LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth

[lax16]

Have a good day.

P.S. to those who made comments about Joseph Smith. The LDS church hasn’t distanced itself from the teachings of Joseph Smith, unless you mean that some of his words have been taken out of context and that has been clarified. The teachings need to be understood in their context and time.

What about the Book of Abraham?

The Book of Abraham: The larger issue
By R. Scott Lloyd
Church News staff writer
Published: Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009
(edited for length)

While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves, a Latter-day Saint Egyptologist said Aug. 6 at the annual conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR).

Such critics lose sight of “the larger issue,” said John Gee, an associate research professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU.

“The book of Abraham is true,” said Brother Gee, author of A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, at the end of his presentation. “I think it can be defended. I think it should be defended. But it’s not the be-all-and-end-all of either apologetics or research or the scriptures.”

“Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?” he asked. “It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.

He said that is not to say Church members can or should forego the Book of Abraham, “but simply to give an idea of its relative importance. It is more important than some things and much less important than others.”

 

[Peter_John]

What about the Book of Abraham?
While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves, a Latter-day Saint Egyptologist said Aug. 6 at the annual conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR). …

It should be noted that this was a statement from an LDS scholar, not a declaration from Church leadership.

It would compare to a professor at Notre Dame soft pedalling the Real Presence. We would never consider that as representative of the Vatican’s position.

The more accurate things to look at would be LDS Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley’s statements on 60 Minutes, deiverting questions about some of the more controversial belifs, or general content in official church lessons regarding race. I recently talked with a young man who insists that the LDS Church does not teach that the Mark of Cain was turning His skin black.

It is all immaterial to whether or not the Catholic Church ever lost authority (although a Mormon would not accept it exrpressed that way, as they would believe the Catholic church never had authority –

 

[Peter_John]

This is the earliest direct statement I have found regarding the pre-eminence of the Bishop of Rome over others:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

It should aslo be noted that there are tohers going back to 96 ad that suggest it but do not state it so directly.

So the question for Mormons is to show that this Church in 180 ad taught anything different from those bishops in communion with John and any surviving Apostles a century earlier.

 

[ParkerD]

This begs the question. Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? There are many writings which contain truth, are very inspiring and good for one to read and which shed light in one’s life, but they are not the word of God. I very well could be misunderstanding you, but what I get from this statement is that what the Christian world has always considered word of God does not mean the same thing to you. It is fine for those who’s needs and desires are met by it, but that is about as far as it goes.

Am I missing something? What is your definition of “Scripture”?

Thanks.

SteveVH,

Yes, you did miss something. I didn’t include the “punch line” in the analogy, because I thought people could figure it out without it’s being stated.

Of course I know the Bible is the word of God. I meant that the compilers knew that the writings they were compiling were the word of God, and they did so with that knowledge in their minds as they compiled. It is not a difficult thing to read a writing and know it is the word of God, or something out of someone’s own teaching or imagination.

My point was that the Bible provides people truths on the level that they are willing to live by the truths they receive from it, including the teachers.

My point was also about reaching the “final destination” pool of water (the source, the “home”) and that this process is longed for by some but not by others who are content having arrived at a destination that included all the truths (the food sources) that they are willing and desirous of living by.

 

[ParkerD]

What about the Book of Abraham?

The Book of Abraham: The larger issue
By R. Scott Lloyd
Church News staff writer
Published: Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009
(edited for length)

While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves, a Latter-day Saint Egyptologist said Aug. 6 at the annual conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR).

Such critics lose sight of “the larger issue,” said John Gee, an associate research professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU.

“The book of Abraham is true,” said Brother Gee, author of A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, at the end of his presentation. “I think it can be defended. I think it should be defended. But it’s not the be-all-and-end-all of either apologetics or research or the scriptures.”

“Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?” he asked. “It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.

He said that is not to say Church members can or should forego the Book of Abraham, “but simply to give an idea of its relative importance. It is more important than some things and much less important than others.”

Hi, Lax16,

'Hoping you are doing well.

I would say that the reason the Book of Abraham isn’t quoted very much in LDS General Conference is that it is more of a study source text than an “easily quotable text” for making a simple point during a talk–with the exception of the few verses that are indeed often quoted.

