Mormon Studies

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 19 2005, 01:56 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Serg@Oct 19 2005, 01:10 PM

I dont believe women held the priesthood in the primitive church, there was no necessity. 

Your opinion in this matter is hardly relavent. The facts are, however, that there were women Priests in early Christianity. While not specifically provable in the so-called "orthodox" christian churches, there is ample evidence of women Priests in those churches which we now call hetrodox (ie Gnostic, Johnanne, Pauline, etc).

Moreover, it is the hetrodox churches that have the most common bond to the teachings and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints.

So you can take out of that what you will.

←

Jason,

Are you saying that you can provide objective evidence to show that during the ministry of our Lord or the first apostles chosen by our Lord, there were women who held the priesthood? If so, I'd like to see that evidence or hear about where I can find that information for myself.

And btw, to show that women held the priesthood you would need to show more than the idea that women had leadership positions in the Church, because women today have leadership positions in the Church and yet they still do not have the priesthood.

Or in other words, you would need to show evidence that women had titles such as deacon, teacher, priest, elder, or apostle, etc, while also recogizing the idea that those words or words which can be translated into those words do not necessarily indicate that such persons held those priesthood offices. For instance, women are called into positions as teachers in the Church now, even while they do not have the priesthood office of a teacher.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2005, 03:23 PM

Are you saying that you can provide objective evidence to show that during the ministry of our Lord or the first apostles chosen by our Lord, there were women who held the priesthood?  If so, I'd like to see that evidence or hear about where I can find that information for myself.

There are no records of any kind from the actual life time of Jesus, Ray. What Im telling you is that the earliest records of Christians show a wide array of beliefs and practices, including women Priests. Those churches that had women priests were ultimately excluded from the "orthodox" church that came to dominate the Roman world by the 4th century.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 19 2005, 03:54 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Oct 19 2005, 03:23 PM

Are you saying that you can provide objective evidence to show that during the ministry of our Lord or the first apostles chosen by our Lord, there were women who held the priesthood?  If so, I'd like to see that evidence or hear about where I can find that information for myself.

There are no records of any kind from the actual life time of Jesus, Ray. What Im telling you is that the earliest records of Christians show a wide array of beliefs and practices, including women Priests. Those churches that had women priests were ultimately excluded from the "orthodox" church that came to dominate the Roman world by the 4th century.

←

I'm interested in seeing something that documents women priests... and do you know anything about the Samaritan order... they were supposed to be apostate or something... that is what I have heard... but I haven't read anything on it...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 19 2005, 02:54 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Oct 19 2005, 03:23 PM

Are you saying that you can provide objective evidence to show that during the ministry of our Lord or the first apostles chosen by our Lord, there were women who held the priesthood?  If so, I'd like to see that evidence or hear about where I can find that information for myself.

There are no records of any kind from the actual life time of Jesus, Ray. What Im telling you is that the earliest records of Christians show a wide array of beliefs and practices, including women Priests. Those churches that had women priests were ultimately excluded from the "orthodox" church that came to dominate the Roman world by the 4th century.

←

I hear you saying that some “Christian” groups had women priests, and some didn’t, much like today, but I’m asking you if you have any evidence to show that the true church of Christ had some women with the priesthood during the life of Jesus or the apostles He had appointed.

Or in other words, if you have evidence to show that priesthood leaders of the true church of Christ ordained women with the priesthood during the life of Jesus or the apostles He had appointed, then you would have a fair indication that our Lord’s authorized servants had authorized women to be ordained to the priesthood, and you would have something worth talking about.

But if don’t have something to indicate that the priesthood was given to women by people we can all recognize to have been authorized by our Lord to exercise the keys of the priesthood, then you don’t really have anything worth talking about.

Or in other words, the true church of Christ, as an organization with true priesthood leadership, was no longer on the Earth at the very moment our Lord no longer authorized anyone on Earth to act in His name, so if leaders of the church which remained after the death of our Lord’s authorized servants had authorized women to hold the priesthood, then those women were not authorized to have the priesthood by our Lord or any of His authorized servants.

