How True, Trustworthy And Authoritative Is The Bible?

[Ray]

Congratulations on your excellent backpeddling. Bill Clinton would be proud.

Heh, yes, I did go “back” to “peddle” (or advertise) the truth I was trying to give you, but it’s more correct to call it “clarification”, since “backpeddling” has negative connotations.

Oh - yeah, you're a prophet like Leonard Nimoy is a duck-billed platipus.

Oh yeah? Well then I guess that means you’re a prophet like you are not really a prophet, at least on the truth of this issue. But keep learning, young grasshopper, and I’m sure you’ll know all truth someday.

And btw, Snow, whether you know it or not, and whether you admit it or not, anyone who has read D&C 20:9 should know that the Book of Mormon does contain the fullness of the gospel… unless they also don’t know Joseph Smith was a prophet by gaining that knowledge from God.

[Ray]

The authority is in the gospel message--not the messenger.

In a way, that's true, but that's not in the way you mean it.

And as you mean it that is not a true statement, based on what [LDS] know to be true, and everything written in scripture. And since it appears that you still can’t see that, even after all of the examples Snow cited, I think you need another example to show you that we [LDS] know that God doesn't work that way.

For instance, try imagining what will happen on the day of judgment when God will speak to everyone who now says that they were preaching the true “gospel”.

(hint: what Traveler said about “I never knew you”)

Do you have that image in your mind now?

Can you imagine what He would say to you?

Now try thinking about what it would mean for God to say He does know us, and for us to say we know God.

For instance, doesn't knowledge of God necessarily involve a personal relationship with God, with God revealing His knowledge to us, and us obtaining our knowledge of God from God, rather than simply by knowing other people who will tell you what they say God told them?

And wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know about people God has authorized… as we ask God about those people?

Or in other words, wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, by simply asking God about him?

I say Yes.

So, to sum it up, I say that without us knowing God, with God knowing us, we cannot know the truth about God, and we also can’t know the people God knows in all the ways God truly knows them.

Or in other words, while you may not know Joseph Smith was prophet of God, we [LDS] know that he was, and we also know that you can know that, once you know more about who God truly knows.

[Maureen]

...And again about authority... The bible tells us that we must all be baptised. I just can't imagine that it's all just as good for God if the baptizer is, say, an ordained priesthood holder, duly called and set apart, or some flim flam man off the street looking to get rich through religion.

Snow, I hope you’re not trying to paint all Mormon priesthood holders as all-righteous and not one has ever succumb to temptation of any kind. Wasn’t there a thread a while back about if the priesthood holder ends up being a “bad-guy”, does that mean his authority was invalid and any ordaining he did also invalid? If I remember correctly it was decided that even though the “bad guy” wasn’t altogether worthy his authority to perform his duties was still intact. So just like PC said, it’s not the messenger that has the authority but his priesthood abilities make his authority credible even though he may not be. Sounds similar to PC’s fellowship in a lot of ways. So even if “chaos” exists in the Mormon church due to unrighteous members, God still sees fit to have everything work for good.

M.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

...And again about authority... The bible tells us that we must all be baptised. I just can't imagine that it's all just as good for God if the baptizer is, say, an ordained priesthood holder, duly called and set apart, or some flim flam man off the street looking to get rich through religion.

Snow, I hope you’re not trying to paint all Mormon priesthood holders as all-righteous and not one has ever succumb to temptation of any kind. Wasn’t there a thread a while back about if the priesthood holder ends up being a “bad-guy”, does that mean his authority was invalid and any ordaining he did also invalid? If I remember correctly it was decided that even though the “bad guy” wasn’t altogether worthy his authority to perform his duties was still intact. So just like PC said, it’s not the messenger that has the authority but his priesthood abilities make his authority credible even though he may not be. Sounds similar to PC’s fellowship in a lot of ways. So even if “chaos” exists in the Mormon church due to unrighteous members, God still sees fit to have everything work for good.

M.

Try thinking of this comparison.

If a judge who is authorized to act as a judge does something in his capacity as a judge, the authority of that judge will be recognized by the authorities as something that judge had authority to do. But if that judge does something he is not authorized to do, that act of that judge won’t be recognized as something that judge was authorized to do.

And btw, the opinions expressed by members of LDStalk may not necessariliy reflect the knowledge of God, and if I were you, which I'm not, thank God, I would much less believe the words of some members.

Heh, seems like we should have that stated as some kind of disclaimer somewhere, wouldn't you think?

[Maureen]

And btw, the opinions expressed by members of LDStalk may not necessariliy reflect the knowledge of God...

Does that apply to you too Ray? :)

M.

[prisonchaplain]

I would disagree with you about Mormons and calling in the big guns. Certainly when someone is ready to serioiusly consider joining the Church, the missionaries are called, however my experience has been that Mormon rank and file members are more involved in spreading the good word than any other denomination I have run across, period.

You may well be right. I based my comment on responses here to strings where the issue of authority has come up. Repeatedly I have been told that only those authorized have authority to preach the gospel. Now that I think about it, most Mormon men are ordained into priestly orders. So, the real issue is not one's office in the church, but one's membership in THE CHURCH.

So, to carry your side of the argument a little further, since the LDS has a tight reign on membership, placement in roles, and doctrine, loose canons never find fertile ground to develop self-promoting "ministries." Did I capture your argument here?

And again about authority... The bible tells us that we must all be baptised. I just can't imagine that it's all just as good for God if the baptizer is, say, an ordained priesthood holder, duly called and set apart, or some flim flam man off the street looking to get rich through religion.