I think Scott Lloyd was making the point that members don’t dwell on the Book of Abraham for their testimony of the gospel, and they are encouraged to read the Book of Mormon as the major foundation of strengthening their personal testimony and drawing closer to Christ through prayerfully reading it. His point was also that critics place far more emphasis on the Book of Abraham than LDS members do.

Personally, I love the Book of Abraham, and am inspired every time I read it, especially by Abraham himself and his relationship with God and desire to know God and know his own place in the universe.

 

[ParkerD]

This seems to be your main issue, Parker, that John should have been the head of the Church. Don’t you realize that by insisting on this, you are putting into question the wisdom of God to guide and protect His Church? You are putting into question our trust in Jesus and His divine providence to provide for His Church’s needs. Don’t you think Peter was guided in choosing his successor, and his successor’s successor, and so forth?

As I have stated previously, if what you wished happened, then you are making Jesus a [teller of untruths]. Jesus told John he would die a natural death, and this is proven by history. If John had become pope, he would have been executed by the Romans. In John’s lifetime, Peter’s immediate successors were all executed by the Romans. And history bears this out too. Then we would not have his Gospel and the Book of Revelation. But we do. And it was because of Jesus and His promise to protect His Church.

Pablope,

I can see your point about John and the Book of John and the book of Revelation. I think the Romans were just as much seeking to kill all of the apostles as they were seeking to kill any other leader of the early church. That is already evidenced in Acts. But God certainly did protect John, and I am very grateful for that as I love the gospel of John and his epistles and the book of Revelation.

Of course I know and understand that Jesus always spoke truth. He also taught in a way that protected listeners from knowing more than they were prepared to live by if they chose to listen. He preserved free will choice in how He taught. So we have a major disconnect, and it is an impregnable barrier that I seem unable to break down through anything I write about Matthew 16:18 where I explain the different point of view than yours. As far as I’m concerned, the view you and others express bring Jesus into a position of forcing His will onto humankind when that verse is used as you and others choose to use it. That would be contrary to His purposes, His will, and His teachings to be forcing choice and thus making it not a real choice.

But, again, I can’t bread down the barrier–it is solidly in place with a 1600-year-old “muscle memory” built up. So, we just plain disagree and I am just as firm about Jesus being completely truthful in all He did as you are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, you are not understanding what it means. The Church is the Body of Christ. Can Jesus not sustain Himself?

The Church is where people have come to learn the Good News of Jesus Christ. No one is forced. It is the well from which you can drink. People may come and go from the well, but it is always there, because it is God who sustains it. It is His, and as such, He doesn’t let it run dry.

People with evil intentions, lies, deceptions and sins of all kinds can throw all kinds of filth into the well, but the Church is His, and as such, it is sanctified by Him. Cleansed by His Blood. If you don’t believe this then I can’t think you understand just how needy we are of Jesus Christ. Without Him, there is nothing. And you would be absolutely right, the Church would fail without Jesus Christ to sustain it.

But, He knows our every need. Through the Holy Spirit the Church has been pulled through the darkest of times. There are always good people, clergy and laity, who seek to do the will of God. These are the tools that God uses to do His work, to sustain what is His.

There is no offense against free will in this, but certainly God’s Mercy and Love is clearly seen. His Church has always been guided by the Holy Spirit, who searches the hearts of all men and brings them to Jesus Christ. There isn’t a time that Jesus left us orphans, without the Spirit to guide what is His, and providing Shepherds to lead.

The only counter to this is that you believe that God could not find any man to keep His Church, His own Body, alive. All you have to do is open your eyes, and your heart, and you will see.

Peace.

 

[Peter_John]

My point was also about reaching the “final destination” pool of water (the source, the “home”) and that this process is longed for by some but not by others who are content having arrived at a destination that included all the truths (the food sources) that they are willing and desirous of living by.

I think that is a very presumptuous statement. It assumes that people who are not continually fighting against the current are not improving or advancing. Most salmon swimming upstream die from repeatedly slamming into dams. Jesus said, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” It doesn’t sound like keeping the commandments should be a struggle or a fight.

