Growing Up LDS--Things We *Didn't* Care About Then

[_Runtu]

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.

That was my point earlier.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I agree with you as far as what I like to call becoming sanctified and developing the divine attributes. Orthoprxy per say. But there are teachings in the LDS Church and any church that make up doctrine and are not just whatever the spirit tells you.

[_harmony]

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.

And just because you (or a few of the ancients) believed it was right doesn't make it so.

[_harmony]

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.

I agree with you as far as what I like to call becoming sanctified and developing the divine attributes. Orthoprxy per say. But there are teachings in the LDS Church and any church that make up doctrine and are not just whatever the spirit tells you.

If those teachings are true, the spirit will tell you. That is Moroni's promise.

[_rcrocket]

We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."

A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.

rcrocket

[_harmony]

We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."

A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.

rcrocket

I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.

[_Jason Bourne]

We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."

A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.

rcrocket

I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.

You follow what you think Jesus tells you but you may be wrong.

[_harmony]

I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.

You follow what you think Jesus tells you but you may be wrong.

Of course. And then it is my fault, and I will pay whatever price there may be for being wrong. But at least I won't blame someone else for leading me astray and I will have trusted my own inspiration and my own judgment.

[_rcrocket]

We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."

A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.

rcrocket

I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.

All I was doing was responding to your claim that the "ancient church members" did not follow "Peter James or John," and I have demonstrated to you that such was indeed core policy of the Church. The Church was not organized during Jesus' lifetime.

[_harmony]

We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."

A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.

rcrocket

I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.

All I was doing was responding to your claim that the "ancient church members" did not follow "Peter James or John," and I have demonstrated to you that such was indeed core policy of the Church. The Church was not organized during Jesus' lifetime.

crock, since the Church was not organized during Christ's lifetime, how could following Peter, James, and John be a core policy of the Church, since they were his contemporaries?

The ancient church was the Jewish church. The Jews followed God, not Peter, James, and John. Heck, they didn't even follow Jesus. Those who followed Christ were still Jews, albeit nonconventional. What they didn't do was follow Peter, James, and John. Peter, James, and John and the rest of the 12 followed Christ. They didn't stand between Christ and his followers. They stood with his followers.