lord to assure us of the truth, without the need to rely or trust another man.

And btw, I can still see that you don’t understand the other things that I told you, and instead of telling you any more I think it would be best for you to go on thinking about those things.