Again, I would argue that the importance of baptism is WHO one is being baptized into, not which church, or the rank of the one doing the officiating. Recall in 1 Corinthians 1, how disgusted Paul was with the people for breaking into factions because of who had baptized them.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>The authority is in the gospel message--not the messenger.

In a way, that's true, but that's not in the way you mean it.

For instance, try imagining what will happen on the day of judgment when God will speak to everyone who now says that they were preaching the true “gospel”.

(hint: what Traveler said about “I never knew you”)

Do you have that image in your mind now?

Can you imagine what He would say to you?

Now try thinking about what it would mean for God to say He does know us, and for us to say we know God.

For instance, doesn't knowledge of God necessarily involve a personal relationship with God, with God revealing His knowledge to us, and us obtaining our knowledge of God from God, rather than simply by knowing other people who will tell you what they say God told them?

And wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know about people God has authorized… as we ask God about those people?

Or in other words, wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, by simply asking God about him? I say Yes.

If I'm reading you correctly here, then anyone who does not have a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, does not know God. Ray, is this your bottom-line?

How interesting. I'm not sure any other Jewish prophet ever required such allegiance. I can think of only one who did: Mohammed. And I seem to recall another string in which Muslims were accused to idolatry for so elevating the importance of belief in the prophet, that it superceded belief in God.

Ray, if you (not the LDS, and not other posters at ldstalk--since you're the only saying this)--demand allegiance to Joseph Smith as a PREREQUISITE to knowledge of God, then you are idolizing a mere messenger. Jesus aid He is the Way, Truth, and Life--and that no one comes to the Father, but by Him. You dare not put Joseph on the level as Jesus.

I do have a testimony of what Jesus will say to me. It will be "Well done good and faithful servant, enter into my kingdom." Because, I faithfully preached Christ, and him crucified.

So, to sum it up, I say that without us knowing God, with God knowing us, we cannot know the truth about God, and we also can’t know the people God knows in all the ways God truly knows them. Or in other words, while you may not know Joseph Smith was prophet of God, we [LDS] know that he was, and we also know that you can know that, once you know more about who God truly knows.

I understand your point. But guard your zeal, Ray. We Pentecostals often must tame some of our bretheren who get excited about the fullness of Holy Spirit baptism, and start, erroneously, teaching that any True Christian would want this, seek this, and gain this. Such is not the teaching of our churches. Power tools are great. They are useful. They are not required.

My question: Even if all that Joseph Smith said and experienced was as he said it was, do you not think that God would rather see all Christians come into the truths that his messenger explicated, rather than requiring allegiance to the man and the institution he fostered? It hasn't played out that way, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't have. Just a thought.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

And btw, the opinions expressed by members of LDStalk may not necessariliy reflect the knowledge of God...

Does that apply to you too Ray? :)

M.

Heh, that answer will change depending on who you ask, so if you really want to know what God thinks, I think you can only know that from God. :)

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>The authority is in the gospel message--not the messenger.

… wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, by simply asking God about him? I say Yes.

If I'm reading you correctly here, then anyone who does not have a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, does not know God. Ray, is this your bottom-line?

In a way, Yes, but only when referring to people who say he was not a prophet of God.

But that is not what I was saying, in the statement I originally made.

And btw, I find it interesting that you proceeded to make several statements concerning what you thought I meant without first obtaining more clarification from me.

And now to clarify what I originally meant, which is pretty much what I said.

But in other words, if we know God, and God knows us, wouldn’t the fact that we know God not only help us to know God, but also help us to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since we could then simply ask God about Joseph?

Or in other words, if we know God, and also want to know about Joseph Smith, if God knows Joseph it would be easy to find out about Joseph, by finding out what God knows about Joseph, by simply asking God.

Or in other words, Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God or he wasn’t, and since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.

And btw, the fact that some people say he was while other people say he wasn’t, while both sides claim to have that knowledge from God, shows that everybody who says they have knowledge from God does not truly have knowledge from God… because he either was or he wasn’t, and nobody knows better than God.

<div class='quotemain'>So, to sum it up, I say that without us knowing God, with God knowing us, we cannot know the truth about God, and we also can’t know the people God knows in all the ways God truly knows them. Or in other words, while you may not know Joseph Smith was prophet of God, we [LDS] know that he was, and we also know that you can know that, once you know more about who God truly knows.

My question: Even if all that Joseph Smith said and experienced was as he said it was, do you not think that God would rather see all Christians come into the truths that his messenger explicated, rather than requiring allegiance to the man and the institution he fostered? It hasn't played out that way, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't have. Just a thought.

But if Joseph was God's messenger, then this Church is God's "institution", so instead of accepting some other "institution" we should accept the institution God established through Joseph.

Or in other words, you cannot follow God if you refuse to follow God’s messengers and the messages God gives us through them, because whether knowledge comes from God or His messengers, the knowledge all comes from God and to follow God we must accept God's message(s).

As to your other point, we [LDS] do not “worship” Joseph Smith. We simply acknowledge that he was one of God's messengers who played a key role in restoring God's "institution" on Earth.

And btw, if you never come to know from God that Joseph Smith was one of God's messengers, and what Joseph's role really was, you will forever be “damned” or limited in your progression because you did not obtain that knowledge from God.

Or in other words, without knowing Joseph, there will always be some things you never learn about God, because you will never know the role that God gave Joseph nor the role of many of God's other messengers, aka prophets.

And btw, while it is also important to know that President Hinckley is God’s prophet on Earth today, as well as others who came and will come after Joseph, even those prophets will tell you the importance of knowing Joseph because of the knowledge we all gained through him… which we all should know or at least can know to be true by confirming that knowledge with God.

