You give these words as a defense: couldn't
there still be a need for continued revelation to clarify the parts of
the Bible that are being misinterpreted? Revelation that "clarifies" parts of the
Bible that are being misinterpreted
is just what you said, unless, of course, you believe that
Mormon
"revelation has not solved the misterpretive problems!
DAVEH: While that is correct, that is not what I had tried to convey
in my previous answer to you. I don't know if that makes sense,
John....but I was merely trying to explain myself.
As I see it, the purpose of the restoration is not to re-establish-- the correct interpretation of the Bible,
but rather to bring the power of the priesthood back to earth. The
fact that re-establishing the
correct interpretation of the Bible, is a side
benefit, not the primary reason for the restoration. I hope that makes
some sense....
So, FTR, which is it? Is the Mormon
churc h the Restored church or not. If not, then you
are forced to the conclusion that God Himself did not get it right the
first time or He would not have done it differently the second time.
Big problem !!
DAVEH: I think you continue to misunderstand, but that's OK John. If
it is a big problem for you, don't lose any sleep over it. It isn't a
big problem for LDS people who understand the nature of the priesthood
and the restoration. From our perspective, that there may be
differences between the restored Church and the Primitive Church really
aren't relevant, due to the nature of the restoration. We believe the
Church evolves (so to speak) as the Lord directs it to change due to
how he wants the gospel to be implemented. Again....I don't know that
that will make much sense to you, but it does to LDS people.
HOW DO YOU MORMO
N FOLK KNOW YOU HAVE RESTORED ANYTHING??
DAVEH: Faith.
As I have indicated before,
"Protestant" is a box Mormons used to label all who are not Mormon but
claim some knowledge of Christ.
DAVEH: I think you are making wild guess now, Pastor. I certainly
don't think that way, nor can I imagine any other LDS folks who would
make such a blanket statement.....which is patently in error, as it
does not exclude the RCC folks when you said all who are not Mormon but
claim some knowledge of Christ.
That is exactly why you cannot bring
yourself to discontinue it use.........They, too, do not understand the usage
of the word they have chosen to use and continue with the word in spite
of opposing objection.
DAVEH: I can't speak for how and why others have used the liberal
term on TT, but I do know why I use it. To me, it is the focus of my
interest here. If you don't want to hear me use it in the future,
please refrain from responding to my posts. (And, yes....I realize
that I jumped onto your wagon in this instance.) But, if you can't
answer my questions from a Protestant perspective, then you answers
won't be nearly as pertinent to my interests as if a true Protestant
were to respond. As I said before, I don't find the fringe elements to
be nearly as interesting as the mainstream Protestant perspective.
Then, why in the world do you
remain on this site?
DAVEH: I hope to glean some Protestant thought here. I think I've
done a fair amount of that over the years, but it is becoming more
difficult all the time, as it seems many of the TTers who are not
ashamed of their Protestant roots are driven off eventually. There may
be a few left....I don't know.....What do you think, John? Do you
think all the TTers left now are whacko???
I am not going to take time to
research this, but such is the reason for your existence.
DAVEH: You've kinda lost me on that one, Bishop.
Why your use of "primitive
CHURCH" and "apostasy" as applied to the church. Because the Mormon
church is the restoration of the primitive church. Are you telling me
that I cannot find this idea expressed within Mormon literature?
DAVEH: I have a personal reason for my use of the term, primitive
CHURCH. No, I'm not telling you that you
cannot find the idea of a restoration of the Church in LDS literature.
Quite the opposite, one of our Articles of Faith says.......
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive
Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and
so forth.
.......However, please don't assume that means we don't believe that
change is necessary, useful or never suggested by the Lord. But, as I
read your comments, I get the distinct feeling that you really don't
understand the nature of the restoration and how it relates to the
priesthood. And...I've also got the feeling that I will not be able to
convey to you that distinction.
We have a record of the First
Church. "Priestly authority," as you use the term is not a part of
that church.
