Church Politics

[Snow]

The original point I made was that Joseph Smith started out by rejecting the established Christian churches, and establishing a new religion--one to which he called lovers of God to join--leaving the others behind. In contrast, the Old Testament prophets and Jesus called religious leaders on the carpet for their corruption and distortions, and he endorsed John the Baptist's 'baptism of repentence.' He never called anyone to leave the established Jewish faith. The schism happened a generation after Jesus' death.

What difference does it make when a schism happened. The point is that it happened. I doubt you will argue that it wasn't God's will. So Christ or started and maintained a religion that was not Jewish and is to this very day, very, very different and seperate. I don't think you have much of a point on this one.

Okay, this is a plausible partial explanation. However, my own denomination, and the Pentecostal movement are even newer than Mormonism. Our first General Council was in 1914. The fathers of this movement are Parham and Seymour. Parham, in particular, formulated the doctrine of tongues as initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism. Yet, ask 100 Pentecostals who the forumulator of the doctrine is, and less that 10% will know. Parham was also a flawed teacher, very much a product of the racial attitudes of his day. Seymour, a handicapped, self-educated African-American might be better known--especially in the Church of God in Christ. Yet, again, the vast majority of Pentecostals don't know about him. (I majored in Pentecostal church history). These guys are only about 3-4 generations back, yet are little known outside our theological schools.

I don't think that explains much. Do you believe that Parham or Seymour were prophets of God in the same sense as Isaiah or Abraham, who say God and was taught by Angels, ordained by God to usher in the last dispensation - the dispensation of fullness of times when all things are to be revealed?

I don't think it is an apt comparison. However I could point out ways in which Pentecostal ministers are honored that Mormons would never accept. For example, take Benny Hinn, admittedly an easy target but only one of numerous easy targets. He's a rock star in the pentecostal movement (I assume he is pentecostally oriented, I don't really know). Men cry at the sight of him and women faint by hearing his voice. He is so deeply and affectionately adored that he earns well over 700k per year for doings "God's" work. Remember when we talked about Joel Olsteen? He used to make a relatively palty 200k per year for doing "God's" work. A 'minister' in our Church overseeing what would have been a comparable congregation, like a Stake President, makes exactly zero $. You have your way of honoring folks, we have ours.

The same reason you criticize Ray or Traveler, or especially the ARIs--we disagree. I'm hardly more judgmental than Jesus. Judgment does begin in the house of God. And, as I intimated in another response to this, family can often tell us truths that others are too polite to mention.

Well you seem to be criticize Catholics as if there is something morally wrong with venerating (I'd say idolizing) saints. I just argue with Ray because he pretends that every single thing he knows (like 2 + 2 =4), he knows because God revealed it to him personally. I just argue with Ari because she is a goat herder and I just argue with Traveler because I get bored when there is no one else to argue with but I don't think they are immoral.

The reason anti-cultists tread so heavily upon the histories of both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is that both groups (Mormons to a much lesser extent) lay claim to exclusive hold on true Christianity in this age. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all who do not convert to their faith will be annhilated at the Day of Judgment. Most Christians understand Mormons to teach that non-Mormons cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom (Yes, I know this is an issue that is nuanced, and that some LDS believe that non-LDS have potential to enter it).

Bottom-line: The self-proclaimed sole holders of gospel truth will be held to a much igher standard than other churches.

But the bottom line is that you two claim to belong to the sole holders of the gospel truth, you just the define the group of holder much more broadly... or do you think that Hindu's can obtain salvation through Hinduism?

[prisonchaplain]

What difference does it make when a schism happened. The point is that it happened. I doubt you will argue that it wasn't God's will. So Christ or started and maintained a religion that was not Jewish and is to this very day, very, very different and seperate. I don't think you have much of a point on this one.

The difference is between a religious leader/prophet who is a reformer (Jesus cannot be called a schismatic, since the split happened long after his resurrection), and one who BEGAN his religious work by condemning all established churches, and declaring himself a leader of the true, restored church. Again, if he was right, what can we say? But, the approach was without precedent. Not necessarily wrong or immoral, but clearly a new approach.

