rcrocket wrote: My legal work involves the representation of religious organizations in First Amendment issues (establishment clause, typically). So, I get to meet and associate with men (always men) in what we would call "general authority" positions in other religions, although some of the religions I represent are diffuse without a lot of centralization.
The one thing I see in my relationships with truly good people is how the Spirit works among them, the good they accomplish, and the struggles they overcome to be Christians (or in one of my cases, good Hindus). I also see a lot of evil people -- those who are predators, those who are defamers, those who destroy families for pure sexual pleasure. These types typically do not find themselves long in the pinnacles of power in the religions I represent.
The Spirit transcends the LDS Church. But, the priesthood of God resides only within the LDS Church structure, so when the Spirit works among men it works in such a way that the Lord's objectives are advanced.
If you say that Spirit has told you that the Church is not for you, and you should not be a part of it, will then follow what you are told if you believe it. But be courageous, and follow your convictions rather than sit eternally on the fence in a place like this. I know that being lukewarm is bad in and of itself.
rcrocket
Yeah, my ancestor was excommunicated for being "lukewarm." I hope I'm not a fencesitter. I don't know where my path will lead me, but I am comfortable with my own decisions at this point in my life. I don't know if I'd say the spirit has led me anywhere, but my conscience has.
wenglund wrote:Having, myself, come of age during the 70's and 80"s, and having participated in apologetics during and since that time, I haven't noticed a "protestantizing" of my own beliefs, or the Church's for that matter. Granted, I have noticed some shifts in the my own apologetics over time, but that was more a function of the change I encountered in kinds of criticism directed towards the Church. Using a fencing metaphor, different argumentational thrusts necessitate different argumentational parries.
It is possible, though, that I may be the exception rather than the rule, but from what I have observed, I am not.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I certianly think that with the popularity of books like Stephen Robinson's Believing Christ and Following Christ and books by Millet such as Grace Works, there has been more of an amphasis on grace, justification by grave, the Book of Mormon teachings on Grace and so forth then I ever heard growing up in this era.
Jason Bourne wrote:Actually Paul often admonsihed his flock to follow him and what he taught. The idea of apostles and other leaders having authority in the Church is quite doctrinal in the New Testament.
I would agree with you. The earliest writings of the Church Fathers indicate their feelings that one could not be a faithful Christian without obeying the priesthood structure above them. As the Didache (one of the earliest writings) stated: "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, truthful, and tested; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Do not despise them, therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers." 7.381.
Jason Bourne wrote:Actually Paul often admonsihed his flock to follow him and what he taught. The idea of apostles and other leaders having authority in the Church is quite doctrinal in the New Testament.
I would agree with you. The earliest writings of the Church Fathers indicate their feelings that one could not be a faithful Christian without obeying the priesthood structure above them. As the Didache (one of the earliest writings) stated: "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, truthful, and tested; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Do not despise them, therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers." 7.381.
Just because it's ancient doesn't mean it's right.
The first discussion presents the Mormon Doctrine of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and finishs with a discussion on The First Vision and the Book of Mormon.
Joseph Smith used to have to urge the early missionaries to not teach the deep doctrines, but to keep it simple. It is the teaching style of Christ to teach from the point that is already understood. If that means teaching Christ to the EV's as they understand it, and then building upon that point then so-be-it. But the First Vision will always be taught, and that in itself declares the Fatehr to be a literal Father and the Son to be the literal Son, how is that in any way bowing to false beliefs?
Gaz
When I was a missionary, the First Vision and the restoration didn't come in until the third discussion. I'd say Don has a point.
Yes this was a change for a time but it is back at the start now.
When I was a missionary we emphasized how different and special we were. The FV was the first thing we taugh. Apostasy right after. All other Churches were wrong and we were the true Church. Shortly after my mission the lessons started with the Godhead and emphasized that we like all of Christianity believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The lessons were more what we shared then what we did not. I think the new Preach My Gospel manual is getting more back to what it used to be.
rcrocket wrote:But the reality of Christianity is that doctrine does not persist "per se." The essential message of Jesus Christ is that one's relationship with the Spirit yields doctrine. Without the Spirit, there is no "doctrine."
