Jesus and the ancient church

[_harmony]

Loran said in another thread:

I don't think it would be accurate to say the Jesus was a member of the Mormon church. It would be more accurate to say that his children are members of his church, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the present day manifestation, or organized visible community, authoritatively representing his gospel and plan of salvation. This church has had different names and even very different practices and doctrinal imperatives (the Law of Moses) in different times and places, but all are instances or manifestations of the same gospel, which, in LDS theology, are known more or less, in different dispensations among disparate peoples.

Some comments and questions:

1. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, not a Mormon. Yet you say Jesus' church is the same as the ancient church (different practice, different laws, but the same church). So are you saying the Jews are Christian?

2. We are not Jesus' children. We are Father's children, the same as Jesus is a Son of God, and thus one of his children. It would not be more accurate to say anything about "his [Jesus] children", except the children in his direct line (of which we have no record; we don't even have a record of Jesus being married).

3. What exactly do you think the gospel contains? What, if anything, has changed?

4. If the laws and practices change with each dispensation to be culturally competent, how can it be accurate to say it's the same church?

5. Why does the modern church not look at all like the records we have of the ancient church? That which Joseph restored bears little if any resemblance to what Jesus created.

6. If Jesus' church was Moses' church, and the two are diametrically opposite, why do you think they are manifestations of the same concept?

[_Coggins7]

Some comments and questions:

1. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, not a Mormon. Yet you say Jesus' church is the same as the ancient church (different practice, different laws, but the same church). So are you saying the Jews are Christian?

2. We are not Jesus' children. We are Father's children, the same as Jesus is a Son of God, and thus one of his children. It would not be more accurate to say anything about "his [Jesus] children", except the children in his direct line (of which we have no record; we don't even have a record of Jesus being married).

3. What exactly do you think the gospel contains? What, if anything, has changed?

4. If the laws and practices change with each dispensation to be culturally competent, how can it be accurate to say it's the same church?

5. Why does the modern church not look at all like the records we have of the ancient church? That which Joseph restored bears little if any resemblance to what Jesus created.

6. If Jesus' church was Moses' church, and the two are diametrically opposite, why do you think they are manifestations of the same concept?

Now, on another thread, you stated:

I'm an active, tithe-paying, temple-recommend-holding, calling-carrying, sacrament-taking member in good standing.

If this is the case, and if I give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claims of active church membership, then I'm just wondering why you're asking me the above questions, when any active, Temple recommed holding, calling carrying, sacrament taking member, who's has ever seriously studied and educated themselves on the doctrines of the church, would ask another long term member these questions, the answers to most of which, are fairly easy to elucidate and indeed, rather basic.

You claim to be someone with an advanced degree, a college education, and a long term, active member, and yet you're asking me to explain things like how the Law of Moses and the New Testament church, or the modern church, can all be different as to practices, ritural, or doctrinal emphasis and still be instances of the same
core gospel system. You claim that the LDS church doesn't look anything like the New Testament church Christ created (a patently false clam, from the perspective of a vast plethora of early chruch documents, including the New Testament and early church Fathers). Where did I say the Law of Moses was in diametric opposition to the New Testament chruch? I said its practices and docrinal imperatives were different.

If you're everything your Mormon credentials claim for you, then either I'm the Easter Bunny (and I just may be), or you have claws you're not showing.

One clarification. I didn't mean to say we are Jesus' children (although we are in a spiritual sense, and Chrsit can be thought of as the Father through divine investiture of authority). I meant we are the Father's children. That was an error in composition.


Loran

[_harmony]

If this is the case, and if I give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claims of active church membership, then I'm just wondering why you're asking me the above questions, when any active, Temple recommed holding, calling carrying, sacrament taking member, who's has ever seriously studied and educated themselves on the doctrines of the church, would ask another long term member these questions, the answers to most of which, are fairly easy to elucidate and indeed, rather basic.

My status is not the subject of this thread. Please stay on task and stop trying to create rabbit holes to derail the thread.

You claim to be someone with an advanced degree, a college education, and a long term, active member, and yet you're asking me to explain things like how the Law of Moses and the New Testament church, or the modern church, can all be different as to practices, ritural, or doctrinal emphasis and still be instances of the same
core gospel system.

Is there a question or even a comment pertinent to the subject of the thread in there? If so, please rephrase, without the personal side comment.

You claim that the LDS church doesn't look anything like the New Testament church Christ created (a patently false clam, from the perspective of a vast plethora of early chruch documents, including the New Testament and early church Fathers).

Please document what you're talking about. A list of similiar practices would be acceptable.

Right now, I see more differences than similiarities. For example, the early church was not involved in business dealings at all. I want to see some documentation about early church financial dealings, deeds for land purchased, contracts, etc. if you believe they were involved in that sort of thing. (And by the early church, I mean the church Christ started, not the church Constantine created). The early church was concerned with perfecting the Saints; the modern church is concerned with getting richer and staying rich.

Where did I say the Law of Moses was in diametric opposition to the New Testament chruch?

You didn't. Christ did.

I said its practices and docrinal imperatives were different.

And different practices and doctrinal imperatives = different church. The Law of Moses was part of the Jewish church, not the New Testament church created by Christ.

If you're everything your Mormon credentials claim for you, then either I'm the Easter Bunny (and I just may be), or you have claws you're not showing.

I suspect both or neither, depending on the day.

One clarification. I didn't mean to say we are Jesus' children (although we are in a spiritual sense, and Chrsit can be thought of as the Father through divine investiture of authority). I meant we are the Father's children. That was an error in composition.

A pretty big error, and one you didn't catch until I pointed it out.