Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets

[Dave]

So, you are re-establishing the correct interpretation of the Bible? DAVEH:  No, that is not what I said, or implied....but now that you have mentioned it, I do believe the restoration does have that effect.   I can see where post Biblical revelations have made interpreting the Bible in some places much easier. Now,  if you claim there is no difference,  then why additional scripture? DAVEH:  I think you are putting words in my mouth, Bishop.   I do not recall claiming there is no difference.  If I did so, would you please quote my statement.   If I did not make that claim, I would appreciate you not continuing to suggest I did.  FTR....I think I inferred that continuing revelation allows for differences. how do you know that you have "restored"  anything?  DAVEH:  The same way you know Jesus is your Savior, John.   However, your question doesn't exactly make sense, from a technical perspective.   The you is not me, nor is it JS...or the LDS Church.  The you you are referring to is Jesus, and those he commissioned to do the work.  That may not make much sense to you, but to LDS folks it is a technical detail of significant importance. Who, pray tell, do you regard as a representative of Portestantism on this forum? DAVEH:   Collectively, it seems most of you are in the same doctrinal boat, which is rooted in Protestant dogma.  Individually, I would guess that few of you would feel very comfortable in a Protestant setting.   If I were to speculate, I would tend to think that most TTers are too independent to fit into a denominational sect for very long.   Which is maybe why there is such a negative reaction whenever TTers think I'm labeling them as Protestant.  Could intellectual arrogance be a factor?  Do some TTers find mainstream pastors to be to dogmatic, and competitive?   Perhaps there is room for only one pastor in a traditional setting, and too many chiefs in a tribe just doesn't work in Protestantism.  This is certainly an area of Protestantism that fascinates me, but I suspect it is too sensitive to discuss with most TTers. To  conveniently  refuse to consider the thinking of the "fringe" is to  avoid dealing with the difficult issues and to ignore the millions of Christian participants who actually work most fervently against Mormonism DAVEH:   It is not that I refuse to chat with the fringe, but rather their input is much less important to me.  Being on the fringe, would suggest their thinking is slightly (or perhaps greatly) out of whack with mainstream Protestant thought....which is where the focus of my interest is rooted.          As for finding those who work most fervently against Mormonism, they can be found anywhere, in or out of mainstream Protestantism.  Their perspective does not particularly interest me either, regardless of where they are rooted. I have been told countless times that Mormonism is about the restoration of the "primitive church." DAVEH:  I don't know who told you what, John.  So it is difficult for me to explain what you may have heard, or rather what you may have heard and misunderstood.     There is a cause and effect relationship in the restoration.  Was it LDS people who told you about the restoration?  Or....did you hear it from anti-Mormons?     Assuming you've heard the restoration explanation from LDS sources, what did they exactly say was first restored to JS?  Do you recall John the Baptist, or Peter-James & John ordaining JS?  As I understand, that represented some of the first things restored....the priesthood authority.  Did you understand that something else was first restored, that is not a part of the Primitive Church?   Or...specifically, what part of the Primitive Church do you think should have been restored that was not restored? The fact is, the two concepts are extremely different.   DAVEH:  OK.....I'll bite.  Give me some examples, please. Upon what basis would you make such a decision? DAVEH:  That which the Lord reveals to me.  Isn't that how you would make an important decision about your spiritual welfare?   Or, do you simply trust those who want to grind their ax.... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most current posting form jd Not what I said at all.  I spoke of additional scripture.  No need for more if it was right to start with. DAVEH:   You are losing me, JD.........are you now saying the heavens are open to further revelation?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth....just trying to find out what you believe about the possibility of current revelations from God to his prophets for the benefit of all his people.  Do you believe the heavens are open, or closed?  I believe the apostles presented us with the teachings of Christ and their function has been fulfilled.   No new scripture.      To continue beyond that point, even if your theory is correct (No need for more if it was right to start with), couldn't there still be a need for continued revelation to clarify the parts of the Bible that are being misinterpreted?  Our (LDS) perspective is that it was correctly revealed in times past, but then corrupted and the priesthood authority was lost.  Hence, the need for a restoration as is inferred by Paul......So, you are re-establishing the correct interpretation of the Bible?  Are you saying that the Mormon church is the embodiment of excathedra interpretation?  [Acts 3:19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; [20] And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: [21] Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Mormons are restoring a church that does not exist in First Church scripture or history !!! DAVEH:  I think you vastly do not understand the nature of the LDS resto ration, Bishop.  What is it that you think we restored that was not existent in the Primitive Church?  You might take the Book of Acts and the epistles that were written during its history (which would include all the works of Paul and Peter) ,  and compare the picture of that church to the Mormon church.   Now,  if you claim there is no difference,  then why additional scripture?  And we do know what the First Church was designed to be  --  because of these scriptures.  Even Mormons have to agree with this. DAVEH:   I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, JD.then how do you know that you have "restored"  anything?  leave off the Mormon rhetoric  "Protestants." Several of us have objected to the use of this w ord..  I do also. & nbsp;I am not a Protestant........just a Christian.  So take me out of that little box and think that you are talking to someone who is not defending a particular liturgy or denominational history. DAVEH:  That's my interest in being in TT, John.  I really don't have a lot of interest in knowing how the fringe elements of Christianity think.  It is the Protestant element that has piqued my curiosity.  If that bothers you....I will understand why you don't continue discussing Protestantism with me.  Who, pray tell, do you regard as a representative of Portestantism on this forum?   To  conveniently  refuse to consider the thinking of the "fringe" is to  avoid dealing with the difficult issues and to ignore the millions of Christian participants who actually work most fervently against Mormonism. &n bsp; If you are RESTORING the First Chruch,  then I would expect the Mormon church to be the same as the First Church. DAVEH:   What you are apparently missing on this is the priesthood authority, John.  It is the restoration of the PA that we believe is the key element of the restoration.   I have been told countless times that Mormonism is about the restoration of the "primitive church."  Now,  I find out that this is not the case.  That is really about PA.  Of course, this must be the issue for you, in view of the fact that the First and PreApostate chruch is not the same as the Momon church.  I don't mean to be insulting.   The fact is, the two concepts are extremely different.          I am asking you to speculate  -  as you did with your questions about A & E DAVEH:  OK Bishop......this is your original question....... if we dug up some document that made it clear the Mormon church was no longer in the good graces of God.  How would you respond? DAVEH:  For anti-Mormons to dig up documents discrediting the LDS Church is hardly a unique event, nor one that would particularly influence me.  I've found their good judgment is exceeded by the influence of their biases, and I rarely concern myself by what they dig up.  IF on the other hand, God were to reveal to me that the LDS Church is no longer in his good graces, then I would defer to his will.   I am truly happy for the correct intent on your part.   Upon what basis would you make such a decision?  ;   -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.