[Maureen]

If I'm reading you correctly here, then anyone who does not have a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, does not know God. Ray, is this your bottom-line?

And btw, I find it interesting that you proceeded to make several statements concerning what you thought I meant without first obtaining more clarification from me.

Ray, how else would PC convey to you what he thinks you mean if he doesn't write it out in some type of statement/question?

M.

[Snow]

In a way, Yes, but only when referring to people who say he was not a prophet of God.

But that is not what I was saying, in the statement I originally made.

And btw, I find it interesting that you proceeded to make several statements concerning what you thought I meant without first obtaining more clarification from me.

And now to clarify what I originally meant, which is pretty much what I said.

But in other words, if we know God, and God knows us, wouldn’t the fact that we know God not only help us to know God, but also help us to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since we could then simply ask God about Joseph?

Or in other words, if we know God, and also want to know about Joseph Smith, if God knows Joseph it would be easy to find out about Joseph, by finding out what God knows about Joseph, by simply asking God.

Or in other words, Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God or he wasn’t, and since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.

And btw, the fact that some people say he was while other people say he wasn’t, while both sides claim to have that knowledge from God, shows that everybody who says they have knowledge from God does not truly have knowledge from God… because he either was or he wasn’t, and nobody knows better than God.

Church Missionary Department to Ray: You're not helping.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

I would disagree with you about Mormons and calling in the big guns. Certainly when someone is ready to serioiusly consider joining the Church, the missionaries are called, however my experience has been that Mormon rank and file members are more involved in spreading the good word than any other denomination I have run across, period.

You may well be right. I based my comment on responses here to strings where the issue of authority has come up. Repeatedly I have been told that only those authorized have authority to preach the gospel. Now that I think about it, most Mormon men are ordained into priestly orders. So, the real issue is not one's office in the church, but one's membership in THE CHURCH.

I don't think I would put it that way. Missionaries are called and ordained specifically to preach and convert, but members also preach and convert without being specifically called and ordained for that purpose. Other Christians also preach and maybe convert people to general Christianity. Even though not authorized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wouldn't say that their efforts are worthless. The prophet (President Hinckley) says that we applaud the truth found in other faith traditions and invite all to obtain the fullness of truth found in Christ's restored Church. So to the extent that someone, you for example, is helping to bring others to an understanding of truth - that's a good thing, right?

So, to carry your side of the argument a little further, since the LDS has a tight reign on membership, placement in roles, and doctrine, loose canons never find fertile ground to develop self-promoting "ministries." Did I capture your argument here?

If someone a leadership position in the Church acts in that is contrary to the Church rules and regulations (so to speak), they are removed from leadership. They would no longer be in any position to act contrary to the Church's instruction. To continue, like say Swaggart, they would have to go completely outside the Church. Granted, that's what Swaggart did but in your system of all Christianty being true, it doesn't matter in his is part of your movement or independent - he takes authority unto himself and it's all the say - according to your belief. In our tradition, anyone with the truth might be able to share the truth, but only those duly authorized my baptise and bestoy the Holy Ghost, all under the direction of a very organized and heirarchical structure.

You know, it's another topic, but I would wager that the Church is probably the single best organized large institution in the world outside the military. The president of the Chruch could issue an instruction that, say, Mormons are to congregate at whatever geograhpic locations, with whatever in hand, to be of which ever service to whatever population and 1 and 1/2 hours later millions of Mormons all over the world would be there, ready to roll.

[prisonchaplain]

In a way, Yes, but only when referring to people who say he was not a prophet of God.

But that is not what I was saying, in the statement I originally made.

I look forward to hearing your main point, since I thought I had restated it correctly.

And btw, I find it interesting that you proceeded to make several statements concerning what you thought I meant without first obtaining more clarification from me.

Please consider my statements an invitation for you to clarify.

And now to clarify what I originally meant, which is pretty much what I said. But in other words, if we know God, and God knows us, wouldn’t the fact that we know God not only help us to know God, but also help us to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since we could then simply ask God about Joseph?

Okay, so, I at this point God has not shown me or led me in the direction of believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. So, where does my current understanding lead me?

In other words, does this mean I don't know God or doesn't it? To repeat my comparison, Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, subsequent to salvation. We also believe that this experience is accompanied by tongues-speech. So, does this mean that non-Pentecostal believers don't 'have the Spirit?' No. We use terms like fullness and empowerment. Yes, we wish everyone 'got it.' But, we do not break fellowship with our non-Pentecostal bretheren.

Or in other words, if we know God, and also want to know about Joseph Smith, if God knows Joseph it would be easy to find out about Joseph, by finding out what God knows about Joseph, by simply asking God. Or in other words, Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God or he wasn’t, and since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.

I don't disagree with you. However, as a growing Christian, willing to know more, but pleased with what God has and is doing through me, the issue of the veracity of Joseph Smith has not been high on my spiritual list. Such is the case for most Christians. Many of those who have queried God claim to have received a negative answer. Of course, 12 million Mormons claim the opposite. So, my question: Is there precedent for making the veracity of a mere messenger (no disrespect intended) a matter over which fellowship might be broken? In other words, has the messenger in this case become more important than the message, and Him who the message is about?

But if Joseph was God's messenger, then this Church is God's "institution", so instead of accepting some other "institution" we should accept the institution God established through Joseph. Or in other words, you cannot follow God if you refuse to follow God’s messengers and the messages God gives us through them, because whether knowledge comes from God or His messengers, the knowledge all comes from God and to follow God we must accept God's message(s).