I don't think that explains much. Do you believe that Parham or Seymour were prophets of God in the same sense as Isaiah or Abraham, who say God and was taught by Angels, ordained by God to usher in the last dispensation - the dispensation of fullness of times when all things are to be revealed?

You are right, of course. There is a huge difference in what our founders did vs. LDS founders. And, yes, I can see where the belief that JS was a modern prophet restoring Christ's church-gone-astray would lead to much greater veneration.

Likewise, you might better understand the discomfort Protestants have with it. Recall the grilling John Kennedy got--will you be taking orders from the Pope if you're elected?

I don't think it is an apt comparison. However I could point out ways in which Pentecostal ministers are honored that Mormons would never accept. For example, take Benny Hinn, admittedly an easy target but only one of numerous easy targets. He's a rock star in the pentecostal movement (I assume he is pentecostally oriented, I don't really know). Men cry at the sight of him and women faint by hearing his voice. He is so deeply and affectionately adored that he earns well over 700k per year for doings "God's" work. Remember when we talked about Joel Olsteen? He used to make a relatively palty 200k per year for doing "God's" work. A 'minister' in our Church overseeing what would have been a comparable congregation, like a Stake President, makes exactly zero $. You have your way of honoring folks, we have ours.

I understand that Mormon religious leaders are, for the most part, volunteers. There are arguments for an against such a church structure. Our full-time ministers deserve the pay they get, and, by professional standards, most make less than public school teachers with the same education, though they work much longer hours, and odder hours.

The issue of Christian superstars, like Benny Hinn, is not one that is without controversy. Many Christian thinkers question the whole religious TV phenomena, because they see that it is too expensive, caters too much to the already converted, and the fund raising is so aggressive, that, for marketing reasons, "give and you will get rich" gets preached far too often and immoderately.

So, just as I might question such a phenomena, for the same reason I wonder when any human religious leaders seems to receive extreme adoration. "At what point is the messenger getting more than the one who sent him?" is the natural question that I ask.

BTW--my whole point here is not to oppose, declare immoral, or even necessarily to say you're wrong. Ray might be right. It may be that the outsider cannot understand, and is in no position to evaluate how much adoration a living prophet of God should garner.

Well you seem to be criticize Catholics as if there is something morally wrong with venerating (I'd say idolizing) saints.

The idea that my criticicism was akin to declaring immoral was your surmize, not my contention. Yes, we Protestants disagree. We do not pray through the saints or Mary, but directly through Jesus. We also fear that focussing too much on mere humans can lead to idolatry, or, at minimum, detract from our worship of Jesus. However, my disagreement does not result in a total break of fellowship.

But the bottom line is that you two claim to belong to the sole holders of the gospel truth, you just the define the group of holder much more broadly... or do you think that Hindu's can obtain salvation through Hinduism?

I concur with John 14:6, in which Jesus says He is the one way to the Father. This is an absolute truth. In fact, Jesus is the absolute truth (same verse). It is one thing, to concur with the Son of God, God Himself, and quite another to declare a single human organization as the only holder of full gospel truth in this age.

[Serg]

Prisonchaplain:

If it is so and christianity in general holds the truth, how is it people are going to be saved? Can christians from all perspectives be saved? Even if those perspective diminish or exagerate the Divine Conception? How can men be saved under so much doctrine trouble?

I know that you and most of our fellow christian brothers hold that is the relationship with Jesus that will save them, but, how can a man hava a fruitful relationship with Jesus in ordr to be saved if he believes Jesus is a mere creature(As Jehova's Witnesses) or that the angels and Mary are to be adored and taken as higher than even the Son of Man-for if you see, that faith holds that the Mother persuades the Son to be merciful(Catholics) or that we need to accomplish certain knowledge and temple ordenances(Us Mormons) or that we dont have to take any ordenance at all(protestants) or that the Bible filled with many errors is Perfect and hence we need no more scripture(most christians) or those who proclaimed to hold the melquisedec priesthood(some baptists in early 1820) or so many other contradicctions of the same Jesus! How are men to be saved if they do not understand the Son of God as glorious and complete His nature is?

Is not eternal life to KNOW God and Jesus? Obviously not an academical knowledge only but a truly felt covenant with Him based on true principles.