The statement suggests an assumption that those who reject Mormonism – since that is the approach to the journey upstream you suppoort – do so because it is easier to do something else. It reflects a common LDS perception that Catholics do not believe they have to keep the commandments as long as they just confess. Confession only matters when combined with repentance.

I have heard Mormons refer to the Catholic belief that the repentant thief (or revolutionary depending on the source) on the Cross went to heaven – which contradicts LDS interpretation of that incident – as proof that we do not think repentance is necessary.

The fact is that the thief performed several solid repentant acts. He took personal responsibility for his own actions. He bore witness of Christ even as he refuted the other thief’s defiance. He asked for forgiveness. It was all that he could do, Catholics believe that grace compensates for what we cannot do after we have done what we can.

Yet I have heard LDS speakers and read LDS literature (Kimball’s “The Miracle of Forgiveness”) argue that Jesus’ promise that they would be together in Paradise does not constitute absolution. All LDS discourse I have ever read on it affirms he could not have been forgiven right then because of things he could not do, like returning what was stolen.

I have heard Catholic belief that he was forgiven used as evidence for the unwarranted judgment that it is somehow easier to be Catholic because we think confession replaces the process of repentance. Nothing could be farther than the truth. I point this out because your analogy implies that people who choose not to swim upstream are taking the easy way out, from your perspective meaning people who choose something besides Mormonism.

Your analogy is incomplete. It seems to ignore all those salmon who keep diving into the dam, and will never get past it no matter how hard they swim upstream. There are fish ladders (grace) which are a free gift which they have done nothing to earn that can get them around the dam if they will accept them. Then the journey is both easier and conducts them to a destination they would not likely ever get to anyway, at least not as long as they keep slamming their head against the dam.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I can see your point about John and the Book of John and the book of Revelation. I think the Romans were just as much seeking to kill all of the apostles as they were seeking to kill any other leader of the early church. That is already evidenced in Acts. But God certainly did protect John, and I am very grateful for that as I love the gospel of John and his epistles and the book of Revelation.

Of course I know and understand that Jesus always spoke truth. He also taught in a way that protected listeners from knowing more than they were prepared to live by if they chose to listen. He preserved free will choice in how He taught. So we have a major disconnect, and it is an impregnable barrier that I seem unable to break down through anything I write about Matthew 16:18 where I explain the different point of view than yours. As far as I’m concerned, the view you and others express bring Jesus into a position of forcing His will onto humankind when that verse is used as you and others choose to use it. That would be contrary to His purposes, His will, and His teachings to be forcing choice and thus making it not a real choice.

But, again, I can’t bread down the barrier–it is solidly in place with a 1600-year-old “muscle memory” built up. So, we just plain disagree and I am just as firm about Jesus being completely truthful in all He did as you are.

If you see the point about the Apostle John, then why do you keep on insisting that John should have succeeded Peter? I think it is because that is one of the ways you could keep justifying to yourself an apostasy of the Catholic Church, one of your defense mechanisms to keep believing what you believe. This despite the lack of any historical evidence, which all have been requesting you to provide. For to admit the truth of the Catholic viewpoint, it proves the fallacy of the LDS.

And I think unlike you, I do not put into question God’s wisdom and divine providence, which you continue to question.

f

orcing His will onto humankind when that verse is used as you and others choose to use it. That would be contrary to His purposes, His will, and His teachings to be forcing choice and thus making it not a real choice.

Why don’t you cite one teaching from Christ, the Bible or the CC where it is even taught?

But, again, I can’t bread down the barrier–it is solidly in place with a 1600-year-old “muscle memory” built up. So, we just plain disagree and I am just as firm about Jesus being completely truthful in all He did as you are

But is proven by history. Your claim or claims against the Catholic faith have not.

 

[ParkerD]

I think that is a very presumptuous statement. It assumes that people who are not continually fighting against the current are not improving or advancing. Most salmon swimming upstream die from repeatedly slamming into dams. Jesus said, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” It doesn’t sound like keeping the commandments should be a struggle or a fight.

The statement suggests an assumption that those who reject Mormonism – since that is the approach to the journey upstream you suppoort – do so because it is easier to do something else. It reflects a common LDS perception that Catholics do not believe they have to keep the commandments as long as they just confess. Confession only matters when combined with repentance.