Btw, do you realize that the term “Christian” was first a derogatory term used by Jews and Romans and other people who were not members of the church, in reference to members of the true church of Christ, much like the term “Mormon” is used today? The proper term used by the people who were the true followers of our Lord was the term “saint”, just as it is the proper term to use today.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2005, 04:57 PM

I hear you saying that some “Christian” groups had women priests, and some didn’t, much like today, but I’m asking you if you have any evidence to show that the true church of Christ had some women with the priesthood during the life of Jesus or the apostles He had appointed.

Or in other words, if you have evidence to show that priesthood leaders of the true church of Christ ordained women with the priesthood during the life of Jesus or the apostles He had appointed, then you would have a fair indication that our Lord’s authorized servants had authorized women to be ordained to the priesthood, and you would have something worth talking about. 

But if don’t have something to indicate that the priesthood was given to women by people we can all recognize to have been authorized by our Lord to exercise the keys of the priesthood, then you don’t really have anything worth talking about.

Or in other words, the true church of Christ, as an organization with true priesthood leadership, was no longer on the Earth at the very moment our Lord no longer authorized anyone on Earth to act in His name, so if leaders of the church which remained after the death of our Lord’s authorized servants had authorized women to hold the priesthood, then those women were not authorized to have the priesthood by our Lord or any of His authorized servants.

Btw, do you realize that the term “Christian” was first a derogatory term used by Jews and Romans and other people who were not members of the church, in reference to members of the true church of Christ, much like the term “Mormon” is used today?  The proper term used by the people who were the true followers of our Lord was the term “saint”, just as it is the proper term to use today.

←

Ray, if you'd like to tell the scholastic world which of all the early Christian churches is the "true" one, im sure we'd all appreciate it.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 19 2005, 06:32 PM

Ray, if you'd like to tell the scholastic world which of all the early Christian churches is the "true" one, im sure we'd all appreciate it.

←

I think Ray's being clear really. The organization of believers identified with the twelve apostles ordained and approved by Jesus (minus Judas of course, enter Matthias as per Acts 1) constituted the "true" church of Christ. Hence, if there were authentic records of history showing that these apostles (as church leadership) ordained women to offices of priesthood (deacon, teacher, elder) then there'd be solid evidence for this theory.

No one's arguing about whether there were women holding the priesthood at the time...the issue is whether that priesthood was authentic. After all, we can say with accuracy that from about the time of Nehemiah/Ezra to Jesus' time, the Samaritans had a temple, Holy of Holies and a High Priest...but alas, they were counterfeits of Israel's authorized counterparts.

The dizzying array of perversions to Christ's original doctrines (as far as have been preserved in the NT) in the Middle East shortly after His resurrection makes sorting out the details difficult. Between the Apocrypha and Pseudapigrapha (et al) we have stories ranging from beliefs that Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to lead the church after his departure to many more chimerical absurdities (in my opinion) which I'd rather not waste my time typing.

A simple appeal to the NT cannot establish whether women held authentic priesthood authority in the sense of traditional offices (deacon, priest, et al). The NT doesn't even tell us how all the apostles were killed (props to Fox's Book of Martyrs and Eusebius among others for at least a sensible sketch of history albeit uncertain in all points). And since many are leary (and rightly so) of accepting as authoritative doctrine the many apocryphal traditions hinted at earlier, the question will seemingly remain an area of speculation since no shared source of fact will be agreed on by many. At least, so it seems to me.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Ray, if you'd like to tell the scholastic world which of all the early Christian churches is the "true" one, im sure we'd all appreciate it.

The one with Christ in it silly!

[Serg]

Well , Ray and Please got a point!!

Jason we are not doubting of supposed women holding the "priesthood" within early christian churches, but within the original CHURCH of CHRIST. It is well known among those gnostic writtings to find women as leaders or even as "priesthood" holders, but THAT doesnt got anything to do with JESUS's PATRIARCAL order. Read the bible man !

Best regards...

***********************************************************

(Psalms 130:3) If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

[Jason]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Oct 19 2005, 06:45 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 19 2005, 06:32 PM

Ray, if you'd like to tell the scholastic world which of all the early Christian churches is the "true" one, im sure we'd all appreciate it.