So there must be a True Church, and this is not merely asserting our organization but a true Body of Christ, not a matter of politics only, or postures but a true group of born again christian in the True Church of His( we say is This One). There was in the early Church, as I have said before many times, the conception of the true Church, even in the Didache: There are TWO ways, and every one that WITHIN the Church thought anything opposite to what had already been stablished they condemned as herasy, well so today.

[shanstress70]

My answer to Serg's question...

God is not going to hold any of this against anyone. The truth is not known to us. Sure, some of you claim to 'know', but you do not... you only 'believe', just like everyone else does.

Would a kind and caring, loving God be so mean as to hold it against his children for not knowing what or who to believe? I don't think so.

You're right, Serg. There are too many different contradictions. If God only lets those of us who, by chance, figures it out, He is not very nice IMO. I believe that God is loving, and that He will not punish us for doing what we think is right.

If He will let me burn in h#$% because I did not choose the correct religion, then maybe He has some control issues. (And I can say this jokingly, because I strongly believe that this isn't the case!)

[shanstress70]

I concur with John 14:6, in which Jesus says He is the one way to the Father. This is an absolute truth. In fact, Jesus is the absolute truth (same verse).

Just curious, PC. What do you think becomes of those who never hear the Word of God? For an extreme example, what about those in remote African tribes? Will they be damned because they never heard 'the word'? If so, does that represent a loving God?

Even those in non-Christian countries who have heard, if they are briefly exposed to the Bible by missionaries, but have been brought up believing that Hinduism is the truth, why should they believe the Christians over people of their own religion? And why believe the Christians over the Muslims? In most circumstances I think they will go with what they've been taught all their lives.

Many Muslims are taught that we western Christians are evil. What will make them buck up and go against what has been fed to them all their lives?

I just don't believe that God is so concerned with all that.

[prisonchaplain]

Prisonchaplain:

If it is so and christianity in general holds the truth, how is it people are going to be saved? Can christians from all perspectives be saved? Even if those perspective diminish or exagerate the Divine Conception? How can men be saved under so much doctrine trouble?

We know that not all who calls themselves Christians are, regardless of their denomnational affiliation. Jesus said that on the day of judgment many would say Lord Lord, and He would say, "Depart from me...I never knew you." My guess is that many will be damned because they never really interacted with God--but only with a religious system. There will likely be at least some who worshipped a false god--not the true Jesus.

I know that you and most of our fellow christian brothers hold that is the relationship with Jesus that will save them, but, how can a man hava a fruitful relationship with Jesus in ordr to be saved if he believes Jesus is a mere creature(As Jehova's Witnesses)

Frankly, I don't think they can be. There may be a few Jehovah's Witnesses who truly commune with the Son of God, Christ Jesus--especially some of the early International Bible Students. However, their doctrine is so clearly idolatrous--The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the absolute gatekeeper between humanity and Jehovah. Jesus is not God. All of Christendom is satanic, idolatrous, failed. It truly is a separate religion, and JW's waste no time trying to gain the favor of non-JW Christians. They don't bother with the "Us too." It's our way or annhilation. They are either right--and only they are right--or they are not.

or that the angels and Mary are to be adored and taken as higher than even the Son of Man-for if you see, that faith holds that the Mother persuades the Son to be merciful(Catholics)

I think many Catholics will disagree with your summary of their doctrine here. I've never heard of angel adoration in Catholicism, only of vereration of saints and of Mary. Additionally, Catholics are clearly Trinitarian, and would take great offense at the suggestion that Mary was greater than Jesus.

I recall a concert a group of Charismatic Catholics did at my prison in Miami. For an hour and a half you would have sworn they were evangelicals. They spoke of being born again, recited Bible verses, gave personal testimonies--it was only in their final few moments, when they mentioned Mary and the rosary, they their Catholicism came out at all. So, I'm convinced there will be many Catholics in glory.

or that we need to accomplish certain knowledge and temple ordenances(Us Mormons)

The Mormon view of general salvation is close to universalism, whereas the view of entry into the Celestial Kingdom is almost Gnostic, from your description. At this point I'm leaving the judgment to God.

or that we dont have to take any ordenance at all(protestants)

Well, we do have water baptism and the Lord's Supper, but they are not essential to salvation in most traditions.

or that the Bible filled with many errors is Perfect and hence we need no more scripture(most christians)

Of course, we would disagree that the Bible is filled with many errors.

or those who proclaimed to hold the melquisedec priesthood(some baptists in early 1820) or so many other contradicctions of the same Jesus! How are men to be saved if they do not understand the Son of God as glorious and complete His nature is?