I have heard Mormons refer to the Catholic belief that the repentant thief (or revolutionary depending on the source) on the Cross went to heaven – which contradicts LDS interpretation of that incident – as proof that we do not think repentance is necessary.

The fact is that the thief performed several solid repentant acts. He took personal responsibility for his own actions. He bore witness of Christ even as he refuted the other thief’s defiance. He asked for forgiveness. It was all that he could do, Catholics believe that grace compensates for what we cannot do after we have done what we can.

Yet I have heard LDS speakers and read LDS literature (Kimball’s “The Miracle of Forgiveness”) argue that Jesus’ promise that they would be together in Paradise does not constitute absolution. All LDS discourse I have ever read on it affirms he could not have been forgiven right then because of things he could not do, like returning what was stolen.

I have heard Catholic belief that he was forgiven used as evidence for the unwarranted judgment that it is somehow easier to be Catholic because we think confession replaces the process of repentance. Nothing could be farther than the truth. I point this out because your analogy implies that people who choose not to swim upstream are taking the easy way out, from your perspective meaning people who choose something besides Mormonism.

Your analogy is incomplete. It seems to ignore all those salmon who keep diving into the dam, and will never get past it no matter how hard they swim upstream. There are fish ladders (grace) which are a free gift which they have done nothing to earn that can get them around the dam if they will accept them. Then the journey is both easier and conducts them to a destination they would not likely ever get to anyway, at least not as long as they keep slamming their head against the dam.

Peter John,

Thanks for adding your perspective. I certainly understand that Christ provides grace, and His grace is completely essential for everyone and that repentance is also completely necessary. My analogy was looking at a natural condition, not a man-made condition where there are dams along the “path” toward the “source”.

The “repentant” thief is talked about as being no different than the other thief by Matthew (27:44), so the whole concept built up around Luke 23:39-43 makes a bigger deal of that situation than the early church had in their minds. That was not repentance happening. It was perhaps the first step–recognition.

As far as “homing in” on the full fruits of the gospel and then receiving the Holy Spirit as a close to constant companion so that repentance continues throughout life on an upward course, and so that there is ongoing conversation with God (pretty much like being back in the garden of Eden, with God alongside giving guidance and encouragement through the Spirit), I see so often here more emphasis on partaking the “Eucharist” than on repentance, forgiveness, change, seeking personal holiness and sanctification (not through something one takes into their body, but through what they do in their actions day by day).

The continuous emphasis also on “proof”, “historical evidence”, and so forth also show as far as I’m concerned, that the idea of God “forcing” His will by providing enough “evidence” that a person really doesn’t need the witness of the Holy Spirit, since they will have “evidence” that according to Catholics is incontrovertible, would be a deal breaker for me even if I didn’t have that witness already in my life, as it can be seen from the Bible that those outward proofs are exactly what Paul taught against using as the basis for beliefs.

The “evidence” is not incontrovertible. It just happens to fit the expectations of those who make it incontrovertible for themselves.

Granted, I have expectations also about gospel subjects, and have studied the Bible enough to see that those expectations are consistent with the Bible and also completely make sense intellectually, to me (not to you). So thus we get to make our own choice, a free will choice, with no “gotta believe because” situation placed upon either of us.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, you are not understanding what it means. The Church is the Body of Christ. Can Jesus not sustain Himself?

The Church is where people have come to learn the Good News of Jesus Christ. No one is forced. It is the well from which you can drink. People may come and go from the well, but it is always there, because it is God who sustains it. It is His, and as such, He doesn’t let it run dry.

People with evil intentions, lies, deceptions and sins of all kinds can throw all kinds of filth into the well, but the Church is His, and as such, it is sanctified by Him. Cleansed by His Blood. If you don’t believe this then I can’t think you understand just how needy we are of Jesus Christ. Without Him, there is nothing. And you would be absolutely right, the Church would fail without Jesus Christ to sustain it.

But, He knows our every need. Through the Holy Spirit the Church has been pulled through the darkest of times. There are always good people, clergy and laity, who seek to do the will of God. These are the tools that God uses to do His work, to sustain what is His.