←

I think Ray's being clear really. The organization of believers identified with the twelve apostles ordained and approved by Jesus (minus Judas of course, enter Matthias as per Acts 1) constituted the "true" church of Christ. Hence, if there were authentic records of history showing that these apostles (as church leadership) ordained women to offices of priesthood (deacon, teacher, elder) then there'd be solid evidence for this theory.

No one's arguing about whether there were women holding the priesthood at the time...the issue is whether that priesthood was authentic. After all, we can say with accuracy that from about the time of Nehemiah/Ezra to Jesus' time, the Samaritans had a temple, Holy of Holies and a High Priest...but alas, they were counterfeits of Israel's authorized counterparts.

The dizzying array of perversions to Christ's original doctrines (as far as have been preserved in the NT) in the Middle East shortly after His resurrection makes sorting out the details difficult. Between the Apocrypha and Pseudapigrapha (et al) we have stories ranging from beliefs that Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to lead the church after his departure to many more chimerical absurdities (in my opinion) which I'd rather not waste my time typing.

A simple appeal to the NT cannot establish whether women held authentic priesthood authority in the sense of traditional offices (deacon, priest, et al). The NT doesn't even tell us how all the apostles were killed (props to Fox's Book of Martyrs and Eusebius among others for at least a sensible sketch of history albeit uncertain in all points). And since many are leary (and rightly so) of accepting as authoritative doctrine the many apocryphal traditions hinted at earlier, the question will seemingly remain an area of speculation since no shared source of fact will be agreed on by many. At least, so it seems to me.

←

Since Latter-day Saints generally believe that the Great Apostasy began with the death of the Apostles, it would be very difficult for you to say which of all the churches left by the apostles was "true" and which were "apostate".

Scholars today, for example, have reached the conclusion that there was never a single, set ritual ceremony for the Lord's Supper. That every apostle who established a Church, did so in a distinct and unique way. That every liturgical service was established upon the wishes of the specific apostle, and therefore every church established it's own customs and rites.

This spills over into doctrine as well. Several Orthodox churches established over time a specific difference between laity and clergy. Once a clergyman, always a clergyman. And there was only one Bishop to a town, and his counselors, the Deacons, directed all at his command. Beneath the Deacons were the Priests, who were more like errand boys initially. Eventually, by the 3rd century, the Priests usurped the Deacons authority, and the roles reversed.

But as for the Hetrodox churches, more closely related to Mormons, they never had a distinction between clergy and laity. They conducted their meetings quite differntly from the orthodox. Irenaeus tells us that when they met, all the members first participated in drawing lots. Whoever received a certain lot apparently was designated to take the role of Deacon, another was to offer the sacrament, as bishop; another would read the Scriptures for worship, and others would address the group as a prophet, offering extemporaneous spiritual instruction. The next time the group met, they would throw lots again so that the persons taking each role changed continually. Instead of ranking their members into superior and inferior "orders" within a hierarchy, they followed the principle of strict equality. All initiates, men and women alike, participated equally in the drawing; anyone might be selected to serve as Deacon, Bishop, or Prophet.

With so many different streams of belief arising from the Churches established by the Apostles themselves, it is impossible to state with any clarity which churches were true, and which were not.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

With so many different streams of belief arising from the Churches established by the Apostles themselves, it is impossible to state with any clarity which churches were true, and which were not.

Unless you are spiritually sensitive enough to hear the Holy Ghost...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 20 2005, 08:33 AM-->

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Oct 19 2005, 06:45 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 19 2005, 06:32 PM

Ray, if you'd like to tell the scholastic world which of all the early Christian churches is the "true" one, im sure we'd all appreciate it.

←

I think Ray's being clear really. The organization of believers identified with the twelve apostles ordained and approved by Jesus (minus Judas of course, enter Matthias as per Acts 1) constituted the "true" church of Christ. Hence, if there were authentic records of history showing that these apostles (as church leadership) ordained women to offices of priesthood (deacon, teacher, elder) then there'd be solid evidence for this theory.

No one's arguing about whether there were women holding the priesthood at the time...the issue is whether that priesthood was authentic. After all, we can say with accuracy that from about the time of Nehemiah/Ezra to Jesus' time, the Samaritans had a temple, Holy of Holies and a High Priest...but alas, they were counterfeits of Israel's authorized counterparts.

