Non-lds Input Wanted

[Shade]

i've seen quite a couple of scriptural references which appear to confirm that the prophets and the priesthood are an essential part of the church established by Jesus Christ.

does anyone have any scriptural references which appear to confirm that such keys and ordinances are NOT necessary? or in other words, that Christ's keys of power are NOT necessary to run His church?

[a-train]

Just so everyone is clear, LDS do NOT believe that the Primitive Church was overcome and destroyed by Satan.

-a-train

[rehunter]

Part of the problems of this conversation is that non-LDS do not believe that the "church" is an institution whereas LDS believe the church is such. Non-LDS view the church as the universal body of Christ that is composed of worldwide believers, those who confess Christ and believe in His atonement and resurrection. For LDS, this is something hard to conceive since they view the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only church and all other representations of "Christianity" as "apostate." Thus, for the LDS, it is very crucial to believe that a certain group holds the authority whereas for non-LDS it is not so.

As a non-sectarian Christian, I believe that the church exists regardless of any institution calling itself such. I am a member of fellow believers, part of Christ's body on earth. I attend a Baptist church, my best friend attends a Lutheran church, and still other friends attend Calvary Chapel, etc. I view all of us as part of the same church, and their understanding of church services is just as valid as my own. What is important is that we believe in the same God, and have fellowship with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ.

I hope that details out why I do not believe the "keys of the kingdom" are crucial to my walk as a Christian. Seek him first! : )

[Blessed]

Saint,

I like your post and agree with it as well. Even though my church is related to the LDS I believe my church would hold the view that all believers make up "the Church." We are the body as it says in Corinthians and how can the foot say to the hand "I have no need of you."

I don't think there is any of us who have it "right" with God, but we all do our best in our efforts in following Him. I recoil at the thoughts that one of us has it right. What is the addage... pride goeth before a fall.

[a-train]

Would persons or sects expressing a belief in Christ, but rejecting revelation through Peter during his lifetime be considered members of the Church?

Could I, living in the time of the Apostles, reject their admonition to abandon certain Mosiac Laws or scorn their adherents for their belief in the Apostles teaching of a bodily resurrection of Christ and still be part of the Church only by virtue of an acceptance of the divinity of Jesus?

Could I have organized my own congregation excluding these doctrines and denying them on grounds that the Apostle's assertion of such were not authoritative and binding, but still be considered part of the Church?

Do traditional Christian's see the Church as diversely divided into various denominations who dispute the various principles of the gospel but are somehow of the same body through acceptance of the divinity of Jesus even though that acceptance can vary in it's meaning? The Catholics certainly don't see it that way.

The Catholics view the whole spectrum of Protestantism to be apostate and heretical. Therefore, can they be considered part of the unified 'body' whose parts cannot reject one another? If they are to be rejected by the body for their rejection of other parts, should that body be rejected also?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Just so everyone is clear, LDS do NOT believe that the Primitive Church was overcome and destroyed by Satan.

Are you suggesting that God had a hand in the murder of all but one of His 1st Century apostles?

Also, everyone seems to be suggesting that Christ's church is the thing that hell would not prevail against. I don't necessarily think that's the case. I think Jesus said it was revelation that would be the rock on which he would build his church, and that it was revelation that would not be completely removed by Satan.

[rehunter]

“Would persons or sects expressing a belief in Christ, but rejecting revelation through Peter during his lifetime be considered members of the Church?”

Yes, I believe they would. Paul did not preach Peter and his status to the various Gentile groups he came across. Instead, he preached Christ and His crucifixion, death and resurrection. Again, in the early days of the church, there was no real central authority to speak of. Yes, there were Jews in Jerusalem who were trying to exert authority over the various groups of people, but it is my understanding that these groups were more or less autonomous.

”Could I, living in the time of the Apostles, reject their admonition to abandon certain Mosiac Laws or scorn their adherents for their belief in the Apostles teaching of a bodily resurrection of Christ and still be part of the Church only by virtue of an acceptance of the divinity of Jesus?”

