Son of God?

[prisonchaplain]

So here's the problem...

You, a while, North American, 22nd century Protestant from a low context culture interpret one translation of what an anonymous author, from a high context culture who never met Jesus wrote down about the content of a private conversation Jesus had 5 to 6 decades after the fact and you think it's all rather straight forward.

It's nice to be certain, even though God is silent on the matter.

Another interpretation is that there was an apostasy but the gates of hell haven't prevailed at all. The Church is here and more relevant than ever.

I still see mine as the simpler reading. However, if I were LDS I suppose I'd argue that the Great Apostasy was obvious, so your interpretation works.

[prisonchaplain]

That may be the current thinking. Lucky you didn't live hundreds of years ago when you might have been condemned to a fiery hell, tortured and killed for good measure because of your beliefs.

And when I entered the heavenlies, Saint Francis would have greeted me and said, "I don't know why they treated you like that--I spoke in tongues too...It was quite awesome."

[Traveler]

That's... Quite a claim, that the Lucayans were blond haired, blue eyed natives. Can you quote source?

I have not found an internet link - but that is what Columbus recorded. These were the natives he first discovered in the Americas and took some back with him to Europe - they were a very peaceful people that had no offensive or defensive weapons and no word in their vocabulary for war. They disappeared within 150 years - mostly into slavery. Recent DNA testing shows no sign of any possible decedents. Very sad.

The Traveler

[Vort]

I have not found an internet link - but that is what Columbus recorded. These were the natives he first discovered in the Americas and took some back with him to Europe - they were a very peaceful people that had no offensive or defensive weapons and no word in their vocabulary for war. They disappeared within 150 years - mostly into slavery. Recent DNA testing shows no sign of any possible decedents. Very sad.

I can imagine in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can imagine us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

As usual, Jack Handey puts things in perspective.

[prisonchaplain]

The LDS are not the only to suffer nor have we suffered the most. Native American populations in north America (USA) were about 40 million when Christians arrived. Their numbers are about 4 million now. There are some native peoples (like Lucayans - blond hair blue eyed natives that never - not even one individual - converted to Christianity) what have been completely removed and forgotten - genocide at the hands of Christians.

The Traveler

Any defense of the Christians would seem callous and disrespectful to the deep suffering Native Americans have experienced. True enough, Christians have engaged in thoughtless, cruel, sometimes murderous activities. So, with the utmost respect for the first peoples of this continent, I must protest the implication of this post. Christians did not directly, intentionally, or even knowingly kill 36 million Natives. By far, the most common cause of the decline in indigenous populations has been disease:

Impact on native populations

From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the population of Native Americans declined in the following ways: epidemic diseases brought from Europe; genocide and warfare[37] at the hands of European explorers and colonists, as well as between tribes; displacement from their lands; internal warfare,[38] enslavement; and a high rate of intermarriage.[39][40] Most mainstream scholars believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives because of their lack of immunity to new diseases brought from Europe.[41][42][43] With the rapid declines of some populations and continuing rivalries among their nations, Native Americans sometimes re-organized to form new cultural groups, such as the Seminoles of Florida in the eighteenth century and the Mission Indians of Alta California. -- Wikipedia

In the Pacific Northwest one of the famous episodes was the masacre of the Whitman missionary party. These Christian missionaries brought charitable supplies, including blankets, to the Native Americans. They did not realize that these gifts carried European diseases for which the Native Americans had no imunity. Sickness resulted, and the Native Americans believed that the missionaries had brought intentional curses. Thus the rose up and masacred the missionary party.

There is no excusing the unChristian behavior that many Christians have engaged in throughout 2000 years of church history. However, it is unfair to suggest that Christians intentionally, as a faith tradition, sought genocide against Native peoples in this land.

[Hala401]

The LDS are not the only to suffer nor have we suffered the most. Native American populations in north America (USA) were about 40 million when Christians arrived. Their numbers are about 4 million now. There are some native peoples (like Lucayans - blond hair blue eyed natives that never - not even one individual - converted to Christianity) what have been completely removed and forgotten - genocide at the hands of Christians.

The Traveler

Traveler:

Well, I certainly can not dispute the genocide that occurred with Native American populations. And to say that it was hideous is not sufficient. Still, blonde hair and blue eyes implies that they were originally Northern European since that genetic modification occured there around 12,000 years ago, I am told.

Still, among European immigrants to America, I find that despite first amendment privileges, the LDS were persecuted in an extremely unacceptable manner. Of course, I think that a major part of the problem that Joseph Smith had was owing to the onset of an economic depression that was even worse than the one in the 1930's. It made his bank fail. That and polygamy, made things hard for them. Still, with my Muslim background, polygamy is less of an issue, and with the broader education of Muslims, I expect that to disappear eventually.