The dizzying array of perversions to Christ's original doctrines (as far as have been preserved in the NT) in the Middle East shortly after His resurrection makes sorting out the details difficult. Between the Apocrypha and Pseudapigrapha (et al) we have stories ranging from beliefs that Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to lead the church after his departure to many more chimerical absurdities (in my opinion) which I'd rather not waste my time typing.

A simple appeal to the NT cannot establish whether women held authentic priesthood authority in the sense of traditional offices (deacon, priest, et al). The NT doesn't even tell us how all the apostles were killed (props to Fox's Book of Martyrs and Eusebius among others for at least a sensible sketch of history albeit uncertain in all points). And since many are leary (and rightly so) of accepting as authoritative doctrine the many apocryphal traditions hinted at earlier, the question will seemingly remain an area of speculation since no shared source of fact will be agreed on by many. At least, so it seems to me.

←

Since Latter-day Saints generally believe that the Great Apostasy began with the death of the Apostles, it would be very difficult for you to say which of all the churches left by the apostles was "true" and which were "apostate".

It's not very difficult for me to say. After the death of the Apostles who were authorized by our Lord to be Apostles there was no "true" church of Christ on the Earth, because the "true" church of Christ can only exist upon the Earth as long as there are "true" apostles to lead and guide the Church.

Scholars today, for example, have reached the conclusion that there was never a single, set ritual ceremony for the Lord's Supper.  That every apostle who established a Church, did so in a distinct and unique way.  That every liturgical service was established upon the wishes of the specific apostle, and therefore every church established it's own customs and rites.

Our Lord himself established the "set ritual ceremony" for the Lord's supper, so if any apostle deviated from that ceremony without authorization from our Lord, that person was no longer a true apostle of our Lord.

This spills over into doctrine as well.  Several Orthodox churches established over time a specific difference between laity and clergy.  Once a clergyman, always a clergyman.  And there was only one Bishop to a town, and his counselors, the Deacons, directed all at his command.  Beneath the Deacons were the Priests, who were more like errand boys initially.  Eventually, by the 3rd century,  the Priests usurped the Deacons authority, and the roles reversed.

But as for the Hetrodox churches, more closely related to Mormons, they never had a distinction between clergy and laity.  They conducted their meetings quite differntly from the orthodox.  Irenaeus tells us that when they met, all the members first participated in drawing lots. Whoever received a certain lot apparently was designated to take the role of Deacon, another was to offer the sacrament, as bishop; another would read the Scriptures for worship, and others would address the group as a prophet, offering extemporaneous spiritual instruction. The next time the group met, they would throw lots again so that the persons taking each role changed continually.  Instead of ranking their members into superior and inferior "orders" within a hierarchy, they followed the principle of strict equality. All initiates, men and women alike, participated equally in the drawing; anyone might be selected to serve as Deacon, Bishop, or Prophet.

Some of the changes and practices you have described are evidence of the apostasy, but to clearly understand that you would need to understand how the church was authorized to function under the direction of our Lord.

But one thing that I would think should be perfectly clear to YOU, is the idea that just because someone was once authorized to be a "clergyman", that person would not always be authorized to be a "clergyman", for the simply fact that our Lord and His authorized servents would never knowingly permit someone to act in some way contrary to the will of the Lord with His authorization. And I know you are familiar with that concept, Jason, because you were once an authorized servant of our Lord and His authorized servants, and now you are not.

With so many different streams of belief arising from the Churches established by the Apostles themselves, it is impossible to state with any clarity which churches were true, and which were not.

The fact that somebody held or once held the title of “apostle” doesn’t indicate that that person was duly authorized by our Lord to act in His name either. For instance, several people who were once apostles in these latter days apostatized from the true church of Christ and established other churches which were not authorized by our Lord, hence the churches they established were not a part of the true church of Christ.

You can even find evidence in the New Testament that Peter and Paul knew that some of their own number would be among those who apostatized, and it is possible that Judas was not the only apostle chosen by our Lord who later apostatized.

Anyway, the simple truth is that the true church of Christ ceases to exist upon the Earth when there is nobody on Earth who is authorized to use or distribute all of the keys of the priesthood, and with that knowledge we can only speculate exactly when that was.