There is only one source of salvation, according to the Bible; believe in your heart that Jesus Christ died for your sins bringing you to righteousness, and confess with your mouth that He is Lord for salvation. There are a lot of Christians today that believe some pretty, shall I say, unique ideas regarding how they are to be saved. Regardless of people’s personal views, the Bible is quite clear in this matter.

“Could I have organized my own congregation excluding these doctrines and denying them on grounds that the Apostle's assertion of such were not authoritative and binding, but still be considered part of the Church?”

One must remember that the Bible did not exist in its current form during the very early church. Instead, the local congregations relied heavily on the Old Testament and might have had the first copies of the Gospels available to them. The true believer knew and understood who the Messiah was because that was what the Old Testament proclaimed, regardless of what the Apostles taught. The Apostles were in the business of proclaiming the Gospel to those who would hear, not to run a manmade institution.

“Do traditional Christian's see the Church as diversely divided into various denominations who dispute the various principles of the gospel but are somehow of the same body through acceptance of the divinity of Jesus even though that acceptance can vary in it's meaning? The Catholics certainly don't see it that way.”

There is a very definite distinction between those of us Christians who are non-sectarian and those of us that are. No Christian sect views any other as being completely correct. That would make sense. If the Lutherans and the Episcopalians agreed on all things, one would think they would merge into a new, larger sect. Unfortunately, as with any other manmade institution, sects are flawed through and through with pride and arrogance. That is the reason I will say “I am a Christian who attends a Baptist church” and not say “I am a Baptist.” I follow Christ, not some institution.

Despite all this, all Christians who truly believe the message of Christ and His salvation are part of the body of Christ. That is what makes God glorious and wonderful. He looks past the flaws found in His human worshipers and accepts us not on our merits, but on His love and grace.

“The Catholics view the whole spectrum of Protestantism to be apostate and heretical. Therefore, can they be considered part of the unified 'body' whose parts cannot reject one another? If they are to be rejected by the body for their rejection of other parts, should that body be rejected also?”

When you say “The Catholics” are you speaking of that Church’s official stance, or the members of the organization? I know of Catholics who love and accept their Protestant brothers as equals and I know Protestants who view Catholics likewise. Our grafting into the body of Christ has very little to do with how we view one another and very much to do with how God views our hearts. God knows who is devout and who is not, and just as He is able to graft some into the body, He can certainly prune away those who did not know Him.

As for what parts should be rejected, that goes without saying: All of us! We are all fallen, and not worthy of the grace and forgiveness of our Heavenly Father. When we as believers recognize that basic truth, we will be more able to accept the flaws of others and love them despite those flaws. We will be able to look past the sectarian divide and, though not agreeing on all points, worship the same holy God that created us all.

I hope this was inoffensive, I am just trying to explain my view as an orthodox Christian.

[Dr T]

We are all fallen, and not worthy of the grace and forgiveness of our Heavenly Father.

Amen to that brother (or sister). :) Nice to meet you saintoflatterdays (S.o.L.D.)

[CrimsonKairos]

I believe in a God who still loves His children enough to send them guidance relevant to their specific challenges. I don't believe God gave me a static text (Bible) to be my only guide in this life.

I believe God still speaks to you, and me, through His hand-picked prophets and apostles, as He did in past ages. I don't believe Jesus has retreated to some hidden corner of heaven, and is watching us stumble through our modern day trials in an absence of modern revelation.

I don't believe the LDS Church is a man-made institution. It is God-made, God-guided, and administered by men ordained for that purpose. These are things I know. These are things that have brought me a multiplicity of blessings I otherwise would not enjoy.

These blessings are not for just a few. All who will, may secure these blessings to themselves by partaking of the ordinances/covenants of salvation which are sealed by God through our faith in Christ Jesus and by his gift of grace.