There is no offense against free will in this, but certainly God’s Mercy and Love is clearly seen. His Church has always been guided by the Holy Spirit, who searches the hearts of all men and brings them to Jesus Christ. There isn’t a time that Jesus left us orphans, without the Spirit to guide what is His, and providing Shepherds to lead.

The only counter to this is that you believe that God could not find any man to keep His Church, His own Body, alive. All you have to do is open your eyes, and your heart, and you will see.

Peace.

RJ,

You have explained the Catholic position on this subject very well. I have certainly read this position before. Thanks–I do understand it.

I can disagree with it and be OK. I don’t “have to” “open my eyes and my heart”–which is my major point I am trying to make, that I am not in a forced situation, a “have to” situation. That is exactly the condition that I am not put into by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am in the exactly opposite condition, a condition of “choose as you wish, and here are signposts along the way but it is your choice you are given with no sense of coercion and with love, grace, the light of Christ, and the Holy Ghost as an opportunity to receive greater light, (and thus continuous improvement through repentance and forgiveness) all at the center of this experience”.

 

[ParkerD]

If you see the point about the Apostle John, then why do you keep on insisting that John should have succeeded Peter?

Pablope,

When I had remarked that I saw your point, I didn’t mean I agreed with it. I noted that the apostles were all targets, as evidenced in Acts.

I think it is because that is one of the ways you could keep justifying to yourself an apostasy of the Catholic Church, one of your defense mechanisms to keep believing what you believe. This despite the lack of any historical evidence, which all have been requesting you to provide. For to admit the truth of the Catholic viewpoint, it proves the fallacy of the LDS.

That is exactly the point I was making to Rebecca and to Peter John. You seem to think I am in a forced situation, and that is completely against New Testament teachings.

And I think unlike you, I do not put into question God’s wisdom and divine providence, which you continue to question.

Again, these words make a case for my being forced, which is not God’s plan–it is a plan of another force exerting a willful case against the free will choices of humankind.

Why don’t you cite one teaching from Christ, the Bible or the CC where it is even taught?

It is continuously taught, but also hidden so that people can make a choice about whether they even think it is taught. Heavenly Father allows choice even to the extent of allowing choice about whether to “choose to choose”, and also about whether to “choose to allow others to choose, or choose to try and force their choice”.

But is proven by history. Your claim or claims against the Catholic faith have not.

My claims would never be “absolute proofs” by outward physical means (including historical). That is the point I have been trying to make. So if you or anyone want “absolute proof” in that way, then you have won your side of the question, but my point has been that the gospel teaches that you are asking the wrong question although you are certainly allowed to ask it and for it to be the clincher for you.

Peace to all, sincerely. There is much to be so very grateful for in our wonderful world, and we are seeing the unfolding of the end times which is such a blessing to see happening and see opportunities for free will choice being increased in the world.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Pablope,

As far as I’m concerned, the view you and others express bring Jesus into a position of forcing His will onto humankind when that verse is used as you and others choose to use it.

It’s not “muscle memory” but the fact that you have not given support for your assertion that Christ establishing His Church and guiding it as promised somehow negates “free will choice”. Particularly in light of the LDS assertion that “the prophet will never lead the church astray”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, I have been thinking of something that interests me, which is what I have been thinking about.

Unless there is an interest in something, that something catches your attention, then it has no value to you. If you do have an interest in something, it is because it has value to you. What is valued can be observed, judged, discerned, in short reasoned. Feelings, as coming into this, as part of who we are, is not the judge alone. The value something has, our reasoning about it, informs our feelings. All three, value, reasoning and feeling, work together.

You keep proposing that feeling works alone, free from reasoning or value. It is an incomplete way of looking at things. God created us as rational beings. He doesn’t demand that we submit to feelings. This is not freedom. It is not even being human. God does not demand we forgo reasoning in order to follow Him.

This sort of proposition, a reliance on feeling, does indeed remove ones freedom. If one is not free to reason, then one is a slave to something else or someone else. Feelings alone can be manipulated, and unless one is free to judge, to reason, the manipulation will not be recognized.

You think you are free, that your eyes are open, but all here can see that you are not. As long as you close your eyes to rational judgment, place barriers to being reasoned with, you are caged.