But I do thank you for one thought, Jason, and that is for making it more evident to me that instead of there being a single church which continued after the death of the apostles, there were many, and none of them were authorized by our Lord.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please@Oct 20 2005, 10:30 AM

With so many different streams of belief arising from the Churches established by the Apostles themselves, it is impossible to state with any clarity which churches were true, and which were not.

Unless you are spiritually sensitive enough to hear the Holy Ghost...

←

Please, seriously, if you don't have something intelligent to contribute, why do you bother to post dribble like this? Why even engage in discussion at all? Why not just make one grand post: "If you know God thru the Holy Ghost, every problem is solved."

Then you never have to post again. Just have "the Answer to everything" sticky'd at the top of the board and have a nice life.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2005, 10:31 AM

Some of the changes and practices you have described are evidence of the apostasy, but to clearly understand that you would need to understand how the church was authorized to function under the direction of our Lord. 

Unfortunately, Jesus has never left us with any instructions on how his church was to function. Having some such document would certainly clear up all the confusion.

But one thing that I would think should be perfectly clear to YOU, is the idea that just because someone was once authorized to be a "clergyman", that person would not always be authorized to be a "clergyman", for the simply fact that our Lord and His authorized servents would never knowingly permit someone to act in some way contrary to the will of the Lord with His authorization.  And I know you are familiar with that concept, Jason, because you were once an authorized servant of our Lord and His authorized servants, and now you are not.

Ah, but since Jesus left no such direction, all were able to do as they pleased.

Anyway, the simple truth is that the true church of Christ ceases to exist upon the Earth when there is nobody on Earth who is authorized to use or distribute all of the keys of the priesthood, and with that knowledge we can only speculate exactly when that was.

Unfortunately, neither Jesus, nor anything in the New Testament teaches what you describe. Therefore, it is just speculation on your part that this is true.

But I do thank you for one thought, Jason, and that is for making it more evident to me that instead of there being a single church which continued after the death of the apostles, there were many, and none of them were authorized by our Lord.

You missed the point. There were many different churches started by the apostles themselves. There never was a single church during the lifetime of the original disciples of Jesus. They were all wrong, or they were all right together.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Jason,Oct 20 2005, 12:13 PM

Please,Oct 20 2005, 10:30 AM]

With so many different streams of belief arising from the Churches established by the Apostles themselves, it is impossible to state with any clarity which churches were true, and which were not.

Unless you are spiritually sensitive enough to hear the Holy Ghost...

Just because it obvious you give no value to those things which are most precious... doesn't mean they are dribble... actually what you have put here is dribble... and I must say to you:

Jason, seriously, if you don't have something intelligent to contribute, why do you bother to post dribble like this? Why even engage in discussion at all? Why not just make one grand post: "If you don't know God thru the Holy Ghost, every problem is solved."

Then you never have to post again. Just have "the Answer to everything" sticky'd at the top of the board and have a nice life.

[Jason]

Um, please, sweetie, your last post doesn't make a lot of sense. Could you fix it?

Thanks.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 20 2005, 11:21 AM-->

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2005, 10:31 AM

Some of the changes and practices you have described are evidence of the apostasy, but to clearly understand that you would need to understand how the church was authorized to function under the direction of our Lord. 

Unfortunately, Jesus has never left us with any instructions on how his church was to function. Having some such document would certainly clear up all the confusion.

Actually, those instructions are part of what was restored through Joseph Smith. And whether you believe that or not, it's still true.

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2005, 10:31 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 20 2005, 11:21 AM

But one thing that I would think should be perfectly clear to YOU, is the idea that just because someone was once authorized to be a "clergyman", that person would not always be authorized to be a "clergyman", for the simply fact that our Lord and His authorized servents would never knowingly permit someone to act in some way contrary to the will of the Lord with His authorization.  And I know you are familiar with that concept, Jason, because you were once an authorized servant of our Lord and His authorized servants, and now you are not.

Ah, but since Jesus left no such direction, all were able to do as they pleased.

Your basing this assumption on your other assumption, neither of which is correct. Apostles have never been authorized to do as they please, and when they do not do the will of our Lord, they are no acting under the authorization He has given them.