To God alone the glory.

[Dr T]

That's the thing there CK. When building home, there is a blueprint. We look at the plans to ID the componants of that edific. It is not just the outline but revelation through God. We can both say, "I know our belief is from God" but that is only an assertion. If we look at life changing blessings, we can both do that. Again, it does not make it so. We both come to the cliff. I, as you are, am secure that our belief systems come directly from God, benefit us, and provide us with blessings. I'm sure you see me as missing a major piece and I see LDS beliefs, (from the limited understanding that I have) too, have misunderstandings of the true God.

[CrimsonKairos]

The problem with these sorts of discussions is that they are pretty unbalanced. What do I mean?

I'm not trying to be stupid or condescending, but most LDS know what non-LDS believe, and read the same source texts that non-LDS read (i.e. Bible).

Most non-LDS don't read the additional source texts LDS read (i.e. BoM, D&C, PoGP). So the discussion is unbalanced in that the LDS position is founded on teachings and doctrines most non-LDS have never actually read.

Not heard about, not heard summarized, not heard criticized, but actually read them.

So I guess I'd have to say that to level the playing field, all involved would have to read and be familiar with LDS scriptures in addition to the Bible. Our beliefs are very much Biblical and very much modern-day scriptural too.

Of course if someone says, "Well I don't believe there could even be modern day scripture so I'm not going to waste my time," then that's that, but a true discussion involves a meeting of the minds. I believe that for a non-LDS to truly engage in a discussion of LDS beliefs, they must read the LDS source texts.

Not an easy task, I'll grant you, but a task that's worth it. :)

[Dr T]

One thing to consider on that CK is that although you also read the Bible, you read them in light of the other books. In that sense, you may not be reading the Bible for what it says but for what other LDS read into it. Again, not an even playing field there either. :)

[a-train]

CK,

'Most non-LDS don't read the additional source texts LDS read.'

SHHHHHHH!!!!!

Don't give up the secret!!!!!!

'Are you suggesting that God had a hand in the murder of all but one of His 1st Century apostles?'

Amos 8:11 makes it clear that the famine of the word of the LORD would be sent by the LORD, not Satan.

A discussion about God's role in the death of any person could get lengthy. One could say: 'The LORD saved John miraculously at one time, He could do it any time. The Apostles gave their lives and not a moment before the LORD willed.' The other could say: 'The Apostles were hunted and murdered, they didn't get themselves killed. Satan's followers caught up with them!' Etc., Etc.

Regardless, Satan didn't destroy the Church, but she was carried away for a season (Rev. 12). Indeed, she was carried as on the wings of an eagle into the wilderness where she was nourished for a time, and times, and half of a time.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

One thing to consider on that CK is that although you also read the Bible, you read them in light of the other books.

Hence the need to read the LDS scriptures in addition to the Bible, to understand the light they cast on it.

a-train: Gotcha. 10-4.

[Dr T]

I have read them CK. Not studied, but read them and you are right; I don't know them well enough to have an intelligent conversation about them though.

[rehunter]

To be fair, I have personal copies of the BoM, D&C, and the PGP. Have I read them cover to cover? No. But tell of all the LDS you know, just how many have read all of the Quad? I have read the Bible cover to cover for what it’s worth.

I am willing to engage LDS on LDS topics regarding the LDS holy writ. However, as an “apostate” I cannot be expected to accept those teachings as truth when in my heart I do not believe them to be so.

The topic of this particular discussion was asking non-LDS or “traditional Christians” what they believed about the great apostasy. As a non-LDS I gave my best answer given the constraints of the question and my reliance on the Bible as the only text God used men to write. Given another discussion, I would happily engage in any esoteric bit of theology you might choose to drum up; but again, I can only give an account of what I believe as a Christian. To do otherwise would be to speak untruthfully.