Even Jesus did not reject the synagogue or the temple. He reacted against corrupt religious leaders, but never sought to establish a new sect, or religion. Yet, Joseph Smith starts out this way. "They're all wrong, all corrupt." Why wouldn't God hope to redeem the hundreds of millions of Christians in the established churches of his day, rather than brushing them all aside, to start anew. Note also, that Martin Luther was a most reluctant schismatic. He wanted reform, not spiritual revolution. Ironically, many theologians believe Luther's reformation actually saved the Catholic church, by forcing into to reform itself. Me thinks this pleased God.

As to your other point, we [LDS] do not “worship” Joseph Smith. We simply acknowledge that he was one of God's messengers who played a key role in restoring God's "institution" on Earth.

If faith in Joseph Smith is a prerequisite to knowledge of God, then Joseph Smith de facto becomes on par with Jesus (the one way to the Father, John 14:6).

And btw, if you never come to know from God that Joseph Smith was one of God's messengers, and what Joseph's role really was, you will forever be “damned” or limited in your progression because you did not obtain that knowledge from God. Or in other words, without knowing Joseph, there will always be some things you never learn about God, because you will never know the role that God gave Joseph nor the role of many of God's other messengers, aka prophets. And btw, while it is also important to know that President Hinckley is God’s prophet on Earth today, as well as others who came and will come after Joseph, even those prophets will tell you the importance of knowing Joseph because of the knowledge we all gained through him… which we all should know or at least can know to be true by confirming that knowledge with God.

And I would suggest that the prophets never ascribed such honor to themselves, never demanded that worshippers of God affirm their office as prophets. Likewise, while Paul defended his ministry, he was quick to point his listeners to Jesus, not himself.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't think I would put it that way. Missionaries are called and ordained specifically to preach and convert, but members also preach and convert without being specifically called and ordained for that purpose. Other Christians also preach and maybe convert people to general Christianity. Even though not authorized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wouldn't say that their efforts are worthless. The prophet (President Hinckley) says that we applaud the truth found in other faith traditions and invite all to obtain the fullness of truth found in Christ's restored Church. So to the extent that someone, you for example, is helping to bring others to an understanding of truth - that's a good thing, right?

To summarize:

1. Snow's approach to Mormonism and 'General Christianity' is somewhat akin to that of most Pentecostals towards non-Pentecostals: We wish you would avail yourselves of the added power and blessings we've received, but we bless you in what you have and are accomplishing, as well. One caveat--you probably agree with Blomberg/Robinson that we're not ready to share pulpits, communions, or baptisms.

2. Ray's approach is more akin to that of many fundamentalists towards Catholics: "Come out from among them and be ye separate."

I'm overstating the case a bit, but whereas Snow seems to believe he's got something really neat to show his Christian acquaintances, Ray gives the impression of trying to win souls.

You know, it's another topic, but I would wager that the Church is probably the single best organized large institution in the world outside the military. The president of the Chruch could issue an instruction that, say, Mormons are to congregate at whatever geograhpic locations, with whatever in hand, to be of which ever service to whatever population and 1 and 1/2 hours later millions of Mormons all over the world would be there, ready to roll.

If you're even half right then there is no need for you to qualify your statement with "outside the military."

[Ray]

If I'm reading you correctly here, then anyone who does not have a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, does not know God. Ray, is this your bottom-line?

<div class='quotemain'>

And btw, I find it interesting that you proceeded to make several statements concerning what you thought I meant without first obtaining more clarification from me.

Ray, how else would PC convey to you what he thinks you mean if he doesn't write it out in some type of statement/question?

M.

I said I found it interesting because I was surprised by how many things I saw him say concerning what he thought I said which were not in harmony with what I had said.

And btw, I also found it interesting because this is what many people do when stating what they believe God meant, instead of asking Him.

And to answer your question, I think the best course of action when trying to understand someone else is to ask them what they meant, instead of talking a lot about what they think they meant.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

In a way, Yes, but only when referring to people who say he was not a prophet of God.

But that is not what I was saying, in the statement I originally made.

And btw, I find it interesting that you proceeded to make several statements concerning what you thought I meant without first obtaining more clarification from me.

And now to clarify what I originally meant, which is pretty much what I said.

But in other words, if we know God, and God knows us, wouldn’t the fact that we know God not only help us to know God, but also help us to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since we could then simply ask God about Joseph?

Or in other words, if we know God, and also want to know about Joseph Smith, if God knows Joseph it would be easy to find out about Joseph, by finding out what God knows about Joseph, by simply asking God.

Or in other words, Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God or he wasn’t, and since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.

And btw, the fact that some people say he was while other people say he wasn’t, while both sides claim to have that knowledge from God, shows that everybody who says they have knowledge from God does not truly have knowledge from God… because he either was or he wasn’t, and nobody knows better than God.

Church Missionary Department to Ray: You're not helping.

Yes, I was helping, Snow, despite what you think you know.

And now to help even more, while using other words.

Anyone who does not have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, does not know God well enough to know that God authorized Joseph as God’s messenger.

Or in other words, by knowing God, and God knowing us, (or by having a personal relationship with God), not only can and do we know things about God from God as we have learned from God, but we also can and do know things about Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, since God can and has told us things that God does know about Joseph.

Or in other words, by knowing God, it is and has been easy to find out what God knows about Joseph Smith, by simply asking God.

Or in other words, by knowing God, and wanting to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.

And btw, the fact that people say Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, while other people say he wasn’t, while all those people claim to have knowledge about Joseph from God, shows that everybody who claims to have knowledge from God does not truly have knowledge from God… because Joseph either was or wasn’t God’s prophet, and nobody knows better than God.