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 20 2005, 10:31 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 20 2005, 11:21 AM

Anyway, the simple truth is that the true church of Christ ceases to exist upon the Earth when there is nobody on Earth who is authorized to use or distribute all of the keys of the priesthood, and with that knowledge we can only speculate exactly when that was.

Unfortunately, neither Jesus, nor anything in the New Testament teaches what you describe. Therefore, it is just speculation on your part that this is true.

The idea and concept of "priesthood" is taught all through the scriptures, you apparently just can't see it. "You have eyes to see but cannot see." You know. That kind of thing.

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 20 2005, 10:31 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 20 2005, 11:21 AM

But I do thank you for one thought, Jason, and that is for making it more evident to me that instead of there being a single church which continued after the death of the apostles, there were many, and none of them were authorized by our Lord.

You missed the point. There were many different churches started by the apostles themselves. There never was a single church during the lifetime of the original disciples of Jesus. They were all wrong, or they were all right together.

I got your point, and because your point was not in agreement with what I know, I was trying to help you understand what I know.

I will try again.

I agree that many churches were organized by the apostles, but all of the true churches of Christ were one or in agreement with the true teachings of our Lord and His authorized servants until some began to apostatize from the teachings of our Lord and His authorized servants, just as all of the churches, or wards and branches of the Church, are one or in agreement today... except for some other churches or organizations which consider themselves to be among the true church of Christ even though they are or have been in apostasy of our Lord's true teachings.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Since Latter-day Saints generally believe that the Great Apostasy began with the death of the Apostles, it would be very difficult for you to say which of all the churches left by the apostles was "true" and which were "apostate".

This has got to be the most off statement I have ever read... think about it... first it is stated by Jason that we believe the Great Apostasy began with the death of the Apostles...

Then he said it would be difficult for you to say which of all the churches left by the apostles was the true.... THEY ALL WERE FALSE.... the great apostasy means there was no more true church on the earth....

Come on Jason... you are getting way off...

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2005, 02:29 PM

Actually, those instructions are part of what was restored through Joseph Smith.  And whether you believe that or not, it's still true.

Yeah, well truth is not something based on faith Ray. And as long as you believe that what you think in your mind is the truth, without historical documentation to back it up, then we've got very little to discuss.

St. James said that faith without works is dead. He should have added that faith without the truth is worthless.

Your basing this assumption on your other assumption, neither of which is correct.  Apostles have never been authorized to do as they please, and when they do not do the will of our Lord, they are no acting under the authorization He has given them.

You're claim is one of faith, Ray. Show me a 1st century document that backs up what you claim. I know that you cannot. So again, you're stating that the faith and 'truth' stuck in your mind trumps the historical record.

It seems that you're unwilling to examine the actual evidence here Ray. As long as you want to close your eyes to history, I really don't see much point in continuing this.

The idea and concept of "priesthood" is taught all through the scriptures, you apparently just can't see it.  "You have eyes to see but cannot see."  You know.  That kind of thing.

Sure Ray. I know about the Priesthood. But there's nothing in the Bible that teaches what you claim. You claim that I have eyes but do not see, I say that you have eyes to see, but you are still making things up. If Im wrong, please quote me the scriptural passage.

I got your point, and because your point was not in agreement with what I know, I was trying to help you understand what I know. 

I will try again.

I agree that many churches were organized by the apostles, but all of the true churches of Christ were one or in agreement with the true teachings of our Lord and His authorized servants until some began to apostatize from the teachings of our Lord and His authorized servants, just as all of the churches, or wards and branches of the Church, are one or in agreement today... except for some other churches or organizations which consider themselves to be among the true church of Christ even though they are or have been in apostasy of our Lord's true teachings.

Other than your personal opinion, do you have anything evidence, even just a scrap, to back up the long-winded paragraph you just posted?

Ray, what you think/feel/believe is the truth cannot be supported by the available facts we possess.

[Ray]

Jason,

We can know the truth by receiving an assurance of the truth from God, and I just finished writing a post in another thread about how we can know the truth through Faith or an assurance from God, which is merely another one of the many other notes I have written to you about this, so I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain it to you again, because you just CAN'T seem to get it.

