- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It puts me in mind of the cowboy Jesus in Levi Peterson’s, The Backslider. Science contradicts itself on a regular basis. One week red wine’s good for you, the next it’s poison, and the next it’s good for you. That and certain foods being good and bad for you simultaneously.
SamBee wrote:Science contradicts itself on a regular basis. One week red wine’s good for you, the next it’s poison, and the next it’s good for you.
That and certain foods being good and bad for you simultaneously.
That’s not real science. In addition everything has a plus and minus to it. The question then becomes, does it do more harm then good. Without a wide varieties of study and imperial data that can be hard to put down. I find it weird that much like mitt Romney said himself. It takes intelligence to admit your wrong throw away your old beliefs and reevaluate them in light if new experience and evidence. That’s the mark of a true intelligent species. Constant adaptation to new experiences and environment and knowledge. It profit a man nothing to hold into old evidence, custom and beliefs. The process and progress should be a free flowing organic experience. There has yet to be any widely accepted theories and laws that have changed under the emu picas evidence model—only evolved as tools and data come in. As it should in any society or species that claims themselves intelligent or from intelligent godly parents.
But one thing many religions never talk about is that there is inherently good and bad or negative and positive in everything since they try to define in black and white. It’s just a equation of how much good or positive and how much negative or bad.
It’s the quest to constantly study and examine and experience and change and adapt to it as you move along naturally and organically in the learning process. I wouldn’t think we could really call ourselves children of god otherwise. That’s just the nature if becoming like god. Most but not all creatures don’t question there environment, but we and certain creatures like dolphins and orcas do. The sign to constantly question, experiment and ask ourselves what is our relation ship with everything around me?! How can I better adapt and progress I’m knowledge. It most certainly isn’t to stand firm in one place. But to constantly adapt to knew knowledge and experience. To experiment and think freely in all the infinite possibilities.
SamBee wrote:Science contradicts itself on a regular basis. One week red wine’s good for you, the next it’s poison, and the next it’s good for you.
That and certain foods being good and bad for you simultaneously.
That’s a good point. Though you could say the same thing about our religion, except that the conclusion on wine only changes every thousand years or so, not every week.
🙂 On Own Now wrote:Most people who have contemplated it have come to the conclusion that if Jesus were to come back to the earth today, he would approve of how they live their lives and would call everyone else to repentance. Just sayin’.
IMO, if, after some honest reflection, you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus would approve of how you live your life, you’re probably right, regardless of what ANYBODY else has to say about it. On the other hand, if you arrive at the conclusion that he would call everyone else (or ANYONE else) to repentance, you’re kind of missing the point and still have some more reflecting to do.
Unknown wrote:On Own Now wrote:Most people who have contemplated it have come to the conclusion that if Jesus were to come back to the earth today, he would approve of how they live their lives and would call everyone else to repentance. Just sayin’.
IMO, if, after some honest reflection, you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus would approve of how you live your life, you’re probably right, regardless of what ANYBODY else has to say about it. On the other hand, if you arrive at the conclusion that he would call everyone else (or ANYONE else) to repentance, you’re kind of missing the point and still have some more reflecting to do.
To you, they are missing the point. To them, you are missing the point. To me, there is no point to miss. We all have our own special sauce for interpretation of Jesus, and all of us have the tendency to think our recipe is the right one.I like your perception of Jesus. It makes sense. Mostly I like that you are allowed to have your own interpretation, and you’ve picked one that makes sense to you. But don’t be offended that I see no more value in your Jesus than the one that other people see, a version of Jesus that established the Church. Again, I mostly like that they are able to have THEIR own interpretation, and that they pick one that makes sense to them.
Just for the record, not trying to convince anyone… my personal belief is that Joshua of Nazareth didn’t have a lot in common with Jesus the Messiah that we read about in the Gospels. Because of this, I see the dispute over what Jesus was really like to be an exercise in personal interpretation with no connection to fact. So, for me, personal interpretation is all that matters, and I make allowances for a variety of interpretations. Did Jesus organize a Church? It depends on who you ask. We cannot know his intent and we have way too little information to make any kind of truly educated statement. All we can do is layer our assumptions onto the question and then come up with an answer that matches our assumptions. The great thing is that by doing so, everyone gets the answer they expected.
That’s science for sure. One study can suggest one thing, and another the reverse. Science progresses that way, frequently contradicting what it thought it knew. The idea that science is a united view is not true, it is generally a consensus based on certain data. Food X and drink Y may be good for fiber and digestion, but might also raise your blood pressure. Alcohol and tea are that way – good and bad features, but personally I don’t miss them.
Living the Word of Wisdom hasn’t made me incredibly healthy, but it does mean that certain long term health issues I had have cleared up within a short time. I had to explain to a board member exactly what some of these were, but I don’t wish to again.