I might also add that I am not here to pollute the waters so to speak. I am here because unlike some other LDS sites, this particular interface does not fear the unbeliever but engages with him or her without fear of reprisals to either party. That is where true spirituality exists. God cannot be contained in any box of our imagination and to shelter ourselves from the thoughts and ideas of others is to have small faith in the Gods either party worships.

So please, engage me on another topic and I will give account of my faith and you can give account of yours and let us each make up our own minds about what we believe. I look forward to further discussion :). God bless you.

[CrimsonKairos]

To be fair, the thread has turned a bit from the original intent...as far as my point about having a meeting of the minds scripturally speaking.

I don't think you're polluting any waters SoLD. Happy to have you here.

[a-train]

SOLD,

'Paul did not preach Peter'

Please, lets not have a shell game. Could a man having heard the Gospel directly from Peter himself, while Peter was yet alive, have rejected certain of his teachings and enter the LORD's fold debating against various precepts all the way? Could a man having heard Paul's preaching accept only a portion of it and come into the fold ardently defending the Mosiac Law even with all the exhortation of Paul? Will a 'true believer' and an 'orthodox Christian' be so if he chooses to dispute certain teachings of Peter and Paul? Your post didn't seem to answer this.

'There is only one source of salvation...'

I am unclear on your answer here. It sounds like you are saying that there are members of Christ's fold who don't believe precepts which are 'quite clear' in the Bible. Is this 'yes' or 'no'? Could a man in the time of the Apostles enter into the Church and body of Christ while attempting to correct the Apostles and rejecting their teachings in certain areas of doctrine and practice?

'The true believer knew and understood who the Messiah was because that was what the Old Testament proclaimed, regardless of what the Apostles taught.'

So, does this mean that we don't even need the Apostles at all? This has me totally confused. Are you saying that men received the Gospel without the Apostles? I am not following this.

'There is a very definite distinction...'

Wouldn't this 'distinction' make 'non-sectarians' guilty of the same divisive notion of which the various sects suffer, the notion that their particular understanding of the Gospel is correct and opposing opinions are incorrect? Don't you think the Catholics believe and say: 'I follow Christ, not some institution.'?

'When you say “The Catholics” are you speaking of that Church’s official stance..'

I mean the Catholic Authority's official stance and the Catholics who believe and support the notion. They believe and teach that they are the only true Church of Christ and the entire Protestant world is not part of the Church and will suffer damnation as a result. Now, they may love Protestants, no doubt, but they believe the Protestants are lost and their love is manifest in any effort they make to call the Protestants into the Church. Can the unified body of Christ have various members with conflicting beliefs that reject one another as a portion of the whole?

What was the message of Peter? Was it: 'Come out of the world and come unto Christ, enter into the LORD's kingdom and take upon you His wisdom and align yourself with His doctrine.'? or 'Go into the world establishing your own 'autonomous' congregations wherein you will preach your own doctrines.'?

All of my questions are the same single question. Can a man argue with the LORD's word through His servants and yet align himself with the Gospel?

-a-train

[rehunter]

"All of my questions are the same single question. Can a man argue with the LORD's word through His servants and yet align himself with the Gospel?"

In most cases I would say no. However, God's servants are not always in line with Scripture themselves, and so in some cases it might be better to "align oneself" with Scripture over God's servants. It is my belief that the Bible takes precedence over any human being, regardless of his or her station within the body of Christ. God's Word is infallible, unshakable, and ultimately more reliable than any fallen human being.

Take Peter, for example. Though Peter was a great man of God, there were times in Peter's ministry that it would have been great folly to follow his example over the Scriptures. The most notable time being when he denied Jesus three times. Now, a person removed from the immediate circle of Christ and His followers, given the choice between following Peter and following the Messiah would have been a fool to follow Peter even though such an action would put himself outside of Peter's authority.