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” Isaiah 1:18

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,

You have explained the Catholic position on this subject very well. I have certainly read this position before. Thanks–I do understand it.

I can disagree with it and be OK.

ParkerD, what about the Catholic position do you not agree with? That God is the well we drink from? That His Church is the Body of Christ and cannot fail? That the Holy Spirit will not leave us as orphans? That we are not made pure by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ? All of this is very Biblical, it isn’t just something we made up.

I truly cannot imagine what it is you disagree with, so if you could explain please.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, I have been thinking of something that interests me, which is what I have been thinking about.

Unless there is an interest in something, that something catches your attention, then it has no value to you. If you do have an interest in something, it is because it has value to you. What is valued can be observed, judged, discerned, in short reasoned. Feelings, as coming into this, as part of who we are, is not the judge alone. The value something has, our reasoning about it, informs our feelings. All three, value, reasoning and feeling, work together.

You keep proposing that feeling works alone, free from reasoning or value. It is an incomplete way of looking at things. God created us as rational beings. He doesn’t demand that we submit to feelings. This is not freedom. It is not even being human. God does not demand we forgo reasoning in order to follow Him.

This sort of proposition, a reliance on feeling, does indeed remove ones freedom. If one is not free to reason, then one is a slave to something else or someone else. Feelings alone can be manipulated, and unless one is free to judge, to reason, the manipulation will not be recognized.

You think you are free, that your eyes are open, but all here can see that you are not. As long as you close your eyes to rational judgment, place barriers to being reasoned with, you are caged.

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” Isaiah 1:18

Rebecca J,

Time and again I have posted comments that show that I am not only talking about following feelings when I talk about following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have repeatedly commented that the following steps must be in place for this to “work” for someone:

(1) They will be keeping the commandments to the very best of their effort and inward desire.

(2) They will have love in their hearts for God, for others including their “enemies”, and for His gospel which is the gospel of repentance and forgiveness.

(3) They will be familiar with and be experiencing the fruits of the gospel in their everyday lives. Thus they “know of the doctrine” just as Jesus taught they would “know of the doctrine”, whether it be of God, by the results of living the gospel in their lives everyday. This also means they will be lovers of the Biblical word, which means they will seek to enrich their lives by it and miss it when they don’t spend time searching the scriptures and feasting on these words of light, truth, and love.

(4) Only with all of the above in place, but indeed with all the above in place, then prayer experiences become two-way communication and the idea of “praying always” is an inner part of the person as they go through their day. Then it is far more than experiencing a “feeling”–it is experiencing an ongoing real and tangible “burning in the bosom” that fills the soul and spirit and cannot be mimiced by other means, and experiencing dialogue about “what should I do today to help Thee?” and getting actual, precious answers. Then He Who is the Shepherd can do the leading, and it will be specific to each individual.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You do understand that people can live this way, for their whole lives, with no belief in God at all? It appears to me to be a reduction of faith to idealism. “If it feels good do it.” You’re still leaving out rational thought, putting ones life into the context of human experience, rather than, an idea that we exist outside of it. Or, that God exists outside of our human experience? God became Man, which is not an idealism, or a “nice idea”. This is reality.

 

[ParkerD]

You do understand that people can live this way, for their whole lives, with no belief in God at all? It appears to me to be a reduction of faith to idealism. “If it feels good do it.” You’re still leaving out rational thought, putting ones life into the context of human experience, rather than, an idea that we exist outside of it. Or, that God exists outside of our human experience? God became Man, which is not an idealism, or a “nice idea”. This is reality.

Rebecca J,

Rational thought is important–no question about it.

But at some point in the process of deciding that God knows more than we know, we have the opportunity to be taught “from on high” just as Peter was taught “from on high” that Jesus who was standing in front of Him and teaching Him (reaching his rational brain with truths being taught) was the promised Messiah and not just a very effective teacher and Rabbi. Jesus told Peter that Peter knew this by a means that was not “rational thought.” (However, Peter did have a background in the prophecies so that he knew what Christ meant when He asked the question, and Peter in effect said, “I know that Thou art the Christ–the Anointed One” (meaning He who fulfills Isaiah 61:1-3 as the promised Anointed One who is the promised Savior who frees the prisoners and heals the sufferers).