We see through a dim glass, but when that which is perfect is come (Jesus), we'll see him as He is. So, doctrinal perfection is not realistic prior to Christ's return. However, to worship a totally different Jesus than that presented in Scripture would be akin to worshipping other gods.

Is not eternal life to KNOW God and Jesus? Obviously not an academical knowledge only but a truly felt covenant with Him based on true principles.

SHORT ANSWER: YES.

So there must be a True Church, and this is not merely asserting our organization but a true Body of Christ, not a matter of politics only, or postures but a true group of born again christian in the True Church of His( we say is This One). There was in the early Church, as I have said before many times, the conception of the true Church, even in the Didache: There are TWO ways, and every one that WITHIN the Church thought anything opposite to what had already been stablished they condemned as herasy, well so today.

To bring in a rather childish example to make a mature point: The true church is the catholic church, NOT the Catholic church. In other words, the true church is the universal body of believing Christian, who come under many different denominational, or independent Christian flags. Read the 7 letters to the 7 churches in Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3). These churches differed greatly in their character and quality. Read Paul's letters to different churches--again different problems, different strengths.

Name me a denomination, and I can give you my impressions of strengths and weaknesses. Examples of strengths: LDS (family programs and emphasis), Presbyterians (biblical education), Baptists (personal evangelism), Pentecostals (holiness, reliance on Holy Spirit), Charismatics (dwelling in the presence of God), Salvation Army (caring for 'the least of these"), Catholics (tremendous diversity within a single organization), etc. None of these is a sole holder of truth, all have gifts to offer the universal Christian church--believers be we all.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

I concur with John 14:6, in which Jesus says He is the one way to the Father. This is an absolute truth. In fact, Jesus is the absolute truth (same verse).

Just curious, PC. What do you think becomes of those who never hear the Word of God? For an extreme example, what about those in remote African tribes? Will they be damned because they never heard 'the word'? If so, does that represent a loving God?

Even those in non-Christian countries who have heard, if they are briefly exposed to the Bible by missionaries, but have been brought up believing that Hinduism is the truth, why should they believe the Christians over people of their own religion? And why believe the Christians over the Muslims? In most circumstances I think they will go with what they've been taught all their lives.

Many Muslims are taught that we western Christians are evil. What will make them buck up and go against what has been fed to them all their lives?

I just don't believe that God is so concerned with all that.

Shantress, I'm not sure where you are from, but this post is seeped in the spirit of the Pacific Northwest! You are postmodernism defined.

To answer your common, and yet serious questions. God is just, merciful and all powerful. He will do right. If that means the ancient tribes burn in hell, we'll understand the full justice of it on that great and awful day of judgment. On the other hand, Romans 1 hints at the notion that all of humanity has an adequate general revelation of God in nature. So, perhaps God will judge them on how they responded to what they knew. Ultimately, I have to give that to God. Bottom-line: I trust God.

What the Sciptures clearly tell me is that Christians are to take the Good News to the ends of the Earth. We are to share what we know with people of other faiths. We are so certain of the rightness of our faith that we will face death, and we will raise up converts in lands where conversion means family dissolution, social outcast, and sometimes death.

Why would God call the disciples to death (10 of the 12 were martyred, 1 exiled, one defected) if he wasn't concerned with what people chose. It does matter, and I chose Truth--I choose Jesus, becasue He first chose/loved me.

[Snow]

What difference does it make when a schism happened. The point is that it happened. I doubt you will argue that it wasn't God's will. So Christ or started and maintained a religion that was not Jewish and is to this very day, very, very different and seperate. I don't think you have much of a point on this one.

The difference is between a religious leader/prophet who is a reformer (Jesus cannot be called a schismatic, since the split happened long after his resurrection), and one who BEGAN his religious work by condemning all established churches, and declaring himself a leader of the true, restored church. Again, if he was right, what can we say? But, the approach was without precedent. Not necessarily wrong or immoral, but clearly a new approach.