And also I don’t have a sore head in the morning, or nasty flashbacks, or an STD/child from unprotected drunken sex… maybe not the last bit, but I know people who that happened to.
I, too agree that the Church as is organized today doesn’t look like what Christ himself organized. But IMO, to say he didn’t have a basic outline for his organization is to ignore the elephant in the room. To wit:
Quote:Ephesians 4:10 – 14
10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
This scripture most every missionary learns quickly looks quite anemic when compared to the bureaucracy we have today. The OT doesn’t doesn’t mention RS, MIA, Welfare Program, Seminary, and and certainly building committee, nor correlation committee. But the OT church didn’t have 15 million members in some 150 countries.The OT church did have basic offices like of apostles; and some, prophets evangelists pastors and teachers, as does the BofM after Christ visit to the Americas. They needed to maintain some sense of order and consistency of message as well as convey authority. That’s more than I can say for Protestantism today, that is rife with disputes and every manner of deviation from a consistent message. As much as I hate it, the co-orecaltion committee it does stay on message, even if it is just straight diet of milque toast.
I don’t think I ever said or implied that there wasn’t some organization during the time of Jesus, but the church today – even other than MIA, RS, etc., which clearly are modern innovations and not part of the mentioned building diagram – doesn’t really seem to be exactly the same as it was in Christ’s day, either. No where do the scriptures really say that Peter was a prophet, although there is the statement about the rock made by Christ to Peter and Peter was apparently given the sealing power. We call him the first prophet, and Catholics call him the first pope, but it looks like that’s based on tracing lineage more than anything (and it is questionable whether he was the actual leader of the church if there even was one leader). We can assume that since today’s apostles are all ordained prophets (at least we sustain them as such) that the ancient ones were also, but we don’t know that – we do know that not all of the original ones in our day were, although they are scripturally equal in power to the first presidency (which also did not originally consist of only apostles). The priests and high priests mentioned are Jewish priests and high priests, and elders and deacons are only mentioned post Christ. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but there does seem to have been an organization of some sort in the close followers of Christ during his life, a different (and expanded) organization after Christ’s death/resurrection, and an organization today which resembles the post Christ organization in some ways. Looking at what we’re taught about the organization of the church, it is more often taught as being organized the same as the primitive church than as the church Christ established. I believe it is erroneous to teach the latter, it does not appear that Jesus himself organized a church similar to the one that exists today, either in Jerusalem or in the New World.
And I suppose in the end it doesn’t really matter to my eternal salvation – I just have this thing about teaching things as doctrine, and more especially gospel, that aren’t.
I know I am late to this discussion and I have heard this same argument raised by many protestant ministers and members. I know what I am going to say will sound like the regular church mumbo jumbo, but I feel this can be backed up somewhat. I have to admit I have never really had an issue with Christ organizing a religion and our church organizing a religion today in following the same the pattern. My concerns have been more with some recent church policy that is ineffective or slow to change from the last several decades. I want to mention that the LDS church does not claim to replicate the exact organization as that of the bible, though it seems that way sometimes by showing similiarities to Christ’s early church as mentioned by other comments, but its does claim to be founded on the same thing the church of the NT is founded on and that is revelation. Guiding revelation allows a church to expand, add new callings as it grows, and make new policy changes just as Christ’s early church progressed and changed. For example, as the church got bigger they added seven assistants, one of them being Stephen. As the Lord saw it time to allow non-Israelites to enter the church, the revelation of the unclean vs clean animals was given to Peter being the head of the church. Anyway, keep in mind that we only have 6 of the 15 apostles who listed in the NT and most of the those only have 1 or 2 books books, the rest is Paul’s letters. Thought there is not an abundance of examples of Christ’s church in acts, there is enough that it is evident. For example Acts ch 1 talks about Peter addressing the disciples or church of Christ, soon after Christ ascension into heaven, which it says number about 120 people. At the end of Acts ch 2 after the day of Pentecost and the addition of 3,000 converts, it talks of the early Christians living with all things common among them and the last verse adds The Lord added to the church daily. Keep in mind that Paul did not do all of this work by himself as imply by one of the comments. In fact in 1 Corinthians, Paul rebukes them for trying to be a disciple of certain of the church leaders who had likely visited them. Paul reminds them this was not anyone of their churches and none of them could take credit “I planted, apollos watered, but the Lord gave the increase.” “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you”? Paul clarifying that the apostles were working in concert for the organization of the church. If the church was just optional and the organization not that big a deal than Paul would not have worked so hard to keep these branches of the church from apostasizing as he implies in many of letters. As likewise all of the apostles were out working hard and traveling to keep the church together, as evidenced by so many of the apostles being killed passing through Rome or cities outside of Jerusalem. Because of the limited information of the NT, we will only have so much info. I do have a problem with YM/YW, MIA, EQ, RS etc. We live