John 7:17 (King James Version) "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."
The problem, of course, is that the word "doctrine" is thrown around in a venacular sense (much like the word "salvation") which does not bear upon an understanding of true doctrine.
The canon, statements by dead and living prophets, and good secular books all contribute to an understanding of the "doctrine," but the only "doctrine" that counts is written upon our hearts. 2 Corinthians 3:3: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."
Paul was real clear that doctrine is not found in written things, but in the "fleshy tables of the heart."
McConkie (oh, how can I quote from him) in "Mormon Doctrine," after explaining for a page the sources of doctrine, finally concedes: "In the final analysis the truth of doctrine can only be known by revelation gained as as result of obedience." Mormon Doctrine, p. 205.
So, all the offense you take to what was told to you in the Salt Lake valley; the things withheld from you; the bufoons who served you as Bishop and the rings you ran around your bishop while yet a youngster; the claimed dissembling by Pres. Hinckley on national television; all is meaningless hot air and the musings of a superior one. What is meaningful is what the Spirit whispers to you is doctrine.
rcrocket
I think this conclusion that you come to here as well as brining up in the past is really your own innovation based on a few passages of scripture. Doctrine is certianly more then what the spirit tells you it is. What you think the spirit tells you and what someone else thinks the spirit tells them is often different. A religion certianly does have a set of things, ideas, teachings etc, that makes up there standard of measurment of what they claim are true teachings about God. What you advovacate here is no more then some esoteric idea that ultimatly leads to spirtual anarchy.
Jason Bourne wrote: I think this conclusion that you come to here as well as brining up in the past is really your own innovation based on a few passages of scripture. Doctrine is certianly more then what the spirit tells you it is. What you think the spirit tells you and what someone else thinks the spirit tells them is often different. A religion certianly does have a set of things, ideas, teachings etc, that makes up there standard of measurment of what they claim are true teachings about God. What you advovacate here is no more then some esoteric idea that ultimatly leads to spirtual anarchy.
I don't know. If the spirit is teaching all humans, wouldn't you expect that, even if you perceived it as "anarchy," if everyone followed the spirit, everyone would be fulfilling God's will for them?
Jason Bourne wrote:I think this conclusion that you come to here as well as brining up in the past is really your own innovation based on a few passages of scripture. Doctrine is certianly more then what the spirit tells you it is. What you think the spirit tells you and what someone else thinks the spirit tells them is often different. A religion certianly does have a set of things, ideas, teachings etc, that makes up there standard of measurment of what they claim are true teachings about God. What you advovacate here is no more then some esoteric idea that ultimatly leads to spirtual anarchy.
True Christianity is not about some person telling you what to believe and what not to believe. We are exhorted to believe in a particular way, but the doctrine must be writ upon our hearts. There would not be spiritual anarchy because the Spirit works the way He wants.
Jason Bourne wrote:Actually Paul often admonsihed his flock to follow him and what he taught. The idea of apostles and other leaders having authority in the Church is quite doctrinal in the New Testament.
I would agree with you. The earliest writings of the Church Fathers indicate their feelings that one could not be a faithful Christian without obeying the priesthood structure above them. As the Didache (one of the earliest writings) stated: "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, truthful, and tested; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Do not despise them, therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers." 7.381.
Just because it's ancient doesn't mean it's right.
Just because you think it is wrong does not make it so.
Jason Bourne wrote: I think this conclusion that you come to here as well as brining up in the past is really your own innovation based on a few passages of scripture. Doctrine is certianly more then what the spirit tells you it is. What you think the spirit tells you and what someone else thinks the spirit tells them is often different. A religion certianly does have a set of things, ideas, teachings etc, that makes up there standard of measurment of what they claim are true teachings about God. What you advovacate here is no more then some esoteric idea that ultimatly leads to spirtual anarchy.
I don't know. If the spirit is teaching all humans, wouldn't you expect that, even if you perceived it as "anarchy," if everyone followed the spirit, everyone would be fulfilling God's will for them?
Yes it would seem so in theory. But in practive there are a lot of folks out there that think the Spirit is directing them and they have a lot of different ideas about truth.