DAVEH: FTR.......Not only did I NEVER use the term Priestly authority,
I'm not even sure what it means. Please do not put words in my mouth,
John. If you want to quote me, fine....I'm OK with exact quote. But
please do not attribute things to me as a direct quote IF I did not say
it.
"Ward" is not a part of that
church.
DAVEH: I don't think it was a part of the Latter-Day Church at the
time it was restored either. That's the point I've been trying to make
with you, John. The Church evolves as it is found expedient. The key
to the restoration is found in the priesthood authority, which as we
define it is the authority to act in behalf of the Lord.
Certainly my faith is a
personal matter, but I actually have a fairly involved hermeneutic and
the highest of regard for the biblical record and the continuing
history that has attached itself to those scriptures.
DAVEH: I'm sure your knowledge of the Bible exceeds mine by a
significant factor, JD. And, I respect you for your intellectual
knowledge. In contrast, I tend to rely more on my simple faith.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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. You give these words as a defense: couldn't
there still be a need for continued revelation to clarify the parts of
the Bible that are being misinterpreted? Revelation that "clarifies" parts of the
Bible that are being misinterpreted
is just what you said, unless, of course, you believe that
Mormon
"revelation has not solved the misterpretive problems!
&nbs
p;
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. Sorry. I have been told by many Mormons that the
reason for their existence, the reason why God spoke to JS had to do
with apostasy of the "primitive church," Mormonism being the
restoration of that church. If you are now saying that this is not the
case, well and good. So,
FTR, which is it? Is the Mormon churc h the Restored church or not.
If not, then you
are forced to the conclusion that God Himself did not get it right the
first time or He would not have done it differently the second time.
Big problem !!
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. Let
me restate: if you cannot find the pattern within the pages of thos e
scriptures that pre-date the Apostasy, HOW DO YOU MORMO
N FOLK KNOW YOU HAVE RESTORED ANYTHING??
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 ce rtainly an area of Protestantism that
fascinates me, but I suspect it is too sensitive to discuss with most
TTers. As I have indicated before,
"Protestant" is a box Mormons used to label all who are not Mormon but
claim some knowledge of Christ. That is exactly why you
cannot bring yourself to discontinue it use. It is how you speak
of the Apostasy in modern form. It is the same sort of thing Judy,
Deegan, Dean and Shields do with the word "liberal." They, too,
do not understand the usage of the word they have chosen to use and
continue with the word in spite of opposing objection.
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 i s 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. Then, why in the world do you remain on this site?
There is nothing here that you would regard as
"mainstream".....nothing.
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 dif
ficult 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? I was first
told such by a bishop in the mormon church some 45 years ago -- back
in the day when blacks were not allowed into the church. I am
not going to take time to research this, but such is the reason for
your existence. You have even made that clear, in times past.
Why your use of "primitive CHURCH" and "apostasy" as applied to the
church. Because the Mormon church is the restoration of the primitive
church. Are you telling me that I cannot find this idea expressed
within Mormon literature?
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?
We have a record of the
First Church. "Priestly authority," as you use the term is not a part
of that church. "Ward" is not a part of that church. The
decision to exclude blacks in anyway is not a part of that church. I
could go on. DH, make a study of the First Church as revealed in the
preApostate scriptures and lay that model alongside the Mormon church
and you will see many many differences. The two are not the
same. This is not brain surgery, here. It is the most elementary of
observations.
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 y
ou would make an important decision about your spiritual welfare? Or,
do you simply trust those who want to grind their ax....
Not at all on both
counts. Certainly my faith is a personal matter, but I actually
have a fairly involved hermeneutic and the highest of regard for the
biblical record and the continuing history that has attached itself to
those scriptures.
jd
[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? O ur (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 u nderstand the nature of the LDS
resto ration, Bishop.&nbs
p; 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 Pro testant........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.
D
AVEH: 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 du g up some document that made it clear the Mormon
church w
as 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.
|