in a lot different society than that of the early Christian and early day churches. For one thing, fathers were typically apprentices to their sons in Christ’s time and the father worked with the family on the family farm in Joseph Smith’s day, so the family naturally was together a lot more. The youth culture is an invention of the fifties and sixties and the fact that kids go to school later in life, hit puberty earlier and get married much later, lends to this gap of adolescence where youth are in contexts where they are around other youth more and with not much responsibility expected, job,ei. This and the fact that so many people today move away from their extended family, naturally the church groups are going to take on a little more significance so that people have a place they belong not just in our church but many or most churches in our country. For many, the church family is there only family. Do I believe every expansion of the Mormon church has been inspired, no. Do I believe every calling at Church was revealed, no, but I feel we have the basic pattern in place and the words of life, and most importantly the Priesthood and that is what is needed. DarkJedi wrote:I have given the idea that the LDS church is patterned after the church Jesus organized much thought over many years. Honestly, I don’t see that Jesus actually organized a church or that organizing a church – or starting a new religion – was even his aim. The only reference of any church service I see in the Bible is Jesus attending synagogue, and Jesus and his disciples apparently also followed Jewish traditions and kept Jewish holidays and rites. Other than the son of God part, Jesus generally taught Jewish doctrine, and I do note that Jesus didn’t actually say much (that we have recorded anyway) about himself being the son of God – it was mostly said by others. It is clear he did have apostles and that they did have a role in helping him do his work and they may have organized a church, but did Jesus actually do so? Are we teaching something that isn’t correct? Please understand I am not accusing the church of lying, if anything it’s another one of those things that just gets repeated and is eventually accepted as true.
I think the New Testament alone makes it crystal clear that Jesus organized a church. He called twelve apostles. He called “seventy” other special disciples. After the resurrection, he appeared to the apostles and directed them to go forth and baptize converts. He appeared to Paul. He appeared to Peter. He directed the apostles to begin baptizing gentiles into the church. He gave the apostles directions on the roles of bishops and elders.
In fact Jesus himself mentioned his church in Matthew 16: “and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (16:18).
Pretty much the only way to credibly deny that Jesus organized a church is to assume that the New Testament record is markedly inaccurate. If the New Testament is accurate–not inerrant, but essentially accurate–then one cannot avoid the conclusion that Jesus established a church and then guided that church for decades after the resurrection.
mikegriffith1 wrote:DarkJedi wrote:I have given the idea that the LDS church is patterned after the church Jesus organized much thought over many years. Honestly, I don’t see that Jesus actually organized a church or that organizing a church – or starting a new religion – was even his aim. The only reference of any church service I see in the Bible is Jesus attending synagogue, and Jesus and his disciples apparently also followed Jewish traditions and kept Jewish holidays and rites. Other than the son of God part, Jesus generally taught Jewish doctrine, and I do note that Jesus didn’t actually say much (that we have recorded anyway) about himself being the son of God – it was mostly said by others. It is clear he did have apostles and that they did have a role in helping him do his work and they may have organized a church, but did Jesus actually do so? Are we teaching something that isn’t correct? Please understand I am not accusing the church of lying, if anything it’s another one of those things that just gets repeated and is eventually accepted as true.
I think the New Testament alone makes it crystal clear that Jesus organized a church. He called twelve apostles. He called “seventy” other special disciples. After the resurrection, he appeared to the apostles and directed them to go forth and baptize converts. He appeared to Paul. He appeared to Peter. He directed the apostles to begin baptizing gentiles into the church. He gave the apostles directions on the roles of bishops and elders.
In fact Jesus himself mentioned his church in Matthew 16: “and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
I’m not sure you read the whole thread here, but yes, I agree there was an organization and perhaps a bigger better organization after the death of Jesus. Those two organizations do not appear to match precisely. Did Jesus’ church have deacons, teachers, and priests in the same way we know them, if at all? There are several differences between the three (his organization, the apostles’ organization, and the modern organization). All I’m saying here is maybe we shouldn’t go around teaching people our church was based on his when that’s not clearly the case.
DarkJedi wrote:mikegriffith1 wrote:DarkJedi wrote:I have given the idea that the LDS church is patterned after the church Jesus organized much thought over many years. Honestly, I don’t see that Jesus actually organized a church or that organizing a church – or starting a new religion – was even his aim. The only reference of any church service I see in the Bible is Jesus attending synagogue, and Jesus and his disciples apparently also followed Jewish traditions and kept Jewish holidays and rites. Other than the son of God part, Jesus generally taught Jewish doctrine, and I do note that Jesus didn’t actually say much (that we have recorded anyway) about himself being the son of God – it was mostly said by others. It is clear he did have apostles and that they did have a role in helping him do his work and they may have organized a church, but did Jesus actually do so? Are we teaching something that isn’t correct? Please understand I am not accusing the church of lying, if anything it’s another one of those things that just gets repeated and is eventually accepted as true.