[Hala401]

Prison Chaplain:

I have heard stories that the spread of disease among the indians was done with purpose, by the greedy and did not involve Christians. One Sister even related a story to me that the massacre of the Indians was even supported by the government.

[Dravin]

Prison Chaplain:

I have heard stories that the spread of disease among the indians was done with purpose, by the greedy and did not involve Christians. One Sister even related a story to me that the massacre of the Indians was even supported by the government.

For the most part your Europeans and their descendants were Christians to some degree. Did you mean it wasn't the act of a Christian Church's policy?

[JanSan]

I respect your right to believe different then I, and I truly mean no disrespect - but this is VERY confusing to me.

May I ask a question? Who do you think then was Jesus birth father?

[JanSan]

Sorry, this was written after the discussion on pages 2 and 3 where they were talking about the fatherhood of God.

[Vort]

I respect your right to believe different then I, and I truly mean no disrespect - but this is VERY confusing to me.

May I ask a question? Who do you think then was Jesus birth father?

JanSan, to whom are you responding? I can't tell who you are asking.

[Justice]

The the Apostles go around preaching, baptizing, and forgiving sins. While they're at it, they ordain priests and bishops with that same Authority. When all of the Apostles die, the priests and bishops are still living, preaching, baptizing, and forgiving sins. While they're at it they ordain more priests and bishops with the same Authority. On and on and on until today... This is Apostolic Succession.

A priest or Bishop cannot ordain an Apostle. He does not have the authority or power to give the keys of a higher office he does not hold. An Apostle is a higher authortiy and has all lower authority as well, so they can ordain priests and Bishops.

Again, we learn this through modern revealtion, but you have to admit it makes sense. It's like a common floor laborer in a factory deciding who the next CEO of the company will be. That won't happen, just as it can't happen in the Priesthood. When an Apostle dies, the remaining Apostles are the only ones who hold those keys and authority on earth. A Seventy or Partiarch do not even hold them.

Once the last Apostle was taken from the earth it became necessary for that authority to be restored by someone who holds that authority and those keys. Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and restored those keys and authority to the earth.

Apostolic succession can only be continued if it is an unbroken chain of Apostles who are calling Apostles. That is why it is called "Apostolic succession." It's not called "Apostolic, priest, and Bishop succession."

[Justice]

If I am a pagan or an atheist and I read text that a religion says are holy, and the reading goes: The gates of hell will not prevail against this church, I would assume it meant nothing bad will succeed in destroying it.

I suppose suspend does not mean destroy, but again, if I were an outsider, and somebody told me, "Well it wasn't destroyed, but it was powerless for 1700 years," I'd think that gates of hell had prevailed for a good long time.

What about the "falling way" that has to come before Christ returns, that was even starting during the time of the Apostles?

[Justice]

The LDS are not the only to suffer nor have we suffered the most. Native American populations in north America (USA) were about 40 million when Christians arrived. Their numbers are about 4 million now. There are some native peoples (like Lucayans - blond hair blue eyed natives that never - not even one individual - converted to Christianity) what have been completely removed and forgotten - genocide at the hands of Christians.

The Traveler

They were not persecuted because of their religious beliefs.

The "Mormons" (who believe in Christ) were persecuted by those who claimed to be Christian.

I find it ironic that part of the reason people moved to America was for religious freedom... and then to persecute others for their religious belief, especially when they claimed to believe in the same Redeemer... does that sound like those people were following Christ or allowing religious freedom?

[Justice]

There is no excusing the unChristian behavior that many Christians have engaged in throughout 2000 years of church history. However, it is unfair to suggest that Christians intentionally, as a faith tradition, sought genocide against Native peoples in this land.

The government of America, and it's military, took their land. They were considered "savage" and therefore had no rights to land claims. A lot of retaliation happened as a result, and a lot of Indians lost their lives. Most of the rest were forced to live on Reservations set up by the American government.

The majorty of those in government and in the military were professed Christians.

Those same Christians (individual people that belonged to those denominations) kicked the early Mormons out of there homes and lands, not once, not twice, but at least three different times.

I'm not accusing a church, but people who professed to be Christian who belonged to those churches.

Genocide, no... but unfair and cruel treatment, yes. Not as a faith tradition, but whether siding with or against their respective clergy, it was quite the opposite of what it means to be Christian.

[prisonchaplain]

What about the "falling way" that has to come before Christ returns, that was even starting during the time of the Apostles?

I can only give you a more narrow evangelical answer on that--many of us believe that during the Great Tribulation, many so-called Christians will accept the mark of the Beast, and ally themselves with a global unity religion. You see this type of apostasy portrayed in the Left Behind books, and in other speculative writings about the end times.

[Justice]

So you believe it hasn't happened yet.

Even when considering that Christ and some of the Apostles talked about how soon it was happeneing even in their day?