And btw, you just proved the point the apostle Paul was making when he said:

…the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. – 1 Corinthians 2:14

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 20 2005, 05:52 PM

Other than your personal opinion, do you have anything evidence, even just a scrap, to back up the long-winded paragraph you just posted? 

Ray, what you think/feel/believe is the truth cannot be supported by the available facts we possess.

←

You mean by the facts YOU possess...and they aren't facts. You know me Jason, you'll just be wasting your time trying to prove to me that they are.

Your facts are fiction Jason. Just because Irenaeus said something doesn't make it fact. If we are supposed to accept what "scholars today" and Irenaeus, Polycarp, et al, have said, why are they more believable than LDS "scholars today?"

You really must live for this Jason. Come home from a long day of work, pop open a beer, kiss the wife, stretch in front of the TV for a few minutes, then hop online and see how many LDSTalk.com members you've got shouting at you. Heh, this is the life, eh?

Sad, sad, sad. Even sadder is that you are a hypocrite. You condemn Ray for believing what he can't "prove" to you, but you believe stuff you can't "prove" to us and we're supposed to let you soar away on your metaphorical wings of intellectual superiority, out of the range of our arrows and arguments? I think not my friend.

And so it goes. Jason...wouldn't you get more satisfaction out of posting your "facts" to a board that specializes in ex-mormons or early christian documents or stuff like that...sharing your knowledge with people who'd actually care or take you seriously? No, as I suspect, you get a rush out of contention, and seeing how many people you can get riled up as your apostate artillery blasts holes in our "faith."

Only problem is, your artillery is dry firing (always has, always will), and our faith ain't goin' nowhere. Have a nice day.

p.s. I suspect if you had to go two weeks without posting on LDSTalk.com, you'd feel hollow and empty in a chamber of your soul deep down, a chamber you fill with strife but that others would love to fill with light, hope and happiness. But whatever floats your boat bro, I guess...

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 20 2005, 01:52 PM

Um, please, sweetie, your last post doesn't make a lot of sense.  Could you fix it? 

Thanks.

←

It makes as much sense as your post.... cause I copied it exactly from yours... :)

[Jason]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Oct 20 2005, 11:05 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 20 2005, 05:52 PM

Other than your personal opinion, do you have anything evidence, even just a scrap, to back up the long-winded paragraph you just posted? 

Ray, what you think/feel/believe is the truth cannot be supported by the available facts we possess.

←

You mean by the facts YOU possess...and they aren't facts. You know me Jason, you'll just be wasting your time trying to prove to me that they are.

Your facts are fiction Jason. Just because Irenaeus said something doesn't make it fact. If we are supposed to accept what "scholars today" and Irenaeus, Polycarp, et al, have said, why are they more believable than LDS "scholars today?"

LDS scholars are not researching the same things as the Christian scholars. As for what Im saying, I suggest you try looking up Dr. Paul Bradshaw. He is currently the Professor of Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame in London. Two of his works, Early Christian Worship and The Search For The Origins Of Christian Worship are the most highly regarded in the field. Here's an exerpt from the first text:

"Jesus apparently did not leave his followers with a fixed set of doctrines but rather with an experience that changed their lives, which they then tried to articulate in their own ways. As a result, what we find in the New Testament is not one standard theology of baptism or a systematized explanation of what it means to become a Christian, but a variety of ways of speaking about that experience, quite different images and metaphors being employed by different writers in their attempts to communicate it to others."

What is so damaging to the Christian world with his words, especially coming from a Catholic, is that he postulates that there never was a single "true church". Not ever. In searching history, you will never find a single time since the supposed life of Jesus when all Christians believed and worshiped exactly the same. Not in the first century, not in the second century, and certainly not today.

Which leaves us with what? The fact that all Christian Churches are the One, True Church.

You really must live for this Jason. Come home from a long day of work, pop open a beer, kiss the wife, stretch in front of the TV for a few minutes, then hop online and see how many LDSTalk.com members you've got shouting at you. Heh, this is the life, eh? 

Gee whiz LeGrand. How'd you know?