Or in other words, prisonchaplain, if you know God, and God knows you, well enough so that you can and do learn about God from God, rather than by what you only read in the “Bible”, then all you have to do to know if Joseph was one of God’s messenger’s is ask God, because nobody knows better than God about the fact of whether or not Joseph was or was not God’s messenger.

And btw, if it isn’t totally clear to you, from all of my other posts, I do know for a fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, because I do have that knowledge from God. I’m simply trying to speak on your level to help you know how to know what I know.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

Please read what I wrote in reply to Snow’s post, in the post above, as well as what I will write here.

Okay, so, at this point God has not shown me or led me in the direction of believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. So, where does my current understanding lead me?

It leads you to not really know about Joseph, and considering the impact of his message, if the message really came from God, I would think you would want to know enough about Joseph to know whether or not Joseph was giving God’s message.

In other words, does this mean I don't know God or doesn't it?

It means you don’t know God well enough to know that Joseph delivered God’s message.

To repeat my comparison, Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, subsequent to salvation. We also believe that this experience is accompanied by tongues-speech. So, does this mean that non-Pentecostal believers don't 'have the Spirit?' No. We use terms like fullness and empowerment. Yes, we wish everyone 'got it.' But, we do not break fellowship with our non-Pentecostal brethren.

And we’re not breaking “fellowship” with you either. We’re simply telling you that you don’t have authority from God to do the work that you're doing, because we know who does have authority from God to do the work that God has given. But keep learning from God and someday you will also know better about all of the work of God.

…as a growing Christian, willing to know more, but pleased with what God has and is doing through me, the issue of the veracity of Joseph Smith has not been high on my spiritual list.

If you really want to know God, it should be, because Joseph spoke for God.

Many of those who have queried God claim to have received a negative answer. Of course, 12 million Mormons claim the opposite.

Which is why I stated that not all people who claim to receive knowledge from God have truly received knowledge from God.

So, my question: Is there precedent for making the veracity of a mere messenger (no disrespect intended) a matter over which fellowship might be broken? In other words, has the messenger in this case become more important than the message, and Him who the message is about?

In this case the messenger claimed to be revealing knowledge that he personally gained from God, and if you know God or really want to know God, you can also know whether the message is from God... by receiving that knowledge from God... after simply Asking God... while remembering that our Lord said that if we Ask we will Receive.

And no, I don’t believe we should pull away from people who don’t know God as well as we do, and I am trying to show by example that I believe we should try to help others know what we know.

Even Jesus did not reject the synagogue or the temple. He reacted against corrupt religious leaders, but never sought to establish a new sect, or religion.

So do you believe the religion of “Christianity” is merely an appendage to “Judaism”?

Heh, in a sense that is right, but in another sense they are separate and distinct religions.

For instance, during our Lord’s mortal ministry He called and set apart 12 apostles, who then continued to fill vacancies in the “apostleship”, by common consent and with the help of revelation... until our Lord considered them to be in apostasy, which we [LDS] also know by revelation.

Or in other words, our Lord did not authorize the priests in the various sects who were then claiming to officiate in the name of God, even though the authority they claimed to have then did originally come from God and His authorized servants.

Or in other words, our Lord called, set apart, and authorized other people to do His work, rather than continuing to teach the corrupt teachers who would not listen to Him.

Yet, Joseph Smith starts out this way. "They're all wrong, all corrupt." Why wouldn't God hope to redeem the hundreds of millions of Christians in the established churches of his day, rather than brushing them all aside, to start anew.

For the reason of “why”, consider what our Lord said about how it’s easier to fill new wine skins, instead of trying to restore the old ones. But that is mere speculation, and it’s not really important to know “why”, as long as we know what our Lord “did” in fact do and what He really wants from us.

And btw, many people who were once followers of the corrupt teachers, and even some of the corrupt teachers, did in fact join the “true” Church of our Lord, both then and now in the latter days by joining with the true church of Jesus Christ.

Note also, that Martin Luther was a most reluctant schismatic. He wanted reform, not spiritual revolution. Ironically, many theologians believe Luther's reformation actually saved the Catholic church, by forcing into to reform itself. Me thinks this pleased God.

Once you have received more knowledge from God, you may change the way that you think. And of course I think you should, because I know you do not know the truth on some issues... including this one concerning who has authority from God.

If faith in Joseph Smith is a prerequisite to knowledge of God, then Joseph Smith de facto becomes on par with Jesus (the one way to the Father, John 14:6).

Not any more than faith in the apostle Paul and other prophets help us to have actual knowledge from God. And btw, your belief that we should accept only Paul and the other prophets who wrote the Bible is very much like how the ancient Jews believed they should accept only Moses and the other prophets who wrote their texts... while we [LDS] accept more prophets of God who have written more words of God.

And I would suggest that the prophets never ascribed such honor to themselves, never demanded that worshippers of God affirm their office as prophets. Likewise, while Paul defended his ministry, he was quick to point his listeners to Jesus, not himself.

And today’s prophets are that way too, as they tell you what our Lord has told them.

And btw, prisonchaplain, I'm still praying for the day when you will say that YOU "got it", or something else to signify that "you have seen the light!!!" And I will know when you see it, because I still see it and saw it before you did.

And I'm sorry to say that, until then, you will continue to kick against the pricks.

Heh, good grief. You'll have to replace the ###### in the url with the word the language-checker doesn't like, even though it is not vulgar language in this context and would help to make my point. :)

[Ray]

Missionaries are called and ordained specifically to preach and convert, but members also preach and convert without being specifically called and ordained for that purpose.