[Traveler]

Just a little history. The first time in recorded western history that a Christian society passed a law to prevent the killing of a person(s) for religious reasons or taking their property - according to my research - was in 1649. This was because a group of English speaking Catholics came to America because there was no place in Europe that would have them. Lord Baltimore acquired land from the King of England and these Catholics settled in St. Mary’s County in Maryland. But the Protestants in the American English Colonies did not want any Catholics in English territory. The result was a massacre of all citizens (that did not escape or denounce Catholicism) in the settlement - including women and children.

When the reports of this brutality reached Europe it threatened war and to counter the uprising in Europe a law was passed in the Americas called the Toleration Act or something like that. However, the law only allowed protection for Trinitarian Christians. Anyone that did not believe in the Trinity was exempt from protection through this law. Ironically it was not until 1829 that the state of New York passed the first law in a Christian society to protect non-Trinitarians. However, this law was intended to protect Jews living in New York and not the savage native populations.

It is important to note that heresy was a punishable crime through most of Christian history - regardless of the “religion” of the individual. The normal punishment of heresy was death - thus we have historical figures like Joan of Ark. Most of the wars in our “western” history are deep rooted in religion and a lack of tolerance for non-Trinitarians; starting with the crusades. Of course not all Christians have been involved in all wars against non-Trinitarians; many have been involved in wars with other Trinitarians that had separated themselves for one reason or another. For example - many forget that the 3rd Reich was a Trinitarian Christian movement to reestablish the Holy Roman Empire.

I would also point out that the conversion of Northern Europe from Paganism to Christianity resulted in more deaths than were caused by the Black Plague.

The point here is to correct some LDS that think we have been picked on because of our religion. Also I believe the greater point is not to try to get everyone upset over history. It is time to put the past into the past and begin to prepare for the return of Christ. That is why the LDS church has been established. To end the struggle of religious ideology - sadly we LDS have not lived up to this charge as well as we should have either. It is not about doctrine - it is about love and compassion. It is time we value not the traditional doctrines that can be traced for over 5,000 years back to Adam but it is time we valued the love and compassion of even the corrupt “Samaritans” among us. It is time to value our fellow men and realize that Jesus never condemned the kind - the Beatitudes interestingly and strangely do not say anything about believing the right doctrine in order to get a blessing from G-d - they are all about love compassion and respect for others.

The Traveler

[Shelly200]

A priest or Bishop cannot ordain an Apostle. He does not have the authority or power to give the keys of a higher office he does not hold. An Apostle is a higher authortiy and has all lower authority as well, so they can ordain priests and Bishops.

Again, we learn this through modern revealtion, but you have to admit it makes sense. It's like a common floor laborer in a factory deciding who the next CEO of the company will be. That won't happen, just as it can't happen in the Priesthood. When an Apostle dies, the remaining Apostles are the only ones who hold those keys and authority on earth. A Seventy or Partiarch do not even hold them.

Once the last Apostle was taken from the earth it became necessary for that authority to be restored by someone who holds that authority and those keys. Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and restored those keys and authority to the earth.

Apostolic succession can only be continued if it is an unbroken chain of Apostles who are calling Apostles. That is why it is called "Apostolic succession." It's not called "Apostolic, priest, and Bishop succession."

The Catholic Church does not use the title "Apostle" anymore, not in the way the LDS church does.

We believe that there were 12 Apostles, yes (13 technically, since Judas had to be replaced), and we call the time of their teaching the Apostolic Church, or the Apostolic Age of the Church.

And while there is a hierarchy within the Church, it is not exactly in the way you describe; in the way the LDS church is, or necessarily in the way a company is.

We believe that when Christ gave the Spirit to the Apostles, gave them the Great Commission, and gave them Authority that those Apostles then gave that Authority to others. Not to be Apostles -- we still say there were only 12 Apostles -- but to be priests, deacons, bishops, etc. We don't believe that someone lower down is trying to ordain someone higher up; rather, it is simply more chronological: the Apostles were given the Authority first, then they passed it along down the line. It is the same Authority each passing; it isn't diminished, and it isn't altered. We believe Christ installed Peter as the first pope, and there has been an unbroken line of popes throughout the ages.

I'm sorry... to be honest, I don't even know if I read your question right. (It's been a long day.) But to the Catholic Church, there will only ever be 12 Apostles; that office is finished. But to us, that doesn't mean that Christ's Church was destroyed or vanished from the Earth. The Apostles gave the power of that Christ game them to others; we simply call them bishops, priests, cardinals, etc. instead of Apostles.

Honestly, that might not have made any sense whatsoever. If I remember, I might try to take a stab at this again later. I just know that the LDS church has an office called "Apostle" and the Catholic Church (and the Protestant churches, as far as I know) don't.