There were also times in the early church that certain members of the body in Jerusalem were prone to taking an anti-Gentile approach to the spreading of the Gospel in favor of proselytizing Gentiles to make them Jews under the Law. This stance was anti-Biblical and not at all what was intended for the New Covenant. So the church compromised on the issue and decided that only very basic aspects of the Law needed to be complied with while the rest was considered to be liberated under Christ. This is all recorded in the book of Acts.

These are reasons why I follow the Bible first, and follow the institutions of men at a distant second. The church itself, as the body of Christ, is made by God, true; but the institutions called "churches" with their regulations that supersede the Bible are made by men. I follow God, not men.

[CrimsonKairos]

God works through men.

That's the Bible's central theme. God sends prophets/apostles to lead and teach His people.

But wait, I forgot, after Christ's ascension, God decided to stop what He had been doing since Adam's day...using men to lead and correct His people.

I guess we're so advanced or intelligent that we no longer need the guidance our hapless ancestors did. Pfffffffff, stupid ancestors.

[Dr T]

Pfffffffff, stupid ancestors.

I'd say it is different. They did not, as I said above, have the aid of the Holy Spirit. God did have apostles that were charged with an official mission. These men all experienced/saw Jesus. There is nobody today that has see Jesus. That makes me curious about the apostles. Just because it was done in one way, at one point in time, that does not mean that it continues. Just as we see the change in animal sacrifices. Do we continue this today? No; we don't. Again, "Pfffffffff, stupid ancestors." :)

[rehunter]

Not surprisingly, I agree with Dr. T on this one. I have Scripture back the claim, and it is found in the Old Testament when God was still using prophets to instruct His people. The prophet Jeremiah heard these words from the LORD in Jer. 31:31-34

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

There are several key aspects of this new covenant that are crucial to our understanding of our relationship with God through Jesus Christ. First, the new covenant is substantially different than the first. The old covenant was obedience to the Law, which men could not do. The new covenant is salvation through faith in Christ and His atonement having washed away the iniquity of those who believe.

Second, the new covenant is such that God will enable men to follow Him and His righteousness without others telling them what to do. What a liberation! To know that I can follow God with all my heart without somebody else telling me how to live. That I can read God's Word and have His Spirit indwell me such that I can understand the messages He communicates to me directly.

So, yes, I do believe we are living in a time substantially different than the way the Israelites lived. Scripture indicates that this time would come and it did so with the death and resurrection of our Lord. Of course, Jews today can experience the same liberation in Christ if they choose to believe in Him as their Messiah. The new covenant is open to all, just as the old covenant was.

I'm off to Bible study, have a wonderful afternoon all and God bless each and every one of you.

[CrimsonKairos]

I'd say it is different. They did not, as I said above, have the aid of the Holy Spirit

Where did you get that, Dr. T? I've never read that.

There is nobody today that has see [sic] Jesus.

I believe the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church have indeed seen Christ and stand as special witnesses of his literal resurrection. Theirs is a testimony born of the Holy Ghost's still small voice, and sealed by personal experience with the risen Savior.

[prisonchaplain]

1. How does your church understand the apostasy spoken of by Paul and others as having to happen before Christ comes again?

Most evangelicals believe there will be an apostate (false) one-world religion that will eventually lead people to worship the Antichrist, during the Tribulation. In other words, the apostacy is yet to come, and it will not completely stamp out true Christian faith. There will always be a remnant of true believers.

2. Why your church wasn't touched by that apostasy, or how did your church survive it if it already occurred?

Churches are always being challenged by heresy and corrupt practices. However, we believe the apostasy prophesied about relates to the Tribulation.

3. Do your churches have Priesthood authority? Do they feel it is necessary?

Most Baptist and evangelical Christians believe in "the priesthood of all believers." We are all to study Scripture, and to serve as mediators between God and those who need God. I suppose this is very similar to when your leaders exhort you with "Every member a missionary."

[CrimsonKairos]

Great to hear from you, PC. It's been awhile since I've seen you around. :)