Yes, members (and people who are not members) of the Church can “preach” (or share) the gospel with others, but only the missionaries and some other “authorities” in the Church have the authority to “convert” (or bring people into the Church).

Or in other words, people sharing what they think, and what they know, and what they want to talk about with other people, is NOT the Lord’s work, unless the Lord has specifically authorized those people in what to talk about or what to do as His work.

Or in other words, the idea that some people can share what they believe is Lord’s gospel, while establishing what they believe is the Lord’s church, or one of the Lord’s churches, does not mean those people are doing the Lord’s work, or that they have been authorized by our Lord, no matter how much they may think so.

Or in other words, people do what people do, and our Lord does what He does, either by doing His work Himself or by authorizing people as His servants.

And btw, people can do a LOT of good work on their own without needing authority from our Lord, but the only people who are doing our Lord’s work are those who have received authority from our Lord. And no matter how much some people may want to work for our Lord it doesn’t mean that they actually are.

Other Christians also preach and maybe convert people to general Christianity. Even though not authorized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wouldn't say that their efforts are worthless.

It would be more correct to say that those people do not have authority from our Lord, rather than simply saying that they don’t have any authority from the Church, but since the Church is the only authorized “institution” our Lord has authorized for His people it is pretty much saying the same thing.

But I also wouldn’t say that the things people do without authority from our Lord are worthless. There are many people who do good works without having any authority from our Lord, and the only thing I am trying to teach about here is that Man cannot assume to have authority from God.

The prophet (President Hinckley) says that we applaud the truth found in other faith traditions and invite all to obtain the fullness of truth found in Christ's restored Church. So to the extent that someone, you for example, is helping to bring others to an understanding of truth - that's a good thing, right?

The truth that people share with each other is of course a very good thing, but there are some people who claim to have authority from God when in fact they have no such thing.

And btw, President Hinckley is also very direct and to the point on the issue of the Church being the only Church with the authority to work for our Lord, and while he does tell other people, including other “Christians”, that we [LDS] do want to work with them, he also makes a point of saying that we should teach all people the truth.

2. Ray's approach is more akin to that of many fundamentalists towards Catholics: "Come out from among them and be ye separate."

I'm overstating the case a bit, but whereas Snow seems to believe he's got something really neat to show his Christian acquaintances, Ray gives the impression of trying to win souls.

I’d say that what I’m really trying to say is that you should join the Lord’s church instead of any others, knowing that our Lord’s desire is that we all become one, as He is one with our Father.

[Snow]

[

Yes, I was helping, Snow, despite what you think you know.

Oh yeah?

Well despite what you suppose that I imagine that you think I believe you know - you're not helping.

What's my evidence?

And now to help even more, while using other words.

Anyone who does not have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, does not know God well enough to know that God authorized Joseph as God’s messenger.

Or in other words, by knowing God, and God knowing us, (or by having a personal relationship with God), not only can and do we know things about God from God as we have learned from God, but we also can and do know things about Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, since God can and has told us things that God does know about Joseph.

Or in other words, by knowing God, it is and has been easy to find out what God knows about Joseph Smith, by simply asking God.

Or in other words, by knowing God, and wanting to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.

And btw, the fact that people say Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, while other people say he wasn’t, while all those people claim to have knowledge about Joseph from God, shows that everybody who claims to have knowledge from God does not truly have knowledge from God… because Joseph either was or wasn’t God’s prophet, and nobody knows better than God.

Or in other words, prisonchaplain, if you know God, and God knows you, well enough so that you can and do learn about God from God, rather than by what you only read in the “Bible”, then all you have to do to know if Joseph was one of God’s messenger’s is ask God, because nobody knows better than God about the fact of whether or not Joseph was or was not God’s messenger.

And btw, if it isn’t totally clear to you, from all of my other posts, I do know for a fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, because I do have that knowledge from God. I’m simply trying to speak on your level to help you know how to know what I know.

Note to Ray - just try talking like other humans. It's much easier that way.

[Snow]

Yes, members (and people who are not members) of the Church can “preach” (or share) the gospel with others, but only the missionaries and some other “authorities” in the Church have the authority to “convert” (or bring people into the Church).

Newsflash Ray - no authority is needed to convert people. People convert to the gospel without missionaries all the time.

Or in other words, people sharing what they think, and what they know, and what they want to talk about with other people, is NOT the Lord’s work, unless the Lord has specifically authorized those people in what to talk about or what to do as His work.

Absolute nonsense. We we are in the service of our fellow man, we are doing the Lord's work. Have you never read the scriptures? One can share the gospel and one can assist widows and orphans without being called and set apart for it and it is the Lord's work still.

[prisonchaplain]

I said I found it interesting because I was surprised by how many things I saw him say concerning what he thought I said which were not in harmony with what I had said.

And btw, I also found it interesting because this is what many people do when stating what they believe God meant, instead of asking Him.

And to answer your question, I think the best course of action when trying to understand someone else is to ask them what they meant, instead of talking a lot about what they think they meant.

Ray, I thought I understood what you meant, and restated it in my own words. I then went on to explain some of the conclusions I drew. If I was off-base in my understanding, the nature of posting is for you to post a REPLY: Sorry, PC, but you didn't get it. Here's what I meant...

If I'm really unclear, I'll surely ask, but like most posters, if I'm fairly certain I got the gist of our post, I'll "run with it." Feel free to correct me where I mistated your meanings. Que Dios le bendiga, hermano.