Not sure what approach you are saying was without precedent - Christ's or JS's. If you are saying J. Smith's was without precedent, I would ask how could you possibly know that. You may think that scriptures silent on the matter but one cannot say that it didn't previously happen. Certainly Abraham didn't reform anything - did he? He started fresh.

If you are saying Christ's approach was without precedent, then I am unclear on your point. At any rate Christ's Church didn't reform Judaism, it replaced it and that was Christ's doing, whether he did it himself or inspired other's to do it (I am speaking from your perspective here) it was still his doing.

I don't think that explains much. Do you believe that Parham or Seymour were prophets of God in the same sense as Isaiah or Abraham, who say God and was taught by Angels, ordained by God to usher in the last dispensation - the dispensation of fullness of times when all things are to be revealed?

I understand that Mormon religious leaders are, for the most part, volunteers. There are arguments for an against such a church structure. Our full-time ministers deserve the pay they get, and, by professional standards, most make less than public school teachers with the same education, though they work much longer hours, and odder hours.

The issue of Christian superstars, like Benny Hinn, is not one that is without controversy. Many Christian thinkers question the whole religious TV phenomena, because they see that it is too expensive, caters too much to the already converted, and the fund raising is so aggressive, that, for marketing reasons, "give and you will get rich" gets preached far too often and immoderately.

So, just as I might question such a phenomena, for the same reason I wonder when any human religious leaders seems to receive extreme adoration. "At what point is the messenger getting more than the one who sent him?" is the natural question that I ask.

One might consider the scriptures that indicate that preachers are to be without purse of script but I understand the rationale for a paid ministry. I don't agree but I understand the rationale.

I think that our way is an inherently superior way or doing things. It is a huge discussion we ought to some time. What I personally think we in the LDS Church miss out on from not having a paid ministry is 1. more entertaining Church meetings and 2. easy access to uniform high quality counseling.

I concur with John 14:6, in which Jesus says He is the one way to the Father. This is an absolute truth. In fact, Jesus is the absolute truth (same verse). It is one thing, to concur with the Son of God, God Himself, and quite another to declare a single human organization as the only holder of full gospel truth in this age.

But you would be declaring a single human organization as the only holders of full gospel truth if broader Christianity weren't fractured into all the many sects and denomiations. If it were a uniform, controlled, unified body then you would have to take the opposite position.

[prisonchaplain]

Not sure what approach you are saying was without precedent - Christ's or JS's. ANSWER: JOSEPH SMITH'S If you are saying J. Smith's was without precedent, I would ask how could you possibly know that. You may think that scriptures silent on the matter but one cannot say that it didn't previously happen. Certainly Abraham didn't reform anything - did he? He started fresh.

Well, in a sense, every convert does as Joseph Smith did. We might assume that Abram embraced the polytheism of his community, and that God revealed himself. Likewise, Paul going to Damascus. However, IF you are comparing what Joseph Smith did to what these did, then the Christianity of 1820s would be akin to polytheism or to the most anti-Jesus wing of 1st century Judaism. I've not perceived that you were in the camp.

One might consider the scriptures that indicate that preachers are to be without purse of script but I understand the rationale for a paid ministry. I don't agree but I understand the rationale.

I'll dig into this deeper for another string, at some point--but I believe there is a passage that speaks of the workman being worthy of his pay--and that the context is that the churches are to provide for those who lead/instruct them.

But you would be declaring a single human organization as the only holders of full gospel truth if broader Christianity weren't fractured into all the many sects and denomiations. If it were a uniform, controlled, unified body then you would have to take the opposite position.

Fractions had already started during Christ's ministry, with the two brothers having their mother go to Jesus and request that they be put in leadership. Peter and Paul had their disagreements. In Acts 15 a council had to work out a disagreement over what was to be expected of non-Jewish believers. In 2nd corinthians Paul spends a good deal of time defending his ministry against other critics (who were paid, btw). He berates the factions that developed around who baptized who. In Revelation 2-3 Jesus' words to the seven churches in Asia-Minor almost sound like they could have been written to different denominations, so diverse were the "report cards."

All that to say that I don't think a uniform organization was ever in program. You might get a different argument from a Catholic, however.