Sad, sad, sad. Even sadder is that you are a hypocrite. You condemn Ray for believing what he can't "prove" to you, but you believe stuff you can't "prove" to us and we're supposed to let you soar away on your metaphorical wings of intellectual superiority, out of the range of our arrows and arguments? I think not my friend.

Luckly I just quoted some of my sources. Im still waiting on the spiritually superior ones to produce their evidence.

And so it goes. Jason...wouldn't you get more satisfaction out of posting your "facts" to a board that specializes in ex-mormons or early christian documents or stuff like that...sharing your knowledge with people who'd actually care or take you seriously? No, as I suspect, you get a rush out of contention, and seeing how many people you can get riled up as your apostate artillery blasts holes in our "faith."

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Nephi 2:11.) Im the good, and you're the bad. I cannot retreat and allow the wickedness of priestcraft abound! I ask, How else can I help you lost souls find the true and living path, if I were to abandon my friends here?

Only problem is, your artillery is dry firing (always has, always will), and our faith ain't goin' nowhere. Have a nice day. 

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 21 2005, 12:53 PM

"Jesus apparently did not leave his followers with a fixed set of doctrines but  rather with an experience that changed their lives, which they then tried to articulate in their own ways.  As a result, what we find in the New Testament is not  one standard theology of baptism or a systematized explanation of what it means to become a Christian, but a variety of ways of speaking about that experience, quite different images and metaphors being employed by different writers in their attempts to communicate it to others."

In searching history, you will never find a single time since the supposed life of Jesus when all Christians believed and worshiped exactly the same.  Not in the first century, not in the second century, and certainly not today. 

That's our point Jason! There's a lil' somethin' called the apostasy...where, oh yes, where one true church splintered into lots and lots of false ones. The Catholic professor is just reinforcing LDS doctrine, and doing it wonderfully. Thanks for sharing. :)

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Nephi 2:11.) Im the good, and you're the bad.  I cannot retreat and allow the wickedness of priestcraft abound!

Um Jason? There's this guy called Satan who's already got the "opposition" thing down. And dang, you're onto my filthy lucre scam...how'd you find out that I got paid to be Elder's Quorum President? Oh wait, silly me, I didn't get paid, I volunteered my free time (well it's actually God's time on loan to me, but you get my point). Just a hint, in parting. If you think a quote from a member of an apostate church (whose members individually are nice) is a good way to prove the apostasy didn't happen...might wanna read up on Aristotle's keys to persuasion, focusing on the logos aspect...a lil' logic never hurt no one.

Oh and name-calling Jason?

[Jason]

"Jesus apparently did not leave his followers with a fixed set of doctrines but  rather with an experience that changed their lives, which they then tried to articulate in their own ways.  As a result, what we find in the New Testament is not  one standard theology of baptism or a systematized explanation of what it means to become a Christian, but a variety of ways of speaking about that experience, quite different images and metaphors being employed by different writers in their attempts to communicate it to others."

In searching history, you will never find a single time since the supposed life of Jesus when all Christians believed and worshiped exactly the same.  Not in the first century, not in the second century, and certainly not today. 

That's our point Jason! There's a lil' somethin' called the apostasy...where, oh yes, where one true church splintered into lots and lots of false ones. The Catholic professor is just reinforcing LDS doctrine, and doing it wonderfully. Thanks for sharing. :)

Back up a bit. You missed the point. Let me restate it in small words: There was no apostasy, because there was no one, single true church, ever.

Get it?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Nephi 2:11.) Im the good, and you're the bad.  I cannot retreat and allow the wickedness of priestcraft abound!

Um Jason? There's this guy called Satan who's already got the "opposition" thing down. And dang, you're onto my filthy lucre scam...how'd you find out that I got paid to be Elder's Quorum President? Oh wait, silly me, I didn't get paid, I volunteered my free time (well it's actually God's time on loan to me, but you get my point).

Priestcraft need not be based solely on money. But maybe you've never heard of that word before? Here's a definition for you.

[Ray]

It seems that you're relying on the "arm of flesh", or certain people who say certain things and assure you of certain things because they believe those things to be true, while I am relying totally upon God and my assurances from Him.

We'll both see who is right in the end, though, shan't we. :)