[prisonchaplain]

Anyone who does not have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, does not know God well enough to know that God authorized Joseph as God’s messenger. Or in other words, by knowing God, and God knowing us, (or by having a personal relationship with God), not only can and do we know things about God from God as we have learned from God, but we also can and do know things about Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, since God can and has told us things that God does know about Joseph. Or in other words, by knowing God, it is and has been easy to find out what God knows about Joseph Smith, by simply asking God. Or in other words, by knowing God, and wanting to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph. And btw, the fact that people say Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, while other people say he wasn’t, while all those people claim to have knowledge about Joseph from God, shows that everybody who claims to have knowledge from God does not truly have knowledge from God… because Joseph either was or wasn’t God’s prophet, and nobody knows better than God. Or in other words, prisonchaplain, if you know God, and God knows you, well enough so that you can and do learn about God from God, rather than by what you only read in the “Bible”, then all you have to do to know if Joseph was one of God’s messenger’s is ask God, because nobody knows better than God about the fact of whether or not Joseph was or was not God’s messenger. And btw, if it isn’t totally clear to you, from all of my other posts, I do know for a fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, because I do have that knowledge from God. I’m simply trying to speak on your level to help you know how to know what I know.

To help you understand how non-Mormons perceive such statemements, simply change the bold-faced verbage to something like receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the physical evidence of speaking in tongues, as the Spirit gives utterance. It's the way some Pentecostals talk. If you just knew God deeper, hungered for Him more, had your eyes open, your heart ready for the FULL truth. We're not proud, we just know some things, have experienced some things, that you non-Pentecostals haven't.

The difference is, rather than teaching that we had restored the true church, or the true gospel, we spoke of fullness, of a second blessing. We were initially treated badly by the broader church, but we persisted in love, humbled ourselves in the 1940s, joining the National Association of Evangelicals, when many still despised us. Gradually, we've become the second largest segment of Christianity, behind the Catholic Church. (I speak of "schools of thought" not denominations). Indeed, there is some talk of the pentecostalization of many evangelical and conservative churches. They have not taken all our teachings, but they have embraced our worship style, our openness to the presence of God, and they have come to respect our faith.

[prisonchaplain]

It leads you to not really know about Joseph, and considering the impact of his message, if the message really came from God, I would think you would want to know enough about Joseph to know whether or not Joseph was giving God’s message.

While this may seem logical, as a Pentecostal, I cannot tell you the number of times I have met sincere Christians, whom I deeply respected, who had a reticent response to the Pentecostal baptism. They just don't think it's necessary, or really that important. They are not against it--just not that interested.

Will they go to heaven? I absolutely believe so. My contention is not that I am better than they are, but that they could be better than they are, if they would embrace the Pentecostal power of the Holy Spirit. Ray, just as you would encourage me to greater truth by exploring and embracing the latter day revelations of Joseph Smith, I'd encourage you to enter into the fullness of the Spirit.

In other words, does this mean I don't know God or doesn't it?

It means you don’t know God well enough to know that Joseph delivered God’s message.

Or that you "know" more than God has actually told you.

And we’re not breaking “fellowship” with you either. We’re simply telling you that you don’t have authority from God to do the work that you're doing, because we know who does have authority from God to do the work that God has given. But keep learning from God and someday you will also know better about all of the work of God.

I don't know how you define fellowship, Ray. We can't have communion, baptism, teach lessons, or spend eternity together (I assume you're aiming for the Celestial Kingdom). We may both call ourselves Christians, but I'm not seeing much fellowship here. Dialogue, friendly conversation, good wishes for each other, but not spiritual kinship.

If you really want to know God, it should be, because Joseph spoke for God.

That is the $64,000 question, isn't it? We Pentecostals have convinced much of the Christian world to at least consider our claims about spiritual gifts, Holy Spirit baptism, faith healing, and a corporate worship that expects the presence of God. The approach of Joseph Smith's disciples was to set up a separate religion, and to declare "general Christians" not to be a part of the true Church. So, you either win over the rest of Christianity to full conversion, or you remain friendly but isolated.

In this case the messenger claimed to be revealing knowledge that he personally gained from God, and if you know God or really want to know God, you can also know whether the message is from God... by receiving that knowledge from God... after simply Asking God... while remembering that our Lord said that if we Ask we will Receive. And no, I don’t believe we should pull away from people who don’t know God as well as we do, and I am trying to show by example that I believe we should try to help others know what we know.

But the bottom-line is that you see 'general Christians' as being in need of conversion. You befriend us, do not shy away from us, because you hope to see us come to the full truth. Again, to draw the distinction, my best friend is a non-Pentecostal Southern Baptist preacher. I'm convinced he'd have greater ministry and peace, and power if he'd embrace the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and seek other gifts as well. Nevertheless, I'd invite him to my pulpit, I'm sure he'd invite me to his--we'd share one another's communions, and we look forward to seeing each other in heaven. We differ on some beliefs, but we have fellowship. We are brothers in Christ.

So do you believe the religion of “Christianity” is merely an appendage to “Judaism”?

Heh, in a sense that is right, but in another sense they are separate and distinct religions.

Well, sure. The Jews expelled the followers of the Way. Nevertheless, the New Testament tells us that we are grafted into the seed of Abraham. We are fulfilling many Old Testament prophecies about how the righteousness God had covenanted with the Jews would eventually be offered to the whole world.

Or in other words, our Lord called, set apart, and authorized other people to do His work, rather than continuing to teach the corrupt teachers who would not listen to Him.

And yet, God still seeks to save his people, the Jews. The gospel was to go first to the Jews...

For the reason of “why”, consider what our Lord said about how it’s easier to fill new wine skins, instead of trying to restore the old ones. But that is mere speculation, and it’s not really important to know “why”, as long as we know what our Lord “did” in fact do and what He really wants from us.