But one question I have frequently asked, and gotten different answers for, is this: Firstly, *when* exactly did Christ's Church leave the Earth (when did the Great Apostasy happen)? Because I've heard some people say when the last Apostle died, and I've heard some people say sometime in the 300s... very different answers. And secondly, if the Church fell away *when the last Apostle died,* why does the LDS church use the same Bible that the Catholic Church bound together? A Bible that was bound together during Catholic ecumenical councils *after* Christ's Church and His Truth left the Earth?

[Shelly200]

Perhaps this is the problem. I am not looking for a mystical metaphor. I want a clear explanation. Jesus' words were crystal clear: "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." I want an equally clear explanation how this is possible and what it means, given that, in Shelly's belief system, God and Christ are "one in Person".

If you'll notice in the quotation I used, it also talks about all of us being members of the "body of Christ" through our baptism. (Not just the marriage reference.)

(Although, marriage itself is compared to the relationship of Christ with His Church in the NT... and Revelation is chock full of references of us going to the wedding feast of the Lamb.)

To understand that, you'd have to understand the Catholic view of sacraments... which is a whole conversation in and of itself, since most Protestants don't even do sacraments.

In a sacrament, there is both a spiritual and physical aspect. And God imbues us with His grace. (That is why we are encouraged to go to Confession and receive the Eucharist as often as we can; because in receiving and partaking in one of the sacraments, we receive grace.) So in the analogy of marriage, the *sacrament* makes the couple one, *not* the sex. In baptism, it is the sacramental grace that makes the baby or adult a member of Christ's body, not simply the water.

Maybe I don't understand your question... when I read that Bible verse, I don't see anything contrary to the Trinity. We believe that, just as the quotation stated, through the sacrament of our baptism we become part of the body of Christ. Not in that we agree with Christ's teachings, but that we become unified with the Being of Christ. Once again, it is referred to by St. Paul as a mystery, that we can't quite fully understand or explain, but that surely is. Again-- in the Catholic way of thinking.

[Vort]

We believe that there were 12 Apostles, yes (13 technically, since Judas had to be replaced), and we call the time of their teaching the Apostolic Church, or the Apostolic Age of the Church.

I thought you accepted Paul as an apostle, as well. Wouldn't that make at least 14?

And if the apostles were being replaced -- which they obviously were -- at what point did that cease? Based on a sola scriptura attitude, this cannot be justified.

[Hala401]

I respect your right to believe different then I, and I truly mean no disrespect - but this is VERY confusing to me.

May I ask a question? Who do you think then was Jesus birth father?

Some say that the father of Jesus was God, and I like that one. Others say that Jesus was God. It is pretty inane to argue about this one, I think. It is given to us that we do not understand all things because we look through a glass darkly. Hmmmmm

I'm good with that. I mean I can fix pancakes, and sometimes the vacume cleaner but if the Universe breaks, I certainly want God on that one. :)

Hala

[prisonchaplain]

So you believe it hasn't happened yet.

Even when considering that Christ and some of the Apostles talked about how soon it was happeneing even in their day?

We look at the whole of Matthew 24, the book of Revelation, etc. and see it as future-oriented. Keep in mind, even the second coming is taught as an imminent event in the New Testament--we see it all tied together, and still believe the prophecies to be imminent.

[Snow]

I won't pretend to be an expert, but my understanding is that Luther was a most reluctant protestant. He wanted reform, but was told to recant or be put out. At that point he could not stay. He was forced to deny the corruption existed, which he could not, or be put out of the church he loved and fought for.

When he left, and others followed, one thought is that Catholic leadership realized that at least some of the matters Luther had criticized needed addressing. Thus the theory that Luther helped save the Catholic church by driving it to remove some very pervasive dross.

Luther was but one cog in what was to be a mighty machine rebeling at the massive corruption that permeated the Catholic Church right up to the Pope(s).

Apostasy Recognized by Reformationists

[Snow]

My take is that the prophets did address the belief that there is only one God. The disciples, and I'd say Jesus himself, also insist that Jesus is God. The three vying theologies as to how that can be so are the Trinity, Modalism, and the LDS Godhead. Since none of these explanations were at issue during biblical times, the details never got addressed. These options arose in the second, third and nineteenth centuries.

Some of the prophets, certainly.

Scholars believe that the early OT presents a polytheistic view and only later did Judaism become completely monotheistic.

What the amateur does is proof text the Bible, pulling out a snippet here and a snippet there to support their belief while ignoring anything that could challenge that belief.

That's the only way you can get the Trinity out the Bible - a piece here, a piece there and ignore everything else. The only passage that explictly mentions the Trinity is nothing but a later forgery by a dishonest scribe... and even that forgery doesn't contain the whole doctrine of the Trinity, just the 3 in 1 part.