I think the New Testament alone makes it crystal clear that Jesus organized a church. He called twelve apostles. He called “seventy” other special disciples. After the resurrection, he appeared to the apostles and directed them to go forth and baptize converts. He appeared to Paul. He appeared to Peter. He directed the apostles to begin baptizing gentiles into the church. He gave the apostles directions on the roles of bishops and elders.
In fact Jesus himself mentioned his church in Matthew 16: “and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
I’m not sure you read the whole thread here, but yes, I agree there was an organization and perhaps a bigger better organization after the death of Jesus. Those two organizations do not appear to match precisely. Did Jesus’ church have deacons, teachers, and priests in the same way we know them, if at all? There are several differences between the three (his organization, the apostles’ organization, and the modern organization). All I’m saying here is maybe we shouldn’t go around teaching people our church was based on his when that’s not clearly the case.
If you consider the entire body of early Christian evidence, and not just the New Testament, then the resemblance between the restored church and the ancient church is remarkable. The NT does not give us every detail about church organization, nor was it ever intended to do so–not to mention the fact that we know for an absolute fact that our current NT contains fewer books than the ancient one did. But we also have the writings of bishops and elders who wrote between around AD 90 until the apostasy was in full flower–and if we use the additional information about the church found in those sources, the LDS Church emerges as the closest parallel to the ancient church.
Just one example: There are a few early Christian references to “high priests,” although nothing is said about their role. We also have plenty of references to “teachers” in early Christian sources. We have ample information from ante-Nicene sources that early Christian bishops were not paid, and that when the idea of a paid clergy was introduced, old-time bishops found it somewhat shocking. We have records about early Christian bishops being “sustained” by a vote of their congregation. Etc., etc., etc.
Now, naturally, the Lord can alter the roles and qualifications for offices in his church as the church expands and as conditions change. The early church was a fraction of the size of the restored church. Whereas the early church had one group of “seventy,” the restored church now has eight. In the ancient church, deacons were men, whereas early in the restoration the Lord altered the age requirement for that office.
mikegriffith1 wrote:then one cannot avoid the conclusion that Jesus established a church and then guided that church for decades after the resurrection.
mikegriffith1 wrote:But we also have the writings of bishops and elders who wrote between around AD 90 until the apostasy was in full flower–and if we use the additional information about the church found in those sources, the LDS Church emerges as the closest parallel to the ancient church.
Hi Mike, I grant you that there are some similarities between the primitive Christian church and the LDS model. There are also some indicators that Jesus established a church (as opposed to attempting to reform Judiasm, or being an itinerant minister with a following, or any of the other possibilities). You can use those pieces of evidence to support your conclusions.
I would only ask that you also acknowledge that there are points of evidence that do not support and may even contradict your conclusions. Other people have just as much validity in gathering those pieces of evidence to support their conclusions as you do in boltering your own.
I think that in order to be successful here at StayLDS, one must approach discussions with the understanding that there are usually multiple logical, rational, and yet equally valid perspectives to each issue.
Roy wrote:I think that in order to be successful here at StayLDS, one must approach discussions with the understanding that there are usually multiple logical, rational, and yet equally valid perspectives to each issue.
Truer words have not been spoken.
That said, Mike, please do understand that I have made a distinction between the church during the lifetime of Jesus and that which existed during the time of the leadership of the apostles and thereafter. I think the apostles had to have a stronger and different organization than that which existed when Jesus was actually teaching because the church was larger in numbers and much larger geographically. Also, almost all of the membership of the church during the time of Jesus were Jews, but under the leadership of the apostles Gentiles became a big part of it. I think the historical data you refer to describes the church of the apostles much more than the church of Jesus’ lifetime, and the greatest evidence for the church of the apostles actually exists in Catholicism. In other words, there is a difference in the ‘primitive” church under the leadership of the apostles and their successors and the church that actually existed during the lifetime of Jesus. In church teachings they are often referred to as one in the same, but they are clearly not. My issue is that some people in the church teach that the church is organized just like it was by Jesus. Others use the term “primitive church” which I have less of an issue with.
In closing, and building on what Roy said, these forums aren’t a place to dig in our heals argue about points of history, doctrine, or policy. There are other palces to do that. Discussion of different points of view here are great, and I value the great diversity of opinion that can be found here. I realize I’m sounding like a moderator and I’m not, but I am aware of common forum decorum and etiquette here. I also tend find value in the opinions of others here by knowing where they’re doming from. I have read the introductions of all of the regular participants, and sometimes it has been very helpful to realize what brought them to the point where they are. We all have similarities here, but we also all have differences. You just jumped in here, which is OK, but how about introducing yourself?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.