The "why" is not important to the already convinced/converted--but it is a question many 'general Christians' have. One of the most successful arguments the anti-Mormons use, when addressing general Chrstian audiences, is to recite Joseph Smith's "They're all wrong, all corrupt," line. The New Testament tells us to always have an answer for them that ask...

If faith in Joseph Smith is a prerequisite to knowledge of God, then Joseph Smith de facto becomes on par with Jesus (the one way to the Father, John 14:6).

Not any more than faith in the apostle Paul and other prophets help us to have actual knowledge from God. And btw, your belief that we should accept only Paul and the other prophets who wrote the Bible is very much like how the ancient Jews believed they should accept only Moses and the other prophets who wrote their texts... while we [LDS] accept more prophets of God who have written more words of God.

Mormon honor of Joseph Smith is far beyond what we grant the Apostle Paul. When I become a Christian I do not say, "Jesus has forgiven my sins because of his sacrifice on Calvary, and I believe that Paul was a prophet of God." Faith in the revelations of Joseph Smith is all but a requirement of true Christianity, according to you.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

[

Yes, I was helping, Snow, despite what you think you know.

Oh yeah?

Well despite what you suppose that I imagine that you think I believe you know - you're not helping.

What's my evidence?

And now to help even more, while using other words.

Anyone who does not have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, does not know God well enough to know that God authorized Joseph as God’s messenger.

Or in other words, by knowing God, and God knowing us, (or by having a personal relationship with God), not only can and do we know things about God from God as we have learned from God, but we also can and do know things about Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, since God can and has told us things that God does know about Joseph.

Or in other words, by knowing God, it is and has been easy to find out what God knows about Joseph Smith, by simply asking God.

Or in other words, by knowing God, and wanting to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.

And btw, the fact that people say Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, while other people say he wasn’t, while all those people claim to have knowledge about Joseph from God, shows that everybody who claims to have knowledge from God does not truly have knowledge from God… because Joseph either was or wasn’t God’s prophet, and nobody knows better than God.

Or in other words, prisonchaplain, if you know God, and God knows you, well enough so that you can and do learn about God from God, rather than by what you only read in the “Bible”, then all you have to do to know if Joseph was one of God’s messenger’s is ask God, because nobody knows better than God about the fact of whether or not Joseph was or was not God’s messenger.

And btw, if it isn’t totally clear to you, from all of my other posts, I do know for a fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, because I do have that knowledge from God. I’m simply trying to speak on your level to help you know how to know what I know.

Note to Ray - just try talking like other humans. It's much easier that way.

Heh, I can only imagine what you thought about Elder Maxwell, Elder Roberts, Hugh Nibley, etc. :)

Or in other words, brother Snow, not all humans speak the same way to each other.

And btw, if you are simply asking me to speak more like you do, I'll simply say "No thank you", while considering one of you to be enough of us. :)

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes, members (and people who are not members) of the Church can “preach” (or share) the gospel with others, but only the missionaries and some other “authorities” in the Church have the authority to “convert” (or bring people into the Church).

Newsflash Ray - no authority is needed to convert people. People convert to the gospel without missionaries all the time.

I know the Holy Ghost can touch anyone regardless of whether or not they are members of the Church, and whether or not they have authority from our Lord, but I was saying that only people with authority from our Lord can bring other people into our Lord’s church.

<div class='quotemain'>

Or in other words, people sharing what they think, and what they know, and what they want to talk about with other people, is NOT the Lord’s work, unless the Lord has specifically authorized those people in what to talk about or what to do as His work.

Absolute nonsense. We we are in the service of our fellow man, we are doing the Lord's work. Have you never read the scriptures? One can share the gospel and one can assist widows and orphans without being called and set apart for it and it is the Lord's work still.

King Benjamin actually said that “when we are in the service of our fellow man, we are in the service of our God”, but he did not mean that everyone who gives service to our God and fellow man has been given authority from our Lord.

Heh, it sounds like both you and prisonchaplain need to give more thought to what it means to have “authority”.

And just in case I might be of some service to you here, I will ask you a simple question:

Do you believe LDStalk has been authorized by our Lord?

Or in other words, do you believe the members of LDStalk constitute an authorized church of Christ, and that the website Heather established was authorized by our Lord?

And btw, I do not believe that, although I know we are doing some good work here.

<div class='quotemain'>

I said I found it interesting because I was surprised by how many things I saw him say concerning what he thought I said which were not in harmony with what I had said.

And btw, I also found it interesting because this is what many people do when stating what they believe God meant, instead of asking Him.

And to answer your question, I think the best course of action when trying to understand someone else is to ask them what they meant, instead of talking a lot about what they think they meant.

Ray, I thought I understood what you meant, and restated it in my own words. I then went on to explain some of the conclusions I drew. If I was off-base in my understanding, the nature of posting is for you to post a REPLY: Sorry, PC, but you didn't get it. Here's what I meant...

If I'm really unclear, I'll surely ask, but like most posters, if I'm fairly certain I got the gist of our post, I'll "run with it." Feel free to correct me where I mistated your meanings. Que Dios le bendiga, hermano.

Although I wouldn't have gone on so much talking about what I thought you meant, because I would rather simply state what I believe is the truth without talking so much about what you think, I did not say you were "wrong", although I can see a "better" way to communicate.

Or in other words, I was simply letting you know that I found it "interesting" that you were going on so much about what you thought I meant, rather than simply telling me (what you believe is) the truth.

But it was a no harm, no foul, kind of thing, prisonchaplain, and generally I still like your style. :)