The Old Testament speaks repeatedly of a “softened heart” as compared with a “hard heart”. A person with strictly rational thought as their end-all can unfortunately place themselves into the position exactly as were the Jewish scholars who rejected Christ. (Not saying you or anyone here is in that category, but it happens.) So, rational thought faces off against being “soft-hearted” and “meek” at some point in a person’s life, and they get to decide which avenue they will take.

 

[lax16]

It should be noted that this was a statement from an LDS scholar, not a declaration from Church leadership.

It should be noted that this scholar is a BYU professor and is LDS.
It should also be noted that the article appeared in an LDS church newspaper.
It should also be noted that LDS professors at BYU are not going to put anything not church approved into a church operated newspaper.

It would compare to a professor at Notre Dame soft pedalling the Real Presence. We would never consider that as representative of the Vatican’s position.

It should be noted that almost half of the professors at Notre Dame are not Catholic, therefore it is very possible they are not speaking on behalf of Catholic teaching.
It should be noted that if a Notre Dame professor was interviewed for a publication owned and operated by the Vatican, his views would be considered important to church teachings or at least at providing insight.

The more accurate things to look at would be LDS Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley’s statements on 60 Minutes, deiverting questions about some of the more controversial belifs, or general content in official church lessons regarding race. I recently talked with a young man who insists that the LDS Church does not teach that the Mark of Cain was turning His skin black.

It should be noted that the Pope is not chairman of the board of Notre Dame.
It should be noted that the LDS president/prophet is chairman of the board of BYU:

Brigham Young University is a part of the Church Educational System of LDS Church. It is organized under a Board of Trustees, with the President of the Church (Thomas S. Monson as of 2011) as chairman. This board consists of the same people as Church Board of Education which oversees the whole Church Educational System, a pattern that has been in place since 1939. Before that BYU had a separate board of trustees that was subordinate to the Church Board of Education.[79] The President of BYU, currently Cecil O. Samuelson, works in cooperation with the board.[80] Altogether, BYU has 194 bachelor’s degree programs, 68 master’s degree programs, 25 Ph.D. programs, and a Juris Doctor program.[81] These degree programs are overseen by 11 colleges:[82]

It is all immaterial to whether or not the Catholic Church ever lost authority (although a Mormon would not accept it exrpressed that way, as they would believe the Catholic church never had authority –

It is not immaterial. Parker commented that the LDS church is not backing away from their founding prophets teachings and this is to show that they are.

Also, to even insinuate that the professors at Notre Dame are held accountable for their teachings of the Catholic Church is laughable.
To insinuate that BYU professors are allowed to go against church teachings in a church publication is even more so.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Yes, you did miss something. I didn’t include the “punch line” in the analogy, because I thought people could figure it out without it’s being stated.

Of course I know the Bible is the word of God. I meant that the compilers knew that the writings they were compiling were the word of God, and they did so with that knowledge in their minds as they compiled. It is not a difficult thing to read a writing and know it is the word of God, or something out of someone’s own teaching or imagination.

My point was that the Bible provides people truths on the level that they are willing to live by the truths they receive from it, including the teachers.

My point was also about reaching the “final destination” pool of water (the source, the “home”) and that this process is longed for by some but not by others who are content having arrived at a destination that included all the truths (the food sources) that they are willing and desirous of living by.

Parker, I would completely disagree with your assessment concerning the discernment of revealed truth; i.e. whether or not a particular writing should be included in the canon of Scripture. Why was the Didichae not included, as opposed to Titus or Philemon? What in that document appears to be “someones own teaching or imagination”? There were many writings circulating at the time the canon was being discerned. You seem to be saying that this discernment can be done through simple human observation, rather than the quidance of the Holy Spirit. The question I asked before, which I have not yet seen answered is this. Do you believe that the canon of Sacred Scripture was determined through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or not? If your answer is yes, then you must agree that the CC was being guided by the Holy Spirit long after the “Great Apostasy” purportedly occurred. If your answer is no then you can have no confidence that the Bible contains the word of God as you would be relying solely on human judgment, certainly as far as the New Testament is concerned.